Edward Gibbon — The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol. IV-VII

APPENDIX ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE EDITOR

1.: THEOLOGY IN THE MARKET-PLACES OF CONSTANTINOPLE — ( P. 13 )

The humorous description of the interest taken in theological subtelties by the mechanics and slaves of Constantinople is quoted by Gibbon on the authority of Jortin, but Gibbon acknowledges that he does not know where it comes from, and implies that Jortin does not state his source.

A striking instance of the slumbers of Homer. Jortin indeed omits to give the reference, but he expressly ascribes the passage to “Gregory,” that is, Gregory of Nyssa, with whom he is dealing in the context. It would seem from Gibbon’s note that he took Gregory to be the Nazianzen.

The passage occurs in Gregory Nyssen’s Oratio de deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti (Migne, Patr. Gr. 46, p. 557) and runs as follows: —

ἐὰν περὶ τω̂ν ὀβολω̂ν ἐρωτήσῃς ὁ δέ σοι περὶ γεννητον̂ καὶ ἀγεννήτου ἐϕιλοσόϕησε κἂν περὶ τιμήματος ἄρτου πύθοιο, Μείζων ὁ πατὴρ, ἀποκρίνεται, καὶ ὁ υἰὸς ὑποχείριος. εἱ δὲ, Τὸ λουτρὸν ἐπιτήδειόν ἐστιν, εἴποις, ὁ δὲ ἐξ οὐκ τὸν υἰὸν εɩ̂̓ναι διωρίσατο.

2.: DID THEODOSIUS VISIT ROME IN ad 394? — ( P. 66 )

According to Zosimus (iv. 59 and v. 30), Theodosius went to Rome after the battle of the Frigidus. This is likewise attested by Prudentius (against Symm., i.), and is implied in Theodoret’s statement, in reference to the visit of AD 389, χρόνου δὲ συχνον̂ διελθόντος εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἀϕικόμενος πάλιν ὁ βασιλεύς. This evidence has been accepted by Jeep; but the objections urged by Tillemont against it seem quite decisive, and it is rejected by Clinton and most authorities. It is a case of a confusion between the suppression of Maximus and the suppression of Eugenius; the visit to Rome after the second war is merely a duplicate of the visit after the first war. Guldenpenning thinks that Theodosius sent a message to the senate signifying his will that pagan worship should cease (Der Kaiser Theodosios, p. 229-30).

3.: THE LIBRARIES OF ALEXANDRIA — ( P. 85 , 87 ) 1

“The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed.” That is, the lesser library in the Serapeum, which was situated in the Rhacôtis quarter of the city. Gibbon has failed to distinguish it from the great Library of the Brucheum, of which Zenodotus, Callimachus, and other famous scholars were librarians. This Library is said to have been burnt down when Cæsar was in Alexandria (but see Mahaffy, Egypt under the Ptolemies, p. 454).

For the distinction of the two libraries see Epiphanius, de mensuris et ponderibus, 168 (Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. 43, p. 256): ἔτι δὲ ὕστερον καὶ ἑτέρα ἐγένετο βιβλιοθήκη ἐν τῷ Σεραπίῳ [ sic ] μικροτέρα τη̂ς πρώτης, ἥτις καὶ θυγατὴρ ὠνομάσθη αὐτη̂ς. For the first or mother library, see ib. 166 (Migne, p. 249). For other references see Susemihl, Geschichte der alexandrinischen Litteratur, i. p. 336.

But is it an attested fact that the lesser or daughter library was destroyed in AD 391? The sanctuary of Serapis was demolished, but does that imply the demolition of all the buildings connected with the Serapeum? 2 The only evidence on which Gibbon’s statement rests is the sentence which he quotes from Orosius (p. 87, n. 53). But Orosius does not mention the Serapeum or speak of a large library. He merely says that he had seen bookcases in temples (which he does not name); and that, since then, he had been informed that the temples had been pillaged and the bookcases emptied. It seems to me highly improbable that Orosius is thinking either of the Alexandrian library or of the Serapeum. There is no reason to suppose that the library was in the temple. I conclude then that there is no evidence that the library of the Serapeum did not survive till the Saracen conquest, notwithstanding the verdict of Susemihl ( ib. 344): “Omar fand 642 schwerlich noch Bücher in Alexandreia zu verbrennen.”

4.: WORSHIP OF RELICS — ( P. 98 , 99 )

In Gregory Nyssen’s Encomium of St. Theodore (Migne, vol. 46, 736 sqq. ) there are passages, which, coming from such an eminent and learned ecclesiastic, are an important illustration of the growth of the veneration of relics. For example, he says: — εἰ δὲ καὶ κόνιν τις δοίη ϕέρειν τὴν ἐπικειμένην τῃ̑ ἐπιϕανείᾳ τη̂ς ἀναπαύσεως, δω̂ρον ὸ χον̂ς λαμβάνεται, καὶ ὼς κειμήλιον ἡ γη̂ θησαυρἰζεται. τὸ γὰρ αὐτον̂ τον̂ λειψάνου προσάψασθαι, εἴ ποτέ τις ἐπιτυχία τοιαύτη παράσχοι τὴν ἐξουσίαν, ὄπως ἐστὶ πολυπόθητον, καὶ εὐχη̂ς τη̂ς ἀνωτάτω τὸ δω̂ρον ἴσασιν οἱ πεπειραμένοι καὶ τη̂ς τοιαύτης ἐπιθυμίας ἐμϕορηθέντες . . . τὸ μὲν ἁπλω̂ς ἀποθανὸν ῤίπτεται ὡς τὸ τυχόν· τὸ δὲ τῷ πάθει τον̂ μαρτυρίου χαριτωθὲν, οὕτως ἐστὶν ἐράσμιον καὶ ἀμϕισβητήσιμον, ὼς ὸ προλαβω̂ν λόγος ἐδίδαξεν (p. 740).

5.: STILICHO IN INSCRIPTIONS — ( P. 119 , 134 , 159 )

The inscription celebrating the rescue of Africa by Stilicho, referred to by Gibbon, p. 119 (note) and p. 134 (note), will be found in C.I.L. vi. 1730. It runs as follows: —

Flavio Stilichoni inlustrissimo viro, magistro equitum peditumque comiti domesticorum, tribuno prætoriano, et ab ineunte ætate per gradus clarissimæ militiæ ad columen sempiternæ et regiæ adfinitatis evecto, progenero Divi Theodosi, comiti Divi Theodosi in omnibus bellis adque victoriis et ab eo in adfinitatem regiam cooptato itemque socero D. N. Honori Augusti Africa consiliis suis et provisione liberata.

For inscriptions referring to the restoration of the “walls, gates, and towers” of Rome, undertaken through Stilicho’s influence before Alaric’s first invasion of Italy, see C.I.L. vi. 1188-1190.

Another inscription records Stilicho’s victory over Radagaisus: C.I.L. 6, 1196 (p. 249). Gibbon (after Mascou) refers it to the Gothic was of 402-3, and expresses surprise at the description of Alaric’s defeat as the total extinction of the Gothic nation (p. 159). Pallman took the same view (Volkerwand, p. 243); but the title is rightly referred in the Corpus ( loc. cit. ) to the events of 405.

Imppp. clementissimis felicissimis toto orbe victoribus DDD NN n Arcadio Honorio Theodosio Auggg. ad perenne indicium triumpho rum quod Getarum nationem in omne ævum docu ere extin gui arcum simulacris eorum tropæisq decora tum S.P.Q.R. totius operis splendore.

6.: THE TWO EASTERN EXPEDITIONS OF STILICHO AND HIS ILLYRIC POLICY — ( P. 122 , 144 )

An unwary reader of Gibbon might fail to realise that on two separate occasions Stilicho came, an unwelcome helper, to the assistance of Arcadius in the Illyric peninsula. As there has been a difficulty about the dates, and as Zosimus inverts the order of events, it is important to grasp this clearly. On the first occasion ( AD 395) Stilicho started from Italy in spring (Claudian, in Rufin. 2, 101), came up with Alaric in Thessaly, and was then commanded to return, before he had accomplished anything, by an order of Arcadius. Gainas and the Eastern troops went to Constantinople, and Rufinus met his fate; while Stilicho returned to Italy. In the following year ( AD 396), when Alaric was in southern Greece, Stilicho again, came to help the realm of Arcadius, landed at Corinth, blockaded Alaric in Pholoe, and allowed him to escape. (Zosimus, v. 7, places the blockade of Pholoe before the death of Rufinus. The charge of Zosimus that Stilicho indulged in debauchery in Elis cannot safely be pressed; for the phrase he uses is borrowed from Julian’s Misopogon. See Mendelssohn, ad. loc. )

AD 395. Claudian represents Alaric as shutting himself up in a fortified camp on the news of Stilicho’s approach (in Ruf. 2, 124-9). Stilicho arrives in Thessaly (implet Thessaliam ferri nitor, l. 179) and prepares to attack the enemy. If he had been permitted to do so, the invasion of Greece would have been averted (186 sqq. ), but alas! regia mandata arrive from Arcadius, and he has to sacrifice the “publica commoda” to the duty of obedience. This must have been about the beginning of November, if Rufinus was slain on 27th November (as Socrates states, vi. 1; cp. Chron. Pasch. ad ann.). Thus the advance of Stilicho from Italy to Thessaly would have occupied more than six months. What was the cause of this delay? It is significant that the charge brought against Rufinus by Claudian of having incited the Visigoths to the invasion of Greece is uttered only as a suspicion by Socrates ( loc. cit., δόξαν ε[Editor: illegible character]χεν ὡς κ.τ.λ. “was supposed to have,” c.); in the following century the suspicion has developed into a positive statement in the chronicle of Count Marcellinus ad ann. (Alaricum . . . infestum reipublicae fecit et in Graeciam misit).

AD 396. (Gibbon wrongly places the events of this year in AD 397. It is not clear why he deserts the guidance of Tillemont.) Stilicho landed at the Isthmus (Zosimus, 5, 7), and is said to have had Alaric at his mercy at Pholoe. Three views have been held as to the escape of Alaric: (1) he out-witted Stilicho, who was culpably negligent (cp. Zosimus); (2) the suggestion of Claudian (B.G. 516) that Arcadius and his ministers, jealous of Stilicho’s intervention, treated with Alaric and secured his retreat, might be supported by the circumstance that Arcadius created him Master of Soldiers in Illyricum soon afterwards; (3) Stilicho is supposed to have made a secret treaty with Alaric, and permitted his retreat, for purposes of his own.

It is certain that Stilicho’s assertion of the unity of the Empire by appearing with armed forces in the Prefecture of Illyricum was viewed with suspicion and distrust at Constantinople. The feeling at the court of Arcadius is aptly expressed in words which Claudian has put into the mouth of Rufinus (in Ruf. 2, 161): —

Deserat (sc. Stilicho) Illyrici fines, Eoa remittat agmina, fraternas ex aequo dividat hastas.

It is certain too that Stilicho afterwards, if not in AD 396, made it the aim of his policy to detach Illyricum from Arcadius and add it to the realm of Honorius. This is stated in so many words by Zosimus (v. 26), and it was doubtless Stilicho’s object from the beginning. This is the view of Jung (Römer and Romanen, p. 188: ich sehe darin vielmehr die consequente Verfolgung der durch Stilicho von Anfang an beabsichtigten Politik), who has some good remarks on the geographical importance of Illyricum; the unsatisfactoriness of the line of division of 395 which cut off Dalmatia from the rest of the Balkan peninsula (p. 186); and the circumstance that all northern Illyricum belonged to the Latin-speaking part of the Empire.

After the first invasion of Italy, Stilicho intended to use the help of Alaric for this purpose, and established him on the borders of the territory on which he had designs; but the execution of the plan was continually deferred, on account of other events which claimed the care of Stilicho. Alaric during this time was playing his own game, between the courts of Ravenna and Constantinople. His object was to obtain permanently Dalmatia, Noricum, Istria, and Venetia, with a regular grant of money from the Empire. This was what he asked in 410 (Zos. v. 48), and his aim throughout was doubtless a settlement of this kind.

The certainty that from AD 402 forward Stilicho made use of Alaric for his Illyric designs rouses the suspicion that he was playing with Alaric, with the same intent, in AD 395 and 396. The famous words of Orosius (vii. 37): Alarico rege cum Gothis suis saepe victo saepe concluso semperque dimisso, are strikingly true of Pollentia, of Verona, and of Pholoe; I suspect that they are also true of the campaign of AD 395, and that the unaccountable delay between Stilicho’s start in the spring and his return to Italy in Oct.-Nov. was due to diplomatic dallyings with Alaric. Of course nothing would be said of that by Claudian.

While Stilicho aimed at annexing eastern Illyricum, the court of Constantinople aimed at the acquisition of Dalmatia. Olympiodorus says that Stilicho employed Alaric to defend it (fr. 3). The object was pursued in the reign of Theodosius ii. and was finally attained at the marriage of Eudoxia with Valentinian iii., when the boundary was changed to the advantage of the East. Compare Cassiodorius, Var. ep. 1, Güldenpenning, das oström. Reich, p. 310. But even as early as AD 414-15 there is epigraphic evidence suggesting the conclusion that at that time Salonae was under the government of Constantinople. See Jung, op. cit. p. 187 note.

It is possible to regard (with Keller; Stilicho, p. 27) Stilicho’s special Illyric policy and his relations with Alaric as part of a larger policy which had two chief aims: to maintain the unity of the Empire, under two emperors, and to infuse new blood into it by absorbing barbarians. Stilicho’s policy has been generally misunderstood. A monograph appeared in the year 1805 with the curious title: Flavius Stilicho, ein Wallenstein der Vorwelt (by C. F. Schulz).

7.: ALARIC IN GREECE — ( P. 140-143 )

Though no record tells that Alaric burnt down the Temple of Eleusis, it is certain that the invasion of the Goths was coincident with the end of the Eleusinian mysteries. The sanctuary of the two goddesses must have already suffered much under Jovian and Theodosius. The cult, restored by Julian, was suppressed by Jovian, but renewed again under Valentinian through the intervention of Praetextatus, proconsul of Achaia. It must have been affected by the intolerant edicts of Theodosius; certainly the demonstration of the Christian section of the Athenian community forced the last Eumolpid high priest to resign. Subsequently — probably on the death of Theodosius — the pagan party felt themselves strong enough to appoint, as hierophant, a priest of Mithras from Thespiae, and he persided at Eleusis at the time of Alaric’s invasion.

See Gregorovius, Hat Alarich die Nationalgötter Griechenlands zerstört? (Kleine Schriften, vol. i.), and Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, i. p. 35 sqq.

As for Athens, there is no doubt that it capitulated and was spared by Alaric, and that the Goths did not destroy or rob its art treasures. Athens suffered, as Gregorovius remarks, less in the invasion of Alaric than in the invasion in the time of Dexippus. There were of course acts of cruelty; some are recorded in the Vita Prisci of Eunapius. But we must not press the words of Claudian (in Rufin. ii. 189): nec fera Cecropiae traxissent vincula matres, further than at the most to interpret it of the rural inhabitants of Attica. Gregorovius observes that in the other passages where the devastation of Greece is mentioned (iv. Cons. Hon. 471, Eutrop. 2, 199, cons. Stil. i. 180), there is not a word about Athens.

As to the Zeus-temple of Olympia, it is supposed that the Phidiac statue of Zeus had been removed about two years before the Gothic invasion (in AD 394, when Theodosius suppressed the Olympic games) to Constantinople and was afterwards burned in the Palace of Lausus. Cp. Cedrenus, i. p. 364 (Gregorovius i. p. 43). The temple of Olympia was burnt down in the reign of Theodosius ii.

The general conclusion of Gregorovius is that it is a gross exaggeration to ascribe to the Goths the deliberate destruction of the temples and sanctuaries of Greece.

8.: PENETRABIS AD URBEM — ( P. 148 )

The clear voice which Alaric heard in the grove uttered an acrostich with the help of Claudian’s art. It has been pointed out that the first and last letters of the two verses (B.G. 546-7) spell ROMA.

R umpe omnes, Alarice moras; hoc impiger annO A lipibus Italiae ruptis penetrabis ad urbeM.

So it is printed in Koch’s edition.

9.: ALARIC’S FIRST INVASION OF ITALY — ( P. 148 , 151 sqq. )

That the battle of Pollentia was fought in 402 is now universally agreed by all competent historians; there is no conflict of evidence on the matter, and there is nothing to be said for 403. 1 But there is still room for difference of opinion as to the date of Alaric’s entry into Italy, and possibly as to the date of the battle of Verona.

(1) We have to set the statements of two chronicles against each other. On one hand Prosper, sub ann. 400: Gothi Italiam . . . ingressi (see next Appendix). On the other, the Fasti Vindobonenses (Chronica Italica; see above, vol. iv. Appendix 5, p. 353) have, sub anno 401, the more precise notice: et intravit Alaricus in Italiam, xiv. kl. December. 2

Pallmann (followed by Hodgkin) accepts the date of Prosper. Tillemont, also accepting Prosper, but putting (in spite of Prosper) the battle of Pollentia in 403, found himself driven to assume that Alaric having invaded Italy in 400 was driven out of it in 401 and returned in 402 — in fact a double invasion.

As there is little or nothing to choose between Prosper and the Fasti Vindobonenses — both being equally prone to error — we may be disposed to allow the argument of Seeck 3 (approved by Birt) to determine us in preferring the date of the Fasti Vindobonenses. In describing the entry of the Goths Claudian speaks of constant eclipses of the moon among the terrors which preyed upon men’s minds: —

territat adsiduus lunæ labor atraque Phœbe noctibus aerisonas crebris ululata per urbes. nec credunt vetito fraudatam Sole sororem telluris subeunte globo sed castra secutas barbara Thessalidas patriis lunare venenis incestare iubar. (B.G. 233 sqq. )

These data (cp. adsiduus ) are satisfied by the two lunar eclipses which took place on June 21 and December 6, AD 401.

After Pollentia, there must have been another engagement at Asta (vi. cons. Hon. 203). Keller thinks that this took place before that of Pollentia. In any case Gibbon is wrong in supposing that Asta was the town in which Honorius was shut up, till delivered by Stilicho. Honorius was in Milan, as is clear from Claudian’s description ( ib. 456 sqq. ). To reach Asta Stilicho would have had to cross not only the Addua (488), but the Padus (which is not mentioned).

(2) That the battle of Verona did not take place later than AD 403 is proved by the fact that it is celebrated in the Panegyric composed by Claudian before the end of that year for the sixth consulate of Honorius, which began on Jan. 1, AD 405. That it took place in summer is proved by a line of that poem (our only source for the battle): —

sustinet accensos aestivo pulvere soles

(vi. cons. 215).

Those therefore who like Tillemont and Gibbon set Pollentia in spring 403 were obliged to set Verona in the summer of the same year. The question therefore arises whether, when we have moved Pollentia a year back, we are to move Verona along with it. Pallmann leaves Verona where it was in 403, and he is followed hesitatingly by Mr. Hodgkin. That the victory of Verona was won in 403, and that more than a year elapsed between the two battles, has, I think, been proved convincingly by Birt (Preface to ed. of Claudian, liv.-v.). The argument is that, if Verona had been fought in 402, the long interval of sixteen months would have stultified the whole tone of Claudian’s poem, which breathes the triumph of a recent victory. Such a line as

et sextas Getica praevelans fronde secures

(647)

is inconceivable on any save the first First of January following the victory. Cp. also lines 406, 580, 653. The transition in l. 201 is suggestive of a considerable interval between the two battles —

te quoque non parvum Getico, Verona, triumpho adiungis cumulum nec plus Pollentia rebus contulit Ausoniis aut moenia vindicis Hastae.

The resulting chronology is: —

AD 401. Alaric enters Italy (Venetia) in November; at the same time Radagaisus (see next Appendix) invades Raetia. Stilicho advances against Radagaisus. AD 402. Battle of Pollentia on Easter Day. AD 402-403. Alaric in Istria. AD 403, Summer. Alaric again moves westward; Battle of Verona.

10.: RADAGAISUS — ( P. 167 )

Radagaisus invaded Italy in 405 AD , at the head of an army of barbarians. He was defeated by Stilicho on the hills of Faesulae. There is no doubt about these facts, in which our Western authorities agree, Orosius (vii. 37), Prosper, ad ann. 405, and Paulinus (Vita Ambrosii, c. 50). Prosper’s notice is: Radagaisus in Tuscia multis Gothorum milibus cæsis, ducente exercitum Stilichone, superatus et captus est. But Zosimus (v. 26) places the defeat of Radagaisus on the Ister. “A strange error,” Gibbon remarks, “which is awkwardly and imperfectly cured by reading Ἄρνον for Ἴστρον.” Awkwardly and contrariwise to every principle of criticism. It is an emendation of Leunclavius, and Reitemeier’s Ἠριδανὸν is no better. But Zosimus knew where the Danube was, and the critic has to explain his mistake.

From Gibbon’s narrative one would draw the conclusion that this invasion of Italy in 405 (406 Gibbon incorrectly; see Clinton, ad ann.) was the first occasion on which Radagaisus appeared on the stage of Imperial events. But he appeared before. A notice of Prosper, which there is not the smallest cause to question, represents him as co-operating with Alaric, when Alaric invaded Italy. Under the year 400 (there may be reason for questioning the year; see last Appendix) in his Chronicle we find the record: Gothi Italiam Alarico et Radagaiso ducibus ingressi. It is perfectly arbitary to assume that the notice of the action of Radagaisus on this occasion is a mere erroneous duplication of his action, which is separately and distinctly recorded under the year 405. Pallmann emphasised the importance of the earlier notice of Prosper, and made a suggestion which has been adopted and developed by Mr. Hodgkin (i. p. 711, 716, 736), that Alaric and Radagaisus combined to attack Italia, Alaric operating in Venetia and his confederate in Raetia in AD 400-1, and that the winter campaign of Stilicho in Raetia in AD 401-2, of which Claudian speaks, was directed against Radagaisus. This combination has everything to recommend it. The passages in Claudian are as follows: —

Bell. Goth. 279 sqq.	Non si perfidia nacti penetrabile tempus inrupere Getae, nostras dum Raetia vires occupat atque alio desudant Marte cohortes idcirco spes omnis abit, c.
Bell. Goth. 329 sqq.	sublimis in Arcton prominet Hercyniae confinis Raetia silvae quae se Danuvii iactat Rhenique parentem utraque Romuleo praetendens flumina regno: c.
Bell. Goth. 363 sqq.	iam foedera gentes exuerant Latiique audita clade feroces Vindelicos saltus et Norica rura tenebant, c.
Bell. Goth. 414, 5.	adcurrit vicina manus, quam Raetia nuper Vandalicis auctam spoliis defensa probavit.

Leaving aside the question whether (as Birt thinks) the barbarians whom Radagaisus headed in Raetia were the Vandals and Alans who invaded Gaul in 406, we may without hesitation accept the conclusion that in 401 Radagaisus was at the head of Vandals and other barbarians in Raetia. Birt points out the statement that Radagaisus had intended to cross into Italy (εἰς τὴν Ἰταλιαν ὥρμητο διαβη̂ναι), with which Zosimus introduces his account of the overthrow of Radagaisus by Stilicho; and proposes to refer that statement not to the campaign of 405 but to that of 401.

It was satisfactory to find that Birt had already taken a step in a direction in which I had been led before I studied his Preface to Claudian. The fact is that Zosimus really recounts the campaign of 401, as if it were the campaign of 405. His story is that Radagaisus prepared to invade Italy. The news created great terror, and Stilicho broke up with the army from Ticinum, and with as many Alans and Huns as he could muster, without waiting for the attack, crossed the Ister, and assailing the barbarians unexpectedly utterly destroyed their host. This is the campaign of the winter of 401-2, of which we know from Claudian’s Gothic War; only that (1) Zosimus, placing it in 405, has added one feature of the actual campaign in 405, namely the all but total annihilation of the army of Radagaisus, and that (2) Zosimus, in placing the final action beyond the Danube, differs from Claudian, who places it in Noricum or Vindelicia (l. 365, cited above) and does not mention that Stilicho crossed the river. But the winter campaign was in Danubian regions; and the main difficulty, the appearance of the Danube in the narrative of Zosimus, seems to be satisfactorily accounted for by the assumption of this confusion between the two Radagaisus episodes, a confusion which must be ascribed to Zosimus himself rather than to his source Olympiodorus. 1

11.: THE SECOND CARAUSIUS — ( P. 178 )

A new tyrant in Britain at the beginning of the fifth century was discovered by Mr. Arthur Evans through a coin found at Richborough (Rutupiae). See Numismatic Chronicle, 3rd ser. vol. vii. p. 191 sqq., 1887. The obverse of this bronze coin “presents a head modelled in a somewhat barbarous fashion on that of a fourth century Emperor, diademed and with the bust draped in the paludamentum.” The legend is: DOMINO CARAVS IO CES. “The reverse presents a familiar bronze type of Constans or Constantius ii. The Emperor holding phoenix and labarum standard stands at the prow of the vessel, the rudder of which is held by Victory. In the present case, however, in place of the usual legend that accompanies this reverse — FEL. TEMP. REPARATIO — appears the strange and unparalelled inscription: —

DOMIN . . . CONTA . . . NO”

This coin cannot be ascribed to the well-known Carausius of Diocletian’s reign; for the type of the reverse is never found before the middle of the fourth century. The DOMINO (without a pronoun — nostro ) on the obverse is quite unexampled on a Roman coin. Mr. Evans conjectures that CONSTANTINO is to be read on the reverse and makes it probable that this obscure Carausius was colleague of Constantine iii., left behind by him, with the title of Caesar, to hold the island while he was himself absent in Gaul; and would refer the issue of the coin to AD 409. “The memory of the brave Carausius, who first raised Britain to a position of maritime supremacy, may have influenced the choice of this obscure Caesar, at a moment when the Romano-British population was about to assert as it had never done before its independence of Continental Empire.” Whether chosen by Constantine or not the coin “may at least be taken as evidence that the new Caesar stood forth as the representative of the interests of the Constantinian dynasty in the island as against the faction of the rebel Gerontius and his barbarian allies.”

12.: THE TYRANT CONSTANTINE — ( P. 178 )

The best account of the rise, reign, and fall of the tyrant Constantine, ruler of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, will be found in Mr. Freeman’s article, “Tyrants of Britain, Gaul and Spain,” in English Historical Review, vol. i. (1886) p. 53 sqq.

At first, in 407, Constantine’s Gallic dominions “must have consisted of a long and narrow strip of eastern Gaul, from the Channel to the Mediterranean, which could not have differed very widely from the earliest and most extended of the many uses of the word Lotharingia.” That he was acknowledged in Trier is proved by the evidence of coins (Eckhel, 8, 176). Then he moves down to the land between Rhone and Alps, which becomes the chief theatre of operations, and Arelate becomes his capital. His son Constans he creates Caesar, and a younger son Julian nobilissimus. Early in 408 Sarus is sent against him by Stilicho. Sarus gains a victory over Constantine’s officer (Justinian); and lays siege to Valentia, in which Constantine secured himself. But he raises the siege on the seventh day, on account of the approach of Constantine’s able general Gerontius, from whom he with difficulty escapes (by coming to an understanding with the Bagaudae, who appear to act as a sort of national militia) into Italy.

Constantine’s next step is to extend his rule over the rest of the Gallic prefecture, — Spain. We are left quite in the dark as to his relations with the Barbarians who in these years (407-9) were ravaging Gaul. Spain at first submitted to those whom Constantine sent; but very soon the influential Theodosian family organised a revolt against it. The main part of the resistance came from Lusitania, where the four Theodosian brothers had most influence. The rustic army that was collected was set to guard the Pyrenees. To put down the rising, Constantine sent troops a second time into Spain — this time under the Caesar Constans, who was accompanied by Gerontius and by Appollinaris (grandfather of the poet Sidonius), who accepted the office of Praetorian Prefect from Constantine. The Theodosian revolt was suppressed; Constans set up his court in Caesar-augusta (Zaragoza), but soon returned to Gaul, leaving Gerontius to defend Spain.

The sources for this story are Orosius, Sozomen, and Zosimus. For the Spanish events we have no fragments of Olympiodorus. “On the other hand the local knowledge of Orosius goes for something, and Sozomen seems to have gained, from some quarter or other, a singular knowledge of detail of some parts of the story” (Freeman, p. 65). It is practically certain that Sozomen’s source (as well as that of Zosimus) was Olympiodorus (cp. above, vol. ii. Appendix 10, p. 365).

Thus master of the West, Constantine forces Honorius, then ( AD 409) too weak to resist, to acknowledge him as his colleague and legitimate Augustus. Later in the year he enters Italy with an army, avowedly to help Honorius against Alaric (so Olympiodorus), his real motive being to annex Italy to his own realm (Soz. ix. 12). At this time he probably raised Constans to the rank of Augustus. It appears that Constantine was in league with Allobich, the general of Honorius, to compass his treasonable designs. They were discovered, Allobich was cut down, and then Constantine, who had not yet reached Ravenna, turned back.

Meanwhile the revolt of Gerontius in Spain had broken out, and Constans went to put it down. Gibbon’s account of the revolt is inadequate, in so far as he does not point out its connection with the invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans. There is no doubt that Gerontius and Maximus invited them to cross the Pyrenees. (Cp. Olymp.; Oros. 7, 28; Sozom. ix. 113; Zos. 6, 5; Renatus, in Gregory of Tours, 2, 9; Freeman, p. 74: “The evidence seems to go for direct dealings between Gerontius and the invaders, and his treaty with them is more likely to have followed the proclamation of Maximus than to have gone before it.”) The dominion of Maximus was practically confined to the northwestern corner; the seat of his rule was Tarraco. As for the relation of Maximus to Gerontius, it is very doubtful whether παɩ̂δα in Olympiodorus is to be interpreted son and not rather servant or retainer.

The rest of the episode of Constantine’s reign — the sieges of Vienna (which, some have suspected, is a mistake for Narbo) and Arelate — have been well told by Gibbon. These events must be placed in the year 411; for Constantine’s head arrived at Ravenna on 18th September (Idatius ad ann.), and it was in the fourth month of the siege of Arelate that Edobich’s troops came on the scene (Renatus ap. Greg. Tur. ii. 9).

Mr. Freeman thus contrasts the position of Constantine with that of contemporary tyrants: —

“Constantine and Maximus clearly leagued themselves with the barbarians, but they were not mere puppets of the barbarians; they were not even set up by barbarian help. Each was set up by a movement in an army which passed for Roman. But the tyrants who appear in Gaul in the following year, Jovinus, Sebastian, and Attalus — Attalus, already known in Italy, is fresh in Gaul — are far more closely connected with the invaders of the provinces. Attalus was a mere puppet of the Goths, set up and put down at pleasure; his story is merely a part of the marches of Ataulf in Gaul and Spain. Jovinus was set up by Burgundian and Alan help; his elevation to the Empire and the earliest Burgundian settlement in Gaul are simply two sides of one event. Even Maximus was not in this way the mere creature of the invaders of Spain, though he found it convenient at least to connive at their invasion.”

13.: “THE STATUE OF A POET FAR SUPERIOR TO CLAUDIAN” — ( P. 191 )

Other readers may, like myself, have been puzzled by this reference of Gibbon. Professor Dowden has supplied me with what must, I believe, be the true explanation. The statue of Voltaire by Pigalle (now in the Institut) was executed in 1770. The actress Mlle. Clairon opened a subscription for it. See Desnoiresterres, Voltaire et la Société au xviii. Siècle, vii. p. 312 sqq.

14.: DEATH OF MAXIMUS — ( P. 266 )

The chronicle of Count Marcellinus states that the tyrants Maximus and Jovinus were brought in chains from Spain (to Ravenna) and executed in the year 422, on the occasion of the tricennalia of Honorius (sub ann. 422, p. 75, ed. Mommsen, Chron. Min. vol. ii.). This, like some other unique notices in Marcellinus, was doubtless taken by him from the Chronica Italica (see above, vol. iv. Appendix 5, p. 353), which have come down in a mutilated condition (cp. Mommsen, ib. p. 46). It is borne out by Orosius, who, writing in 417, says (vii. 425): Maximus exutus purpura destititusque a militibus Gallicanis — nunc inter barbaros in Hispania egens exulat; which alone is of sufficient authority to refute the statements of the Eastern writers followed by Gibbon.

15.: SEPTIMANIA — ( P. 286 )

An error prevails in regard to the name Septimania. It first occurs in Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. iii. 1, 4, where it is said of the Goths of the kingdom of Tolosa: Septimaniam suam fastidiunt vel refundunt, modo invidiosi huius anguli (that is, Arverni) etiam desolata proprietate potiantur. In his Index Locorum to Luetjohann’s ed. of Sidonius, Mommsen points out that Septimania is not derived from septem (the etymon is septimus ) and therefore did not signify either the Seven Provinces of the Viennese Diocese, or seven cities granted to the Goths (Greg. Tur. 2, 20). It means the coast-line from the Pyrenees to the Rhone, in Sidonius as well as in Gregory of Tours and later writers; Sidonius means that the Goths declared themselves ready to exchange this coast district (including towns of Narbo, Tolosa, Bæterræ, Nemausus, Luteva) for Arverni. Bæterræ was a town of the Septimani; hence Septimania.

16.: RATE OF TRAVELLING BY SEA — ( P. 289 )

In connection with Gibbon’s note on the length of journeys by sea in the reign of Arcadius, I have found some contemporary data in the Life of Porphyry of Gaza by the deacon Marcus. (1) From Ascalon, in Palestine, to Thessalonica: 13 days, p. 6, ed. Teubner. (2) Back from Thessalonica to Ascalon: 12 days, p. 7. (3) From Gaza to Constantinople: 20 days, p. 24. (4) Back from Constantinople to Gaza: 10 days, p. 25. (5) From Cæsarea (Palæst.) to Rhodes: 10 days in winter, p. 30. (6) From Rhodes to Constantinople: 10 days, winter, p. 33. (7) From Constantinople (starting 18th April) to Rhodes: 5 days, p. 47. It must be remembered that we are not informed about intermediate stoppages. These references may be added to those in Friedläander’s Sittengeschichte, ii. 13-17. With a good wind one could sail 11 or 12 hundred stadia in 24 hours.

17.: ARMENIAN AFFAIRS — ( P. 331 , 333 )

Gibbon wrongly places the division of the Armenian kingdom into Roman and Persian Armenia in the fifth century. This division was arranged between Theodosius the Great and the Persian King. See Saint Martin, Mémoires, p. 316. Persarmenia was at least two-thirds of the whole kingdom. Arsaces, who had already reigned 5 years over all Armenia, continued after the division to rule over Roman Armenia for 2½ years; while Chosrov (a Christian) was appointed by Persia as king of Persian Armenia. On the death of Arsaces, Theodosius committed the rule of the Roman part to a native general, who was induced to recognise the authority of Chosrov; while Chosrov, in order to secure his position in Roman Armenia, acknowledged the suzerainty of the Roman Empire. This did not please Persia, and Jezdegird, son of the Persian king, overthrew him, after he had reigned 5 years. Jezdegird then gave Armenia to Chosrov’s brother; but Chosrov was subsequently restored through the influence of the archbishop Isaac, and reigned about a year. He was succeeded by Sapor, a royal prince of Persia, who made himself hated and attempted to proselytise the Armenians. On his father’s death he returned to Persia, endeavoured to win the crown, failed, and perished. After an interval Ardeshir (Gibbon’s Artasires) was appointed — the last of the Armenian kings. His deposition is described by Gibbon. The government was then placed in the hands of Persian marzbans.

18.: PROCOPIAN LEGENDS — ( P. 354 , and vol. vi . p. 80 )

(1) BONIFACE AND AETIUS; (2) VALENTINIAN AND MAXIMUS

In his Italy and her Invaders, vol. ii. (p. 206 sqq., ed. 2) Mr. Hodgkin has discussed and rejected the romantic story connected with the death of Valentinian, the elevation of Maximus and his marriage with Eudoxia. The story is told by Procopius (de B. V. i. 4); and, in accordance with Gibbon’s criticism that “Procopius is a fabulous writer for the events which precede his own memory,” Mr. Hodgkin relegates it to “the fables of Procopius.”

In the English Historical Review for July, 1887 (p. 417-465), Mr. Freeman published a long criticism of the historical material for the careers of Aetius and Boniface. He held the account of Procopius (B. V. i. 3) to be “legend of the sixth century and not trustworthy history of the fifth,” and tried to “recover the true story as it may be put together from the annalists, the writings of St. Augustine, and other more trustworthy authorities.” In this case Mr. Hodgkin takes a completely different view and argues ( ib., vol. i. p. 889 sqq., ed. 2) that the Procopian legend “has still a reasonable claim to be accepted as history,” while admitting that in some points it has been shaken by Mr. Freeman.

Now, while the two stories need not stand on the same footing so far as historical credibility is concerned, while it may be possible to follow Mr. Hodgkin in rejecting the one and accepting the main part of the other, there is a preliminary question which must be discussed before we attempt to decide the ultimate question of historical fact. Procopius is not the only authority for these stories. They are also found in the Salmasian Excerpts, which were first printed by Cramer in his Anecdota Parisina, ii. 383 sqq., and afterwards included among the fragments of John of Antioch by C. Müller, in the Fragmenta Hist. Græc., vol. iv. p. 535 sqq. The fragments in question are 196 and 200. It was a serious flaw in Mr. Freeman’s essay that he was not aware either of the Salmasian Excerpt 196, or of the Constantinian Excerpt 201, which also bears on the question of Aetius and Boniface. Mr. Hodgkin refers to fr. 196, which (with Müller) he ascribes to Joannes Antiochenus, and says: “Though a comparatively late author (he probably lived in the seventh century) and though he certainly used Procopius freely in his compilation, he had also some good contemporary authorities before him, especially Priscus, and there seems some probability, though I would not state it more strongly than this, that he may have found the story in one of them as well as in Procopius.”

But Mr. Hodgkin, while he takes account of fr. 196 in defending one “Procopian legend,” takes no account of fr. 200 in rejecting the other “Procopian legend,” though fr. 200 bears to the latter the same relation which fr. 196 bears to the former.

Now in the first place it must be clearly understood that the author of the work from which the Salmasian Excerpts are derived cannot have been the same as the author of the work from which the Constantinian Excerpts are derived. There is no question about this, and it could be proved merely by comparing the two (Salmasian) fragments under consideration (frags. 196 and 200) with (the Constantinian) fragment 201. If then we accept the Constantinian Excerpts under the name Joannes of Antioch, we must be careful not to ascribe the Salmasian Excerpts to that writer. Which is the true Joannes, is a question still sub judice. (See below, vol. vi. Appendix 2.)

The vital question then is whether Procopius was the source of S. (as we may designate the author of these Excerpts) for these fragments or not. For if he was, S. adds no weight to the authority of Procopius and may be disregarded; it he were not, his statements have to be reckoned with too. From a careful comparison of the passages, I find myself in complete agreement with C. de Boor (who has dealt with the question in Byz. Ztsch. ii. 204 sqq. ) that Procopius was not the source of S. but that the accounts of both authors were derived from a common source. 1 The proof in the case of fr. 200 is very complete; because we happen to have in Suidas sub voce θλαδιάς (see Müller ad loc. ) a fragment of what was evidently that common source.

The inference, for historical purposes, is important. We cannot speak with Mr. Freeman of “Procopian legend” or “legend of the sixth century.” Procopius cannot be described in these cases as setting down “the received tale that he heard. ” He was using a literary source; and there is not the slightest proof that this literary source belonged to the sixth century. It seems more probable that it was a fifth century source. It may have been Priscus or it may not.

These two episodes therefore depend on the authority of a writer (who has so far not been identified) earlier than Procopius and distinct from John of Antioch. They may for all we know have very early authority, and they cannot be waived away as “Procopian legend.” Each must be judged on its own merits.

It seems to me that there was probably a certain foundation of truth in both stories, but that they have been dressed out with fictitious details (like the story of the Empress Eudocia and Paulinus). I do not feel prepared to reject the main facts implied, that Aetius intrigued against Bonifacius and that Valentinian seduced the wife of Maximus.

The story of the single combat of Aetius and Boniface is derived from Marcellinus (like Procopius, a writer of the sixth century). But rightly interpreted it contains nothing improbable. It does not imply a duel; but a single combat in a battle. It is however important to observe that “John of Antioch” (fr. 201, Müller, p. 615) says nothing of Boniface’s wound but states that he was out-generalled by Aetius, and that he died of diseases due to depression and chagrin.

τὸν δὲ Βονιϕάτιον σὺν πολλῃ̑ διαβάντα χειρὶ ἀπὸ τη̂ς Λιβύης κατεστρατήγησεν, ὥστε ἐκεɩ̂νον μὲν ὺπὸ ϕροντίδων νόσῳ τελευτη̂σαι.

It remains to be added that the essay of Mr. Freeman throws great light on the career of Boniface in Africa and the doings of Castinus, Felix, and Sigisvult.

19.: THE “EGYPTIAN” OF SYNESIUS — ( P. 304 )

The interpretation of the Egyptian allegory of Synesius has caused a good deal of trouble, owing to the fact that our other sources supply such meagre material as to the details of the political transactions at Constantinople in the reign of Arcadius. It had long been recognised that Egypt stood for the Empire, and Thebes for Constantinople; and the Praetorian Prefect Aurelian had been detected under the veil of Osiris. But no certainty had been attained as to the identity of Typhos, the wicked brother of Osiris. It was chiefly in consequence of this lacuna that the able attempt of Güldenpenning to reconstruct the history of the years AD 399 and 400 on the basis of the work of Synesius (cp. my Later Roman Empire, i. p. 79 sqq. ) did not carry complete conviction. But O. Seeck has recently succeeded in proving the identity of Typhos and in interpreting the allegory more fully ( Philologus, 52, p. 442 sqq., 1894). His results must be briefly noted.

1. Taurus. — Synesius states in the Preface that the name of the father of Osiris and Typhos was Taurus. There can be no question that he is the Taurus who appears in the Consular Fasti of AD 361. He was quaestor in 353, and became praetorian prefect in 355. He held this office (the μεγάλη ἀρχή of Synes. c. 2, p. 1213, ed. Migne) till 361. He was appointed to decide a theological disputation (Epiphanius, de Haer. 71, 1); and presided at the Council of Ariminum (359). He was an author as well as an official. The arguments of Borghesi and Seeck establish his identity with Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus, the author of 14 Books De re rustica. Taurus had a son named Harmonius who was killed by Arbogastes 392 (John Ant., fr. 187).

2. Aurelian. — He appears first about 383 as builder of a Church (Acta Sanctorum, 6th May, p. 610). In 393 we find him (C. Th. 2, 8, 23, c.) Prefect of Constantinople before Rufinus held that office. Then after the fall of Eutropius, he appears as Praetorian Prefect of the East (399-400). In 400 the revolt of Gainas causes his fall (see above, p. 304-305). But he was to rise again and become Prefect a third time (402-404), as Seeck has shown from two letters of Synesius (31 and 38: cp. Cod. Th. 4, 2, 1, and 5, 1, 5, where the false dates have to be amended). He is therein described as τρισέπαρχον, “thrice Prefect,” in an epigram (Anth. Plan. 4, 73) on a gilt statue dedicated to him by the senate. His son’s name was Taurus (Synes. epist. 31), which confirms the identification.

Osiris (i. c. 3, p. 1217) held a post which is described as ἐπιστάτης δορυϕόρων γενόμενος καὶ ἀκοὰς πιστευθεὶς, explained by Seeck to be that of magister officiorum; he was then Prefect of the city (πολιαρχήσας, ib. ); he was consul (ii. 4, p. 1272), and he twice held the μεγάλη ἀρχή or praetorian prefecture, — the second time μετὰ συνθήματος μείζονος ( ib. ), which means the Patriciate. What happened to Osiris on his fall corresponds even more strikingly to that which happened to Aurelian. The leader of the foreign mercenaries is on the other side of a stream (like Gainas), Aurelian crosses it (p. 1252) and is spared. His companions in misfortune (Saturninus and Johannes) are alluded to, p. 1268.

3. Arcadius. — The insignificance of Arcadius is reflected in the myth by the fact that he is never mentioned except in one passage (p. 1268), where he appears as the High Priest. The person who through his influence over the Emperor had the real power appears in the myth as holding the kingly office — e.g. Osiris while he was in power.

4. Caesarius. — In the allegory Typhos is in close alliance with the barbarian mercenaries, and instigates their attack on Thebes in order to overthrow his brother Osiris. When Osiris surrenders himself to the barbarian leader, Typhos urges that he should be put to death. Typhos then receives the kingdom and administers it tyrannically; nor is his position shaken by the fall of the barbarian leader. Before the first rise of Osiris to power 1 he had filled a post which gave him patronage in distributing offices, the power of oppressing towns (p. 1217), and the duty of regulating measures in connection with the payment of taxes in kind (p. 1219). These hints taken along with the mention ( ib. ) of torch-bearing attendants show that the office was no less than that of Praetorian Prefect. It follows that Typhos was Praetorian Prefect before 399, and again in 400.

Eutropius had endeavoured to reduce the power of Praetorian Prefect of the East by making it a collegial office; and Eutychianus appears as holding that office (1) along with Caesarius while Eutropius was in power; (2) along with Aurelian, 399-400; (3) along with Aurelian when he was restored 402. It may be assumed that he also held it between 400 and 402.

It follows that Caesarius, whom we find Praetorian Prefect from 396-398, and again in 400 and 401, was the prototype of Typhos, the son of Taurus and the brother of Aurelian. Some other points confirm the conclusion. The tendency to Arianism, of which Typhos is accused, is illustrated by C. Th. 16, 5, 25, and the passion of Typhos for his wife by a notice in Sozomen, 9, 2.

The great political object of Aurelian was to break the power of the Germans in the army and at the court — the policy for which Synesius pleaded in his De Regno. The question arises: What was the attitude of the Empress Eudoxia to this policy? The fall of Eutropius which she brought about (Phil. 11, 6) led to the rise of Aurelian, and when Aurelian fell, her intimate friend — scandal said, her lover — Count John, fell with him. 2 Further, Seeck makes it probable that the second Praetorian Prefecture of Aurelian ended, and Anthemius succeeded to that post, about end of 404; and it was on 6th October, 404, that the Empress died. We are thus led to infer a close political union between Eudoxia and Aurelian; and, if the inference is right, it is noteworthy that the Empress of German origin, the daughter of the Frank Bauto, should have allied herself with a statesman whose policy was anti-German.

Valentinian was less attentive to the religion of his son, since he entrusted [c. AD 364] the education of Gratian to Ausonius, a professed Pagan (Mém. de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xv. p. 125-138). [But in his poem the Ephemeris (before 367 AD ; Schenkl, Pref. to his ed. of Ausonius in M.H.G.) he poses not only as a Christian, but as an orthodox Christian.] The poetical fame of Ausonius condemns the taste of his age.

[Decimus Magnus] Ausonius was successively promoted to the Prætorian prefecture of Italy ( AD 377) and of Gaul ( AD 378), cp. Aus. ii. 2, 42, præfectus Gallis et Libyæ et Latio, and was at length invested with the consulship ( AD 379). He expressed his gratitude in a servile and insipid piece of flattery (Actio Gratiarum, p. 699-736) which has survived more worthy productions. [This statement as to the prefectures of Ausonius is not quite accurate; cp. vol. iv. Appendix 5.]

Disputare de principali judicio non oportet. Sacrilegii enim instar est dubitare, an is dignus sit, quem elegerit imperator. Codex Justinian. l. ix. tit. xxix. leg. 3 [2, ed. Krüger]. This convenient law was revived and promulgated after the death of Gratian by the feeble court of Milan.

Ambrose composed, for his instruction, a theological treatise on the faith of the Trinity; and Tillemont (Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 158, 169) ascribes to the archbishop the merit of Gratian’s intolerant laws.

Qui divinæ legis sanctitatem [aut] nesciendo omittunt [ leg. confundunt] aut negligendo violant et offendunt, sacrilegium committunt. Codex Justinian. l. ix. tit. xxix. leg. 1. Theodosius indeed may claim his share in the merit of this comprehensive law.

Ammianus (xxxi. 10) and the younger Victor [Epit. 47] acknowledge the virtues of Gratian, and accuse, or rather lament, his degenerate taste. The odious parallel of Commodus is saved by “licet incruentus”; and perhaps Philostorgius (l. x. c. 10, and Godefroy, p. 412) had guarded with some similar reserve the comparison of Nero.

Zosimus (l. iv. p. 247 [c. 35]) and the younger Victor [ ib. ] ascribe the revolution to the favour of the Alani and the discontent of the Roman troops. Dum exercitum negligeret, et paucos ex Alanis, quos ingenti auro ad se transtulerat, anteferret veteri ac Romano militi.

Britannia fertilis provincia tyrannorum, is a memorable expression used by Jerom in the Pelagian controversy, and variously tortured in the disputes of our national antiquaries. The revolutions of the last age appeared to justify the image of the sublime Bossuet, “cette isle, plus orageuse que les mers qui l’environnent.”

Zosimus says of the British soldiers, τω̂ν ἄλλων ἁπάντων πλέον αὐθαδείᾳ καὶ θυμῷ νικωμένους [ ib. Ausonius describes Maximus as armigeri sub nomine lixa, Ord. urb. nob. l. 70].

Helena, the daughter of Eudda. Her chapel may still be seen at Caersegont, now Caer-narvon (Carte’s Hist. of England, vol. i. p. 168, from Rowland’s Mona Antiqua). The prudent reader may not perhaps be satisfied with such Welsh evidence.

Cambden (vol. i. introduct. p. ci.) appoints him governor of Britain; and the father of our antiquities is followed, as usual, by his blind progeny. Pacatus and Zosimus had taken some pains to prevent this error, or fable; and I shall protect myself by their decisive testimonies. Regali habitu exulem suum illi exules orbes induerunt (in Panegyr. Vet. xii. 23), and the Greek historian, still less equivocally, αὐτὸς (Maximus) δὲ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀρχὴν ἔντιμον ἔτυχε προελθών (l. iv. p. 248 [c. 35]).

Sulpicius Severus, Dialog. ii. 7, Orosius, l. vii. c. 34, p. 556. They both acknowledge (Sulpicius had been his subject) his innocence and merit. It is singular enough that Maximus should be less favourably treated by Zosimus, the partial adversary of his rival.

Archbishop Usher (Antiquitat. Britan. Eccles. p. 107, 108) has diligently collected the legends of the island and the continent. The whole emigration consisted of 30,000 soldiers, and 100,000 plebeians, who settled in Bretagne. Their destined brides, St. Ursula with 11,000 noble, and 60,000 plebeian, virgins, mistook their way; landed at Cologne, and were all most cruelly murdered by the Huns. But the plebeian sister have been defrauded of their equal honours; and, what is still harder, John Trithemius presumes to mention the children of these British virgins.

Zosimus (l. iv. p. 248, 249 [c. 35]) has transported the death of Gratian from Lugdunum in Gaul (Lyons) to Singidunum in Mæsia. Some hints may be extracted from the Chronicles; some lies may be detected in Sozomen (l. vii. c. 13) and Socrates (l. v. c. 11). Ambrose is our most authentic evidence (tom. i. Enarrat. in Psalm lxi. p. 961 [ed. Migne, i. p. 1173], tom. ii. epist. xxiv. p. 888 [ ib. ii. 1035], c., and de Obitu Valentinian. Consolat. No. 28, p. 1182 [ ib. ii. 1368]).

Pacatus (xii. 28) celebrates his fidelity; while his treachery is marked in Prosper’s Chronicle, as the cause of the ruin of Gratian. Ambrose, who has occasion to exculpate himself, only condemns the death of Vallio, a faithful servant of Gratian (tom. ii. epist. xxiv. p. 891, edit. Benedict [Migne, ii. p. 1039]).

He protested, nullum ex adversariis nisi in acie occubuisse. Sulp. Severus, in Vit. B. Martin. c. 23. The orator of Theodosius bestows reluctant, and therefore weighty, praise on his clemency. Si cui ille, pro ceteris sceleribus suis, minus crudelis fuisse videtur (Panegyr. Vet. xii. 28).

Ambrose mentions the laws of Gratian, quas non abrogavit hostis (tom. ii. epist. xvii. p. 827).

Zosimus, l. iv. p. 251, 252 [c. 37]. We may disclaim his odious suspicions; but we cannot reject the treaty of peace which the friends of Theodosius have absolutely forgotten, or slightly mentioned. [His name, afterwards erased, can be discovered along with Valent. ii. and Theodosius on an inscription, C.I.L. 8, 27.]

Their oracle, the archbishop of Milan, assigns to his pupil Gratian an high and respectable place in heaven (tom. ii. de Obit. Val. Consol. p. 1193).

For the baptism of Theodosius, see Sozomen (l. vii. c. 4), Socrates (l. v. c. 6) and Tillemont (Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 728).

Ascolius, or Acholius [so Ambrose; Ascholius in Socr. and Sozomen], was honoured by the friendship and the praises of Ambrose; who styles him, murus fidei atque sanctitatis (tom. ii. epist. xv. p. 820), and afterwards celebrates his speed and diligence in running to Constantinople, Italy, c. (epist. xvi. p. 822); a virtue which does not appertain either to a wall, or a bishop.

Codex Theodos. l. xvi. tit. i. leg. 2, with Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. vi. p. 5-9. Such an edict deserved the warmest praises of Baronius, auream sanctionem edictum pium et salutare. — Sic itur ad astra.

22a

[See above, vol. iv. p. 187, n. 37.]

Sozomen, l. vii. c. 6. Theodoret, l. v. c. 16. Tillemont is displeased (Mém. Ecclés. tom. vi. p. 627, 628) with the terms of “rustic bishop,” “obscure city.” Yet I must take leave to think that both Amphilochius and Iconium were objects of inconsiderable magnitude in the Roman empire.

Sozomen, l. vii. c. 5. Socrates, l. v. c. 7. Marcellin. in Chron. The account of forty years must be dated from the election or intrusion of Eusebius, who wisely exchanged the bishopric of Nicomedia for the throne of Constantinople.

See Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. iv. p. 71. The thirty-third [27th ap. Migne] Oration of Gregory Nazianzen affords indeed some similar ideas, even some still more ridiculous; but I have not yet found the words of this remarkable passage, which I allege on the faith of a correct and liberal scholar. [But see Appendix 1.]

See the thirty-second [42nd ap. Migne] Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, and the account of his own life, which he has composed in 1800 iambics. Yet every physician is prone to exaggerate the inveterate nature of the disease which he has cured.

I confess myself deeply indebted to the two lives of Gregory Nazianzen, composed, with very different views, by Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. ix. p. 305-560, 692-731) and Le Clerc (Bibliothèque Universelle, tom. xviii. p. 1-128). [Ullmann, Gregor von Nazianz, 1825; Bénoit, S. Grégoire de Nazianze, 1884.]

Unless Gregory Nazianzen mistook thirty years in his own age; he was born, as well as his friend Basil, about the year 329. The preposterous chronology of Suidas has been graciously received; because it removes the scandal of Gregory’s father, a saint likewise, begetting children, after he became a bishop (Tillem. Mém. Ecclés. tom. ix. p. 693-697).

Gregory’s Poem on his own Life contains some beautiful lines (tom. ii. p. 8), which burst from the heart, and speak the pangs of injured and lost friendship: —

. . . πόνοι κοινοὶ λόγων, Ὁμόστεγός τε καὶ συνέστιος βίος, Νον̂ς εἰς ἒν ἀμϕοɩ̂ν . . . Διεσκέδασται πάντα, ἔρριπται χαμαὶ, Αὐραι ϕέρουσαι τὰς παλαιὰς ἐλπίδας [477-483].

In the Midsummer Night’s Dream, Helena addresses the same pathetic complaint to her friend Hermia: —

Is all the counsel that we two have shared, The sister’s vows, c.

Shakespeare had never read the poems of Gregory Nazianzen, he was ignorant of the Greek language; but his mother-tongue, the language of Nature, is the same in Cappadocia and in Britain.

This unfavourable portrait of Sasima is drawn by Gregory Nazianzen (tom. ii. de Vitâ suâ, p. 7, 8 [Migne, 3, p. 1059]). Its precise situation, forty-nine miles from Archelais [Ak Serai], and thirty-two from Tyana, is fixed in the Itinerary of Antoninus (p. 144, edit. Wesseling).

The name of Nazianzus has been immortalised by Gregory; but his native town, under the Greek or Roman title of Diocæsarea (Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. ix. p. 692), is mentioned by Pliny (vi. 3), Ptolemy, and Hierocles (Itinerar. Wesseling, p. 709). It appears to have been situate on the edge of Isauria. [ὴ Διοκαισαρέων ὀλίγη πόλις, as Gregory calls Nazianzus, is more northerly than Gibbon supposed, lying on the road from Iconium to Tyana; about six hours due east of Archelais; Ramsay, Asia Minor, 285.]

See Ducange, Constant. Christiana, l. iv. p. 141, 142. The θεία δύναμις of Sozomer. (l. vii. c. 5) is interpreted to mean the Virgin Mary. [The site of the Church of Anastasia, S.W. of the Hippodrome, is marked now by the mosque of Mehmed Pasha Djemi; see Paspatês, Βυζάντιναι Μελέται, 369.]

Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. ix. p. 432, c.) diligently collects, enlarges, and explains the oratorical and poetical hints of Gregory himself.

He pronounced an oration (tom. i. Orat. xxiii. p. 409 [= xxv. Migne, p. 1197 sqq. ]) in his praise; but after their quarrel the name of Maximus was changed into that of Heron (see Jerom, tom. i. in Catalog. Script. Eccles. p. 301). I touch slightly on these obscure and personal squabbles. [For an account of Maximus, see Hodgkin, i. 346 sqq. Cp. also J. Dräseke, Z. f. Wiss. Theologie, 36 (1893), p. 290 sqq. ]

Under the modest emblem of a dream, Gregory (tom. ii. carmen ix. p. 78 [ed. Migne, 3, p. 1254]) describes his own success with some human complacency. Yet it should seem, from his familiar conversation with his auditor St. Jerom (tom. i. Epist. ad Nepotian, p. 14 [ep. 52; Migne, i. p. 534]), that the preacher understood the true value of popular applause.

Lachrymæ auditorum, laudes tuæ sint, is the lively and judicious advice of St. Jerom [ ib. ].

Socrates (l. v. c. 7) and Sozomen (l. vii. c. 5) relate the evangelical words and actions of Damophilus without a word of approbation. He considered, says Socrates, that it is difficult to resist the powerful; but it was easy, and would have been profitable, to submit. [Date of entry of Theodosius, 14th Nov., Idacius, Fast. C.; but 24th Nov., acc. to Pasch. Chron. and Socrates, v. 6, which Clinton accepts and Hodgkin supports.]

[Not St. Sophia, which was not yet the chief church, but the Church of the Twelve Apostles; see Plan in vol. iii. opposite p. 100.]

See Gregory Nazianzen, tom. ii. de Vitâ suâ, p. 21, 22 [l. 1331 sqq. ]. For the sake of posterity, the bishop of Constantinople records a stupendous prodigy. In the month of November, it was a cloudy morning, but the sun broke forth when the procession entered the church.

Of the three ecclesiastical historians, Theodoret alone (l. v. c. 2) has mentioned this important commission of Sapor, which Tillemont (Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 728) judiciously removes from the reign of Gratian to that of Theodosius.

I do not reckon Philostorgius, though he mentions (l. ix. c. 19) the explusion of Damophilus. The Eunomian historian has been carefully strained through an orthodox sieve.

Le Clerc has given a curious extract (Bibliothèque Universelle, tom. xviii. p. 91-105) of the theological sermons which Gregory Nazianzen pronounced at Constantinople against the Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, c. He tells the Macedonians, who deified the Father and the Son, without the Holy Ghost, that they might as well be styled Tritheists as Ditheists. Gregory himself was almost a Tritheist; and his monarchy of heaven resembles a well-regulated aristocracy.

The first general council of Constantinople now triumphs in the Vatican: but the popes had long hesitated, and their hesitation perplexes, and almost staggers, the humble Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. ix. p. 499, 500). [It had no good claim to be ecumenical, for the 150 bishops present were entirely from the eastern provinces of the Empire. It put forward no new doctrines, but simply reasserted the Nicene Creed. See Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 262.]

Before the death of Meletius, six or eight of his most popular ecclesiastics, among whom was Flavian, had abjured, for the sake of peace, the bishopric of Antioch (Sozomen, l. vii. c. 3, 11. Socrates, l. v. c. 5). Tillemont thinks it his duty to disbelieve the story; but he owns that there are many circumstances in the life of Flavian which seem inconsistent with the praises of Chrysostom and the character of a saint (Mém. Ecclés. tom. x. p. 541). [Gregory of Nyssa pronounced the funeral oration on Meletius.]

Consult Gregory Nazianzen, de Vitâ suâ, tom. ii. p. 25-28 [1509 sqq. ]. His general and particular opinion of the clergy and their assemblies may be seen in verse and prose (tom. i. orat. i. p. 33 [= or. ii. Migne], epist. lv. [= ep. cxxx. Migne, iii. p. 225] p. 814, tom. ii. carmen x. [ leg. xi.] p. 81 [Migne, ib. p. 1227]). Such passages are faintly marked by Tillemont, and fairly produced by Le Clerc.

See Gregory, tom. ii. de Vitâ suâ, p. 28-31 [1680 sqq. ]. The fourteenth [22nd], twenty-seventh [36th], and thirty-second [42nd] orations were pronounced in the several stages of this business. The peroration of the last (tom. i. p. 528), in which he takes a solemn leave of men and angels, the city and the emperor, the East and the West, c., is pathetic, and almost sublime.

The whimsical ordination of Nectarius is attested by Sozomen (l. vii. c. 8); but Tillemont observes (Mém. Ecclés. tom. ix. p. 719), Après tout, ce narré de Sozomène est si honteux pour tous ceux qu’il y mêle, et surtout pour Théodose, qu’il vaut mieux travailler à le détruire, qu’à le soutenir; an admirable canon of criticism.

I can only be understood to mean that such was his natural temper; when it was not hardened, or inflamed, by religious zeal. From his retirement [at Arianzus, a farm close to the village of Karbala (now Καλβαρή, Turk. Gelvere), 2½ hours south of Nazianzus, containing “a church full of relics of S. Gregory.” Ramsay, Asia Minor, 285], he exhorts Nectarius to prosecute the heretics of Constantinople.

See the Theodosian Code, l. xvi. tit. v. leg. 6-23, with Godefroy’s commentary on each law, and his general summary, or Paratitlon, tom. vi. p. 104-110.

They always kept their Easter, like the Jewish Passover, on the fourteenth day of the first moon after the vernal equinox; and thus pertinaciously opposed to the Roman church and Nicene synod, which had fixed Easter to a Sunday. Bingham’s Antiquities, l. xx. c. 5, vol. ii. p. 309, fol. edit.

Sozomen, l. vii. c. 12.

See the Sacred History of Sulpicius Severus (l. ii. p. 437-452, edit. Ludg. Bat. 1647 [c. 46-51]), a correct and original writer. Dr. Lardner (Credibility, c., part ii. vol. ix. p. 256-350) has laboured this article, with pure learning, good sense, and moderation. Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. viii. p. 491-527) has raked together all the dirt of the fathers; an useful scavenger! [It has been debated how far Priscillian is to be regarded as a heretic. J. H. Lübkert, De haeresi Priscillianistarum, 1840, followed by Bernays, held that he was condemned, not as a heretic, but as a lawbreaker. Since then some remains of his own writings (eleven Tractates) were discovered (1885) in a Würzburg MS. of ⅚ cent., and edited (1889) by G. Schepss. His religious position has been investigated by F. Paret, Priscillianus ein Reformator des vierten Jahrhunderts, 1891. It seems clear that Priscillian’s point of view was undogmatic; and he was certainly heretical in so far as he made use of apocryphal books. See too Schepss, Priscillian, 1886. Cp. Jerome’s notice, de vir. ill. c. 21, and Orosius, Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum, published by Schepss at end of his ed. of Priscillian.]

Sulpicius Severus mentions the arch-heretic with esteem and pity. Felix profecto, si non pravo studio corrupisset optimum ingenium; prorsus multa in eo animi et corporis bona cerneres (Hist. Sacra, l. ii. p. 439 [c. 46]). Even Jerom (tom. i. in Script. Eccles. p. 302) speaks with temper of Priscillian and Latronian. [They suffered in 385, Prosper, Epit. Chron.; but Idatius gives 387.]

The bishopric (in Old Castile) is now worth 20,000 ducats a year (Busching’s Geography, vol. ii. p. 308) and is therefore much less likely to produce the author of a new heresy.

Exprobabatur mulieri viduæ nimia religio, et diligentius culta divinitas (Pacat. in Panegyr. Vet. xii. 29). Such was the idea of a humane, though ignorant, polytheist.

One of them was sent in Syllinam insulam quæ ultra Britanniam est. What must have been the ancient condition of the rocks of Scilly (Cambden’s Britannia, vol. ii. p. 1519)?

The scandalous calumnies of Augustin, Pope Leo, c., which Tillemont swallows like a child, and Lardner refutes like a man, may suggest some candid suspicions in favour of the older Gnostics.

Ambros. tom. ii. epist. xxiv. p. 891.

In the Sacred History, and the Life of St. Martin, Sulpicius Severus uses some caution; but he declares himself more freely in the Dialogues (iii. 15). Martin was reproved, however, by his own conscience, and by an angel; nor could he afterwards perform miracles with so much ease.

The Catholic Presbyter (Sulp. Sever. l. ii. p. 448 [c. 50]) and the Pagan Orator (Pacat. in Panegyr. Vet. xii. 29) reprobate, with equal indignation, the character and conduct of Ithacius.

The life of St. Martin, and the Dialogues concerning his miracles, contain facts adapted to the grossest barbarism, in a style not unworthy of the Augustan age. So natural is the alliance between good taste and good sense that I am always astonished by this contrast.

The short and superficial life of St. Ambrose by his deacon Paulinus (Appendix ad edit. Benedict. p. i.-xv.) has the merit of original evidence. Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. x. p. 78-306) and the Benedictine editors (p. xxxi.-lxiii.) have laboured with their usual diligence.

Ambrose himself (tom. ii. epist. xxiv. p. 888-891) gives the emperor a very spirited account of his own embassy.

His own representation of his principles and conduct (tom. ii. epist. xx. xxi. xxii. p. 852-880) is one of the curious monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity. It contains two letters to his sister Marcellina, with a petition of Valentinian, and the sermon de Basilicis non tradendis.

Retz had a similar message from the queen, to request that he would appease the tumult of Paris. It was no longer in his power, c. A quoi j’ajoutai tout ce que vous pouvez vous imaginer de respect, de douleur, de regret, et de soumission, c. (Mémoires, tom. i. p. 140). Certainly I do not compare either the causes or the men; yet the coadjutor himself had some idea (p. 84) of imitating St. Ambrose.

Sozomen alone (l. vii. c. 13) throws this luminous fact into a dark and perplexed narrative.

Excubabat pia plebs in ecclesiâ mori parata cum episcopo suo. . . . Nos adhuc frigidi excitabamur tamen civitate attonitâ atque turbatâ. Augustin. Confession l. ix. c. 7.

Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. ii. p. 78, 498. Many churches in Italy, Gaul, c., were dedicated to these unknown martyrs, of whom St. Gervase seems to have been more fortunate than his companion.

Invenimus miræ magnitudinis viros duos, ut prisca ætas ferebat. Tom. ii. epist. xxii. p. 875. [Mr. Hodgkin, who discusses the discovery, seems disposed to entertain the idea that Ambrose may have practised a pious fraud; i. 440.] The size of these skeletons was fortunately, or skilfully, suited to the popular prejudice of the gradual increase of the human stature; which has prevailed in every age since the time of Homer.

Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris.

Ambros. tom. ii. epist. xxii. p. 875. Augustin. Confes. l. ix. c. 7, de Civitat. Dei, l. xxii. c. 8. Paulin. in Vitâ St. Ambros., c. 14, in Append. Benedict. p. 4. The blind man’s name was Severus; he touched the holy garment, recovered his sight, and devoted the rest of his life (at least twenty-five years) to the service of the church. I should recommend this miracle to our divines if it did not prove the worship of relics, as well as the Nicene creed.

Paulin. in Vit. St. Ambros. c. 5 [15], in Append. Benedict. p. 5.

Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. x. p. 190, 750. He partially allows the mediation of Theodosius; and capriciously rejects that of Maximus, though it is attested by Prosper [not the true Prosper; but Chron. Gall. ap. Mommsen, Chron. Min. i. p. 648; cp. Rufin, 11. 16], Sozomen, and Theodoret.

The modest censure of Sulpicius (Dialog. iii. 15) inflicts a much deeper wound than the feeble declamation of Pacatus (xii. 25, 26).

Esto tutior adversus hominem, pacis involucro tegentem, was the wise caution of Ambrose (tom. ii. p. 891) after his return from his second embassy [ AD 386-7].

Baronius ( AD 387, No. 63) applies to this season of public distress some of the penitential sermons of the archbishop.

The flight of Valentinian and the love of Theodosius for his sister are related by Zosimus (l. iv. p. 263, 264 [c. 43]). Tillemont produces some weak and ambiguous evidence to antedate the second marriage of Theodosius (Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 740), and consequently to refute ces contes de Zosime, qui seroient trop contraires à la piété de Théodose.

See Godefroy’s Chronology of the Laws, Cod. Theodos. tom. i. p. 119.

Besides the hints which may be gathered from chronicles and ecclesiastical history, Zos. (l. iv. p. 259-267 [c. 44-47]), Oros. (l. vii. c. 35) and Pacatus (in Pan. Vet. xii. 30-47) supply the loose and scanty materials of this civil war. Ambrose (tom. ii. epist. xl. p. 952, 953) darkly alludes to the well-known events of a magazine surprised, an action at Pœtovio, a Sicilian, perhaps a naval, victory, c. Ausonius (p. 256, edit. Toll. [Ord. Urb. Nob. 66 sqq. ]) applauds the peculiar merit, and good fortune, of Aquileia. [For the son of Maximus, Flavius Victor, see C.I.L. 5, 8032 and Eckhel, 8, 66. The victory in Sicilia must have been on sea, over the fleet of Andragathius; cp. Oros. loc. cit. ]

Quam promptum laudare principem, tam tutum siluisse de principe (Pacat. in Pan. Vet. xii. 2). Latinus Pacatus Drepanius, a native of Gaul, pronounced this oration at Rome ( AD 388). He was afterwards proconsul of Africa; and his friend Ausonius praises him as a poet, second only to Virgil. See Tillemont, Hist. des Emper. tom. v. p. 303.

See the fair portrait of Theodosius by the younger Victor; the strokes are distinct, and the colours are mixed. The praise of Pacatus is too vague: and Claudian always seems afraid of exalting the father above the son.

Ambros. tom. ii. epist. xl. p. 955. [The interpretation of this passage is not certain. The daughters of an inimicus and the mother of a hostis are mentioned. Are the hostis and inimicus the same, viz., Maximus?] Pacatus. from the want of skill, or of courage, omits this glorious circumstance.

Pacat. in Panegyr. Vet. xii. 20.

Zosimus, l. iv. p. 271, 272 [c. 50]. His partial evidence is marked by an air of candour and truth. He observes these vicissitudes of sloth and activity, not as a vice, but as a singularity, in the character of Theodosius.

This choleric temper is acknowledged, and excused, by Victor [Epit. 48] Sed habes (says Ambrose, in decent and manly language, to his sovereign) naturæ impetum, quem si quis lenire velit, cito vertes ad misericordiam: si quis stimulet, in magis exsuscitas, ut eum revocare vix possis (tom. ii. epist. ii. p. 998). Theod. (Claud. in iv. Cons. Hon. 266, c.) exhorts his son to moderate his anger.

The Christians and Pagans agreed in believing that the sedition of Antioch was excited by the demons. A gigantic woman (says Sozomen, l. vii. c. 23) paraded the streets with a scourge in her hand. An old man (says Libanius, Orat. xii. p. 396 [or. xix. in Reiske’s ed., vol. 7, p. 626 seq. ]) transformed himself into a youth, then a boy, c.

Zosimus, in his short and disingenuous account (l. iv. p. 258, 259 [c. 41]), is certainly mistaken in sending Libanius himself to Constantinople. His own orations fix him at Antioch.

Libanius (Orat. i. p. 6, edit. Venet.) declares that, under such a reign, the fear of a massacre was groundless and absurd, especially in the emperor’s absence; for his presence, according to the eloquent slave, might have given a sanction to the most bloody acts.

Laodicea, on the sea-coast, sixty-five miles from Antioch (see Noris, Epoch. Syro-Maced. Dissert. iii. p. 230). The Antiochians were offended that the dependent city of Seleucia should presume to intercede for them.

As the days of the tumult depend on the movable festival of Easter, they can only be determined by the previous determination of the year. The year 387 has been preferred, after a laborious inquiry, by Tillemont (Hist. des Emper. tom. v. p. 741-744) and Montfaucon (Chrysostom, tom. xiii. p. 105-110). [So Güldenpenning and Ifland; but Baronius and Clinton give 388. Cp. Arnold Hug, Studien aus dem classischen Alterthum, p. 54.]

Chrysostom opposes their courage, which was not attended with much risk, to the cowardly flight of the Cynics.

The sedition of Antioch is represented in a lively, and almost dramatic, manner by two orators, who had their respective shares of interest and merit. See Libanius (Orat. xiv. xv. [ leg. xii. xiii.] p. 389-420, edit. Morel., Orat. i. p. 1-14, Venet. 1754 and the twenty orations of St. Chrysostom, de Statuis (tom. ii. p. 1-225, edit. Montfaucon). I do not pretend to much personal acquaintance with Chrysostom; but Tillem. (Hist. des Emper. tom. v. p. 263-283) and Hermant (Vie de St. Chrysostome, tom. i. p. 137-224) had read him with pious curiosity and diligence. [The dates which A. Hug (Antiochia und der Aufstand des Jahres 387 n. Chr.) has endeavoured to establish are not inserted in the present edition.]

91a

[“Cause” in sense of occasion. But the true cause was discontent at the practice of quartering barbarian soldiers in Antioch. Cp. John Malalas, p. 347.]

[Theodoret, v. 17; on the authority of Philostorgius?]

The original evidence of Ambrose (tom. ii. epist. li. p. 998), Augustin (de Civitat. Dei, v. 26), and Paulinus (in Vit. Ambros. c. 24) is delivered in vague expressions of horror and pity. It is illustrated by the subsequent and unequal testimonies of Sozomen (l. vii. c. 25), Theodoret (l. v. c. 17), Theophanes (Chronograph. p. 62), Cedrenus (p. 317 [p. 556, ed. Bonn]), and Zonaras (tom. ii. l. xiii. p. 34 [c. 18]). Zosimus alone, the partial enemy of Theodosius, most unaccountably passes over in silence the worst of his actions. [Further, Rufinus, ii. 18; Moses Choren. iii. 37; and Malalas, p. 347.]

See the whole transaction in Ambrose (tom. ii. epist. xl. xli. p. 946-956) and his biographer Paulinus (c. 23). Bayle and Barbeyrac (Morales des Pères, c. xvii. p. 325, c.) have justly condemned the archbishop. [The sentence was that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue and pay the value of the destroyed treasures.]

His sermon is a strange allegory of Jeremiah’s rod, of an almond-tree, of the woman who washed and anointed the feet of Christ. But the peroration is direct and personal.

Hodie, Episcope, de me proposuisti. Ambrose modestly confessed it: but he sternly reprimanded Timasius, general of the horse and foot, who had presumed to say that the monks of Callinicum deserved punishment.

Yet, five years afterwards, when Theodosius was absent from his spiritual guide, he tolerated the Jews and condemned the destruction of their synagogue. Cod. Theodos. l. xvi. tit. viii. leg. 9, with Godefroy’s commentary, tom. vi. p. 225.

97a

[A letter from the Bishop of Thessalonica, informing Ambrose, was published (from a Bodl. cod.) by Gaisford in Theodoret, v. 18; genuineness uncertain.]

Ambros. tom. ii. epist. li. p. 997-1001. His Epistle is a miserable rhapsody on a noble subject. Ambrose could act better than he could write. His compositions are destitute of taste, or genius; without the spirit of Tertullian, the copious elegance of Lactantius, the lively wit of Jerom, or the grave energy of Augustin.

According to the discipline of St. Basil (Canon lvi.) the voluntary homicide was four years a mourner; five an hearer; seven in a prostrate state; and four in a standing posture. I have the original (Beveridge, Pandect. tom. ii. p. 47-151) and a translation (Chardon, Hist. des Sacremens, tom. iv. p. 219-277) of the Canonical Epistles of St. Basil.

100

The penance of Theodosius is authenticated by Ambrose (tom. vi. de Obit. Theodos. c. 34, p. 1207), Augustin (de Civitat. Dei, v. 26), and Paulinus (in Vit. Ambros. c. 24). Socrates is ignorant; Sozomen (l. vii. c. 25) concise [but places it after revolt of Eugenius]; and the copious narrative of Theodoret (l. v. c. 18) must be used with precaution.

101

Codex Theodos. l. ix. tit. xl. leg. 13. The date and circumstances of this law are perplexed with difficulties; but I feel myself inclined to favour the honest efforts of Tillemont (Hist. des Emp. tom. v. p. 721) and Pagi (Critica, tom. i. p. 578).

102

Un prince qui aime la religion, et qui la craint, est un lion qui cède à la main qui le flatte, ou à la voix qui l’appaise. Esprit des Lois, l. xxiv. c. 2.

103

Τον̂το περὶ τοὺς εὐεργέτας καθη̂κον ἔδοξεν ε[Editor: illegible character]ναι, is the niggard praise of Zosimus himself (l. iv. p. 267 [c. 48]). Augustin says, with some happiness of expression, Valentinianum . . . misericordissima veneratione restituit.

104

Sozomen, l. vii. c. 14. His chronology is very irregular. [She seems to have died just before the defeat of Maximus, Rufinus, Hist. Ecc. ii. 17. Cp. Chron. Gall. (Pseudo-Prosper) 452, ap. Mommsen, Chr. Min. i. p. 648. Otherwise Zosimus, iv. 47.]

105

See Ambrose (tom. ii. de Obit. Valentinian. c. 15, c. p. 1178; c. 36, c. p. 1184). When the young emperor gave an entertainment, he fasted himself; he refused to see an handsome actress, c. Since he ordered his wild beasts to be killed, it is ungenerous in Philostorgius (l. xi. c. 1) to reproach him with the love of that amusement.

106

Zosimus (l. iv. p. 275 [c. 53]) praises the enemy of Theodosius. But he is detested by Socrates (l. v. c. 25) and Orosius (l. vii. c. 35). [Acc. to John of Antioch (Müller, F.H.G. iv. fr. 187), Arbogast was son of Bauto, and nephew of Richomer.]

107

Gregory of Tours (l. ii. c. 9, p. 165, in the second volume of the Historians of France) has preserved a curious fragment of Sulpicius Alexander, an historian far more valuable than himself.

108

[He tore it in bits with his nails, according to John of Antioch, loc. cit. ]

109

Godefroy (Dissertat. ad Philostorg. p. 429-434) has diligently collected all the circumstances of the death of Valentinian II. The variations and the ignorance of contemporary writers prove that it was secret. [Mr. Hodgkin discusses the evidence (Italy and her Invaders, i. p. 590, note F), which he thinks does not exclude the hypothesis of suicide, though he agrees that there was probably foul play. The passage in Epiphanius, De Mens. 20 (which gives the date), is the most important: εὑρεθεὶς ἄϕνω ἐ ντῷ παλατίῳ πεπνιγημένος, ὡς λόγος.]

110

De Obitu Valentinian. tom. ii. p. 1173-1196. He is forced to speak a discreet and obscure language; yet he is much bolder than any layman, or perhaps any other ecclesiastic, would have dared to be.

111

See c. 51, p. 1188; c. 75, p. 1193. Dom. Chardon (Hist. des Sacremens, tom. i. p. 86), who owns that St. Ambrose most strenuously maintains the indispensable necessity of baptism, labours to reconcile the contradiction.

112

Quem [ leg. hunc] sibi Germanus famulum delegerat exul, is the contemptuous expression of Claudian (iv. Cons. Hon. 74). Eugenius professed Christianity; but his secret attachment to Paganism (Sozomen, l. vii. c. 22. Philostorg. l. xi. c. 2) is probable in a grammarian, and would secure the friendship of Zosimus (l. iv. p. 276, 277 [c. 54]). [Gibbon has not sufficiently insisted on the paganism as part of the political programme of Eugenius (cp. chap. xxviii. n. 60).]

112a

[This inference from Philostorgius (xi. 2, μάγιστρος) is not certain.]

113

Zosimus (l. iv. p. 278 [c. 55]) mentions this embassy; but he is diverted by another story from relating the event. [But see c. 57 ad init.]

114

Συνετάραξεν ἡ τούτου γαμετὴ Γάλλα τὰ βασίλεια τὸν ἀδελϕὸν ὀλοϕυρομένη. Zosim. l. iv. p. 277 [ ib. ]. He afterwards says (p. 280 [c. 57]) that Galla died in childbed; and intimates that the affliction of her husband was extreme, but short.

115

Lycopolis is the modern Siut, or Osiot, a town of Said, about the size of St. Denys, which drives a profitable trade with the kingdom of Sennaar, and has a very convenient fountain, “cujus potu signa virginitatis eripiuntur.” See D’Anville, Description de l’Egypte, p. 181. Abulfeda, Descript. Ægypt. p. 14, and the curious annotations, p. 25, 92, of his editor Michaelis.

116

The life of John of Lycopolis is described by his two friends, Rufinus (l. ii. c. i. p. 449) and Palladius (Hist. Lausiac. c. 43, p. 738), in Rosweyde’s great Collection of the Vitæ Patrum. [See Acta Sctorum, 27 Mart. iii. 693 sqq. ] Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. x. p. 718, 720) has settled the Chronology.

117

Sozomen, l. vii. c. 22. Claudian (in Eutrop. l. i. 312) mentions the eunuch’s journey: but he most contemptuously derides the Egyptian dreams and the oracles of the Nile.

118

Zosimus, l. iv. p. 280 [c. 57]. Socrates, l. vii. 10. Alaric himself (de Bell. Getico, 524) dwells with more complacency on his early exploits against the Romans.

. . . Tot Augustos Hebro qui teste fugavi.

Yet his vanity could scarcely have proved this plurality of flying emperors.

119

Claudian (in iv. Cons. Honor. 77, c.) contrasts the military plans of the two usurpers: —

. . . Novitas audere priorem Suadebat; cautumque dabant exempla sequentem. Hic nova moliri præceps: hic quærere tutus Providus. Hic fusis; collectis viribus ille. Hic vagus excurrens; hic intra claustra reductus; Dissimiles, sed morte pares. . . .

120

The Frigidus, a small though memorable stream in the country of Goretz, now called the Vipao [Wipbach], falls into the Sontius, or Lisonzo, above Aquileia, some miles from the Hadriatic. See D’Anville’s Ancient and Modern Maps, and the Italia Antiqua of Cluverius (tom. i. p. 188). [Mr. Hodgkin thinks the battle was fought near Heidenschafft, i. p. 578.]

121

Claudian’s wit is intolerable: the snow was dyed red; the cold river smoked; and the channel must have been choked with carcases, if the current had not been swelled with blood.

122

Theodoret affirms that St. John and St. Philip appeared to the waking, or sleeping, emperor, on horseback, c. This is the first instance of apostolic chivalry, which afterwards became so popular in Spain and in the Crusades.

123

Te propter, gelidis Aquilo de monte procellis Obruit adversas acies; revolutaque tela Vertit in auctores, et turbine reppulit hastas. O nimium dilecte Deo, cui fundit ab antris Æolus armatas hyemes; cui militat Æther, Et conjurati veniunt ad classica venti.

These famous lines of Claudian (in iii. Cons. Honor. 93, c. AD 396) are alleged by his contemporaries, Augustin and Orosius; who suppress the Pagan deity of Æolus; and add some circumstances from the information of eye-witnesses. Within four months after the victory, it was compared by Ambrose to the miraculous victories of Moses and Joshua.

124

The events of this civil war are gathered from Ambrose (tom. ii. epist. lxii. p. 1022 [cp. Ep. 57]), Paulinus (in Vit. Ambros. c. 26-34), Augustin (de Civitat. Dei, v. 26), Orosius (l. vii. c. 35), Sozomen (l. vii. c. 24), Theodoret (l. v. c. 24), Zosimus (l. iv. p. 281, 282 [c. 58]), Claudian (in iii. Cons. Hon. 63-105, in iv. Cons. Hon. 70-117), and the Chronicles published by Scaliger. [See also Philostorg. xi. 2; Socrates, v. 25; Victor, Epit.; and cp. Sievers, Studien, p. 326 sqq. Cp. Appendix 2.]

125

This disease, ascribed by Socrates (l. v. c. 26) to the fatigues of war, is represented by Philostorgius (l. xi. c. 2) as the effect of sloth and intemperance: for which Photius calls him an impudent liar (Godefroy, Dissert. p. 438).

126

Zosimus supposes that the boy Honorius accompanied his father (l. iv. p. 280 [c. 58]). Yet the quanto flagrabant pectora voto, is all that flattery would allow to a contemporary poet; who clearly describes the emperor’s refusal and the journey of Honorius, after the victory (Claudian in iii. Cons. 78-125).

127

Zosimus, l. iv. p. 244 [c. 33].

128

Vegetius, de Re Militari, l. i. c. 10. The series of calamities which he marks compel us to believe that the Hero to whom he dedicates his book is the last and most inglorious of the Valentinians. [This view is maintained by O. Seeck (Hermes, 11, 61 sqq. ), who contests the usual identification with Theodosius i. Theodosius ii. has also been conjectured. The minor limit for the date of the Epitome rei Militaris is AD 450 (determined by the entry in some MSS.: Fl. Eutropius emendavi sine exemplario Constantinopolim Valentiniano Aug. vii. et Abieni). The work is by no means critical or trustworthy. Cp. Förster, de fide Vegetii, 1879.]

[Beugnot, Histoire de la déstruction du paganisme, 1835; Chastel, Hist. de la déstr. du pag. dans l’empire d’orient, 1850; Lasaulx, Der Untergang des Hellenismus, 1854; G. Boissier, La fin du paganisme (2 vols.), 1891.]

St. Ambrose (tom. ii. de Obit. Theodos. p. 1208) expressly praises and recommends the zeal of Josiah in the destruction of idolatry. The language of Julius Firmicus Maternus on the same subject (de Errore Profan. Relig. p. 467, edit. Gronov.) is piously inhuman. Nec filio jubet (the Mosaic Law) parci, nec fratri, et per amatam conjugem gladium vindicem ducit, c.

Bayle (tom. ii. p. 406, in his Commentaire Philosophique) justifies and limits these intolerant laws by the temporal reign of Jehovah over the Jews. The attempt is laudable.

See the outlines of the Roman hierarchy in Cicero (de Legibus, ii. 7, 8), Livy (i. 20), Dionysius Halicarnassensis (l. ii. p. 119-129, edit. Hudson), Beaufort (République Romaine, tom. i. p. 1-90), and Moyle (vol. i. p. 10-55). The last is the work of an English Whig, as well as of a Roman antiquary. [The number of Pontiffs and Augurs first reached fifteen in the time of Sulla. A sixteenth Augur was added by Julius Cæsar. The emperor (after AD 29) had power to create additional Augurs.]

These mystic and perhaps imaginary symbols have given birth to various fables and conjectures. It seems probable that the Palladium was a small statue (three cubits and a half high) of Minerva, with a lance and distaff; that it was usually enclosed in a seria, or barrel; and that a similar barrel was placed by its side to disconcert curiosity or sacrilege. See Mezeriac (Comment. sur les Epitres d’Ovide, tom. i. p. 60-66) and Lipsius (tom. iii. p. 610, de Vestâ, c. c. 10).

[Cp. Lucan, i. 602. The Epulo was called Septemvir epulonum.]

[In the later Republic there were also a number of minor Flamens; in all fifteen. For some of the names, see Varro, L.L. vii. 44.]

Cicero frankly (ad Atticum, l. ii. epist. 5) or indirectly (ad Familiar. l. xv. epist. 4) confesses, that the Augurate is the supreme object of his wishes. Pliny is proud to tread in the footsteps of Cicero (l. iv. epist. 8), and the chain of tradition might be continued from history and marbles.

Zosimus, l. iv. p. 249, 250 [c. 36]. I have suppressed the foolish pun about Pontifex and Maximus. [Cp. Hodgkin, i. 400. For probable date (375 AD ) see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. p. 1108. In an inscr. of 370 AD Gratian is Pont. Max.; C.I.L. vi. 1175.]

[Compare C.I.L. 6, 749: antra facit sumptusque tuos nec Roma requirit.]

This statue was transported from Tarentum to Rome, placed in the Curia Julia by Cæsar, and decorated by Augustus with the spoils of Egypt.

Prudentius ([in Symm.] l. ii. in initio) has drawn a very awkward portrait of Victory; but the curious reader will obtain more satisfaction from Montfaucon’s Antiquities (tom. i. p. 341).

See Suetonius (in August. c. 35) and the Exordium of Pliny’s Panegyric.

These facts are mutually allowed by the two advocates, Symmachus and Ambrose.

The Notitia Urbis, more recent than Constantine, does not find one Christian church worthy to be named among the edifices of the city. Ambrose (tom. ii. epist. xvii. p. 825) deplores the public scandals of Rome, which continually offended the eyes, the ears, and the nostrils of the faithful.

Ambrose repeatedly affirms, in contradiction to common sense (Moyle’s Works, vol. ii. p. 147), that the Christians had a majority in the senate.

The first ( AD 382) to Gratian, who refused them audience. The second ( AD 384) to Valentinian, when the field was disputed by Symmachus and Ambrose. The third ( AD 388 [so Güldenpenning, p. 172 ( AD 388-9); but Seeck puts it in 391, Chronol. Symmach. in M.G.H. Auct. Ant. vi. p. lviii. See Prosper, de Prom. Dei, iii. 38]) to Theodosius; and the fourth ( AD 392 [Ambrose, ep. 57]) to Valentinian. Lardner (Heathen Testimonies, vol. iv. p. 372-399) fairly represents the whole transaction.

Symmachus, who was invested with all the civil and sacerdotal honours, represented the emperor under the two characters of Pontifex Maximus and Princeps Senatus. See the proud description at the head of his works.

As if any one, says Prudentius (in Symmach. i. 639), should dig in the mud with an instrument of gold and ivory. Even saints, and polemic saints, treat this adversary with respect and civility. [One of the chief pagan Senators was Flavianus, Præt. Præf. of Italy. There is extant a virulent attack on him of unknown authorship printed in the Revue Archéologique, 1868, June. Cp. Mommsen, in Hermes, vol. 4, 1870, p. 350 sqq. ]

[ Videro. ]

See the fifty-fourth epistle of the tenth book of Symmachus [ = x. iii. ed. Seeck]. In the form and disposition of his ten books of epistles, he imitated the younger Pliny; whose rich and florid style he was supposed, by his friends, to equal or excel (Macrob. Saturnal. l. v. c. 1). But the luxuriancy of Symmachus consists of barren leaves, without fruits, and even without flowers. Few facts, and few sentiments, can be extracted from his verbose correspondence.

See Ambrose (tom. ii. epist. xvii. xviii. p. 825-833). The former of these epistles is a short caution; the latter is a formal reply to the petition or libel of Symmachus. The same ideas are more copiously expressed in the poetry, if it may deserve that name, of Prudentius; who composed his two books against Symmachus ( AD 404) while that Senator was still alive. It is whimsical enough that Montesquieu (Considérations, c. c. xix. tom. iii. p. 487) should overlook the two professed antagonists of Symmachus; and amuse himself with descanting on the more remote and indirect confutations of Orosius, St. Augustin, and Salvian.

See Prudentius (in Symmach. l. i. 545, c.). The Christian agrees with the Pagan Zosimus (l. iv. p. 283 [c. 59]) in placing this visit of Theodosius after the second civil war, gemini bis victor cæde Tyranni (l. i. 410). But the time and circumstances are better suited to his first triumph.

[This can hardly be inferred from the lines of Prudentius.]

Prudentius, after proving that the sense of the senate is declared by a legal majority, proceeds to say (609, c.):—

Adspice quam pleno subsellia nostra Senatu Decernant infame Jovis pulvinar, et omne Idolium longe purgatâ ex urbe fugandum. Qua vocat egregii sententia Principis, illuc Libera, cum pedibus, tum corde, frequentia transit.

Zosimus ascribes to the conscript fathers an heathenish courage, which few of them are found to possess.

Jerom specifies the pontiff Albinus, who was surrounded with such a believing family of children and grand-children as would have been sufficient to convert even Jupiter himself; an extraordinary proselyte! (tom. i. ad Lætam, p. 54 [ iuvenem is the reading of the MSS.; and the correction Iovem is unwarranted. Ep. 107, Migne, Hieron. i. p. 868]).

Exsultare Patres videas, pulcherrima mundi Lumina; conciliumque senum gestire Catonum Candidiore togâ niveum pietatis amictum Sumere, et exuvias deponere pontificales.

The fancy of Prudentius is warmed and elevated by victory.

Prudentius, after he has described the conversion of the senate and people, asks, with some truth and confidence,

Et dubitamus adhuc Romam, tibi, Christe, dicatam In leges transisse tuas?

Jerom exults in the desolation of the capitol, and the other temples of Rome (tom. i. p. 54 [ep. 107], tom. ii. p. 95).

Libanius (Orat. pro Templis, p. 10, Genev. 1634, published by James Godefroy, and now extremely scarce) accuses Valentinian and Valens of prohibiting sacrifices. Some partial order may have been issued by the Eastern emperor; but the idea of any general law is contradicted by the silence of the Code and the evidence of ecclesiastical history.

See his laws in the Theodosian Code, l. xvi. tit. x. leg. 7-11.

Homer’s sacrifices are not accompanied with any inquisition of entrails (see Feithius, Antiquitat. Homer. l. i. c. 10, 16). The Tuscans, who produced the first Haruspices, subdued both the Greeks and the Romans (Cicero de Divinatione, ii. 23).

Zosimus, l. iv. p. 245, 249 [c. 37]. Theodoret, l. v. c. 21. Idatius in Chron. Prosper Aquitan. [De promissionibus et prædictionibus Dei] l. iii. c. 38, apud Baronium, Annal. Eccles. AD 389, No. 52. Libanius (pro Templis, p. 10) labours to prove that the commands of Theodosius were not direct and positive.

Cod. Theodos. l. xvi. tit. x. leg. 8, 18. There is room to believe that this temple of Edessa, which Theodosius wished to save for civil uses, was soon afterwards a heap of ruins (Libanius pro Templis, p. 26, 27, and Godefroy’s notes, p. 59).

See this curious oration of Libanius pro Templis, pronounced, or rather composed, about the year 390. I have consulted, with advantage, Dr. Lardner’s version and remarks (Heathen Testimonies, vol. iv. p. 135-163). [περὶ τω̂ν ἱερω̂ν, or. xxviii., Reiske, ii. 155 sqq., composed between 385 (Cod. Th. xvi. 10, 9, cp. Lib. 163, c.) and 391 (Cod. Th. xvi. 10, 10, cp. Lib. 180, 182). But 388 may be the prior limit, cp. Sievers, Das Leben des Libanius, p. 192.]

See the life of Martin, by Sulpicius Severus, c. 9-14. The saint once mistook (as Don Quixote might have done) an harmless funeral for an idolatrous procession, and imprudently committed a miracle.

Compare Sozomen (l. vii. c. 15) with Theodoret (l. v. c. 21). Between them, they relate the crusade and death of Marcellus.

Libanius pro Templis, p. 10-13. He rails at these black-garbed men, the Christian monks, who eat more than elephants. Poor elephants! they are temperate animals.

Prosper Aquitan. l. iii. c. 38, apud Baronium; Annal. Eccles. AD 389, No. 58, c. The temple had been shut some time, and the access to it was overgrown with brambles.

Donatus, Roma Antiqua et Nova, l. iv. c. 4, p. 468. This consecration was performed by Pope Boniface IV. I am ignorant of the favourable circumstances which had preserved the Pantheon above two hundred years after the reign of Theodosius.

Sophronius composed a recent and separate history (Jerom, in Script. Eccles. tom. i. p. 303), which had furnished materials to Socrates (l. v. c. 16), Theodoret (l. v. c. 22), and Rufinus (l. ii. c. 22). Yet the last, who had been at Alexandria before and after the event, may deserve the credit of an original witness.

Gerard Vossius (Opera, tom. v. p. 80, and de Idololatriâ, l. i. c. 29) strives to support the strange notion of the Fathers; that the patriarch Joseph was adored in Egypt as the bull Apis and the god Serapis.

Origo dei nondum nostris celebrata. Ægyptiorum antistites sic memorant, c. Tacit. Hist. iv. 83. The Greeks, who had travelled into Egypt, were alike ignorant of this new deity. [Cp. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 72-74.]

Macrobius, Saturnal. l. i. c. 7. Such a living fact decisively proves his foreign extraction.

At Rome Isis and Serapis were united in the same temple. The precedency which the queen assumed may seem to betray her unequal alliance with the stranger of Pontus. But the superiority of the female sex was established in Egypt as a civil and religious institution (Diodor. Sicul. tom. i. l. 1, p. 31, edit. Wesseling), and the same order is observed in Plutarch’s Treatise of Isis and Osiris; whom he identifies with Serapis.

Ammianus (xxii. 16). The Expositio totius Mundi (p. 8, in Hudson’s Geograph. Minor. tom. iii.) and Rufinus (l. ii. c. 22) celebrate the Serapeum, as one of the wonders of the world.

See Mémoires de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, tom. ix. p. 397-416. The old library of the Ptolemies was totally consumed in Cæsar’s Alexandrian war. Marc Antony gave the whole collection of Pergamus (200,000 volumes) to Cleopatra, as the foundation of the new library of Alexandria. [See Appendix 3.]

Libanius (pro Templis, p. 21) indiscreetly provokes his Christian masters by this insulting remark.

We may choose between the date of Marcellinus ( AD 389) or that of Prosper ( AD 391). Tillemont (Hist. des Emp. tom. v. p. 310, 756) prefers the former, and Pagi the latter [which is probably right; so Gothofredus, ad Cod. Th. xvi. 10, 11; Güldenpenning, p. 189. Clinton decides for end of 390 AD ].

Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xi. p. 441-500. The ambiguous situation of Theophilus, — a saint, as the friend of Jerom; a devil, as the enemy of Chrysostom — produces a sort of impartiality; yet, upon the whole, the balance is justly inclined against him.

[A Mithreum: cp. Socrates, l. c.]

Lardner (Heathen Testimonies, vol. iv. p. 411) has alleged a beautiful passage from Suidas, or rather from Damascius, which shews the devout and virtuous Olympius, not in the light of a warrior, but of a prophet.

[Unde quamlibet hodieque in templis extent, quae et] nos vidimus, armaria librorum, quibus direptis exinanita ea a nostris hominibus nostris temporibus memorant [memorent]. Orosius, l. vi. c. 15, p. 421, edit. Havercamp [p. 216, ed. Zangemeister]. Though a bigot, and a controversial writer, Orosius seems to blush. [See Appendix 3.]

Eunapius, in the lives of Antonius [ leg. Antoninus] and Ædesius, execrates the sacrilegious rapine of Theophilus. Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiii. p. 453) quotes an epistle of Isidore of Pelusium, which reproaches the primate with the idolatrous worship of gold, the auri sacra fames.

Rufinus names the priest of Saturn, who, in the character of the god, familiarly conversed with many pious ladies of quality; till he betrayed himself, in a moment of transport, when he could not disguise the tone of his voice. The authentic and impartial narrative of Æschines (see Bayle, Dictionnaire Critique, SCAMANDRE ) and the adventure of Mundus (Joseph. Antiquitat. Judaic. l. xviii. c. 3, p. 877, edit. Havercamp) may prove that such amorous frauds have been practised with success.

See the images of Serapis, in Montfaucon (tom. ii. p. 297), but the description of Macrobius (Saturnal. l. i. c. 20) is much more picturesque and satisfactory.

Sed fortes tremuere manus, motique verendâ Majestate loci, si robora sacra ferirent In sua credebant redituras membra secures.

(Lucan. iii. 429.) “Is it true (said Augustus to a veteran of Italy, at whose house he supped) that the man who gave the first blow to the golden statue of Anaitis was instantly deprived of his eyes, and of his life?” “ I was that man (replied the clear-sighted veteran), and you now sup on one of the legs of the goddess.” (Plin. Hist. Natur. xxxiii. 24.)

The history of the Reformation affords frequent examples of the sudden change from superstition to contempt.

Sozomen, l. vii. c. 20. I have supplied the measure. The same standard of the inundation, and consequently of the cubit, has uniformly subsisted since the time of Herodotus. See Fréret, in the Mém. de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xvi. p. 344-353. Greaves’s Miscellaneous Works, vol. i. p. 233. The Egyptian cubit is about twenty-two inches of the English measure.

Libanius (pro Templis, p. 15, 16, 17) pleads their cause with gentle and insinuating rhetoric. From the earliest age, such feasts had enlivened the country; and those of Bacchus (Georgic ii. 380) had produced the theatre of Athens. See Godefroy, ad loc. Liban. and Codex Theodos. tom. vi. p. 284.

Honorius tolerated these rustic festivals ( AD 399). “Absque ullo sacrificio, atque ullâ superstitione damnabili.” But nine years afterwards he found it necessary to reiterate and enforce the same proviso (Codex Theodos. l. xvi. tit. x. leg. 17, 19). [The ordinance of certain heathen feasts in Campania, published by Imperial sanction in 387 AD , is very instructive, proving that Paganism of a kind was tolerated by Theodosius. See Schiller, ii. p. 435.]

Cod. Theodos. l. xvi. tit. x. leg. 12. Jortin (Remarks on Eccles. History, vol. iv. p. 134) censures, with becoming asperity, the style and sentiments of this intolerant law.

Such a charge should not be lightly made; but it may surely be justified by the authority of St. Augustin, who thus addresses the Donatists: “Quis nostrûm, quis vestrûm non laudat leges ab Imperatoribus datas adversus sacrificia Paganorum? Et certe longe ibi pœna severior constituta est; illius quippe impietatis capitale supplicium est.” Epist. xciii. No. 10, quoted by Le Clerc (Bibliothèque Choisie, tom. viii. p. 277), who adds some judicious reflections on the intolerance of the victorious Christians.

Orosius, l. vii. c. 28, p. 537. Augustin (Enarrat. in Psal. cxl. apud Lardner, Heathen Testimonies, vol. iv. p. 458) insults their cowardice. “Quis eorum comprehensus est in sacrificio (cum his legibus ista prohiberentur) et non negavit?”

Libanius (pro Templis, p. 17, 18) mentions, without censure, the occasional conformity, and as it were theatrical play, of these hypocrites.

Libanius concludes his apology (p. 32) by declaring to the emperor that, unless he expressly warrants the destruction of the temples, ἴσθι τοὺς τω̂ν ἀγρω̂ν δεσπότας, καὶ αὑτοɩ̂ς, καὶ τῷ νόμῳ βοηθήσοντας, the proprietors will defend themselves and the laws.

Paulinus, in Vit. Ambros. c. 26. Augustin de Civitat. Dei, l. v. c. 26. Theodoret, l. v. c. 24.

Libanius suggests the form of a persecuting edict, which Theodosius might enact (pro Templis, p. 32): a rash joke, and a dangerous experiment. Some princes would have taken his advice.

Denique pro meritis terrestribus æqua rependens Munera, sacricolis summos impertit honores. . . . . . . . . . Ipse magistratum tibi consulis, ipse tribunal Contulit. — Prudent. in Symmach. i. 617, c.

Libanius (pro Templis, p. 32) is proud that Theodosius should thus distinguish a man, who even in his presence would swear by Jupiter. Yet this presence seems to be no more than a figure of rhetoric.

Zosimus, who styles himself Count and Ex-advocate of the Treasury, reviles, with partial and indecent bigotry, the Christian princes, and even the father of his sovereign. His work must have been privately circulated, since it escaped the invectives of the ecclesiastical historians prior to Evagrius (l. iii. c. 40-42), who lived towards the end of the sixth century. [For date of Zosimus, see above, vol. ii. Appendix 10, p. 365.]

Yet the Pagans of Africa complained that the times would not allow them to answer with freedom the City of God; nor does St. Augustin (v. 26) deny the charge.

The Moors of Spain, who secretly preserved the Mahometan religion above a century, under the tyranny of the Inquisition, possessed the Koran, with the peculiar use of the Arabic tongue. See the curious and honest story of their expulsion in Geddes (Miscellanies, vol. i. p. 1-198).

Paganos qui supersunt, quanquam jam nullos esse credamus, c. Cod. Theodos. l. xvi. tit. x. leg. 22, AD 423. The younger Theodosius was afterwards satisfied that his judgment had been somewhat premature.

See Eunapius, in the life of the sophist Ædesius [p. 65, ed. Commelin]; in that of Eustathius he foretells the ruin of Paganism, καί τι μυθω̂δες, καὶ ἀειδὲς σκότος τυραννήσει τὰ ἐπὶ γη̂ς κάλλιστα.

Caius (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. ii. c. 25), a Roman presbyter, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus ( AD 202-219), is an early witness of this superstitious practice.

Chrysostom. Quod Christus sit Deus. Tom. i. nov. edit. No. 9. I am indebted for this quotation to Benedict the XIV.th’s pastoral letter on the jubilee of the year 1750. See the curious and entertaining letters of M. Chais, tom. iii.

Male facit ergo Romanus episcopus? qui, super mortuorum hominum, Petri et Pauli, secundum nos, ossa veneranda . . . offert Domino sacrificia, et tumulos eorum Christi arbitratur altaria. Jerom. tom. ii. advers. Vigilant. p. 153 [c. 8, ed. Migne, ii. p. 346].

Jerom (tom. ii. p. 122 [c. Vigil. c. 5]) bears witness to these translations, which are neglected by the ecclesiastical historians. The passion of St. Andrew at Patræ is described in an epistle from the clergy of Achaia, which Baronius (Annal. Eccles. AD 60, No. 35) wishes to believe and Tillemont is forced to reject. St. Andrew was adopted as the spiritual founder of Constantinople (Mém. Ecclés. tom. i. p. 317-323, 588-594).

Jerom (tom. ii. p. 122) pompously describes the translation of Samuel, which is noticed in the chronicles of the times.

The presbyter Vigilantius, the protestant of his age, firmly, though ineffectually, withstood the superstition of monks, relics, saints, fasts, c., for which Jerom compares him to the Hydra, Cerberus, the Centaurs, c., and considers him only as the organ of the demon (tom. ii. p. 120-126). Whoever will peruse the controversy of St. Jerom and Vigilantius, and St. Augustin’s account of the miracles of St. Stephen, may speedily gain some idea of the spirit of the Fathers. [Cp. Appendix 4.]

M. de Beausobre (Hist. du Manichéisme, tom. ii. p. 648) has applied a worldly sense to the pious observation of the clergy of Smyrna who carefully preserved the relics of St. Polycarp the martyr.

Martin of Tours (see his Life, c. 8, by Sulpicius Severus) extorted this confession from the mouth of the dead man. The error is allowed to be natural; the discovery is supposed to be miraculous. Which of the two was likely to happen most frequently?

Lucian composed in Greek his original narrative, which has been translated by Avitus, and published by Baronius (Annal. Eccles. AD 415, No. 7-16). The Benedictine editors of St. Augustin have given (at the end of the work de Civitate Dei) two several copies, with many various readings. It is the character of falsehood to be loose and inconsistent. The most incredible parts of the legend are smoothed and softened by Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. ii. p. 9, c.).

A phial of St. Stephen’s blood was annually liquefied at Naples, till he was superseded by St. Januarius (Ruinart. Hist. Persecut. Vandal. p. 529).

Augustin composed the two and twenty books de Civitate Dei in the space of thirteen years, AD 413-426 (Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 608, c.). His learning is too often borrowed, and his arguments are too often his own; but the whole work claims the merit of a magnificent design, vigorously, and not unskilfully, executed.

See Augustin, de Civitat. Dei, l. xxii. c. 22, and the Appendix, which contains two books of St. Stephen’s miracles, by Evodius, bishop of Uzalis. Freculphus (apud Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, tom. viii. p. 249) has preserved a Gallic or Spanish proverb, “Whoever pretends to have read all the miracles of St. Stephen, he lies.”

Burnet (de Statu Mortuorum, p. 56-84) collects the opinions of the fathers, as far as they assert the sleep, or repose, of human souls till the day of judgment. He afterwards exposes (p. 91, c.) the inconveniencies which must arise, if they possessed a more active and sensible existence.

Vigilantius placed the souls of the prophets and martyrs either in the bosom of Abraham (in loco refrigerii) or else under the altar of God. Nec posse suis tumulis et ubi voluerunt adesse præsentes. But Jerom (tom. ii. p. 122) sternly refutes this blasphemy. Tu Deo leges pones? Tu apostolis vincula injicies, ut usque ad diem judicii teneantur custodiâ, nec sint cum Domino suo; de quibus scriptum est, Sequntur Agnum quocunque vadit. Si Agnus ubique, ergo, et hi, qui cum Agno sunt, ubique esse credendi sunt. Et cum diabolus et dæmones toto vagentur in orbe, c.

Fleury, Discours sur l’Hist. Ecclésiastique, iii. p. 80.

At Minorca, the relics of St. Stephen converted, in eight days, 540 Jews, with the help, indeed, of some severities, such as burning the synagogue, driving the obstinate infidels to starve among the rocks, c. See the original letter of Severus, bishop of Minorca (ad calcem St. Augustin. de Civ. Dei), and the judicious remarks of Basnage (tom. viii. p. 245-251).

Mr. Hume (Essays, vol. ii. p. 434) observes, like a philosopher, the natural flux and reflux of polytheism and theism.

D’Aubigné (see his own Mémoires, p. 156-160) frankly offered, with the consent of the Huguenot ministers, to allow the first 400 years as the rule of faith. The Cardinal du Perron haggled for forty years more, which were indiscreetly given. Yet neither party would have found their account in this foolish bargain.

The worship practised and inculcated by Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius, c., is so extremely pure and spiritual that their declamations against the Pagan, sometimes glance against the Jewish, ceremonies.

Faustus the Manichæan accuses the Catholics of idolatry. Vertitis idola in martyres . . . quos votis similibus colitis. M. de Beausobre (Hist. Critique du Manichéisme, tom. ii. p. 629-700), a protestant, but a philosopher, has represented, with candour and learning, the introduction of Christian idolatry in the fourth and fifth centuries.

The resemblance of superstition, which could not be imitated, might be traced from Japan to Mexico. Warburton had seized this idea, which he distorts, by rendering it too general and absolute (Divine Legation, vol. iv. p. 126, c.).

The imitation of Paganism is the subject of Dr. Middleton’s agreeable letter from Rome. Warburton’s animadversions obliged him to connect (vol. iii. p. 120-132) the history of the two religions, and to prove the antiquity of the Christian copy. [Compare transformation of birthday of Mithra into that of Christ: Momsen, C.I.L. i. p. 409.]

Alecto, envious of the public felicity, convenes an infernal synod. Megæra recommends her pupil Rufinus, and excites him to deeds of mischief, c. But there is as much difference between Claudian’s fury and that of Virgil, as between the characters of Turnus and Rufinus.

It is evident (Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. tom. v. p. 770), though de Marca is ashamed of his countryman, that Rufinus was born at Elusa, the metropolis of Novempopulania, now a small village of Gascony (d’Anville, Notice de l’Ancienne Gaule, p. 219).

Philostorgius, l. xi. c. 3, with Godefroy’s Dissert. p. 440.

A passage of Suidas is expressive of his profound dissimulation: βαθυγνώμων ἄνθρωπος καὶ κρυψίνους. [F.H.G. iv. p. 42.]

Zosimus, l. iv. p. 272, 273 [c. 51].

Zosimus, who describes the fall of Tatian and his son (l. iv. p. 273, 274 [c. 52]), asserts their innocence; and even his testimony may outweigh the charges of their enemies (Cod. Theodos. tom. iv. p. 489), who accuse them of oppressing the Curiæ. The connection of Tatian with the Arians, while he was prefect of Egypt ( AD 373), inclines Tillemont to believe that he was guilty of every crime (Hist. des Emp. tom. v. p. 360. Mém. Ecclés. tom. vi. p. 589). [Rufinus was probably not guilty of the death of Promotus. The silence of Claudian outweighs the charge of Zosimus.]

. . . Juvenum rorantia colla Ante patrum vultus strictâ cecidere securi; Ibat grandævus nato moriente superstes Post trabeas exul. — Claudian in Rufin. i. 248 [246-9].

The facts of Zosimus explain the allusions of Claudian; but his classic interpreters were ignorant of the fourth century. The fatal cord I found, with the help of Tillemont, in a sermon of St. Asterius of Amasea.

This odious law is recited, and repealed, by Arcadius ( AD 396), in the Theodosian Code, l. ix. tit. xxxviii. leg. 9. The sense, as it is explained by Claudian (in Rufin. i. 234 [232]) and Godefroy (tom. iii. p. 279), is perfectly clear.

. . . Exscindere cives Funditus et nomen gentis delere laborat.

The scruples of Pagi and Tillemont can arise only from their zeal for the glory of Theodosius.

Ammonius . . . Rufinum propriis manibus suscepit sacro fonte mundatum. See Rosweyde’s Vitæ Patrum, p. 947 [ed. 2, AD 1628]. Sozomen (l. viii. c. 17) mentions the church and monastery; and Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. ix. p. 593) records this synod, in which St. Gregory of Nyssa performed a conspicuous part.

Montesquieu (Esprit des Loix, l. xii. c. 12) praises one of the laws of Theodosius, addressed to the prefect Rufinus (l. ix. tit. iv. leg. unic.), to discourage the prosecution of treasonable, or sacrilegious, words. A tyrannical statute always proves the existence of tyranny; but a laudable edict may only contain the specious professions, or ineffectual wishes, of the prince, or his ministers. This, I am afraid, is a just though mortifying canon of criticism.

. . . fluctibus auri Expleri ille calor nequit . . . . . . . . . . . . . Congestæ cumulantur opes; orbisque rapinas [ruinas] Accipit una domus . . .

This character (Claudian in Rufin. i. 184 [183]-220) is confirmed by Jerom, a disinterested witness (dedecus insatiabilis avaritiæ, tom. i. ad Heliodor. p. 26 [Ep. 60]), by Zosimus (l. v. p. 286 [c. 1]), and by Suidas, who copied the history of Eunapius [fr. 63, F.H.G. iv. p. 42].

. . . Cetera segnis; Ad facinus velox; penitus regione remotas Impiger ire vias.

This allusion of Claudian (in Rufin. i. [239-]241) is again explained by the circumstantial narrative of Zosimus (l. v. p. 288, 289 [c. 2]).

Zosimus (l. iv. p. 243 [c. 33]) praises the valour, prudence and integrity of Bauto the Frank. See Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 771.

Arsenius escaped from the palace of Constantinople, and passed fifty-five years in rigid penance in the monasteries of Egypt. See Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 676-702; and Fleury, Hist. Ecclés. tom. v. p. 1, c., but the latter, for want of authentic materials, has given too much credit to the legend of Metaphrastes.

This story (Zosimus, l. v. p. 290 [c. 3]) proves that the hymeneal rites of antiquity were still practised, without idolatry, by the Christians of the East; and the bride was forcibly conducted from the house of her parents to that of her husband. Our form of marriage requires, with less delicacy, the express and public consent of a virgin.

Zosimus (l. v. p. 290 [c. 4]), Orosius (l. vii. c. 37), and the Chronicle of Marcellinus. [Marcellinus used Orosius; but adds the words in Græciam, and missis clam pecuniis, from some other source.] Claudian (in Rufin. ii. 7-100) paints, in lively colours, the distress and guilt of the prefect.

Stilicho, directly or indirectly, is the perpetual theme of Claudian. The youth and private life of the hero are vaguely expressed in the poem on his first consulship, 35-140.

Vandalorum, imbellis, avaræ, perfidæ, et dolosæ, gentis, genere editus. Orosius, l. vii. c. 38. Jerom (tom. i. ad Gerontiam, p. 93) calls him a Semi-Barbarian.

Claudian, in an imperfect poem, has drawn a fair, perhaps a flattering, portrait of Serena. That favourite niece of Theodosius was born, as well as her sister Thermantia, in Spain; from whence, in their earliest youth, they were honourably conducted to the palace of Constantinople.

Some doubt may be entertained whether this adoption was legal or only metaphorical (see Ducange, Fam. Byzant. p. 75). An old inscription gives Stilicho the singular title of Pro-gener Divi Theodosii. [See Appendix 5.]

Claudian (Laus Serenæ, 190, 193) expresses, in poetic language, the “dilectus equorum,” and the “gemino mox idem culmine [inde e germine] duxit agmina.” The inscription adds, “count of the domestics,” an important command, which Stilicho, in the height of his grandeur, might prudently retain.

The beautiful lines of Claudian (in i. Cons. Stilich. ii. 113) display his genius; but the integrity of Stilicho (in the military administration) is much more firmly established by the unwilling evidence of Zosimus (l. v. p. 345 [c. 34]).

. . . Si bellica moles [nubes] Ingrueret, quamvis annis et jure minori, Cedere grandævos equitum peditumque magistros Adspiceres. — — Claudian, Laus Seren. p. 196, c.

A modern general would deem their submission either heroic patriotism or abject servility.

Compare the poem on the first consulship (i. 95 [94]-115) with the Laus Serenæ (227-237 [236], where it unfortunately breaks off). We may perceive the deep inveterate malice of Rufinus.

. . . Quem fratribus ipse Discedens clipeumque [ leg. clipeum] defensoremque dedisti.

Yet the nomination (iv. Cons. Hon. 443) was private (iii. Cons. Hon. 142), cunctos discedere . . . jubet; and may therefore be suspected. Zosimus and Suidas apply to Stilicho and Rufinus the same equal title of Ἐπίτροποι, guardians, or procurators.

The Roman law distinguishes two sorts of minority, which expired at the age of fourteen and of twenty-five. The one was subject to the tutor, or guardian, of the person; the other to the curator, or trustee, of the estate (Heineccius, Antiquitat. Rom. ad Jurisprudent. pertinent. l. i. tit. xxii. xxiii. p. 218-232). But these legal ideas were never accurately transferred into the constitution of an elective monarchy.

See Claudian (i. Cons. Stilich. i. 188-242), but he must allow more than fifteen days for the journey and return between Milan and Leyden.

I. Cons. Stilich. ii. 88-94. Not only the robes and diadems of the deceased emperor, but even the helmets, sword-hilts, belts, cuirasses, c., were enriched with pearls, emeralds, and diamonds.

. . . Tantoque remoto Principe, mutatas orbis non sensit habenas.

This high commendation (i. Cons. Stilich. i. 149) may be justified by the fears of the dying emperor (de Bell. Gildon. 292-301), and the peace and good order which were enjoyed after his death (i. Cons. Stilich. i. 150-168).

Stilicho’s march, and the death of Rufinus, are described by Claudian (in Rufin. l. ii. 101-453), Zosimus (l. v. p. 296, 297 [c. 7]), Sozomen (l. viii. c. 1), Socrates (l. vi. c. 1), Philostorgius (l. xi. c. 3, with Godefroy, p. 441), and the Chronicle of Marcellinus. [See Appendix 6.]

[See above, vol. iv. p. 184, n. 28, and vol. iii. Appendix 4.]

The dissection of Rufinus, which Claudian performs with the savage coolness of an anatomist (in Rufin. ii. 405-415), is likewise specified by Zosimus [ ib. ] and Jerom (tom. i. p. 26).

The Pagan Zosimus mentions their sanctuary and pilgrimage. The sister of Rufinus, Sylvania, who passed her life at Jerusalem, is famous in monastic history. 1. The studious virgin had diligently, and even repeatedly, perused the commentators on the Bible, Origen, Gregory, Basil, c., to the amount of five millions of lines. 2. At the age of threescore, she could boast that she had never washed her hands, face, or any part of her whole body, except the tips of her fingers to receive communion. See the Vitæ Patrum, p. 779, 977. [For the confiscation of the property of Rufinus, cp. Symmachus, ep. vi. 14.]

See the beautiful exordium of his invective against Rufinus, which is curiously discussed by the sceptic Bayle, Dictionnaire Critique, RUFIN. Not. E.

See the Theodosian Code, l. ix. tit. xlii. leg. 14, 15. The new ministers attempted, with inconsistent avarice, to seize the spoils of their predecessor and to provide for their own future security.

See Claudian (i. Cons. Stilich. l. i. 275, 292, 296, l. ii. 83) and Zosimus (l. v. p. 302 [c. 11]).

Claudian turns the consulship of the eunuch Eutropius into a national reflection (l. ii. 134 [135]):—

. . . Plaudentem cerne senatum Et Byzantinos proceres Graiosque Quirites: O patribus plebes, O digni consule patres.

It is curious to observe the first symptoms of jealousy and schism between old and new Rome, between the Greeks and Latins.

Claudian may have exaggerated the vices of Gildo; but his Moorish extraction, his notorious actions, and the complaints of St. Augustin may justify the poet’s invectives. Baronius (Annal. Eccles. AD 398, No. 35-56) has treated the African rebellion with skill and learning.

Instat terribilis vivis, morientibus hæres, Virginibus raptor, thalamis obscænus adulter. Nulla quies: oritur prædâ cessante libido, Divitibusque dies et nox metuenda maritis. . . . Mauris clarissima quæque Fastidita datur. . . . [De B. G. 165 sqq. and 189

Baronius condemns, still more severely, the licentiousness of Gildo; as his wife, his daughter, and his sister were examples of perfect chastity. The adulteries of the African soldiers are checked by one of the Imperial laws.

Inque tuam sortem numerosas transtulit urbes. Claudian (de Bell. Gildonico, 220-324) has touched, with political delicacy, the intrigues of the Byzantine court which are likewise mentioned by Zosimus (l. v. p. 302 [c. 11]).

Symmachus (l. iv. epist. 4 [5, Seeck]) expresses the judicial forms of the senate; and Claudian (i. Cons. Stilich. l. i. 325, c.) seems to feel the spirit of a Roman. [Cp. Seeck, in his ed. of Symmachus, p. lxvii. sqq. ]

Claudian finely displays these complaints of Symmachus in a speech of the goddess of Rome before the throne of Jupiter (de Bell. Gildon. 28-128).

See Claudian (in Eutrop. l. i. 401, c. i. Cons. Stilich. l. i. 306, c. ii. Cons. Stilich. 91, c.).

He was of a mature age; since he had formerly ( AD 373) served against his brother Firmus (Ammian. xxix. 5). Claudian, who understood the court of Milan, dwells on the injuries, rather than the merits, of Mascezel (de Bell. Gild. 389-414). The Moorish war was not worthy of Honorius or Stilicho, c.

Claudian, Bell. Gild. 415-423. The change of discipline allowed him to use indifferently the names of Legio, Cohors, Manipulus. See the Notitia Imperii, S. 38, 40.

Orosius (l. vii. c. 36, p. 565) qualifies this account with an expression of doubt (ut aiunt), and it scarcely coincides with the δυνάμεις ἁδράς of Zosimus (l. v. p. 303 [c. 11]). Yet Claudian, after some declamation about Cadmus’s soldiers, frankly owns that Stilicho sent a small army; lest the rebel should fly, ne timeare times (i. Cons. Stilich. l. i. 314, c.).

Claud. Rutil. Numatian. Itinerar. i. 439-448. He afterwards (515-526) mentions a religious madman on the Isle of Gorgona. For such profane remarks, Rutilius and his accomplices are styled by his commentator Barthius, rabiosi canes diaboli. Tillemont (mém. Ecclés. tom. xii. p. 471) more calmly observes that the unbelieving poet praises where he means to censure.

Orosius, l. vii. c. 36, p. 564. Augustin commends two of these savage saints of the Isle of Goats (epist. lxxxi. apud. Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiii. p. 317, and Baronius, Annal. Eccles. AD 398, No. 51).

Here the first book of the Gildonic war is terminated. The rest of Claudian’s poem has been lost; and we are ignorant how or where the army made good their landing in Africa.

Orosius must be responsible for the account. The presumption of Gildo and his various train of Barbarians is celebrated by Claudian (i. Cons. Stilich. i. 345-355).

St. Ambrose, who had been dead about a year, revealed, in a vision, the time and place of the victory. Mascezel afterwards related his dream to Paulinus, the original biographer of the saint, from whom it might easily pass to Orosius.

Zosimus (l. v. p. 303 [c. 11]) supposes an obstinate combat; but the narrative of Orosius appears to conceal a real fact, under the disguise of a miracle.

Tabraca lay between the two Hippos (Cellarius, tom. ii. p. ii. p. 112; d’Anville, tom. iii. p. 84). Orosius has distinctly named the field of battle, but our ignorance cannot define the precise situation.

The death of Gildo is expressed by Claudian (i. Cons. Stilich. l. 357) and his best interpreters, Zosimus and Orosius.

Claudian (ii. Cons. Stilich. 99-119) describes their trial (tremuit quos Africa nuper, cernunt rostra reos) and applauds the restoration of the ancient constitution. It is here that he introduces the famous sentence, so familiar to the friends of despotism: —

. . . Nunquam libertas gratior exstat Quam sub rege pio . . .

But the freedom which depends on royal piety scarcely deserves that appellation.

See the Theodosian Code, l. ix. tit. xxxix. leg. 3, tit. xl. leg. 19.

Stilicho, who claimed an equal share in all the victories of Theodosius and his son, particularly asserts that Africa was recovered by the wisdom of his counsels (see an inscription produced by Baronius). [Gruter, p. 412. See Appendix 5.]

I have softened the narrative of Zosimus, which, in its crude simplicity, is almost incredible (l. v. p. 303 [c. 11]). Orosius damns the victorious general (p. 538 [7, 33]) for violating the right of sanctuary.

Claudian, as the poet laureate, composed a serious and elaborate epithalamium of 340 lines: besides some gay Fescennines, which were sung in a more licentious tone on the wedding-night.

. . . Calet obvius re Jam princeps, tardumque cupit discedere solem. Nobilis haud aliter sonipes.

(de Nuptiis Honor. et Mariæ, 587) and more freely in the Fescennines (112-126 [iv. 14-29, ed. Koch]).

Dices “ O ” quotiens, “hoc mihi dulcius Quam flavos decies vincere Sarmatas.” . . . . . . . . Tum victor madido prosilias toro Nocturni referens vulnera prœlii.

See Zosimus, l. v. p. 333 [c. 28].

Procopius de Bell. Gothico, l. i. c. 2. I have borrowed the general practice of Honorius, without adopting the singular and, indeed, improbable tale which is related by the Greek historian.

The lessons of Theodosius, or rather Claudian (iv. Cons. Honor. 214-418), might compose a fine institution for the future prince of a great and free nation. It was far above Honorius and his degenerate subjects.

The revolt of the Goths and the blockade of Constantinople are distinctly mentioned by Claudian (in Rufin. l. ii. 7-100), Zosimus (l. v. p. 292 [c. 5]), and Jornandes (de Rebus Geticis, c. 29). [Alaric approached Constantinople, but did not blockade it. Cp. Keller, Stilicho, p. 31.]

— Alii per terga ferocis Danubii solidata ruunt expertaque remis Frangunt stagna rotis [ ib. 26].

Claudian and Ovid often amuse their fancy by interchanging the metaphors and properties of liquid water and solid ice. Much false wit has been expended in this easy exercise.

Jerom, tom. i. p. 26 [ep. 60]. He endeavours to comfort his friend Heliodorus, bishop of Altinum, for the loss of his nephew Nepotian, by a curious recapitulation of all the public and private misfortunes of the times. See Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xii. p. 200, c.

Baltha or bold: origo mirifica, says Jornandes (c. 29). [The meaning of the passage of Jordanes may be, as Köpke thinks, that owing to his bravery Alaric was described inter suos as a true Baltha (ὀρθώνυμος).] This illustrious race long continued to flourish in France, in the Gothic province of Septimania or Languedoc; under the corrupted appellation of Baux: and a branch of that family afterwards settled in the kingdom of Naples (Grotius in Prolegom. ad Hist. Gothic. p. 53). The lords of Baux, near Arles, and of seventy-nine subordinate places, were independent of the counts of Provence (Longuerue, Description de la France, tom. i. p. 357).

Zosimus (l. v. p. 293-295 [c. 5]) is our best guide for the conquest of Greece; but the hints and allusion of Claudian are so many rays of historic light.

Compare Herodotus (l. vii. c. 176) and Livy (xxxvi. 15). The narrow entrance of Greece was probably enlarged by each successive ravisher. [The sea has retreated far from the pass.]

He passed, says Eunapius (in Vit. Philosoph. p. 93, edit. Commelin, 1596), through the straits, διὰ τω̂ν πυλω̂ν (of Thermopylæ) παρη̂λθεν, ὥσπερ διὰ σταδίου καὶ ὶπποκρότου πεδίου τρέχων. [On Alaric in Greece, cp. App. 7.]

In obedience to Jerom and Claudian (in Rufin. l. ii. 191), I have mixed some darker colours in the mild representation of Zosimus, who wished to soften the calamities of Athens.

Nec fera Ceropias traxissent vincula matres.

Synesius (Epist. clvi. [ leg. 135], p. 272, edit. Petav.) observes that Athens, whose sufferings he imputes to the proconsul’s avarice, was at that time less famous for her schools of philosophy than for her trade of honey.

— Vallata mari Scironia rupes Et duo continuo connectens æquora muro Isthmos — — Claudian de Bell. Getico, 188.

The Scironian rocks are described by Pausanias (l. i. c. 44, p. 107, edit. Kuhn [§10]), and our modern travellers, Wheeler (p. 436), and Chandler (p. 298). Hadrian made the road passable for two carriages.

Claudian (in Rufin. l. ii. 186, and de Bello Getico, 611, c.) vaguely, though forcibly, delineates the scene of rapine and destruction.

Τρὶς μάκαρες Δαναοὶ καὶ τετράκις, c. These generous lines of Homer (Odyss. l. v. 306) were transcribed by one of the captive youths of Corinth; and the tears of Mummius may prove that the rude conqueror, though he was ignorant of the value of an original picture, possessed the purest source of good taste, a benevolent heart (Plutarch, Symposiac. l. ix. tom. ii. p. 737, edit. Wechel).

Homer perpetually describes the exemplary patience of those female captives, who gave their charms, and even their hearts, to the murderers of their fathers, brothers, c. Such a passion (of Eriphile for Achilles) is touched with admirable delicacy by Racine.

Plutarch (in Pyrrho, tom. ii. p. 471, edit. Brian [c. 26, ad fin. ]) gives the genuine answer in the Laconic dialect. Pyrrhus attacked Sparta, with 25,000 foot, 2000 horse, and 24 elephants: and the defence of that open town is a fine comment on the laws of Lycurgus, even in the last stage of decay.

Such, perhaps, as Homer (Iliad, xx. 164) has so nobly painted him.

Eunapius (in Vit. Philosoph. p. 90-93) intimates that a troop of Monks betrayed Greece and followed the Gothic camp. [Cp. Appendix 7.]

For Stilicho’s Greek war, compare the honest narrative of Zosimus (l. v. p. 295, 296 [c. 7]) with the curious circumstantial flattery of Claudian (i. Cons. Stilich. l. 172-186; iv. Cons. Hon. 459-487). As the event was not glorious, it is artfully thrown into the shade. [See Appendix 6.]

The troops who marched through Elis delivered up their arms. This security enriched the Eleans, who were lovers of a rural life. Riches begat pride; they disdained their privilege, and they suffered. Polybius advises them to retire once more within their magic circle. See a learned and judicious discourse on the Olympic games, which Mr. West has prefixed to his translation of Pindar.

Claudian (in iv. Cons. Hon. 480) alludes to the fact, without naming the river: perhaps the Alpheus (i. Cons. Stilich. l. i. 185).

——— Et Alpheus Geticis angustus acervis Tardior ad Siculos etiamnum pergit amores.

Yet I should prefer the Peneus, a shallow stream in a wide and deep bed, which runs through Elis, and falls into the sea below Cyllene. It had been joined with the Alpheus, to cleanse the Augean stable (Cellarius, tom. i. p. 760; Chandler’s Travels, p. 286).

Strabo, l. viii. p. 517; Plin. Hist. Natur. iv. 3; Wheeler, p. 308; Chandler, p. 275. They measured from different points the distance between the two lands.

Synesius passed three years ( AD 397-400) at Constantinople, as deputy from Cyrene to the emperor Arcadius. He presented him with a crown of gold, and pronounced before him the instructive oration de Regno (p. 1-32, edit. Petav. Paris, 1612) [ AD 399]. The philosopher was made bishop of Ptolemais, AD 410, and died about 430. See Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xii. p. 499, 554, 683-685.

Synesius de Regno, p. 21-26.

——— qui fœdera rumpit Ditatur: qui servat, eget: vastator Achivæ Gentis, et Epirum nuper populatus inultam Præsidet Illyrico; jam, quos obsedit, amicos Ingreditur muros; illis responsa daturus Quorum conjugibus potitur natosque peremit.

Claudian in Eutrop. l. ii. 212. Alaric applauds his own policy (de Bell Getic. 533-543) in the use which he had made of this Illyrian jurisdiction. [The precise title is uncertain; but Master-General is probable. From de B. G. 534, ducem, Mr. Hodgkin suggests Dux Daciæ ripensis et Mœsiæ primæ.]

Jornandes, c. 29, p. 651. The Gothic historian adds, with unusual spirit, Cum suis deliberans suasit suo labore quærere regna, quam alienis per otium subjacere. [It is much more probable that he was proclaimed king ( thiudans ) in 395 AD , after the death of Theodosius; see Hodgkin, i. 653. Isidore gives the date 382, which Clinton accepts.]

——— Discors odiisque anceps civibus orbis Non sua vis tutata diu, dum fœdera fallax Ludit, et alternæ perjuria venditat aulæ. —Claudian de Bell. Get. 565.

Alpibus Italiæ ruptis penetrabis ad Urbem. This authentic prediction was announced by Alaric, or at least by Claudian (de Bell. Getico, 547), seven years before the event. But, as it was not accomplished within the term which has been rashly fixed, the interpreters escaped through an ambiguous meaning. [For Claudian’s acrostich in this passage, see Appendix 8.]

Our best materials are 970 verses of Claudian, in the poem on the Getic war, and the beginning of that which celebrates the sixth consulship of Honorius. Zosimus is totally silent; and we are reduced to such scraps, or rather crumbs, as we can pick from Orosius and the Chronicles.

Notwithstanding the gross errors of Jornandes, who confounds the Italian wars of Alaric (c. 29), his date of the consulship of Stilicho and Aurelian ( AD 400) is firm and respectable. It is certain from Claudian (Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. tom. v. p. 804) that the battle of Pollentia was fought AD 403; but we cannot easily fill the interval. [The right date is 402; see Appendix 9.]

Tantum Romanæ urbis judicium fugis, ut magis obsidionem barbaricam, quam pacatæ urbis judicium velis sustinere. Jerom, tom. ii. p. 239. Rufinus understood his danger: the peaceful city was inflamed by the beldam Marcella and the rest of Jerom’s faction. [Cp. vol. iv. Appendix 5.]

Jovinian, the enemy of fasts and celibacy, who was persecuted and insulted by the furious Jerom (Jortin’s Remarks, vol. iv. p. 104, c.). See the original edict of banishment in the Theodosian Code, l. xvi. tit. v. leg. 43.

This epigram (de Sene Veronensi qui suburbium nusquam egressus est) is one of the earliest and most pleasing compositions of Claudian. Cowley’s imitation (Hurd’s edition, vol. ii. p. 241) has some natural and happy strokes: but it is much inferior to the original portrait, which is evidently drawn from the life.

Ingentem meminit parvo qui germine quercum Æquævum que videt consenuisse nemus. A neighbouring wood born with himself he sees, And loves his old contemporary trees.

In this passage, Cowley is perhaps superior to his original; and the English poet, who was a good botanist, has concealed the oaks under a more general expression.

Claudian de Bell. Get. 192-266. He may seem prolix: but fear and superstition occupied as large a space in the minds of the Italians.

From the passages of Paulinus, which Baronius has produced (Annal. Eccles. AD 403, No. 51), it is manifest that the general alarm had pervaded all Italy, as far as Nola in Campania, where that famous penitent had fixed his abode.

Solus erat Stilicho, c., is the exclusive commendation which Claudian bestows (de Bell. Get. 267) without condescending to except the emperor. How insignificant must Honorius have appeared in his own court!

The face of the country, and the hardiness of Stilicho, are finely described (de Bell. Get. 340-363). [The danger which Stilicho had to meet in Rætia and Vindelicia was an attack of the Goth Radagaisus, who was in league with Alaric; see Prosper, sub anno 400, a notice which has been improperly confounded with that under 505, and cp. Appendix 9.]

Venit et extremis legio prætenta Britannis Quæ Scoto dat frena truci. — De Bell. Get. 416.

Yet the most rapid march from Edinburgh, or Newcastle, to Milan must have required a longer space of time than Claudian seems willing to allow for the duration of the Gothic war.

Every traveller must recollect the face of Lombardy (see Fontenelle, tom. v. p. 279), which is often tormented by the capricious and irregular abundance of waters. The Austrians, before Genoa, were encamped in the dry bed of the Polcevera. “Ne sarebbe” (says Muratori) “mai passato per mente a que’ buoni Alemanni, che quel picciolo torrente potesse, per cosi dire, in un instante cangiarsi in un terribil gigante” (Annal. d’Italia, tom. xvi. p. 443. Milan, 1753, 8vo edit.).

Claudian does not clearly answer our question, Where was Honorius himself? Yet the flight is marked by the pursuit; and my idea of the Gothic war is justified by the Italian critics, Sigonius (tom. i. P. ii. p. 369, de Imp. Occident, l. x.) and Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. iv. p. 45).

One of the roads may be traced in the Itineraries (p. 98, 288, 294, with Wesseling’s notes). Asta lay some miles on the right hand.

Asta, or Asti, a Roman colony, is now the capital of a pleasant country, which, in the sixteenth century, devolved to the dukes of Savoy (Leandro Alberti, Descrizzione d’Italia, p. 382). [The town meant by Claudian is Milan; see Appendix 9.]

Nec me timor impulit ullus. He might hold this proud language the next year at Rome, five hundred miles from the scene of danger (vi. Cons. Hon. 449).

Hanc ego vel victor regno vel morte tenebo Victus humum ——

The speeches (de Bell. Get. 479-549) of the Gothic Nestor and Achilles are strong, characteristic, adapted to the circumstances, and possibly not less genuine than those of Livy.

Orosius (l. vii. c. 37) is shocked at the impiety of the Romans who attacked, on Easter Sunday, such pious Christians. Yet, at the same time, public prayers were offered at the shrine of St. Thomas of Edessa, for the destruction of the Arian robber. See Tillemont (Hist. des Emp. tom. v. p. 529), who quotes an homily, which has been erroneously ascribed to St. Chrysostom. [For date see Appendix 9.]

The vestiges of Pollentia are twenty-five miles to the south-east of Turin. Urbs [River Urbis= Borbo; see Tillemont, H. des Emp. v. 530], in the same neighbourhood, was a royal chace of the Kings of Lombardy, and a small river, which excused the prediction, “penetrabis ad urbem.” Cluver. Ital. Antiq. tom. i. p. 83-85.

Orosius wishes, in doubtful words, to insinuate the defeat of the Romans. “Pugnantes vicimus, victores victi sumus.” Prosper (in Chron.) makes it an equal and bloody battle; but the Gothic writers, Cassiodorius (in Chron.) and Jornandes (de Reb. Get. c. 29) claim a decisive victory. [The Goths may have been slightly victorious on the field of battle; but they clearly received a decisive strategic defeat.]

Demens Ausonidum gemmata monilia matrum, Romanasque alta famulas cervice petebat. — De Bell. Get. 627.

[The capture of Alaric’s wife is a totally unjustifiable inference from these lines. Cp. Von Wietersheim, Gesch. der Völkerwanderung (ed. Dahn), 2, 189.]

Claudian (de Bell. Get. 586-647) and Prudentius (in Symmach. l. ii. 694-719) celebrate, without ambiguity, the Roman victory of Pollentia. They are poetical and party writers; yet some credit is due to the most suspicious witnesses, who are checked by the recent notoriety of facts.

Claudian’s peroration is strong and elegant; but the identity of the Cimbric and Gothic fields must be understood (like Virgil’s Philippi, Georgic i. 490) according to the loose geography of a poet. Vercellæ and Pollentia are sixty miles from each other; and the latitude is still greater, if the Cimbri were defeated in the wide and barren plain of Verona (Maffei, Verona Illustrata, P. i. p. 54-62).

Claudian and Prudentius must be strictly examined, to reduce the figures, and extort the historic sense of those poets.

Et gravant en airain ses frêles avantages. De mes états conquis enchaîner les images.

The practice of exposing in triumph the images of kings and provinces was familiar to the Romans. The bust of Mithridates himself was twelve feet high, of massy gold (Freinshem. Supplement. Livian. ciii. 47).

[Alaric was retreating and had no idea of advancing on Rome. He was obliged to retreat towards the Apennines (Claud. de vi. Cons. Hon. 183). Stilicho let him go once more (as before in the Peloponnesus). Cp. von Wietersheim, op. cit. 2, 230.]

[Claudian alone mentions this battle. See for date, Appendix 9.]

The Getic war and the sixth consulship of Honorius obscurely connect the events of Alaric’s retreat and losses.

Taceo de Alarico . . . sæpe victo, sæpe concluso, semperque dimisso. Orosius, l. vii. c. 37, p. 567. Claudian (vi. Cons. Hon. 320) drops the curtain with a fine image.

The remainder of Claudian’s poem on the sixth consulship of Honorius describes the journey, the triumph, and the games (330-660).

See the inscription in Mascou’s History of the Ancient Germans, viii. 12. The words are positive and indiscreet, Getarum nationem in omne ævum domitam [ leg. docuere extingui], c. [C.I.L. 6, 1196. It probably refers to the defeat of Radagaisus, AD 405. See Appendix 5.]

On the curious, though horrid, subject of the gladiators, consult the two books of the Saturnalia of Lipsius, who, as an antiquarian, is inclined to excuse the practice of antiquity (tom. iii. p. 483-545).

Cod. Theodos. l. xv. tit. xii. leg. 1. The commentary of Godefroy affords large materials (tom. v. p. 396) for the history of gladiators.

See the peroration of Prudentius (in Symmach. l. ii. 1121-1131), who had doubtless read the eloquent invective of Lactantius (Divin. Institut. l. vi. c. 20). The Christian apologists have not spared these bloody games, which were introduced in the religious festivals of Paganism.

Theodoret, l. v. c. 26. I wish to believe the story of St. Telemachus. Yet no church has been dedicated, no altar has been erected, to the holy monk who died a martyr in the cause of humanity. [There is evidence for gladiatorial spectacles some years later.]

Crudele gladiatorum spectaculum et inhumanum nonnullis videri solet, et haud scio an ita sit, ut nunc fit. Cic. Tusculan. ii. 17. He faintly censures the abuse and warmly defends the use of these sports; oculis nulla poterat esse fortior contra dolorem et mortem disciplina. Seneca (epist. vii.) shews the feelings of a man.

This account of Ravenna is drawn from Strabo (l. v. p. 327 [c. i. § 7]), Pliny (iii. 20), Stephen of Byzantium (sub voce Ῥάβεννα, p. 651, edit. Berkel), Claudian (in vi. Cons. Honor. 494, c.), Sidonius Apollinaris (l. i. epist. v. 8), Jornandes (de Reb. Get. c. 29), Procopius (de Bell. Gothic. l. i. c. 1, p. 309, edit. Louvre), and Cluverius (Ital. Antiq. tom. i. p. 301-307). Yet I still want a local antiquarian, and a good topographical map. [C. Ricci, Ravenna e i suoi dintorni.]

Martial (epigram iii. 56, 57) plays on the trick of the knave who had sold him wine instead of water; but he seriously declares that a cistern at Ravenna is more valuable than a vineyard. Sidonius complains that the town is destitute of fountains and aqueducts, and ranks the want of fresh water among the local evils, such as the croaking of frogs, the stinging of gnats, c.

The fable of Theodore and Honoria, which Dryden has so admirably transplanted from Boccaccio (Giornata, iii. novell. viii.), was acted in the wood of Chiassi, a corrupt word from Classis, the naval station, which, with the intermediate road or suburb, the Via Caesaris, constituted the triple city of Ravenna.

From the year 404, the dates of the Theodosian Code become sedentary at Constantinople and Ravenna. See Godefroy’s Chronology of the Laws, tom. i. p. cxlviii. c.

See M. de Guignes, Hist. des Huns, tom. i. p. 179-189, tom. ii. p. 295, 334-338. [His empire “extended east and west from Corea to Harashar and south as far as the country of the Tukuhun and the modern Kan Suh province.” “Northwest of Zarun’s empire were the remains of the Hiungnu, and they were all gradually annexed by him. This modest statement, which precedes the distinct limitation of his dominions in a westerly direction to the north of Harashar — at the utmost Tarbagatai or Kuldja — is evidently the ground for Gibbon’s mistaken statement that he ‘vanquished the Huns to the north of the Caspian.’ ” Mr. E. H. Parker, A Thousand Years of the Tartars, p. 161-2.]

Procopius (de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. iii. p. 182) has observed an emigration from the Palus Mæotis to the north of Germany, which he ascribes to famine. But his views of ancient history are strangely darkened by ignorance and error.

Zosimus (l. v. p. 331 [c. 26]) uses the general description of the nations beyond the Danube and the Rhine. Their situation, and consequently their names, are manifestly shown, even in the various epithets which each ancient writer may have casually added.

The name of Rhadagast was that of a local deity of the Obotrites (in Mecklenburgh). A hero might naturally assume the appellation of his tutelar god; but it is not probable that the Barbarians should worship an unsuccessful hero. See Mascou, Hist. of the Germans, viii. 14. [His name suggested that Radagaisus was a Slav; but he is now generally supposed to be a Goth.]

Olympiodorus (apud Photium, p. 180 [F.H.G. iv. p. 59, fr. 9]) uses the Greek word Ὀπτιμάτοι; which does not convey any precise idea. I suspect that they were the princes and nobles, with their faithful companions; the knights with their squires, as they would have been styled some centuries afterwards.

Tacit. de Moribus Germanorum, c. 37.

— Cujus agendi Spectator vel causa fui, —— Claudian, vi. Cons. Hon. 439.

is the modest language of Honorius, in speaking of the Gothic war, which he had seen somewhat nearer.

Zosimus (l. v. p. 331 [c. 26]) transports the war and the victory of Stilicho beyond the Danube. A strange error, which is awkwardly and imperfectly cured by reading Ἄρνον for Ἴστρον (Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. tom. v. p. 807). In good policy, we must use the service of Zosimus, without esteeming or trusting him. [But see Appendix 10.]

Codex Theodos. l. vii. tit. xiii. leg. 16. The date of this law ( AD 406, 18th May) satisfies me, as it had done Godefroy (tom. ii. p. 387), of the true year of the invasion of Radagaisus. Tillemont, Pagi, and Muratori prefer the preceding year; but they are bound, by certain obligations of civility and respect, to St. Paulinus of Nola. [ AD 405 is the true date, given by our best authority, Prosper.]

Soon after Rome had been taken by the Gauls, the senate, on a sudden emergency, armed ten legions, 3000 horse, and 42,000 foot; a force which the city could not have sent forth under Augustus (Livy, vii. 25). This declaration may puzzle an antiquary, but it is clearly explained by Montesquieu.

Machiavel has explained, at least as a philosopher, the origin of Florence, which insensibly descended, for the benefit of trade, from the rock of Fæsulæ to the banks of the Arno (Istoria Fiorentina, tom. i. l. ii. p. 36, Londra, 1747). The Triumvirs sent a colony to Florence, which, under Tiberius (Tacit. Annal. i. 79), deserved the reputation and name of a flourishing city. See Cluver. Ital. Antiq. tom. i. p. 507, c.

Yet the Jupiter of Radagaisus who worshipped Thor and Woden was very different from the Olympic or Capitoline Jove. The accommodating temper of Polytheism might unite those various and remote deities, but the genuine Romans abhorred the human sacrifices of Gaul and Germany.

Paulinus (in Vit. Ambros. c. 50) relates this story, which he received from the mouth of Pansophia herself, a religious matron of Florence. Yet the archbishop soon ceased to take an active part in the business of the world, and never became a popular saint.

Augustin de Civitat. Dei, v. 23. Orosius, l. vii. c. 37, p. 567-571. The two friends wrote in Africa, ten or twelve years after the victory; and their authority is implicitly followed by Isidore of Seville (in Chron. p. 713, edit. Grot). How many interesting facts might Orosius have inserted in the vacant space which is devoted to pious nonsense!

Franguntur montes, planumque per ardua Cæsar Ducit opus: pandit fossas, turritaque summis Disponit castella jugis, magnoque recessu Amplexus fines; saltus nemorosaque tesqua Et silvas vastâque feras indagine claudit.

Yet the simplicity of truth (Cæsar, de Bell. Civ. iii. 44) is far greater than the amplifications of Lucan (Pharsal. l. vi. 29-63).

The rhetorical expressions of Orosius, “In arido et aspero montis jugo,” “in unum ac parvum verticem,” are not very suitable to the encampment of a great army. But Fæsulæ, only three miles from Florence, might afford space for the headquaters of Radagarisus, and would be comprehended within the circuit of the Roman lines.

See Zosimus, l. v. p. 331 [c. 26], and the Chronicles of Prosper and Marcellinus.

Olympiodorus (apud Photium, p. 180) uses an expression (προσηταιρίσατο) which would denote a strict and friendly alliance, and render Stilicho still more criminal [fr. 9, F.H.G. iv. p. 59. The expression refers to Gothic chiefs, not to Radagaisus.]. The paulisper detentus, deinde interfectus, of Orosius is sufficiently odious.

Orosius, piously inhuman, sacrifices the king and people, Agag and the Amalekites, without a symptom of compassion. The bloody actor is less detestable than the cool unfeeling historian.

And Claudian’s muse, was she asleep? had she been ill paid? Methinks the seventh consulship of Honorius ( AD 407) would have furnished the subject of a noble poem. [See below, p. 192, and cp. vol. ix. Appendix 5.] Before it was discovered that the state could no longer be saved, Stilicho (after Romulus, Camillus, and Marius) might have been worthily surnamed the fourth founder of Rome.

A luminous passage of Prosper’s Chronicle, “ In tres partes, per diversos principes, divisus exercitus, ” reduces the miracle of Florence, and connects the history of Italy, Gaul, and Germany.

Orosius and Jerom positively charge him with instigating the invasion. “Excitatæ a Stilichone gentes,” c. They must mean indirectly. He saved Italy at the expense of Gaul.

The Count de Buat is satisfied that the Germans who invaded Gaul were the two thirds that yet remained of the army of Radagaisus. See the Histoire Ancienne des Peuples de l’Europe (tom. vii. p. 87-121. Paris, 1772); an elaborate work, which I had not the advantage of perusing till the year 1777. As early as 1771, I find the same idea expressed in a rough draught of the present History. I have since observed a similar intimation in Mascou (viii. 15). Such agreement, without mutual communication, may add some weight to our common sentiment. [That the invaders of Gaul went forth from Noricum and Vindelicia seems probable.]

— Provincia missos Expellet citius fasces quam Francia reges Quos dederis.

Claudian (i. Cons. Stil. i. 235 [236], c.) is clear and satisfactory. These kings of France are unknown to Gregory of Tours; but the author of the Gesta Francorum mentions both Sunno and Marcomir, and names the latter as the father of Pharamond (in tom. ii. p. 543). He seems to write from good materials, which he did not understand. [Mr. Hodgkin places this journey of Stilicho in the first half of AD 396 (i. 660). The source for it is Claudian, de iv. Cons. Hon. 439 sqq. ]

See Zosimus (l. vi. p. 373 [c. 3]). Orosius (l. vii. c. 40, p. 576), and the Chronicles. Gregory of Tours (l. ii. c. 9, p. 165, in the second volume of the Historians of France) has preserved a valuable fragment of Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, whose three names denote a Christian, a Roman subject, and a Semi-barbarian.

Claudian (i. Cons. Stil. l. i. 221, c., l. ii. 186) describes the peace and prosperity of the Gallic frontier. The Abbé Dubos (Hist. Critique, c., tom. i. p. 174) would read Alba (a nameless rivulet of the Ardennes) instead of Albis, and expatiates on the danger of the Gallic cattle grazing beyond the Elbe. Foolish enough! In poetical geography, the Elbe, and the Hercynian, signify any river, or any wood in Germany. Claudian is not prepared for the strict examination of our antiquaries.

— Geminasque viator Cum videat ripas, quæ sit Romana requirat.

Jerom, tom. i. p. 93. See in the 1st vol. of the Historians of France, p. 777, 782, the proper extracts from the Carmen de Providentiâ Divinâ, and Salvian. The anonymous poet was himself a captive, with his bishop and fellow-citizens.

The Pelagian doctrine, which was first agitated AD 405, was condemned, in the space of ten years at Rome and Carthage. St. Augustin fought and conquered, but the Greek Church was favourable to his adversaries; and (what is singular enough) the people did not take any part in a dispute which they could not understand.

See Mémoires de Guillaume du Bellay, l. vi. In French the original reproof is less obvious and more pointed, from the double sense of the word journée, which signifies a day’s travel or a battle.

Claudian (i. Cons. Stil. l. ii. 250). It is supposed that the Scots of Ireland invaded, by sea, the whole western coast of Britain; and some slight credit may be given even to Nennius and the Irish traditions (Carte’s Hist. of England, vol. i. p. 169. Whitaker’s Genuine History of the Britons, p. 199). The sixty-six lives of St. Patrick, which were extant in the ninth century, must have contained as many thousand lies; yet we may believe that, in one of these Irish inroads, the future apostle was led away captive (Usher, Antiquit. Eccles. Britann. p. 431, and Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xvi. p. 456, 782, c.).

The British usurpers are taken from Zosimus (l. vi. p. 371-375 [c. 2]), Orosius (l. vii. c. 40, p. 576, 577), Olympiodorus (apud Photium, p. 180, 181 [fr. 12]), the ecclesiastical historians, and the Chronicles. The Latins are ignorant of Marcus. [According to Zosimus, the invasion of Gaul by the Vandals caused the revolt in Britain. For the usurpers see Appendix 11 and 12.]

Cum in Constantino inconstantiam . . . execrarentur (Sidonius Apollinaris, l. v. epist. 9, p. 139, edit. secund. Sirmond.). Yet Sidonius might be tempted, by so fair a pun, to stigmatise a prince who had disgraced his grandfather.

Bagaudæ is the name which Zosimus applies to them [Βακαύδαις. vi. 2]; perhaps they deserved a less odious character (see Dubos, Hist. Critique, tom. i. p. 203, and this History, vol. iii. p. 64). We shall hear of them again. [Here they appear as a sort of national militia. Cp. Freeman, in Eng. Hist. Review, i. 63.]

100

Verinianus, Didymus, Theodosius, and Lagodius, who, in modern courts, would be styled princes of the blood, were not distinguished by any rank or privileges above the rest of their fellow-subjects.

101

These Honoriani, or Honoriaci, consisted of two bands of Scots, or Attacotti, two of Moors, two of Marcomanni, the Victores, the Ascarii, and the Gallicani (Notitia Imperii, sect. xxxviii. edit. Lab.). They were part of the sixty-five Auxilia Palatina, and are properly styled ἐν τῃ̑ αὐλῃ̑ τάξεις by Zosimus (l. vi. p. 374 [c. 4]). [Mr. Hodgkin rightly observes that it is a mistake to suppose that the troops of Aux. Pal., called Honoriani, formed a single division, or necessarily acted together. The Honoriani in Gaul had nothing to do with the Honoriani in Illyricum; and Constantine had only to do with the Honoriani in Gaul. Moreover the phrase of Zosimus does not refer to Auxilia Palatina.]

102

—— Comitatur euntem Pallor et atra fames, et saucia lividus ora Luctus, et inferni stridentes agmine morbi. — Claudian in vi. Cons. Hon. 321, c.

103

These dark transactions are investigated by the Count de Buat (Hist. des Peuples de l’Europe, tom. vii. c. iii.-viii. p. 69-206), whose laborious accuracy may sometimes fatigue a superficial reader.

104

See Zosimus, l. v. p. 334, 335 [c. 29]. He interrupts his scanty narrative, to relate the fable of Æmona, and of the ship Argo, which was drawn over from that place to the Hadriatic. Sozomen (l. viii. c. 25, l. ix. c. 4) and Socrates (l. vii. c. 10) cast a pale and doubtful light; and Orosius (l. vii. c. 38, p. 571) is abominably partial.

105

Zosimus, l. v. p. 338, 339 [c. 29]. He repeats the words of Lampadius as they were spoke in Latin, “Non est ista pax, sed pactio servitutis,” and then translates them into Greek for the benefit of his readers.

106

He came from the coast of the Euxine, and exercised a splendid office, λαμπ ρα̂ς δὲ στρατείας ἐν τοɩ̂ς βασιλείοις ἀξιούμενος. His actions justify his character, which Zosimus (l. v. p. 340 [c. 32]) exposes with visible satisfaction. Augustin revered the piety of Olympius, whom he styles a true son of the church (Baronius, Annal. Eccles. AD 408, No. 19, c. Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiii. p. 467, 468). But these praises, which the African saint so unworthily bestows, might proceed as well from ignorance as from adulation.

107

Zosimus, l. v. p. 338, 339 [c. 31]. Sozomen, l. ix. c. 4. Stilicho offered to undertake the journey to Constantinople, that he might divert Honorius from the vain attempt. The Eastern empire would not have obeyed, and could not have been conquered.

108

Zosimus (l. v. p. 336-345 [c. 30]) has copiously, though not clearly, related the disgrace and death of Stilicho. Olympiodorus (apud Phot. p. 177 [fr. 2]), Orosius (l. vii. c. 38, p. 571, 572), Sozomen (l. ix. c. 4), and Philostorgius (l. xi. c. 3, l. xii. c. 2) afford supplemental hints.

109

Zosimus, l. v. p. 333 [c. 28]. The marriage of a Christian with two sisters scandalises Tillemont (Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 557), who expects, in vain, that Pope Innocent I. should have done something in the way either of censure or of dispensation.

110

Two of his friends are honourably mentioned (Zosimus, l. v. p. 346 [c. 35]): Peter, chief of the school of notaries, and the great chamberlain Deuterius. Stilicho had secured the bedchamber, and it is surprising that, under a feeble prince, the bedchamber was not able to secure him.

111

Orosius (l. vii. c. 38, p. 571, 572) seems to copy the false and furious manifestoes which were dispersed through the provinces by the new administration.

112

See the Theodosian Code, l. vii. tit. xvi. leg. 1., l. ix. tit. xlii. leg. 22. Stilicho is branded with the name of praedo publicus, who employed his wealth ad omnem ditandam inquietandamque Barbariem. [Especially noteworthy is the measure of Stilicho, mentioned in C. Th. vii. 16, 1, which closed the ports of Italy to all comers from the realm of Arcadius.]

113

Augustin himself is satisfied with the effectual laws which Stilicho had enacted against heretics and idolaters, and which are still extant in the Code. He only applies to Olympius for their confirmation (Baronius, Annal. Eccles. AD 408, No. 19).

114

Zosimus, l. v. p. 351 [c. 38]. We may observe the bad taste of the age in dressing their statues with such awkward finery.

115

See Rutilius Numatianus (Itinerar. l. ii. 41-60), to whom religious enthusiasm has dictated some elegant and forcible lines. Stilicho likewise stripped the gold plates from the doors of the Capitol, and read a prophetic sentence which was engraven under them (Zosimus, l. v. p. 352 [ ib. ]). These are foolish stories: yet the charge of impiety adds weight and credit to the praise, which Zosimus reluctantly bestows, of his virtues.

116

At the nuptials of Orpheus (a modest comparison!) all the parts of animated nature contributed their various gifts, and the gods themselves enriched their favourite. Claudian had neither flocks, nor herds, nor vines, nor olives. His wealthy bride was heiress to them all. But he carried to Africa a recommendatory letter from Serena, his Juno, and was made happy (Epist. ii. ad Serenam).

117

Claudian feels the honour like a man who deserved it (in præfat. Bell. Get.). The original inscription, on marble, was found at Rome, in the fifteenth century, in the house of Pomponius Lætus. [See vol. iv. App. 5, p. 348 sqq., in notices of Claudian.] . The statue of a poet, far superior to Claudian, should have been erected during his lifetime by the men of letters, his countrymen, and contemporaries. It was a noble design! [See Appendix 13.]

118

See Epigram xxx.

Mallius indulget somno noctesque diesque: Insomnis Pharius sacra, profana, rapit. Omnibus, hoc, Italæ gentes, exposcite votis Mallius ut vigilet, dormiat ut Pharius.

Hadrian was a Pharian (of Alexandria). See his public life in Godefroy, Cod. Theodos. tom. vi. p. 364. [Hadrianus was Pr. Pr. in 405 AD ] Mallius did not always sleep. He composed some elegant dialogues on the Greek systems of natural philosophy (Claud. in Mall. Theodore. Cons. 61-112). [This Hadrian episode is very doubtful; see next note.]

119

See Claudian’s first Epistle. Yet, in some places, an air of irony and indignation betrays his secret reluctance. [“(1) The MSS. greatly vary as to the heading of this epistle some even calling it Deprecatio ad Stilichonem; (2) there is nothing to connect it with the latter rather than the earlier part of Claudian’s career; and (3) the whole piece sounds more like banter than earnest,” Hodgkin, i. 731.]

120

National vanity has made him a Florentine, or a Spaniard. But the first epistle of Claudian proves him a native of Alexandria (Fabricius, Bibliot. Latin. tom. iii. p. 191-202, edit. Ernest).

121

His first Latin verses were composed during the consulship of Probinus, AD 395.

Romanos bibimus primum, te consule, fontes, Et Latiæ cessit [ leg. accessit] Graia Thalia togæ.

Besides some Greek epigrams, which are still extant, the Latin poet had composed, in Greek, the antiquities of Tarsus, Anazarbus, Berytus, Nice, c. It is more easy to supply the loss of good poetry than of authentic history.

122

Strada (Prolusion v. vi.) allows him to contend with the five heroic poets, Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, and Statius. His patron is the accomplished courtier Balthazar Castiglione. His admirers are numerous and passionate. Yet the rigid critics reproach the exotic weeds, or flowers, which spring too luxuriantly in his Latian soil.

The series of events from the death of Stilicho to the arrival of Alaric before Rome can only be found in Zosimus, l. v. p. 347-350 [c. 35-37].

The expression of Zosimus is strong and lively: καταϕρόνησιν ἐμποιη̂σαι τοɩ̂ς πολεμίοις ἀρκον̂ντας, sufficient to excite the contempt of the enemy.

Eos qui catholicæ sectæ sunt inimici intra palatium militare prohibemus. Nullus nobis sit aliquâ ratione conjunctus, qui a nobis fide et religione discordat. Cod. Theodos. l. xvi. tit. v. leg. 42, and Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. vi. p. 164. This law was applied in the utmost latitude, and rigorously executed. Zosimus, l. v. p. 364 [c. 46].

[That he took and plundered these cities is not implied by the phrase of Zosimus (κατατρέχεν). Cp. von Wietersheim, Gesch. der Völkerwanderung, 2, 146.]

Addison (see his Works, vol. ii. p. 54, edit. Baskerville) has given a very picturesque description of the road through the Apennine. The Goths were not at leisure to observe the beauties of the prospect; but they were pleased to find that the Saxa Intercisa, a narrow passage which Vespasian had cut through the rock (Cluver. Italia Antiq. tom. i. p. 618), was totally neglected.

Hinc albi, Clitumne, greges, et maxima taurus Victima, sæpe tuo perfusi flumine sacro Romanos ad templa Deum duxere triumphos.

Besides Virgil, most of the Latin poets, Propertius, Lucan, Silius, Italicus, Claudian, c., whose passages may be found in Cluverius and Addison, have celebrated the triumphal victims of the Clitumnus.

Some ideas of the march of Alaric are borrowed from the journey of Honorius over the same ground (see Claudian in vi. Cons. Hon. 494-522). The measured distance between Ravenna and Rome was 254 Roman miles. Itinerar. Wesseling, p. 126.

The march and retreat of Hannibal are described by Livy, l. xxvi. c. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; and the reader is made a spectator of the interesting scene.

These comparisons were used by Cineas, the counsellor of Pyrrhus, after his return from his embassy, in which he had diligently studied the discipline and manners of Rome. See Plutarch. in Pyrrho, tom. ii. p. 459 [c. 19].

In the three census, which were made of the Roman people, about the time of the second Punic war, the numbers stand as follows (see Livy, Epitom. l. xx. Hist. l. xxvii. 36, xxix. 37), 270, 213, 137, 108, 214,000. The fall of the second, and the rise of the third, appears so enormous that several critics, notwithstanding the unanimity of the MSS., have suspected some corruption of the text of Livy. (See Drakenborch ad xxvii. 36, and Beaufort, République Romaine, tom. i. p. 325.) They did not consider that the second census was taken only at Rome, and that the numbers were diminished, not only by the death, but likewise by the absence, of many soldiers. In the third census, Livy expressly affirms that the legions were mustered by the care of particular commissaries. From the numbers on the list we must always deduct one twelfth above three score and incapable of bearing arms. See Population de la France, p. 72.

Livy considers these two incidents as the effects only of chance and courage. I suspect that they were both managed by the admirable policy of the senate.

See Jerom, tom. i. p. 169, 170, ad Eustochium [cp. 108, ed. Migne, i. p. 878]; he bestows on Paula the splendid titles of Gracchorum stirps, soboles Scipionum, Pauli hæres, cujus vocabulum trahit, Martiæ Papyriæ Matris Africani vera et germana propago. This particular description supposes a more solid title than the surname of Julius, which Toxotius shared with a thousand families of the Western provinces. See the Index of Tacitus, of Gruter’s Inscriptions, c.

Tacitus (Annal. iii. 55) affirms that between the battle of Actium and the reign of Vespasian the senate was gradually filled with new families from the Municipia and colonies of Italy.

Nec quisquam Procerum tentet (licet ære vetusto Floreat et claro cingatur Roma senatu) Se jactare parem; sed primâ sede relictâ Aucheniis, de jure licet certare secundo. — Claud. in Prob. et Olybrii Coss. 18.

Such a compliment paid to the obscure name of the Auchenii has amazed the critics; but they all agree that, whatever may be the true reading, the sense of Claudian can be applied only to the Anician family.

The earliest date in the annals of Pighius is that of M. Anicius Gallus, Trib. Pl. A.U.C. 506. Another Tribune, Q. Anicius, A.U.C. 508, is distinguished by the epithet of Prænestinus. Livy (xlv. 43) places the Anicii below the great families of Rome. [Q. Anicius Prænestinus was curule ædile BC 304.]

Livy, xliv. 30, 31; xlv. 3, 26, 43. He fairly appreciates the merit of Anicius and justly observes that his fame was clouded by the superior lustre of the Macedonian, which preceded the Illyrian, triumph.

The dates of the three consulships are, A.U.C. 593, 818, 967; the two last under the reigns of Nero and Caracalla. The second of these consuls distinguished himself only by his infamous flattery (Tacit. Annal. xv. 74), but even the evidence of crimes, if they bear the stamp of greatness and antiquity, is admitted without reluctance to prove the genealogy of a noble house.

In the sixth century the nobility of the Anician name is mentioned (Cassiodor. Variar. l. x. Ep. 10, 12) with singular respect by the minister of a Gothic king of Italy.

— Fixus in omnes Cognatos procedit honos; quemcumque requiras Hâc de stirpe virum, certum est de Consule nasci. Per fasces numerantur Avi, semperque renata Nobilitate virent, et prolem fata sequuntur.

(Claudian in Prob. et Olyb. Consulat. 12, c.) The Annii, whose name seems to have merged in the Anician, mark the Fasti with many consulships, from the time of Vespasian to the fourth century.

The title of first Christian senator may be justified by the authority of Prudentius (in Symmach. i. 553), and the dislike of the pagans to the Anician family. See Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, tom. iv. p. 183, v. p. 44. Baron. Annal. AD 312, No. 78, AD 322, No. 2.

Probus . . . claritudine generis et potentia et opum magnitudine cognitus Orbi Romano, per quem universum pœne patrimonia sparsa possedit, juste an secus non judicioli est nostri. Ammian. Marcellin. xxvii. 11. His children and widow erected for him a magnificent tomb in the Vatican, which was demolished in the time of Pope Nicholas V. to make room for the new church of St. Peter. Baronius, who laments the ruin of this Christian monument, has diligently preserved the inscriptions and basso-relievos. See Annal. Eccles. AD 395, No. 5-17.

Two Persian Satraps travelled to Milan and Rome to hear St. Ambrose and to see Probus (Paulin. in Vit. Ambros.). Claudian (in Cons. Probin. et Olybr. 30-60) seems at a loss how to express the glory of Probus.

See the poem which Claudian addressed to the two noble youths.

Secundinus, the Manichæan, ap. Baron. Annal. Eccles. AD 390, No. 34.

See Nardini, Roma Antica, p. 89, 498, 500.

Quid loquar inclusas inter laquearia sylvas; Vernula quæ vario carmine ludit avis. — Claud. Rutil. Numatian Itinerar. ver. 111.

The poet lived at the time of the Gothic invasion, A moderate palace would have covered Cincinnatus’s farm of four acres (Val. Max. iv. 4). In laxitatem ruris excurrunt, says Seneca, Epist. 114. See a judicious note of Mr. Hume, Essays, vol. i. p. 562, last 8vo edition.

This curious account of Rome in the reign of Honorius is found in a fragment of the historian Olympiodorus, ap. Photium, p. 197 [fr. 43, 44, F.H.G. iv. p. 67].

The sons of Alypius, of Symmachus, and of Maximus spent during their respective prætorships twelve or twenty or forty centenaries (or hundred-weight of gold). See Olympiodor. ap. Phot. p. 197 [ ib. ]. This popular estimation allows some latitude; but it is difficult to explain a law in the Theodosian Code (l. vi. leg. 5) which fixes the expense of the first prætor at 25,000, of the second at 20,000, and of the third at 15,000 folles. The name of follis (see Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, tom. xxviii. p. 727) was equally applied to a purse of 125 pieces of silver, and to a small copper coin of the value of 1/2625 part of that purse. In the former sense the 25,000 folles would be equal to 150,000 l., in the latter to five or six pounds sterling. The one appears extravagant [but is the true amount], the other is ridiculous. There must have existed some third and middle value which is understood: but ambiguity is an inexcusable fault in the language of laws.

Nicopolis . . . in Actiaco littore sita possessionis vestræ nunc pars vel maxima est. Jerom in præfat. comment. ad Epistol. ad Titum, tom. ix. p. 243 [ed. Migne, vii. p. 556]. M. de Tillemont supposes, strangely enough, that it was part of Agamemnon’s inheritance. Mém. Ecclés. tom. xii. p. 85.

Seneca, Epist. lxxxix. His language is of the declamatory kind; but declamation could scarcely exaggerate the avarice and luxury of the Romans. The philosopher himself deserved some share of the reproach; if it be true that his rigorous exaction of Quadragenties, above three hundred thousand pounds, which he had lent at high interest, provoked a rebellion in Britain (Dion Cassius, l. lxii. p. 1003 [c. 2]). According to the conjecture of Gale (Antoninus’s Itinerary in Britain, p. 92) the same Faustinus possessed an estate near Bury in Suffolk, and another in the kingdom of Naples.

Volusius, a wealthy senator (Tacit. Annal. iii. 30), always preferred tenants born on the estate. Columella, who received this maxim from him, argues very judiciously on the subject. De Re Rusticâ, l. i. c. 7, p. 408, edit. Gesner, Leipzig, 1735.

Valesius (ad Ammian. xiv. 6) has proved from Chrysostom and Augustin that the senators were not allowed to lend money at usury. Yet it appears from the Theodosian Code (see Godefroy ad l. ii. tit. xxxiii. tom. i. p. 230-239) that they were permitted to take six per cent. or one half of the legal interest; and, what is more singular, this permission was granted to the young senators.

Plin. Hist. Natur. xxxiii. 50. He states the silver at only 4380 pounds, which is increased by Livy (xxx. 45) to 100,023: the former seems too little for an opulent city, the latter too much for any private sideboard.

The learned Arbuthnot (Tables of Ancient Coins, c., p. 153) has observed with humour, and I believe with truth, that Augustus had neither glass to his windows nor a shirt to his back. Under the lower empire, the use of linen and glass became somewhat more common. [Glass was used in the age of Augustus.]

It is incumbent on me to explain the liberties which I have taken with the text of Ammianus. 1. I have melted down into one piece the sixth chapter of the fourteenth, and the fourth of the twenty-eighth, book. 2. I have given order and connection to the confused mass of materials. 3. I have softened some extravagant hyperboles and pared away some superfluities of the original. 4. I have developed some observations which were insinuated rather than expressed. With these allowances, my version will be found, not literal indeed, but faithful and exact.

Claudian, who seems to have read the history of Ammianus, speaks of this great revolution in a much less courtly style: —

Postquam jura ferox in se communia Cæsar Transtulit; et lapsi mores; desuetaque priscis Artibus in gremium pacis servile recessi. — De Bell. Gildonico, v. 49.

The minute diligence of antiquarians has not been able to verify these extraordinary names. I am of opinion that they were invented by the historian himself, who was afraid of any personal satire or application. [Not so; Paconius is not uncommon, cp., for example, C.I.L. xiv. 1444, xii. 5038; for Reburrus, cp. xiv. 413; Tarasius is familiar.] It is certain, however, that the simple denominations of the Romans were gradually lengthened to the number of four, five, or even seven pompous surnames; as, for instance, Marcus Mæcius Memmius Furius Balburius Cæcilianus Placidus. See Noris, Cenotaph. Pisan. Dissert. iv. p. 438.

The carrucæ, or coaches, of the Romans were often of solid silver, curiously carved and engraved; and the trappings of the mules or horses were embossed with gold. This magnificence continued from the reign of Nero to that of Honorius; and the Appian way was covered with the splendid equipages of the nobles, who came out to meet St. Melania when she returned to Rome, six years before the Gothic siege (Seneca, epist. lxxxvii.; Plin. Hist. Natur. xxxiii. 49; Paulin. Nolan. apud Baron. Annal. Eccles. AD 397, No. 5). Yet pomp is well exchanged for convenience; and a plain modern coach that is hung upon springs is much preferable to the silver or gold carts of antiquity, which rolled on the axle-tree and were exposed, for the most part, to the inclemency of the weather.

In a homily of Asterius, bishop of Amasia, M. de Valois has discovered (ad Ammian. xiv. 6) that this was a new fashion; that bears, wolves, lions and tigers, woods, hunting-matches, c., were represented in embroidery; and that the more pious coxcombs substituted the figure or legend of some favourite saint.

See Pliny’s Epistles, i. 6. Three wild boars were allured and taken in the toils, without interrupting the studies of the philosophic sportsman.

The change from the inauspicious word Avernus, which stands in the text, is immaterial. The two lakes, Avernus and Lucrinus, communicated with each other, and were fashioned by the stupendous moles of Agrippa into the Julian port, which opened, through a narrow entrance, into the gulf of Puteoli. Virgil, who resided on the spot, has described (Georgic ii. 161) this work at the moment of its execution; and his commentators, especially Catrou, have derived much light from Strabo, Suetonius, and Dion. Earthquakes and volcanoes have changed the face of the country, and turned the Lucrine lake, since the year 1538, into the Monte Nuovo. See Camillo Pellegrino Discorsi della Campania Felice, p. 239, 244, c., Antonii Sanfelicii Campania, p. 13, 88.

The regna Cumana et Puteolana; loca cæteroqui valde expetenda, interpellantium autem multitudine pœne fugienda. Cicero ad Attic. xvi. 17.

The proverbial expression of Cimmerian darkness was originally borrowed from the description of Homer (in the eleventh book of the Odyssey), which he applies to a remote and fabulous country on the shores of the ocean. See Erasmi Adagia, in his works, tom. ii. p. 593, the Leyden edition.

We may learn from Seneca, epist. cxxiii., three curious circumstances relative to the journeys of the Romans. 1. They were preceded by a troop of Numidian light horse, who announced, by a cloud of dust, the approach of a great man. 2. Their baggage mules transported not only the precious vases, but even the fragile vessels of crystal and murra, which last is almost proved by the learned French translator of Seneca (tom. iii. p. 402-422) to mean the porcelain of China and Japan. 3. The beautiful faces of the young slaves were covered with a medicated crust or ointment, which secured them against the effects of the sun and frost.

Distributio solemnium sportularum. The sportulæ, or sportellæ, were small baskets, supposed to contain a quantity of hot provisions, of the value of 100 quadrantes, or twelvepence halfpenny, which were ranged in order in the hall, and ostentatiously distributed to the hungry or servile crowd who waited at the door. This indelicate custom is very frequently mentioned in the epigrams of Martial and the satires of Juvenal. See likewise Suetonius in Claud. c. 21, in Neron. c. 16, in Domitian. c. 4, 7. These baskets of provisions were afterwards converted into large pieces of gold and silver coin or plate, which were mutually given and accepted even by the persons of the highest rank (see Symmach. epist. iv. 55, ix. 124, and Miscell. p. 256) on solemn occasions, of consulships, marriages, c.

The want of an English name obliges me to refer to the common genus of squirrels, the Latin glis, the French loir; a little animal who inhabits the woods, and remains torpid in cold weather. (See Plin. Hist. Natur. viii. 82. Buffon, Hist. Naturelle, tom. viii. p. 158. Pennant’s Synopsis of Quadrupeds, p. 289.) The art of rearing and fattening great numbers of glires was practised in Roman villas, as a profitable article of rural economy (Varro, de Re Rusticâ, iii. 15). The excessive demand of them for luxurious tables was increased by the foolish prohibitions of the Censors; and it is reported that they are still esteemed in modern Rome, and are frequently sent as presents by the Colonna princes. (See Brotier, the last editor of Pliny, tom. ii. p. 458, apud Barbou, 1779.)

This game, which might be translated by the more familiar names of trictrac or backgammon, was a favourite amusement of the gravest Romans; and old Mucius Scævola, the lawyer, had the reputation of a very skilful player. It was called ludus duodecim scriptorum, from the twelve scripta, or lines, which equally divided the alveolus, or table. On these the two armies, the white and the black, each consisting of fifteen men, or calculi, were regularly placed, and alternately moved, according to the laws of the game, and the chances of the tesseræ, or dice. Dr. Hyde, who diligently traces the history and varieties of the nerdiludium (a name of Persic etymology) from Ireland to Japan, pours forth, on this trifling subject, a copious torrent of classic and Oriental learning. See Syntagma Dissertat. tom. ii. p. 217-405.

Marius Maximus, homo omnium verbosissimus, qui et mythistoricis se voluminibus implicavit. Vopiscus, in Hist. August. p. 242 [xxix. 1, 2]. He wrote the lives of the emperors from Trajan to Alexander Severus. See Gerard Vossius de Historicis Latin. l. ii. c. 3, in his works, vol. iv. p. 57.

This satire is probably exaggerated. The Saturnalia of Macrobius and the Epistles of Jerom afford satisfactory proofs that Christian theology and classic literature were studiously cultivated by several Romans of both sexes and of the highest rank.

Macrobius, the friend of these Roman nobles, considered the stars as the cause, or at least the signs, of future events (de Somn. Scipion. l. i. c. 19, p. 68).

The histories of Livy (see particularly vi. 36) are full of the extortions of the rich, and the sufferings of the poor debtors. The melancholy story of a brave old soldier (Dionys. Hal. l. vi. c. 26, p. 347, edit. Hudson, and Livy, ii. 23) must have been frequently repeated in those primitive times, which have been so undeservedly praised.

Non esse in civitate duo millia hominum qui rem haberent. Cicero, Offic. ii. 21, and Comment. Paul. Manut. in edit. Græv. This vague computation was made A.U.C. 649, in a speech of the tribune Philippus, and it was his object, as well as that of the Gracchi (see Plutarch), to deplore, and perhaps to exaggerate, the misery of the common people.

See the third Satire (60-125) of Juvenal, who indignantly complains —

— Quamvis quota portio fæcis Achæi! Jampridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes; Et linguam et mores, c.

Seneca, when he proposes to comfort his mother (Consolat. ad Helv. c. 6) by the reflection that a great part of mankind were in a state of exile, reminds her how few of the inhabitants of Rome were born in the city.

Almost all that is said of the bread, bacon, oil, wine, c., may be found in the fourteenth book of the Theodosian Code, which expressly treats of the police of the great cities. See particularly the titles iii. iv. xv. xvi. xvii. xxiv. The collateral testimonies are produced in Godefroy’s Commentary, and it is needless to transcribe them. According to a law of Theodosius, which appreciates in money the military allowance, a piece of gold (eleven shillings) was equivalent to eighty pounds of bacon, or to eighty pounds of oil, or to twelve modii (or pecks) of salt (Cod. Theod. l. viii. tit. iv. leg. 17). This equation, compared with another, of seventy pounds of bacon for an amphora (Cod. Theod. l. xiv. tit. iv. leg. 4), fixes the price of wine at about sixteen pence the gallon.

The anonymous author of the Description of the World (p. 14 in tom. iii. Geograph. Minor. Hudson) observes of Lucania, in his barbarous Latin, Regio obtima, et ipsa omnibus habundans, et lardum multum foras emittit. Propter quod est in montibus, cujus æscam animalium variam, c.

See Novell. ad calcem Cod. Theod. D. Valent. l. i. tit. xv. This law was published at Rome, 29th June, AD 452.

Sueton. in August. c. 42. The utmost debauch of the emperor himself, in his favourite wine of Rhætia, never exceeded a sextarius (an English pint). Id. c. 77. Torrentius ad loc. and Arbuthnot’s Tables, p. 86.

His design was to plant vineyards along the sea-coast of Etruria (Vopiscus, in Hist. August. p. 225 [xxvi. 48, 2]), the dreary, unwholesome, uncultivated Maremme of modern Tuscany.

Olympiodor. apud Phot. p. 197 [fr. 43].

Seneca (epistol. lxxxvi.) compares the baths of Scipio Africanus, at his villa of Liternum, with the magnificence (which was continually increasing) of the public baths of Rome, long before the stately Thermæ of Antoninus and Diocletian were erected. The quadrans paid for admission was the quarter of the as, about one eighth of an English penny.

Ammianus (l. xiv. c. 6, and l. xxviii. c. 4), after describing the luxury and pride of the nobles of Rome, exposes, with equal indignation, the vices and follies of the common people.

Juvenal, Satir. xi. 191, c. The expressions of the historian Ammianus are not less strong and animated than those of the satirist; and both the one and the other painted from the life. The numbers which the great Circus was capable of receiving are taken from the original Notitiæ of the city. The differences between them prove that they did not transcribe each other; but the sum may appear incredible, though the country on these occasions flocked to the city. [On this question cp. Lanciani, Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, p. 92, 381.]

Sometimes indeed they composed original pieces.

— Vestigia Græca Ausi deserere et celebrare domestica facta.

Horat. Epistol. ad Pisones, 285, and the learned, though perplexed, note of Dacier, who might have allowed the name of tragedies to the Brutus and the Decius of Pacuvius, or to the Cato of Maternus. The Octavia, ascribed to one of the Senecas, still remains a very unfavourable specimen of Roman tragedy. [This play was not the work of one of the Senecas, as it contains a reference to the death of Nero, but it was probably written soon after that event.]

In the time of Quintilian and Pliny, a tragic poet was reduced to the imperfect method of hiring a great room, and reading his play to the company whom he invited for that purpose (see Dialog. de Oratoribus, c. 9, 11, and Plin. Epistol. vii. 17).

See the Dialogue of Lucian, intitled, De Saltatione, tom. ii. p. 265-317 edit. Reitz. The pantomimes obtained the honourable name of χειρόσοϕοι; and it was required that they should be conversant with almost every art and science. Burette (in the Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscrip. tom. i. p. 127, c.) has given a short history of the art of pantomimes.

Ammianus, l. xiv. c. 6. He complains, with decent indignation, that the streets of Rome were filled with crowds of females, who might have given children to the state, but whose only occupation was to curl and dress their hair, and jactari volubilibus gyris, dum exprimunt innumera simulacra, quæ finxere fabulæ theatrales.

Lipsius (tom. iii. p. 423, de Magnitud. Romanâ, l. iii. c. 3) and Isaac Vossius (Observat. Var. p. 26-34) have indulged strange dreams of four, eight, or fourteen millions in Rome. Mr. Hume (Essays, vol. i. p. 450-457), with admirable good sense and scepticism, betrays some secret disposition to extenuate the populousness of ancient times.

Olympiodor. ap. Phot. p. 197 [fr. 43]. See Fabricius, Bibl. Græc. tom. ix. p. 400.

In eâ autem majestate urbis et civium infinitâ frequentiâ innumerabiles habitationes opus fuit explicare. Ergo, cum recipere non posset area plana tantam multitudinem [ad habitandum] in urbe, ad auxilium altitudinis ædificiorum res ipsa coegit devenire. Vitruv. ii. 8. This passage, which I owe to Vossius, is clear, strong, and comprehensive.

The successive testimonies of Pliny, Aristides, Claudian, Rutilius, c., prove the insufficiency of these restrictive edicts. See Lipsius, de Magnitud. Romanâ, l. iii. c. 4.

— Tabulata tibi jam tertia fumant; Tu nescis; nam si gradibus trepidatur ab imis, Ultimus ardebit quem tegula sola tuetur A pluviâ. — Juvenal. Satir. iii. 199.

Read the whole third satire, but particularly 166, 223, c. The description of a crowded insula or lodging-house in Petronius (c. 95, 97) perfectly tallies with the complaints of Juvenal; and we learn from legal authority that in the time of Augustus (Heineccius, Hist. Juris Roman, c. iv. p. 181) the ordinary rent of the several cenacula, or apartments of an insula, annually produced forty thousand sesterces, between three and four hundred pounds sterling (Pandect. l. xix. tit. ii. No. 30), a sum which proves at once the large extent and high value of those common buildings.

This sum total is composed of 1780 [1790] domus, or great houses, of 46,602 insulæ, or plebeian habitations (see Nardini, Roma Antica, l. iii. p. 88), and these numbers are ascertained by the agreement of the texts of the different Notitiæ. Nardini, l. viii. p. 498, 500.

See that accurate writer M. de Messance, Recherches sur la Population, p. 175-187. From probable or certain grounds, he assigns to Paris 23,565 houses, 71,114 families, and 576,630 inhabitants.

This computation is not very different from that which M. Brotier, the last editor of Tacitus (tom. ii. p. 380), has assumed from similar principles; though he seems to aim at a degree of precision which it is neither possible nor important to obtain. [This computation does not differ much from that of Bunsen, for the age of Augustus: 1,300,000, and that of von Wietersheim (1,350,000). Gregorovius puts the population of Rome at the beginning of fifth century as low as 300,000, Mr. Hodgkin at about 1,000,000, cp. Italy and her Invaders, i. p. 814.]

For the events of the first siege of Rome, which are often confounded with those of the second and third, see Zosimus, l. v. p. 350-354 [c. 38 sqq. ]; Sozomen, l. ix. c. 6; Olympiodorus, ap. Phot. p. 180 [fr. 3, F.H.G. iv.]; Philostorgius, l. xii. c. 3; and Godefroy, Dissertat. p. 467-745.

The mother of Læta was named Pissumena. Her father, family, and country are unknown. Ducange, Fam. Byzantin. p. 59.

Ad nefandos cibos erupit esurientium rabies, et sua invicem membra laniarunt, dum mater non parcit lactenti infantiæ; et recipit utero, quem paullo ante effuderat. Jerom ad Principiam, tom. i. p. 221 [ep. 127; Migne, i. p. 1094]. The same horrid circumstance is likewise told of the sieges of Jerusalem and Paris. For the latter compare the tenth book of the Henriade, and the Journal de Henri IV. tom. i. p. 47-83; and observe that a plain narrative of facts is much more pathetic than the most laboured descriptions of epic poetry.

Zosimus (l. v. p. 355, 356 [c. 41]) speaks of these ceremonies like a Greek unacquainted with the national superstition of Rome and Tuscany. I suspect that they consisted of two parts, the secret and the public; the former were probably an imitation of the arts and spells by which Numa had drawn down Jupiter and his thunder on Mount Aventine.

— Quid agant laqueis, quæ carmina dicant, Quâque trahant superis sedibus arte Jovem, Scire nefas homini.

The ancilia, or shields of Mars, the pignora Imperii, which were carried in solemn procession on the calends of March, derived their origin from this mysterious event (Ovid. Fast. iii. 259-398). It was probably designed to revive this ancient festival, which had been suppressed by Theodosius. In that case, we recover a chronological date (March the 1st, AD 409) which has not hitherto been observed. [An improbable guess. The siege of Rome was certainly raised in AD 408.]

Sozomen (l. ix. c. 6) insinuates that the experiment was actually, though unsuccessfully, made; but he does not mention the name of Innocent: and Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. x. p. 645) is determined not to believe that a pope could be guilty of such impious condescension. [The episode of Pompeianus seems to have taken place after the embassy of Basilius and John.]

[Rather, hides dyed scarlet.]

Pepper was a favourite ingredient of the most expensive Roman cookery, and the best sort commonly sold for fifteen denarii, or ten shillings, the pound. See Pliny, Hist. Natur. xii. 14. It was brought from India; and the same country, the coast of Malabar, still affords the greatest plenty: but the improvement of trade and navigation has multiplied the quantity and reduced the price. See Histoire Politique et Philosophique, c., tom. i. p. 457.

This Gothic chieftain is called, by Jornandes and Isidore, Athaulphus; by Zosimus and Orosius, Ataulphus, and by Olympiodorus, Adaulphus. I have used the celebrated name of Adolphus, which seems to be authorised by the practice of the Swedes, the sons or brothers of the ancient Goths.

The treaty between Alaric and the Romans, c., is taken from Zosimus, l. v. p. 354, 355, 358, 359, 362, 363 [41, 42]. The additional circumstances are too few and trifling to require any other quotation. [Mr. Hodgkin conjectures that Alaric’s army at this time “ranged between 50,000 and 100,000 men,” i. p. 812.]

Zosimus, l. v. p. 367, 368, 369 [c. 48. See below, note 90].

Zosimus, l. v. p. 360, 361, 392 [45]. The bishop, by remaining at Ravenna, escaped the impending calamities of the city. Orosius, l. vii. c. 39, p. 573.

For the adventures of Olympius and his successors in the ministry, see Zosimus, l. v. p. 363, 365, 366 [45 sqq. ] and Olympiodor. ap. Phot. p. 180, 181 [fr. 8, 13].

Zosimus (l. v. p. 364 [46]) relates this circumstance with visible complacency, and celebrates the character of Gennerid as the last glory of expiring paganism. Very different were the sentiments of the council of Carthage, who deputed four bishops to the court of Ravenna to complain of the law which had just been enacted that all conversions to Christianity should be free and voluntary. See Baronius, Annal. Eccles. AD 409, No. 12, AD 410, No. 47, 48.

[The opportunity may be seized to correct the text of Zosimus, v. 46, where the Vatican codex gives: ὄντα στρατηγὸν καὶ τω̂ν ἄλλων ὅσαι Παιονίας τε τὰς ἄνω καὶ Νωρικοὺς καὶ Ῥαιτοὺς ὲϕύλαττον. Mendelssohn well suggests ἰλω̂ν for ἄλλων, but we should keep ἄλλων and read: καὶ τω̂ν ἄλλων ἰλω̂ν ὅσαι Παιονάς τε τοὺς ἄνω καὶ κ.τ.λ.]

Zos. l. v. p. 367, 368, 369 [48, 49]. This custom of swearing by the head, or life, or safety, or genius of the sovereign was of the highest antiquity, both in Egypt (Genesis, xlii. 15) and Scythia. It was soon transferred by flattery to the Cæsars; and Tertullian complains that it was the only oath which the Romans of his time affected to reverence. See an elegant Dissertation of the Abbé Massieu on the Oaths of the Ancients, in the Mém. de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. i. p. 208, 209.

Zosimus, l. v. p. 368, 369 [50]. I have softened the expressions of Alaric, who expatiates in too florid a manner on the history of Rome. [It was now that Alaric offered to be content with Noricum, see above, note 84.]

See Sueton. in Claud. c. 20, Dion Cassius, l. lx. p. 949, edit. Reimar [c. 11], and the lively description of Juvenal, Satir. xii. 75, c. In the sixteenth century, when the remains of this Augustan port were still visible, the antiquarians sketched the plati (see d’Anville, Mém. de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xxx. p. 198) and declared with enthusiasm that all the monarchs of Europe would be unable to execute so great a work (Bergier, Hist. des grands Chemins des Romains, tom. ii. p. 356).

The Ostia Tiberina (see Cluver. Italia Antiq. l. iii. p. 870-879) in the plural number, the two mouths of the Tiber, were separated by the Holy Island, an equilateral triangle, whose sides were each of them computed at about two miles. The colony of Ostia was founded immediately beyond the left or southern, and the Port immediately beyond the right or northern, branch of the river; and the distance between their remains measures something more than two miles on Cingolani’s map. In the time of Strabo, the sand and mud deposited by the Tiber had choked the harbour of Ostia; the progress of the same cause has added much to the size of the Holy Island, and gradually left both Ostia and the Port at a considerable distance from the shore. The dry channels (fiumi morti) and the large estuaries (stagno di Ponente, di Levante) mark the changes of the river and the efforts of the sea. Consult, for the present state of this dreary and desolate tract, the excellent map of the ecclesiastical state by the mathematicians of Benedict XIV.; an actual survey of the Agro Romano, in six sheets, by Cingolani, which contains 113,819 rubbia (about 570,000 acres); and the large topographical map of Ameti in eight sheets. [Cp. Procopius, B.G. i. 26; Cassidorius, vii. 9; and the description of Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, Eng. tr., i. p. 400.]

As early as the third (Lardner’s Credibility of the Gospel, part ii. vol. iii. p. 89-92), or at least the fourth, century (Carol. a Sancto Paulo, Notit. Eccles. p. 47), the Port of Rome was an episcopal city, which was demolished, as it should seem, in the ninth century, by Pope Gregory IV. during the incursions of the Arabs. It is now reduced to an inn, a church, and the house or palace of the bishop, who ranks as one of six cardinal bishops of the Romish church. See Eschinard, Descrizione di Roma et dell’ Agro Romano, p. 328.

For the elevation of Attalus consult Zosimus, l. vi. p. 377-380 [7 sqq. ]; Sozomen, l. ix. c. 8, 9; Olympiodor. ap. Phot. p. 180, 181 [fr. 13]; Philostorg. l. xii. c. 3, and Godefroy, Dissertat. p. 470.

We may admit the evidence of Sozomen for the Arian baptism, and that of Philostorgius for the Pagan education, of Attalus. The visible joy of Zosimus, and the discontent which he imputes to the Anician family, are very unfavourable to the Christianity of the new emperor.

He carried his insolence so far as to declare that he should mutilate Honorius before he sent him into exile. But this assertion of Zosimus is destroyed by the more impartial testimony of Olympiodorus, who attributes the ungenerous proposal (which was absolutely rejected by Attalus) to the baseness, and perhaps the treachery, of Jovius.

Procop. de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 2.

[So Sozomen; but the text of Zosimus gives “6 divisions amounting to 40,000,” a number accepted by Mr. Hodgkin, i. 788.]

See the cause and circumstances of the fall of Attalus in Zosimus, l. vi. p. 380-383 [12]; Sozomen, l. ix. c. 8; Philostorg. l. xii. c. 3. The two acts of indemnity in the Theodosian Code, l. ix. tit. xxxviii. leg. 11, 12, which were published the 12th of February and the 8th of August, AD 410, evidently relate to this usurper.

100

In hoc, Alaricus, imperatore facto, infecto, refecto, ac defecto. . . . Mimum risit, et ludum spectavit imperii. Orosius, l. vii. c. 42, p. 582.

101

Zosimus, l. vi. p. 384 [13]; Sozomen, l. ix. c. 9; Philostorgius, l. xii. c. 3. In this place the text of Zosimus is mutilated, and we have lost the remainder of his sixth and last book, which ended with the sack of Rome. Credulous and partial as he is, we must take our leave of that historian with some regret.

102

Adest Alaricus, trepidam Romam obsidet, turbat, irrumpit. Orosius, l. vii. c. 39, p. 573. He despatches this great event in seven words; but he employs whole pages in celebrating the devotion of the Goths. I have extracted from an improbable story of Procopius the circumstances which had an air of probability. Procop. de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 2. He supposes that the city was surprised while the senators slept in the afternoon; but Jerom, with more authority and more reason, affirms that it was in the night, nocte Moab capta est; nocte cecidit murus ejus, tom. i. p. 121, ad Principiam [ep. 16]. [The date, Aug. 24, is derived from Theophanes ( A.M. 5903; Cedrenus gives Aug. 26). Mr. Hodgkin, laying stress on the word irrumpit in Orosius, rejects the suggestion of treachery, i. 794.]

103

Orosius (l. vii. c. 39, p. 573-576) applauds the piety of the Christian Goths, without seeming to perceive that the greatest part of them were Arian heretics. Jornandes (c. 30, p. 653) and Isidore of Seville (Chron. p. 714, edit. Grot.), who were both attached to the Gothic cause, have repeated and embellished these edifying tales. According to Isidore, Alaric himself was heard to say that he waged war with the Romans and not with the apostles. Such was the style of the seventh century; two hundred years before, the fame and merit had been ascribed not to the apostles, but to Christ.

104

See Augustin, de Civitat. Dei. l. i. c. 1-6. He particularly appeals to the example of Troy, Syracuse, and Tarentum.

105

Jerom (tom. i. p. 121, ad Principiam [ep. 16]) has applied to the sack of Rome all the strong expressions of Virgil:—

Quis cladem illius noctis, quis funera fando, Explicet, c.

Procopius (l. i. c. 2) positively affirms that great numbers were slain by the Goths. Augustin (de Civitat. Dei, l. i. c. 12, 13) offers Christian comfort for the death of those whose bodies ( multa corpora ) had remained ( in tantâ strage ) unburied. Baronius, from the different writings of the Fathers, has thrown some light on the sack of Rome. Annal. Eccles. AD 410, No. 16-44.

106

Sozomen, l. ix. c. 10. Augustin (de Civitat. Dei, l. i. c. 17) intimates that some virgins or matrons actually killed themselves to escape violation; and, though he admires their spirit, he is obliged by his theology to condemn their rash presumption. Perhaps the good bishop of Hippo was too easy in the belief, as well as too rigid in the censure, of this act of female heroism. The twenty maidens (if they ever existed) who threw themselves into the Elbe, when Magdeburg was taken by storm, have been multiplied to the number of twelve hundred. See Harte’s History of Gustavus Adolphus, vol. i. p. 308.

107

See Augustin, de Civitat. Dei, l. i. c. 16, 18. He treats the subject with remarkable accuracy; and, after admitting that there cannot be any crime where there is no consent, he adds, Sed quia non solum quod ad dolorem, verum etiam quod ad libidinem, pertinet in corpore alieno perpetrari potest; quicquid tale factum fuerit, etsi, retentam constantissimo animo pudicitiam non excutit, pudorem tamen incutit, ne credatur factum cum mentis etiam voluntate, quod fieri fortasse sine carnis aliquâ voluptate non potuit. In c. 18 he makes some curious distinctions between moral and physical virginity.

108

Marcella, a Roman lady, equally respectable for her rank, her age, and her piety, was thrown on the ground, and cruelly beaten and whipped, cæsam fustibus flagellisque, c. Jerom, tom. i. p. 121, ad Principiam [ep. 16]. See Augustin, de Civitat. Dei, l. i. c. 10. The modern Sacco di Roma, p. 208, gives an idea of the various methods of torturing prisoners for gold.

109

The historian Sallust, who usefully practised the vices which he has so eloquently censured, employed the plunder of Numidia to adorn his palace and gardens on the Quirinal hill. The spot where the house stood is now marked by the church of St. Susanna, separated only by a street from the baths of Diocletian, and not far distant from the Salarian gate. See Nardini, Roma Antica, p. 192, 193, and the great Plan of Modern Rome, by Nolli.

110

[The expressions of Procopius are distinct and moderate (de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 2). The Chronicle of Marcellinus speaks too strongly, partem urbis Romæ cremavit; and the words of Philostorgius (ἐν ὲρειπίοις δὲ τη̂ς πόλεως κειμένης, l. xii. c. 3) convey a false and exaggerated idea. Bargæus has composed a particular dissertation (see tom. iv. Antiquit. Rom. Græv.) to prove that the edifices of Rome were not subverted by the Goths and Vandals. [On the forbearance of the Goths to Rome, see Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, i. p. 158 sqq. (Eng. tr.).]

111

Orosius, l. ii. c. 19, p. 143. He speaks as if he disapproved all statues; vel Deum vel hominem mentiuntur. They consisted of the kings of Alba and Rome from Æneas, the Romans, illustrious either in arms or arts, and the deified Cæsars. The expression which he uses of Forum is somewhat ambiguous, since there existed five principal Fora; but, as they were all contiguous and adjacent, in the plain which is surrounded by the Capitoline, the Quirinal, the Esquiline, and the Palatine hills, they might fairly be considered as one. See the Roma Antiqua of Donatus, p. 162-201, and the Roma Antica of Nardini, p. 212-273. The former is more useful for the ancient descriptions, the latter for the actual topography.

112

Orosius (l. ii. c. 19, p. 142) compares the cruelty of the Gauls and the clemency of the Goths. Ibi vix quemquam inventum senatorem, qui vel absens evaserit; hic vix quemquam requiri, qui forte ut latens perierit. But there is an air of rhetoric, and perhaps of falsehood, in this antithesis; and Socrates (l. vii. c. 10) affirms, perhaps by an opposite exaggeration, that many senators were put to death with various and exquisite tortures.

113

Multi . . . Christiani in captivitatem ducti sunt, Augustin, de Civitat. Dei, l. i. c. 14; and the Christians experienced no peculiar hardships.

114

See Heineccius, Antiquitat. Juris Roman. tom. i. p. 96.

115

Appendix Cod. Theodos. xvi. in Sirmond. Opera, tom. i. p. 735. This edict was published the 11th December, AD 408, and is more reasonable than properly belonged to the ministers of Honorius.

116

Eminus Igilii silvosa cacumina miror; Quem fraudare nefas laudis honore suæ. Hæc proprios nuper tutata est insula saltus; Sive loci ingenio seu Domini genio. Gurgite cum modico victricibus obstitit armis Tanquam longinquo dissociata mari. Hæc multos lacerâ suscepit ab urbe fugatos, Hic fessis posito certa timore salus. Plurima terreno populaverat æquora bello, Contra naturam classe timendus eques Unum, mira fides, vario discrimine portum! Tam prope Romanis, tam procul esse Getis. — Rutilius, in Itinerar. l. i. 325.

The island is now called Giglio. See Cluver. Ital. Antiq. l. ii. p. 502.

117

As the adventures of Proba and her family are connected with the life of St. Augustin, they are diligently illustrated by Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiii. p. 620-635. Some time after their arrival in Africa, Demetrias took the veil, and made a vow of virginity; an event which was considered as of the highest importance to Rome and to the world. All the Saints wrote congratulatory letters to her; that of Jerom is still extant (tom. i. p. 62-73, ad Demetriad. de servandâ Virginitat.) and contains a mixture of absurd reasoning, spirited declamation, and curious facts, some of which relate to the siege and sack of Rome [ep. 130; Migne, i. 1107].

118

See the pathetic complaint of Jerom (tom. v. p. 400), in his preface to the second book of his Commentaries on the prophet Ezekiel.

119

Orosius, though with some theological partiality, states this comparison, l. ii. c. 19, p. 142, l. vii. c. 39, p. 575. But in the history of the taking of Rome by the Gauls everything is uncertain, and perhaps fabulous. See Beaufort sur l’Incertitude, c., de l’Histoire Romaine, p. 356; and Melot, in the Mém. de l’Académie des Inscript. tom. xv. p. 1-21.

120

The reader who wishes to inform himself of the circumstances of this famous event may peruse an admirable narrative in Dr. Robertson’s History of Charles V. vol. ii. p. 283; or consult the Annali d’Italia of the learned Muratori, tom. xiv. p. 230-244, octavo edition. If he is desirous of examining the originals, he may have recourse to the eighteenth book of the great but unfinished history of Guicciardini. But the account which most truly deserves the name of authentic and original is a little book, intitled, Il Sacco di Roma, composed, within less than a month after the assault of the city, by the brother of the historian Guicciardini, who appears to have been an able magistrate and a dispassionate writer.

121

The furious spirit of Luther, the effect of temper and enthusiasm, has been forcibly attacked (Bossuet, Hist. des Variations des Eglises Protestantes, livre i. p. 20-36), and feebly defended (Seckendorf, Comment. de Lutheranismo, especially l. i. No. 78, p. 120, and l. iii. No. 122, p. 556).

122

Marcellinus in Chron. Orosius (l. vii. c. 39, p. 575) asserts that he left Rome on the third day; but this difference is easily reconciled by the successive motions of great bodies of troops.

123

Socrates (l. vii. c. 10) pretends, without any colour of truth or reason, that Alaric fled on the report that the armies of the Eastern empire were in full march to attack him.

124

Ausonius de Claris Urbibus, p. 233, edit. Toll. The luxury of Capua had formerly surpassed that of Sybaris itself. See Athenæus, Deipnosophist l. xii. p. 528, edit. Casaubon.

125

Forty-eight years before the foundation of Rome (about 800 before the Christian era), the Tuscans built Capua and Nola, at the distance of twenty-three miles from each other; but the latter of the two cities never emerged from a state of mediocrity.

126

Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 1-146) has compiled, with his usual diligence, all that relates to the life and writings of Paulinus, whose retreat is celebrated by his own pen, and by the praises of St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, St. Augustin, Sulpicius Severus, c., his Christian friends and contemporaries.

127

See the affectionate letters of Ausonius (epist. xix.-xxv. p. 650-698, edit. Toll.) to his colleague, his friend, and his disciple Paulinus. The religion of Ausonius is still a problem (see Mém. de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xv. p. 123-138). I believe that it was such in his own time, and, consequently, that in his heart he was a Pagan. [Cp. vol. iv. App. 5, p. 347.]

128

The humble Paulinus once presumed to say that he believed St. Felix did love him; at least, as a master loves his little dog.

129

See Jornandes, de Reb. Get. c. 30, p. 653. Philostorgius, l. xii. c. 3. Augustin, de Civitat. Dei, l. i. c. 10. Baronius, Annal. Eccles. AD 410, No. 45, 46.

130

The platanus, or plane-tree, was a favourite of the ancients, by whom it was propagated, for the sake of shade, from the East to Gaul, Pliny, Hist. Natur. xiii. 3, 4, 5. He mentions several of an enormous size; one in the Imperial villa at Velitræ, which Caligula called his nest, as the branches were capable of holding a large table, the proper attendants, and the emperor himself, whom Pliny quaintly styles pars umbrae; an expression which might with equal reason be applied to Alaric.

131

The prostrate South to the destroyer yields Her boasted titles, and her golden fields: With grim delight the brood of winter view A brighter day, and skies of azure hue; Scent the new fragrance of the opening rose, And quaff the pendent vintage as it grows.

See Gray’s Poems, published by Mr. Mason, p. 197. Instead of compiling tables of chronology and natural history, why did not Mr. Gray apply the powers of his genius to finish the philosophic poem of which he has left such an exquisite specimen?

132

For the perfect description of the Straits of Messina, Scylla, Charybdis, c., see Cluverius (Ital. Antiq. l. iv. p. 1293, and Sicilia Antiq. l. i. p. 60-76), who had diligently studied the ancients and surveyed with a curious eye the actual face of the country.

133

Jornandes, de Reb. Get. c. 30, p. 654.

134

Orosius, l. vii. c. 43, p. 584, 585. He was sent by St. Augustin, in the year 415, from Africa to Palestine, to visit St. Jerom, and to consult with him on the subject of the Pelagian controversy.

135

Jornandes supposes, without much probability, that Adolphus visited and plundered Rome a second time (more locustarum erasit). Yet he agrees with Orosius in supposing that a treaty of peace was concluded between the Gothic prince and Honorius. See Oros. l. vii. c. 43, p. 584, 585. Jornandes, de Reb. Geticis, c. 31, p. 654, 655.

136

The retreat of the Goths from Italy, and their first transactions in Gaul, are dark and doubtful. I have derived much assistance from Mascou (Hist. of the ancient Germans, l. viii. c. 29, 35, 36, 37), who has illustrated and connected the broken chronicles and fragments of the times.

137

See an account of Placidia in Ducange, Fam. Byzant. p. 72; and Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, tom. i. p. 260, 386, c. tom. vi. p. 240.

138

Zosim. l. v. p. 350 [38].

139

Zosim. l. vi. p. 383 [12]. Orosius (l. vii. c. 40, p. 576) and the Chronicles of Marcellinus and Idatius seem to suppose that the Goths did not carry away Placidia until after the last siege of Rome.

140

See the pictures of Adolphus and Placidia, and the account of their marriage, in Jornandes, de Reb. Geticis, c. 31, p. 654, 655. With regard to the place where the nuptials were stipulated or consummated or celebrated, the MSS. of Jornandes vary between two neighbouring cities, Forli and Imola (Forum Livii and Forum Cornelii). It is fair and easy to reconcile the Gothic historian with Olympiodorus (see Mascou, l. viii. c. 46), but Tillemont grows peevish, and swears that it is not worth while to try to conciliate Jornandes with any good authors. [All the MSS. of Jordanes have Iuli, which the ed. Basil. corrects to Livii. Idatius and Olympiodorus place the marriage at Narbo.]

141

The Visigoths (the subjects of Adolphus) restrained by subsequent laws the prodigality of conjugal love. It was illegal for a husband to make any gift or settlement for the benefit of his wife during the first year of their marriage, and his liberality could not exceed the tenth part of his property. The Lombards were somewhat more indulgent; they allowed the morgingcap immediately after the wedding-night; and this famous gift, the reward of virginity, might equal the fourth part of the husband’s substance. Some cautious maidens, indeed, were wise enough to stipulate beforehand a present, which they were too sure of not deserving. See Montesquieu, Esprit des Loix, l. xix. c. 25. Muratori, delle Antichitá Italiane, tom. i. Dissertazione xx. p. 243.

142

We owe the curious detail of this nuptial feast to the historian Olympiodorus, ap. Photium, p. 185, 188 [fr. 24].

143

See in the great collection of the Historians of France by Dom. Bouquet, tom. ii., Greg. Turonens, l. iii. c. 10, p. 191; Gesta Regum Franc. c. 23, p. 557. The anonymous writer, with an ignorance worthy of his times, supposes that these instruments of Christian worship had belonged to the temple of Solomon. If he has any meaning, it must be that they were found in the sack of Rome. [Procopius, B.G. i. 12, states that they were taken from Jerusalem by the Romans.]

144

Consult the following original testimonies in the Historians of France, tom. ii. Fredegarii Scholastici Chron. c. 73, p. 441. Fredegar. Fragment. iii. p. 463. Gesta Regis Dagobert. c. 29, p. 587. The accession of Sisenand to the throne of Spain happened AD 631. The 200,000 pieces of gold were appropriated by Dagobert to the foundation of the church of St. Denys.

145

The president Goguet (Origine des Loix, c. tom. ii. p. 239) is of opinion that the stupendous pieces of emerald, the statues and columns which antiquity has placed in Egypt, at Gades, at Constantinople, were in reality artificial compositions of coloured glass. The famous emerald dish which is shown at Genoa is supposed to countenance the suspicion.

146

Elmacin, Hist. Saracenica, l. i. p. 85. Roderic. Tolet. Hist. Arab. c. 9. Cardonne, Hist. de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne sous les Arabes, tom. i. p. 83. It was called the Table of Solomon according to the custom of the Orientals, who ascribe to that prince every ancient work of knowledge or magnificence.

147

His three laws are inserted in the Theodosian Code, l. xi. tit. xxviii. leg. 7. L. xiii. tit. xi. leg. 12. L. xv. tit. xiv. leg. 14. The expressions of the last are very remarkable, since they contain not only a pardon but an apology.

148

Olympiodorus ap. Phot. p. 188 [fr. 25]. Philostorgius (l. xii. c. 5) observes that, when Honorius made his triumphal entry, he encouraged the Romans with his hand and voice (χειρὶ καί γλώττῃ) to rebuild their city; and the Chronicle of Prosper commends Heraclian, qui in Romanæ urbis reparationem strenuum exhibuerat ministerium.

149

The date of the voyage of Claudius Rutilius Numatianus [Namatianus] is clogged with some difficulties, but Scaliger has deduced from astronomical characters that he left Rome the 24th of September and embarked at Porto the 9th of October, AD 416. See Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 820. In this political Itinerary Rutilius (l. i. 115, c.) addresses Rome in a high strain of congratulation: —

Erige crinales lauros, seniumque sacrati Verticis in virides Roma recinge comas, c.

[Rutilius had been magister officiorum and præf. urbi of Rome.]

150

Orosius composed his history in Africa only two years after the event; yet his authority seems to be overbalanced by the improbability of the fact. The Chronicle of Marcellinus gives Heraclian 700 ships and 3000 men: the latter of these numbers is ridiculously corrupt, but the former would please me very much.

151

The Chronicle of Idatius affirms, without the least appearance of truth, that he advanced as far as Otriculum, in Umbria, where he was overthrown in a great battle, with the loss of fifty thousand men.

152

See Cod. Theod. l. xv. tit. iv. leg. 13. The legal acts performed in his name, even the manumission of slaves, were declared invalid till they had been formally repealed.

153

I have disdained to mention a very foolish, and probably a false, report (Procop. de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 2) that Honorius was alarmed by the loss of Rome, till he understood that it was not a favourite chicken of that name, but only the capital of the world, which had been lost. Yet even this story is some evidence of the public opinion.

154

The materials for the lives of all these tyrants are taken from six contemporary historians, two Latins and four Greeks: Orosius, l. vii. c. 42, p. 581, 582, 583; Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, apud Gregor. Turon. l. ii. c. 9, in the Historians of France, tom. ii. p. 165, 166; Zosimus, l. vi. p. 370, 371, [2 sqq. ]; Olympiodorus, apud Phot. p. 180, 181, 184, 185 [fr. 12-19]; Sozomen, l. ix. c. 12, 13, 14, 15; and Philostorgius, l. xii. c. 5, 6, with Godefroy’s Dissertations, p. 477-481; besides the four Chronicles of Prosper Tiro, Prosper of Aquitain, Idatius, and Marcellinus.

155

[A dependent friend. Olympiodorus, fr. 16, has τὸν ὲαυτον̂ παɩ̂δα, which doubtless means his “servant,” not his “son.”]

156

The praises which Sozomen has bestowed on this act of despair appear strange and scandalous in the mouth of an ecclesiastical historian. He observes (p. 379) that the wife of Gerontius was a Christian; and that her death was worthy of her religion and of immortal fame. [For death of Maximus, cp. Appendix 14.]

157

Εɩ̂̓δος ἄξιον τυράννιδος, is the expression of Olympiodorus, which he seems to have borrowed from Æolus, a tragedy of Euripides, of which some fragments only are now extant (Euripid. Barnes, tom. ii. p. 443, ver. 38). This allusion may prove that the ancient tragic poets were still familiar to the Greeks of the fifth century.

158

Sidonius Apollinaris (l. v. epist. 9, p. 139, and Not. Sirmond, p. 58), after stigmatising the inconstancy of Constantine, the facility of Jovinus, the perfidy of Gerontius, continues to observe that all the vices of these tyrants were united in the person of Dardanus. Yet the prefect supported a respectable character in the world, and even in the church; held a devout correspondence with St. Augustin and St. Jerom; and was complimented by the latter (tom. iii. p. 66) with the epithets of Christianorum Nobilissime and Nobilium Christianissime.

159

The expression may be understood almost literally; Olympiodorus says [fr. 17], μόλις σάκκοις ἐζώγρησαν. Σάκκος (or σάκος) may signify a sack, or a loose garment; and this method of entangling and catching an enemy, laciniis contortis, was much practised by the Huns (Ammian. xxxi. 2). Il fut pris vif avec des filets, is the translation of Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 608.

160

Without recurring to the more ancient writers, I shall quote three respectable testimonies which belong to the fourth and seventh centuries; the Expositio totius Mundi (p. 16 in the third volume of Hudson’s Minor Geographers), Ausonius (de Claris Urbibus, p. 242, edit. Toll.), and Isidore of Seville (Præfat. ad Chron. ap. Grotium, Hist. Goth. p. 707). Many particulars relative to the fertility and trade of Spain may be found in Nonnius, Hispania Illustrata, and in Huet, Hist. du Commerce des Anciens, c. 40, p. 228-234.

161

The date is accurately fixed in the Fasti and the Chronicle of Idatius. Orosius (l. vii. c. 40, p. 578) imputes the loss of Spain to the treachery of the Honorians, while Sozomen (l. ix. c. 12) accuses only their negligence.

162

Idatius wishes to apply the prophecies of Daniel to these national calamities; and is therefore obliged to accommodate the circumstances of the event to the terms of the prediction.

163

Mariana de Rebus Hispanicis, l. v. c. 1, tom. i. p. 148, Hag. Comit. 1733. He had read, in Orosius (l. vii. c. 41, p. 579), that the Barbarians had turned their swords into ploughshares; and that many of the Provincials preferred inter Barbaros pauperem libertatem quam inter Romanos tributariam solicitudinem sustinere.

164

This mixture of force and persuasion may be fairly inferred from comparing Orosius and Jornandes, the Roman and the Gothic historian. [Force: the words of Orosius ( a Narbona expulit, and coegit ) are confirmed by Idatius (Chron. ed. Momms. p. 19: pulsatus ).]

165

According to the system of Jornandes (c. 33, p. 659) the true hereditary right to the Gothic sceptre was vested in the Amali; but those princes, who were the vassals of the Huns, commanded the tribes of the Ostrogoths in some distant parts of Germany or Scythia.

166

The murder is related by Olympiodorus; but the number of children is from an epitaph of suspected authority.

167

The death of Adolphus was celebrated at Constantinople with illuminations and Circensian games. (See Chron. Alexandrin.) It may seem doubtful whether the Greeks were actuated, on this occasion, by their hatred of the Barbarians or of the Latins.

168

Quod Tartessiacis avus hujus Vallia terris Vandalicas turmas, et juncti Martis Alanos Stravit, et occiduam texere cadavera Calpen. — Sidon. Apollinar. in Panegyr. Anthem. 363. p. 300, edit. Sirmond.

169

This supply was very acceptable: the Goths were insulted by the Vandals of Spain with the epithet of Truli, because, in their extreme distress, they had given a piece of gold for a trula, or about half a pound of flour. Olympiod. apud Phot. p. 189. [A trula held somewhat less than ⅓rd of a pint.]

170

Orosius inserts a copy of these pretended letters. Tu cum omnibus pacem habe, omniumque obsides accipe; nos nobis confligimus, nobis perimus, tibi vincimus; immortalis vero quæstus erit Reipublicæ tuæ, si utrique pereamus. The idea is just; but I cannot persuade myself that it was entertained, or expressed, by the Barbarians.

171

Romam triumphans ingreditur, is the formal expression of Prosper’s Chronicle. The facts which relate to the death of Adolphus, and the exploits of Wallia, are related from Olympiodorus (apud Phot. p. 188 [26]), Orosius (l. vii. c. 43, p. 584-587), Jornandes (de Rebus Geticis, c. 31, 32), and the Chronicles of Idatius and Isidore.

172

Ausonius (de Claris Urbibus, p. 257-262) celebrates Bourdeaux with the partial affection of a native. See in Salvian (de Gubern. Dei, p. 228. Paris, 1608) a florid description of the provinces of Aquitain and Novempopulania.

173

Orosius (l. vii. c. 32, p. 550) commends the mildness and modesty of these Burgundians who treated their subjects of Gaul as their Christian brethren. Mascou has illustrated the origin of their kingdom in the four first annotations at the end of his laborious History of the ancient Germans, vol. ii. p. 555-572, of the English translation. [For the ten Burgundies see Appendix 1 of Mr. Bryce’s Holy Roman Empire.]

174

See Mascou, l. viii. c. 43, 44, 45. Except in a short and suspicious line of the Chronicle of Prosper (in tom. i. p. 638 [pseudo-Prosper; see Mommsen, Chron. Min. i. p. 656]) the name of Pharamond is never mentioned before the seventh [8th] century. The author of the Gesta Francorum (in tom. ii. p. 543) suggests probably enough, that the choice of Pharamond, or at least of a king, was recommended to the Franks by his father Marcomir, who was an exile in Tuscany.

175

O Lycida, vivi pervenimus: advena nostri (Quod nunquam veriti sumus) ut possessor agelli Diceret: Hæc mea sunt; veteres migrate coloni. Nunc victi tristes, c.

See the whole of the ninth Eclogue, with the useful Commentary of Servius. Fifteen miles of the Mantuan territory were assigned to the veterans, with a reservation, in favour of the inhabitants, of three miles round the city. Even in this favour they were cheated by Alfenus Varus, a famous lawyer, and one of the commissioners, who measured eight hundred paces of water and morass.

176

See the remarkable passage of the Eucharisticon of Paulinus, 575, apud Mascou, l. viii. c. 42. [See vol. iv. Appendix 5.]

177

This important truth is established by the accuracy of Tillemont (Hist. des Emp. tom. v. p. 641) and by the ingenuity of the Abbé Dubos (Hist. de l’Etablissement de la Monarchie Françoise dans les Gaules, tom. i. p. 259).

178

Zosimus (l. vi. p. 376, 383 [5 and 10]) relates in a few words the revolt of Britain and Armorica. Our antiquarians, even the great Cambden himself, have been betrayed into many gross errors by their imperfect knowledge of the history of the continent.

179

The limits of Armorica are defined by two national geographers, Messieurs de Valois and d’Anville, in their Notitias of Ancient Gaul. The word had been used in a more extensive, and was afterwards contracted to a much narrower, signification.

180

Gens inter geminos notissima clauditur amnes, Armoricana prius veteri cognomine dicta. Torva, ferox, ventosa, procax, incauta, rebellis Inconstans, disparque sibi novitatis amore; Prodiga verborum, sed non et prodiga facti.

Erricus Monach. in Vit. St. Germani, l. v. apud Vales. Notit. Galliarum, p. 43. Valesius alleges several testimonies to confirm this character; to which I shall add the evidence of the presbyter Constantine ( AD 488), who, in the life of St. Germain, calls the Armorican rebels mobilem et indisciplinatum populum. See the Historians of France, tom. i. p. 643.

181

I thought it necessary to enter my protest against this part of the system of the Abbé Dubos, which Montesquieu has so vigorously opposed. See Esprit des Loix, l. xxx. c. 24.

182

Βρεταννίαν μέντοι Ῥωμαɩ̂οι ἀνασώσασθαι οὔκετι ε[Editor: illegible character]χον are the words of Procopius (de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 2, p. 181, Louvre edition) in a very important passage which has been too much neglected. Even Bede (Hist. Gent. Anglican. l. i. c. 12, p. 50, edit. Smith) acknowledges that the Romans finally left Britain in the reign of Honorius. Yet our modern historians and antiquaries extend the term of their dominion; and there are some who allow only the interval of a few months between their departure and the arrival of the Saxons.

183

Bede has not forgot the occasional aid of the legions against the Scots and Picts; and more authentic proof will hereafter be produced that the independent Britons raised 12,000 men for the service of the emperor Anthemius in Gaul.

184

I owe it to myself, and to historic truth, to declare that some circumstances in the paragraph are founded only on conjecture and analogy. The stubbornness of our language has sometimes forced me to deviate from the conditional into the indicative mood.

185

Πρὸς τὰς ἐν Βρεταννίᾳ πόλεις. Zosimus, l. vi. p. 383 [10].

186

Two cities of Britain were municipia, nine colonies, ten Latii jure donatæ, twelve stipendiariæ of eminent note. This detail is taken from Richard of Cirencester, de Situ Britanniæ, p. 36; and, though it may not seem probable that he wrote from the MSS. of a Roman general, he shews a genuine knowledge of antiquity, very extraordinary for a monk of the fourteenth century. [The treatise is a forgery of the 18th century, by one Bertram; cp. vol. i. Appendix 2.]

187

See Maffei, Verona Illustrata, part i. l. v. p. 83-106.

188

Leges restituit, libertatemque reducit, Et servos famulis non sinit esse suis. — Itinerar. Rutil. l. i. 215.

189

An inscription (apud Sirmond., Not. ad Sidon. Apollinar. p. 59) describes a castle, cum muris et portis, tuitioni omnium, erected by Dardanus [Praet. Praef. of Gaul in 409 and 411-13] on his own estate near Sisteron, in the second Narbonnese, and named by him Theopolis. [See C.I.L. xii. 1524; the stone is on the road from Sisteron to St. Genies in Provence. Dardanus is not stated to have given its name to the village or castle of Theopolis (now hamlet of Théon), but to have given it walls and gates.]

190

The establishment of their power would have been easy indeed, if we could adopt the impracticable scheme of a lively and learned antiquarian; who supposes that the British monarchs of the several tribes continued to reign, though with subordinate jurisdiction, from the time of Claudius to that of Honorius. See Whitaker’s History of Manchester, vol. i. p. 247-257.

191

Ἀλλ’ ον̂̔σα ὑπὸ τυράννοις ἀπ’ αὐτον̂ ἔμενε. Procopius, de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 2, p. 181. Britannia fertilis provincia tyrannorum, was the expression of Jerom, in the year 415 (tom. ii. p. 255, ad Ctesiphont.). By the pilgrims, who resorted every year to the Holy Land, the Monk of Bethlem received the earliest and most accurate intelligence.

192

See Bingham’s Eccles. Antiquities, vol. i. l. ix. c. 6, p. 394. [A discreet and important paper on Early British Christianity by Mr. F. Haverfield appeared in Eng. Hist. Review, July, 1896. The archæological evidence is mustered.]

193

It is reported of three British bishops who assisted at the council of Rimini, AD 359, tam pauperes fuisse ut nihil [proprium] haberent. Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Sacra, l. ii. p. 420 [c. 41]. Some of their brethren, however were in better circumstances.

194

Consult Usher, de Antiq. Eccles. Britannicar. c. 8-12.

195

See the correct text of this edict, as published by Sirmond (Not. ad Sidon. Apollin. p. 147). Hincmar of Rheims, who assigns a place to the bishops, had probably seen (in the ninth century) a more perfect copy. Dubos, Hist. Critique de la Monarchie Françoise, tom. i. p. 241-255.

196

It is evident from the Notitia that the seven provinces were the Viennensis, the maritime Alps, the first and second Narbonnese, Novempopulania, and the first and second Aquitain. In the room of the first Aquitain, the Abbé Dubos, on the authority of Hincmar, desires to introduce the first Lugdunensis, or Lyonnese. [The Seven Provinces are not to be confused with Septimania; cp. Appendix 15.]

197

[Guizot, in his Histoire de la Civilisation en Europe (c. 2), translates this edict. It interests him as an unsuccessful attempt at representative government and centralisation, which were contrary to the nature of a society in which the municipal spirit was predominant. Châteaubriand had already described the institution of the assembly as ‘un très grand fait historique qui annonce le passage à une nouvelle espèce de liberté.’ These and other writers have exaggerated the importance of the edict and ascribed to Honorius and his ministers ideas which were foreign to them. There was certainly no question of anything like a national representation. For recent discussions of the document, see Guiraud, Les assemblées provinciales dans l’Empire romain, and Carette, Les assemblées provinciales de la Gaule romaine. The main objects of Honorius were probably, as M. Carette says, p. 249, to multiply the points of contact between the chief of his Gallic subjects and his governors; and to facilitate the administrative business of the provinces by centralisation. For diocesan, as distinct from provincial, concilia, see C. Th. 12, 12, 9.]

Father Montfaucon, who, by the command of his Benedictine superiors, was compelled (see Longueruana, tom. i. p. 205) to execute the laborious edition of St. Chrysostom, in thirteen volumes in folio (Paris, 1738), amused himself with extracting, from that immense collection of morals, some curious antiquities, which illustrate the manners of the Theodosian age (see Chrysostom. Opera, tom. xiii. p. 192-196, and his French Dissertation, in the Mémoires de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, tom. xiii. p. 474-490). [A. Puech has recently devoted a whole book to the same subject: St. Jean Chrysostome et les mœurs de son temps, 1891.]

According to the loose reckoning that a ship could sail, with a fair wind, 1000 stadia, or 125 miles, in the revolution of a day and night; Diodorus Siculus computes ten days from the Palus Mæotis to Rhodes, and four days from Rhodes to Alexandria. The navigation of the Nile, from Alexandria to Syene, under the tropic of Cancer, required, as it was against the stream, ten days more. Diodor. Sicul. tom. i. l. iii. p. 200, edit. Wesseling. He might, without much impropriety, measure the extreme heat from the verge of the torrid zone; but he speaks of the Mæotis in the 47th degree of northern latitude, as if it lay within the polar circle. [On rates of sea travelling see Appendix 16.]

Barthius, who adored his author with the blind superstition of a commentator, gives the preference to the two books which Claudian composed against Eutropius, above all his other productions (Baillet, Judgemens des Savans, tom. iv. p. 227). They are indeed a very elegant and spirited satire; and would be more valuable in an historical light, if the invective were less vague and more temperate.

After lamenting the progress of the eunuchs in the Roman palace and defining their proper functions, Claudian adds,

— A fronte recedant Imperii. — In Eutrop. i. 422.

Yet it does not appear that the eunuch had assumed any of the efficient offices of the empire, and he is styled only Præpositus sacri cubiculi, in the edict of his banishment. See Cod. Theod. l. ix. tit. xl. leg. 17.

Jamque oblita sui, nec sobria divitiis mens In miseras leges hominumque negotia ludit: Judicat eunuchus. . . . Arma etiam violare parat. . . .

Claudian (i. 229-270), with that mixture of indignation and humour which always pleases in a satiric poet, describes the insolent folly of the eunuch, the disgrace of the empire, and the joy of the Goths.

— Gaudet, cum viderit hostis, Et sentit jam deesse viros.

The poet’s lively description of his deformity (i. 110-125) is confirmed by the authentic testimony of Chrysostom (tom. iii. p. 384, edit. Montfaucon), who observes that, when the paint was washed away, the face of Eutropius appeared more ugly and wrinkled than that of an old woman. Claudian remarks (i. 469), and the remark must have been founded on experience, that there was scarcely any interval between the youth and the decrepid age of an eunuch.

Eutropius appears to have been a native of Armenia or Assyria. His three services, which Claudian more particularly describes, were these: 1. He spent many years as the catamite of Ptolemy, a groom or soldier of the Imperial stables. 2. Ptolemy gave him to the old general Arintheus, for whom he very skilfully exercised the profession of a pimp. 3. He was given, on her marriage, to the daughter of Arintheus; and the future consul was employed to comb her hair, to present the silver ewer, to wash and to fan his mistress in hot weather. See l. i. 31-137.

Claudian (l. i. in Eutrop. 1-22), after enumerating the various prodigies of monstrous birds, speaking animals, showers of blood or stones, double suns, c., adds, with some exaggeration, — Omnia cesserunt eunucho consule monstra. The first book concludes with a noble speech of the goddess of Rome to her favourite Honorius, deprecating the new ignominy to which she was exposed.

Fl. Mallius Theodorus, whose civil honours, and philosophical works, have been celebrated by Claudian [who by the change of one letter has transformed Mallius into a member of the ancient Manlian family].

Μεθύων δὲ ἤδη τῷ πλούτῳ, drunk with riches, is the forcible expression of Zosimus (l. v. p. 301 [10]); and the avarice of Eutropius is equally execrated in the Lexicon of Suidas and the Chronicle of Marcellinus. Chrysostom had often admonished the favourite, of the vanity and danger of immoderate wealth, tom. iii. p. 381.

— certantum sæpe duorum Diversum suspendit onus: cum pondere Judex Vergit, et in geminas nutat provincia lances.

Claudian (i. 192-209) so curiously distinguishes the circumstances of the sale that they all seem to allude to particular anecdotes.

Claudian (i. 154-170) mentions the guilt and exile of Abundantius, nor could he fail to quote the example of the artist who made the first trial of the brazen bull which he presented to Phalaris. See Zosimus, l. v. p. 302 [10]. Jerom. tom. i. p. 26 [ep. 60; Migne, i. 600]. The difference of place is easily reconciled; but the decisive authority of Asterius of Amasia (Orat. iv. p. 76 apud Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 435) must turn the scale in favour of Pityus.

Suidas (most probably, from the history of Eunapius) has given a very unfavourable picture of Timasius. The account of his accuser, the judges, trial, c., is perfectly agreeable to the practice of ancient and modern courts. (See Zosimus, l. v. p. 298, 299, 300 [9 sqq. ]). I am almost tempted to quote the romance of a great master (Fielding’s Works, vol. iv. p. 49, c. 8vo edit.), which may be considered as the history of human nature.

The great Oasis was one of the spots in the sands of Libya watered with springs, and capable of producing wheat, barley, and palm-trees. It was about three days’ journey from north to south, about half a day in breadth, and at the distance of about five days’ march to the west of Abydus on the Nile. See d’Anville, Description de l’Egypte, p. 186, 187, 188. The barren desert which encompasses Oasis (Zosimus, l. v. p. 300) has suggested the idea of comparative fertility, and even the epithet of the happy island (Herodot. iii. 26).

The line of Claudian, in Eutrop. l. i. 180: —

Marmaricus claris violatur cædibus Hammon,

evidently alludes to his persuasion of the death of Timasius.

Sozomen, l. viii. c. 7. He speaks from report ὠς τινος έπυθόμην.

Zosimus, l. v. p. 300 [9 ad fin. ]. Yet he seems to suspect that this rumour was spread by the friends of Eutropius.

See the Theodosian Code, l. ix. tit. 14, ad legem Corneliam de Sicariis, leg. 3, and the Code of Justinian, l. ix. tit. viii. ad legem Juliam de Majestate, leg. 5. The alteration of the title, from murder to treason, was an improvement of the subtle Tribonian. Godefroy, in a formal dissertation which he has inserted in his Commentary, illustrates this law of Arcadius, and explains all the difficult passages which had been perverted by the jurisconsults of the darker ages. See tom. iii. p. 88-111.

Bartolus understands a simple and naked consciousness, without any sign of approbation or concurrence. For this opinion, says Baldus, he is now roasting in hell. For my own part, continues the discreet Heineccius (Element. Jur. Civil. l. iv. p. 411), I must approve the theory of Bartolus; but in practice I should incline to the sentiments of Baldus. Yet Bartolus was gravely quoted by the lawyers of Cardinal Richelieu; and Eutropius was indirectly guilty of the murder of the virtuous de Thou.

Godefroy, tom. iii. p. 89. It is, however, suspected that this law, so repugnant to the maxims of Germanic freedom, has been surreptitiously added to the golden bull.

A copious and circumstantial narrative (which he might have reserved for more important events) is bestowed by Zosimus (l. v. p. 304-312 [13 sqq. ]) on the revolt of Tribigild and Gainas. See likewise Socrates, l. vi. c. 6, and Sozomen, l. viii. c. 4. The second book of Claudian against Eutropius is a fine, though imperfect, piece of history.

Claudian (in Eutrop. l. ii. 237-250) very accurately observes that the ancient name and nation of the Phrygians extended very far on every side, till their limits were contracted by the colonies of the Bithynians of Thrace, of the Greeks, and at last of the Gauls. His description (ii. 257-272) of the fertility of Phrygia, and of the four rivers that produce gold, is just and picturesque.

Xenophon, Anabasis, l. i. p. 11, 12, edit. Hutchinson; Strabo, l. xii. p. 865, edit. Amstel. [8, 15]; Q. Curt. l. iii. c. 1. Claudian compares the junction of the Marsyas and Mæander to that of the Saône and the Rhone; with this difference, however, that the smaller of the Phrygian rivers is not accelerated, but retarded, by the larger.

Selgæ, a colony of the Lacedæmonians, had formerly numbered twenty thousand citizens; but in the age of Zosimus it was reduced to a πολίχνη, or small town. See Cellarius, Geograph. Antiq. tom. ii. p. 117.

The council of Eutropius, in Claudian, may be compared to that of Domitian in the fourth satire of Juvenal. The principal members of the former were: juvenes protervi lascivique senes; one of them had been a cook, a second a wool comber. The language of their original profession exposes their assumed dignity; and their trifling conversation about tragedies, dancers, c., is made still more ridiculous by the importance of the debate.

Claudian (l. ii. 376-461) has branded him with infamy; and Zosimus, in more temperate language, confirms his reproaches. L. v. p. 305 [14].

The conspiracy of Gainas and Tribigild, which is attested by the Greek historian, had not reached the ears of Claudian, who attributes the revolt of the Ostrogoth to his own martial spirit and the advice of his wife.

This anecdote, which Philostorgius alone has preserved (l. xi. c. 6, and Gothofred. Dissertat. p. 451-456), is curious and important; since it connects the revolt of the Goths with the secret intrigues of the palace.

See the Homily of Chrysostom, tom. iii. p. 381-386, of which the exordium is particularly beautiful. Socrates, l. vi. c. 5; Sozomen, l. viii. c. 7. Montfaucon (in his Life of Chrysostom, tom. xiii. p. 135) too hastily supposes that Tribigild was actually in Constantinople; and that he commanded the soldiers who were ordered to seize Eutropius. Even Claudian, a Pagan poet (Præfat. ad l. ii. in Eutrop. p. 27), has mentioned the flight of the eunuch to the sanctuary.

Suppliciterque pias humilis prostratus ad aras Mitigat iratas voce tremente nurus.

Chrysostom, in another homily (tom. iii. p. 386), affects to declare that Eutropius would not have been taken, had he not deserted the church. Zosimus (l. v. p. 313 [18]), on the contrary, pretends that his enemies forced him ἐξαρπάσαντες αὐτόν from the sanctuary. Yet the promise is an evidence of some treaty; and the strong assurance of Claudian (Præfat. ad l. ii. 46),

Sed tamen exemplo non feriere tuo,

may be considered as an evidence of some promise.

Cod. Theod. l. ix. tit. xi. leg. 14 [ leg. tit. xl., leg. 17]. The date of that law (Jan. 17, AD 399) is erroneous and corrupt; since the fall of Eutropius could not happen till the autumn of the same year. See Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 780.

Zosimus, l. v. p. 313 [18]. Philostorgius, l. xi. c. 6. [Not using imperial animals (βοσκήμασιν), but imperial decorations (κοσμήμασιν). See note of Valesius, on the passage of Philostorgius (Migne, vol. 65, p. 600).]

Zosimus (l. v. p. 313-323 [18 sqq. ]), Socrates (l. vi. c. 4), Sozomen (l. viii. c. 4), and Theodoret (l. v. c. 32, 33) represent, though with some various circumstances, the conspiracy, defeat, and death of Gainas. [Tribigild’s death is only mentioned by Philostorgius (xi. 8): “having crossed over to Thrace he perishes soon after.”]

Ὁσίας Εὐϕημίας μαρτύριον, is the expression of Zosimus himself (l. v. p. 314 [18]), who inadvertently uses the fashionable language of the Christians. Evagrius describes (l. ii. c. 3) the situation, architecture, relics, and miracles of that celebrated church, in which the general council of Chalcedon was rough breathing afterwards held. [See Appendix 19.]

The pious remonstrances of Chrysostom, which do not appear in his own writings, are strongly urged by Theodoret; but his insinuation that they were successful is disproved by facts. Tillemont (Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. 383) has discovered that the emperor, to satisfy the rapacious demands of Gainas, melted the plate of the church of the Apostles.

The ecclesiastical historians, who sometimes guide, and sometimes follow, the public opinion, most confidently assert that the palace of Constantinople was guarded by legions of angels.

Zosimus (l. v. p. 319 [20, cp. Eunap. fr. 81]) mentions these galleys by the name of Liburnians, and observes that they were as swift (without explaining the difference between them) as the vessels with fifty oars; but that they were far inferior in speed to the triremes, which had been long disused. Yet he reasonably concludes, from the testimony of Polybius, that galleys of a still larger size had been constructed in the Punic wars. Since the establishment of the Roman empire over the Mediterranean, the useless art of building large ships of war had probably been neglected and at length forgotten.

Chishul (Travels, p. 61-63, 72-76) proceeded from Gallipoli, through Hadrianople, to the Danube, in about fifteen days. He was in the train of an English ambassador, whose baggage consisted of seventy-one waggons. That learned traveller has the merit of tracing a curious and unfrequented route.

The narrative of Zosimus, who actually leads Gainas beyond the Danube, must be corrected by the testimony of Socrates and Sozomen, that he was killed in Thrace; and, by the precise and authentic dates of the Alexandrian, or Paschal, Chronicle, p. 307. The naval victory of the Hellespont is fixed to the month Apellæus, the tenth of the calends of January (December 23); the head of Gainas was brought to Constantinople the third of the nones of January (January 3), in the month Audynæus. [These dates imply too short an interval; the second is probably wrong; and we may accept from Marcellinus the notice that Gainas was killed early in February.]

Eusebius Scholasticus acquired much fame by his poem on the Gothic war, in which he had served. Near forty years afterwards, Ammonius recited another poem on the same subject, in the presence of Theodosius. See Socrates, l. vi. c. 6.

The sixth book of Socrates, the eighth of Sozomen, and the fifth of Theodoret afford curious and authentic materials for the life of John Chrysostom. Besides those general historians, I have taken for my guides the four principal biographers of the saint. 1. The author of a partial and passionate Vindication of the Archbishop of Constantinople, composed in the form of a dialogue, and under the name of his zealous partizan Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis (Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xi. p. 500-533). It is inserted among the works of Chrysostom, tom. xiii. p. 1-90, edit. Montfaucon. 2. The moderate Erasmus (tom. iii. epist. MCL. p. 1331-1347, edit. Ludg. Bat.). His vivacity and good sense were his own; his errors, in the uncultivated state of ecclesiastical antiquity, were almost inevitable. 3. The learned Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés., tom. xi. p. 1-405, 547-626, c. c.); who compiles the lives of the saints with incredible patience and religious accuracy. He has minutely searched the voluminous works of Chrysostom himself. 4. Father Montfaucon, who has perused those works with the curious diligence of an editor, discovered several new homilies, and again reviewed and composed the life of Chrysostom (Opera Chrysostom, tom. xiii. p. 91-177). [For modern works see vol. iv. Appendix 5. p. 355.]

As I am almost a stranger to the voluminous sermons of Chrysostom, I have given my confidence to the two most judicious and moderate of the ecclesiastical critics, Erasmus (tom. iii. p. 1344) and Dupin (Bibliothèque Ecclésiastique, tom. iii. p. 38); yet the good taste of the former is sometimes vitiated by an excessive love of antiquity; and the good sense of the latter is always restrained by prudential considerations.

The females of Constantinople distinguished themselves by their enmity or their attachment to Chrysostom. Three noble and opulent widows, Marsa, Castricia, and Eugraphia, were the leaders of the persecution (Pallad. Dialog. tom. xiii. p. 14). It was impossible that they should forgive a preacher who reproached their affectation to conceal, by the ornaments of dress, their age and ugliness (Pallad. p. 27). Olympias, by equal zeal, displayed in a more pious cause, has obtained the title of saint. See Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xi. 416-440.

Sozomen, and more especially Socrates, have defined the real character of Chrysostom with a temperate and impartial freedom, very offensive to his blind admirers. Those historians lived in the next generation, when party violence was abated, and had conversed with many persons intimately acquainted with the virtues and imperfections of the saint.

Palladius (tom. xiii. p. 40, c.) very seriously defends the archbishop: 1. He never tasted wine. 2. The weakness of his stomach required a peculiar diet. 3. Business, or study, or devotion, often kept him fasting till sunset. 4. He detested the noise and levity of great dinners. 5. He saved the expense for the use of the poor. 6. He was apprehensive, in a capital like Constantinople, of the envy and reproach of partial invitations.

Chrysostom declares his free opinion (tom. ix. hom. iii. in Act. Apostol. p. 29) that the number of bishops who might be saved bore a very small proportion to those who would be damned.

See Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xi. p. 441-500.

I have purposely omitted the controversy which arose among the monks of Egypt concerning Origenism and Anthropomorphism; the dissimulation and violence of Theophilus; his artful management of the simplicity of Epiphanius; the persecution and flight of the long, or tall, brothers; the ambiguous support which they received at Constantinople from Chrysostom, c. c.

Photius (p. 53-60) has preserved the original acts of the synod of the Oak [Mansi, Concil. iii. p. 1148]; which destroy the false assertion [of Palladius; see Mansi, Concil. iii. 1153] that Chrysostom was condemned by no more than thirty-six bishops, of whom twenty-nine were Egyptians. Forty-five bishops subscribed his sentence. See Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xi. p. 595.

Palladius owns (p. 30) that, if the people of Constantinople had found Theophilus, they would certainly have thrown him into the sea. Socrates mentions (l. vi. c. 17) a battle between the mob and the sailors of Alexandria in which many wounds were given and some lives were lost. The massacre of the monks is observed only by the Pagan Zosimus (l. v. p. 324 [23]), who acknowledges that Chrysostom had a singular talent to lead the illiterate multitude, [Editor: illegible character]ν γὰρ ὀ ἄνθρωπος ἄλογον ὄχλον ὑπαγαγέσθαι δεινός.

See Socrates, l. vi. c. 18. Sozomen, l. viii. c. 20. Zosimus (l. v. p. 324, 327 [23, 24] mentions, in general terms, his invectives against Eudoxia. The homily, which begins with those famous words, is rejected as spurious. Montfaucon, tom. xiii. p. 151. Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xi. p. 603.

We might naturally expect such a charge from Zosimus (l. v. p. 327 [24]), but it is remarkable enough that it should be confirmed by Socrates, l. vi. c. 18, and the Paschal Chronicle, p. 307. [Cp. Cod. Th. 16, 2. 37.]

He displays those specious motives (Post Reditum, c. 13, 14) in the language of an orator and a politician.

Two hundred and forty-two of the epistles of Chrysostom are still extant (Opera, tom. iii. p. 528-736). They are addressed to a great variety of persons and show a firmness of mind much superior to that of Cicero in his exile. The fourteenth epistle contains a curious narrative of the dangers of his journey.

After the exile of Chrysostom, Theophilus published an enormous and horrible volume against him, in which he perpetually repeats the polite expressions of hostem humanitatis, sacrilegorum principem, immundum dæmonem; he affirms that John Chrysostom had delivered his soul to be adulterated by the devil; and wishes that some farther punishment, adequate (if possible) to the magnitude of his crimes, may be inflicted on him. St. Jerom, at the request of his friend Theophilus, translated this edifying performance from Greek into Latin. See Facundus Hermian. Defens. pro iii. Capitul. l. vi. c. 5, published by Sirmond, Opera, tom. ii. p. 595, 596, 597.

His name was inserted by his successor Atticus in the Diptychs of the church of Constantinople, AD 418. Ten years afterwards he was revered as a saint. Cyril, who inherited the place, and the passions, of his uncle, Theophilus, yielded with much reluctance. See Facund. Hermian. l. iv. c. 1. Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 277-283.

Socrates, l. vii. c. 45. Theodoret, l. v. c. 36. This event reconciled the Joannites, who had hitherto refused to acknowledge his successors. During his lifetime the Joannites were respected by the catholics as the true and orthodox communion of Constantinople. Their obstinacy gradually drove them to the brink of schism.

According to some accounts (Baronius, Annal. Eccles. AD 438, No. 9, 10) the emperor was forced to send a letter of invitation and excuses before the body of the ceremonious saint could be moved from Comana.

Zosimus, l. v. p. 315 [18]. The chastity of an empress should not be impeached without producing a witness; but it is astonishing that the witness should write and live under a prince whose legitimacy he dared to attack. We must suppose that his history was a party libel, privately read and circulated by the Pagans. [For date of Zosimus see above, vol. ii. p. 365.] Tillemont (Hist. des Empereurs, tom. v. p. 782) is not averse to brand the reputation of Eudoxia.

Porphyry of Gaza. His zeal was transported by the order which he had obtained for the destruction of eight Pagan temples of that city. See the curious details of his life (Baronius, AD 401, No. 17-51), originally written in Greek, or perhaps in Syriac, by a monk, one of his favourite deacons. [The Greek text was first published by Haupt in the Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, 1874; and it has been re-edited by the Soc. Philol. Bonnensis Sodales, 1895. For an account of the visit of Porphyry to Constantinople, see Bury, Later Roman Empire, i. p. 200 sqq. ]

Philostorg. l. xi. c. 8, and Godefroy, Dissertat. p. 457.

Jerom (tom. vi. p. 73, 76) describes, in lively colours, the regular and destructive march of the locusts, which spread a dark cloud, between heaven and earth, over the land of Palestine. Seasonable winds scattered them, partly into the Dead Sea, and partly into the Mediterranean.

Procopius, de Bell. Persic. l. i. c. 2, p. 8, edit. Louvre.

Agathias, l. iv. p. 136, 137 [c. 26]. Although he confesses the prevalence of the tradition, he asserts that Procopius was the first who had committed it to writing. Tillemont (Hist. des Empereurs, tom. vi. p. 597) argues very sensibly on the merits of this fable. His criticism was not warped by any ecclesiastical authority: both Procopius and Agathias are half Pagans. [The whole tone of Agathias in regard to the story is sceptical.]

Socr. l. vii. c. 1. Anthemius was the grandson of Philip, one of the ministers of Constantius, and the grandfather of the emperor Anthemius. After his return from the Persian embassy, he was appointed consul and Praetorian prefect of the East, in the year 405; and held the prefecture about ten years. See his honours and praises in Godefroy, Cod. Theod. tom. vi. p. 350. Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. tom. vi. p. 1, c.

Sozomen, l. ix. c. 5. He saw some Scyrri at work near Mount Olympus, in Bithynia, and cherished the vain hope that those captives were the last of the nation.

Cod. Theod. l. vii. tit. xvii. l. xv. tit. i. leg. 49.

Sozomen has filled three chapters with a magnificent panegyric of Pulcheria (l. ix. c. 1, 2, 3); and Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xv. p. 171-184) has dedicated a separate article to the honour of St. Pulcheria, virgin and empress.

Suidas (Excerpta, p. 68 in Script. Byzant.) pretends, on the credit of the Nestorians, that Pulcheria was exasperated against their founder, because he censured their connection with the beautiful Paulinus and her incest with her brother Theodosius.

See Ducange, Famil. Byzantin. p. 70. Flaccilla, the eldest daughter, either died before Arcadius, or, if she lived to the year 431 (Marcellin. Chron.), some defect of mind or body must have excluded her from the honours of her rank.

She was admonished, by repeated dreams, of the place where the relics of the forty martyrs had been buried. The ground had successively belonged to the house and garden of a woman of Constantinople, to a monastery of Macedonian monks, and to a church of St. Thyrsus, erected by Cæsarius, who was consul, AD 397; and the memory of the relics was almost obliterated. Notwithstanding the charitable wishes of Dr. Jortin (Remarks, tom. iv. p. 234) it is not easy to acquit Pulcheria of some share in the pious fraud; which must have been transacted when she was more than five and thirty years of age.

There is a remarkable difference between the two ecclesiastical historians, who in general bear so close a resemblance. Sozomen (l. ix. c. 1) ascribes to Pulcheria the government of the empire and the education of her brother; whom he scarcely condescends to praise. Socrates, though he affectedly disclaims all hopes of favour or fame, composes an elaborate panegyric on the emperor, and cautiously suppresses the merits of his sister (l. vii. c. 22, 42). Philostorgius (l. xii. c. 7) expresses the influence of Pulcheria, in gentle and courtly language, τὰς βασιλικὰς σημειώσεις ὑπηπετουμένη καὶ διευθύνουσα. Suidas (Excerpt. p. 53) gives a true character of Theodosius; and I have followed the example of Tillemont (tom. vi. p. 25) in borrowing some strokes from the modern Greeks.

Theodoret, l. v. c. 37. The bishop of Cyrrhus, one of the first men of his age for his learning and piety, applauds the obedience of Theodosius to the divine laws.

Socrates (l. vii. c. 21) mentions her name (Athenais, the daughter of Leontius, an Athenian sophist), her baptism, marriage, and poetical genius. The most ancient account of her history is in John Malala (part ii. p. 20, 21, edit. Venet. 1743), and in the Paschal Chronicle (p. 311, 312). Those authors had probably seen original pictures of the empress Eudocia. The modern Greeks, Zonaras, Cedrenus, c., have displayed the love, rather than the talent, of fiction. From Nicephorus, indeed, I have ventured to assume her age. The writer of a romance would not have imagined that Athenais was near twenty-eight years old when she inflamed the heart of a young emperor. [Her story has been told agreeably by Gregorovius in his Athenais (ed. 3, 1892). The same empress is the subject of monograph by W. Wiegand: Eudocia, 1871.]

Socrates, l. vii. c. 21; Photius, p. 413-420. The Homeric cento is still extant, and has been repeatedly printed, but the claim of Eudocia to that insipid performance is disputed by the critics. See Fabricius, Biblioth. Græc. tom. i. p. 357. The Ionia, a miscellaneous dictionary of history and fable, was compiled by another empress of the name of Eudocia, who lived in the eleventh century; and the work is still extant in manuscript. [The Ionia has been edited by H. Flach. The works of the earlier Eudocia have been recently published by A. Ludwich, 1893.]

Baronius (Annal. Eccles. AD 438, 439) is copious and florid; but he is accused of placing the lies of different ages on the same level of authenticity.

In this short view of the disgrace of Eudocia, I have imitated the caution of Evagrius (l. i. c. 21) and Count Marcellinus (in Chron. AD 440 and 444). The two authentic dates assigned by the latter overturn a great part of the Greek fictions; and the celebrated story of the apple, c., is fit only for the Arabian Nights, where something not very unlike it may be found.

Priscus (in Excerpt. Legat. p. 69 [Müller, F.H.G. iv. p. 94]), a contemporary, and a courtier, dryly mentions her Pagan and Christian names, without adding any title of honour or respect.

For the two pilgrimages of Eudocia, and her long residence at Jerusalem, her devotion, alms, c., see Socrates (l. vii. c. 47) and Evagrius (l. i. c. 20, 21, 22). The Paschal Chronicle may sometimes deserve regard; and, in the domestic history of Antioch, John Malala becomes a writer of good authority. The Abbé Guenée, in a Memoir on the fertility of Palestine, of which I have only seen an extract, calculates the gifts of Eudocia at 20,488 pounds of gold, above 800,000 pounds sterling.

Theodoret, l. v. c. 39. Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xii. p. 356-364. Assemanni, Bibliot. Oriental. tom. iii. p. 396, tom. iv. p. 61. Theodoret blames the rashness of Abdas, but extols the constancy of his martyrdom. Yet I do not clearly understand the casuistry which prohibits our repairing the damage which we have unlawfully committed.

Socrates (l. vii. c. 18, 19, 20, 21) is the best author for the Persian war. We may likewise consult the three Chronicles, the Paschal, and those of Marcellinus and Malala. [For the succession of the Persian kings, see above, vol. iv. Appendix 9.]

This account of the ruin and division of the kingdom of Armenia is taken from the third book of the Armenian history of Moses of Chorene. Deficient as he is of every qualification of a good historian, his local information, his passions, and his prejudices are strongly expressive of a native and contemporary. Procopius (de Ædificiis, l. xiii. c. i. 5) relates the same facts in a very different manner; but I have extracted the circumstances the most probable in themselves and the least inconsistent with Moses of Chorene. [For the division of Armenia see Appendix 17.]

The western Armenians used the Greek language and characters in their religious offices; but the use of that hostile tongue was prohibited by the Persians in the eastern provinces, which were obliged to use the Syriac, till the invention of the Armenian letters by Mesrobes in the beginning of the fifth century and the subsequent version of the Bible into the Armenian language, an event which relaxed the connection of the church and nation with Constantinople.

Moses Choren. l. iii. c. 59, p. 309, and p. 358. Procopius, de Ædificiis, l. iii. c. 5. Theodosiopolis stands, or rather stood, about thirty-five miles to the east of Arzeroum, the modern capital of Turkish Armenia. See d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. ii. p. 99, 100. [See Ramsay, Asia Minor, p. 305 note: Theodosiopolis = Kamacha Ani.]

Moses Choren. l. iii. c. 63, p. 316. According to the institution of St. Gregory, the apostle of Armenia, the archbishop was always of the royal family; a circumstance which, in some degree, corrected the influence of the sacerdotal character, and united the mitre with the crown.

A branch of the royal house of Arsaces still subsisted with the rank and possessions (as it should seem) of Armenian satraps. See Moses Choren. i. iii. c. 65, p. 321.

Valarsaces was appointed king of Armenia by his brother, the Parthian monarch, immediately after the defeat of Antiochus Sidetes (Moses Choren. l. ii. c. ii. p. 85), one hundred and thirty years before Christ. Without depending on the various and contradictory periods of the reigns of the last kings, we may be assured that the ruin of the Armenian kingdom happened after the council of Chalcedon, AD 431 (l. iii. c. 61, p. 312), and under Veramus or Bahram, king of Persia (l. iii. c. 64, p. 317), who reigned from AD 420 to 440 [see Appendix 17]. See Assemanni, Bibliot. Oriental, tom. iii. p. 396.

See p. 258-275.

Τὰ συνεχη̂ κατὰ στόμα ϕιλήματα, is the expression of Olympiodorus (apud Photium, p. 197 [fr. 40]), who means, perhaps, to describe the same caresses which Mahomet bestowed on his daughter Phatemah. Quando (says the prophet himself) quando subit mihi desiderium Paradisi, osculor eam, et ingero linguam meam in os ejus. But this sensual indulgence was justified by miracle and mystery; and the anecdote has been communicated to the public by the Reverend Father Maracci, in his Version and Confutation of the Koran, tom. i. p. 32.

[ Symptoms in the relative clause seems to have caused the irregular plural.]

For these revolutions of the Western empire, consult Olympiodor. apud Phot. p. 192, 193, 196, 197, 200 [fr. 41, 44, 45, 46]. Sozomen, l. ix. c. 16. Socrates, l. vii. 23, 24. Philostorgius, l. xii. c. 10, 11, and Godefroy, Dissertat. p. 486. Procopius, de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 3, p. 182, 183. Theophanes, in Chronograph. p. 72, 73, and the Chronicles.

See Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, l. ii. c. 7. He has laboriously, but vainly, attempted to form a reasonable system of jurisprudence, from the various and discordant modes of royal succession, which have been introduced by fraud or force, by time or accident.

The original writers are not agreed (see Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. iv. p. 139) whether Valentinian received the Imperial diadem at Rome or Ravenna. In this uncertainty, I am willing to believe that some respect was shown to the senate.

The Count de Buat (Hist. des Peuples de l’Europe, tom. vii. p. 292-300) has established the reality, explained the motives, and traced the consequences of this remarkable cession. [Cp. Appendix 6.]

See the first Novel of Theodosius, by which he ratifies and communicates ( AD 438) the Theodosian Code. About forty years before that time, the unity of legislation had been proved by an exception. The Jews, who were numerous in the cities of Apulia and Calabria, produced a law of the East to justify their exemption from municipal offices (Cod. Theod. l. xvi. tit. viii. leg. 13); and the Western emperor was obliged to invalidate, by a special edict, the law, quam constat meis partibus esse damnosam. Cod. Theod. l. xi. [ leg. xii.], tit. i. leg. 158.

Cassiodorius (Varior. l. xi. epist. i. p. 238) has compared the regencies of Placidia and Amalasuntha. He arraigns the weakness of the mother of Valentinian, and praises the virtues of his royal mistress. On this occasion flattery seems to have spoken the language of truth.

Philostorgius, l. xii. c. 12, and Godefroy’s Dissertat. p. 493, c.; and Renatus Frigeridus, apud Gregor. Turon. l. ii. c. 8, in tom. ii. p. 163. The father of Aetius was Gaudentius, an illustrious citizen of the province of Scythia, and master-general of the cavalry; his mother was a rich and noble Italian. From his earliest youth, Aetius, as a soldier and a hostage, had conversed with the Barbarians.

For the character of Boniface, see Olympiodorus, apud Phot. p. 196 F.H.G. iv. fr. 42]; and St. Augustin, apud Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiii. p. 712-715, 886. The bishop of Hippo at length deplored the fall of his friend, who, after a solemn vow of chastity, had married a second wife of the Arian sect, and who was suspected of keeping several concubines in his house.

[From the invasions of Moorish tribes; he went to Africa from Spain in 422 AD , without a regular commission.]

Procopius (de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 3, 4, p. 182-186) relates the fraud of Aetius, the revolts of Boniface, and the loss of Africa. This anecdote, which is supported by some collateral testimony (see Ruinart, Hist. Persecut. Vandal. p. 420, 421), seems agreeable to the practice of ancient and modern courts, and would be naturally revealed by the repentance of Boniface.

See the Chronicles of Prosper and Idatius. Salvian (de Gubernat. Dei, l. vii. p. 246, Paris, 1608) ascribes the victory of the Vandals to their superior piety. They fasted, they prayed, they carried a Bible in the front of the Host, with the design, perhaps, of reproaching the perfidy and sacrilege of their enemies.

Gizericus (his name is variously expressed) staturâ mediocris et equi casu claudicans, animo profundus, sermone rarus, luxuriæ contemptor, irâ turbidus, habendi cupidus, ad solicitandas gentes providentissimus, semina contentionum jacere, odia miscere paratus. Jornandes, de Rebus Geticis, c. 33, p. 657. This portrait, which is drawn with some skill, and a strong likeness, must have been copied from the Gothic history of Cassiodorius. [The right form of the name, now universally accepted, is Gaiseric (Idatius; Geiseric, Prosper and Victor Vitensis). The nasalised form appears first in writers of the sixth century. Unfortunately there are no coins of this king; see Friedländer’s Die Münzen der Vandalen.]

[It seems far more probable that the Vandals sailed directly to Cæsarea than that they crossed the straits and undertook the long land march through the deserts of western Mauritania; notwithstanding the statement of Victor Vitensis, i. 1.]

See the Chronicle of Idatius. That bishop, a Spaniard and a contemporary, places the passage of the Vandals in the month of May, of the year of Abraham (which commences in October) 2444. This date, which coincides with AD 429, is confirmed [rather, adopted] by Isidore, another Spanish bishop, and is justly preferred to the opinion of those writers who have marked for that event one of the preceding years. See Pagi, Critica, tom. ii. p. 205, c. [So too Clinton. But Mr. Hodgkin, ii. 292, makes out a good case for the date 428, given in the Chron. Pasch. and perhaps really implied by Idatius.]

Compare Procopius (de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 5, p. 190) and Victor Vitensis (de Persecutione Vandal. l. i. c. 1, p. 3, edit. Ruinart). We are assured by Idatius that Genseric evacuated Spain, cum Vandalis omnibus eorumque familiis; and Possidius (in Vit. Augustin. c. 28, apud Ruinart, p. 427) describes his army as manus ingens immanium gentium Vandalorum et Alanorum, commixtam secum habens Gothorum gentem, aliarumque diversarum personas. [To reconcile the 50,000 fighting men of Procopius with the 80,000 (including old men and parvuli ) of Victor, Mr. Hodgkin supposes that females were excluded in Victor’s enumeration (ii. 231).]

For the manners of the Moors, see Procopius (de Bell. Vandal. l. ii. c. 6, p. 249); for their figure and complexion, M. de Buffon (Histoire Naturelle, tom. iii. p. 430). Procopius says in general that the Moors had joined the Vandals before the death of Valentinian (de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 5, p. 190), and it is probable that the independent tribes did not embrace any uniform system of policy.

See Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiii. p. 516-558; and the whole series of the persecution in the original monuments, published by Dupin at the end of Optatus, p. 323-515.

The Donatist bishops, at the conference of Carthage, amounted to 279; and they asserted that their whole number was not less than 400. The Catholics had 286 present, 120 absent, besides 64 vacant bishoprics.

The fifth title of the sixteenth book of the Theodosian Code exhibits a series of the Imperial laws against the Donatists, from the year 400 to the year 428. Of these the 54th law, promulgated by Honorius AD 514, is the most severe and effectual.

St. Augustin altered his opinion with regard to the proper treatment of heretics. His pathetic declaration of pity and indulgence for the Manichæans has been inserted by Mr. Locke (vol. iii. p. 469) among the choice specimens of his commonplace book. Another philosopher, the celebrated Bayle (tom. ii. p. 445-496), has refuted, with superfluous diligence and ingenuity, the arguments by which the bishop of Hippo justified, in his old age, the persecution of the Donatists.

See Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiii. p. 586-592, 806. The Donatists boasted of thousands of these voluntary martyrs. Augustin asserts, and probably with truth, that these numbers were much exaggerated; but he sternly maintains that it was better that some should burn themselves in this world than that all should burn in hell flames.

According to St. Augustin and Theodoret the Donatists were inclined to the principles, or at least to the party, of the Arians, which Genseric supported. Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. vi. p. 68.

See Baronius, Annal. Eccles. AD 428, No. 7, AD 439, No. 35. The cardinal, though more inclined to seek the cause of great events in heaven than on the earth, has observed the apparent connection of the Vandals and the Donatists. Under the reign of the Barbarians, the schismatics of Africa enjoyed an obscure peace of one hundred years; at the end of which, we may again trace them by the light of the Imperial persecutions. See Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. vi. p. 192, c.

In a confidential letter to Count Boniface, St. Augustin, without examining the grounds of the quarrel, piously exhorts him to discharge the duties of a Christian and a subject; to extricate himself without delay from his dangerous and guilty situation; and even, if he could obtain the consent of his wife, to embrace a life of celibacy and penance (Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiii. p. 890). The bishop was intimately connected with Darius, the minister of peace (Id. tom. xiii. p. 928).

The original complaints of the desolation of Africa are contained: 1. In a letter from Capreolus, bishop of Carthage, to excuse his absence from the council of Ephesus (ap. Ruinart, p. 429). 2. In the life of St. Augustin, by his friend and colleague Possidius (ap. Ruinart, p. 427). 3. In the History of the Vandalic Persecution, by Victor Vitensis (l. i. c. 1, 2, 3, edit. Ruinart). The last picture, which was drawn sixty years after the event, is more expressive of the author’s passions than of the truth of facts.

See Cellarius, Geograph. Antiq. tom. ii. part ii. p. 112; Leo African. in Ramusio, tom. i. fol. 70; L’Afrique de Marmol. tom. ii. p. 434, 437; Shaw’s Travels, p. 46, 47. The old Hippo Regius was finally destroyed by the Arabs in the seventh century; but a new town, at the distance of two miles, was built with the materials, and it contained, in the sixteenth century, about three hundred families of industrious, but turbulent, manufacturers. The adjacent territory is renowned for a pure air, a fertile soil, and plenty of exquisite fruits.

The life of St. Augustin, by Tillemont, fills a quarto volume (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiii.) of more than one thousand pages; and the diligence of that learned Jansenist was excited on this occasion by factious and devout zeal for the founder of his sect.

Such at least is the account of Victor Vitensis (de Persecut. Vandal. l. i. c. 3); though Gennadius seems to doubt whether any person had read, or even collected, all the works of St. Augustin (see Hieronym. Opera, tom. i. p. 319, in Catalog. Scriptor. Eccles.). They have been repeatedly printed; and Dupin (Bibliothèque Ecclés. tom. iii. p. 158-257) has given a large and satisfactory abstract of them, as they stand in the last edition of the Benedictines. My personal acquaintance with the bishop of Hippo does not extend beyond the Confessions and the City of God.

In his early youth (Confess. i. 14) St. Augustin disliked and neglected the study of Greek, and he frankly owns that he read the Platonists in a Latin version (Confess. vii. 9). Some modern critics have thought that his ignorance of Greek disqualified him from expounding the Scriptures, and Cicero or Quintilian would have required the knowledge of that language in a professor of rhetoric.

These questions were seldom agitated from the time of St. Paul to that of St. Augustin. I am informed that the Greek fathers maintain the natural sentiments of the Semi-Pelagians; and that the orthodoxy of St. Augustin was derived from the Manichæan school.

The church of Rome has canonised Augustin, and reprobated Calvin. Yet, as the real difference between them is invisible even to a theological microscope, the Molinists are oppressed by the authority of the saint, and the Jansenists are disgraced by their resemblance to the heretic. In the meanwhile the Protestant Arminians stand aloof, and deride the mutual perplexity of the disputants (see a curious Review of the Controversy, by Le Clerc, Bibliothèque Universelle, tom. xiv. p. 144-398). Perhaps a reasoner still more independent may smile in his turn, when he peruses an Arminian Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

Ducange, Fam. Byzant. p. 67. On one side the head of Valentinian; on the reverse, Boniface, with a scourge in one hand, and a palm in the other, standing in a triumphal car, which is drawn by four horses, or, in another medal, by four stags: an unlucky emblem! I should doubt whether another example can be found of the head of a subject on the reverse of an Imperial medal. See Science des Médailles, by the Père Jobert, tom. i. p. 132-150, edit. of 1739, by the Baron de la Bastie. [Eckhel, 8, 293, explains these as private medals issued in honour of a charioteer named Bonifatius.]

Procopius (de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 3, p. 185) continues the history of Boniface no farther than his return to Italy. His death is mentioned by Prosper [ad. ann. 432] and Marcellinus; the expression of the latter, that Aetius, the day before, had provided himself with a longer spear, implies something like a regular duel. [So Mr. Hodgkin, i. 879, who sees here “the influence of Teutonic usages.” See further, Appendix 18.]

See Procopius, de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 4, p. 186. Valentinian published several humane laws, to relieve the distress of his Numidian and Mauritanian subjects; he discharged them, in a great measure, from the payment of their debts, reduced their tribute to one eighth, and gave them a right of appeal from their provincial magistrates to the prefect of Rome. Cod. Theod. tom. vi. Novell. p. 11, 12. [By the treaty of 435 the Vandals seem to have been recognised in the possession of Numidia, Byzacena, and Proconsularis, with the exception of Carthage and the adjacent region. It is doubtful what happened at Hippo.]

Victor Vitensis, de Persecut. Vandal. l. ii. c. 5, p. 26. The cruelties of Genseric towards his subjects are strongly expressed in Prosper’s Chronicle, AD 442.

Possidius, in Vit. Augustin. c. 28, apud Ruinart, p. 428.

See the Chronicles of Idatius, Isidore, Prosper, and Marcellinus [and Chron. Pasch.]. They mark the same year, but different days, for the surprisal of Carthage.

The picture of Carthage, as it flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries, is taken from the Expositio totius Mundi, p. 17, 18, in the third volume of Hudson’s Minor Geographers, from Ausonius de Claris Urbibus, p. 228, 229; and principally from Salvian, de Gubernatione Dei, l. vii. p. 257, 258 [§67 sqq. ]. I am surprised that the Notitia should not place either a mint or an arsenal at Carthage, but only a gynæceum or female manufacture.

The anonymous author of the Expositio totius Mundi compares, in his barbarous Latin, the country and the inhabitants; and, after stigmatising their want of faith, he coolly concludes: Difficile autem inter eos invenitur bonus, tamen in multis pauci boni esse possunt. P. 18.

He declares that the peculiar vices of each country were collected in the sink of Carthage (l. vii. 257 [§ 74]). In the indulgence of vice the Africans applauded their manly virtue. Et illi se magis virilis fortitudinis esse crederent, qui maxime viros fœminei usus probrositate fregissent (p. 268 [§ 87]). The streets of Carthage were polluted by effeminate wretches, who publicly assumed the countenance, the dress, and the character of women (p. 264 [§ 83]). If a monk appeared in the city, the holy man was pursued with impious scorn and ridicule; detestantibus ridentium cachinnis ([cachinnis et d. r. sibilis], p. 289 [viii. 22]).

Compare Procopius de Bell. Vandal. l. i. c. 5, p. 189, 190; and Victor Vitensis, de Persecut. Vandal. l. i. c. 4.

Ruinart (p. 444-457) has collected from Theodoret, and other authors, the misfortunes, real and fabulous, of the inhabitants of Carthage.

The choice of fabulous circumstances is of small importance; yet I have confined myself to the narrative which was translated from the Syriac by the care of Gregory of Tours (de Gloriâ Martyrum, l. i. c. 95, in Max. Bibliothecâ Patrum, tom. xi. p. 856), to the Greek acts of their martyrdom (apud Photium, p. 1400, 1401), and to the Annals of the Patriarch Eutychius (tom. i. p. 391, 531, 532, 535. Vers. Pocock).

Two Syriac writers, as they are quoted by Assemanni (Bibliot. Oriental. tom. i. p. 336, 338), place the resurrection of the Seven Sleepers in the year 736 ( AD 425) or 748 ( AD 437) of the era of the Seleucides. Their Greek acts, which Photius had read, assign the date of the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Theodosius, which may coincide either with AD 439, or 446. The period which had elapsed since the persecution of Decius is easily ascertained; and nothing less than the ignorance of Mahomet, or the legendaries, could suppose an interval of three or four hundred years.

James, one of the orthodox fathers of the Syrian church, was born AD 452; he began to compose his sermons, AD 474; he was made bishop of Batnæ, in the district of Sarug, and province of Mesopotamia, AD 519, and died, AD 521 (Assemanni, tom. i. p. 288, 289). For the homily de Pueris Ephesinis, see p. 335-339: though I could wish that Assemanni had translated the text of James of Sarug, instead of answering the objections of Baronius.

See the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists (Mensis Julii, tom. vi. p. 375-397). This immense calendar of saints, in one hundred and twenty-six years (1644-1770), and in fifty volumes in folio, has advanced no farther than the 7th day of October. The suppression of the Jesuits has most probably checked an undertaking, which, through the medium of fable and superstition, communicates much historical and philosophical instruction. [After a long interval, from 1794 to 1845, it was continued, and has now reached November 4 (1894).]

See Maracci Alcoran; Sura, xviii. tom. ii. p. 420-427, and tom. i. part iv. p. 103. With such an ample privilege, Mahomet has not shewn much taste or ingenuity. He has invented the dog (Al Rakim) of the Seven Sleepers; the respect of the sun, who altered his course twice a day that he might shine into the cavern; and the care of God himself, who preserved their bodies from putrefaction, by turning them to the right and left.

See D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 139; and Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alexandrin, p. 39, 40.

Paul, the deacon of Aquileia (de Gestis Langobardorum, l. i. c. 4, p. 745, 746, edit. Grot.), who lived towards the end of the eighth century, has placed in a cavern under a rock, on the shore of the ocean, the Seven Sleepers of the North, whose long repose was respected by the Barbarians. Their dress declared them to be Romans; and the deacon conjectures that they were reserved by Providence as the future apostles of those unbelieving countries.

I must note that in the Nation, July 7, 1898, Mr. Frederick I. Teggart has made a good case for Gibbon’s view that the Serapeum Library was burned in AD 391.

The statement of Eunapius in the Vita Aedesii: καὶ τὸ Σαραπεɩ̂ον ἰερὸν διεσκεδάννυτο οὐχ ὴ [Editor: illegible character]εραπεία μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ οἰκοδομήματα, cannot be pressed to mean more than that not only was the worship suppressed but the temple itself was demolished.

“The date 403 seems to have originally obtained currency from a simple mistake on the part of Baronius, a mistake fully acknowledged by Tillemont (v. 804).” Hodgkin, i. p. 736.

The Additamenta to Prosper in the Cod. Havn. give the date: x. kal. Sept. (Mommsen, Chron. Min. i. p. 299).

Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, 24, p. 182 sqq. (1884).

Mr. Rushforth points out (in a review of this volume in Eng. Historical Review, xiii. p. 132, 1898) that the statement of Zosimus that the threatened invasion of Radagaisus caused a panic at Rome, taken in connection with the restoration of the walls of Rome in 402 (which Gibbon omits to mention), is a confirmation of the view which I have tried to establish that Zosimus is really relating the campaign of 401.

Cp. further E. Gleye in Byz. Ztsch. v. 460 sqq., where some other of the Excerpts (esp. fr. 12) are treated in their relation to Procopius, with the same result.

He also held a financial post: Seeck conjectures that of a rationalis of a diocese.

Further, Castricia, wife of Saturninus, who was banished with Aurelian, had influence with Eudoxia, as we know from Palladius, Life of Chrysostom.