Book X

Chapter I.--The Peace granted us by God.

1. Thanks for all things be given unto God the Omnipotent Ruler and King of the universe, and the greatest thanks to Jesus Christ the Saviour and Redeemer of our souls, through whom we pray that peace may be always preserved for us firm and undisturbed by external troubles and by troubles of the mind.

2. Since in accordance with thy wishes, my most holy Paulinus, we have added the tenth book of the Church History to those which have preceded, we will inscribe it to thee, proclaiming thee as the seal of the whole work; and we will fitly add in a perfect number the perfect panegyric upon the restoration of the churches, obeying the Divine Spirit which exhorts us in the following words:

3. "Sing unto the Lord a new song, for he hath done marvelous things. His right hand and his holy arm hath saved him. The Lord hath made known his salvation, his righteousness hath he revealed in the presence of the nations."

4. And in accordance with the utterance which commands us to sing the new song, let us proceed to show that, after those terrible and gloomy spectacles which we have described, we are now permitted to see and celebrate such things as many truly righteous men and martyrs of God before us desired to see upon earth and did not see, and to hear and did not hear.

5. But they, hastening on, obtained far better things, being carried to heaven and the paradise of divine pleasure. But, acknowledging that even these things are greater than we deserve, we have been astonished at the grace manifested by the author of the great gifts, and rightly do we admire him, worshiping him with the whole power of our souls, and testifying to the truth of those recorded utterances, in which it is said, "Come and see the works of the Lord, the wonders which he hath done upon the earth; he removeth wars to the ends of the world, he shall break the bow and snap the spear in sunder, and shall burn the shields with fire."

6. Rejoicing in these things which have been clearly fulfilled in our day, let us proceed with our account.

7. The whole race of God's enemies was destroyed in the manner indicated, and was thus suddenly swept from the sight of men. So that again a divine utterance had its fulfillment: "I have seen the impious highly exalted and raising himself like the cedars of Lebanon and I have passed by, and behold, he was not and I have sought his place, and it could not be found."

8. And finally a bright and splendid day, overshadowed by no cloud, illuminated with beams of heavenly light the churches of Christ throughout the entire world. And not even those without our communion were prevented from sharing in the same blessings, or at least from coming under their influence and enjoying a part of the benefits bestowed upon us by God.

Chapter II.--The Restoration of the Churches.

1. All men, then, were freed from the oppression of the tyrants, and being released from the former ills, one in one way and another in another acknowledged the defender of the pious to be the only true God. And we especially who placed our hopes in the Christ of God had unspeakable gladness, and a certain inspired joy bloomed for all of us, when we saw every place which shortly before had been desolated by the impieties of the tyrants reviving as if from a long and death-fraught pestilence, and temples again rising from their foundations to an immense height, and receiving a splendor far greater than that of the old ones which had been destroyed.

2. But the supreme rulers also confirmed to us still more extensively the munificence of God by repeated ordinances in behalf of the Christians; and personal letters of the emperor were sent to the bishops, with honors and gifts of money. It may not be unfitting to insert these documents, translated from the Roman into the Greek tongue, at the proper place in this book, as in a sacred tablet, that they may remain as a memorial to all who shall come after us.

Chapter III.--The Dedications in Every Place.

1. After this was seen the sight which had been desired and prayed for by us all; feasts of dedication in the cities and consecrations of the newly built houses of prayer took place, bishops assembled, foreigners came together from abroad, mutual love was exhibited between people and people, the members of Christ's body were united in complete harmony.

2. Then was fulfilled the prophetic utterance which mystically foretold what was to take place: "Bone to bone and joint to joint," and whatever was truly announced in enigmatic expressions in the inspired passage.

3. And there was one energy of the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul in all, and the same eagerness of faith, and one hymn from all in praise of the Deity. Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, and the majestic institutions of the Church observed, here with the singing of psalms and with the reading of the words committed to us by God, and there with the performance of divine and mystic services; and the mysterious symbols of the Saviour's passion were dispensed.

4. At the same time people of every age, both male and female, with all the power of the mind gave honor unto God, the author of their benefits, in prayers and thanksgiving, with a joyful mind and soul. And every one of the bishops present, each to the best of his ability, delivered panegyric orations, adding luster to the assembly.

Chapter IV.--Panegyric on the Splendor of Affairs.

1. A certain one of those of moderate talent, who had composed a discourse, stepped forward in the presence of many pastors who were assembled as if for a church gathering, and while they attended quietly and decently, he addressed himself as follows to one who was in all things a most excellent bishop and beloved of God, through whose zeal the temple in Tyre, which was the most splendid in Phoenicia, had been erected.

Panegyric upon the building of the churches, addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre.

2. "Friends and priests of God who are clothed in the sacred gown and adorned with the heavenly crown of glory, the inspired unction and the sacerdotal garment of the Holy Spirit; and thou, oh pride of God's new holy temple, endowed by him with the wisdom of age, and yet exhibiting costly works and deeds of youthful and flourishing virtue, to whom God himself, who embraces the entire world, has granted the distinguished honor of building and renewing this earthly house to Christ, his only begotten and first-born Word, and to his holy and divine bride; --

3. one might call thee a new Beseleel, the architect of a divine tabernacle, or Solomon, king of a new and much better Jerusalem, or also a new Zerubabel, who added a much greater glory than the former to the temple of God; --

4. and you also, oh nurslings of the sacred flock of Christ, habitation of good words, school of wisdom, and august and pious auditory of religion:

5. It was long ago permitted us to raise hymns and songs to God, when we learned from hearing the Divine Scriptures read the marvelous signs of God and the benefits conferred upon men by the Lord's wondrous deeds, being taught to say Oh God! we have heard with our ears, our fathers have told us the work which thou didst in their days, in days of old.'

6. But now as we no longer perceive the lofty arm and the celestial right hand of our all-gracious God and universal King by hearsay merely or report, but observe so to speak in very deed and with our own eyes that the declarations recorded long ago are faithful and true, it is permitted us to raise a second hymn of triumph and to sing with loud voice, and say, As we have heard, so have we seen; in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God.'

7. And in what city but in this newly built and God-constructed one, which is a church of the living God, a pillar and foundation of the truth,' concerning which also another divine oracle thus proclaims, Glorious things have been spoken of thee, oh city of God.' Since the all-gracious God has brought us together to it, through the grace of his Only-Begotten, let every one of those who have been summoned sing with loud voice and say, I was glad when they said unto me, we shall go unto the house of the Lord,' and Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house and the place where thy glory dwelleth.'

8. And let us not only one by one, but all together, with one spirit and one soul, honor him and cry aloud, saying, Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in his holy mountain.' For he is truly great, and great is his house, lofty and spacious and comely in beauty above the sons of men.' Great is the Lord who alone doeth wonderful things'; great is he who doeth great things and things past finding out, glorious and marvelous things which cannot be numbered'; great is he who changeth times and seasons, who exalteth and debaseth kings'; who raiseth up the poor from the earth and lifteth up the needy from the dunghill.' He hath put down princes from their thrones and hath exalted them of low degree from the earth. The hungry he hath filled with good things and the arms of the proud he hath broken.'

9. Not only to the faithful, but also to unbelievers, has he confirmed the record of ancient events; he that worketh miracles, he that doeth great things, the Master of all, the Creator of the whole world, the omnipotent, the all-merciful, the one and only God. To him let us sing the new song, supplying in thought, To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth forever'; To him which smote great kings, and slew famous kings: for his mercy endureth forever'; For the Lord remembered us in our low estate and delivered us from our adversaries.'

10. And let us never cease to cry aloud in these words to the Father of the universe. And let us always honor him with our mouth who is the second cause of our benefits, the instructor in divine knowledge, the teacher of the true religion, the destroyer of the impious, the slayer of tyrants, the reformer of life, Jesus, the Saviour of us who were in despair.

11. For he alone, as the only all-gracious Son of an all-gracious Father, in accordance with the purpose of his Father's benevolence, has willingly put on the nature of us who lay prostrate in corruption, and like some excellent physician, who for the sake of saving them that are ill, examines their sufferings, handles their foul sores, and reaps pain for himself from the miseries of another, so us who were not only diseased and afflicted with terrible ulcers and wounds already mortified, but were even lying among the dead, he hath saved for himself from the very jaws of death. For none other of those in heaven had such power as without harm to minister to the salvation of so many.

12. But he alone having reached our deep corruption, he alone having taken upon himself our labors, he alone having suffered the punishments due for our impieties, having recovered us who were not half dead merely, but were already in tombs and sepulchers, and altogether foul and offensive, saves us, both anciently and now, by his beneficent zeal, beyond the expectation of any one, even of ourselves, and imparts liberally of the Father's benefits,--he who is the giver of life and light, our great Physician and King and Lord, the Christ of God.

13. For then when the whole human race lay buried in gloomy night and in depths of darkness through the deceitful arts of guilty demons and the power of God-hating spirits, by his simple appearing he loosed once for all the fast-bound cords of our impieties by the rays of his light, even as wax is melted.

14. But when malignant envy and the evil-loving demon well-nigh burst with anger at such grace and kindness, and turned against us all his death-dealing forces, and when, at first, like a dog gone mad which gnashes his teeth at the stones thrown at him, and pours out his rage against his assailants upon the inanimate missiles, he leveled his ferocious madness at the stones of the sanctuaries and at the lifeless material of the houses, and desolated the churches,--at least as he supposed,--and then emitted terrible hissings and snake-like sounds, now by the threats of impious tyrants, and again by the blasphemous edicts of profane rulers, vomiting forth death, moreover, and infecting with his deleterious and soul-destroying poisons the souls captured by him, and almost slaying them by his death-fraught sacrifices of dead idols, and causing every beast in the form of man and every kind of savage to assault us--then, indeed, the Angel of the great Council,' the great Captain of God after the mightiest soldiers of his kingdom had displayed sufficient exercise through patience and endurance in everything, suddenly appeared anew, and blotted out and annihilated his enemies and foes, so that they seemed never to have had even a name.

15. But his friends and relatives he raised to the highest glory, in the presence not only of all men, but also of celestial powers, of sun and moon and stars, and of the whole heaven and earth, so that now, as has never happened before, the supreme rulers, conscious of the honor which they have received from him, spit upon the faces of dead idols, trample upon the unhallowed rites of demons, make sport of the ancient delusion handed down from their fathers, and acknowledge only one God, the common benefactor of all, themselves included.

16. And they confess Christ, the Son of God, universal King of all, and proclaim him Saviour on monuments, imperishably recording in imperial letters, in the midst of the city which rules over the earth, his righteous deeds and his victories over the impious. Thus Jesus Christ our Saviour is the only one from all eternity who has been acknowledged, even by those highest in the earth, not as a common king among men, but as a trite son of the universal God, and who has been worshiped as very God, and that rightly.

17. For what king that ever lived attained such virtue as to fill the ears and tongues of all men upon earth with his own name? What king, after ordaining such pious and wise laws, has extended them from one end of the earth to the other, so that they are perpetually read in the hearing of all men?

18. Who has abrogated barbarous and savage customs of uncivilized nations by his gentle and most philanthropic laws? Who, being attacked for entire ages by all, has shown such superhuman virtue as to flourish daily, and remain young throughout his life?

19. Who has founded a nation which of old was not even heard of, but which now is not concealed in some corner of the earth, but is spread abroad everywhere under the sun? Who has so fortified his soldiers with the arms of piety that their souls, being firmer than adamant, shine brilliantly in the contests with their opponents?

20. What king prevails to such an extent, and even after death leads on his soldiers, and sets up trophies over his enemies, and fills every place, country and city, Greek and barbarian, with his royal dwellings, even divine temples with their consecrated oblations, like this very temple with its superb adornments and votive offerings, which are themselves so truly great and majestic, worthy of wonder and admiration, and clear signs of the sovereignty of our Saviour? For now, too, he spake, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created.' For what was there to resist the nod of the universal King and Governor and Word of God himself?

21. "A special discourse would be needed accurately to survey and explain all this; and also to describe how great the zeal of the laborers is regarded by him who is celebrated as divine, who looks upon the living temple which we all constitute, and surveys the house, composed of living and moving stones, which is well and surely built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the chief cornerstone being Jesus Christ himself, who has been rejected not only by the builders of that ancient building which no longer stands, but also by the builders--evil architects of evil works--of the structure, which is composed of the mass of men and still endures. But the Father has approved him both then and now, and has made him the head of the corner of this our common church.

22. Who that beholds this living temple of the living God formed of ourselves--this greatest and truly divine sanctuary, I say, whose inmost shrines are invisible to the multitude and are truly holy and a holy of holies--would venture to declare it? Who is able even to look within the sacred enclosure, except the great High Priest of all, to whom alone it is permitted to fathom the mysteries of every rational soul?

23. But perhaps it is granted to another, to one only, to be second after him in the same work, namely, to the commander of this army whom the first and great High Priest himself has honored with the second place in this sanctuary, the shepherd of your divine flock who has obtained your people by the allotment and the judgment of the Father, as if he had appointed him his own servant and interpreter, a new Aaron or Melchizedec, made like the Son of God, remaining and continually preserved by him in accordance with the united prayers of all of you.

24. To him therefore alone let it be granted, if not in the first place, at least in the second after the first and greatest High Priest, to observe and supervise the inmost state of your souls,--to him who by experience and length of time has accurately proved each one, and who by his zeal and care has disposed you all in pious conduct and doctrine, and is better able than any one else to give an account, adequate to the facts, of those things which he himself has accomplished with the Divine assistance.

25. As to our first and great High Priest, it is said, Whatsoever he seeth the Father doing those things likewise the Son also doeth.' So also this one, looking up to him as to the first teacher, with pure eyes of the mind, using as archetypes whatsoever things he seeth him doing, produceth images of them, making them so far as is possible in the same likeness, in nothing inferior to that Beseleel, whom God himself filled with the spirit of wisdom and understanding' and with other technical and scientific knowledge, and called to be the maker of the temple constructed after heavenly types given in symbols.

26. Thus this one also bearing in his own soul the image of the whole Christ, the Word, the Wisdom, the Light, has formed this magnificent temple of the highest God, corresponding to the pattern of the greater as a visible to an invisible, it is impossible to say with what greatness of soul, with what wealth and liberality of mind, and with what emulation on the part of all of you, shown in the magnanimity of the contributors who have ambitiously striven in no way to be left behind by him in the execution of the same purpose. And this place,--for this deserves to be mentioned first of all,--which had been covered with all sorts of rubbish by the artifices of our enemies he did not overlook, nor did he yield to the wickedness of those who had brought about that condition of things, although he might have chosen some other place, for many other sites were available in the city, where he would have had less labor, and been free from trouble.

27. But having first aroused himself to the work, and then strengthened the whole people with zeal, and formed them all into one great body, he fought the first contest. For he thought that this church, which had been especially besieged by the enemy, which had first suffered and endured the same persecutions with us and for us, like a mother bereft of her children, should rejoice with us in the signal favor of the all-merciful God.

28. For when the Great Shepherd had driven away the wild animals and wolves and every cruel and savage beast, and, as the divine oracles say, had broken the jaws of the lions,' he thought good to collect again her children in the same place, and in the most righteous manner he set up the fold of her flock, to put to shame the enemy and avenger,' and to refute the impious daring of the enemies of God.

29. And now they are not,--the haters of God,--for they never were. After they had troubled and been troubled for a little time, they suffered the fitting punishment, and brought themselves and their friends and their relatives to total destruction, so that the declarations inscribed of old in sacred records have been proved true by facts. In these declarations the divine word truly says among other things the following concerning them:

30. The wicked have drawn out the sword, they have bent their bow, to slay the righteous in heart; let their sword enter into their own heart and their bows be broken.' And again: Their memorial is perished with a sound' and their name hast thou blotted out forever and ever'; for when they also were in trouble they cried out and there was none to save: unto the Lord, and he heard them not.' But their feet were bound together, and they fell, but we have arisen and stand upright.' And that which was announced beforehand in these words,--O Lord, in thy city thou shalt set at naught their image,' --has been shown to be true to the eyes of all.

31. But having waged war like the giants against God, they died in this way. But she that was desolate and rejected by men received the consummation which we behold in consequence of her patience toward God, so that the prophecy of Isaiah was spoken of her:

32. Rejoice, thirsty desert, let the desert rejoice and blossom as the lily, and the desert places shall blossom and be glad.' Be strengthened, ye weak hands and feeble knees. Be of good courage, ye feeble-hearted, in your minds; be strong, fear not. Behold our God recompenseth judgment and will recompense, he will come and save us.' For,' he says, in the wilderness water has broken out, and a pool in thirsty ground, and the dry land shall be watered meadows, and in the thirsty ground there shall be springs of water.'

33. These things which were prophesied long ago have been recorded in sacred books; but no longer are they transmitted to us by hearsay merely, but in facts. This desert, this dry land, this widowed and deserted one, whose gates they cut down with axes like wood in a forest, whom they broke down with hatchet and hammer,' whose books also they destroyed, burning with fire the sanctuary of God, and profaning unto the ground the habitation of his name,' whom all that passed by upon the way plucked, and whose fences they broke down, whom the boar out of the wood ravaged, and on which the savage wild beast fed,' now by the wonderful power of Christ, when he wills it, has become like a lily. For at that time also she was chastened at his nod as by a careful father; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.'

34. Then after being chastened in a measure, according to the necessities of the case, she is commanded to rejoice anew; and she blossoms as a lily and exhales her divine odor among all men. For,' it is said, water hath broken out in the wilderness,' the fountain of the saving bath of divine regeneration. And now she, who a little before was a desert, has become watered meadows, and springs of water have gushed forth in a thirsty land.' The hands which before were weak' have become truly strong'; and these works are great and convincing proofs of strong hands. The knees, also, which before were feeble and infirm,' recovering their wonted strength, are moving straight forward in the path of divine knowledge, and hastening to the kindred flock of the all-gracious Shepherd.

35. And if there are any whose souls have been stupefied by the threats of the tyrants, not even they are passed by as incurable by the saving Word; but he heals them also and urges them on to receive divine comfort, saying, Be ye comforted, ye who are faint-hearted; be ye strengthened, fear not.'

36. This our new and excellent Zerubabel, having heard the word which announced beforehand, that she who had been made a desert on account of God should enjoy these things, after the bitter captivity and the abomination of desolation, did not overlook the dead body; but first of all with prayers and supplications propitiated the Father with the common consent of all of you, and invoking the only one that giveth life to the dead as his ally and fellow-worker, raised her that was fallen, after purifying and freeing her from her ills. And he clothed her not with the ancient garment, but with such an one as he had again learned from the sacred oracles, which say clearly, And the latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former.'

37. Thus, enclosing a much larger space, he fortified the outer court with a wall surrounding the whole, which should serve as a most secure bulwark for the entire edifice.

38. And he raised and spread out a great and lofty vestibule toward the rays of the rising sun, and furnished those standing far without the sacred enclosure a full view of those within, almost turning the eyes of those who were strangers to the faith, to the entrances, so that no one could pass by without being impressed by the memory of the former desolation and of the present incredible transformation. His hope was that such an one being impressed by this might be attracted and be induced to enter by the very sight.

39. But when one comes within the gates he does not permit him to enter the sanctuary immediately, with impure and unwashed feet; but leaving as large a space as possible between the temple and the outer entrance, he has surrounded and adorned it with four transverse cloisters, making a quadrangular space with pillars rising on every side, which he has joined with lattice-work screens of wood, rising to a suitable height; and he has left an open space in the middle, so that the sky can be seen, and the free air bright in the rays of the sun.

40. Here he has placed symbols of sacred purifications, setting up fountains opposite the temple which furnish an abundance of water wherewith those who come within the sanctuary may purify themselves. This is the first halting-place of those who enter; and it furnishes at the same time a beautiful and splendid scene to every one, and to those who still need elementary instruction a fitting station.

41. But passing by this spectacle, he has made open entrances to the temple with many other vestibules within, placing three doors on one side, likewise facing the rays of the sun. The one in the middle, adorned with plates of bronze, iron bound, and beautifully embossed, he has made much higher and broader than the others, as if he were making them guards for it as for a queen.

42. In the same way, arranging the number of vestibules for the corridors on each side of the whole temple, he has made above them various openings into the building, for the purpose of admitting more light, adorning them with very fine wood-carving. But the royal house he has furnished with more beautiful and splendid materials, using unstinted liberality in his disbursements.

43. It seems to me superfluous to describe here in detail the length and breadth of the building, its splendor and its majesty surpassing description, and the brilliant appearance of the work, its lofty pinnacles reaching to the heavens, and the costly cedars of Lebanon above them, which the divine oracle has not omitted to mention, saying, The trees of the Lord shall rejoice and the cedars of Lebanon which he hath planted.'

44. Why need I now describe the skillful architectural arrangement and the surpassing beauty of each part, when the testimony of the eye renders instruction through the ear superfluous? For when he had thus completed the temple, he provided it with lofty thrones in honor of those who preside, and in addition with seats arranged in proper order throughout the whole building, and finally placed in the middle the holy of holies, the altar, and, that it might be inaccessible to the multitude, enclosed it with wooden lattice-work, accurately wrought with artistic carving, presenting a wonderful sight to the beholders.

45. And not even the pavement was neglected by him; for this too he adorned with beautiful marble of every variety. Then finally he passed on to the parts without the temple, providing spacious exedræ and buildings on each side, which were joined to the basilica, and communicated with the entrances to the interior of the structure. These were erected by our most peaceful Solomon, the maker of the temple of God, for those who still needed purification and sprinkling by water and the Holy Spirit, so that the prophecy quoted above is no longer a word merely, but a fact; for now it has also come to pass that in truth the latter glory of this house is greater than the former.'

46. For it was necessary and fitting that as her shepherd and Lord had once tasted death for her, and after his suffering had changed that vile body which he assumed in her behalf into a splendid and glorious body, leading the very flesh which had been delivered from corruption to incorruption, she too should enjoy the dispensations of the Saviour. For having received from him the promise of much greater things than these, she desires to share uninterruptedly throughout eternity with the choir of the angels of light, in the far greater glory of regeneration, in the resurrection of an incorruptible body, in the palace of God beyond the heavens, with Christ Jesus himself, the universal Benefactor and Saviour.

47. But for the present, she that was formerly widowed and desolate is clothed by the grace of God with these flowers, and is become truly like a lily, as the prophecy says, and having received the bridal garment and the crown of beauty, she is taught by Isaiah to dance, and to present her thank-offerings unto God the King in reverent words.

48. Let us hear her saying, My soul shall rejoice in the Lord; for he hath clothed me with a garment of salvation and with a robe of gladness; he hath bedecked me like a bridegroom with a garland, and he hath adorned me like a bride with jewels; and like the earth which bringeth forth her bud, and like a garden which causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth, thus the Lord God hath caused righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.'

49. In these words she exults. And in similar words the heavenly bridegroom, the Word Jesus Christ himself, answers her. Hear the Lord saying, Fear not because thou hast been put to shame, neither be thou confounded because thou hast been rebuked; for thou shalt forget the former shame, and the reproach of thy widowhood shalt thou remember no more.' Not as a woman deserted and faint-hearted hath the Lord called thee, nor as a woman hated from her youth, saith thy God. For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercy will I have mercy upon thee; in a little wrath I hid my face from thee, but with everlasting mercy will I have mercy upon thee, saith the Lord that hath redeemed thee.'

50. Awake, awake, thou who hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; for thou hast drunk the cup of ruin, the vessel of my wrath, and hast drained it. And there was none to console thee of all thy sons whom thou didst bring forth, and there was none to take thee by the hand.' Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of ruin, the vessel of my fury, and thou shalt no longer drink it. And I will put it into the hands of them that have treated thee unjustly and have humbled thee.'

51. Awake, awake, put on thy strength, put on thy glory. Shake off the dust and arise. Sit thee down, loose the bands of thy neck.' Lift up thine eyes round about and behold thy children gathered together; behold they are gathered together and are come to thee. As I live, saith the Lord, thou shalt clothe thee with them all as with an ornament, and gird thyself with them as with the ornaments of a bride. For thy waste and corrupted and ruined places shall now be too narrow by reason of those that inhabit thee, and they that swallow thee up shall be far from thee.

52. For thy sons whom thou hast lost shall say in thine ears, The place is too narrow for me, give place to me that I may dwell. Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these? I am childless and a widow, and who hath brought up these for me? I was left alone, and these, where were they for me?'

53. "These are the things which Isaiah foretold; and which were anciently recorded concerning us in sacred books and it was necessary that we should sometime learn their truthfulness by their fulfillment.

54. For when the bridegroom, the Word, addressed such language to his own bride, the sacred and holy Church, this bridesman, --when she was desolate and lying like a corpse, bereft of hope in the eyes of men,--in accordance with the united prayers of all of you, as was proper, stretched out your hands and aroused and raised her up at the command of God, the universal King, and at the manifestation of the power of Jesus Christ; and having raised her he established her as he had learned from the description given in the sacred oracles.

55. This is indeed a very great wonder, passing all admiration, especially to those who attend only to the outward appearance; but more wonderful than wonders are the archetypes and their mental prototypes and divine models; I mean the reproductions of the inspired and rational building in our souls.

56. This the Divine Son himself created after his own image, imparting to it everywhere and in all respects the likeness of God, an incorruptible nature, incorporeal, rational, free from all earthly matter, a being endowed with its own intelligence; and when he had once called her forth from non-existence into existence, he made her a holy spouse, an all-sacred temple for himself and for the Father. This also he clearly declares and confesses in the following words: I will dwell in them and will walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.' Such is the perfect and purified soul, so made from the beginning as to bear the image of the celestial Word.

57. But when by the envy and zeal of the malignant demon she became, of her own voluntary choice, sensual and a lover of evil, the Deity left her; and as if bereft of a protector, she became an easy prey and readily accessible to those who had long envied her; and being assailed by the batteries and machines of her invisible enemies and spiritual foes, she suffered a terrible fall, so that not one stone of virtue remained upon another in her, but she lay completely dead upon the ground, entirely divested of her natural ideas of God.

58. "But as she, who had been made in the image of God, thus lay prostrate, it was not that wild boar from the forest which we see that despoiled her, but a certain destroying demon and spiritual wild beasts who deceived her with their passions as with the fiery darts of their own wickedness, and burned the truly divine sanctuary of God with fire, and profaned to the ground the tabernacle of his name. Then burying the miserable one with heaps of earth, they destroyed every hope of deliverance.

59. But that divinely bright and saving Word, her protector, after she had suffered the merited punishment for her sins, again restored her, securing the favor of the all-merciful Father.

60. Having won over first the souls of the highest rulers, he purified, through the agency of those most divinely favored princes, the whole earth from all the impious destroyers, and from the terrible and God-hating tyrants themselves. Then bringing out into the light those who were his friends, who had long before been consecrated to him for life, but in the midst, as it were, of a storm of evils, had been concealed under his shelter, he honored them worthily with the great gifts of the Spirit. And again, by means of them, he cleared out and cleaned with spades and mattocks--the admonitory words of doctrine --the souls which a little while before had been covered with filth and burdened with every kind of matter and rubbish of impious ordinances.

61. And when he had made the ground of all your minds clean and clear, he finally committed it to this all-wise and God-beloved Ruler, who, being endowed with judgment and prudence, as well as with other gifts, and being able to examine and discriminate accurately the minds of those committed to his charge, from the first day, so to speak, down to the present, has not ceased to build.

62. Now he has supplied the brilliant gold, again the refined and unalloyed silver, and the precious and costly stones in all of you, so that again is fulfilled for you in facts a sacred and mystic prophecy, which says, Behold I make thy stone a carbuncle, and thy foundations of sapphire, and thy battlements of jasper, and thy gates of crystals, and thy wall of chosen stones; and all thy sons shall be taught of God, and thy children shall enjoy complete peace; and in righteousness shalt thou be built.'

63. Building therefore in righteousness, he divided the whole people according to their strength. With some he fortified only the outer enclosure, walling it up with unfeigned faith; such were the great mass of the people who were incapable of bearing a greater structure. Others he permitted to enter the building, commanding them to stand at the door and act as guides for those who should come in; these may be not unfitly compared to the vestibules of the temple. Others he supported by the first pillars which are placed without about the quadrangular hall, initiating them into the first elements of the letter of the four Gospels. Still others he joined together about the basilica on both sides; these are the catechumens who are still advancing and progressing, and are not far separated from the inmost view of divine things granted to the faithful.

64. Taking from among these the pure souls that have been cleansed like gold by divine washing, he then supports them by pillars, much better than those without, made from the inner and mystic teachings of the Scripture, and illumines them by windows.

65. Adorning the whole temple with a great vestibule of the glory of the one universal King and only God, and placing on either side of the authority of the Father Christ, and the Holy Spirit as second lights, he exhibits abundantly and gloriously throughout the entire building the clearness and splendor of the truth of the rest in all its details. And having selected from every quarter the living and moving and well-prepared stones of the souls, he constructs out of them all the great and royal house, splendid and full of light both within and without; for not only soul and understanding, but their body also is made glorious by the blooming ornament of purity and modesty.

66. And in this temple there are also thrones, and a great number of seats and benches, in all those souls in which sit the Holy Spirit's gifts, such as were anciently seen by the sacred apostles, and those who were with them, when there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire, and sat upon each one of them.'

67. But in the leader of all it is reasonable to suppose that Christ himself dwells in his fullness, and in those that occupy the second rank after him, in proportion as each is able to contain the power of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. And the souls of some of those, namely, who are committed to each of them for instruction and care--may be seats for angels.

68. But the great and august and unique altar, what else could this be than the pure holy of holies of the soul of the common priest of all? Standing at the right of it, Jesus himself, the great High Priest of the universe, the Only Begotten of God, receives with bright eye and extended hand the sweet incense from all, and the bloodless and immaterial sacrifices offered in their prayers, and bears them to the heavenly Father and God of the universe. And he himself first worships him, and alone gives to the Father the reverence which is his due, beseeching him also to continue always kind and propitious to us all.

69. "Such is the great temple which the great Creator of the universe, the Word, has built throughout the entire world, making it an intellectual image upon earth of those things which lie above the vault of heaven, so that throughout the whole creation, including rational beings on earth, his Father might be honored and adored.

70. But the region above the heavens, with the models of earthly things which are there, and the so-called Jerusalem above, and the heavenly Mount of Zion, and the supramundane city of the living God, in which innumerable choirs of angels and the Church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven, praise their Maker and the Supreme Ruler of the universe with hymns of praise unutterable and incomprehensible to us,--who that is mortal is able worthily to celebrate this? For eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of men those things which God hath prepared for them that love him.'

71. Since we, men, children, and women, small and great, are already in part partakers of these things, let us not cease all together, with one spirit and one soul, to confess and praise the author of such great benefits to us, Who forgiveth all our iniquities, who healeth all our diseases, who redeemeth our life from destruction, who crowneth us with mercy and compassion, who satisfieth our desires with good things.' For he hath not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities;' for as far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our iniquities from us. Like as a father pitieth his own children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.'

72. Rekindling these thoughts in our memories, both now and during all time to come, and contemplating in our mind night and day, in every hour and with every breath, so to speak, the Author and Ruler of the present festival, and of this bright and most splendid day, let us love and adore him with every power of the soul. And now rising, let us beseech him with loud voice to shelter and preserve us to the end in his fold, granting his unbroken and unshaken peace forever, in Christ Jesus our Saviour; through whom be the glory unto him forever and ever. Amen."

Chapter V.--Copies of Imperial Laws.

1. Let us finally subjoin the translations from the Roman tongue of the imperial decrees of Constantine and Licinius.

Copy of imperial decrees translated from the Roman tongue.

2. "Perceiving long ago that religious liberty ought not to be denied, but that it ought to be granted to the judgment and desire of each individual to perform his religious duties according to his own choice, we had given orders that every man, Christians as well as others, should preserve the faith of his own sect and religion.

3. But since in that rescript, in which such liberty was granted them, many and various conditions seemed clearly added, some of them, it may be, after a little retired from such observance.

4. When I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, came under favorable auspices to Milan and took under consideration everything which pertained to the common weal and prosperity, we resolved among other things, or rather first of all, to make such decrees as seemed in many respects for the benefit of every one; namely, such as should preserve reverence and piety toward the deity. We resolved, that is, to grant both to the Christians and to all men freedom to follow the religion which they choose, that whatever heavenly divinity exists may be propitious to us and to all that live under our government.

5. We have, therefore, determined, with sound and upright purpose, that liberty is to be denied to no one, to choose and to follow the religious observances of the Christians, but that to each one freedom is to be given to devote his mind to that religion which he may think adapted to himself, in order that the Deity may exhibit to us in all things his accustomed care and favor.

6. It was fitting that we should write that this is our pleasure, that those conditions being entirely left out which were contained in our former letter concerning the Christians which was sent to your devotedness, everything that seemed very severe and foreign to our mildness may be annulled, and that now every one who has the same desire to observe the religion of the Christians may do so without molestation.

7. We have resolved to communicate this most fully to thy care, in order that thou mayest know that we have granted to these same Christians freedom and full liberty to observe their own religion.

8. Since this has been granted freely by us to them, thy devotedness perceives that liberty is granted to others also who may wish to follow their own religious observances; it being clearly in accordance with the tranquillity of our times, that each one should have the liberty of choosing and worshiping whatever deity he pleases. This has been done by us in order that we might not seem in any way to discriminate against any rank or religion.

9. And we decree still further in regard to the Christians, that their places, in which they were formerly accustomed to assemble, and concerning which in the former letter sent to thy devotedness a different command was given, if it appear that any have bought them either from our treasury or from any other person, shall be restored to the said Christians, without demanding money or any other equivalent, with no delay or hesitation.

10. If any happen to have received the said places as a gift, they shall restore them as quickly as possible to these same Christians: with the understanding that if those who have bought these places, or those who have received them as a gift, demand anything from our bounty, they may go to the judge of the district, that provision may be made for them by our clemency. All these things are to be granted to the society of Christians by your care immediately and without any delay.

11. And since the said Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other places, belonging not to individuals among them, but to the society as a whole, that is, to the society of Christians, you will command that all these, in virtue of the law which we have above stated, be restored, without any hesitation, to these same Christians; that is, to their society and congregation: the above-mentioned provision being of course observed, that those who restore them without price, as we have before said, may expect indemnification from our bounty.

12. In all these things, for the behoof of the aforesaid society of Christians, you are to use the utmost diligence, to the end that our command may be speedily fulfilled, and that in this also, by our clemency, provision may be made for the common and public tranquillity.

13. For by this means, as we have said before, the divine favor toward us which we have already experienced in many matters will continue sure through all time.

14. And that the terms of this our gracious ordinance may be known to all, it is expected that this which we have written will be published everywhere by you and brought to the knowledge of all, in order that this gracious ordinance of ours may remain unknown to no one."

Copy of another imperial decree which they issued, indicating that the grant was made to the Catholic Church alone.

15. "Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anulinus. It is the custom of our benevolence, most esteemed Anulinus, to will that those things which belong of right to another should not only be left unmolested, but should also be restored.

16. Wherefore it is our will that when thou receivest this letter, if any such things belonged to the Catholic Church of the Christians, in any city or other place, but are now held by citizens or by any others, thou shalt cause them to be restored immediately to the said churches. For we have already determined that those things which these same churches formerly possessed shall be restored to them.

17. Since therefore thy devotedness perceives that this command of ours is most explicit, do thou make haste to restore to them, as quickly as possible, everything which formerly belonged to the said churches,--whether gardens or buildings or whatever they may be,--that we may learn that thou hast obeyed this decree of ours most carefully. Farewell, our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus."

Copy of an epistle in which the Emperor commands that a synod of bishops be held at Rome in behalf of the unity and concord of the churches.

18. "Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and to Marcus. Since many such communications have been sent to me by Anulinus, the most illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is said that Cæcilianus, bishop of the city of Carthage, has been accused by some of his colleagues in Africa, in many matters; and since it seems to me a very serious thing that in those provinces which Divine Providence has freely entrusted to my devotedness, and in which there is a great population, the multitude are found following the baser course, and dividing, as it were, into two parties, and the bishops are at variance,--

19. it has seemed good to me that Cæcilianus himself, with ten of the bishops that appear to accuse him, and with ten others whom he may consider necessary for his defense, should sail to Rome, that there, in the presence of yourselves and of Retecius and Maternus and Marinus, your colleagues, whom I have commanded to hasten to Rome for this purpose, he may be heard, as you may understand to be in accordance with the most holy law.

20. But in order that you may be enabled to have most perfect knowledge of all these things, I have subjoined to my letter copies of the documents sent to me by Anulinus, and have sent them to your above-mentioned colleagues. When your firmness has read these, you will consider in what way the above-mentioned case may be most accurately investigated and justly decided. For it does not escape your diligence that I have such reverence for the legitimate Catholic Church that I do not wish you to leave schism or division in any place. May the divinity of the great God preserve you, most honored sirs, for many years."

Copy of an epistle in which the emperor commands another synod to be held for the purpose of removing all dissensions among the bishops.

21. "Constantine Augustus to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse. When some began wickedly and perversely to disagree among themselves in regard to the holy worship and celestial power and Catholic doctrine, wishing to put an end to such disputes among them, I formerly gave command that certain bishops should be sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties who were contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be summoned from Africa; that in their presence, and in the presence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care.

22. But since, as it happens, some, forgetful both of their own salvation and of the reverence due to the most holy religion, do not even yet bring hostilities to an end, and are unwilling to conform to the judgment already passed, and assert that those who expressed their opinions and decisions were few, or that they had been too hasty and precipitate in giving judgment, before all the things which ought to have been accurately investigated had been examined,--on account of all this it has happened that those very ones who ought to hold brotherly and harmonious relations toward each other, are shamefully, or rather abominably, divided among themselves, and give occasion for ridicule to those men whose souls are aliens to this most holy religion. Wherefore it has seemed necessary to me to provide that this dissension, which ought to have ceased after the judgment had been already given by their own voluntary agreement, should now, if possible, be brought to an end by the presence of many.

23. Since, therefore, we have commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places to assemble in the city of Arles, before the kalends of August, we have thought proper to write to thee also that thou shouldst secure from the most illustrious Latronianus, corrector of Sicily, a public vehicle, and that thou shouldst take with thee two others of the second rank, whom thou thyself shalt choose, together with three servants who may serve you on the way, and betake thyself to the above-mentioned place before the appointed day; that by thy firmness, and by the wise unanimity and harmony of the others present, this dispute, which has disgracefully continued until the present time, in consequence of certain shameful strifes, after all has been heard which those have to say who are now at variance with one another, and whom we have likewise commanded to be present, may be settled in accordance with the proper faith, and that brotherly harmony, though it be but gradually, may be restored.

24. May the Almighty God preserve thee in health for many years."

Chapter VI. --Copy of an Imperial Epistle in which Money is granted to the Churches.

1. "Constantine Augustus to Cæcilianus, bishop of Carthage. Since it is our pleasure that something should be granted in all the provinces of Africa and Numidia and Mauritania to certain ministers of the legitimate and most holy catholic religion, to defray their expenses, I have written to Ursus, the illustrious finance minister of Africa, and have directed him to make provision to pay to thy firmness three thousand folles.

2. Do thou therefore, when thou hast received the above sum of money, command that it be distributed among all those mentioned above, according to the brief sent to thee by Hosius.

3. But if thou shouldst find that anything is wanting for the fulfillment of this purpose of mine in regard to all of them, thou shalt demand without hesitation from Heracleides, our treasurer, whatever thou findest to be necessary. For I commanded him when he was present that if thy firmness should ask him for any money, he should see to it that it be paid without delay.

4. And since I have learned that some men of unsettled mind wish to turn the people from the most holy and catholic Church by a certain method of shameful corruption, do thou know that I gave command to Anulinus, the proconsul, and also to Patricius, vicar of the prefects, when they were present, that they should give proper attention not only to other matters but also above all to this, and that they should not overlook such a thing when it happened. Wherefore if thou shouldst see any such men continuing in this madness, do thou without delay go to the above-mentioned judges and report the matter to them; that they may correct them as I commanded them when they were present. The divinity of the great God preserve thee for many years."

Chapter VII.--The Exemption of the Clergy.

Copy of an Epistle in which the emperor commands that the rulers of the churches be exempted from all political duties.

1. "Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anulinus. Since it appears from many circumstances that when that religion is despised, in which is preserved the chief reverence for the most holy celestial Power, great dangers are brought upon public affairs; but that when legally adopted and observed it affords the most signal prosperity to the Roman name and remarkable felicity to all the affairs of men, through the divine beneficence,--it has seemed good to me, most esteemed Anulinus, that those men who give their services with due sanctity and with constant observance of this law, to the worship of the divine religion, should receive recompense for their labors.

2. Wherefore it is my will that those within the province entrusted to thee, in the catholic Church, over which Cæcilianus presides, who give their services to this holy religion, and who are commonly called clergymen, be entirely exempted from all public duties, that they may not by any error or sacrilegious negligence be drawn away from the service due to the Deity, but may devote themselves without any hindrance to their own law. For it seems that when they show greatest reverence to the Deity, the greatest benefits accrue to the state. Farewell, our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus."

Chapter VIII.--The Subsequent Wickedness of Licinius, and his Death.

1. Such blessings did divine and heavenly grace confer upon us through the appearance of our Saviour, and such was the abundance of benefits which prevailed among all men in consequence of the peace which we enjoyed. And thus were our affairs crowned with rejoicings and festivities.

2. But malignant envy, and the demon who loves that which is evil, were not able to bear the sight of these things; and moreover the events that befell the tyrants whom we have already mentioned were not sufficient to bring Licinius to sound reason.

3. For the latter, although his government was prosperous and he was honored with the second rank after the great Emperor Constantine, and was connected with him by the closest ties of marriage, abandoned the imitation of good deeds, and emulated the wickedness of the impious tyrants whose end he had seen with his own eyes, and chose rather to follow their principles than to continue in friendly relations with him who was better than they. Being envious of the common benefactor he waged an impious and most terrible war against him, paying regard neither to laws of nature, nor treaties, nor blood, and giving no thought to covenants.

4. For Constantine, like an all-gracious emperor, giving him evidences of true favor, did not refuse alliance with him, and did not refuse him the illustrious marriage with his sister, but honored him by making him a partaker of the ancestral nobility and the ancient imperial blood, and granted him the right of sharing in the dominion over all as a brother-in-law and co-regent, conferring upon him the government and administration of no less a portion of the Roman provinces than he himself possessed.

5. But Licinius, on the contrary, pursued a course directly opposite to this; forming daily all kinds of plots against his superior, and devising all sorts of mischief, that he might repay his benefactor with evils. At first he attempted to conceal his preparations, and pretended to be a friend, and practiced frequently fraud and deceit, in the hope that he might easily accomplish the desired end.

6. But God was the friend, protector, and guardian of Constantine, and bringing the plots which had been formed in secrecy and darkness to the light, he foiled them. So much virtue does the great armor of piety possess for the warding off of enemies and for the preservation of our own safety. Protected by this, our most divinely favored emperor escaped the multitudinous plots of the abominable man.

7. But when Licinius perceived that his secret preparations by no means progressed according to his mind,--for God revealed every plot and wickedness to the God-favored emperor,--being no longer able to conceal himself, he undertook an open war.

8. And at the same time that he determined to wage war with Constantine, he also proceeded to join battle with the God of the universe, whom he knew that Constantine worshiped, and began, gently for a time and quietly, to attack his pious subjects, who had never done his government any harm. This he did under the compulsion of his innate wickedness which drove him into terrible blindness.

9. He did not therefore keep before his eyes the memory of those who had persecuted the Christians before him, nor of those whose destroyer and executioner he had been appointed, on account of the impieties which they had committed. But departing from sound reason, being seized, in a word, with insanity, he determined to war against God himself as the ally of Constantine, instead of against the one who was assisted by him.

10. And in the first place, he drove from his house every Christian, thus depriving himself, wretched man, of the prayers which they offered to God in his behalf, which they are accustomed, according to the teaching of their fathers, to offer for all men. Then he commanded that the soldiers in the cities should be cashiered and stripped of their rank unless they chose to sacrifice to the demons. And yet these were small matters when compared with the greater things that followed.

11. Why is it necessary to relate minutely and in detail all that was done by the hater of God, and to recount how this most lawless man invented unlawful laws? He passed an ordinance that no one should exercise humanity toward the sufferers in prison by giving them food, and that none should show mercy to those that were perishing of hunger in bonds; that no one should in any way be kind, or do any good act, even though moved by Nature herself to sympathize with one's neighbors. And this was indeed an openly shameful and most cruel law, calculated to expel all natural kindliness. And in addition to this it was also decreed, as a punishment, that those who showed compassion should suffer the same things with those whom they compassionated; and that those who kindly ministered to the suffering should be thrown into bonds and into prison, and should endure the same punishment with the sufferers. Such were the decrees of Licinius.

12. Why should we recount his innovations in regard to marriage or in regard to the dying--innovations by which he ventured to annul the ancient laws of the Romans which had been well and wisely formed, and to introduce certain barbarous and cruel laws, which were truly unlawful and lawless? He invented, to the detriment of the provinces which were subject to him, innumerable prosecutions, and all sorts of methods of extorting gold and silver, new measurements of land and injurious exactions from men in the country, who were no longer living, but long since dead.

13. Why is it necessary to speak at length of the banishments which, in addition to these things, this enemy of mankind inflicted upon those who had done no wrong, the expatriations of men of noble birth and high reputation whose young wives he snatched from them and consigned to certain baser fellows of his own, to be shamefully abused by them, and the many married women and virgins upon whom he gratified his passions, although he was in advanced age --why, I say, is it necessary to speak at length of these things, when the excessive wickedness of his last deeds makes the first appear small and of no account?

14. For, finally, he reached such a pitch of madness that he attacked the bishops, supposing that they--as servants of the God over all--would be hostile to his measures. He did not yet proceed against them openly, on account of his fear of his superior, but as before, secretly and craftily, employing the treachery of the governors for the destruction of the most distinguished of them. And the manner of their murder was strange, and such as had never before been heard of.

15. The deeds which he performed at Amaseia and in the other cities of Pontus surpassed every excess of cruelty. Some of the churches of God were again razed to the ground, others were closed, so that none of those accustomed to frequent them could enter them and render the worship due to God.

16. For his evil conscience led him to suppose that prayers were not offered in his behalf; but he was persuaded that we did everything in the interest of the God-beloved emperor, and that we supplicated God for him. Therefore he hastened to turn his fury against us.

17. And then those among the governors who wished to flatter him, perceiving that in doing such things they pleased the impious tyrant, made some of the bishops suffer the penalties customarily inflicted upon criminals, and led away and without any pretext punished like murderers those who had done no wrong. Some now endured a new form of death: having their bodies cut into many pieces with the sword, and after this savage and most horrible spectacle, being thrown into the depths of the sea as food for fishes.

18. Thereupon the worshipers of God again fled, and fields and deserts, forests and mountains, again received the servants of Christ. And when the impious tyrant had thus met with success in these measures, he finally planned to renew the persecution against all.

19. And he would have succeeded in his design, and there would have been nothing to hinder him in the work, had not God, the defender of the lives of his own people, most quickly anticipated that which was about to happen, and caused a great light to shine forth as in the midst of a dark and gloomy night, and raised up a deliverer for all, leading into those regions with a lofty arm, his servant, Constantine.

Chapter IX.--The Victory of Constantine, and the Blessings which under him accrued to the Subjects of the Roman Empire.

1. To him, therefore, God granted, from heaven above, the deserved fruit of piety, the trophies of victory over the impious, and he cast the guilty one with all his counselors and friends prostrate at the feet of Constantine.

2. For when Licinius carried his madness to the last extreme, the emperor, the friend of God, thinking that he ought no longer to be tolerated, acting upon the basis of sound judgment, and mingling the firm principles of justice with humanity, gladly determined to come to the protection of those who were oppressed by the tyrant, and undertook, by putting a few destroyers out of the way, to save the greater part of the human race.

3. For when he had formerly exercised humanity alone and had shown mercy to him who was not worthy of sympathy, nothing was accomplished; for Licinius did not renounce his wickedness, but rather increased his fury against the peoples that were subject to him, and there was left to the afflicted no hope of salvation, oppressed as they were by a savage beast.

4. Wherefore, the protector of the virtuous, mingling hatred for evil with love for good, went forth with his son Crispus, a most beneficent prince, and extended a saving right hand to all that were perishing. Both of them, father and son, under the protection, as it were, of God, the universal King, with the Son of God, the Saviour of all, as their leader and ally, drew up their forces on all sides against the enemies of the Deity and won an easy victory; God having prospered them in the battle in all respects according to their wish.

5. Thus, suddenly, and sooner than can be told, those who yesterday and the day before breathed death and threatening were no more, and not even their names were remembered, but their inscriptions and their honors suffered the merited disgrace. And the things which Licinius with his own eyes had seen come upon the former impious tyrants he himself likewise suffered, because he did not receive instruction nor learn wisdom from the chastisements of his neighbors, but followed the same path of impiety which they had trod, and was justly hurled over the same precipice. Thus he lay prostrate.

6. But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East which belonged to them; and they formed one united Roman empire as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north and south, even to the extremities of the declining day.

7. All fear therefore of those who had formerly afflicted them was taken away from men, and they celebrated splendid and festive days. Everything was filled with light, and those who before were downcast beheld each other with smiling faces and beaming eyes. With dances and hymns, in city and country, they glorified first of all God the universal King, because they had been thus taught, and then the pious emperor with his God-beloved children.

8. There was oblivion of past evils and forgetfulness of every deed of impiety; there was enjoyment of present benefits and expectation of those yet to come. Edicts full of clemency and laws containing tokens of benevolence and true piety were issued in every place by the victorious emperor.

9. Thus after all tyranny had been purged away, the empire which belonged to them was preserved firm and without a rival for Constantine and his sons alone. And having obliterated the godlessness of their predecessors, recognizing the benefits conferred upon them by God, they exhibited their love of virtue and their love of God, and their piety and gratitude to the Deity, by the deeds which they performed in the sight of all men.

The end, with God's help, of the Tenth Book of the Church History of Eusebius Pamphili.

Supplementary Notes and Tables.

On Bk. III. chap. 3, § 5 (note 17, continued).

Since this note was in type Dr. Gardiner's admirable and exhaustive essay on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XIV. p. 341 sq.) has come to hand, and I have been much pleased to see that the theory that Barnabas wrote the epistle is accepted and defended with vigor.

On Bk. III. chap. 3, § 6 (note 22, continued).

Upon the last chapter of Romans and its relation to the remainder of the epistle, see especially Farrar's Life and Work of St. Paul, p. 450 sq., Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T. p. 245 sq., Pfleiderer's Urchristenthum, p. 145, Renan's Saint Paul, p. 461 sq. (maintaining that an editor has combined four copies of the one encyclical letter of Paul, addressed severally to as many different churches), Lightfoot's Commentary on Philippians, p. 172 sq., and Schaff, Ch. History, I. p. 765.

On Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17 (note 18 continued).

In three places in the Church History (Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17, chap. 25, § 2, and chap. 39, § 16) John's "former" epistle is referred to, as if he had written only two. In the last passage the use of protera instead of prote might be explained as Westcott suggests (Canon of the New Testament, p. 77, note 2), by supposing Eusebius to be reproducing the words of Papias; but in the other passages this explanation will not do, for the words are certainly Eusebius' own. In the Muratorian Canon only two epistles of John are mentioned, and in Irenæus the second epistle is quoted as if it were the first (see Westcott, ibid. p. 384, note 1). These facts lead Westcott to ask: "Is it possible that the second epistle was looked upon as an appendix to the first? and may we thus explain the references to two epistles of John?" He continues: "The first epistle, as is well known, was called ad Parthos by Augustine and some other Latin authorities; and the same title pros P?rthous is given to the second epistle in one Greek manuscript (62 Scholz). The Latin translation of Clement's Outlines (IV. 66) says: Secunda Johannis epistola quæ ad virgines (parthenous) scripta simplissima est. Jerome, it may be added, quotes names from the third epistle as from the second (De nom. Hebr.)." On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 8, § 7, Eusebius speaks of the "first" (prote) epistle of John, and in Bk. III. chap. 25, § 3, he expressly mentions a second and third epistle of John. It is evident, therefore, that whatever the use of protera instead of prote in connection with John's first epistle may mean as used by others, it does not indicate a knowledge of only a first and second as used by him. It is by no means impossible, however, that Westcott's suggestion may be correct, and that the first and second epistles were sometimes looked upon as but one, and it is possible that such use of them by some of his predecessors may account for Eusebius' employment of the word protera in three separate passages.

On Bk. III. chap. 25, § 4 (note 18 continued).

The words he pheromene Barn?ba epistole have been commonly translated "the so-called Epistle of Barnabas," or "the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas," implying a doubt in Eusebius' mind as to the authenticity of the work. This translation, however, is, in my opinion, quite unwarranted. There are passages in Eusebius where the word pheromai used in connection with writings cannot by any possibility be made to bear this meaning; cases in which it can be interpreted only "to be extant" or "in circulation." Compare, for instance, Bk. II. chap. 15, § 1, M?rkon hou to eungelion pheretai; II. 18. 6, monobibla autou pheretai; III. 9. 4; III. 16; III. 25. 3, he legomene 'Iakobou pheretai; III. 37. 4; III. 39. 1; IV. 3. 1, eiseti de pheretai para pleistois; IV. 14. 9, en te delotheise pros philippesious autou graphe pheromene eis deuro. Compare also IV. 15. I; IV. 23. 4, 9, 12; IV. 24. 1; IV. 28; V. 5. 6; 19. 3; 23. 2; 24. 10; VI. 15. 1; VI. 20, &c. These passages, and many others which are cited by Heinichen (Vol. III. p. 91), prove that the word is frequently used in the sense of "extant" or "in circulation." But in spite of these numerous examples, Heinichen maintains that the word is also used by Eusebius in another and quite different sense; namely, "so-called" or "ascribed to," thus equivalent to legomene. A careful examination, however, of all the passages cited by him in illustration of this second meaning will show that in them too the word may be interpreted in the same way as in those already referred to; in fact, that in many of them that is in itself the more natural interpretation. The passages to which we refer are Bk. III. chap. 25, §§ 2, 3, and 4; III. 3. 1, ten de pheromenen autou deuteran; III. 39. 6 (where I ought to have translated "is extant under the name of John"). To draw a distinction between the meaning of the word as used in these and in the other passages is quite arbitrary, and therefore unwarranted. The sense in which, as we have found, Eusebius so commonly employs the word attaches also to the Latin word fertur in the Muratorian Canon. I have not endeavored to trace carefully the use of the word in other writers; but while many instances occur in which it is certainly used in this sense, others in which either interpretation is allowable, I have not yet found one in which this meaning is ruled out by the nature of the case or by the context. In view of these facts I believe we should be careful to draw a sharp distinction between legomene or kaloumene and pheromene when used in connection with written works.

A considerable portion of my translation was in type before I had observed this distinction between the two words, which is commonly quite overlooked, and as a consequence in a few cases my rendering of the word pheromene is inaccurate. All such cases I have endeavored to call attention to in these supplementary notes.

On Bk. III. chap. 28, § 1.

For the Disputation which is ascribed to him, read his extant Disputation.

On Bk. III. chap. 32, § 6 (note 14^a).

The Greek reads p?ses ekklesias (without the article), and so, two lines below, en p?se ekklesi& 139;. All the translators (with the exception of Pratten in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII., who reads, "the churches") render "the whole church," as if reading pas with the article. We have not, it is true, enough of Hegesippus' writings to be able to ascertain positively his use of pas, and it is possible that he carelessly employed it indifferently with or without the article to signify the definite "all" or "the whole." In the absence of positive testimony, however, that he failed to draw the proper distinction between its use with and its use without the article, and in view of the fact that Eusebius himself (as well as other early Fathers so far as I am able to recall) is very consistent in making the distinction, I have not felt at liberty in my translation to depart from a strict grammatical interpretation of the phrases in question. Moreover, upon second thought, it seems quite as possible that Hegesippus meant to say "every" not "all"; for he can hardly have supposed these relatives of the Lord to have presided literally over the whole Church, while he might very well say that they presided each over the church in the city in which he lived, which is all that the words necessarily imply. The phrase just below, "in every church," is perhaps as natural as "in the whole church."

On Bk. III. chap. 36 § 13.

For the Epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him, read his extant Epistle to the Philippians.

On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 1 (note 1, continued).

Since the above note was in type Resch's important work on the Agrapha(von Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 4) has come to hand. On p. 27 sq. he discusses at considerable length the sources of the Synoptic Gospels. He accepts the theory which is most widely adopted by New-Testament critics, that the synoptic tradition as contained in our Synoptic Gospels rests upon an original Gospel of Mark (nearly if not quite identical with our present Gospel of Mark) and a pre-canonical Hebrew Gospel. In agreement with such critics he draws a sharp distinction between this original Hebrew Gospel and our canonical Greek Matthew, while at the same time recognizing that the latter reproduces that original more fully than either of the other Gospels does. This original Hebrew he then identifies with the logia referred to by Papias as composed by Matthew in the Hebrew tongue (see Bk. III. chap. 39, § 16); that is, with the traditional Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (see ibid. chap. 24, note 5). The arguments which he urges in support of this position are very strong. Handmann regards the Gospel according to the Hebrews as the second original source of the synoptic tradition, alongside of the Ur-Marcus, and even suggests its identification with the logia of Papias, and yet denies its identity with the Hebrew Matthew. On the other hand, Resch regards the Hebrew Matthew, which he identifies with the logia of Papias, as the second original source of the synoptic tradition, alongside of Mark or the Ur-Marcus, and yet, like Handmann, though on entirely different grounds, denies the identity of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with the Hebrew Matthew. Their positions certainly tend to confirm my suggestion that the Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews were originally identical (see above, Bk. III. chap. 27, note 8).

On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 6.

For ascribed by name to John, read extant under the name of John.

On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 16.

For from the first epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise, read from the former epistle of John and from the epistle of Peter likewise. See p. 388.

On Bk. IV. chap. 10.

For the Pious, read Pius.

On Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2.

For the Pious, read Pius.

On Bk. V. Introd. § I (note 3, continued). The Successors of Antoninus Pius.

Antoninus Pius was succeeded in 161 by his adopted sons, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Verus and Lucius Ceionius Ælius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus. Upon his accession to the throne the former transferred his name Verus to the latter, who was thenceforth called Lucius Aurelius Verus. In his Chronicle Eusebius keeps these two princes distinct, but in his History he falls into sad confusion in regard to them, and this confusion has drawn upon him the severe censure of all his critics. He knew of course, as every one did, that Antoninus Pius had two successors. In Bk. IV. chap. 14, § 10, he states this directly, and gives the names of the successors as "Marcus Aurelius Verus, who was also called Antoninus," and "Lucius." From that point on he calls the former of these princes simply Antoninus Verus, Antoninus, or Verus, dropping entirely the name Marcus Aurelius. In Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2, he speaks of the emperor "whose times we are now recording," that is, the successor of Antoninus Pius, and calls him Antoninus Verus. In Bk. V. Introd. § I he refers to the same emperor as Antoninus Verus, and in Bk. V. chap. 4, § 3, and chap. 9, he calls him simply Antoninus, while in Bk. IV. chap. 13, § 8, he speaks of him as the "Emperor Verus." The death of this Emperor Antoninus is mentioned in Bk. V. chap. 9, and it is there said that he reigned nineteen years and was then succeeded by Commodus. It is evident that in all these passages he is referring to the emperor whom we know as Marcus Aurelius, but to whom he gives that name only once, when he records his accession to the empire. On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 5, § 1, Eusebius speaks of Marcus Aurelius Cæsar and expressly distinguishes him from the Emperor Antoninus, to whom he has referred at the close of the previous chapter, and makes him the brother of that emperor. Again, in the same chapter, § 6, he calls this Marcus Aurelius Cæsar, just referred to, the "Emperor Marcus," still evidently distinguishing him from the Emperor Antoninus. In this chapter, therefore, he thinks of Marcus Aurelius as the younger of the two sons left by Antoninus Pius; that is, he identifies him with the one whom we call Lucius Verus, and whom he himself calls Lucius in Bk. IV. chap. 14 § 10. Eusebius thus commits a palpable error. How are we to explain it?

The explanation seems to me to lie in the circumstance that Eusebius attempted to reconcile the tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor with the fact known to him as a historian, that the emperor who succeeded Antoninus Pius was. It was the common belief in the time of Eusebius, as it had been during the entire preceding century, that all the good emperors had been friendly to the Christians, and that only the bad emperors had persecuted. Of course, among the good emperors was included the philosophical Marcus Aurelius (cf. e.g. Tertullian's Apol. chap. 5, to which Eusebius refers in Bk. V. chap. 5). It was of Marcus Aurelius, moreover, that the story of the Thundering Legion was told (see ibid.). But Eusebius was not able to overlook the fact that numerous martyrdoms occurred during the reign of the successor of Antoninus Pius. He had the documents recording the terrible persecution at Lyons and Vienne; he had an apology of Melito, describing the hardships which the Christians endured under the same emperor (see Bk. IV. chap. 26). He found himself, as an historian, face to face with two apparently contradictory lines of facts. How was the contradiction to be solved? He seems to have solved it by assuming that a confusion of names had taken place, and that the prince commonly known as Marcus Aurelius, whose noble character was traditional, and whose friendship to the Christians he could not doubt, was the younger, not the older of the two brothers, and therefore not responsible for the numerous martyrdoms which took place after the death of Antoninus Pius. And yet he is not consistent with himself even in his History; for he gives the two brothers their proper names when he first mentions them, and says nothing of an identification of Marcus Aurelius with Lucius. It is not impossible that the words Marcus Aurelius, which are used nowhere else of the older brother, are an interpolation; but for this there is no evidence, and it may be suggested as more probable that at the time when this passage was written the solution of the difficulty which he gives distinctly in Bk. V. chap. 5 had not yet occurred to him. That he should be able to fancy that Marcus Aurelius was identical with Lucius is perhaps not strange when we remember how much confusion was caused in the minds of other writers besides himself by the perplexing identity of the names of the various members of the Antonine family. To the two successors of Antoninus Pius, the three names, Aurelius, Verus, and Antoninus, alike belonged. It is not surprising that Eusebius should under the circumstances think that the name Marcus may also have belonged to the younger one. This supposition would seem to him to find some confirmation in the fact that the most common official designation of the older successor of Antoninus Pius was not Marcus Aurelius, but Antoninus simply, or M. Antoninus. The name Marcus Aurelius or Marcus was rather a popular than an official designation. Even in the Chronicle there seems to be a hint that Eusebius thought of a possible distinction between Antoninus the emperor and Marcus, or Marcus Aurelius; for while he speaks of the "Emperor Antoninus" at the beginning of the passages in which he recounts the story of the Thundering Legion (year of Abr. 2188), he says at the close: literæ quoque exstant Marci regis (the M. Aureli gravissimi imperatoris of Jerome looks like a later expansion of the simpler original) quibus testatur copias suas iamiam perituras Christianorum precibus servatas esse. But even when he had reached the solution pointed out, Eusebius did not find himself clear of difficulties; for his sources put the occurrence of the Thundering Legion after the date at which the younger brother was universally supposed to have died, and it was difficult on still other grounds to suppose the prince named Marcus Aurelius already dead in 169 (the date given by Eusebius himself in his Chronicle for the death of Lucius). In this emergency he came to the conclusion that there must be some mistake in regard to the date of his death, and possessing no record of the death of Marcus Aurelius as distinct from Antoninus, he simply passed it by without mention.

That Eusebius in accepting such a lame theory showed himself altogether too much under the influence of traditional views cannot be denied; but when we remember that the tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor was supported by writers whose honesty and accuracy he could never have thought of questioning, as well as by the very nature of the case, we must, while we smile at the result, at least admire his effort to solve the contradiction which he, as an historian, felt more keenly than a less learned man, unacquainted with the facts on the other side, would have done.

On Bk. V. chap. 1, § 27 (note 26, continued).

See also Bk. VIII. chap. 10, note 5.

On Bk. VI. chap. 2 (note 1, continued). Origen's Life and Writings.

Origen Adamantius (on the second name, see Bk. VI. chap. 14, note 12) was of Christian parentage and probably of Greek descent on his father's side (as stated in the previous note), but whether born in Alexandria or not we do not know. Westcott suggests that his mother may have been of Jewish descent, because in an epistle of Jerome (ad Paulam: Ep. 39, § 1, Migne's ed.) he is said to have learned Hebrew so thoroughly that he "vied with his mother" in the singing of psalms (but compare the stricture of Redepenning on this passage, p. 187, note 1). The date of his birth may be gathered from the fact (stated in this chapter) that he was in his seventeenth year at the time of his father's death, which gives us 185 or 186 as the year of his birth (cf. Redepenning, I. p. 417-420, Erste Beilage). We learn from the present chapter that as a boy he was carefully trained by his father in the Scriptures and afterward in Greek literature, a training of which he made good use in later life. He was also a pupil of Clement in the catechetical school, as we learn from chaps. 6 and 14 (on the time, see chap. 6, note 4). He showed remarkable natural ability, and after the death of his father (being himself saved from martyrdom only by a device of his mother), when left in poverty with his mother and six younger brothers (see § 13 of this chapter), he was able, partly by the assistance of a wealthy lady and partly by teaching literature, to support himself (§ 14). Whether he supported the rest of the family Eusebius does not state, but his thoroughly religious character does not permit us to imagine that he left them to suffer. In his eighteenth year, there being no one at the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, he was induced to take the school in charge and to devote himself to the work of instruction in the Christian faith. Soon afterward the entire charge of the work was officially committed to him by Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria (see chap. 3). He lived at this time a life of rigid asceticism (ibid.), and even went so far as to mutilate himself in his zeal for the prosecution of his work (see chap. 8). His great influence naturally aroused the hostility of unbelievers against him; but though many of his pupils suffered martyrdom (see chap. 4), he himself escaped, we do not know how. Eusebius ascribes his preservation to the providence of God (ibid.). During these years in which he was at the head of the catechetical school, he devoted himself with vigor to the study of Greek philosophy, and was for a time a pupil of the Neo-Platonist Ammonius Saccas (chap. 19). He studied non-Christian thought, as he tells us, in order that he might be the better able to instruct his pagan and heretical pupils (ibid.). His labors in the school in time grew so heavy that he was obliged to associate with himself his friend and fellow-pupil Heraclas, to whom he committed the work of elementary instruction (chap. 15). It was during this time that he seems to have begun his Hexapla, having learned Hebrew in order to fit himself the better for his work upon the Old Testament (chap. 16). During this period (while Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome, i.e. before 217) he made a brief visit to Rome (chap. 14), and later he was summoned to Arabia, to give instruction to the governor of that country, and remained there a short time (chap. 19). Afterward, on account of a great tumult in Alexandria (see chap. 19, note 22), he left the city and went to Cæsarea in Palestine, where, although only a layman, he publicly expounded the Scriptures in the church (chap. 19). The bishop Demetrius strongly disapproved of this, and summoned him back to Alexandria (ibid.). Upon his return to Alexandria he entered upon the work of writing Commentaries on the Scriptures (see chap. 23). During this period he wrote also other important works (see chap. 24).

In the tenth year of Alexander Severus (a.d. 231) he left Alexandria (according to chap. 26) and took up his residence in Cæsarea, leaving his catechetical school in charge of his assistant, Heraclas. The cause of his departure is stated in chap. 23 to have been "some necessary affairs of the church" which called him to Greece. (For a statement of the reasons which lead me, contrary to the common opinion, to identify the departure mentioned in chap. 23 with that mentioned in chap. 26, see below, p. 395 sq.) Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 54) says that he went to Achaia on account of heresies which were troubling the churches there. His words are: Et propter ecclesias Achaiæ, quæ pluribus hæresibus vexabantur, sub testimonio ecclesiasticæ epistolæ Athenas per Palæstinam pergeret. He passed through Palestine on his way to Greece, and it was at this time that he was ordained a presbyter by the Palestinian bishops (chap. 23), Theoctistus of Cæsarea and Alexander of Jerusalem (according to Jerome, l.c.; cf. also Euseb. chap. 8). Whether he remained long in Palestine at this time, or went on at once to Greece, we do not know; but that a visit (to be distinguished from the second visit mentioned in chap. 32; see note 4 on that chapter) was made we know from a fragment of one of Origen's epistles written from Athens (printed in Lommatzsch's ed. of Origen's works, XXV. p. 388); with which are to be compared Epiphanius, Hær. LXIV. 1, and the remark made by Eusebius in chap. 16, § 2. in regard to the finding of a copy of a translation in Nicopolis. Origen's ordination resulted in the complete alienation of the bishop Demetrius (upon his earlier and later attitude toward Origen, and the causes of the change, see below, p. 394 sq.), and he called a council in Alexandria of bishops and presbyters (the council must have been held very soon after the receipt of the news of Origen's ordination, for Demetrius died in 232; see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4) which decided that Origen should be required to leave Alexandria and not be allowed to reside or to teach there, but did not depose him from the priesthood. Afterward, however, Demetrius, combining with some bishops of like mind with himself, deposed Origen from his office, and the sentence was ratified by those who had before voted with him. Photius gives this account in Cod. 118, quoting from the lost Defense of Pamphilus and Eusebius. Eusebius himself tells us nothing about these proceedings in his History, but simply refers us (chap. 23) to the second book of his Defense, which he says contained a full account of the matter. (Upon the bearing of the words quoted by Photius from the Defense, see below, p. 395 sq.) Demetrius wrote of the result of the council "to the whole world" (according to Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 54), and the sentence was concurred in by the bishops of Rome and of all the other churches, except those of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia (see Jerome ad Paul. Ep. 33; and Apol. adv. libros Ruf. II. 18). Taking up his abode in Cæsarea, Origen made this place his headquarters for the rest of his life, and found there the most cordial sympathy and support (chap. 27). He carried on in Cæsarea a catechetical school, expounding the Scriptures, lecturing on theology, and at the same time continuing his literary labors in peace until the persecution of Maximinus (a.d. 235-237), during which some of his friends in Cæsarea suffered (see chaps. 27, 28, 30, 32, and 36). How Origen escaped and where he was during the persecution we do not know (see chap. 28, note 2). In 237 or 238 at any rate, he was (again) in Cæsarea and at this time Gregory Thaumaturgus delivered his Panegyric, which is our best source for a knowledge of Origen's methods of teaching and of the influence which he exerted over his pupils. (Upon the date, see Draeseke, Der Brief des Origenes an Gregoriosin the Jabrbücher f. prot. Theologie, 1887, p. 102 sq.) During this period he did considerable traveling, making another visit to Athens (see chap. 32) and two to Arabia (see chaps. 33 and 37). It was while in Cæsarea, and when he was over sixty years old, that he first permitted his discourses to be taken down by shorthand writers (see chap. 26). His correspondence with the Emperor Philip and his wife is mentioned by Eusebius in the same chapter. He was arrested during the Decian persecution and suffered terrible torments, but not martyrdom (chap. 39). He died not much more than a year after the close of the persecution, in the seventieth year of his age (see Bk. VII. chap. 1), at Tyre, and was buried there (Jerome, de vir. ill. c. 54).

Origen was without doubt the greatest scholar and the most original thinker of his age. He was at the same time a man of most devout piety, and employed all his wonderful talents in the service of what he believed to be the truth. His greatest labors were in the field of exegesis, and here his writings were epoch-making, although his results were often completely vitiated by his use of the allegorical method of interpretation and his neglect of the grammatical and historical sense. His services in the cause of scientific theology cannot be overestimated, and his thinking long stimulated the brightest minds of the Church, both orthodox and heretical. Both his natural predilections and his training in the philosophy which prevailed in Alexandria in that day led him in the direction of idealism, and to an excess of this, combined with his deep desire--common also to Clement--to reconcile Christianity with reason and to commend it to the minds of philosophers, are due most of his errors, nearly all of which are fascinating and lofty in conception. Those errors led the Church to refuse him a place among its saints and even among its Fathers in the stricter sense. Even before his death suspicions of his orthodoxy were widespread; and although he had many followers and warm defenders, his views were finally condemned at a home synod in Constantinople in 543 (?) (see Helele, II. 790). Into the bitter controversies which raged during the fourth and fifth centuries, and in which Jerome and Rufinus (the former against, the latter for, Origen) played so large a part we cannot enter here. See the article Origenistic Controversies in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., or any of the Church histories and lives of Origen.

Origen was a marvelously prolific writer. Epiphanius (Hær. LXIV. 63) says that it was commonly reported that he had written 6000 works. Jerome reduces the number to less than a third (adv. Ruf. II. 22). But whatever the number, we know that he was one of the most voluminous--perhaps the most voluminous writer of antiquity. He wrote works of the most diverse nature, critical, exegetical, philosophical and theological, apologetic and practical, besides numerous epistles. (On his great critical work, the Hexpla, see chap. 16, note 8.) His exegetical works consisted of commentaries, scholia (or detached notes), and homilies. Of his commentaries on the Old Testament, which were very numerous, only fragments of those on Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, and the Song of Solomon are presented in the version of Rufinus, and a fragment of the commentary on Ezekiel in the Philocalia. Of the New Testament commentaries we have numerous fragments both in Greek and Latin (especially on Matthew and John), and the whole of Romans in the translation of Rufinus. Upon the commentaries composed by Origen while still in Alexandria, see chap. 24; on those written afterwards, see chaps. 32 and 36. No complete scholia are extant; but among the numerous exegetical fragments which are preserved there may be portions of these scholia, as well as of the commentaries and homilies. It is not always possible to tell to which a fragment belongs. Of the homilies, over 200 are preserved, the majority of them in the translation of Rufinus.

The philosophical and theological works known to us are the two books On the Resurrection (see chap. 24, note 5): the De principiis (see ibid. note 6); and the Stromata (see ibid. note 7).

Origen's great apologetic work is his Contra Celsum (see chap. 36, note 3).

Two works of a practical character are known to us: On Martyrdom (see chap. 28, note 3); and On Prayer. The latter work is not mentioned by Eusebius in his History, but is referred to in Pamphilus' Apology for Origen, Chap. VIII. (Lommatzsch, XXIV. p. 397). It is extant in the original Greek, and is printed by Lommatzsch, XVII. p. 79-297. It is addressed to two of his friends, Ambrosius and Tatiana, and is one of his most beautiful works. As to the date at which Origen wrote the work, we know (from chap. 23 of the work) only that it was written after the composition of the commentary on Genesis (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 24), but whether before or after his departure from Alexandria we cannot tell.

Of his epistles only two are preserved entire, one to Julius Africanus, and another to Gregory Thaumaturgus. On the former, see chap. 31, note 1. On the latter and on Origen's other epistles, see chap. 36, note 7.

Finally must be mentioned the Philocalia (Lommatzsch, XXV. p. 1-278), a collection of judiciously selected extracts from Origen's works in twenty-seven books. Its compilers were Gregory Nazianzen and Basil.

The principal edition of Origen's works is that of the Benedictine Delarue in 4 vols. fol.; reprinted by Migne in 8 vols. 8vo. A convenient edition is that of Lommatzsch, in 25 vols. small 8vo., a revision of Delarue's. Only his De principiis, Contra Cels., and the epistles to Africanus and to Gregory have been translated into English, and are given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV. p. 221 sqq. Of lives of Origen must be mentioned that of Huetius: Origeniana (Paris, 1679, in 2 vols.; reprinted in Delarue and Lommatzsch); also Redepenning's Origenes. Eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre (Bonn, 1841 and 1846, in 2 vols.). The respective sections in Lardner and Tillemont should be compared, and the thorough article of Westcott in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. 96-142. For a good list of the literature on Origen, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 785.

On Bk. VI. chap. 8, § 5 (note 4). Origen and Demetrius.

The friendship of Demetrius for Origen began early and continued, apparently without interruption, for many years. In 203 he committed to him the charge of the catechetical school (chap. 3); in the present chapter we find him encouraging him after learning of his rash deed; some years afterward, upon Origen's return from a visit to Rome, where his fame as a teacher had already become very great, Demetrius still showed the very best spirit toward him (chap. 14); and a little later sent him into Arabia to give instruction to an officer in that country (chap. 19). It is soon after this that the first sign of a difference between the two men appears, upon the occasion of Origen's preaching in Cæsarea (ibid.). There seems, however, to have been no lasting quarrel, if there was any quarrel at all; for in 231 we find Demetrius giving Origen letters of recommendation upon the occasion of his visit to Achaia (see below, p. 396). The fact that he gives him these letters, thus recognizing him as a member of his church in good standing, and sending him upon his important mission with his official approval, shows that no open break between himself and Origen can as yet have taken place. But in his commentary on John (Tom. VI. præf.) Origen shows us that his last years in Alexandria were by no means pleasant ones. He compares his troubles there to the waves of a stormy sea, and his final departure to the exodus of the children of Israel. We know that he had been engaged for some time in writing commentaries, and that the first five books of his commentary on John--epoch-making in their significance, and sure to cause a sensation in orthodox, conservative circles--had recently appeared. We know that his reputation for heterodoxy was already quite widespread and that the majority of the Egyptian clergy were by no means upon his side. The trials to which he refers, therefore, may well have been a result of this hostility to his teachings existing among the clergy about him, and Demetrius may have shared to an extent in the common feeling. At the same time his disapproval cannot have been very pronounced, or he could not have given his official sanction to Origen's important visit to Achaia. But now, things being in this condition, Origen set out upon his mission, leaving Heraclas in charge of his school, and undoubtedly with the expectation of returning again, for he left the unfinished sixth book of his commentary on John behind him (see preface to the sixth book). He stopped in Palestine on his way to Athens, and there was ordained a presbyter by the bishops of that country (upon the motives which prompted him in the matter, see below, p. 397). The result was a complete break between Demetrius and himself, and his condemnation by an Alexandrian synod. To understand Demetrius' action in the matter, we must remember that both Eusebius and Jerome attribute the change in his attitude to jealousy of Origen. They may be too harsh in their judgment, and yet it is certainly not at all unnatural that the growing power and fame of his young catechumen should in time affect, all unconsciously, his attitude toward him. But we must not do Demetrius an injustice. There is no sign that his jealousy led him to attack Origen, or to seek to undermine his influence, and we have no right to accuse him, without ground, of such unchristian conduct. At the same time, while he remained, as he supposed, an honest friend of Origen's, the least feeling of jealousy (and it would have been remarkable had he never felt the least) would make him more suspicious of the latter's conduct, and more prone to notice in his actions anything which might be interpreted as an infringement of his own prerogatives, or a disregard of the full respect due him. We seem to see a sign of this over-sensitiveness (most natural under the circumstances) in his severe disapproval of Origen's preaching in Cæsarea, which surprised the Palestinian bishops, but which is not surprising when we realize that Demetrius might so easily construe it as a token of growing disrespect for his authority on the part of his rising young school principal. It is plain enough, if he was in this state of mind, that he might in all sincerity have given letters of recommendation to Origen and have wished him God speed upon his mission, and yet that the news of his ordination to the presbyterate by foreign bishops, without his own approval or consent, and indeed in opposition to his own principles and to ecclesiastical law, should at once arouse his ire, and, by giving occasion for what seemed righteous indignation, open the floodgates for all the smothered jealousy of years. In such a temper of mind he could not do otherwise than listen willingly to all the accusations of heresy against Origen, which were no doubt busily circulated in his absence, and it was inevitable that he should believe it his duty to take decided steps against a man who was a heretic, and at the same time showed complete disregard of the rules and customs of the Church, and of the rights of his bishop. The result was the definitive and final exclusion of Origen from communion with the Alexandrian church, and his degradation from the office of presbyter by decree of the Alexandrian synods described above, p. 392 sq. The two grounds of the sentence passed by these synods were plainly his irregular ordination to the priesthood when constitutionally unfit for it (cf. what Eusebius says in this chapter), and his heterodoxy (cf. e.g. the synodical epistle of the Egyptian bishops given in Mansi's Collect. Concil. IX. col. 524, and also Jerome's epistle ad Pammachium et Oceanum, § 10, and Rufinus' Apologi in Hieron. II. 21). That the ordination to the priesthood of one who had mutilated himself was not universally considered uncanonical in the time of Origen is proved by the fact that the Palestinian bishops (whom Origen cannot have allowed to remain ignorant of his condition) all united in ordaining him. But the very fact that they all united (which has perplexed some scholars) leads us to think that they realized that their action was somewhat irregular, and hence wished to give it sanction by the participation of a number of bishops. The first canon of the Council of Nicæa forbids such ordination, and the canon is doubtless but the repetition of an older one (cf. Apost. Canons, 21 to 24, and see Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 377), and yet Origen's consent to his ordination makes it improbable that there was in force in his time, even in Alexandria, a canon placing absolute and unconditional clerical disabilities upon such as he. That the action, however, was considered at least irregular in Alexandria, is proved by the position taken in the matter by Demetrius; and the fact that he made so much of it leads us to believe that the synod, called by him, may now have made canon law of what was before only custom, and may have condemned Origen for violating that custom which they considered as binding as law. Certainly had there been no such custom, and had it not seemed to Demetrius absolutely binding, he would have ordained Origen to the priesthood long before. His ordination in Palestine was in violation of what was known to be Demetrius' own principle, and the principle of the Alexandrian church, even if the principle was not, until this time or later, formulated into a canon.

On Bk. VI. chap. 12, § 6.

Since this passage was printed, I have seen Westcott's translation of this fragment of Serapion's epistle in his Canon of the New Testament, 5th ed. p. 390 sq. (cf. especially p. 391, note), and am glad to note that his rendering of the words katarxamenon autou is the same as my own. His interpretation of one or two other points I am unable to adopt.

On Bk. VI. chap. 23, § 4 (note 6). Origen's Visit to Achaia.

Eusebius gives as the cause of Origen's visit to Greece simply "a pressing necessity in connection with ecclesiastical affairs," but Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 54) tells us that it was on account of heresies which were troubling the churches of Achaia (propter ecclesias Achaiæ, quæ pluribus hæresibus vexabantur). Photius (Cod. 118) reports that Origen went to Athens without the consent of Demetrius (choris tes tou oikeiou gnomes episkopou), but this must be regarded as a mistake (caused perhaps by his knowledge that it was Origen's ordination, which took place during this trip, that caused Demetrius' anger; for Photius does not say that this statement rests upon the authority of Pamphilus, but prefaces his whole account with the words ho te P?mphilos m?rtus kai heteroi pleistoi), for Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 54) says that Origen went to Athens by way of Palestine sub testimonio ecclesiasticæ epistolæ, and in chap. 62 he says that Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem wrote an epistle in which he stated that he had ordained Origen juxta testimonium Demetrii. We must therefore assume that Origen left Alexandria for Athens with Demetrius' approval, and with letters of recommendation from him. It is the common opinion that Origen left Alexandria this time about 228 a.d., and after his visit in Achaia returned to Alexandria, where he remained until excommunicated by the council called by Demetrius. Upon searching the sources, however, I can find absolutely no authority for the statement that he returned to Alexandria after his visit to Achaia; in fact, that he did seems by most scholars simply to be taken for granted without further investigation. The opinion apparently rests upon the interpretation of two passages, one in a report of the proceedings of the Alexandrian synod taken by Photius from Pamphilus' Apology, the other in the preface to the sixth book of Origen's commentary on the Gospel of John. In the former it is said that the synod voted to exile Origen from Alexandria, and forbade him to reside or to teach there (psephizetai metastenai men apo 'Alexandreias ton 'Origenen, kai mete diatribein en aute, mete did?skein). But certainly such a decree is far from proving that Origen, at the time it was passed, was actually in Alexandria. It simply shows that he still regarded that city as his residence, and was supposed to be expecting to return to it after his visit was completed. In the preface to the sixth book of his commentary on John's Gospel, he speaks of the troubles and trials which he had been enduring in Alexandria before he finally left the city, and compares that departure to the exodus of the children of Israel. But certainly it is just as easy to refer these troubles to the time before his visit to Achaia, a time when in all probability the early books of his commentary on John, as well as others of his writings, had begun to excite the hostility of the Alexandrian clergy, and thus made his residence there uncomfortable. It is almost necessary to assume that this hostility had arisen some time before the synods were held, in order to account both for the hostility of the majority of the clergy, which cannot have been so seriously aroused in an instant, and also for the change in Demetrius' attitude, which must have found a partial cause in the already existing hostility of the clergy to Origen, hostility which led them to urge him on to take decisive steps against Origen when the fitting occasion for action came in the ordination of the latter (see above, p. 395). The only arguments which, so far as I am able to learn, have been or can be urged for Origen's return to Alexandria are thus shown to prove nothing. On the other hand, it is a fact that Origen was ordained on his way to Achaia, and then went on and did his business there, and it is difficult to imagine that Demetrius and the Alexandrian church would have waited so long before taking action in regard to this step, which appeared to them so serious. More than that, Origen reports that he had begun the sixth book of his commentary on John in Alexandria, but had left it there, and therefore began it anew in Palestine. It is difficult to imagine that his departure was so hasty that he could not take even his mss. with him; but if he left only for his visit to Achaia, expecting to return again, he would of course leave his mss. behind him, and when his temporary absence was changed by the synod into permanent exile, he might not have been in a position, or might not have cared, to send back for the unfinished work. Still further, it does not seem probable that, if he were leaving Alexandria an exile under the condemnation of the church, and in such haste as the leaving of his unfinished commentary would imply, he should be in a position to entrust the care of his catechetical school to his assistant Heraclas (as he is said in chap. 26 to have done). That matter would rather have been taken out of his hands by Demetrius and the rest of the clergy. But going away merely on a visit, he would of course leave the school in Heraclas' charge, and after his condemnation the clergy might see that Heraclas was the man for the place, and leave him undisturbed in it. After having, upon the grounds mentioned, reached the conclusion, shared so far as I knew by no one else, that it is at least unlikely that Origen returned to Alexandria after his visit to Greece, I was pleased to find my position strengthened by some chronological considerations urged by Lipsius (Chronologie d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 195, note), who says that "we do not know whether Origen ever returned to Alexandria after his ordination," and who seems to think it probable that he did not. He shows that Pontianus did not become bishop of Rome until 230, and therefore, if Eusebius is correct in putting Origen's visit to Achaia in the time of Pontianus' episcopate, as he does in this passage, that visit cannot have taken place before 230 (the commonly accepted date, which rests upon a false chronology of Pontianus' episcopate, is 228); while on the other hand, according to chap. 26, Origen's final departure from Alexandria took place in the tenth year of Alexander's reign (231 a.d.), shortly before Demetrius' death, which occurred not later than 232 (see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4). Supposing, then, that Origen returned to Alexandria, we must assume his journey to Palestine, his ordination there, his visit to Achaia and settlement of the disputes there, his return to Alexandria, the composition of at least some part of his commentary on John, the calling of a synod, his condemnation and exile,--all within the space of about a year. These chronological considerations certainly increase the improbability of Origen's return to Alexandria. (It may be remarked that Redepenning, who accepts the commonly received chronology, assigns two years to the Cæsarean and Achaian visit.) Assuming, then, that this departure for Achaia is identical with that mentioned in chap. 26, we put it in the year 231. It must have been (as of course we should expect, for he stopped in Palestine only on his way to Achaia) very soon after his departure that Origen's ordination took place; and the synod must have been called very soon after that event (as we should likewise expect), for Demetrius died the following year.

As to the cause of Origen's ordination, it is quite possible, as Redepenning suggests, that when he went a second time to Palestine, his old friends, the bishops of Cæsarea, of Jerusalem, and of other cities, wished to hear him preach again, but that remembering the reproof of the bishop Demetrius, called forth by his preaching on the former occasion (see chap. 19), he refused, and that then the Palestinian bishops, in order to obviate that difficulty, insisted on ordaining him. It is not impossible that Origen, who seems never to have been a stickler for the exact observance of minor ecclesiastical rules and formalities, supposed that Demetrius, who had shown himself friendly in the past, and not hostile to him because of his youthful imprudence (see chap. 8), would concur willingly in an ordination performed by such eminent bishops, and an ordination which would prove of such assistance to Origen in the accomplishment of the work in Achaia which he was undertaking with the approval of Demetrius himself, even though the latter could not bring himself to violate what he considered an ecclesiastical canon against the ordination of eunuchs. We can thus best explain Origen's consent to the step which, when we consider his general character, it is difficult to suppose he would have taken in conscious opposition to the will of his bishop. (On Demetrius' view of the matter, see above, p. 394 sq.) He was ordained, according to Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 54 (cf. also chap. 8, above), by Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, together with "the most distinguished bishops of Palestine" (as Eusebius says in chap. 8).

On Bk. VII. chap. 25, § 11.

For in the reputed second or third Epistle of John, read in the extant second and third Epistles of John (en te deutera pheromene 'Io?nnou kai trite).

On Bk. VII. chap. 26, § 1 (note 4, continued).

On Dionysius' attitude toward Sabellianism and the occasion of the Apology (?lenchos kai apologia) in four books, which he addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1. This work is no longer extant, but brief fragments of it have been preserved by Athanasius (in his De Sent. Dionysii) and by Basil ( in his De Spir. Sancto). English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 92 sq. The longer work was preceded by a shorter one, now lost, to which reference is made in one of the fragments of the longer work. We do not know the exact date of the work, but may assign it with considerable probability to the earlier part of the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome; that is, soon after 259. Upon this work and upon Dionysius' attitude toward Sabellianism, see especially Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse, p. 91. sq.

On Bk. VIII. chap. 2, § 4 (note 3, continued). The Causes of the Diocletian Persecution.

The persecution of Diocletian, following as it did a period of more than forty years during which Christianity had been recognized as a religio licita, and undertaken as it was by a man who throughout the first eighteen years of his reign had shown himself friendly to the Christians, and had even filled his own palace with Christian servants, presents a very difficult problem to the historian. Why did Diocletian persecute? The question has taxed the ingenuity of many scholars and has received a great variety of answers. Hunziker (in his Regierung und Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Diocletianus und seiner Nachfolger, Leipzig, 1869), Burckhardt (in his Zeit Constantins, Basel, 1853, 2d and improved edition, Leipzig, 1880), and A. J. Mason (in his Persecution of Diocletian, Cambridge and London, 1876), not to mention other investigators, have treated the subject with great ability and at considerable length, and the student is referred to their works for a fuller examination of the questions involved. It is not my purpose here to discuss the various views that have been presented by others; but inasmuch as I am unable fully to agree with any of them, I desire to indicate my own conception of the causes that led to the persecution. We are left almost wholly to conjecture in the matter; for our only authority, Lactantius, makes so many palpably erroneous statements in his description of the causes which produced the great catastrophe that little reliance can be placed upon him (see Burckhardt's demonstration of these errors, ibid. p. 289 sq.). Nevertheless, he has preserved for us at least one fact of deep significance, and it is a great merit of Mason's discussion that he has proved so conclusively the correctness of the report. The fact I refer to is that the initiative came from Galerius, not from Diocletian himself. Lactantius states this very distinctly and repeatedly, but it has been argued by Hunziker and many others that the persecution had been in Diocletian's mind for a long time, and that it was but the culmination of his entire policy. Having settled political matters, it is said, he turned his attention to religious matters, and determined as a step toward the restoration of the old Roman religion in its purity to exterminate Christianity. But, as Mason shows, this is an entire misconception of Diocletian's policy. It had never been his intention to attack Christianity. Such an attack was opposed to all his principles, and was at length made only under the pressure of strong external reasons. But though Mason has brought out this important fact so clearly, and though he has shown that Galerius was the original mover in the matter, he has, in my opinion, gone quite astray in his explanation of the causes which led Diocletian to accede to the wishes of Galerius. According to Mason, Diocletian was induced against his will to undertake a course of action which his judgment told him was unwise. "But the Cæsar [Galerius] was the younger and the stronger man; and a determination to do has always an advantage over the determination not to do. At length Diocletian broke down so far as to offer to forbid the profession of the faith within the walls of his palace and under the eagles of his legions. He was sure it was a mistaken policy. It was certainly distasteful to himself. The army would suffer greatly by the loss. Diocletian would have to part with servants to whom he was attached," &c. To my mind, it is impossible to believe that Diocletian--great and wise emperor as he had proved himself, and with an experience of over eighteen years of imperial power during which he had always shown himself master--can thus have yielded simply to the importunity of another man. Our knowledge of Diocletian's character should lead us to repudiate absolutely such a supposition. Feeling the difficulty of his own supposition, Mason suggests that Diocletian may have felt that it would be better for him to begin the persecution himself, and thus hold it within some bounds, than to leave it for Galerius to conduct when he should become emperor two years later. But certainly if, as Mason assumes, Diocletian was convinced that the measure was in itself vicious and impolitic, that was a most remarkable course to pursue. To do a bad thing in order to leave no excuse for a successor to do the same thing in a worse way--certainly that is hardly what we should expect from the strongest and the wisest ruler Rome had seen for three centuries. If he believed it ought not to be done, we may be sure he would not have done it, and that neither Galerius nor any one else could compel him to. He was not such a helpless tool in the hands of others, nor was he so devoid of resources as to be obliged to prevent a successor's folly and wickedness by anticipating him in it, nor so devoid of sense as to believe that he could. It is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary to assume that Diocletian was convinced of the necessity of proceeding against the Christians before he took the step he did. How then are we to account for this change in his opinions? Burckhardt attributes the change to the discovery of a plot among the Christians. But the question naturally arises, what motive can the Christians have had for forming a plot against an emperor so friendly to them and a government under which they enjoyed such high honors? Burckhardt gives no satisfactory answer to this very pertinent query, and consequently his theory has not found wide acceptance. And yet I believe he is upon the right track in speaking of a plot, though he has not formed the right conception of its causes and nature, and has not been able to urge any known facts in direct support of his theory. In my opinion the key to the mystery lies in the fact which Lactantius states and the truth of which Mason demonstrates, but which Burckhardt quite overlooks, that the initiative came from Galerius, not Diocletian, viewed in the light of the facts that Galerius had long been known to be a bitter enemy of the Christians, and that he was to succeed Diocletian within a couple of years. The course of events might be pictured somewhat as follows. Some of the Christian officials and retainers of Diocletian, fearing what might happen upon the accession of Galerius, who was known to be a deadly enemy of the Christians, and who might be expected, if not to persecute, at least to be a deadly enemy of the Christian officials that had enjoyed Diocletian's favor (Galerius himself had only heathen officials in his court), conceived the idea of frustrating in some way the appointed succession and secure it for some one who would be more favorable to them (possibly for the young Constantine, who was then at Diocletian's court, and who, as we know, was later so cordially hated by Galerius). It may have been hoped by some of them that it would be possible in the end to win Diocletian himself over to the side of Christianity, and then induce him to change the succession and transmit the power to a fitter prince. There may thus have been nothing distinctly treasonable in the minds of any of them, but there may have been enough to arouse the suspicions of Galerius himself, who was the one most deeply interested, and who was always well aware of the hatred which the Christians entertained toward him. We are told by Lactantius that Galerius spent a whole winter with Diocletian, endeavoring to persuade him to persecute. The latter is but a conclusion drawn by Lactantius from the events which followed; for he tells us himself that their conferences were strictly private, and that no one knew to what they pertained. But why did the persecution of the Christians at this particular time seem so important a thing to Galerius that he should make this long and extraordinary visit to Nicomedia? Was it the result of a fresh accession of religious zeal on his part? I confess myself unable to believe that Galerius' piety lay at the bottom of the matter, and at any rate, knowing that he would himself be master of the empire in two years, why could he not wait until he could take matters into his own hands and carry them out after his own methods? No one, so far as I know, has answered this question; and yet it is a very pertinent one. It might be said that Galerius was afraid that he should not be able to carry out such measures unless they had had the sanction of his great predecessor. But Galerius never showed, either as Cæsar or Augustus, any lack of confidence in himself, and I am inclined to think that he would have preferred to enjoy the glory of the great undertaking himself rather than give it all to another, had he been actuated simply by general reasons of hostility toward the Church. But if we suppose that he had conceived a suspicion of such a plan as has been suggested, we explain fully his remarkable visit and his long and secret interviews with Diocletian. There was no place in which he could discover more about the suspected plot (which he might well fancy to be more serious than it really was) than in Nicomedia itself; and if such a plot was on foot, it was of vital importance to unearth it and reveal it to Diocletian. We may believe then that Galerius busied himself during the whole winter in investigating matters, and that long after he had become thoroughly convinced of the existence of a plot Diocletian remained skeptical.

We may suppose that at the same time whatever vague plans were in the minds of any of the Christians were crystallizing during that winter, as they began to realize that Galerius' hold upon the emperor was such that the latter could never be brought to break with him. We may thus imagine that while Galerius was seeking evidence of a plot, the plot itself was growing and taking a more serious shape in the minds at least some of the more daring and worldly minded Christians. Finally, sufficient proof was gathered to convince even Diocletian that there was some sort of a plot on foot, and that the plotters were Christians. The question then arose what course should be pursued in the matter. And this question may well have caused the calling together of a number of counsellors and the consultation of the oracle of Apollo of which Lactantius tells us. Galerius naturally wished to exterminate the Christians as a whole, knowing their universal hostility to him; but Diocletian just as naturally wished to punish only such as were concerned in the plot, and was by no means convinced that the Christians as a whole were engaged in it. The decision which was reached, and which is exhibited in the edict of the 24th of February, 303 seems to confirm in a remarkable manner the theory which has been presented. Instead of issuing an edict against Christians in general, Diocletian directs his blows solely against Christians in governmental circles,--public officials and servants in official families (cf. the interpretation of the edict given above in Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 6). This is certainly not the procedure of an emperor who is persecuting on religious grounds. The church officers should in that case have been first attacked as they had been by Decius and Valerian. The singling out of Christians in official circles--and the low as well as the high ones, the servants as well as the masters--is a clear indication that the motive was political, not religious. Moreover, that the edict was drawn in such mild terms is a confirmation of this. These men were certainly not all guilty, and it was not necessary to put them all to death. It was necessary to put an end to the plot in the most expeditious and complete way. The plotters should be shown that their plot was discovered, and the whole thing should be broken up by causing some of them to renounce their faith, by degrading and depriving of citizenship all that would not renounce it. It was a very shrewd move. Executions would but have increased the rebellious spirit and caused the plot to spread. But Diocletian was well aware that any one that renounced his faith would lose caste with his fellow-Christians, and even if he had been a plotter in the past, he could never hope to gain anything in the future from the accession of a Christian emperor. He was careful moreover to provide against any danger from those who refused to renounce their faith, by putting them into a position where it would be impossible for them to accomplish anything in that line in the future. He knew that a plot which had no support within official circles would be of no account and was not to be feared. The action, based on the grounds given, was worthy of Diocletian's genius; explained in any other way it becomes, in my opinion, meaningless. A further confirmation of the view which has been presented is found in the silence of Lactantius and Eusebius. The former was in Nicomedia, and cannot have failed to know the ostensible if not the true cause of the great persecution. Diocletian cannot have taken such a step without giving some reason for it, and doubtless that reason was stated in the preambles of his edicts, as is the case in the edicts of other emperors; but as it happens, while we know the substance of all the edicts, not a single preamble has been preserved. May it not be possible that the Christians, who preserved the terms of the edicts, found the preambles distasteful because derogatory to some of themselves and yet unfortunately not untrue? The reasons which Lactantius gives are palpable makeshifts, and indeed he does not venture to state them categorically. "I have learned," he says, "that the cause of his fury was as follows." Doubtless he had heard it thus in Christian circles; but doubtless he had heard it otherwise from heathen or from the edicts themselves; and he can hardly, as a sensible man, have been fully satisfied with his own explanation of the matter. Eusebius attempts no explanation. He tells us in chapter I, above, that the Church just before the persecution was in an abominable state and full of unworthy Christians, and yet he informs us that he will pass by the unpleasant facts to dwell upon the brighter side for the edification of posterity. Was the cause of the persecution one of the unpleasant facts? He calls it a judgment of God. Was it a merited judgment upon some who had been traitors to their country? He gives us his opinion as to the causes of the persecution of Decius and Valerian; why is he silent about the causes of this greatest of all the persecutions? His silence in the present case is eloquent.

The course of events after the publication of the First Edict is not difficult to follow. Fire broke out twice in the imperial palace. Lactantius ascribes it to Galerius, who was supposed to have desired to implicate the Christians; but, as Burckhardt remarks, Diocletian was not the man to be deceived in that way, and we may dismiss the suspicion as groundless. That the fires were accidental is possible, but extremely improbable. Diocletian at least believed that they were kindled by Christians, and it must be confessed that he had some ground for his belief. At any rate, whether true or not, the result was the torture (for the sake of extorting evidence) and the execution of some of his most faithful servants (see Bk. VIII. chap. 6). It had become an earnest matter with Diocletian, and he was beginning to feel--as he had never had occasion to feel before--that a society within the empire whose claims were looked upon as higher than those of the state itself, and duty to which demanded, in case of a disagreement between it and the state, insubordination, and even treason, toward the latter, was too dangerous an institution to tolerate longer, however harmless it might be under ordinary circumstances. It was at about this time that there occurred rebellions in Melitene and Syria, perhaps in consequence of the publication of the First Edict; at any rate, the Christians, who were regarded with ever increasing suspicion, were believed to be in part at least responsible for the outbreaks, and the result was that a second edict was issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches should be thrown into prison (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 6). Here Diocletian took the same step taken by Decius and Valerian, and instituted thereby a genuine religious persecution. It was now Christians as Christians whom he attacked; no longer Christian officials as traitors. The vital difference between the first and second edicts is very clear. All that followed was but the legitimate carrying out of the principle adopted in the Second Edict,--the destruction of the Church as such, the extermination of Christianity.

On Bk. X. chap. 8, § 4 (note I, a).

After Constantine's victory over Maxentius, his half-sister Constantia, daughter of Constantius Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, was married to Licinius, and thus the alliance of the two emperors was cemented by family ties. Constantius Chlorus was a grandson of Crispus, brother of the Emperor Claudius II., and hence could claim to be, in a sense, of imperial extraction; a fact which gave him a dignity beyond that of his colleagues, who were all of comparatively low birth. Constantine himself and his panegyrists always made much of his illustrious descent.

Table of Roman Emperors.

Augustus......................................................................................................... b.c. 27-a.d. 14

Tiberius................................................................................................................. a.d. 14-37

Caius Caligula................................................................................................................ 37-41

Claudius........................................................................................................................ 41-54

Nero............................................................................................................................. 54-68

Galba............................................................................................................................ 68-69

Otho................................................................................................................................... 69

Vitellius............................................................................................................................... 69

Vespasian...................................................................................................................... 69-79

Titus.............................................................................................................................. 79-81

Domitian........................................................................................................................ 81-96

Nerva............................................................................................................................ 96-98

Trajan......................................................................................................................... 98-117

Hadrian..................................................................................................................... 117-138

Antoninus Pius........................................................................................................... 138-161

Marcus Aurelius [Antoninus Verus]

Lucius Verus

}

............................................................. 161-180

............................................................. 161-169

Commodus................................................................................................................ 180-192

Pertinax............................................................................................................................. 193

Didius Julianus................................................................................................................... 193

Niger......................................................................................................................... 193-194

Septimius Severus...................................................................................................... 193-211

Caracalla

Geta

}

....................................................................................................... 211-217

....................................................................................................... 211-212

M. Opilius Macrinus.................................................................................................. 217-218

Heliogabalus, or Elagabalus........................................................................................ 218-222

Alexander Severus..................................................................................................... 222-235

Maximin I.................................................................................................................. 235-238

The Gordians, I and II............................................................................................... 237-238

Maximus Pupienus

Balbinus

}

................................................................................................ 238

Gordian III................................................................................................................ 238-244

Philip......................................................................................................................... 244-249

Decius....................................................................................................................... 249-251

Gallus........................................................................................................................ 251-252

Æmilian............................................................................................................................. 253

Valerian..................................................................................................................... 253-260

Gallienus.................................................................................................................... 260-268

Claudius II................................................................................................................. 268-270

Aurelian..................................................................................................................... 270-275

Tacitus...................................................................................................................... 275-276

Probus...................................................................................................................... 276-282

Carus........................................................................................................................ 282-283

Carinus

Numerian

}

.................................................................................................... 283-284

Diocletian

Maximian

}

.................................................................................................... 284-305

.................................................................................................... 285-305

Constantius

Galerius

Maxentius (not recognized by the others)

Licinius

Constantine

Maximin II.

}

..............

..............

}

....................................... 305-306

....................................... 305-311

....................................... 306-312

....................................... 307-323

....................................... 308-313

....................................... 308-337

The Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, mentioned by Eusebius.

Bishops of Rome.

(Dates taken from the table given by Lipsius in his Chronologie der röm. Bischöfe, p. 263 sq.)

Linus.

Pontianus, 5 years 2 months 7 days; (July 21?), 230-Sept. 28, 235.

Anencletus.

Anteros, 1 month 12 days; Nov. 21, 235-Jan. 3, 236.

Clement.

Fabianus, 14 years 10 days; 236-Jan. 20, 250. Vacancy from Jan. 21, 250-March, 251.

Evarestus.

Cornelius, 2 years 3 months 10 days; beginning of March, 251-middle of June, 253.

Alexander.

Lucius, 8 months 10 days; June (25?), 253-March 5, 254.

Xystus I, for about ten years; died between 124 and 126.

Stephanus, 3 years 2 months 21 days; (May 12?), 254-Aug. 6, 258.

Telesphorus, 11 years; died between 135 and 137.

Xystus II., 11 months 12 (6?) days; Aug. 24 (31?), 257-Aug. 6, 258.

Hyginus, 4 years; died between 139 and 141.

Dionysius, 9 years 5 months 2 days; July 22, 259-Dec. 27, 268.

Pius, 15-16 years; died between 154 and 156.

Felix I., 5 years 11 months 25 days; Jan. 5, 269-Dec. 30, 274.

Anicetus, 11-12 years; died in 166 or 167.

Eutychian, 8 years 11 months 3 days; (Jan. 5?) 275-Dec. 8, 283.

Soter, 8-9 years; died in 174 or 175.

Caius, 12 years 4 months 6 days; Dec. 17, 283-April 22, 296.

Eleutherus, 15 years; died in 189.

Marcellinus, 8 years 3 months 25 days; June 30, 296-(Oct. 25?), 304. Vacancy until 307.

Victor, 9-10 years; 189-198 or 199.

Marcellus, 1 year 7 months 21 days; (May 24?), 307-Jan. 15, 309.

Zephyrinus, 18-19 years; 198 or 199-217 (Aug. 26?).

Eusebius, 3 (4?) months 23 (16?) days; April 23 (16?), 309-Aug. 17, 309. Vacancy until 310.

Callistus, 5 years; 217-Oct. 14, 222.

Miltiades, 3 years 6 months 8 days; July 2, 310-Jan. 10 (11?), 314.

Urbanus, 8 years; 222-230 (May 19?).

Bishops of Alexandria.

Annianus.

Justus.

Agrippinus.

Dionysius.

Abilius.

Eumenes.

Julian.

Maximus.

Cerdon.

Marcus.

Demetrius.

Theonas.

Primus.

Celadion.

Heraclas.

Peter.

Bishops of Antioch.

(Dates taken from the table given by Harnack in his Zeit des Ignatius, p. 62.)

Evodius.

Zebinus, died between 238 and 249.

Ignatius.

Babylas, died in 250, during the persecution of Decius.

Hero.

Fabius, died toward the end of 252 or early in 253.

Cornelius.

Demetrian, died between 257 and 260.

Eros.

Paul, deposed between 266 and 269 (probably in 268).

Theophilus, died not earlier than 182.

Domnus.

Maximinus, died between 189 and 192.

Timæus, died about 280.

Serapion, died about 209.

Cyril, sent to the mines in 303, and died probably toward the end of 306.

Asclepiades, died between 211 and 222.

Tyrannus, succeeded Cyril probably in 303, possibly not until 306, and lived until the close of the persecution.

Philetus, died not long before 229-231.

Bishops of Jerusalem.

James.

Justus.

Gaius I.

Dius.

Symeon.

Levi.

Symmachus.

Germanio.

Justus.

Ephres.

Gaius II.

Gordius.

Zacchæus.

Joseph.

Julian II.

Narcisscus, a second time.

Tobias.

Judas.

Capito.

Alexander.

Benjamin.

Marcus.

Maximus II.

Antoninus.

}

Mazabanes.

John.

Cassianus.

Hymenæus.

Matthias.

Publius.

Valens.

Zambdas.

Philip.

Maximus I.

Dolichianus.

Hermon.

Seneca.

Julian I.

Narcissus.

Table showing the Roman Method of counting the Days of the Month.

(Taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica, article Calendar.)

Days of the Month.

March.

May.

July.

October.

January.

August.

December.

April.

June.

September.

November.

February.

1

Kalendæ.

Kalendæ.

Kalendæ.

Kalendæ.

2

6

4

4

4

3

5

3

3

3

4

4

Prid. Nonas.

Prid. Nonas.

Prid. Nonas.

5

3

Nonæ.

Nonæ.

Nonæ.

6

Prid. Nonas.

8

8

8

7

Nonæ.

7

7

7

8

8

6

6

6

9

7

5

5

5

10

6

4

4

4

11

5

3

3

3

12

4

Prid. Idus.

Prid. Idus.

Prid. Idus.

13

3

Idus.

Idus.

Idus.

14

Prid. Idus.

19

18

16

15

Idus.

18

17

15

16

17

17

16

14

17

16

16

15

13

18

15

15

14

12

19

14

14

13

11

20

13

13

12

10

21

12

12

11

9

22

11

11

10

8

23

10

10

9

7

24

9

9

8

6

25

8

8

7

5

26

7

7

6

4

27

6

6

5

3

28

5

5

4

Prid. Kal. Mart.

29

4

4

3

30

3

3

Prid. Kalen.

31

Prid. Kalen.

Prid. Kalen.

"Instead of distinguishing the days by the ordinal numbers, first, second, third, etc., the Romans counted backwards from three fixed epochs; namely, the Kalends, the Nones, and the Ides. The Kalends were invariably the first day of the month, and were so denominated because it had been an ancient custom of the pontiffs to call the people together on that day, to apprise them of the festivals, or days that were to be kept sacred during the month. The Ides (from an obsolete verb iduare, to divide) were at the middle of the month, either the 13th or the 15th day; and the Nones were the ninth day before the Ides, counting inclusively. From these three terms the days received their denomination in the following manner:--

"Those which were comprised between the Kalends and the Nones were called the days before the Nones; those between the Nones and the Ides were called the days before the Ides; and, lastly, all the days after the Ides to the end of the month were called the days before the Kalends of the succeeding month.

"In the months of March, May, July, and October, the Ides fell on the 15th day, and the Nones consequently on the 7th: so that each of these months had six days named from the Nones. In all the other months the Ides were on the 13th and the Nones were on the 5th; consequently there were only four days named from the Nones. Every month had eight days named from the Ides. The number of days receiving their denomination from the Kalends depended on the number of days in the month and the day on which the Ides fell. For example, if the month contained 31 days, and the Ides fell on the 13th as was the case in January, August, and December, there would remain 18 days after the Ides, which, added to the first of the following month, made 19 days of Kalends. In January, therefore, the 14th day of the month was called the nineteenth before the Kalends of February (counting inclusively), the 15th was the 18th before the Kalends, and so on to the 30th, which was called the third before the Kalends (tertio Kalendas), the last being the second of the Kalends, or the day before the Kalends (pridie Kalendas)."

Table of Macedonian Months

The months of the Macedonian year, as commonly employed in the time of Eusebius, corresponded exactly to the Roman months, but the year began with the first of September. The names of the months were as follows:--

Macedonian.

Roman.

Macedonian.

Roman.

1. Gorpiæus.

September.

7. Dystrus.

March.

2. Hyperberetæus.

October.

8. Xanthicus.

April.

3. Dius.

November.

9. Artemisius.

May.

4. Apellæus.

December.

10. Dæsius.

June.

5. Audynæus.

January.

11. Panemus.

July.

6. Peritius.

February.

12. Loüs.

August.

the life of constantine,

By Eusebius,

together with the

oration of constantine to the assembly of the saints,

and the

oration of eusebius in praise of constantine.

A Revised Translation, with Prolegomena and Notes, by

Ernest Cushing Richardson, Ph.d.

librarian and associate professor in hartford theological seminary.

Preface.

In accordance with the instruction of the editor-in-chief the following work consists of a revision of the Bagster translation of Eusebius' "Life of Constantine," Constantine's "Oration to the Saints," and Eusebius' "Oration in Praise of Constantine," with somewhat extended Prolegomena and limited notes, especial attention being given in the Prolegomena to a study of the Character of Constantine. In the work of revision care has been taken so far as possible not to destroy the style of the original translator, which though somewhat inflated and verbose, represents perhaps all the better, the corresponding styles of both Eusebius and Constantine, but the number of changes really required has been considerable, and has caused here and there a break in style in the translation, whose chief merit is that it presents in smooth, well-rounded phrase the generalized idea of a sentence. The work on the Prolegomena has been done as thoroughly and originally as circumstances would permit, and has aimed to present material in such way that the general student might get a survey of the man Constantine; and the various problems and discussions of which he is center. It is impossible to return special thanks to all who have given special facilities for work, but the peculiar kindness of various helpers in the Bibliothèque de la Ville at Lyons demands at least the recognition of individualized thanksgiving.

E.C.R.

Hartford, Conn., April 15, 1890.

Chapter I

Life.

§1. Early Years

The Emperor Flavius Valerius Constantinus, surnamed the Great, born February 27, 272 or 274, at Naïssus, was son of Constantius Chlorus, afterwards Emperor, and Helena his wife. He was brought up at Drepanum, his mother's home, where he remained until his father became Cæsar (a.d. 292 acc. to Clinton) and divorced Helena (Anon. Vales. p. 471). He was then sent to the court of Diocletian, nominally to be educated (Praxagoras, in Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868); Zonar. 13. 1, &c.), but really as hostage, and remained with Diocletian, or Galerius, until the year 306. During this time he took part in various campaigns, including the famous Egyptian expedition of Diocletian in 296 (Euseb. V. C. 1. 19; Anon. Metroph., Theoph. p. 10). Shortly after joining the emperor he contracted (296 or 297) his alliance with Minervina, by whom he had a son, Crispus. He was at Nicomedia when Diocletian's palace was struck by lightning (Const. Orat. 35), and was present at the abdication of Diocletian and Maximinus in 305 (Lact. De M. P. c. 18 sq.). This last event proved a crisis for Constantine. He had grown to be a man of fine physique (Lact. c. 18; Euseb. V. C. 1. 19), of proved courage and military skill (cf. remarks on physical characteristics under Character), and a general favorite (Lact. l.c.). He had already "long before" (Lact. c. 18) been created Tribune of the first order. It was both natural and fitting that at this time he should become Cæsar in the place of his father, who became Augustus. Every one supposed he would be chosen (c. 19), and Diocletian urged it (c. 18), but the princely youth was too able and illustrious to please Galerius, and Constantine was set aside for obscure and incompetent men (cf. Lact.). His position was far from easy before. His brilliant parts naturally aroused the jealousy and suspicions of the emperors. They, or at least Galerius, even sought his death, it is said, by tempting him to fight wild beasts (a lion, Praxag. p. 3; cf. Zonaras 2, p. 623), or exposing him to special danger in battle (cf. Philistog. 1. 6; Lact. c. 24; Anon. Vales. p. 471; Theophanes p. 10-12, &c.). The situation, hard enough before, now became, we may well believe, intolerable. He was humiliated, handicapped, and even in danger of his life. He was practically a prisoner. The problem was, how to get away. Several times Constantius asked that his son might be allowed to join him, but in vain (Lact. c. 24; Anon. Vales. p. 471). Finally, however, Constantine gained a grudging permission to go. It was given at night, and the emperor intended to take it back in the morning (Lact. c. 24). But in the morning it was too late. Constantine had left at once to join his father. He lost no time either in starting or making the journey. Each relay of post horses which he left was maimed to baffle pursuit (Anon. Vales., Vict. Epit. p. 49; cf. Lact. c. 24, Praxag. p. 3). The rage of the emperor when he learned of the flight was great but vain. Constantine was already out of reach, and soon joined his father at Bononia (Boulogne, Anon. Vales.; cf. Eumen. Paneg. (310), c. 7), just in time to accompany him on his final expeditions to Britain (Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 7; cf. Anon. Vales. l.c.). Constantius died shortly after at York (Anon. Vales. p. 471; Eutrop. 10. 1), having named Constantine as his successor (Euseb. V. C. 1. 21; Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 7.; Lact. c. 24).

§2. The First Five Years of Reign.

The will of the father was promptly ratified by the soldiers, who at once proclaimed Constantine Augustus. Supported by them, and also by Erocus, king of the Allemanni (Vict. Epit. p. 49-50), he sent his portrait to Galerius, claiming the title of Augustus. This the emperor refused to grant, but, much against his will, allowed him to have the title of Cæsar (Lact. c. 25). Constantine did not insist on his right to the greater title, but waited his time, and in the interim contented himself with the lesser,--as the coins show. There was enough to do. After his father's death he waged war against the Francs, and later against the Bructeri and others (Eutrop. 10. 3; Paneg. (307) c. 4; Eumen. Paneg. (310) cc. 10-12; Nazar. Paneg. (321) 18; Euseb. V. C. 1. 25, &c.; cf. Inscr. ap. Clinton 2. 93), and celebrated his victories by exposing his captives to the wild beasts (Eutrop. 10. 3; Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 12; Paneg. (313) c. 23; cf. Nazar. Paneg. (321) c. 16).

Meanwhile affairs were marching at Rome, too. The same year (306) that Constantine was elected Augustus by the soldiers, Maxentius at Rome was proclaimed emperor by the Pretorian Guards (Eutrop. 10. 2; Vict. Cæs. p. 156; Anon. Vales. p. 472; Zos. 2. 9; Socr. 1. 2; Oros. c. 26, &c.; Lact. c. 26). He persuaded the willing (Eutrop. 10. 2) Maximian to resume the imperial purple (Lact. c. 26; Zos. 2. 10), but soon quarreled with him (Socr. 1. 2; Eutrop. 10. 3; Zos. 2. 11; Lact. c. 28). In 307 Constantine and Maximinus were named "sons of the emperors," and the following year were reluctantly acknowledged as emperors by Galerius. Maximian, after he had quarreled with his son, betook himself to Gaul and made alliance with Constantine by giving his daughter Fausta in marriage (307). He proved an uncomfortable relative. The much-abused mother-in-law of fiction is not to be compared with this choice father-in-law of history. First he tried to supersede Constantine by corrupting his soldiers. At his persuasion Constantine had left behind the bulk of his army while he made a campaign on the frontier. As soon as he was supposably out of the way, the soldiers were won by largesses, and Maximian assumed the purple again. But he had reckoned without his host. Constantine acted with decisive promptness, returned by such rapid marches that he caught Maximian entirely unprepared (Lact. c. 29) and drove him into Marseilles, where the latter cursed him vigorously from the walls (Lact. c. 29), but was able to offer no more tangible resistance. The gates were thrown open (Lact. c. 29), and Maximian was in the power of Constantine, who this time spared his precious father-in-law. Grateful for this mildness, Maximian then plotted to murder him. The plan was for Fausta to leave her husband's door open and for Maximian to enter and kill Constantine with his own hands. Fausta pretended to agree, but told her husband (Zos. 2. 11; Joh. Ant. p. 603; Oros. c. 28), who put a slave in his own place (but apparently did not "put himself in the place of" the slave), had the program been carried out, and catching Maximian in the act, granted him that supreme ancient mercy,--the right to choose how he would die (Lact. c. 30).

Though in the midst of wars and plots, and liable at any time to have to run from one end of his province to the other to put down some insurrection, Constantine kept steadily at the work of internal improvement, organizing the interior, fortifying the boundaries, building bridges, restoring cities, building up educational institutions, &c. At the end of five years' reign (July 24, 311) he had reduced the turbulent tribes, organized his affairs, and endeared himself to his people, especially to the Christians, whom he had favored from the first (Lact. c. 24), and who could hardly fail in those days of persecution to rejoice in a policy such as is indicated in his letter to Maximinus Daza in behalf of persecuted Christians (Lact, c. 37).

§3. State of Affairs in 311.

In the meantime, while the extreme west of the empire was enjoying the mild rule of Constantine, the other corners of the now quadrangular and now hexagonal world, over which during this time Maximinus, Galerius, Licinius, Maximian, and Maxentius had tried to reign, had had a much less comfortable time. Every emperor wanted a corner to himself, and, having his corner, wanted that of some one else or feared that some one else wanted his. In order clearly to understand Constantine, a glimpse of the state of affairs in these other parts of the empire, together with some idea of the kind of men with whom he had to deal is essential, and may be gotten from a brief view of (1) The rulers, (2) Characters of the rulers, (3) Condition of the ruled.

I. The Rulers.

The intricate process of evolution and devolution of emperors, mysterious to the uninitiated as a Chinese puzzle, is briefly as follows: In 305 Diocletian and Maximian had abdicated (Lact. c. 18; Eutrop. 9. 27; Vict. Cæs.), Galerius and Constantius succeeding as Augusti and Severus, Maximinus Daza succeeding them as Cæsars (Lact. c. 19). In 306 Constantius died, Constantine was proclaimed Augustus by his army, Maxentius by the Pretorian Guards (cf. above), and Severus by Galerius (Lact. c. 25), while Maximian resumed the purple (see above)--four emperors, Galerius, Severus, Maximian, and Maxentius, with two Cæsars, Constantine and Maximinus, one with a pretty definite claim to the purple, and the other bound not to be left out in the cold. In 307 Licinius was appointed Augustus by Galerius (Lact. c. 29; Vict. Cæs.; Zos. 2. 11; Anon. Vales.; Eutrop. 10. 4), who also threw a sop to Cerberus by naming Constantine and Maximin "sons of emperors" (Lact. c. 32; Coins in Eckhel 8 (1838) 52. 3). Constantine was given title of Augustus by Maximianus (?), and Maximinus about this time was forced, as he said, by his army to assume the title. Meantime the growing procession of emperors was reduced by one. Severus, sent against Maxentius, was deserted by his soldiers, captured, and slain in 307 (Lact. c. 26; Zos. 2. 10; Anon. Vales.; Eutrop. 10. 2; Vict. Cæs. &c. &c.), leaving still six emperors or claimants,--Galerius, Licinius, Maxentius, Maximian, Maximinus, and Constantine. In 308, making the best of a bad matter, Galerius appointed Constantine and Maximin Augusti (see above), leaving the situation unchanged, and so it remained until the death of Maximian in 310 (see above), and of Galerius in May, 311 (Lact. c. 33; Vict. Cæs., Vict. Epit.; Zos. 2. 11) reduced the number to four.

II. Characters of the Rulers.

Constantine's own character has been hinted at and will be studied later. Severus was the least significant of the others, having a brief reign and being little mentioned by historians. Diocletian's characterization of him was, according to Lactantius (c. 18), as ejaculated to Galerius, "That dancing, carousing drunkard who turns night into day and day into night." The average character of the other emperors was that of the prisoners for life in our modern state prisons. Galerius, "that pernicious wild beast" (Lact. c. 25), was uneducated, drunken (Anon. Vales. p. 472); fond of boasting himself to be the illegitimate son of a dragon (Lact. 9; Vict. Epit. p. 49), and sanguinary and ferocious to an extraordinary degree (Lact. c. 9. 21, 22, &c.). Licinius, characterized by "ingratitude" and "cold-blooded ferocity," was "not only totally indifferent to human life and suffering, and regardless of any principle of law or justice which might interfere with the gratification of his passions, but he was systematically treacherous and cruel, possessed of not one redeeming quality save physical courage and military skill" (Ramsay, in Smith Dict. 2, p. 784; compare Euseb. H. E. 10. 8; V. C. 1. 49-56), and "in avaricious cupidity worst of all" (Vict. Epit. p. 51). Maximinus' character "stands forth as pre-eminent for brutal licentiousness and ferocious cruelty--lust hard by hate'" (Plumptre, in Smith & W. 3, p. 872), and according to Lactantius, c. 38, "that which distinguished his character and in which he transcended all former emperors was his desire of debauching women." He was cruel, superstitious, gluttonous, rapacious, and "so addicted to intoxication that in his drunken frolics he was frequently deranged and deprived of his reason like a madman" (Euseb. H. E. 8. 14). Maximianus has been thought to be on the whole the least outrageous, and his somewhat defective moral sense respecting treachery and murder has been noted (cf. above). He has been described as "thoroughly unprincipled...base and cruel" (Ramsay, in Smith Dict. 2, p. 981). He is described by Victor, (Epit. p. 48) as "ferus natura, ardens libidine," being addicted to extraordinary and unnatural lust (Lact. c. 8). Truly a choice "best" in this rogues' gallery. Of Maxentius it is said (Tyrwhitt, in Smith & W. 3, p. 865): "His wickedness seems to have transcended description, and to have been absolutely unredeemed by any saving feature." He "left no impurity or licentiousness untouched" (Euseb. H. E. 8. 14; cf. Eutrop. 10. 4; Lact. 9). He was marked by "impiety," "cruelty," "lust," and tyranny (Paneg. c. 4). He was the most disreputable of all,--unmitigatedly disreputable. With all due allowance for the prejudice of Christian historians, from whom such strong statements are mainly drawn, yet enough of the details are confirmed by Victor, Epit., the Panegyrists, Eutropius, and other non-Christian writers to verify the substantial facts of the ferocity, drunkenness, lust, covetousness, and oppression of this precious galaxy of rulers.

III. Condition of the Ruled.

Under such rulers there was a reign of terror during this period which contrasted strangely with the state of things under Constantine. Galerius was "driving the empire wild with his taxations" (cf. Lact. c. 23 and 26), affording in this also a marked contrast with the course of Constantine in Gaul. Maxentius led in the unbridled exercise of passion (Euseb. H. E. 8. 14; cf. Lact. c. 18), but in this he differed from the others little except in degree (compare Euseb. V. C. 1. 55 on Licinius), and according to Lactantius (c. 28) he was surpassed by Maximin. In brief, all did according to their own sweet wills, and the people had to stand it as best they could. The worst was that the oppression did not end with the emperors nor the friends and officials to whom they delegated power to satisfy their desires at the expense of the helpless. Their armies were necessary to them. The soldiers had to be conciliated and exactions made to meet their demands. They followed the examples of their royal leaders in all manner of excesses and oppressions. No property or life or honor was safe.

The persecution of the Christians reached a climax of horror in this period. The beginning of the tenth persecution was, to be sure, a little before this (303), but its main terror was in this time. Galerius and Maximian are said indeed to have persecuted less during this period, and Maxentius not at all; but Galerius was the real author and sanguinary promoter of the persecution which is ascribed to Diocletian (Lact. c. 11), while Maximian was, in 304, the author of the celebrated "Fourth Edict" which made death the penalty of Christianity, and Maxentius was only better because impartial--he persecuted both Christian and heathen (Euseb. V. C. 1. 33-6; H. E. 8. 14; Eutrop. 10. 4). The persecution under Maximin was of peculiar atrocity (Euseb. H. E. 8. 17; 9. 6, &c.; Lact. c. 26-27), so that the whole of this period in the East, excepting a slight breathing space in 308, was a terror to Christians, and it is said that "these two years were the most prolific of bloodshed of any in the whole history of Roman persecutions" (Marriott, in Smith & W. 2, p. 594). It was not until the very end of this period that Galerius, in terror of death, issued the famous first edict of toleration. Such was the condition of things in July, 311. The deaths of Severus in 307, Maximian in 310, and Galerius in 311, had cleared the stage so far as to leave but four Augusti, Licinius and Maximin in the East, Constantine and Maxentius in the West. The only well-ordered and contented section of the world was that of Constantine. In all the others there was oppression, excess, and discontent, the state of things at Rome being on the whole the most outrageous.

§4. Second Five Years.

This period was most momentous for the world's history. Maxentius, seeking an excuse for war against Constantine, found it in a pretended desire to avenge his father (Zos. 2. 14), and prepared for war. Like his father before him, however, he did not know his man. Constantine's mind was prepared. He was alert and ready to act. He gathered all the forces, German, Gallic, and British (Zos. 2. 15) that he could muster, left a portion for the protection of the Rhine, entered Italy by way of the Alps (Paneg.), and marched to meet the much more numerous forces of Maxentius,--Romans, Italians, Tuscans, Carthagenians, and Sicilians (Zos. 2. 15). First Sigusium was taken by storm (Naz. Paneg. c. 17 and 21; Paneg. c. 5); then the cavalry of Maxentius was defeated at Turin (Naz. Paneg. c. 22; Paneg. c. 6). After a few days' rest in Milan (Paneg. c. 7) he continued his triumphant march, defeating the enemy again in a cavalry engagement at Brescia (Naz. Paneg. c. 25), and taking the strongly fortified Verona after a hard-fought battle before the walls (Anon. Vales. p. 473; Paneg.; Naz. Paneg. c. 25-26). This had taken him out of his way a little; but now there were no enemies in the rear, and he was free to push on to Rome, on his way whither, if not earlier, he had his famous vision of the cross. He reached the Tiber October 26. Maxentius, tempted by a dubious oracle issued from Rome, crossed the Tiber, and joined battle. His apparently unwise action in staking so much on a pitched battle has its explanation, if we could believe Zosimus (2. 15), Eusebius (V. C. 1. 38), Praxagoras, and others. His object was, it is said, by a feigned retreat to tempt Constantine across the bridge of boats which he had built in such a way that it could be broken, and the enemy let into the river. If it was a trick, he at least fell into his own pit. The dissipated soldiers of Maxentius gave way before the hardy followers of Constantine, fired by his own energy and the sight of the cross. The defeat was a rout. The bridge broke. Maxentius, caught in the jam, was cast headlong into the river (Anon. Val. p. 473; Lact. c. 44; Chron. Pasch. p. 521, &c.); and after a vain attempt to climb out on the steep bank opposite (Paneg. c. 17), was swept away by the stream. The next day his body was found, the head cut off (Praxag.; Anon. Vales. p. 473), and carried into the city (Anon. Vales. p. 473) on the point of a spear (Paneg. c. 18; Zos. 2. 17; Praxag. p. 1). Constantine entered the city in triumph amid rejoicings of the people, exacted penalties from a few of those most intimate with Maxentius (Zos. 2. 17), disbanded the Prætorian Guards (Vict. Cæs. p. 159; Zos. 2. 17), raised a statue to himself, and did many other things which are recorded; and if he did as many things which are not recorded as there are recorded things which he did not do, he must have been very busy in the short time he remained there.

Constantine was now sole emperor in the West, and the emperors were reduced to three. History was making fast. After a very brief stay in Rome he returned to Milan (Lact. c. 45), where Licinius met him (Anon. Vales. p. 473; Lact. c. 25; Vict. Epit. p. 50; Zos. 2. 17, &c.). It had become of mutual advantage to these emperors to join alliance. So a betrothal had been made, and now the marriage of Licinius to the sister of Constantine was celebrated (cf. refs. above Lact.; Vict.; Zos.; Anon. Vales.). At the same time the famous Second Edict or Edict of Milan was drawn up by the two emperors (Euseb. H. E. 10. 5; Lact. c. 48), and probably proclaimed. Constantine then returned to Gaul (Anon. Vales. p. 473; Zos. 11. 17), where he was forced into another sort of strenuous warfare--the ecclesiastical, taking a hand somewhat against his will in trying to settle the famous Donatist schism.

Licinius had a more critical problem to meet. Maximin thought it a good time to strike while Licinius was off in Milan engaged in festivities (Lact. c. 45); but the latter, hastily gathering his troops and pushing on by forced marches, met near Heraclea and utterly defeated him (Lact. c. 46). Maximin fled precipitately, escaping the sword only to die a more terrible death that same summer (Lact. c. 49; Euseb. V. C. 1. 58; cf. Zos. 2. 17). The death of Maximin cleared the field still farther. Through progressive subtractions the number of emperors had been reduced to two,--one in the East and one in the West.

They, too, promptly fell out. The next year they were at war. Causes and pretexts were various; but the pretext, if not the cause, was in general that Licinius proved an accomplice after the fact, at least, to a plot against Constantine. Whatever the immediate cause, it was one of the inevitabilities of fate. Another vigorous campaign followed, characterized by the same decisive action and personal courage on the part of Constantine which he had already shown, and which supplied his lack of soldiers. First at Cibalis in Pannonia (Oct. 8), then in a desperate battle at Mardia, Licinius was defeated and forced to make peace (Anon. Vales. p. 474; Zos. 2. 19-20). The world was re-divided between the affectionate brothers-in-law, and Constantine took Illyrium to his other possessions. After this battle and the re-division there was a truce between the emperors for some years, during the early part of which (in 316 or 315) the Decennalia of Constantine were celebrated (Euseb. V. C. 1. 48).

§5. Third Five Years.

About the time of his decennial celebration, his sons Crispus and Constantine, and Licinius, son of Licinius, were made Cæsars. The peace between the emperors continued during the whole of this period. There was more or less fighting with the frontier tribes, Crispus, e.g., defeating the Franks in 320 (Naz. Paneg. c. 3. 17?), but the main interest of the period does not lie in its wars. It was a period of legislation and internal improvement (cf. Laws of 319, 320, 321, collected in Clinton, 1, p. 9; also De Broglie, I. 1, 296-97). Early in the period he was at Milan, where the Donatist matter, which had been dragging along since 311, came up for final settlement (cf. note, above). He was also at one time or another at Arles and at Rome, but the latter and greater part of the period was spent mainly in Dacia and Pannonia (cf. Laws, as above). The close of his fifteen years was celebrated somewhat prematurely at Rome, in the absence of Constantine, by the oration of Nazarius (cf. Naz. Paneg.).

§6. Fourth Five Years.

If the third period was relatively quiet the fourth was absolutely stirring. There had undoubtedly been more or less fighting along the Danube frontier during the preceding years, but early in this period there was a most important campaign against the Sarmatians, in which they were defeated and their king taken prisoner. In honor of this victory coins were struck (Eckhel, Doct. Num. Vet. 8 (1827) 87). But this was only skirmishing; afterwards came the tug of war. Nine years of peace proved the utmost limit of mutual patience, and Constantine and Licinius came to words, and from words to blows. For a long time Constantine had been vexed at the persecution of the Christians by Licinius (cf. Euseb. H. E. 10. 8, 9), persecutions waged perhaps with the express purpose of aggravating him. Licinius, on the other hand, naturally chagrined over the previous loss of territory, knowing of Constantine's indignation over his persecutions, and perhaps suspecting him of further designs, was naturally suspicious when Constantine passed within his boundaries in pursuing the Sarmatians (Anon. Vales. p. 474). Mutual recriminations and aggravations followed. Licinius would not let the Sarmatian coins pass current and had them melted down (Anon. Contin. Dio. Cass., in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. 4 199). Altogether they soon came to blows. The steps were short, sharp, decisive. Constantine defeated Licinius by land (July 3, 323), and through Crispus, by sea (Soz. 1. 7; Anon. Vales. p. 474-5; Zos. 2. 22-3). After the defeat at Adrianople, Licinius retreated to Byzantium (Zos. 2. 23-5; Vict. Epit. p. 50), and then to Chalcedon (Anon. Vales. p. 475, Zos. 2. 25-6). Two months after the first victory (Sept. 18) a final and decisive battle was fought at Chrysopolis (Anon. Vales. p. 475; Socr. 1. 4). Licinius surrendered on condition that his life should be spared (Zos. 2. 28), or rather Constantia secured from her brother the promise that his life should be spared (Anon. Vales. p. 475; Vict. Epit. p. 50; Pseudo-Leo, p. 85, &c.). He retired to Nicomedia, residing at Thessalonica (Soz. 1. 7; Pseudo-Leo, &c.), but was put to death the following year. Constantine was now sole emperor. His first act (Soz. 1. 8) was to issue a proclamation in favor of the Christians (Soz. l.c.; V. C. 2. 24-, and 48- ). This was followed by many other acts in their favor,--building of churches, &c. (cf. Euseb. V. C., and notes). From this time on he was much identified with Christian affairs, and the main events are given in extenso by Eusebius (see various notes). In 325 (June 19-Aug. 25) the Council of Nicæa was held (cf. Euseb. V. C. 3. 6, and notes), and Constantine took an active part in its proceedings. The same year his Vicennalia were celebrated at Nicomedia (Euseb. V. C. 1. 1; Hieron.; Cassiod.) and the following year at Rome also (Hieron., Cassiod., Prosper, Idat.), Constantine being present at both celebrations, being thus at Rome in July, and passing during the year as far as Arles, apparently spending some time at Milan (cf. the various laws in Clinton, v. 2, p. 92).

§7. Fifth Five Years.

The beginning of this period was the beginning of the series of acts which have taken most from the reputation of Constantine. Sometime in 326, perhaps while at Rome, he ordered the death of his son Crispus. The same year (Hieron. Chron.) the Cæsar Licinius, his sister's son, was put to death (Eutrop. 10. 6; Hieron.; Prosper.), and shortly after his wife Fausta died or was put to death. But apart from this shadow, the period was hardly less brilliant, in its way, than preceding ones. It was a time of gigantic and, as some said, extravagant internal improvements. Among various enterprises was the refounding, in 327, of Drepanum, his mother's city, as Helenopolis (Hieron. An. 2343; Chron. Pasch. p. 283(?); Socr. H. E. 1. 18; Soz. 2. 2; Theoph. p. 41), and greatest of all, the transformation of the insignificant Byzantium into the magnificent Constantinople, which was dedicated in 330 (Idatius; Chron. Pasch. p. 285; Hesych. §42; Hieron.; cf. Clinton). It was probably during this period, too, that the work of improvement in Jerusalem was undertaken, and Helena made her famous visit thither (Euseb. V. C. 3. 42; Soz. 21; Socr. 1. 17; Ephraem. p. 24: Theoph. 37-8, &c.).

§8. Sixth Five Years.

The main event of the last full five-year period of this reign was the Gothic war (Hieron. An. 2347; Idat.; Oros. c. 28; Anon. Vales. p. 476; Eutrop. 10. 7; Vict. Cæs. p. 352; cf. Soz. 1. 26), undertaken in behalf of the Sarmatians (Anon. Vales. l.c.), carried on by Constantine II., and brought to an end April 20, 332 (cf. Clinton). The following year (333) Constans was made consul (Idat.; Hieron.; Prosper has 332; cf. Zos. 2. 35; Vict. Cæs. p. 161, &c.), and in 334 the remarkable (Anon. Vales.) incorporation of 300,000 Sarmatians into the empire (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Idat.; Hieron.; cf. Ammian. 17. 12, 18; 17. 13; 19. 12; V. C. 4. 6). This same year Calocærus revolted in Crete and was defeated (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Vict. Cæs. p. 161; Oros. c. 28; Hieron.). The following year (335) Constantine celebrated his tricennalia, and Dalmatius was made Cæsar (Idat.; Hieron. An. 340; Vict. Cæs. p. 161; Anon. Vales. p. 476; Chron. Pasch. p. 532; Vict. Epit. p. 51; Oros. c. 28), making now four Cæsars and a nondescript (cf. Anon. Vales. p. 476),--Constantine II, Constantius, Constans, Dalmatius, and Hannibalianus, among whom the world was now partitioned (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Zos. 2. 39; Vict. Epit. p. 52).

§9. Last Years.

Later in this year, Constantine is known to have been at Jerusalem, where he dedicated a church (V. C. 4. 40; Chron. Pasch., but wrong year). It was also the year of the Synods of Tyre (Athanas. c. Ar. 1. p. 788; V. C. 4. 41; Theod. 1. 28). The same year, or early in the following one, Eusebius pronounced his tricennial oration (see Special Prolegomena). In 337 the Great Emperor died at Ancyrona, near Nicomedia, just as he was preparing for an expedition against the Persians, and was buried in the Church of the Apostles, at Constantinople (cf. notes on Eusebius' Life of Constantine).

Chapter II

Character.

§1. Introduction

A man's character consists of an inherited personality enlarged, modified, or disfigured by his own repeated voluntary acts. A sufficiently exhaustive survey of such character may be made under the rubrics of: 1. Inherited characteristics. 2. Physical characteristics. 3. Mental characteristics. 4. Moral characteristics. 5. Religious characteristics.

The character of Constantine has been so endlessly treated, with such utter lack of agreement, that it seems hopeless to try to reach any clear results in a study of it. "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" "How shall I go about it to find what sort of a man Constantine really was?" Certainly nothing can be gained by that method which chooses a few acts or characteristics to which shifting tests of various philosophies are applied. Nor can any haphazard selection and stringing together of traits give what is by its nature a synthesis of them all. Like any other scientific study, the first condition of method is that it be systematic. Then, a character generalization is worth just so much, no more, as the grounds on which it is based. To get a man's character from secondary sources, from other men's generalizations, is a hopelessly will-of-the-wisp effort. Again, another vice of characterization as usually practised is the interpretation of the whole by a part rather than the part by the whole. The individual act is thus made the standard of character. To get at what this personality called Constantine was therefore requires a systematic survey of the primary sources with a view to getting the ensemble that the eccentric may be judged by the normal. In such survey the main thing is the body of analyzed and grouped facts. The editor's summary, like any summary, is worth only what the facts are worth. This method, however imperfectly carried out, is at least better than rambling observations of incoherent phenomena; and has therefore been adopted in this attempt to find out what sort of a man this Constantine was; Physically, Mentally, Morally, Spiritually.

§2. Inherited Characteristics.

The fact of the inheritance of character, virtues or vices as the case may be, curiously recognized in various nations and ancient philosophies (cf. Ribot. Heredity, N.Y. 1875, p. 375-6), and even in the ten commandments, has received the clearer exposition of modern science. In view of it, a scientific study of character considers antecedent generations. Biography rests properly on genealogy. Constantine's father, Constantius Chlorus, was a man of great mildness, self-possession, and philosophic virtue, just, and a Neo-Platonist of the best type, a monotheist and philanthropist (cf. Sinclair, in Smith & W. 1. 661-2). Constantine is said to have inherited his father's strength, courage, personal appearance (Eumen. Paneg. c. 4), piety (Pseud.-Leo, p. 83; cf. Const. and Euseb. in V. C. 2. 49), and general virtues. The slur of Zosimus on the character of Constantine's mother seems to have been quite gratuitous. Her relation to Constantius was in nowise incompatible with virtue, and the honor afterwards paid her, along with the indisputable good early training of Constantine which was with her, indicate a woman of unusual character. The later enterprise and activity with the honors and responsibilities given her show her to have been of very considerable energy and ability.

§3. Physical Characteristics.

A graphic picture of his personal appearance is drawn by Cedrenus (p. 472-3). "Constantinus Magnus was of medium height, broad-shouldered, thick-necked, whence his epithet Bull-necked. His complexion was ruddy, his hair neither thick nor crisp curling, his beard scanty and not growing in many places, his nose slightly hooked, and his eyes like the eyes of a lion. He was joyous of heart and most cheery of countenance." Many points in this description are confirmed by others, some apparently contradicted. Taken in detail, his Height was probably above medium. Over against this statement of Cedrenus (p. 472) that he was of middle height is that of the earlier Malalas (13. 1), who, while confirming the ruddiness of complexion, characterizes him as tall, and the explicit testimony of Eusebius, that among those with Diocletian "there was no one comparable with him for height" (V. C. 1. 19), and likewise among those present at Nicæa (V. C. 3- 10). But a "thick-necked" form hardly belongs to the strictly "tall" man, and a thick neck and broad shoulders would hardly belong to a form of "distinguished comeliness," if it were short (Lact. c. 18). It may be supposed therefore that he can be described as above medium height. Moreover, there would naturally have been more mention of height by Lactantius and Panegyrists if it had been very extraordinary. In respect of Countenance he was undoubtedly handsome. The "majestic beauty of his face" mentioned by Theophanes (p. 29; cf. V. C. 1. 19; 3. 10) is confirmed by suggestions in the Panegyrists (e.g. Eumen. c. 17; Naz. c. 24), and all general testimony, and not belied by the coins. His Complexion was ruddy; "reddish" in the expression of Cedrenus (p. 272), "fiery" in that of Malalas (13.1). His Hair, rather thin and straight, scanty Beard, and "slightly hooked" Nose are shown also by the coins, where the nose varies from a pronounced Roman or ungraceful eagle's beak to a very proportionate, slightly aquiline member. His Eyes were lion-like (Cedren.), piercingly bright (Paneg. 313, c. 19; also Eumen.). His Expression was bright and joyous (Cedren.), characterized by "noble gravity mingled with hilarity" (Naz. Paneg. c. 24), by "serenity" and "cheerfulness" (cf. Euseb. V. C. 3. 11). In brief, he seems to have been a type of the sanguine temperament.

Added to his beauty of face was an unquestioned beauty of form. His distinguished comeliness of Figure (Lact. c. 18) is a favorite theme with his enthusiastic friend Eusebius, who says, "No one was comparable with him for grace and beauty of person" (cf. Eumen. c. 17; V. C. 1. 19; 3. 10), and that his figure was "manly and vigorous" (1. 20). The broad Shoulders and thick Neck prepare one for the testimony to his great bodily Strength. The feats of personal valor in combat with the Sarmatian champions and the wild beasts (cf. above), his personal energy in battle (e.g. before Verona; cf. above), much special testimony (e.g. Eumen. Paneg. c. 4) and all the general testimony, show that the superlative language of Eusebius is well grounded, and interpreted with conservative imagination is to be taken as fact. According to him, "he so far surpassed his compeers in personal strength as to be a terror to them" (V. C. 1. 19), and in respect of Vigor of body was such that at the Council of Nicæa his very bearing showed that he surpassed all present in "invincible strength and vigor"; while at the age of sixty or upwards, "he still possessed a sound and vigorous body, free from all blemish and of more than youthful vivacity; a noble mien and strength equal to any exertion, so that he was able to join in martial exercises, to ride, endure the fatigues of travel, engage in battle," &c. (Vict. 4. 53). In Bearing he was "manly" (V. C. 1. 20), self-possessed, calm (V. C. 3. 11), dignified ("noble gravity," Naz. c. 24; of. Eumen. &c.), with "majestic dignity of mien" (V. C. 3. 10) and serenity (V. C. 3. 10). In Manners he was "suave" (epieikes) (V. C. 3. 10) and "affable to all" (V. C. 3. 13). This singular affability was such, according to Lactantius (c. 18), as to endear him greatly to his soldiers. Over against this, however, must be set the statement of Victor, Epit. that he was "a scoffer [irrisor] rather than suave [blandus]" (Vict. Epit. 51). But this seems founded on a false exegesis (cf. above) and withal there is no absolute contradiction. Moreover, all his intercourse with bishops, deputies, soldiers, citizens, barbarians, seems to have generally made a favorable impression, and such success without affability of manner would have been marvelous. In Dress his taste, late in life at least, became somewhat gorgeous. If he were reigning to-day, the comic papers would undoubtedly represent him, like some other good and great men, with exaggerated red neckties and figured waistcoats. He "always wore a diadem," according to Victor, Epit. (p. 51), and according to many (Malal. 13. 7-8; Cedren.; Pseudo-Leo, &c.) "none of the emperors before him" wore the diadem at all. Eusebius' description of his appearance at the Council of Nicæa would do credit to a Washington reporter on wedding-toilets; he was "clothed in raiment which glittered, as it were, with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones" (V. C. 3. 10).

§4. Mental Characteristics.

According to his biographer-friend, Constantine was even more conspicuous for the excellence of his psychical qualities than his physical (V. C. 1. 19). Among these qualities are natural intelligence (V. C. 1. 19), sound judgment (V. C. 1. 19), well-disciplined power of thought (Theoph. p. 29), and peculiarly, as might be expected from his eye and general energy, penetration (Theoph. p. 29). In respect of Education, it is said on the one hand that he "reaped the advantages of a liberal education" (V. C. 1. 19), and particularly that he was thoroughly trained in the art of reasoning (V. C.); but according to Anonymous Vales. (p. 471), and also Cedrenus (p. 473), his literary education was scanty. If there was early lack, he made up for it afterwards with characteristic energy, for he attained very considerable erudition (of a sort) for an emperor, as is shown in his Oration. According to Eutropius he was devoted to liberal studies. According to Lydus he was skilled both in the science of letters and the science of arms; for "if he had not excelled in both sciences, he would not have been made emperor of the Romans" (Lydus, de Magist. 3. 33),--a somewhat subjective ground. Such was his devotion to study that, according to Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29), "he sometimes passed sleepless nights in furnishing his mind with divine knowledge." The measure of his thoroughness may be gathered from the fact that his knowledge of Greek even, does not seem to have been very extensive--"with which he was not altogether unacquainted" (V. C. 3. 13). His learning, as shown in his orations, is the learning of a man of affairs, and has many elements of crudity and consequent pretentiousness; but he is no worse than many authors--much better than most royal authors.

His learning had at least the excellent quality that it was radiated with reference to expression, as all sound learning must be. According to Eusebius, much of his time was spent in composing discourses, many of which he delivered in public (V. C. 4. 29), and he continued to the last to compose discourses and to deliver frequent orations in public.

The description by Eusebius of the character of his orations (V. C. 4. 24) seems to forbid any assumption of pure vanity as his motive. It is the most natural thing in the world that an emperor should make speeches, and that he should speak on scholastic or religious themes, and with the use of classical philosophy, mythology, and literature, should be no surprise in the days of President Harrison, Mr. Gladstone, and the Emperor William. There is no doubt he wrote and spoke vigorously and effectively to his soldiers, and on political and judicial matters (witness his laws), and his learned literary production is very fair amateur work, considering. In the Delivery of his speeches he seems to have had self-possession and modesty of manner, as e.g. at the Council of Nicæa, where "he looked serenely around on the assembly with a cheerful aspect, and having collected his thoughts in a calm and gentle tone...proceeded to speak" (V. C. 3. 11). His Literary style was somewhat inflated and verbose, but for this, compare Special Prolegomena. His Patronage of learning showed his interest in it. Following his father's example and continuing his work, he encouraged the schools in Gaul (cf. above). Hosius and Eusebius were his friends and counselors. He made Lactantius tutor to Crispus (Hieron. Chron.). He had copies of the Scriptures made and distributed (V. C. 3. 1). In short, he especially "encouraged the study of letters" (Vict. Epit. 51) in every way.

§5. Moral Characteristics.

(a) In relations with events, things, or persons. First of all, Constantine excelled in Energy, that fundamental of all developed character. He was pre-eminent for masculine strength of character (Theoph. p. 29), a man of energy (vir ingens, Eutrop. 10. 1). This was manifested at every turn, in his successful military activity under Diocletian, in the decisive acts at the time of leaving him, in the prosecution of campaigns against Maximian, Maxentius, Licinius, in the wholesale way in which he pushed internal improvements, the building of Constantinople, the multiplication of Christian houses of worship, in his studies, in his law-making; in short, in everything he touched there was the same teeming, resistless energy of the man. His Determination was "bent on effecting whatever he had settled in his mind" (Eutrop. 10. 5). His Rapidity of action when he rejoined his father is described by Lactantius as incredible (Lact. c. 24). He showed the same alacrity in his quick return and surprise of Maximian, in his first entry into Italy, and in his campaign against Licinius. This energy and activity rose to positive Impetuosity, which led him at Verona, before Rome, and at Cibalis to plunge into the midst of battle, communicating his own resistless, indomitable, alert will to do, to his soldiers. Closely linked with these qualities was that personal Courage and Valor, inherited from his father (Paneg. 307, c. 3), mentioned by Eusebius (V. C. 1. 11), and explicitly or implicitly by almost every one. This most indubitable of all his qualities was witnessed to even by the scoffing Julian as "inexpressibly" great (Orat. p. 13), and mentioned even in the work whose chief aim seems, almost, to detract from Constantine (Cæs. p. 23). United with all these characteristics of greatness was a far-reaching Ambition. This on the one hand is represented to be an ambition for power and glory. He was "exceedingly ambitious of military glory" (Eutrop. 10. 7); "aspiring to the sovereignty of the whole world" (Eutrop. 10. 5). According to Zosimus, at the time of the appointment of Severus and Maximin, already having his mind set on attaining royalty he was roused to a greater desire by the honor conferred on Severus and Maximin, and this eager desire of power was already well known to many. On the other hand, this ambition is represented to be a burning zeal for righting wrongs; his wars against Maxentius and Licinius real crusades, and his actual objective in all things the reform to be effected. If the fruit proves the motive, this was so; for he consistently used or tried to use his power for what he thought public good. This he did in Gaul, after his victories, in his legislation, and in his internal improvements.

In view of all this powerfulness of personality, it may be said of all successes of this "man of power" (Eutrop. 10. 5) what Eutropius says of his success in war, that it was great, "but not more than proportioned to his exertions" (Eutrop.). With all this energy of personality, however, he was far from being headstrong. On the contrary, he showed marked Prudence, resembling his father in this also (Paneg. 307, c. 3). Sustaining so long the delicate position at the court of Diocletian, all his provision for guarding the frontiers, his long-suffering in waiting to be confirmed Cæsar, in waiting his opportunity to meet Maxentius, in waiting and getting everything in hand before meeting Licinius, his wise moderation in demand on the conquered, and the not pressing forward until he had everything well arranged, show this, and a high degree of Patience withal. This latter virtue was peculiarly characteristic whether exercised in respect of things or plans or people, and his great patience in listening to complaints (Naz. c. 24) is only a part of the whole. As he was patient, so he was distinguished for Perseverance, and "firm and unshaken" (Theoph. p. 29) Steadfastness. So great energy united with these other qualities barely needs testimony to suggest great Faithfulness to his tasks in hand, as in that "strict attention to his military duties" which Lactantius says (c. 18) characterized him as a young man. In brief, his whole personality was a marked example of that balance of power and the measuring of remote ends which is included under the word Self-control, in the use of the philosophy of which he, as well as his father, was a disciple. In this exercise of his great energy towards himself he was recognized to be remarkable. This self-control was manifested especially in his unusual Chastity. As a young man he was marked by correct moral habits (probis moribus, Lact. c. 18). The specific testimony of Eusebius to this (V. C.) would have comparatively little weight on a point like this, and the same might be said, in a measure, of the testimony of the Panegyrists (Naz. c. 24; 307, c. 4; 313, c. 4), who mention this virtue. But panegyrical art would forbid the laudation of what was conspicuously lacking; rather it would not be mentioned, and the general testimony goes to show at least a contemporary reputation for extraordinary continence, considering his time and environment. His relationship with Minervina hardly touches this reputation, whether she was wife or only legitimate concubine. The accusations and innuendoes of Julian, Cæsars, have, in any fairly critical estimate, hardly more than the weight of some malignant gossip whose backbiting is from his own heart. "Honi soit qui mat y pense." Like Licinius, he seems to have been unable to understand that purity of heart which permitted the free companionship of women in social or religious life. Julian's general charge of luxuriousness and sensuousness (p. 43, 306, 25, 38, 42, &c.) must be regarded largely in the same light; for this delight in soft garments, precious gems, games, and festivities was, if we can judge aright, in no sense "enervating pleasure and voluptuous indulgence": for he was indefatigable in studies and works of all sorts, although it is perhaps to be referred to the vanity and love of display of which he is accused, and of which more later.

(b) In relations with people. In general he was Amiable,--popular with the soldiers, popular even with his subdued enemies (Eutrop. 10. 7). Diocletian reminded Galerius (Lact. c. 18) that he was "amiable," and he must have been so; for he was "loved by soldiers" (Eumen. c. 16), and so "endeared to the troops" that in the appointment of Cæsar he was "the choice of every individual" (Lact. c. 18). This popularity he indeed "sought by every kind of liberality and obligingness" (Eutr. 10. 7.), but what he sought he found.

A very large element in this popularity was the universal Mildness, Mercifulness, and Forbearance which he showed. In these is found a class of characteristics which stand alongside his energy of character as peculiarly characteristic and great. "He whose familiar habit it was to save men's lives" (V. C. 4. 6), as a young man promised, in the opinion of Diocletian (Lact. c. 18), to be "milder and more merciful than his father." Even in the opinion of Julian he was "far more humane (praoteron), and in very many other respects superior to others, as I would demonstrate if there were opportunity" (Julian, Orat. p. 15); and he again (p. 96) speaks of him in laudatory terms as contrasted with the other emperors. Eusebius, as might be expected, is still stronger in expression, and sets Constantine "in contrast with tyrants who were stained with blood of countless numbers," saying that in Constantine's reign "the sword of justice lay idle," and men were "rather constrained by a paternal authority than governed by the stringent power of the laws" (V. C. 3. 1). This mercifulness he manifested on every occasion. "When Sigusium was on fire," he directed greater effort towards saving it than he had to capturing it (Naz. Paneg. c. 21). At the taking of Rome he punished a certain few only of those most intimate with Maxentius (Zos.), and even Zosimus notes the great joy and relief of people at the exchange of Constantine for Maxentius. It is noticeable that in the inscriptions the epithet "clementissimus," most rare of other emperors, is found a considerable number of times of him. So great was this mildness of conduct that he was "generally blamed for his clemency" (V. C. 4. 31), on the ground that crimes were not visited with their proper penalties. The testimony to this humaneness of character is almost unlimited and conclusive, but there is more or less evidence which is urged in qualification or contradiction. It is rather a common thing to say that he was at first mild, but later pride of prosperity caused him greatly to depart from this former agreeable mildness of temper (Eutrop.). Then the execution of the various members of his own family (cf. discussion below), the exposure of prisoners to the wild beasts (Eumen. Paneg. c. 12), his severe decree against those who should conceal copies of the works of Arius (Socr. 1. 9), his treatment of the Jews (Greg. Niceph., or at least his laws), and the severe penalties of some of his laws are among the points brought against him. But the remark of Eutropius is to be interpreted by the "former agreeable mildness of temper," to which he himself witnesses, and the fact that this latter period was that where the points of view of the two men had widely diverged. The exposure of prisoners to wild beasts was no evidence of cruelty in itself; for under the customs then prevailing it might have been cruelty to his subjects not to have done this, and his treatment of the barbarian enemies is rather to be interpreted in the light of the testimony of Eutropius that he "left on the minds of the barbarians [Goths] a strong remembrance of his kindness" (10. 7). His treatment of his family is discussed elsewhere, but whatever its bearings may be, there is no just historico-psychological ground whatever for the use of the word which is so freely bandied,--cruelty. Cruel he was not in any sense. Even the extreme of the Panegyrist who says to him, "you are such by inheritance and destiny that you cannot be cruel" (Eumen. Paneg. c. 14), is nearer the truth. The penalties of his laws lay him open in a degree to a charge of growing severity; but it was great, if sometimes mistaken and overzealous, regard for what he deemed the public welfare, and on quite a different plane from anything which we express as cruelty. Though with the growing conservatism of a man who finds his purposes of mercy continually perverted and his indulgences abused, he yet remained to the end of his life most merciful and mild compared with those who went before and who followed.

This fact becomes more clear in seeing how he excelled in kindred virtues. The Patience already mentioned, distinguished forbearance, and undoubted benevolence, or at least generosity, are traits which group with mercy and have no fellowship with cruelty. And these he had. He showed distinguished Forbearance, and that oftentimes, as in a disturbance at Antioch, where he "applied with much forbearance the remedy of persuasion" (V. C. 3. 59). The outrageous conduct of those who, in the Arian disturbances, dared "even to insult the statues of the emperor...had little power to excite his anger, but rather caused in him sorrow of spirit" (V. C. 3. 4), "and he endured with patience men who were exasperated against himself." These words are by Eusebius, to be sure; but his conduct with Donatists, Arians, Maximinianus, and Licinius, in individual and on the whole, show that in fact he did habitually exercise great forbearance. To this was added much activity of positive Kindness. On first accession he "visited with much considerate kindness all those provinces" (V. C. p. 23). This kindness was shown throughout his reign, and brightly illustrated in his treatment of the persecuted Christians from the beginning,--in his acts in Gaul, in his famous toleration edict, in his letter to Maximin, and in his acts throughout. After his victory over Maxentius came the edict that those wrongfully deprived of their estates should be permitted to enjoy them again,...unjustly exiled were recalled and freed from imprisonment (Euseb. V. C. 1. 41). After the victory over Licinius he recalled Christian exiles, ordered restitution of property, released from labor in mines, from the solitude of islands, from toil in public works, &c., those who had been oppressed in these ways (V. C. p. 70-71). There is strong concensus of testimony to a very lovable habitual exercise of this trait in his "readiness to grant hearing," "patience in listening," and "kindness of response" to those whose complaints he had patiently listened to (Naz. 24). He was most excellent (commodissimus) to hear embassies and complaints of provinces (Vict. Epit. p. 51),--a testimony which is borne out by the facts. His Generosity is equally undoubted. His magnificent gifts and largesses to the army were still remembered in the time of Julian (Orat. p. 13). His constant and lavish giving to the Christians is Eusebius' unending theme: but it was not to the churches alone; for we read of his munificence to heathen tribes (V. C. 2. 22), his liberality to the poor (V. C. 1. 43) in giving money for clothing, provision for orphans and widows, marriage portions for virgins, compensation to losers in law suits (V. C. 4. 4). It was "scarcely possible to be near him without benefit" (V. C. 1. 43; cf. V. C. 3. 16; 3. 22; 4. 44).

Though slow to serve some friends through suspicion (i.e. dubius thus explained), he was "exceedingly generous towards others, neglecting no opportunity to add to their riches and honors" (Eutrop. 10. 7). "With royal magnificence he unlocked all his treasures and distributed his gifts with rich and high-souled liberality" (V. C. 3. 1). He seems to have carried it rather to excess, even on the showing of Eusebius. "No one could request a favor of the emperor, and fail of obtaining what he sought....He devised new dignities, that he might invest a larger number with the tokens of his favor" (V. C. 4. 2). It is worth giving the account by Eusebius of this conduct in full here. He says (V. C. 4. 54) that this "was a virtue, however, which subjected him to censure from many, in consequence of the baseness of wicked men, who ascribed their own crimes to the emperor's forbearance. In truth, I can myself bear testimony to the grievous evils which prevailed during those times: I mean the violence of rapacious and unprincipled men, who preyed on all classes of society alike, and the scandalous hypocrisy of those who crept into the church....His own benevolence and goodness of heart, the genuineness of his own faith, and his truthfulness of character induced the emperor to credit the professions of those reputed Christians who craftily preserved the semblance of sincere affection for his person. The confidence he reposed in such men sometimes forced him into conduct unworthy of himself, of which envy took advantage to cloud in this respect the luster of his character." There seems, therefore, some ground for the charge of Prodigality, that he "wasted public money in many useless buildings, some of which he shortly after destroyed because they were not built to stand" (Zos.), and (Zos. p. 104) "gave great largesses to ill-deserving persons, mistaking profusion for munificence" (ten gar asotian hegeito philotimian). Zosimus adds that to do this, he "imposed severe taxes on all, so severe that fathers were obliged to prostitute their daughters to raise the money, that tortures were employed, and in consequence whole villages depopulated." This testimony is, however, by one bitterly prejudiced, who regarded money spent on Christian houses of worship as worse than wasted, and indicates only what appears from Eusebius as well, that expenditures for cities, schools, and churches built, and for other matters, must have been enormous. But so, too, they were enormous under other emperors, and Constantine, at least, instead of spending on debauchery, seems to have had something to show for it. As to taxes, Zosimus would undoubtedly sympathize with the Kentucky moonshiners in their "oppression" by revenue officers, if he were here now and Constantine were President, and would fulminate in the daily papers against the wicked party which by its wicked tariff compels men to marry their daughters to rich husbands in order to get their taxes paid,--and incidental luxuries supplied. But that does not say that an exorbitant tariff, to supply "jobs" which shall furnish rich "spoils" for those who have "pulls" out of the pockets of the many, is good; yet this, in modern phrase, is about what Constantine did. Constantine's trust in his friends and generosity to the unworthy, with its consequences on the tax-payers, reminds strikingly of some of our own soldier-presidents, whom we love and admire without approving all their acts. And yet, on the other hand, much of the expenditure was for solid improvement, and could only be criticised by those who now oppose expenditures for navy, for improved postal service, public buildings, subsidies, &c.; though yet, again, his wholesale way of doing things also reminds one of the large generosity of some modern politicians in their race for popularity, with their Pension, Education, River and Harbor, and what not liberalities out of the pockets of the people. But whatever unwisdom may have been mingled, all this profusion shows in him a generosity of character which was at least amiable, and in the main genuine. His generosity took also the form of Hospitality, as shown by his entertainings at the Council of Nicæa (V. C. 4. 49). With all these qualities of amiable popularity there seems to have been joined a yet more fundamental element, of permanent influence among men, in a spirit of Justice so marked that the claim of the Panegyrist is hardly too sweeping when he says that "all who took refuge with him for whatever cause he treated justly and liberally" (Paneg. 307. 5)--if there is added "up to his light and ability." Closely linked with this again is that "Unbending righteousness" of which Theophanes (p. 29) speaks. And to all these qualities was added that synthesis of qualities,--a remarkable Tact in his intercourse with men, a trait typically exemplified in his conduct at the Council of Nicæa, where "the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and reviewed every proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the arguments of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation,...persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question" (V. C. 3. 13).

But success with men and popularity seem to have opened that pitfall of success,--Vanity,--and it is charged that he fell thereinto, although there is testimony to the exact contrary. According to Victor (Epit. p. 51) he was "immeasurably greedy of praise." This agrees with, and is at the same time modified by Eutropius' testimony to his ambition for glory and for honorable popularity (10. 7), and his apparently complacent reception of the outrageous flattery of Optatian (cf. his letter), seems at least to show some weakness in this direction. So again his tendency toward Magnificence, as shown in his assuming the diadem and his dress in general (cf. above), in the splendor of banquets as witnessed by his approving friend (V. C. 3. 15), his desire to do on a large scale whatever he did, whether in the building of cities or splendid houses of worship, or in book-binding ornamentations of pearls and gems. And yet again it is shown in what seems at this distance his Conceit, sublime in its unconsciousness in reckoning himself a sort of thirteenth, but, it would seem, a facile princeps apostle, in the disposition for his burial, "anticipating with extraordinary fervor of faith that his body would share their title with the apostles themselves....He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church, like sacred pillars, in honor and memory of the apostolic number, in the centre of which his own was placed, having six of theirs on either side of it" (V. C. 4. 60). One can seem to read in this a whole history of unblushing flattery, and it reminds that Eunapius (Vic. ædes. p. 41) has spoken of his pleasure in the stimulant of "intoxicating flattery." Still it is not to be supposed that this was a peculiarly weak vanity or an absorbing one. The testimony to his Modesty (V. C. 3. 10), though by Eusebius, is too circumstantial to be wholly unreal, and the testimony to his Humility in his "indignation at excessive praise" (V. C. 4. 48), and the records of Eusebius that he "was not rendered arrogant by these plaudits nor uplifted by the praises" (Euseb. V. C. 1. 39), and of the Chronicon Paschale (p. 521) that "he was not at all puffed up by the acclamations," evidently represent a genuine thing. This mixed character is too frequently met with to be incomprehensible. Real power, recognizing its own success, glad of the recognition of others, not at bottom because of cold vanity, but from warm appreciation of human friendliness, became through success in carrying out what seemed to him, and were, divine plans, fired with the thought that he was the especial and necessary minister of God, that his thoughts and will were directly touched by the Divine Will and thus that whatever he thought or willed was infallible. He is not unlike some modern rulers. The spirit, though one of real vanity, or egotism at least, has an element of nobleness in it, and in most of its manifestations commands respect along with the smile. The accusation of Zosimus of Arrogance "when he had attained to the sole authority," and that he "gave himself up to the unrestrained exercise of his power," must be interpreted like those of other un-Christian witnesses, in the light of the fact that his actions worked relative hardships to the non-Christians, and that very justice to the Christians would seem injustice to them, and if Constantine was more than just, his generosity was at some one's expense. His energy of execution and constant success, with his dominating idea of a Divine mission, would naturally engender this faith in his own infallibility; for what is arrogance but this vanity joined with power? His action toward schismatics--Donatists, Arians, or orthodox troublers of his peace--was such as to suggest some degree of this vice. Yet his success in keeping the followers of the old religion fairly mollified, and his generally successful tact, showed that this was in no sense a dominating and unrelieved characteristic. Two other weaknesses closely allied with these are also imputed to Constantine: Jealousy, as illustrated by the statement that "wishing to minimize the deeds of his predecessors, he took pains to tarnish their virtues by giving them jocose epithets" (Dion. Cont. 2 [Müller, p. 199]; cf. Vict. Epit. p. 51), and Suspiciousness (Eutrop. 10. 7); for which latter, a man who had survived as many plots as he had, might well be excused. Again and again and again he trusted men, and they deceived him. His conduct with Maximian shows that at least in the beginning, before he had had so much experience of untrustworthiness, he was remarkably free from this. A much more serious charge is that of Faithlessness preferred by Zosimus, who says (2. 28), "in violation of his oaths (for this was customary with him)" and twice repeats the charge. Eusebius, on the other hand, tells what great pains Constantine took not to be the one to break peace with Licinius (V. C.). One is worth as little as the other. The charge seems to rest mainly or wholly on his conduct towards Licinius, in beginning war and in putting him to death. A small boy once held a smaller boy in a firm grip, but agreed to spare him the cuffing he deserved because he was smaller. The smaller small boy promptly set his teeth in the leg of the larger small boy, and was properly cuffed for it. Thereupon the smaller small boy's big brother was filled with indignation, which he manifested by seeking and finding the same fate. The indignation in behalf of Licinius seems to be in large measure big brother indignation--indignation with the wrong party. He appears to have been one of those who held a compact to be binding on the other party only. It wasn't in the bargain that he should persecute the Christians, or in the other bargain that he should plot his benefactor's overthrow. That king in Scripture who took back his promise to forgive a debt of ten thousand talents was not faithless.

(c) In relations with his family. He was a filial Son, having the confidence of his father, as shown in his wish of succession, and showing his mother all honors when he came to power (cf. coins showing her position as empress, and V.C.). "And well may his character be styled blessed for his filial piety as well as on other grounds" (V. C. 3. 47).

It is in this relation to his family, however, that the most serious attacks on the character of Constantine have been made. Eutropius says: "But the pride of prosperity caused Constantine greatly to depart from his former agreeable mildness of temper. Falling first upon his own relatives, he put to death his son, an excellent man; his sister's son, a youth of amiable disposition; soon afterwards his wife; and subsequently many of his friends." This has been a battle-ground of accusation or excusation in all the centuries. The testimony is very meagre and uncertain, but this much may be said: 1. That any jury would regard the fact of deaths as evidenced. It is witnessed by Eutrop. (10. 6), Zos., Vict., Hieron., &c. 2. That he was unjustifiable is not proven. In respect to the death of Fausta, at least, there was probably just cause; whether love intrigue or other intrigue, there seems to have been some real occasion. The death of Crispus, too, was from no mere suspicions, but on apparently definite grounds of distrust. It is historical assumption to say that he had no good grounds, whatever these may have been--illicit relationship with Fausta or more probably political intrigue. At the worst, he was put to death on false but, at the time, apparently true accusation: what has been done by judges and juries of the best intention. Of Licinius, his sister's son, it can hardly be said that he had the same reason, as he was still a boy. But remembering the inherited character of Licinius, and noticing the curious fact that the cordiality between Constantia and Constantine was peculiarly great to the end, it seems as if there must have been some mitigating circumstance. In all historical candor it looks as if there had been some general intrigue against Constantine which had been met in this way; but the fairest verdict to enter is "causes unknown."

In estimating the characteristic value of the acts it must be noted, 1. That it has in no sense the character of private execution. The emperor was judge. Even if he mistook evidence and put to death an innocent man, it was as when a judge does the same. 2. That the relative moral character of punishments inflicted is conditioned by the custom of punishment. An English judge of the past was not as cruel in hanging a man for theft, as a modern one in applying the extreme penalty of the law to an offense with mitigating circumstances, would be. 3. That all law of evidence, all rhyme and reason, says that any man's any act is to be interpreted in the light of his general character. Where evidence is lacking or doubtful, such evidence of general character has actual weight, and may be conclusive. In application to these acts note (a) The peculiar forbearance which Constantine exercised toward Maximian. (b) The conclusive universal testimony to the general mildness of his character and his habitual mercifulness. In view of this, it is to be judged that there was some real, or appearing, great ground of judicial wrath. 4. That Constantine had suffered from plots on the part of his own relatives over and over again, and spared, and been plotted against again, as in the cases of Maximian, Bassianus, and Licinius. 5. That they were not put to death "in a gust of passion" at once, but in successive acts. In view of these things it is fair and just to say that they were put to death on grounds which seemed just and for the welfare of society, and their deaths in no sense indicate cruelty or unnaturalness on the part of Constantine. Even the death of Licinius must be interpreted by the political ethics of the times and its circumstances. So long as sentimentalists continue to send bouquets to murderers and erect monuments to anarchists, they will regard execution, even legal execution, as prima facie evidence of cruelty, and the killing of a murderer in self-defense, or the hanging of a traitor, as crime. Constantine's whole character ensures that if he thought he could have spared them, or any one, with safety, he would have done so.

In general he was a faithful husband as respects marital virtue, and a good father. He took care that his children should be well educated. Crispus was under Lactantius (Hieron.), and the others perhaps under Arborius ("Auson. de Prof. Burdig. 16"); at all events, he had the most accomplished teachers of secular learning to instruct in the art of war, and in political and legal science (V. C. 4. 51), and both by his own instruction and that of men of approved piety, took special pains with their religious training. He early appointed them to offices of authority, and distributed the empire among them.

(d) In relations with friends. His general conduct toward his friends was marked by very great liberality (cf. above). Eutropius speaks emphatically of this even while he uses the expression which has been such a puzzle to all, that "toward some of his friends he was double" (or dangerous), a phrase which is interpreted by Johannes Ant. as meaning "to some of friends false (unsound, hupoulos) and unsafe (unwholesome, ouch hugios)" (ed. Müller 4. p. 602-3). His uniform effort to please his friends has been discussed above.

(e) In relations with society. 1. As General he seems to have been popular with his own soldiers (cf. above), inspiring them with enthusiasm and energy. Toward hostile soldiers he was merciful (cf. above), not following up an advantage further than was necessary, and toward conquered enemies unusually forbearing; e.g. at Sigusium, at Rome, with Maximian, with Licinius, and with the Goths (cf. above). His generalship is characterized by careful provision for the guarding of his rear, and by rapidity of movement and dash in actual conflict. 2. As Legislator he "enacted many laws, some good, but most of them superfluous, and some severe" (Eutrop. 10. 8). He seems to have had a weakness for law-making which, at all events, shows a characteristic respect for law little shared by his early contemporaries. Of course Eutropius would consider all laws in favor of Christians superfluous. Laws for the abolition of idolatrous practices, for the erection of Christian houses of worship, observance of the Lord's Day (V. C. 4. 23), permitting cases to be tried before bishops (Soz. 1. 9; Euseb. H. E. 10. 7; Cod. Theod. Tit. de episc. 2) &c., would surely seem so. But even in other laws Constantine seems to have had at times an abnormal zeal for law-making, when his energies were not occupied in war or church-building. The laws were generally wise and, at the least, benevolently or righteously meant. Such were the abolition of crucifixion (Vict. Cæs.) and of gladiatorial shows (V. C. 4. 25; Socr. 1. 8; C. Theod. 15. 12. 1), the law that the families of slaves were not to be separated (C. Theod. 2.25), that forbidding the scourging of debtors (C. Theod. 7. 3), and that repressing calumny (Vict. Epit. 51). Among the "severe" laws were such as punished certain forms of illicit intercourse with death. 3. As Statesman his policy was broad and far-reaching. He fully organized and carefully established one section of his territory before he enlarged. He changed the whole constitution of the empire, both civil and military (cf. Wordsworth, in Smith & W.). He inaugurated reforms in finance, and especially was most assiduous in the matter of internal improvements, restoring and building from one end of the empire to the other. The great characteristic consummation of his reign was the union of Church and State, over which men are still divided as to whether it was a tremendous blessing or a tremendous curse. Tremendous it surely was in its shaping power on world history. (Compare numerous titles under Literature.) The general statement of Eutropius that "in the beginning of his reign he might have been compared to the best princes, in the latter part only to those of a middling character," must be interpreted by the fact that during the latter part of his reign he was so associated with Christianity, in itself a falling away in the eyes of the old religionists. His reign was one of order and justice such as few were, and an order out of chaos, a reign in which it could be peculiarly said that "chastity was safe and marriage protected" (Naz. c. 38), where a man's life and property were secure as under few of the Roman emperors. It is idle to refuse the title of Great to a man who, from the beginning, followed a consistent, though developing policy, organized the interior, and securely guarded the frontier of his empire at each enlargement, and finally unified the whole on such a basis as to secure large internal prosperity and development.

§6. Religious Characteristics.

Was Constantine a Christian? This vain question has to be considered, hardly discussed. The interminable opinions, one way or the other, are for the most part wise-seeming, meaningless generalizations. Like any generalized statement, it is conditioned by the point of view of the author. When ten men answered the question "What is a Christian?" in ten different ways, who shall say what any one is? This has been the difficulty. One does not conceive of Christianity apart from baptismal regeneration. The question has then narrowed to one of baptism. Constantine was not a Christian until just before his death. Another has some other test. Another is not a Christian himself, and so on. A good Biblical, Protestant starting-point is to say he was a Christian as soon as he believed in Christ, and that the evidence of faith is in confession and action. Already, before his campaign into Italy, he seems to have been in intimate contact with the Christians. Hosius was probably already one of his advisers. The young emperor had inherited his father's piety (Paneg. 307, c. 5), and was inclined to monotheism. The words of advisers must have made him think at least, and he seems to have made a sort of test of believing at the time of the famous "vision of the cross," whatever that may have been. Judging from the way men think and feel their way to faith, it seems psychologically probable that, feeling his way along to that point, he tried faith and, having success, he substantially believed from that time on. Certainly from a very early period after this, the evidences begin to be clear and increasingly so as presumably his faith itself became more clear and fixed. The account in Eusebius of the process of thought by which he inclined toward Christianity has the greatest plausibility. He says that "considering the matter of Divine assistance, it occurred to him that those who had relied on idols had been deceived and destroyed, while his father...had honored the one Supreme God, had found him Saviour, &c....he judged it folly to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods...and felt it incumbent on him to honor no other than the God of his father." The nature of the vision of the cross, whether a miracle, a natural phenomenon, or only a dream, does not affect the probability of the account by Eusebius of what followed it (V. C. 1. 32). "At the time above specified, being struck with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and resolving to worship no other God save him who had appeared to him, he sent for those who were acquainted with the mysteries of his doctrines, and inquired also what God was....They affirmed that he was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God," and he thereupon "made the priests of God his counsellors and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him, with all devotion." According to Sozomen, "it is universally admitted Constantine embraced the religion of the Christians previous to his war with Maxentius and prior to his return to Rome and Italy; and this is evidenced by the dates of the laws which he enacted in favor of religion" (Soz. 1. 5; cf. 1. 3). Philostorgius (1. 6), "in conformity with all other writers," ascribes to the victory over Maxentius (Photius. Epit.). This is confirmed, too, by the remark of the Panegyrist (313, c. 4; cf. c. 2 and c. 11), that he conducted the war by Divine instruction, and the famous inscription on the triumphal arch, "instinctu Divinitatis." According to Augustine he was at the time of the petition of the Donatists, "mindful of the hope which he maintained in Christ" (August. contra litt. Petil. Bk. II. c. 92, p. 205).

The tales of his baptism at this time, or by Sylvester at all, are pure fables (cf. under The Mythical Constantine), but it appears from antecedent probability, from testimony, and from his early subsequent identification with the Christians that he became fairly convinced at this time. His letters concerning the council at Arles, to be sure, have little direct evidence, but enough to show that he regarded the Christian religion as the worship of that one supreme God, and in them Hosius was already his trusted adviser. But in his letters to Chrestus (314) he speaks of those who are "forgetful of their own salvation and the reverence due to the most holy faith," and if his letter to the bishops after the council at Arles--a letter full of expressions like "Christ the Saviour," "brethren beloved," "I who myself await the judgment of Christ," "our Saviour" --be genuine, Constantine was well advanced in his commitment in 314; but whether it is or not, the fact of his Christian advisers, of his laws in behalf of Christians, and various substantial favors to them, his recognition of their God as his one God, makes it almost idle to discuss the question. Was Constantine a Christian in 314? What is a Christian? He seems to have been. The type was that of many a business-man church-member of to-day--Christians, but neither over-well-instructed, nor dangerously zealous in the exercise of his faith. It must be remembered that during these earlier years his confession of his faith and identification of himself with the Christians was conditioned by his relation to the old religion. Such a change was a radical novelty. His position was not yet secure. He had to use his utmost tact to keep all elements in hand. He was conditioned just as a modern Christian emperor or president, a majority of whose political advisers and subjects or electors are non-religious. He had great problems of political organization to effect, and was immersed in these. The only matter of surprise is that he grew so rapidly. There is no ground whatever for supposing that he dissembled to the end, or even at all. To say that his retaining the title of pontifex maximus, or making concessions respecting the old worship, or allowing soothsayers to be consulted, or even the postponement of his baptism, indicate this, is critical absurdity in the face of evidence. Testimony, both heathen and Christian, to the openness of his action is complete, and the testimony of his acts--such, e.g., as the law for the observance of Sunday--conclusive. Later, at least, he "most openly destroyed temple worship and built Christian houses of worship" (Eunap. Vita Ædes. 37, ed. Boiss. p. 20). From the defeat of Licinius on, edicts, letters, speeches, acts of all sorts, testify to a most unequivocal adoption of the Christian religion. Eusebius hardly overstates in saying that "he maintained a continual testimony to his Christianity, with all boldness and before all men, and so far was he from shrinking from an open profession of the Christian name, that he rather desired to make it manifest to all that he regarded this as his highest honor" (V. C. 3. 2). Really the question whether he considered himself, or was considered, a Christian at and after the time of the Council of Nicæa is too idle even to mention, if it had not been gravely discussed. In the opinion of the bishops there he was "most pious" and "dear to God" (Ep. synod. in Socr. 1. 9; Theodoret, 1. 8). On his part, letters are full of pious expression and usually begin or end or both with "beloved brethren." To the council itself he describes himself as "fellow-servant" of "Him who is our common Lord and Saviour." Another more considerable position is that all that indisputable external connection with Christianity was pure political expediency, that he was a shrewd politician who saw which way the wind was blowing, and had skill to take advantage of it. That Constantine was not a Christian in the strict sense even to the end of his life was the position of Keim. Burckhardt regards him as a pure politician, without a touch of Christian life. Brieger (1880) says we have not grounds to decide either way, whether he was "a godless egoistic fatalist or had a more or less warm religious or even Christian interest," but that the fixed fact is, that it was not because of his inner belief in the Christian religion that he showed favor to the Christians. In a brief attempt to get some basis in the sources, the enthusiastic testimony of Eusebius and other writers, explicit as it is, may be quite disregarded, even the testimony to facts, such as his practice of giving thanks (V. C. 1. 39), of invoking Divine aid (Euseb. V. C. 2, 4, 6, 13; Soz. 2. 34), of his erecting a place of prayer in his palace (Soz. 1. 8), of his fasting (V. C. 2. 41), of his having a stated hour of prayer (V. C. 4. 22), although all these are interesting. The documents, however, unless by supremely uncritical rejection, can be regarded as fundamental sources. A brief analysis of these, even though imperfect, will furnish grounds on the basis of which those who apply various tests may apply them. Starting from his faith in Christ, surely the center of Christianity, he believed Christ to be Son of God, "God and the Son of God the author of every blessing" (S. C.), the revealer of the Father, who has "revealed a pure light in the person of Thy Son...and hast thus given testimony concerning Thyself" (S. C. 1), proceeding from the Father (S. C.), and incarnate, his incarnation having been predicted also by the prophets. He believed this Son of God to be his Saviour (Ad Tyr., Ad Ant., Ad Euseb., &c.) "our common Lord and Saviour" (Ad Euseb.), "our Saviour, our hope, and our life" (Ad eccl. Al.). He believed in his miraculous birth (S. C.) and in his death for our deliverance (Ad Nic.; cf. Ad Mac. &c.), "the path which leads to everlasting life" (S. C. 1), "a precious and toilsome" work (Ad Euseb.), and in his ascension into heaven (S. C. 1). He believed in "God the Father" (Ad Euseb. 2), "Almighty" (Ad Euseb.), Lord of all (Ad Euseb. 2), and the Holy Ghost (Ad eccl. Al.; cf. S. C.). He believed in "Divine Providence" (Ad Eccl. Al.; Ad Alex. et Ar.; Ad. Euseb. 1), God the preserver of all men (Ad Alex. et Ar.), who sees all things (Ad Syn. Nic.), who is near us and the observer of all our actions (S. C.), and "under the guidance of whose Almighty hand" he is (Ad Prov. Pal.), that all things are regulated by the determination of his will (Ad Euseb.). He believed in the existence of a personal devil (Ad Eccl. Al.). He believed in the future life (Ad Prov. Pal.), "the only true life" (S. C. 12), the "strife for immortality" (Ad Euseb.), to which those may aspire who know Him (S. C. 12). He believed in future rewards and punishments (Ad Prov. Pal.; S. C. 23). He believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures (Ad Eccl. Al.). He loved God (Ad Euseb. 2; V. C. 2. 55), and considered it his chief work in life to glorify Christ (S. C.). He loved his fellow-men, being disposed "to love you with an enduring affection" (Ad Ant.; V. C. 3. 60, &c.), and recognized it as virtue in others (8, c. 11). To him, God, in general, is the source of all blessings (Ad Prov. Pal.; S. C., &c.). "I am most certainly persuaded," he says, "that I myself owe my life, my every breath, in short, my very inmost and secret thoughts to the favor of the Supreme God" (Ad Prov. Pal.). He recognizes contrition as a requisite for pardon (Ad. Prov. Pal), and that it is the power of God which removes guilt (Ad Euseb.). In the conduct of life. "Our Saviour's words and precepts are a model, as it were, of what our life should be" (Ad. Ant.; V. C. 3. 60).

Expositions of his doctrinal and ethical positions might be multiplied almost without end from the many and fruitful sources, but a few specimens in his own expression will best show the spirit of his religious life. A most suggestive and beautiful sketch of Christ's ministry on earth too long to quote here may be found in his Oration (ch. 15), but the following selections will give the idea:

A description of the inner Christian life. "For the only power in man which can be elevated to a comparison with that of God is sincere and guiltless service and devotion of heart to Himself, with the contemplation and study of whatever pleases Him, the raising our affections above the things of earth, and directing our thoughts, as far as we may, to high and heavenly objects" (S. C. 14).

A description of the outer Christian life. "Compare our religion with your own. Is there not with us genuine concord, and unwearied love of others? If we reprove a fault, is not our object to admonish, not to destroy; our correction for safety, not for cruelty? Do we not exercise not only sincere faith toward God, but fidelity in the relations of social life? Do we not pity the unfortunate? Is not ours a life of simplicity which disdains to cover evil beneath the mask of fraud and hypocrisy?" (S. C. 23).

A prayer. "Not without cause, O holy God, do I prefer this prayer to Thee, the Lord of all. Under Thy guidance have I devised and accomplished measures fraught with blessing: preceded by Thy sacred sign, I have led Thy armies to victory: and still on each occasion of public danger, I follow the same symbol of Thy perfections while advancing to meet the foe. Therefore have I dedicated to Thy service a soul duly attempered by love and fear. For Thy name I truly love, while I regard with reverence that power of which Thou hast given abundant proofs, to the confirmation and increase of my faith" (Ad prov. Or.).

A confession of faith in God and in Christ. "This God I confess that I hold in unceasing honor and remembrance; this God I delight to contemplate with pure and guileless thoughts in the height of his glory." "His pleasure is in works of moderation and gentleness. He loves the meek and hates the turbulent spirit, delighting in faith. He chastises unbelief" (Ad Sap.). "He is the supreme judge of all things, the prince of immortality, the giver of everlasting life" (S. C. 36).

Was Constantine a Christian? Let each one apply his own test.

§7. General Characterization.

Before trying to gather into continuous statement the traits of character which have been examined, a few general characterizations must be mentioned at least. Beginning at the bottom, the unfriendly, or hostile, or at the least unsympathetic, heathen testimonies generalize him as at least relatively and on the whole both great and good. The general tendency of heathen testimony is to represent him as admirable in the early part of his reign, but execrable, or less admirable, in the latter part; that of Christian writers is to represent a growth of excellence, which raises him to saintship at the end. This is most natural. Favoring Christianity was itself a moral fall to a heathen, and bestowing money on Christians would be robbery. The turning of his character was with his changing face towards Christianity, and culminated in the overthrow of Licinius. Licinius fought really as the champion of heathenism. The adherents of a lost cause are characterizing their victor. It is like an ex-Confederate characterizing Lincoln or Grant. The point of view is different. Honest and true men in the South thought Lincoln a curse, and often in popular verdict his character was "black." The popular proverb quoted by Victor (Epit. p. 51), "Bull-necked for ten years, for twelve a freebooter, and for ten a spendthrift (immature child)," has just the value of a Southern popular opinion of Lincoln, or a rural Northerner's of "Jeff Davis." Indeed, the first might summarize at times the Southern popular verdict of Grant; the second, a frequently expressed estimate of Lincoln's conduct in the emancipation of slaves; and the third, their view of the enormous expenditure for pensions of Union soldiers, even as it was fifteen years ago. But even the rather severe Victor, who reports this proverb, finds Constantine "most excellent (commodissimus) in many respects,"--in respect of certain laws, in his patronage of the arts, especially that of letters, as scholar, as author, in the hearing of delegations and complaints (p. 51). Again, "Praxagoras, though a heathen, says that in all sorts of virtue and personal excellence and good fortune, Constantine outshone all the emperors who preceded him" (Photius, Cod. 62, ed. Müller, p. 1). And finally, the heathen Eutropius, who characterizes from his standpoint so admirably, though he naturally finds that "in the beginning of his reign he might have been compared to the best princes; in the latter part, only to those of middling character," nevertheless records "that innumerable good qualities of mind and body were present in him," and that he was "deservedly enrolled among the gods,"--using the meruit which he uses also of Aurelian, but not generally, and not even of Constantius. On purely heathen testimony, therefore, Constantine, taken by and large, was comparatively remarkable and admirable. A moderate Christian characterization is that of Theophanes (p. 29): "Pre-eminent for masculine strength of character, penetration of mind, well-disciplined power of thought; for unbending righteousness, ready benevolence, thorough majestic beauty of countenance, mighty and successful in war, great in wars with the barbarians, invincible in domestic wars, and so firm and unshaken in faith that through prayer he obtained the victory in all his battles." Remembering, therefore, that in order to understand a character in past centuries one must project himself into his time; remembering again the circumstances of his time and its practice, we shall, without forgetting any of the acts on which he has been judged, find him on indisputable testimony superior to most of the other emperors in character, and as much above the circumstances of his times as would characterize a man of to-day as of peculiarly high moral character. In view of this, it is uncritical, and a violence to historical evidence, to approach one whom, at death, the heathen thought worthy to be enrolled among the gods, and the Christians canonized as saint (in the Greek calendar), as other than one who, taken all in all, was of unusual excellence of character. As in any synthesis, any organization, subordinate facts must be viewed in their relation to their center and whole, as by any law of criminal procedure acts must be judged in the light of general character, so any rational, legal, scientific, historical estimate of Constantine must be in view of this fact.

§8. Summary.

With this as center of perspective, we have a picture of Constantine with lights and shadows, to be sure, but in the main true in its drawing and coloring. He was a man of rather more than medium height, strongly built, with broad shoulders, thick neck, and generally athletic and well-formed figure. His piercing eye, slightly aquiline nose, scanty reddish beard, and florid complexion, together with his bright expression, made a countenance striking and even handsome. Of great physical strength and vigor, he carried himself in a manly, self-possessed, dignified, and serene manner, uniting a dignity which might rise at times even to hauteur, or even incipient arrogance, with a general and customary affability. His dress, like his complexion, was somewhat florid. His mind was active, alert, intense without being somber, penetrating, sound, fairly cultivated, and well exercised in expression by pen or word. He was animated, habile, and attentive in conversation, self-possessed, steady, and calm in formal address. He was pre-eminently a man of energy, intense and resistless, with a determination to accomplish whatever he attempted, which rose under opposition to irresistible impetuosity, and wrought a courage which, in action, was absolutely fearless. His ambition was limitless, but not wholly or even mainly selfish.

With his energy and ambition were united the ballast of marked prudence, patience, perseverance, faithfulness to details, steadfastness, and supreme self-control. He was amiable and tactful, popular with his soldiers, and careful to please. Toward those who came into his power he showed habitual mildness and forbearance,--a mildness so great that he was generally blamed for it; and toward all he showed great kindness, justice, and a generosity which verged on the lavish. He was open to the charge of over-generosity, almost of prodigality, a good measure of real vanity, some over-insistence on his own will and thought as the final standard of right, and by no means free from mistakes or human weaknesses. He was a good son, husband, father, a remarkably successful general, a tolerable legislator, and a clear-sighted, firm-willed statesman. In his religious life he abounded in creed and confession--believing in the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and Eternal Life, in Repentance and Faith, in love to God, and love to man. He preached his faith on all occasions; he practiced thanksgiving and prayer abundantly. He regarded everything that he had or was as from God. The editor's brief judgment is that Constantine, for his time, made an astonishingly temperate, wise, and, on the whole, benevolent use of absolute power, and in morality, kindly qualities, and, at last, in real Christian character, greatly surpassed most nineteenth century politicians--standing to modern statesmen as Athanasius to modern theologians.

Chapter III

Writings.

§1. Introduction

Quite a number of works by this emperor-author are extant. They may be grouped under, I. Oratorical writings; 2. Letters and decrees; 3. Laws; 4. Various.

§2. Oratorical Writings.

According to Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29; cf. 4. 55) these were very numerous, and it may well be believed. He seems to have done much of everything he undertook at all--fighting, or learning, or building temples, or making laws, he was nothing if not incessant. He had a habit of inflicting his orations on his court, and undoubtedly had plenty of enthusiastic hearers, as any emperor would, and as Eusebius says he did. They seem to have been generally philosophical with as much religion as possible worked in (V. C. 4. 9). Not many are extant, but we have some account of the few following:

1. Oration to the saints (Oratio ad sanctum coetum, S. C.). For this see the following translation and Special Prolegomena.

2. Address to the Council of Nicæa in praise of peace (Ad Syn. Nic.), in Euseb. V. C. 3. 12. Address of welcome. He rejoices in the assembly, and exhorts them to be united, that they may thereby please God and do a favor to their emperor.

3. Oration to the Council of Nicæa, in Gelasius, Hist. Coun. Nic. 1. 7. Begins with rhetorical comparison of the Church to a temple, and ends with injunctions to observe peace and to search the Scriptures as the authority in all points of doctrine. Appears dubiously authentic.

4. Address to the bishops on their departure from Nicæa. Abstract in Euseb. V. C. 32. 1. Exhorts them to keep peace, cautions against jealousy, &c.

5. Funeral oration. A description in Euseb. V. C. 4. 55. Dwells on the immortality of the soul, the blessings laid up for those who love God, and the ruin of the ungodly.

His method of composition is spoken of by Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29), and his manner of delivery may be gathered from Eusebius' description of his speech at the opening of the Council of Nicæa (V. C. 3. 11). For the style of his oratorical discourses, compare remarks on the Oration to the Saints in the Special Prolegomena.

§3. Letters and Edicts.

It is hard to separate between letters, edicts, and laws. A substantial autocrat, the form of address was much the same, and the force. The extant letters are quite numerous, and those of which we have definite or general mention, many. He seems to have been a most industrious letter-writer. Of the extant letters a majority are undoubtedly or probably genuine. Some, however, need more critical study than seems to have been given to them. Following is the roughly chronological list, the works being grouped by years. The dating is taken mainly from the Migne edition, Ceillier, and Valesius with slight original study. The descriptions are of course from the documents themselves.

1. (313 a.d.) Edict of Constantine and Licinius for the restoration of the Church. In Lact. De M. P. c. 48, and also in Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. ed. Migne, 105-110). The second edict of toleration. The first edict (Euseb. 8. 17; Lact. De M. P. 34) can hardly be classed among the "writings" of Constantine. This famous second edict grants full religious liberty to the Christians and restoration of their property. Compare section on Acts of Toleration in Wordworth's Constantinus.

2. (313.) First letter of Constantine and Licinius to Anulinus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. ed. Migne, 479-480). Restores goods to the Catholic Christians; written about the same time as the edict of toleration, according to Ceillier.

3. (313.) Second Letter of Constantine to Anulinus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 7 (Op. Const. 481-2). Ordering that the Catholic clergy be free from public service, that they might not be disturbed in their worship of God.

4. (313.) Letter of Constantine to Cæcilianus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 6 (Op. Const. 481-4). Presents money--three thousand purses (folles)--to be distributed according to direction of Hosius.

5. (313.) Letter of Constantine to Melchiades (or Miltiades). In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. 477- ). Having received various letters from Anulinus regarding Cæcilian and the Donatists, he summons a council at Rome to consider the matter.

6. (314.) Letter of Constantine to Ablavius (or Ælafius). In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 283-4 (Op. Const. 483-6). The result of the council at Rome not having proved final, he summons the Council of Arles.

7. (314.) Letter of Constantine to Chrestus (Crescentius), bishop of Syracuse. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. 485-8). Invites to the Council of Arles.

8. (314.) Letter of Constantine to the Bishops after the Council of Arles. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 287-8 (Op. Const. 487-90). Contains gratulations, reprobations of obstinate schismatists, and exhortations to patience with such obstinateness. It is full of religious expressions, and if genuine, is a most interesting exhibition of Constantine's religious position at this time, but it looks suspicious, and probably is not genuine.

9. (314) Letter of Constantine and Licinius to Probianus, the Proconsul of Africa. In Augustine, Ep. 88 (ed. Migne 33 3045), and also in Contr. Cresc. (43 540, also in Op. Const. and tr. Engl. in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1, p. 370). Orders that the Donatist Ingentius be brought to his court. One text adds Maximianus or Maximus in place of Maximus as epithet of Constantine.

10. (314 or 315.) Letter of Constantine to the Donatist Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 290 (Op. Const. ed. Migne 490). As the Donatists were not yet satisfied, he summons them to meet Cæcilian, and promises if they convict him in one particular, it shall be as if in all.

11. (315.) Letter of Constantine to Celsus. In Optat. Mon. vet p. 291 (Op. Const. 489-90). In reply to letter mentioning disturbances of the Donatists, he hints that he expects to go shortly to Africa and settle things summarily.

12. (315.) Fragment of a Letter of Constantine to Eumalius Vicarius. In Augustine's Contr. Crest. 3. 71 (ed. Migne 43 541; also Op. Const. 491-2). An extract of six lines, in which he says Cæcilianus was entirely innocent.

13. (316 or 317.) Letter of Constantine to the bishops and people of Africa. Optat. Mon. vet. p. 294 (Op. Const. 491-2). He has tried every way to settle the Donatist disturbances in vain, and now leaves them to God and advises patience.

14. (323.) First Letter of Constantine to Eusebius. In Euseb. V. C. 2. 46; Theodoret, 1. 14; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 491-4). Empowers the repairing, enlarging of old, and building of new churches.

15. (323 a.d.) Law of Constantine respecting piety toward God and the Christian Religion (Ad prov. Pal.). In Euseb. V. C. 2. 24-42; abstr. in Soz. 1. 8 (Op. Const. 253-282). This long edict, addressed to the inhabitants of Palestine, contains an exposition of the prosperity which attends the righteous and the adversity which comes to the wicked, followed by edict for the restitution of confiscated property, the recall of exiles, and various other rectifications of injustices. This is the copy, "or letter," sent to the heathen population of the empire.

16. (324.) Constantine's edict to the people of the eastern provinces concerning the error of polytheism, &c. (Ad. prov. Or). In Euseb. V. C. 48-. This letter, written in Latin and translated by Eusebius, begins with "some general remarks on virtue and vice," touches on the persecutions and the fate of the persecutors, expresses the wish that all would become Christians, praises God, and exhorts concord.

17. (323 or 324.) Letter of Constantine to Alexander the Bishop and Arius the Presbyter. In Euseb. V. C. 2. 64-72; Gelas. 2. 4; Socr. 1. 7 (Op. Const. 493-502). Expresses his desire for peace, his hope that they might have helped him in the Donatist troubles, his distress at finding that they, too, were in a broil, his opinion that the matters under discussion are of little moment, and what he thinks they are. He exhorts to unanimity, repeats his opinion that the matters are of little moment, mentions his "copious and constant tears," and finally gets through.

18. (324-5.) Letter to Porphyrius (Optatian). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 19 393-394 and in various editions of Optatian. This letter to Porphyrius or Optatian was on the occasion of the sending of a poem by the latter for his vicennalia. It expresses his pleasure and his disposition to encourage the cultivation of belles lettres. Compare note on Optatian under sources.

19. (325.) Letter of Constantine the King, summoning the bishops to Nicæa. In Cowper, Syriac Misc., Lond. 1841, p. 5-6. This is translated from a Syriac ms. in the British Museum, written in 501. Gives as reason for the choice of Nicæa the convenience for the European bishops and "the excellent temperature of the air." This, if genuine, is the letter mentioned by Eusebius, V. C., but it looks suspicious.

20. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the churches after the Council of Nicæa. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 17-20; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 501-506). Dwells on the harmonious result, especially respecting the Easter controversy, and commends to the bishops to observe what the Council has decreed.

21. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the church of Alexandria. In Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 507-510). Expresses great horror of the blasphemy of Arius, and admiration for the wisdom of the more than three hundred bishops who condemned him.

22. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Arius and the Arians. In "Conc. 2. 269." A long and rather railing address against Arius.

23. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the churches. In Socr. H. E. 1. 9. A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501, in Cowper, Syriac Misc., Lond. 1861, p. 6-7. Against Arius and the Porphyrians, and threatens that any one who conceals a work of Arius shall be punished with death.

24. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the Nicomedians against Eusebius and Theognis. In Gelas. 3. 2; Theodoret, 1. 20; Soz. 1. 21 (Op. Const. 519-524). A theological discussion partly of the relation of Father and Son, and an attack on Eusebius of Nicomedia.

25. (325.) Letter to Theodotus. In Gelas. 3. 3 (Op. Const. 523-524). Counsels him to take warning by what has happened to Eusebius (of Nicomedia) and Theognis, i.e. banishment, and get rid of such evil influence, if any, as they may have had on him.

26. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Macarius. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 30-32; Theodoret, 1. 16. Directs the erection of a peculiarly magnificent church at the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.

27. (330.) Letter of Constantine to the Numidian Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 295 (Op. Const. 531-532). Concerns a church taken possession of by schismatists.

28. (332.) Letter of Constantine to the Antiochians. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 60 (Op. Const. 533- ). Exhorts them not to persist in their effort to call Eusebius from Cæsarea to Antioch.

29. (332 a.d.) Letter of Constantine to the Synod of Tyre deprecating the removal of Eusebius from Cæsarea. In Euseb. V. C. 362; Theodoret, 1. 27 (Op. Const. 543-546).

30. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Eusebius. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 61 (Op. Const. 537-540). Commends Eusebius for having declined the call to Antioch.

31. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Macarius and the rest of the Bishops in Palestine (to Eusebius). In Euseb. V. C. 3. 52-53 (Op. Const. 539-544). Directs the suppression of idolatrous worship at Mamre.

32. (332.?) Edict against the heretics. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 64-5. Against Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, Cataphrygians who are forbidden to assemble and whose houses of worship are to be given to the Catholic party.

33. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Sapor, King of the Persians. In Euseb. 4. 9-13; Theodoret, 1. 24 (Op. Const. 545-552). Is mainly a confession of faith commending the Persian Christians to the special care of their king.

34. (333.) Letters of Constantine to Antonius, the monk, and of Antonius to him are mentioned in Athanasius, 1. 855 (Op. Const. 551-552). Constantine and his sons write as to a father. Antony grudgingly replies with some good advice for them to remember the day of judgment, regard Christ as the only emperor, and have a care for justice and the poor.

35. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius in praise of his discourse concerning Easter. Eusebius, V. C. 4. 35 (Op. Const. 551-554) praises the discourse and asks for more.

36. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius on the preparation of the copies of the Scriptures. In Euseb. V. C. 4. 36; Theod. 1. 15; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 553-554). Orders fifty copies with directions as to style.

37. (335.) Fragment of the first letter of Constantine to Athanasius. In Athan. Apol.; Socr. 1. 27 (Op. Const. 553-556; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1843, p. 89). The letter summoning to the Council of Tyre, but only a half-dozen lines remain. This bids him admit all who wish to enter the church.

38. (335.) Letter of Constantine to the people of the Alexandrian Church. In Athan. Apol. c. Ar. c. 61 (Op. Const. 559-562; abstract in Soz. 2. 31; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1850, p. 90-92). Is a general lamentation over the dissensions of the Church, with expression of confidence in Athanasius.

39. (335.) Second Letter of Constantine to Athanasius. Athan. Apol. (Op. Const. 555-558). Expresses his reprobation of the false accusations of the Meletians against Athanasius.

40. (335.) Letter of Constantine to Joannes the Meletian. Athan. Apol. (Op. Const. 557-560). Congratulates on his reconciliation with Athanasius.

41. (335.) Letter of Constantine to Arius. In Socr. 1. 25 (Op. Const. 561-562). Invites Arius to visit him--the famous visit where he presented a confession of faith claimed to be in conformity with that of Nicæa.

42. (335.) A Letter to Dalmatius is mentioned by Athanasius, Apol. 5. 13, but not preserved (Op. Const. 563-564; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1850, p. 94). It required him to make judicial enquiry respecting the charge against Athanasius of the murder of Arsenius.

43. (335.) Celebrated Letter of Constantine concerning the Synod of Tyre. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 42 (Op. Const. 561-564). Exhorts the bishops to give zeal to fulfilling the purpose of the synod in the restitution of peace to the Church.

44. (335.) Letter to the Bishops assembled at Tyre. In Socr. H. E. 1. 34, and in Soz. H. E. 2. 28. Summons them to come to him at Constantinople and give account of their proceedings.

Besides these there are the clearly spurious:

1. Letter of Helena to Constantine (Op. Const. 529-530).

2. Letter of Constantine in response to Helena (Op. Const. 529-532).

3. Treaty of peace between Constantine, Sylvester and Tiridates (Op. Const. 579-582). On Tiridates compare various sources in Langlois Col. des historiens de...l'Armènie, and for literature respecting their authenticity, his note on p. 103.

4. Edict of Constantine to Pope Silvester (Op. Const. 567-578). The famous Donation which first appeared in Pseudo-Isidore, and for which see under The Mythical Constantine, p. 442-3.

There are also quite a large number of letters mentioned with more or less description, and a "multitude of letters" (V. C. 3. 24) of which there is no specific knowledge. Of the former may be mentioned that to the inhabitants of Heliopolis, one to Valerius (or Valerianus or Verinus) (Augustine, Ad Donat. p. c. c. 33); one to the Council of Tyre, asking them to hasten to Jerusalem (V. C. 4. 43; Soz. 2. 26); and one acknowledging the copies of the Scriptures prepared at his order, through Eusebius (V. C. 4. 37).

§4. Laws.

The numerous laws are collected in the edition of Migne (Patrol. Lat. 8. p. 93-400), mainly from the Theodosian code. They are in the opinion of Eutropius (10. 8) "many," "some good and equitable, but most of them superfluous, and some severe" (cf. under Character). Many of them show the author's tendency to declamation, but taken all in all they are businesslike and do credit, in the main, to their author's heart, and even, though less conspicuously, to his head. For more specific account, compare the laws themselves as collected in Migne, the relating passages in Wordsworth and Ceillier, standard and annotated editions of the codes, and special treatises, such as Balduin, De leg. eccl. et civ. 1737.

§5. Various.

Besides the more formal works mentioned above, various conversations, sayings, bon mots, prayers, &c., are preserved, among which may be mentioned:

1. Memoirs of himself, of which no portion is extant. Writings of Constantine are mentioned by Lydus (p. 194, 226), but whether the writings referred to deserve the title given by Burckhardt it is hard to say.

2. A form of prayer given by Constantine to his soldiers (V. C. 4. 20).

3. His address when the memorials of contendents, at Council of Nicæa, were brought to him (Soz. 1. 17).

4. The conversation with Acesius, for which Socrates vouches, closing, "O Acesius, set up a ladder, and do you alone climb up to heaven."

5. His rebuke to the courtier concerning covetousness (V. C. 4. 30).

6. His answer when told his statues had been stoned, "Strange, but I feel no wound" ("Chrysost. Ad Pop. Ant.").

7. His appeal to the bishops, requesting them to confer upon him the rite of baptism (V. C. 4. 62).

8. His Thanksgiving after baptism and testimony (V. C. 4. 63).

In general, his writings were composed in Latin, and translated into Greek by those appointed for this special purpose (V. C. 4. 32). His general style is rhetorical, rather profuse, and declamatory, abounding in pious allusion and exhortation, as well as philosophical quotation and reflection. His works are interesting to study and not without a touch here and there of genuine literary interest. A remark on friendship, for example, unless it be a product of his habit of borrowing the thoughts of other men more or less directly, is delightful and most quotable. "For it often happens," he says, "that when a reconciliation is effected by the removal of the causes of enmity, friendship becomes even sweeter than it was before" (Const. to Alex. and Ar. in V. C. 2. 71).

Chapter Iv

The Mythical Constantine.

The many legends which have attached themselves to the name of Constantine are valuable chiefly as curiosities, and can be treated here only in specimens. A few of the more interesting and important are the following:

1. Constantine and his Mother Helena.

A little anonymous work of some thirty pages, edited by Heydenreich from a fourteenth-century manuscript, was published under this title in 1879, and has drawn forth an astonishing amount of literature for so slight a thing. It has little value except as an illustration of mediæval romance, though Coen seems to think the honor of having introduced it into literature enough to warrant the expenditure of a good deal of pains in vindicating his claim to it. The story is written with tolerable art, and runs, abbreviated, something as follows:

Helena, daughter of a noble family of Trèves, came on a pious journey to Rome. The Emperor Constantius, crossing a bridge of the Tiber, saw Helena among other pilgrims. Struck with her beauty, he arranged that she should be detained by force at the inn where she stayed, when her fellow-pilgrims returned to Gaul. The emperor then constrained her by force, but, seeing the great grief which his act had caused, gave her a certain ornament of precious stones and his ring, as a sort of pledge, and went away. She did not venture to return to her country, but remained at Rome with the son who was born to her, representing that her Gallic husband was dead. This son, Constantine, grew up pleasing, handsome, and versatile. Certain merchants, seeing his excellent quality, formed a scheme of making money by palming him off on the emperor of the Greeks as a son-in-law, representing him to be a son of the Roman emperor.

The scheme was carried out, and the merchants after some time embarked again for Rome, with the Constantine and the princess, and much treasure. Toward the end of their journey they stopped over night at a little island. In the morning the young people awoke to find they had been deserted by the merchants, and Constantine in great grief confessed the deception which had been practiced. To this the princess replied that she cared little who he was or his family, since he was himself and her husband. After a few days of short rations they were taken by passing voyagers to Rome, where they joined Helena, and having purchased a house with the proceeds from the sale of certain valuables which the princess had kept with her, they went to hotel-keeping. Constantine took naturally to military life, and at tournaments surpassed everyone else so far as to arouse astonishment and inquiry. The emperor would not believe him a poor and friendless man, and had his mother called. After much vigorous evasion the truth came out, confirmed by the ring which the emperor had given Helena. Constantius first had the merchants put to death, and gave all their property to Constantine. Then a treaty was made with the emperor of the East, and Constantine was recognized as heir to the empire.

A more wildly unhistorical historical novel could hardly have been written even by a Muhlbach. For further account, see under Literature especially articles by Heydenreich and by Coen.

2. Constantine the Son of a British Princess.

Duke Coel of Colchester, say the old chronicles, by an insurrection became king. The Senate, rejoiced at the overthrow of an enemy, sent Constantius to Britain. Coel, fearing, sent ambassadors to meet him, gave hostages, and shortly died. Constantius was crowned, married Helena, daughter of Coel, the most beautiful, cultivated, and educated woman of her time. By her he had a son, Constantine, afterwards called the Great. This is in substance the account of Geoffrey of Monmouth (5. 6) and Pierre de Langloft (1, p. 66-7). The story is mentioned by Henry of Huntington (Bk. I. 37), who perhaps wrote before Geoffrey (in 1137 [?]), and Richard of Cirencester (2. 1. 33). Waurin (Vol. I. Bk. 2. 43) makes "Choel" Count of Leicester, but in general is identical with Geoffrey. The famous Brut of Layamon (ed. Madden, 2 p. 35) is translated with amplifications from Wace's Brut, and this in turn from Geoffrey. This makes Coel Earl of Gloucester. The Eulogium Hist. calls Helena (1. 337) daughter of a British king, but also concubine, though elsewhere (2, p. 267) she is wife according to the conventional story. It is also mentioned by many others; e.g. Voragine, Golden Legend. It is interesting that this legendary father of Helena is supposed (Hayden, Index to Eulogium, p. 45, and Giles, note on Geoffrey, p. 162) to be the same as "Old King Cole, the merry old soul," making Constantine thus the grandson of the Mother Goose hero.

3. Constantine's Leprosy; Healing and Baptism by Silvester.

This tale is one of the most frequently found. The earliest account is said to be that of the Acts of Silvester. Some of the many who repeat it are Ephraem, Cedrenus, Zonaras. The following account is mainly from Glycas, p. 461-462.

When Constantine was fighting against Maxentius, after he had seen the sign of the cross, he was victorious. Then, forgetting, he was conquered, and grieving, he fell asleep and had a vision in which the blow of a switch on his nostrils brought blood which flowed down on his linen tunic in the form of a cross. Seeing this, he was filled with penitence, and became again victorious. Being led away a second time into idolatry through his wife Fausta, he was divinely afflicted with leprosy. The priests prescribed a bath in the blood of infants, and it was ordered; but when he heard the lamentations of the mothers, he said it was better to suffer than that so many infants should perish. Therefore the apostles, Peter and Paul as some say, appeared to him and told him Silvester would cure him, as he did. There are many varieties of the story and various details as to baptism, but in general the whole series of stories regarding his baptism at Rome centers in this story, and gratitude for this cure is the supposed occasion of the famous donation of Constantine. In this the circumstances of the miracle are given at length,--the words of the apostles, Silvester's identification of them as apostles by portraits, the immersion, and subsequent instruction.

4. Donation of Constantine.

This most remarkable of forgeries for its practical effect on world-history has been the subject of endless discussion. It is, in brief, a supposed grant to the Pope of Rome, Silvester, of certain sweeping privileges in recognition of the miracle he has wrought. The edict gives a long confession of faith followed by an account of the miracle and mention of the churches he has built. Then follow the grants to Silvester, sovereign Pontiff and Pope of Rome, and all his successors until the end of the world,--the Lateran palace, the diadem, phryginus, the purple mantle and scarlet robe, imperial scepters, insignia, banners and the whole imperial paraphernalia, as well as various clerical privileges and pretty much the whole world to govern. It is impossible here even to represent in outline the history of this extraordinary fiction. Composed not earlier than the latter part of the eighth century (Martens et alt. 9 cent.; Grauert, 840-850; Hauck, Bonneau, 752-757; Langen, 778, &c.; Friedrich acc. to Seeberg, divides into an earlier and a later portion), it early came to be general, though not unquestioned, authority. In 1229-1230 a couple of unfortunates who ventured to doubt its authenticity were burned alive at Strasburg (Documents communicated by Ristelhuber to Bonneau p. 57-58). Not many years after, Dante seems (Inf. 19. 115) to have taken its authenticity for granted; and although there is a possible doubting (De Monarch. 4. 10), he does not venture to dispute this. He denies, however, Constantine's power or right to give, if he did give. In modern times the fictitious character of the document is recognized by Protestants and Catholics alike, and the discussion, so vigorous formerly, over this authenticity has narrowed itself chiefly to a discussion of the place (France or Rome) and date (653-753, ninth century) and possible author. The discussion over these points has been lately renewed and is being carried on with animation. Among the later monographs are those of Martens (1889) and Friedrich (1889, not at hand). The latest treatise at hand is that of Seeberg in the Theol. Literaturbl. of Jan. 17. 24. 31 of the current year. For farther select literature, compare Verzeichniss in Martens; for sources, the chapters of Martens and Preface of Bonneau; for older literature, Muensch. p. 96-97, and in general the Literature of Constantine, in this volume, although no attempt has been made to exhaust the literature of this sub-topic there. Treatises on the Donation will be found under the names of Albani, Altus, Arrhenius, Bachmann, Bayet, Bonneau, Brunner, Chaulnes, Colombier, Cusa, Friedrich, Genelin, Grauert, Hauck, Hildebrand, Jacobatius, Kaufman, Krüger, Martens, Muench, Rallaye, Scheffer-Boichorst, Seeberg, Steuchus, Tacut, Valla, Walther, Wieland, Zeumer.

5. Dream concerning the Founding of Constantinople.

"As Constantine was sleeping in this city [Byzantium], he imagined that there stood before him an old woman whose forehead was furrowed with age; but that presently, clad in an imperial robe, she became transformed into a beautiful girl, and so fascinated his eyes by the elegance of her youthful charms that he could not refrain from kissing her; that Helena, his mother, being present, then said, She shall be yours forever; nor shall she die till the end of time.' The solution of this dream, when he awoke, the emperor extorted from heaven, by fasting and alms-giving. And behold, within eight days, being cast again into a deep sleep, he thought he saw Pope Silvester, who died some little time before, regarding his convert with complacency, and saying, You have acted with your customary prudence in waiting for a solution from God of that enigma which was beyond the comprehension of man. The old woman you saw is this city, worn down by age, whose time-struck walls, menacing approaching ruin, require a restorer. But you, renewing its walls, and its affluence, shall signalize it also with your name; and here shall the imperial progeny reign forever'" (William of Malmesbury, Chronicle, tr. English. Lond. 1847, p. 372-3. The final section, which instructs Constantine how to lay out the city, is omitted). This is taken by the Chronicler from Aldhelm's (d. 709) de laudibus virginitatis (c. 52, ed. Giles, 1844, p. 28-29), where, however, instead of kissing her, he much more appropriately "clothes her with his mantle, and puts his diadem adorned with pure gold and brilliant gems on her head." It is given also by Ralph de Diceto (ed. Stubbs, Lond. 1876), 74-75, and probably by many others.

6. Voyage of Helena.

A matter-of-fact account of things which are not so, given in Hakluyt's Voyages, 2 (1810), p. 34, is worth giving in the words of the translator:

"Helena Flavia Augusta, the heire and onely daughter of Coelus, sometime the most excellent king of Britaine, by reason of her singular beautie, faith, religion, goodnesse, and godly Maiestie (according to the testimonie of Eusebius) was famous in all the world. Amongst all the women of her time there was none either in the liberall arts more learned, or in the instruments of musike more skilfull, or in the divers languages of nations more abundant than herselfe. She had a naturall quicknesse of wit, eloquence of speech, and a most notable grace in all her behaviour. She was seene in the Hebrew, Greeke, and Latin tongues. Her father (as Virumnius reporteth) had no other childe,...had by her a sonne called Constantine the great, while hee remained in Britaine...peace was granted to the Christian churches by her good meanes. After the light and knowledge of the Gospel, she grew so skilfull in divinity that she wrote and composed divers bookes and certaine Greeke verses also, which (as Ponticus reporteth) are yet extant...went to Jerusalem...lived to the age of fourscore years, and then died at Rome the fifteenth day of August, in the yeere of oure redemption 337...Her body is to this day very carefully preserved at Venice."

7. The Finding of the Cross.

It is said in a certain "tolerably authentic chronicle," according to Voragine, that Constantine sent his mother Helena to Jerusalem to try to find the cross on which our Lord was crucified. When she arrived, she bade all the Jewish Rabbis of the whole land gather to meet her. Great was their fear. They suspected that she sought the wood of the cross, a secret which they had promised not to reveal even under torture, because it would mean the end of Jewish supremacy. When they met her, sure enough, she asked for the place of the crucifixion. When they would not tell, she ordered them all to be burned. Frightened, they delivered up Judas, their leader and instigator, saying that he could tell. She gave him his choice of telling or dying by starvation. At first he was obstinate, but six days of total abstinence from food brought him to terms, and on the seventh he promised. He was conducted to the place indicated, and in response to prayer, there was a sort of earthquake, and a perfume filled the air which converted Judas. There was a temple of Venus on the spot. This the queen had destroyed. Then Judas set to digging vigorously, and at the depth of twenty feet, found three crosses, which he brought to Helena. The true cross was tested by its causing a man to rise from the dead, or according to others, by healing a woman, or according to others, by finding the inscription of Pilate. After an exceedingly vigorous conversation between the devil and Judas, the latter was baptized and became Bishop Cyriacus. Then Helena set him hunting for the nails of the cross. He found them shining like gold and brought them to the queen, who departed, taking them and a portion of the wood of the cross. She brought the nails to Constantine, who put them on his bridle and helmet, or according to another account, two were used in this way, and one was thrown into the Adriatic Sea.

It is interesting to trace the melancholy consequences of this particular enterprise of Constantine's in the sad death of St. Cyriacus née Judas. The Emperor Julian, the apostate, "invited" him to sacrifice to idols. When he refused, melted lead was poured into his mouth; then an iron bedstead was brought, on which he was stretched, while a fire was built underneath and the body of the martyr larded with salt and fat. The saint did not budge, and Julian had a deep well dug, which was filled with venomous serpents. But contact with the saint killed the serpents, and a cauldron of boiling oil succeeded. Julian was so angry at the alacrity and cheerfulness of the saint's preparations for this bath, that he killed him with a blow of his sword. There is some consolation in the thought of this premature death, in the fact that, unless his claim that he was nephew to Stephen, the Proto-martyr, be disallowed, he had reached a ripe old age of two hundred and fifty years or thereabouts.

The literature on this legend is very great. The finding of the cross is mentioned as early as Cyril of Jerusalem (ab. 347-350), within twenty-five years of the visit of Helena recorded by Eusebius (V. C. 3. 26), and with great frequency afterwards. The failure of any mention by Eusebius seems, however, conclusive against any finding, or pretended finding, at the time of Helena's famous visit, though the contrary is acutely argued by Newman. The finding and use of the nails is often separated from the other, and is found in many of the sources on Constantine. But even those who believe in the miracle of the finding of the cross will hardly vouch for the story in the above form, which is substantially that of Voragine.

Compare Sinker's article, Cross, Finding of, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. 1 (1880), 503-506; Jameson, Hist. of Our Lord, 2 (1872) 385-391; Newman, Essays on Miracles (Lond. 1875) 287-326; and especially Voragine, whom see under Sources. Under the article Helena, in Smith & W. is a sub-article by Argles on the Invention of the Cross, which gives an admirable abstract of the sources in order.

These examples of the stories which have gathered around the name of Constantine do not begin to exhaust the list. The interesting tales of the sword of Constantine presented to Athelstan (Reg. Malms. 1, 1879, p. 55, 468; Eul. Hist. 3, 1863, p. 12), his conversion through remorse, and the whole series of allusions and stories in mediæval fiction and poetry must be passed here. If any one has the curiosity to follow them up, he will find the references in the articles of Heydenreich a good guide to literature. A few stories, like that of Constantine and Tiridates, one hesitates to class among the wholly fictitious (compare, under Sources, Agathangelos, Zenobius, and Faustus).

Chapter V

Sources and Literature.

§1. Introduction

The insertion in such a work as this of what seems almost technical in its character has this twofold purpose: first, to give a glimpse of the grounds of our knowledge of Constantine, with a view of how far and in what directions it has been worked out through literature; second, to serve the expressed purpose of this series, of encouraging farther study in its lines. The very knowledge of what the sources are, and their character, apart from any special study of them, gives a width of horizon and definiteness of conception to the general student, which can hardly be gotten in any other way; while for any one who plans farther study in any line, it is of first importance to find the what and where of his material.

§2. Sources.

Remembering the class of students for which the series is chiefly intended, effort has been made to refer to translations of sources where they are at hand, and to refer to the best accessible English authorities on them. But the plan has been to refer to the source itself in the edition actually used, and for literature on them to choose the best for ready reference. Both editions and authorities on sources are therefore selections, usually from many, of such as seem most directly useful. The intention has been to guide to all frequently mentioned sources, whether they were of great value or not, since a useless one costs often quite as much trouble to hunt up and find useless, as a good one to use. It is hardly to be hoped that all the sources often referred to have been gathered, but the following list represents pretty much all that are worth mentioning, and some which are not.

1. Inscriptions, coins, medals, &c.

In some sense these are the most reliable of sources, in spite of counterfeits. A large number will be found collected in Clinton. For farther critical study, compare the collections, great and small; for which, with the matter of inscriptions in general, see Hicks, E. L., and Hübner, E., in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 13 (1881) 121-133; and Babington, in Smith and Cheetham, 1 (1880) 841-862. Monographs on those relating to Constantine will be found under the names, Cavedoni, Cigola, Eltz, Freherus, Garucci, Harduin, Penon, Revellot, Valois, Westphalen, Werveke, in the Literature of this volume.

2. Laws.

These, with their dates, their official nature, their fullness and variety, are primary, and are the only sources recognized by some. They are embodied in the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, and collected from these are edited in Migne, Patrol. Latina, Vol. 8. See under Writings of Constantine, above.

3. Other Writings by Constantine.

See under Writings, above, p. 436. With this might perhaps be included also writings to Constantine, like that of Anulinus in Augustinus, Ep. 88.

4. General Literary Sources.

Taking in general chronological order, without attempting the impossibility of fixing the exact chronological place, the first group of contemporary sources is that of the Panegyrists (for collected editions, see Engelmann). It was a serious mistake, now recognized, to pass them by as worthless. Like all authentic documents, they have a minimum residuum of undoubted material, which is larger or smaller according to the critical acumen of the investigator. In the case of these, however inflated or eulogistic they may be, the circumstances under which they were spoken give a considerable value.

(1) Incerti auctoris Panegyricus Maximiano et Constantino dictus (Paneg. 307). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 609-620. Pronounced at celebration of marriage of Constantine and Fausta, a.d. 307. Besides having the great value of being contemporary evidence, the author shows a certain ingenuity in enlarging on the virtues of the young Constantine, who had few deeds to show, and on the deeds of Maximian, who had few virtues, and has therefore a certain discernible modicum of truth.

Compare the Monitum in Migne, Ramsay's article on Drepanius, in Smith, Dict. 1073-4, and references under Eumenius.

(2) Eumenius (310-311). (a) Panegyric (Panegyricus Constantino Augusto). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1884), 619-640. (b) Thanksgiving Oration (Gratiarum Actio Constantino Augusto). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 641-654. Eumenius flourished during the reigns of Constantius, with whom he was in high favor, and Constantine. He was head of the school at Autun. The Panegyric was delivered at Treves, in 310. The authorship of Eumenius has been unwarrantably questioned, on the ground that the flattery and exaggeration of the work are not consistent with his taste and sense; but it would seem that both his exaggeration and his taste have been themselves exaggerated. His praise is hardly more "outrageous" than panegyrics were wont to be,--or are, for that matter; and so far from being "worthless," there is a peculiar deal of interesting, unquestionable, and primary historical evidence. Still, his taste and veracity are not much above that of modern eulogists of living or dead emperors and politicians. The Gratiarum Actio is the official oration of thanks to Constantine in behalf of the citizens of Autun, on account of favors shown them. It was pronounced at Treves in 311.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 92; the Prooemium, in ed. Migne, 619-622; also for editions, Ramsay, article Drepanius, in Smith, Dict. 1. 1073-4; and for literature, Chevalier. For general account of the Panegyrists, see this article on Drepanius.

(3) Incerti Panegyricus Constantino Augusto (Paneg. 313). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 653-. This is usually ascribed to Nazarius, on the ground of style. It was spoken at Treves in 313, and relates mainly to the war with Maxentius. Various details relating to this are of such nature and form as to suggest again that the author is the same as that of the 321 Paneg.,--Nazarius.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1145; the Prooemium in ed. Migne, &c., and literature as under Eumenius, above.

(4) Nazarius. (321) Panegyric (Panegyricus Constantino Augusto dictus). In ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 581-608. Nazarius is mentioned by Jerome as a distinguished rhetorician. This oration was delivered at Rome in 321. Constantine was not present. It is superlatively eulogistic, but like the related panegyrics contains many historical facts of greatest value.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1145, the Monitum, in Migne, and references under Eumenius.

In the midst of the period which these cover comes one of the two great Christian sources, and he is followed by a considerable row of great and small Christians during the century.

(5) Lactantius (ab. 313-314). On the Deaths of the Persecutors (De M. P.). Ed. Fritsche (Lips. 1842), 248-286; ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 7 (Par. 1844), 157-276; tr. in T. & T. Clark Library, 22 (Edinb. 1871), 164-211, and in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo and N.Y.), 300-326 [Lord Hailes' translation]. There are many editions in collected works, and about a dozen separate, and many translations,--in all a hundred or more editions and translations. There has been much controversy regarding the author of this work, but there is little doubt that it was Lactantius. Ebert (Gesch. chr. Lat. Lit. 1. 83) claims to have demonstrated the fact, and most of the later writers agree. The work was composed after the edict of Constantine and Licinius, and before the break between the two, i.e. 313-314. It was written thus in the midst of things, and has the peculiar historical value of a contemporary document, unprejudiced by later events. It is a sort of psalm of triumph, colored by the passionate rejoicing of one persecuted over the Divine vengeance which has come upon the persecutors. "In the use of the work the historian must employ great critical discernment" (Ebert, in Herzog, 8, 365). But granted all his prejudice, the facts he witnesses are of first value.

Compare Ffoulkes, in Smith and Wace, 3 (1882), 613-617; Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit. 2 (1873), 334; Ebert, in Herzog, Encyk. 8 (1881), 364-366, and Gesch. chr. Lat. Lit. 1 (1874), 83; and for farther literature, Bibliog, Synops. inAnte-Nicene Fathers Suppl. (1887), 77-81.

(6) Eusebius (ab. 260-340). I. Ecclesiastical History. 2. Constantine. 3. Chronicle.

For 1 and 3 compare Prolegomena of Dr. McGiffert at the beginning of this volume, and for 2, Special Prolegomena, p. 466.

(7) Optatian (fl. ab. 326). Panegyric, in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 19 (1846), 395-432; Letter to Constantine, do. 391-392. Optatian, Porfirius, or Porphyrius, as he is variously called, is dubiously Christian, composed this poem, or series of poems, while in exile, on the occasion of the Vicennalia of Constantine. It dates, therefore, from 325 or 326. It is a most extraordinary aggregation of acrostics, pattern poems, and every possible device of useless, mechanical variety of form, of little value, excepting as a sort of dime-museum exhibition of patience and ingenuity. It consists mainly in calling Constantine flattering names, but contains here and there an historical suggestion. It was accompanied by a letter to Constantine, and drew one from him, and a pardon as well (Hieronymus, Chron.).

Compare Wilson, article Porfirius, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 440; article Porphyrius, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 502; and for editions and literature, Engelmann.

(8) Athanasius (296-373). Apology against the Arians, and various works, ed. Bened. (1698), 2 v. in 3, fo; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 25-28 (1857), 4 v.; translated in part in Newman, Library of the Fathers, and in Schaff-Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (announced). The works of Athanasius contain various letters of Constantine (see under Works) and much of primary historical value for the latter part of Constantine's reign. So far as it goes, the matter is almost equal to official documents as source.

Compare Bright, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 179-203; Schaff, Hist. of Church, 23 (1884), 884-893; and for extensive literature and editions, Chevalier and Graesse.

(9) Cyril of Jerusalem (ab. 315-386). Catechetical Lectures. In Migne, Patrol Gr. 33 (1857), especially 830. English translations in Newman, Library of Fathers, 2 (1838), one ref. p. 178. Letter to Constantine II. concerning the sign of the cross seen at Jerusalem, c 3. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 33 (1857), 1165-1176, ref. on 1167-1168. Two or three references only to excavation of the cross and building of churches, &c., at Jerusalem. They take significance only in the fact that Cyril is so near the time (the letter was 351 [?], or not many years later), and delivered his lectures in the very church which Constantine had built (sect. 14, 22).

Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884) 923-925; Venables, in Smith & W. 1 (1887), 760-763; and literature in Chevalier Schaff, &c.; also editions in Graesse, Hoffmann, &c.

(10) Ambrosius of Milan (ab. 340-397). Oration on the Death of Theodosius. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 16 (1866), portion relating to Constantine especially, 1462-1465. Relates chiefly to the Finding of the Cross.

Compare Davies, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 91-99; also Chevalier, Engelmann, Schoenemann, &c.

(11) Hieronymus (Jerome) (331-420). Chronicle. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 27 (1866). Part relating to Constantine, 493 (497)-500. A translation and continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, who ends with the death of Licinius. An indispensable but aggravating authority.

Compare Salmon, Eusebius, Chronicle of, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 348-355.

(12) Augustinus (354-430). Ep. 43, ed. Migne, 33 (1865), 159-, §§4, 5, 20, &c. He gives account of the various Donatist hearings, and speaks of having read aloud from various original documents, including the petition to Constantine, the proconsular acts, the proceedings of the court at Rome, and the letters of Constantine. He speaks of the hearing at Milan. Ep. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 33 (1865), 302-309. This has the text of letter of Anulinus to Constantine and Constantine to Probianus. Eps. 76. 2; 93. 13-14, 16 (which contains account of decree of Constantine that property of obstinate Donatists should be confiscated); 105. 9, 10 (not translated); 141. 8-10 (not translated), in ed. Migne, and tr. English ed. Schaff, contain various matter on the Donatist acts of Constantine. Ad Donatistas post collationem, c. 33, §56; ed. Migne, 43 (1861), 687 (important for dates given). Contra litt. Petil. Bk. II. ch. 92, §205; ed. Migne, 45 (1861), 326. Tr. in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 580-581. Contr. Epist. Parmen. Bk. I. chs. 5-6, §10-11; ed. Migne, 43 (1841), 40-41. Augustine as a source is of primary value, because of the otherwise unknown sources which he uses and quotes.

Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884), 988-1028; Maclear, in Smith & W. Dict. 1 (1877), 216-228. For literature see Schaff, Chevalier, Engelmann, and for particular literature of the Donatist portions, Hartranft, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 369-372; and for editions, see Schoenemann, Graesse, Brunet, Engelmann, Schaff, Hartranft, &c.

The equally numerous series of non-Christian writers is headed, in value at least, though not in time, by Constantine's secretary.

(13) Eutropius (4th cent.). Abridgment of Roman History, Bk. 10. Multitudes of editions and translations; the ones used are: (Paris, 1539), 63-68; transl. by Watson, (Bohn, 1853), 527-535. Eutropius was secretary to Constantine, and afterwards the intimate of Julian. His testimony, though brief, is of peculiar weight from his position for knowing and from a certain flavor of fairness. It was early remarked (Nicephorus Gregoras) that his praise of Constantine had peculiar force, coming from a heathen and friend of Julian. His dispraise, on the other hand, is conditioned by the fact that he applies it only to the period after Constantine began peculiarly to favor the Christians. He seems to be a cool, level-headed man of the world, unsympathetic with Constantine's religion and, writing from this standpoint, presents a just, candid, reliable account of him.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 126-127; Watson, Notice, in his translations; also for multitudinous editions and translations, and relatively scanty though considerable literature, Chevalier, Engelmann, Graesse.

(14) Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ (? 2-324). Ed. Jordan and Eyssenhardt, Berol. 1864, 2 v. Contains a few dedications to and mentions of Constantine, for which see Index.

Compare Teuffel, Hist. of Rom. Lit. tr. Wagner, 2 (Lond. 1873), 320-324.

(15) Victor, Sextus Aurelius (fl. 350-400). Cæsars. In ed. Schottius, Antv. Plantin, 1579, p. 97-167. Section on Constantine chiefly, 157-162. Epitome, Antv. 1579. Section on Constantine, p. 49-52. These works, by different authors, have been associated since the time of the above edition with the name of Victor. The former is by him, the latter probably by a slightly later Victor. They use the same sources with Zosimus, but supplement him (Wordsworth). Both are interesting and important, and in Manso's judgment, final where they agree.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 1256-1257; Thomas, article Aurelius, in Biog. Dict. (1886), 228; Manso, Leben Const. p. 215; and scanty references in Chevalier. For editions and farther literature, see Engelmann.

(16) Praxagoras Atheniensis (4th cent). In Photius, Cod. 62; Ed. Bekker, p. 20; ed. Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 2-3. Lived in reign of Constantine (Müller, p. 2). Although a heathen (Photius, Cod, 62), he lauds Constantine above all his predecessors. He wrote various works in the Ionic dialect, among others a "history of the deeds of Constantine the Great, in two books," composed at the age of twenty-two. The fragments or resumé are preserved by Photius, as above. Though brief (three columns), it is a concise mass of testimony.

Compare Smith, Dict. 3. 517; also for literature, Chevalier; and for editions, the various editions of Photius in Graesse, Hofmann, Engelmann, &c.

(17) Calendarium Romanum Constantini Magni (350). In Petavius, Uranologium (1630), 112-119. Written after 337, and in or before 355, probably in 355. It is authority for the birthday of Constantine, Constantius, &c.

Compare Greswell, Origines Kalendariæ Italicæ, 4 (Oxf. 1854), 388-392.

(18) Julian the Apostate (331-363). Cæsars. Orations on Constantius and Constantinus, et pass. Ed. Paris, 1630, p. 12-96, 422; Vol. 2, 1-54, passim. Compare also ed. Hertlein, Lips. 1875-76, 2 v. 8vo. Editions and translations are very numerous. (Compare arts. of Wordsworth and Graves; also Engelmann, Graesse, &c. The orations which are panegyrical were delivered (Wordsworth) 355 and 358, and the Cæsars dates from shortly after his accession (in 361). The latter is a satire which has found literary favor, the substantial purpose of which is thought to be a suggestion that he (Julian) is much superior to all the great emperors; but which if one were to venture a guess at its real motive is quite as much a systematic effort to minimize by ridicule the lauded Constantine. The laudatory words of Julian himself in his orations are quite overshadowed by the bitter sarcasms of the Cæsars. As a matter of estimate of the value of this source, there is to be remembered the bitterness of Julian's hostility to Christianity. What to Eusebius was a virtue would to Julian be a vice. In view of his prejudice, everything which he concedes is of primary weight, while his ill-natured gossip carries a presumption of slanderousness.

Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 2. 40-59; Wordsworth, in Smith & W. 3. 484-525; Graves, in Smith, Dict. 644-655. Compare for endless literature, Wordsworth, Chevalier, Engelmann, 1 (1880), 476-477.

(19) Libanius, (314 or 316-391 +). Orations. Ed. Morellus, Par. 1606-1627. Contain a few allusions of more or less interest and historical value, for which, see ed. Morellus, Index volume 2, fol. Qqqv^b.

Compare Schmitz, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 774-776; and for editions and literature, Chevalier, Engelmann, &c.

(21) Ammianus Marcellinus (d. ab. 395). Histories. There are many editions, for which compare Engelmann, Graesse, and Wordsworth. Among editions are ed. Valesius (1636) and ed. Eyssenhardt, Berol. 1871. The work was a continuation of Tacitus, but the first thirteen books (including Constantine's period) are best. He says (Bk. 15, ed. Valesius, 1636, p. 56-57) that Constantine investigated the Manichæans and like sects through Musonius, and gives account of the bringing of his obelisk to Rome, perhaps by Constantine (Bk. 17, p. 92-93; compare Parker, Twelve Egypt. Obelisks in Rome, Oxf. 1879, p. 1), and makes other mention, for which see Index to ed. Eyssenhardt, p. 566.

Compare Wordsworth, in Smith & W. 1 (1879, 99-101, and for literature, Chevalier (scanty) and Engelmann, 2 (1882), 43-45 (Rich).

(22) Eunapius (Anti-Christian) (ab. 347-414). Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists; Ædesius. Ed. Boissonade (Amst. 1822), 19-46 passim. Eunapius was born at Sardis about 347, and died after 414 a.d. (cf. Müller, Fragm. 87). He was a teacher of rhetoric, and besides this work wrote a continuation of the history of Dexippus, extending from 270-404 a.d. Fragments of this are preserved, but none relating to Constantine. Photius (Cod. 77) says that he calumniated the Christians, especially Constantine. With the fragments in Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 11-56, is included also (14-15) a fragment from the Vita Ædes., relating to Sopater. The death of Sopater and the relation of Ablavius to it is given more fully in the Vita Ædes. with various suggestive allusions. Much of his history is supposed to be incorporated in Zosimus, and this gives importance to his name, weight to Zosimus, and light on the hostile position of Zosimus towards Constantine.

Cf. Photius, Cod. 77; Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 7-9; Mozley, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 285-286; Schmitz, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 93; also for further literature and editions, Chevalier and Engelmann.

(23) Bemarchius (4th cent.) was of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; wrote the Acts of Constantine in ten books (Suidas, s.v. Bemarchios; cf. Zonaras, p. 386). No portion is preserved. Wrote under Constantius, on whom he is said (Libanius, Orat. ed. Reiske, p. 24) to have delivered a panegyric.

Cf. Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 3; Smith, Dict. 1 (1859), 482, &c.

An early but as yet valueless group is that of Syriac and Armenian sources on the (apocryphal) treaty of Constantine with Tiridates.

(24) Zenobius of Klag (fl. ab. 324). History of Daron. French translation from Armenian in Langlois, Coll. Hist. Arm. 1 (1867), 353-355. Like the works of the other Armenian historians, the text of this writer has suffered more or less from corruption. He has two mentions (p. 344 and 351) of Constantine, the latter being an account of the treaty with Tiridates.

Compare introduction of Langlois, and literature in Chevalier.

(25) Agathangelus (ab. 330). History of the Reign of Tiridates and of the Preaching of St. Gregory the Illuminator, c. 125-127, §163-169; in Acta SS. Boll. Sept. VIII. 320-; also with French translation from Armenian in Langlois Coll. d. hist. de l'Arm. p. 97-. The work extends for 226-330 a.d. The author was secretary to Tiridates, but the work as we have it is a redaction made, however, not long after, as it was used by Moses of Khorene. This was in turn later (seventh century?) retouched by some Greek hagiographer. This Greek form is extant in mss. at Florence and Paris (cf. editions above), and there is reason to suppose that the extant Armenian is a version from this Greek form. But with its additions of arrantly apocryphal matter, it is hard to tell what is what, and so all considerable mention of the relation of Constantine and Tiridates has been left out of the account of Constantine's life. Yet we must hesitate to put it all down under the mythical; for Tiridates certainly had intercourse with the Romans, and the original form of this life was certainly by a competent hand, and the matter relating to Constantine is in part soberly historical enough.

For farther information, compare Davidson on Gregorius Illuminator, in Smith & W., Dict. 2. 737-739; Introduction, Langlois, p. 99-103.

(26) Faustus of Byzantium (320-392). Historical Library. French translation from the Armenian in Langlois, Coll. d. hist. Arm. 1. 201-310. There are mentions of Constantine and Tiridates in Bk. 3, chaps. 10 and 21. The work is open to some suspicions of having been tampered with, but Langlois inclines to give it a fairly good character. If genuine, the mention of the treaty with Tiridates would nearly establish it as historical fact.

Compare Beauvois Nouv. biog. gén. 17 (1856), 203, and Introduction of Langlois; also, literature in Chevalier.

The writers of the following centuries are for the most part Christian, uncertain or religiously unknown, excepting the very pronounced non-Christian who heads the list.

(27) Zosimus (fl. ab. 400-450). History. Ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1837), 8vo. Section on Constantine occupying Bk. 2. 8-, p. 72-106. The date of this writer has been put as early as the fourth century and as late as the end of the fifth. It will be safe to divide extremes. He is a heathen who, on the period of Constantine, draws from an anti-Christian and anti-Constantinian source, and who regards the introduction of Christianity as a chief cause of the decline of the Roman Empire (cf. various passages cited by Milligan). He is prejudiced against Christianity with the bitter prejudice of one who finds himself in a steadily narrowing minority, and he is occasionally credulous. But he wrote in a clear, interesting style, without intentional falsifications, and was quite as moderate as the Christian writer (Evagrius 3. 41) who calls Zosimus himself a "fiend of hell." His extended account is therefore of great value among the sources, and especially as it is probably drawn in large measure from the earlier lost work of Eunapius.

Compare Milligan, in Smith & W., 4 (1887), 1225-1227: Mason, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 1334-1335; also, for literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, and for editions, Engelmann.

Anonymus Valesianus (fifth century). Ed. Valesius (Paris, 1636), p. 471-476. This fragment, first published by Valesius in the above editions of Ammianus, is of the highest value for the life of Constantine. It is evidently drawn from various sources, many of which are now lost. The compiler or writer shows a judiciousness and soberness which commends his statements as peculiarly trustworthy.

Compare the exhaustive examination by Ohnesorge, Der Anonymus Valesii de Constantino. Kiel, 1885. 8vo.

(27) Stephen of Byzantium (ab. 400). Greek Cities. Venet. Aldus, 1502, fol. H. iii. s.v. Naissos. The work is a dictionary of geography, and the fact in these few lines is of first value.

Compare Smith, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 904-906. Chevalier, Hoffmann, etc.

(28) Sozomen (b. ab. 400). Ecclesiastical History. Ed. Hussey, English translation, London, Bohn, 1855; newly edited by Hartranft in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2 (1890) [in press]. This history covers the period 323-423 (not 439). He draws largely from Eusebius. He has been described rightly (Dowling, Study of Eccl. Hist. p. 31) as relatively inaccurate, rhetorical and credulous. But he works from sources, though mainly from exact ones. For farther discussion, compare Hartranft in volume 2 of this series.

Compare also Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 722-723, and literature in Chevalier.

(29) Socrates (b. ab. 408). Ecclesiastical History. Ed. Hussey, reprinted with Introduction by Bright, Oxf. 1878. English translation London, Bohn, newly edited by Zenos in volume 2 of this series [in press]. This history covers the period 306-439. It is written with general good judgment, but for Constantine adds little to Eusebius of which it professes to be a continuation.

For farther description and discussion, compare Zenos, Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 709-711, and literature in Chevalier.

(30) Theodoret (b. ab. 393?-457?). Ecclesiastical History. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 82 (1859), 879-1280. English translation, London, Bohn, 1854. The birth of Theodoret has been placed at various dates, 386, 387, 393, &c., and the exact time of his death (453-458) is equally uncertain. This work reaches from 324 to 429, and is generally regarded as learned and impartial. It gives much concerning Constantine's relations to the Arian controversy and incorporates many documents, which appear to be taken mainly from Eusebius' Life of Constantine. A chief value is, it would seem, for the text of Eusebius. But his very use of documents shows care and gives value.

Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 904-919; Newman, Hist. Sketches, 2 (1876), 303-362; Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884), 881-882; and literature in Chevalier; also for editions, Graesse and Hoffmann.

(31) Orosius, Paulus (ab. 417). Histories, Bk. 7, chaps. 26-28. Ed. Migne Patrol. Lat. 31 (1846), 635-1174; section relating to Constantine occupies 1128-1137. For many editions and mss. compare Schoenemann, Bibl. Patr. Lat. 2 (1794), 481-507, and Engelmann, 2 (1882), 441-. It is said (Manso) that Orosius adds nothing to existing material. This is only in part true. At all events, his value as corroboratory evidence is considerable, brief as the work is.

Compare Phillott, in Smith & W, 4 (1887), 157-158; Ebert, Gesch. d. chr. Lat. Lit. 1 (1874), 323-330, and literature in Chevalier and Engelmann.

(32) Prosper Aquitanus (403-463+). Chronicle. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 51 (1861), 535-606 (8). Portion relating to Constantine, 574-576. The Chronicle extends to 444 or 455. To 326 he depends mainly on Eusebius' Chronicle, and for the rest of our period on the continuation of Hieronymus.

Compare Phillott, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 492-497; Teuffel, Hist. of Rom. Lit. 2 (Lond. 1873), 482-484; and for literature, editions, &c., Chevalier, Engelmann, &c.

(33) Idatius (468+). List of Consuls (Fasti Idatiani). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 51 (1861), 891-914; portion relating to Constantine, 907-908. Idatius lived until after 469. This work, which is not generally acknowledged to be his, although quoted under his name, ends in 468. It contains brief statements of some events under the most significant years.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), and literature under "Idace de Lamego," in Chevalier.

(34) Gelasius of Cyzicus (ab. 450- ). History of the Council of Nicæa. In Labbe, Concilia, 2 (1671), 103-286. There is also an abstract in Photius, Bibl. Cod. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 103 (1860), 293-296. Venables is probably just when he says: "His work is little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, to which he has added little but what is very doubtful or manifestly untrue." There is a little on Constantine not in those sources, but to try to fix on any of it as authoritative quite baffles one. Still, it is not wholly clear that he did not use sources, as well as his own imagination, in adding to the other sources. It may be said to be "of doubtful value," as source. It is not easy to see what Venables means in saying that the third hook, as we have it, gives only three letters of Constantine. This is true; but the second book, "as we have it," gives several more.

Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 621-623.

(35) Jacobus of Sarug (452-521). Homily on the Baptism of Constantine. Ed. Frothingham, Roma, 1882. For further information consult the extended study of Frothingham.

(25) Philostorgius (b. ab. 468). English translation by Walford (Lond. Bohn, 1855), 425-528. The original work covered the period between 300 and 425. The fragments preserved contain several interesting facts, or fictions, relating to Constantine, some not found elsewhere. Photius and all the orthodox have always called him untrustworthy or worse, and a very unorthodox critic (Gibbon) finds him passionate, prejudiced, and ignorant; but it seems to be agreed that he used some sources not availed of by others.

Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1587), 390; Dowling, Study of Eccl. Hist. p. 26-27; and literature in Chevalier.

(26) Hesychius Milesius (ab. 500?- ). Origins of Constantinople. In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 146-155; also in ed. Orelli (Lips. 1820), 59-73. Hesychius, surnamed Illustris, of Miletus lived in the early part of the sixth century. This work contains several allusions to the founding of the city of Constantine. It seems to have been taken almost word for word in parts by Codinus.

Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 12-13; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 447-448; Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 143-145; also literature in Chevalier, and editions and literature in Engelmann.

(27) Cassiodorus (ab. 468-561+). Tripartite History. In Opera, ed. Garetius, 1 (Rotom. 1679, fol.), b 1-b 372. On Constantine, especially p. 207-243. (Same ed. in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 69, 879-1214.) Cassiodorus was born about 468 and lived to be more than ninety-three years old. This work is an epitome of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and has no additional value as source. A work on the Goths has been preserved to us only in an epitome by Jordanes. See Jordanes.

Compare Young, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 416-418, or (better for this work) Ramsay, in Smith, 1 (1859), 623-625; and for literature and editions, Chevalier, Engelmann, Graesse, etc.

(28) Lydus, Joannes (Laurentius) (490-550+). De Mensibus; De Magistratibus; De Ostentis, passim. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. Hist. Byz. (1837). Other editions of the various works may be found noticed in Graesse, Trésor, 4 (1863), 122; Brunet, Manuel, 3 (1862), 880; Engelmann, Bibl. scr. class. 1 (1880), 478-479; Hoffmann, Lex. He was born at Philadelphia in 490, and lived some time after 550. He was a heathen, but respectful toward Christianity (Photius, Cod. 180). He mentions Constantine ten or a dozen times; e.g. his foundation of Constantinople (De O. 21. 5), Constantine's learning and military skill (De mag. 3. 53), and quotes (De magistr. 3. 33, ed. Bonn., p. 226), Constantine's own writings.

Compare Photius, Cod. 180; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 600; Hase, Pref. and in ed. Bekker; Joubert, in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer), 32 (1860), 388-391; and for farther literature, Chevalier and the article of Joubert, and Engelmann, Bibl. scr. class. 1 (1880), 479.

(29) Jordanes (or Jornandes) ( -551?). History of the Goths, (De Getarum origine et rebus gestis). In Cassiodorus, Opera, ed. Garetius, 1 (Rotom. 1679), 397-425; same ed. in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 69 (1865), 1251-1296. This work on the Goths is said by its author to be an epitome of the work of Cassiodorus. It says (p. 406-407) that Constantine employed Goths in his campaign against Licinius, and also in the building of Constantinople. It was composed in 551 or 552 (cf. Wattenbach, Deutschland's Geschichtsq. 1, 66).

Compare Hodgkin, in Encycl. Brit. 13 (1881), 747-749; Acland, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 431-438 (exhaustive); and abundant literature in Chevalier, Engelmann, Wattenbach, &c.; also editions in Engelmann, "Potthast. Bibl. hist. med. æv. 1862, p. 102," &c.

(30) Anonymous, qui Dionis Cassii historias continuavit (sixth century?). 14. Licinius (18 lines); 15. Constantinus (9 lines). In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 199; of especially Introd. in Müller, p. 191-192. These were first published by Ang. Mai in Script. Vet. Nov. Call. 2, 135-, 527-, and are found also in various editions of Dion Cassius; e.g. ed. Sturz. 9 (Spz. 1843). Mai strongly inclines to suspect that Johannes Antiochenus is the author, but this Müller (p. 191) argues to be impossible. They are sometimes referred to as Excerpta Vaticana. Petrus Patricius and various others have been suggested as authors, but all that is affirmed with any assurance is that the author was a Christian. This is on the ground of Diocletianus, 1 (p. 198). The fragments are very brief, but contain several little facts and turns not found elsewhere.

(31) Evagrius (536?-594+). Ecclesiastical History, 3. 40-41. English translation (1709), 472-474. A violent invective against and disproval of the charges of Zosimus against Constantine and adds nothing to historical facts.

Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 423-424.

(32) Procopius Cæsariensis (fl. 547-565). Histories. Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1833-1838, 3 v. Two or three slight mentions, of which the nearest to any account is the division of the empire by Constantine, and the founding of Constantinople (De bel. Vand, 1. 1). He flourished from about 547 to 565. Whether he was Christian or heathen is uncertain. He is characterized by peculiar truthfulness (cf. his De ædif. 1; Praf. ed. Bonn, v. 3, 170-, and Milligan).

Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 487-488; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 3, 538-540; also for literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, 1. 655; and for editions, Milligan, Plate, and the various bibliographies.

(33) Petrus Patricius (fl. 550-562). Fragments. In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 189. Gives account of an embassy of Licinius to Constantine.

Compare Means, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 226-227; also Chevalier and Hoffmann.

(34) Gregory of Tours (ab. 573-594). History of the Franks, 1. 34. Ed. Ruinart (Paris, 1699), 27, &c. (?) History of the Seven Sleepers, do. 1272-1273, &c. Liber miraculorum, do. 725-729. The edition of Ruinart is reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Lat. vol. 71 (1867). In the first of these he quotes as authorities, Eusebius and Junius; the latter are full of legendary matter.

Compare Buchanan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 771-776; also for editions and literature, Engelmann, Chevalier, and Graesse.

(35) Chronicon Paschale (ab. 630 a.d.) Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1832, 2 v.; section relating to Constantine occupies vol. 1, p. 516-533. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 92 (Paris, 1865). The work is a chronicle of the world from the creation until 630. It has been thought, but on insufficient grounds (cf. Salmon), that the first part ended with a.d. 354 and was written about that time. It is really a homogeneous work and written probably not long after 630 a.d. (Salmon). It is frequently quoted, unfortunately, as Alexandrian Chronicle (e.g. M'Clintock and Strong Cycl.). The chief value is the chronological, but the author has used good sources and presumably some not now extant. It has something the value of a primary source of second rate.

Compare Salmon, In Smith & W. 1. (1877), 509-513; Clinton, Fasti. Rom. 2 (1850), 169; Ideler, Handb. d. Chron. 2 (1826), 350-351, 462-463; and for literature and editions, Salmon.

(36) Anonymous Acts of Metrophanes and Alexander (seventh century?), "in which is contained also a life of the emperor Constantine the Great." In Photius, Cod. 256; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 104 (1860), 105-120. A more complete recession of this anonymous piece was edited by Combefis, who regards it as the work of a contemporary, written therefore in the middle of the fourth century (cf. his Hist. Mon. p. 573, teste Fabricius). The authentic details can be traced word for word, according to Tillemont, in other historians, while impossible statements show it to be not the work of a contemporary. It seems to fall under the class of works where "What is true is not new, and what is new is not true," but it can hardly be regarded as sufficiently determined whether or no it is worthless.

Compare Tillemont, Mém. 7 (1732), 657; Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. 9 (1737), 124 and 498; Acta. SS. Nov. 1.

(37) Johannes Antiochenus (fl. 610-650). Chronological History. Fragments in Müller, 4 (1868), 535 (8)-622; Fragm. 168-169, on Constantius and Galerius, and 170-171a, on Constantine, p. 602-603. This writer is to be distinguished from Johannes Malalas, also known as Johannes Antiochenus. He flourished somewhere between 610-650 (Müller, p. 536). The sections relating to Constantine are in the main exactly correspondent to Eutropius. It has been conjectured (Müller, p. 1538) that Eutropius and Johannes copied from a common Greek source; but the curious error in the section on Constantine (p. 603), by which "commodæ" is converted into a proper name, and becomes the name of the sister whose son Constantine put to death, shows it to have been translated from the Latin. The work of Johannes has, however, some interesting suggestions and additions; e.g. its paraphrase of the word "dubius" in the characterization of Constantine's conduct towards his friends.

Compare Müller, p. 535-538; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 587; also article of Stokes, and other literature under Malalas.

(38) Malalas (= John of Antioch) (ab. 700). Chronography, Bk. 13, 1-11. Ed. Dindorf (Bonnæ, 1831); in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. (section on Constantine, p. 316-324); also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 97 (Par. 1865), 1-70. Earlier editions are, Oxf. 1691, 8^o; Venice, 1733, fol. [reprint of 1691, "quite useless"]. Lived about 700 (Müller, Fragm. 4, 536), or about 650 (Chevalier, 1205). He has been placed as late as ninth century (Hody), and as early as 601 (Cave). Noting is known of his personal history. He is to be distinguished from the John of Antioch in Müller's Fragm. who is earlier than Malalas. He is very credulous and inaccurate and the section on Constantine is no exception to the rule.

Compare Prolegomena of Hody and Dindorf; Stokes, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 787-788, &c.; and farther literature in Chevalier, Rép. 1205; Hoefer, Nouv. biog. gén. 32 (1060), 1007, and the article of Stokes.

(39) Pseudo-Isidore (eighth cent.?). Decretals. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 130 (1853), 245-252. The famous "Donation of Constantion," which appears here for the first time. See under The Mythical Constantine.

Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 4 (1885), 268-733; and for literature, Chevalier under Isidore Mercator; also the literature of the Donation.

(40) Theophanes (758-818). Chronography. Ed. Classen, Bonn. 1839-41, 2 v. Section on Constantine occupying vol. 1, p. 10-51; also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 108 (186). This work "is justly regarded as one of the most important in the whole series of Byzantine historians" (Dowling, p. 69). Theophanes was friend of Georgius Syncellus; and at his request (Proem. p. 5) took up the latter work at the point where he left off (Diocletian), extending it to 811. He is an authority of judgment and weight for matters relating to his own times, and on quite a different level of historical character from Cedrenus and Zonaras. Although of very much less value for Constantine, he shows even here a certain historical judgment and discrimination. His book is an intelligent work from various sources, one of which is Eusebius. He says that he has diligently examined many works, and reports nothing on his own authority, but on the authority of ancient historiographers and "logographers" (Proem. p. 5).

Compare Dowling Introd. (Lond. 1838), 69-70; Smith, in Smith, Dict. 3. 1082-1083; Gass, in Herzog, Real Enc. 15 (1885), 536-537; Acta sanctorum Boll. March 12; and for (extensive) literature, Chevalier.

(41) Anastasius Bibliothecarius (d. 879). Lives of the Roman Pontiffs. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 127-128 (1852). 34. S. Silvester, vol. 127, 1511-1527. Small use.

Compare Schaff, Hist. of the Church, 4 (1885), 774-776; and for literature and editions, Chevalier and Graesse.

(42) Photius (ninth cent.). Bibliotheca. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. vols. 103-104 (1860). Contains excerpts from and comments on Praxagoras, Eunapius, Gelasius, Anon. Metroph., and Eusebius, which see.

Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 4 (1885), 636-642; Means, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 347-355.

(43) Constantinus Porphyrogenitus (c. VII.) (fl. 911-959). De thematibus. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1840), 1-64, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz.; and in ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 113 (1864), 63-140. Gives (2. 8, ed. Bonn. p. 57-58) account of division of the empire among his sons by Constantine. He also mentions in his De cer. aul. Byz. (ed. Reiske, Bonn. 1829; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 112); e.g. the "cross of Constantine" several times mentioned, and gives a few facts of archæological interest. Constantinus VII was emperor 911-959.

Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1. 349-351; Ceillier, 12 (1862), 811-813; and for farther literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, 1 (1880), 249; also for editions, Plate, who has admirable survey.

(44) Leo Diaconus (tenth century). Histories, 5. 9 and 8. 8. In ed. Hase (Bonn. 1828), p. 91 and 138. Mentions the foundation of a city, the vision of the cross, the Scythian wars, and burial in the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople, and characterizes him as "among emperors the one renowned in story" (8. 8). For other editions, compare Brunet, Graesse, Hoffmann, and Engelmann. He lived from about 950 to at least 993. He was used by Scylitzes (cf. Cedrenus) and perhaps Zonaras. "Style vicious," and "knowledge...of ancient history is slight" (Means).

Compare Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 743-744; M'Clintock and Strong, Encycl. 5 (1875), 351; Hase, Præf.; and for literature, Chevalier.

It is by some stretching of the term that many of those dating before the year 1000 are admitted as sources. Some contribute hardly a single fact not in other sources. This is still more true of the period following, but this period is especially rich in sources of historical fictions--and these must be considered. So the Byzantine historians to the invention of printing are given, and some Western writings, which contain relevant matter.

(45) Zonaras, Johannes (1042-1130?). Chronicle. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 134-135 (Par. 1864). The section relating to Constantine occupies Vol. I. 1097-1118, Bk. 13, chs. 1-4; cf. also end of Bk. 12. The ed. Pinder, Bonn. 1841-1844, 2 v., is unfinished, containing only twelve books. It has since been edited by Dindorf, Lips. 1868-1875, 6 v. Bk. 13 is in Vol. 3 (1870). This work consists of eighteen books extending from the beginning of the world until 1118. Zonaras draws, for Christian period, from Eusebius, Philostorgius, &c., with some discernment, and so deserves a tolerably high place among the Byzantine historians (Zöckler). He incorporates a choice variety of fables, but gives more or less facts which seem to be facts. He actually adds almost nothing to the sources of Constantine, though there are certain facts over which one lingers a little before relegating to the great class of "interesting, if true."

Compare Smith, Dict. 3. 1331; (Zöckler), in Herzog, Real Enc. 17 (1886), 555-556; and for (rich) literature, Zöckler, Chevalier, and Engelmann, 1 (1880), 798.

(46) Cedrenus, Georgius (ab. 1057). Compendium of History. Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1838-1839, 2 v., the section relating to Constantine occupying Vol. I, p. 472-520 et pass. Also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 121-122 (Par. 1864). Nothing is known of his personal history. The work is a chronicle from the beginning of the world until 1057 a.d. He mentions as his chief sources Georgius Syncellus, "until the time of Maximianus and Maximinus," and from this point Theophanes, Siculus, Psellus, and others (cf. p. 4; cf. also Glycas. Chron., ed. Bonn. p. 457), and claims to have collected facts not in these sources. He mentions the work of Joannes Thracesius, or Curopalates, who is probably Scylitzes, whose work corresponds so exactly with that of Cedrenus in parts as to suggest the one or the other a better copier than compiler. The statement of Ceillier is that Cedrenus copied the work of Scylitzes for the period 811-1057, and that Scylitzes afterwards continued his work to 1081; i.e. there was a double edition of the work of Scylitzes, and Cedrenus wrote between. But Means (p. 760) thinks otherwise, and gives good reasons, making one edition and placing Cedrenus' work later, i.e. after 1081. The "additional facts" are few, the compilation is uncritical and credulous; but the work is recognized as a source to be consulted, though with greatest critical care.

Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1. 658; Ceillier, 13 (1863), 560; Means, Scylitzes, in Smith, Dict. 3. 759-762; and for literature, Chevalier, under the words Cedrene and Scylitzes.

(47) Pseudo-Leo. Chronography, under Constantius Chlorus and Constantinus Magnus. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1842), p. 83-90. In Corp. scr. hist. Byz. from Cramer, Anecd. gr. bibl. reg. Par. 2 (1839), 243-379. It is published as the first part of the Chronography of Leo Grammaticus, because assigned to him by the catalogues of the ms. at Paris. It is thought by Cramer, however, not to be by him, but to be "compiled from various writers,--Cedrenus, Joannes Antiochenus, Chronicon Paschali, and perhaps others which are lost" (cf. Cramer, Anecd. gr. 2. 243-379, quoted by Bekker, Præf. iii.-iv.). In this section the author quotes Socrates and Eusebius, but uses other and some unusual sources. While one hesitates to lay much weight on an author of such unknown age and personality, and which contains obvious errors, yet it carries the conviction of a certain moderate weight. Many passages are identical, almost word for word, with Cedrenus. In one of these passages the author refers to Socrates as his authority, while there is no such mention in Cedrenus. They may have taken from the same source. At all events, this work appears on its face much more like sober history than do Cedrenus and Zonaras. Its absolute value as source is very slight.

Compare Preface of Bekker.

(48) Attaliata, Michael (ab. 1072). History. Ed. De Presle and Bekker, Bonn. 1853. 8°. He mentions (p. 217, also p. 222) half a dozen things relating to Constantine; that he was reckoned among the apostles, the sign of the cross, &c., but nothing of value, unless (p. 222) the transposition of a colony from Iberia to Assyria (?).

Compare Præf. of De Presle, also Graves, in Smith, Dict. 1. 409, who, however, does not mention this work; and for literature, Chevalier and De Presle, p. 7-8.

(49) Anna Comnena. Alexias. Ed. Schopen-Reifferscheid, Bonn. 1839-1878. Mentions among two or three other deeds, a statue which this "father and lord of the city" had made over for him (12. 4), and that he has been counted among the apostles (14. 8).

Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1. 179; Klippel, in Herzog, 1 (1877), 427-429, &c.

(50) Glycas, Mich (after 1118). Chronicle (or Annals). Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1836; the section relating to Constantine occupies p. 460-468, ed. Migne, 158 (Par. 1866), 1-958. This work of Glycas extends from the beginning of the world to a.d. 1118. Though "justly placed among the better Byzantine historians" (Plate), for the period of Constantine he is one of the worst. His critical judgment seems to incline to the selection of the most unhistoric. He gives at end of preceding section a description of the work of Scylitzes (cf. Cedrenus), and quotes in it a work of Alexander on the Invention of the Cross.

Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2. 277; Joubert. in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer), 20 (1857), 845-846; and for literature, Chevalier; also for editions, Hoffmann.

(51) Nicetas Choniatas (Acominatus) (1150-1216+). History. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. Bonn. 1835, 8°; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 139 (1865), 282-1088 (=Mai, Bibl. nov. patr. 6.?). Thesaurus, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 139-140 (1865), 1087-1443, 1-282 (=Mai, Spicil. Rom. v. 4). Born about 1150, and lived until 1216 at least. Gives in his History two or three things which relate to "the first and mightiest among Christian emperors" (De Is. Aug. 3. 7, ed. Bonn. p. 583); e.g. the tale of the nails from the cross (do. p. 584), and the despoiling of his tomb (De Al. Is. Aug. 1. 7, p. 632); also a few in the Thesauri, e.g. his conciliation to Arianism through his sister and her friend, the Arian presbyter (6. 3 and 6), and various matters relating to the Arian controversy (mainly in Bk. 5), where he uses the familiar sources,--Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Philostorgius, &c, but also some other less familiar ones.

Compare Worman, in M'Clintock and Strong, Cyclop. 7 (1877), 54-55; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2. 1182-1183; Ullmann, in Stud. u. Krit. (1833), 674-700; Gass, in Herzog, 10 (1882), 540-541, and abridged in Schaff-Herz. 2. 1652. Compare for literature, the above and Chevalier; and for editions, Worman, Plate, Brunet, Graesse, Hoffmann, &c.

(52) Gregoras, Nicephoras (1295-1359). Byzantine History, Bks. 1-37. Ed. Shopen (v. 1-2) and Bekker (v. 3), Bonn. 1829, 1830, and 1855. In Corp. scr. hist. Byz.; ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 148-149 (1865). Mentions incidentally half a dozen facts relating to foundation of Constantinople (10.1; 14. 3, &c.), his destruction of idolatry (19. 1), treatment of the Jews (26. 15), and enlargement of empire (26. 37). He was born 1295, and died after 1359. Was more learned but less judicious than Cantacuzenus (Plate).

Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2. 304-306; Joubert, in Nouv. biog. gén. 21 (1857), 889-891; also for literature, Chevalier, and for editions, Plate and Joubert.

(53) Ephræmius (fourteenth century). Cæsars (?). Constantinus. Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1840, 8°; section on Constantine occupies p. 21-25; ed. Migne, 143 (Par. 1865), 1-380. It was first edited by Mai, Scr. vet. nov. coll. 3 (1828), 1-225 (Dowl.). This metrical chronicle introduces one or two fables, but is in the main at least semi-historical, but its additional facts give no impression of having special sources,--in brief, it is scarcely a source, rather literature.

Compare Smith, Dict. 2. 28; Bonneau, in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer) 16 (1856), 127; Mai, Præf. in ed. Bekker, also ed. Migne. Compare for literature, Chevalier.

(54) Cantacuzenus, Joannes. Angelus Comnenus Palæologus (d. 1375+). Histories. Ed. Schopen, Bonn. 1828-1832, 3 v.; also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 153-154 (Dowl. 1866). Speaks of Constantine as a model of clemency (4. 2; ed. Bonn. v. 3, p. 18) worthy to be compared with the apostles (3. 92), and as led by the spirit of God like David (4. 48; ed. Bonn. v. 3, p. 351), and mentions the time (in May) when his memory is celebrated (4. 4; 3. 92), but has hardly a half-dozen mentions and fewer facts of interest or value. He reigned 1342-1355, abdicated, and lived until after 1375.

Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 579-581; and for farther literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, also for editions.

(55) Nicephorus Callistus (d. ab. 1450). Ecclesiastical History, 7. 17-18, 55. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 145-147. Bk. 7 is in 145, and Bk. 8 in 146. This late history, not so bad as some in style, but full of legendary matter, was compiled from the standard existing historians, and perhaps some others. The portions on Constantine are taken almost wholly from Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and other existing historians.

Compare Schaff, Church Hist. 3 (1884), 883-884; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1180-1181; Dowling, Introd.(1838), 91-93.

(56) Monody on the Younger Constantine (ab. 1450). Ed. Frotscher, Anon. Græci oratio funebris, Freiberg i. S., 1855. This work has not been seen, but according to Seeck (Ztschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1890, p. 64) and Wordsworth (p. 630) this edition contains the result of a study by Wesseling, which shows that this work, referring to an anonymous emperor, does not refer to Constantine II. at all, but to some ruler who belongs in the fifteenth century.

Compare Seeck and Wordsworth for editions.

(57) Codinus (d. ab. 1453?). Excerpts on the origins of Constantinople. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1843). For other editions, compare articles of Plate and the Nouv. biog. gén. Contains considerable relating to Constantine, especially respecting the founding of Constantinople, and the buildings and statues in it. Mainly compilation, or compilation from compilation, but is from partly lost sources and far from unnecessary. He died about 1453 (?).

Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1 (1859), 810-811; Nouv. biog. gén. 11 (1855), 24-25; and for literature, Chevalier.

(58) Ducas (fl. 1450-1460 a.d.) gives "From the incarnation until Constantine the Great, 318 years," and speaks of a church restored by him. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. (1834), p. 13 and 48.

(59) Geoffrey of Monmouth (d. 1154). British History. English translation (Lond. Bohn, 1848), 162-. The passage relating to Constantine covers a number of pages, and is ninety-five per cent fiction, five per cent fact.

Compare Tedder, in Stephen, Dict. of Nat. Biog. 21 (1890), 133-135.

Various of the old chronicles are only translations or paraphrases of this; e.g. the Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft (ed. Wright, Lond. 1866, p. 76-78), various Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, and French chronicles, Waurin's Recueil des Chroniques (ed. Hardy, Lond. 1864), although Hardy maintains that neither Waurin or any of the other versions are real translations, but says there is some lost common source.

(60) Henry of Huntingdon (1135). History of the English. Ed. Arnold, Lond. 1879, 8°, p. 29-31. Engl. translation, Lond. Bohn, 1853, p. 28-29. This is written from generally good sources, notably Eutropius, and means to be historical; but its mythical details--e.g. Helena, a British princess, Constantine cured of leprosy--make it useless.

Compare Forester, Preface to translation; Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 2 (1846), 167-173.

(61) William of Malmesbury (1137). Chronicle of England. English translation, Giles (Lond. Bohn, 1847), 6. Mentioned as a source because often quoted in literature. He ascribes to Constantine the introduction of the British settlement in France.

Compare Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 2 (1846), 134-142.

(62) Diceto, Ralph de (d. 1202?). Abbreviated Chronicles. Ed. Stubbs, Lond. 1876; section on Constantine, p. 73-76. This work was composed before 1188. It consists in the main of abstracts from Eutropius, Eusebius, Jerome, and Rufinus, with various mythical details from William of Malmesbury and other sources.

Compare Poole, in Stephen, Dict. of Nat. Biog. 15 (1888), 12-14. This is taken from Stubbs, Introduction, q.v.

(63) Eulogium Historiarum (ab. 1366). Ed. Haydon, Lond. 1858, 3 v.; section on Constantine, 1. 337-339; 2. 267-268, 332-333; 3. 12, 265. This was probably written by Peter, a monk of Malmesbury (Haydon), about 1366. Compiled from various sources, has familiar facts, but is of no value except for legends.

Compare Preface of Haydon.

(64) Voragine (1230-1298). Golden Legend. Legend concerning the Invention of the Cross. Ed. Graesse (Lips. 1846, repr. Vratisl. 1890). French translation by Brunet, 2 (1843), 118-116. Early English translation printed by Caxton. A curious mixture of fact and fable, in which legendary is gathered, but all facts are expressed with a curious conscientiousness, or pretended conscientiousness, in quoting authorities. But on Constantine, however, his authorities do not always come to the test of containing what he quotes from them.

Compare article Varaggio, in M'Clintock and Strong, Cyclop. 10 (1881), 719, Brunet's Preface and the Proceedings of the American Soc. of Ch. Hist. for 1889.

Besides the above-mentioned sources there are many mentions which may be found in the various collections of mediæval documents, such, e.g., as Pertz, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, which has various interesting chronicles covering the period of Constantine.

§ 3. Literature.

In making the following thread to the rich literature on Constantine the plan has been to confine almost wholly to Monographs, since to refer to all histories, encyclopædias, and the like which treat of him would be endless. Only such few analyzed references are introduced as have special reasons. Even with this limit it cannot be at all hoped that the list is exhaustive. Considerable pains has been taken, however, to make it full, as there is no really extended modern list of works on Constantine, excepting, perhaps, Chevalier (Rép. des sources hist. du Moyen Age). The effort was made to see each work referred to personally, but the libraries of London, Oxford, Berlin, Paris, could not supply them, and after a good deal of search in other libraries and more or less successful effort to purchase, there is still a considerable portion which has not been seen. The editor has tried in vain to decide in various instances whether præses or respondent is author in certain dissertations. Following is the list:

Albani, Jo. Hier. Liber pro oppugnata R. pontif. dignitate & Constantini donatione. Colon. Agrip. 1535, fol.; Romæ, 1547, 4°; Venetiis, 1584, fol.

Alexander, Natalis. Hist. eccles. IV. (1778), 345-351 (=Zaccaria, Thes. theolog. VII. 886-900), 431-451.

Alford, Mich. Brittania illustrata, s. liber de Lucii, Helenæ, et Constantini patria et fide. Antwerpiæ, 1641. 4°.

Altus, Henricus. Donatio Constantini imperatoris facto (ut aiunt) Sylvestro papæ (proes. Joach. Hildebrando). Helmstadii, 1661. 4° (p. 56). Not Hildebrand?

Alzog, J. Manual of Universal Church History. Tr. Pabisch and Byrne. Cincinnati, O., 1874. 3 v. 8°, p. 462-476. Relations of Constantine the Great to the Catholic Church. Very Roman Catholic.

Andlau, Fr. von. Die byz. Kaiser. Hist.-stud. Mainz, 1865, 8°.

Antoniades, Crysanthos. Kaiser Licinius, eine historische Untersuchung nach dem bestern alten und neueren Quellen. München, 1884. 8°. Unfortunately not at hand, but often mentioned with greatest respect by Görres and others.

Arbellot. Mémoire sur Ies statues équestres de Constantin placées dans Ies églises de l'ouest de la France. Limoges, 1885. 8°, 34 pp. (Cf. Audiat, Louis, in Bull. soc. arch. Saintonge, 1885. II. v. 186-193, 280-292.) Contains a history of the long archaeological discussion on the subject of the equestrian statue on the facades of various churches in the west of France. Some say it represents Charles Martel, Charlemagne, the founder of the church, the rider who appeared to Heliodorus, Rider of the Apocalypse, St. Martin, St. George or the Church Triumphant. Consult for many titles on the discussion, which it is not worth while to give here. Arrives at the result that the "greater part" represent Constantine.

Arendt. Ueber Constantin und sein Verhältniss zum Christenthum. In Theolog. Quartalschr. Tübing. 1834. III. 387.

Arrhenius, Laur. Dissertatio historica de Constantino Magno. Upsal. 1719. 4°.

---- ---- Refutatio commenti de donatione Constantini Magni. Upsal. 1729. 8°.

Aubé, B. De Constantino imperatore, pontifice maximo dissertatio. Lutetiæ, 1861. 8°, 108 pp. Examines Constantine's attitude toward (1) Pagans, (2) Christians; concludes that, as a matter of fact, he exercised the office of Pontifex Maximus over both.

Audiat, Louis. Les statues au portail des églises. In Bull. de la soc. des arch. de la Saintogne. 5 (1884-1885) (1885), 186, 193. Starts out from Arbellot. Gives ten various theories. Mentions various works. This with Arbellot a sufficient apparatus for this topic.

Bachmann, P. Wider die Natterzungen,...Dabey ein Antwort auff Constantini Donation, welche der Luther spöttlich nennet den Hohen Artickel des allerheyligisten Bebstlichen glaubens (Dresden), 1538, 4°, (45). p. Examines whether the Donation is "ein Teuffelische lügen und Gottes lasterung (wie sie der Luther nennet)."

Baier, Joh. Dav. Disputatio de erroribus quibusdam politicis Constantino Magno imputatis. Jenæ, 1705, 4°.

Balduinus, Franc. Constantinus Magnus, sive de Constantini imperatoris Iegibus ecclesiasticis atque civilibus commentariorum libri 2. Basileæ, 1556, 8°; Argent, 1612, 8°; præf. Nic. Hier. Gundling, Lipsiæ-Halæ, 1727, 8°, 235 (23) pp.

Bang, A. Chrs. Kirchen og Romerstaten indtil Constantin den Stre. Christiana, 1879, 8°.

Baring, Nicol. Dissertatio epistolica de crucis signo a Constantino Magno conspecto. Hannov. 1645, 8°.

Baronius. Annales (1590), 306, 16-18, 3-25; 307, 3-15; 312, 7-337, 37; 358, 27. Cf. Pagi, Crit. (1689), 306, 5-307, 14; 311, 9-337, 6; 547, 12.

Bartolini, Domenico. Come Costantini Augusti imperatore innalzasse in Roma i primi sacri edifici del culto cristiano. Dissertezione in Atti Accad. Rom. archeol. 12 (1852) 1. 281-308. Opposes the idea that these belong to a period not before Honorius. Separately printed. "Dissertazione...letta nell' Adunanza tenuta. il di 16 di marzo, 1843." pp. 30 (1).

Baudot. Dissertation critique sur la famille de Constantin, & en particulier sur Constantin le Jeune. In Magas. encyclop. 6 (1812), 241-274. Under head of Numismatiqueopposes Valois in Acad. Inscr. 1740. The medals do refer to Constantine. Includes a discussion of Constantine's family.

Baune, J. de la. Vita Constantini Magni, herausgegeben von A. Jäger. Norimb. 1779, 8°.

Bayet, C. La fausse donation de Constantini, examen de quelques théories récentes. In Ann. fac. lett. Lyon, 1884, 1. 3 (1884), 12-44. The donation belongs in second half of eighth century, or first half of ninth.

Berthelé, Jos. In Bibl. ec. des Chartes, 46 (1885), 330-331. [Review of Arbellot.] Gives brief analysis, and mentions one statue omitted by Arbellot.

Beuste, Joach. V. Oratio de Constantino Magno. Witteb. 1569, 8°. "Extat Tom VI. Orationum Vitemburgensium."

bios kai politeia ton hagion theostepton meg?lon basileon kai isapostolon Konstantinou kai Elenes [Mnemeia hagiologica, p. 164] Benetia, 1884, la. 8°.

Boehringer. Athanasius u. Arius. 1874, p. 1-53.

Boissier. Essais d'histoire religieuse, I. un dernier mot sur les persecutions; II. la conversion de Constantin. In Rev. d. deux mondes (Feb. 1886), p. 790-818, (July) p. 51-72.

Bonneau, Alcide. Étude historique. In his edition-translation of Valla's Donation of Constantine. Interesting, and gathers much of what one wants to know first about the Donation.

Bonnetty, A. De la donation de Constantin et de la protection qu'il accorda au christianisme. In Annal de Philos. chrèt. (1831), 125-136. Personal conversion a secondary question. It is sufficient to have proved that it was no longer possible for paganism to occupy the throne of the world.

Borchmann, Jac. Frid. Dissertatio historico-critica de labaro Constantini Magni. Hafniæ, 1700. 4^o.

Bott, Theod. Constantin le Grand et sa position entre le paganisme et le christianisme, essai historico-critique. Colmar, 1874. 8^o, 51 pp.

Brieger, Theod. Constantine der Grosse als Religions-politicker. Kirchengeschichtlicher Beitrag. Gotha, 1880. 8^o, 48 pp. Cf. Grisar, in Zeitschr. kath. Theol. 1882, vi. 554-562.

Bridges, Matth. Roman Empire under Constantine the Great. London, 1828. 8^o, 467 pp.

Broglie, A. de. L'Eglise et L'Empire Romaine au IV. siècle. I. Régne de Constantin. Paris, 1856. 8^o. One of the best and most frequently cited.

Brunner, H. In the Festgabe für R. v. Gneist, Berlin, 1888, p. 5 (1)-35. Donation.

Buchholz, Sam. Constantin der Grosse in seiner wahren Grösse wirderhergestellt. Berlin, 1772. 4^o.

Buddeus. Observ. sel. liter. I. (1700), 370-440.

Burckhardt, Jak. Die Zeit Constantin's des Grossen. Basel, 1853. 8^o, 222 pp. Leipzig, 1880. 8^o. For a long time the standard work on Constantine. Unsympathetic, and in a measure unjust.

De Burigney. Hist. des Revolutions de l'empire le Constantinople depuis le fondation....Paris, 1750; tr. German, Hamb. 1754.

Busæus, Joh. Disputatio theolog. de baptismo Constantini Magni. 4^o. Moguntiæ, 1589.

Canonici, Matt. Alois. Proposizioni storico-critiche intorno alla vita dell' imperatore Costantino....4^o. Parma, 1760. Compare Cigola, Vincenzo.

Castelli, Ign. Intorno al battesimo di Costantino imper. dissertazione. In La scienza e la fede. 11 (Nap. 1870), 201-219.

Caussin, Nicolas. Eques christianus, s. Constantius Magnus. Trad. du franç. par Henri Lamormain. Vienn. 1637, 8^o.

Cave. Scr. Eccl. I. (1741), 183-185.

Cavedoni, C. Disamina della nuova edizione della Numismatica Costantiniana del P. Raffaele Garrucci d. C. d. G. 19 pp. Extr. dalla Rivista della Numismatica (Olivieri), 2 (1864).

Cavedoni. "Recherches critique sur les médailles de Constantin le Grand et de son fils ornées de types et de symboles chrétiens." Modena, 1858.

Ceillier. Histoire des auteurs sac. et eccl. 3 (1865), 118-148.

Chaulnes, Gabriel de. In Ann. philos. chrét. 5 ser. E. XVI. (1867), 261-271. On the donation of Constantine.

Chauner. Influence of Christianity upon the Legislation of Constantine. 1874, 8^o.

Chiffletus, Petr. Franc. Dissert....De loco, tempore & cæteris adjunctis conversionis magni Constantini ad fidem christianam....Paris, 1676, 8^o.

Church Policy of Constantine the Great. In North British Rev. 1870, LII. 1.

Ciampini, Joan. De sacris ædificiis a Constantino Magno constructis synopsis historica. Romæ, 1693, la. 4^o (or fol.), 8 f.-218 p.

Cigola, Vincenzo. Proposizioni storico-critiche intorno alla vita dell' Imperatore Costantino (praes. Madama Isabella di Spagna) Vincenzo Cigola Bresciano Convittore nel Regio-Ducal ecclegio de' Nobili ei Parma. Parma, 1760, 4o, 44 pp. Three plates of coins and medals of Constantine and (2) various theses. At end sixteen pages of inscriptions, and three pages of coins and medals (60 pages in all).

Civilità Cattolica. Ser. 5, Vol. 10 (1864), 601-609. 1. La frase instinctu Divinitatis nell' arco trionfale di Costantino. 2. Le monete di Costantino, posteriori alla vittoria sopra Massenzio.

Clinton, H. F. Fasti Romani, 1 (Oxf. 1845), 348-397; 2 (1850), 86-94. This is a most convenient massing of sources, including groupings of laws and inscriptions. One of the most thoroughly useful of works.

Coen, Ach. Di una leggenda relativa alla nascità e alla gioventù di Costantino Magno. In Arch. soc. Romana stor. patria, 1880-1882, IV. 1-55, 293-316, 535-561; V. 33-66, 489-541. Roma, 1882. 8^o, 191 pp.

Cf. Rev. d. Quest. hist. 33. 682; Vesselofsky, A. in Romania, 14 (1885), 137-143.

Colombier, H. M. La donation de Constantin. In Études relig. hist litt. (1877), 31 year, 5 ser. Vol. II. 801-829. Is worth looking over, as it gathers many of the facts which bear on date. Thinks he has "exact date." "L'origine Romaine n'est guère douteuse" "vers l'an 687," by "clecs mécontents du pape."

Combes, Francois. Les liberateurs des nations. Paris, 1874. 8^o, p. 208-229. Constantin Liberateur des Chrétiens.

Considérations générales sur le christianisme (iv. s.). L'empereur Constantin. St. Etiénne, 1884. 16^o, 136 pp.

Constantin Imp. Byzantini Numismatis argentei Expositio, 1600.

Die Constantinische Schenkungsurkunde. I. Brunner, H. Das Constitutum Constantini. II. Zeumer, K. Der älteste Text. Berlin, Springer, 1888. 8^o, 60 pp. "Aus Festgabe f. Rud. v. Gneist."

Constantinus Magnus Romanorum imperator Joanne Reuchline Phorcensi interprete. Tubingæ, 1513. 4^o, 23 pp.

Contin. Monthly, 6 (1864), 161 (Schaff?).

Crackenthorpe, Richard. The Defense of Constantine: with a treatise of the Popes temporall monarchie, Wherein, besides divers passages, touching other Counsels, both General and Proviciall, the second Roman Synod, under Sylvester, is declared to be a meere Fiction and Forgery. London, 1621. 4^o, pp. (16), 283 (1). Ch. 1-7. Seven reasons proving the Synod to be a forgery. Ch. 8. That Constantine made no such donation, and Gretser refuted. Ch. 9. Three reasons to prove that Constantine never made donation. Ch. 10-15. Seven witnesses, four popes, sixteen other witnesses, thrity lawyers, and eight emperors alleged by Marta as witnesses of Constantine's donation examined; also four reasons brought by Marta and Albanus. Consult for older literature relating to the Donation.

La crueldad, y Sinrazon | La venuce auxilio y valor, Maxencio y Constantino (coloph.). Barcelona per Carlo Gilbert y Tuto, Impressor y Librerio. Historical drama. Introduces character of Constantine, the younger Constantine, Fausta, &c.

Curton, A. de. In Nouv. biog. gén. 11 (1855), 581-595.

Cusa, Nicolaus de. De Concordantia Catholica. Judicium de donatione Constantini. Basil, 1568.

Cutts, Edw. L. Constantine the Great, the union of the State and the Church. London and New York, 1881. 12^o, XIV. 422 pp. For general, not especially scholarly use.

Dalhus. Dissertatio de baptismo Constantini Magni. Hafniæ, 1696 (1698, Vogt.).

Demetriades, Kalliop. Die christliche Regierung und Orthodoxie Kaiser Constantin d. Grossen, eine histor. Studie. München, 1878. 8^o, IV. 47 pp.

Dieze, Joh. Andr. Dissertatio de forma imperii Romani Constantino Magno recte atque sapienter mutata. Lipsiæ, 1752, 4^o, 34 pp.

Döllinger, J. v. Die Papst-Fabeln des Mittelalters. 1863. Cf. Civiltà cattol., ser. 5, v. 10 (1864), 303-330; tr. Ger. Mainz, 1867. gr. 8^o, 34 pp.

Döllinger. In Münchener Hist. Jahrb. (1865), 337-.

Dudley, Dean. History of the First Council of Nice: A world's Christian convention, A.D. 325; with a life of Constantine. Boston, Dean Dudley & Co., 1879, 120 pp.

Duerr, Joan Frid. Dissertatio historica de Constantino Magno. Jenæ, 1684, 4^o.

Du Pin. Nov. Bibl. Aut. Eccl. 2, p. 16-.

Duruy, Vict. Les premières années du règne de Constantin (305-323). In Compte rendu acad. scien. mor. polit. (1881). F. XVI. 737-765. Speaks of his "cold cruelty." He was convinced that "the future was victory to Christians, and political wisdom counselled to go with them."

---- ---- La politique religieuse de Constantin (312-337). In Compte rendu acad. scien. mor. polit. (1882), XVII. 185-227. Orleans, 1882, 8^o, 47 pp. = Rev. archæolog., 1882, B. XLIII. 96-110, pl. 155-175. Cf. Allard, P., in Lettres chrét. (1882), V. 244-249. "Fragment de son Histoire des Romains." Treats: I. La vision miraculeuse. II. Le lavarum. III. Popularité croissante du culte du Soleil. IV. Constantin à Rome en 312: son arc de triomphe. V. L'édit de Milan (313). VI. Mesures pour l'éxecution de l'édit de Milan. VIII. Monnaies de Constantin; Constantinople. IX. Resumé.

---- ---- Les conditions sociales au temps de Constantin. In Compte rendu acad. scien. mor. polit. (1882), XVIII. 729-772. Treats: La cour, La noblesse, La bourgeoisie, La plèbe, Les corporations réglementées, L'armée.

Du Voisin, J. B. Dissertation critique sur la vision de Constantin. Paris, 1774. 12^o, 331 pp. Cf. Journ. d. sçavans (1774), 452-459.

Eckhel. Doctrina numorum veterum. 8 (Vindob. 1828), 71-95.

Eltz, H. In Public. hist. Inst. Luxembourg (1874-1875), XXIX. 225-236. In this paper, p. 215-236, p. 225-235, are occupied with coins of Constantine and his sons.

Ewyck, Florentius ob. Oratio in laudem Constantini Magni habitu a...Tempore Exanimis Huberni Gandæ a. d. XII. Cal. Januar. MDCXCIII. Gandæ, 1692, pp. 11 (1). Draws nice little moral of the "good example" from Constantine.

Fabricius, Joan. Alb. Dissertatio de cruce Constantini Magni qua probatur eam fuisse phænomenon in halone solari, quo Deus usus, sit ad Constantini Magni animum promovendum. Hamburgi, 1706. 40 (or Woltereck, who is resp.?). Cf. "Bibl. gr. VI. (1714-1749), 1-29; IX. 68 (2a, IV. 882; VI. 693-718)."

Farlati. Illyric. sac. VIII. (1819), 25-27.

Fletcher, Jos. Life of Constantine the Great. London, 1852. 12mo.

Freherus. "Diss. Const. Imp. Numis." 1600. Evidently = Const. Imp. Byz. Numism. cf. above.

Finckius, Casp. De disput. de Baptismo. T.V. p. 313, disp. XIII.

Frick, Joh. Dissertatio de fide Constantini Magni haud dubie christiana. Ulmæ, 1713. 4^o. Not Frick (who is præses), but Miller (?).

Friedrich, J. Die Konstantinische Schenkung. Nördlingen, 1889. 8^o. VII. 197 pp. Reviewed in Theol. Literaturblatt, 1890, Nos. 3-5; in Evang. Kirch-ztng, No. 18 (1889); by Schultze, in Theol. Litt. Ber. 1889; Liter. Centralblatt, 1889, No. 33; by Bloch, in Mttlgn. a. d. histor. Litt. (1890), No. 1; by Löwenfeld, in Deutsche Ltzng. (1890), No. 3.

Frimelius, Joannis. De Constantini Magni Religione, Baptismo & rerum sacrarum apparatu. Mentioned by Kunardus, in a "Disputationum Catalogus," p. (8).

Frommann, E. A. De codicibus s. jussu Constantini ab Eusebio curatis. Coburgi, 1761. 4^o.

Frothingham, Arthur. Compare edition of Jacobus of Sarug.

Fuhrmann, Matthias. Historia sacra de baptismo Constantino Max. Augusti. I. Romæ, 1742; II. Viennæ in Austria, 1747, 4^o, fig.

Garrucci, Raff. Esame critico e cronologico della numismatica Costantiniana portante segni di cristianesimo. Roma, 1858, 8^o, 72 pp.

---- ---- In Vetri cimit. crist. Roma (1884), append. 1858. Croce greca sulle monete di Costantino e sua famigla, 89, 90, 91. Croce latina sulle...Costantino padre e figlio e di Costanzo, 95. Vario modo di figuriale ai tempi di Costantino, 103.

---- ---- Verres ornés de figures en or, trouvés dans les Catacombes Romaines. 2d ed. 1864. Has at end discussion of symbols of Constantine. Compare Anal. Jur. Pout. 1873.

Gasparin, Ag. de. Innocent III., le siècle apostolique, Constantin. Paris, 1873, 12^o, p. 75-193.

---- ---- Constantin. In Le christianisme au quatrième siècle. Genéve, 1858, 8^o, p. 1-139. The question of church and state. The present problem of the churches is to undo the work of Constantine. Lectures to Y.M.C.A. of Geneva.

Genelin. Das Schenkungsversprechen und die Schenkung Pippins. Wien und Leipzig. 1880.

Gengel, Georg. De Constantino Magno, primo Christianorum imperatore, dissertatio...Calissii, 1726, 8^o, 14-89-6 pp.

Gibbon. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Many editions. Furnishes later historians of Constantine with almost unlimited material for adoring quotation.

Girault, Cl. Xav. Dissertation histor. & critique sur le lieu où la croix miraculeuse apparut à Constantin & à son armée. In Magas. encyclop. Paris, 1810, 8^o.

Görres, Franz. Die Verwandtenmorde Constantin's des Grossen. In Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 30 (1887), 343-377. Reaches, with Hilgenfeld, the rather severe judgment that, on the whole, the bloodguiltiness of Licinius is less than that of Constantine. There are also various other interesting reviews or treatises by Görres.

Graetz, H. Die Herrschaft des Christenthums durch Constantin's Bekehrung. In Monatsschrift f. gesch. u. wiss. Judenthum (1887), 416-421.

Grauert, Herm. Die Konstantinische Schenkung. In Görres-Ges. Histor. Jahrb. 1882-84, III. p. 3-30; IV. (1883), 45-95, 525-617, 674-680; V. 117-120. Reaches result that it arose not in Rome, but in France, from the cloister of St. Denis, shortly before or at the same time with the Pseudo-Isidore, and shortly after 840. (Weiland, p. 142.)

Gretser. De sancta cruce. In Opera, v. 2. Ratisbonæ, 1734, fol.

Grisar, Hartm. Die vorgeblichen Beweise gegen die Christlichkeit Constantins des Grossen. In Zeitschr. f. kathol. Theolog. VI. (1882), 585-607. Cf. La Controverse, 1882, III. 693-702.

Grossius, Matth. Dissertatio de donatione Constantini Magni. Lipsiæ, 1620. 4^o.

Gualtherius. See Walther.

Guidi, Ign. Il battesimo di Costantino imperatore. In Nuova Antologia, B. XLI. (1883), 41-52. Starts from Frothingham's work. Consult for list of authors who repeat the story. Mentions some who still believe in the fable.

Gusta, Franc. Vita di Costantino il grande, 1^o imperat. christiano. Foligno, 1786; 2 v. 4^o. ediz. 2, rev. ricorr. ed. accresc. 1790; ed. 3. 2 v. 320 and 282 pp. 8^o. 1816. 2 v. 332 and 296 pp. 8^o. In Zaccaria, Raccolta di dissertazioni, 13. (1795), 172-189.

Haenisius, Gottlieb. Dissertatio de Constantino Magno non ex rationibus politicis christiano. Vulgo Ob Constantinus Magnus ohngeachtet seiner späten Tauffe, ein wahrer Christ zu nennen. (Praes. Gott. Chr. Lentnerus.) 1714, Lipsiæ. p. 76. Usually referred to under Lentner, but B.M. correctly gives Haenisius (?)

Hakluyt. Voyages, 2 (1810), 34-35. 1. The voyage of Helena. Latin and English. The author of Latin not given. He quotes as authorities, Eusebius, Virumnius, and Ponticus. 2. The voyage of Constantine the Great, emperor and king of Britaine, to Greece, Ægypt, Persia, and Asia, Anno 339. Latin and English. Rather phenomenal energy on the part of a man two years dead.

Hallern (Heller?), Godofredus (Vratisl.). Disputatio theologio quanta de religione Constantini Magni....Jodoci Kedii...(Praes. And. Kunardo [19 Maji, A.O.K. MDLIIX.], Wittenbergæ. 4^o, p. 123-172. Kunardus?)

Halloix, Petr. Epistola de baptismo Constantini. In Morin, Antiq. eccl. orient. (1682).

Harduin, J. Chronologia sæculi Constantiniani ex solis numis antiquis. In his Op. sel. p. 442-.

Hartmann, J. A. Dissertatio historica de Helena, Constantini Magni matre. Marb. 1723. 4^o.

Hauck, A. Zur donatio Constantini. In Ztschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. u. kirchl. Leben (1888), 201-207.

Hebenstreit, G. E. (=Hofmann, C. F.). Histoire de Constantin le Grand. Limoges, 1866. 12^o. 148 pp.

Heckenhoek, Adr. Oratio in laudem Constantini Magni primi christianorum imperatoris. (viii. Aprilis MDCCXVI.), Dordrechti. (4) 23 pp.

Helmke. De Constantini Magni ita moribus et legibus penitus ex fontibus repetita disputatio. Pars 1, Progr-Stargard, 1827. 4^o.

Hesse, Joann. Christianus. Dissertatio Historico-Pragmatica qua Constantinum Magnum ex rationibus politicis Christianum. (Præs. B. G. Struvius ) ["autor respondens," Hesse]. May, MDCCXIII. Jenæ, (4)76 pp. Not Struve? Pref. is by Struve, to be sure, but seems to be congratulatory letter to Hesse on his work? But Haenisius(?) (1714), the following year, ascribes to Struve.

Heumann, Chph. A. De cruce coelesti a Constantino Magno conspecta. In his Poecile, 2. 50-.

Heydenreich, Eduard. Ueber einen neu gefundenen Roman von der Jugendgeschichte Constantins des Grossen und von der Kaiserin Helena. In Verhandll. d. Philologenversammlung in Trier, p. 177 ff.; Repr. in d. Berliner Zeitschr. f. d. Gymnasialwesen, 34 (1880), 271-.

---- ---- Der libellus de Constantino Magno ejusque matre Helena und die übrigen Berichte über Constantins des Grossen Geburt und Jugend. Eine kritische Untersuchung von...In Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte hrsg. Fr. Schnorr. Carolsfeld. X (1881), 319-363.

Hildebrand, Joach. Dissertatio de donatione Constantini Magni. Helmstad, 1661, 4^o; 1703; 1739; 1761. Altus or Hildebrand?

Hofmann, Car. Frid. et Hebenstreit, Geo. Ern. Disputatio Historico-Critica de Constantini Magni sepulchro. Lipsiæ, 1759, 4^o, 48 pp.

Hojer, J. C. Quæ Constantino Magno favoris in Christian. fuerunt caussæ. Jenæ, 1758, 16 pp.

Haute, Theodorus van der. Oratio prior de Constantino Magno, dicta a...Delfis. Apud Joannem. Speyers, Bibliopolam, 1702, 14 pp. Spoken at the same time with Rouille's Oration. Cf. Rouille for estimate.

[Hug] Denkschrift zur Ehrenrettung Constantin's des Grossen. In Zeitschrift Geistlichkeit Erzbisth. Freiburg, III. Heft. (Freib. 1829.) 1-104. Treats various charges. The death of Crispus a plot of Fausta for the sake of her children, she causing it to seem to Constantine that Crispus and his nephew were plotting against the empire.

Hunckler. Constantin le Grand et son règne. Limoges, 1843 and 1846. 12^o. ("1843, 12^o; do. 1846, 12^o.")

Hynitzsch, Adolf. Die Taufe Constantins des Grossen nach Geschichte und Sage. 1870. Progr. des Gymnasium in Stendel.

Incerti auctoris de Constantino Magno ejusque matre Helena libellus. E codicibus primus edidit Eduardus-Heydenreich. Lips., Teubner, 1879. 12^o. p. vii., 30. See under The Mythical Constantine.

Jacobatius. De concilio tractatus. Romæ, 1538, lib. X. art. 8, p. 780-783. De donatione Constantini.

Jacobus of Sarug. L'omilia di Giacomo di Sarúg sul Battesimo di Costantino imperatore, trad. ed. annot. da Arthur L. Frothingham, Jr. Roma, 1882. Fol. (From Reale Accad. dei Lincei. CCLXXIX [1881-82].) Consult for various sources and writers where story is found.

Jacutius, Matth. Syntagma quo ad parentis magno Constantino crucis historia complexa est universa....Romæ, 1755. 4^o.

Janus, Joh. W. Schediasma historicum de patria Constantini Magni. Witteb. 1716. 4^o.

"Janus." Der Pabst und das Concil. Leipzig, 1869. 8^o, xix, 451 pp.

Jeep, Ludw. Zur Gesch. Constantins. Festschrift f. E. Curtius. (Berlin, 1884. 8^o.) p. 79.

Journal des Sçavants. (1774), p. 451-459. Review and analysis of Du Voisin.

Kaufmann, Georg. Eine neue Theorie über die Entstehung u. Tendenz der angeblichen Schenkung Constantins. In Allgem. Zeitung (1884), 194-196, 211-212. Valuable. Weiland, p. 146-147.

Kedd, Jod. Constantinus Magnus Romano-catholicus, ecclesia catholicus, s. Stephanus & primi Hungariæ reges Romano catholici...Viennæ Austriæ, 1655. 4^o, 145 pp.

Keim. Die röm Toleranz-Edickte. In "Theol. Jahrb. 1852 II."

Keim, Theodor. Der Uebertritt Constantins des Grossen zum Christenthum, academ. Vortrag...Zürich, 1862, 8^o. viij.-106 pp. "A Christian in its strict sense Constantine was certainly not, even up to the end of his life," and yet he was inwardly touched by Christianity.

Keri, Francisc. Borg. Imperatores orientes...a Constantio Magno ad Constantini ultimum....Tyrnaviæ..., 1774. Fol.

Kist, N. C. De commutatione quam, Constantino auctore societas subiit christiana. Trajecti ad Rh. 1818, 120 pp. 8^o.

Kormart, Chrph. Dissertatio politica de Constantino Magno. Lipsiæ, 1665. 4^o.

Krug. Byz. Chron. St. Petersb. 1810. 8^o.

Krüger, G. Zur Frage nach der Entstehungszeit der Konstantinschen Schenkung. In Theol. Literaturzeitung, 14 (1889), 429-435, 455-460.

Kunadus, And. Constantinus Magnus Evangelicus Constantino Romano-Catholico Jodoci Keddii Jesuitæ oppositus. Ed. second, Witteb. 1666. 4^o, p. (8) 224.

Landucci. Una celebre costituzione dell' imperatore Costantino, saggio esegetico. Padova, 1886. 8^o, 30 pp.

Langen, Henricus. Constantinus Magnus Intentu Utriusque Maximiani, et Herculii et Galerii in regimine confirmatus. (Præs. J. J. Weidner.) 8 Sept. 1703. Rostochii (p. 48). (By Langen, not Weidner?)

Langen, J. Entstehung und Tendenz der Konstantinischen Schenkungsurkunde. In Sybel, Hist. Zeitschr. (1883), p. 413-435. "Erweitete Ausfürhung e. Aufsatze in deutschen Merkur, 1881, Nr. 34."

Langen. In Geschichte d. römischen Kirche. Bonn, 1885, p. 726-.

La Salle. In Biografia universale, XIII. (Venezia, 1823), 363-370.

Le Beau. Hist. du Bas-Emp. en commenç. a Constantin. T. 1-21, Par. 1757-1781, Cont. par (H.P.) Ameiltron. T. 22-26, Par. 1781-1807. T. 271[1.2] do. 1811. 8^o (28 vols.). Nouv. ed. ed. St. Martin. T. 1-13, Par. 1824-1832. Cont. Brosset, T. 14-21, Par. 1833-1836. 8^o.

(Lefort de la Morinière, Adrien Claude.) Histoire abrégée du règne de Constantin empereur d'Orient et d'Occident. Par. 1756. 12^o.

Lentner, Gottfr. Christ. Dissertatio de Constantino Magno non ex rationibus politicis christiano. 4^o. Lipsiæ, 1714. Cf. note under Haenisius. Yet the author regards the præses of a preceding dissertation as author, and the præses here is printed in capitals, so Lentner is real author?

Life of Constantine the Great. In Christ. Rev. 4 (1839), 201.

Literary and Theological Review (1839), 541.

Lupi, Ant. Mar. Theses historicæ, chronolog., cricticæ, philolog., &c., ad vitam s. Constantini Magni imper. aug. Panormi, 1736. 4^o.

---- ---- Dissertaz. lett. ed. alt. oper. 1 (1785), 267-292, in Gori, Symbolæ litter. IX. (Florent. 1752), 133-176.

Mabrun. Constantinus Magnus sive idolatria debellata. Par. 1658. 4^o. Latin poem.

Mamachi, Thom. Mar. De cruce Constantino visa & de evangelica chronotaxi. Florentiæ, 1738. 8^o.

Manso, Joh. Casp. Frdr. Leben Constantins des Grossen, nebst einigen Abhandlungen geschichtlichen Inhalts. Breslau, 1817, 8^o; Wien, 1819. 8^o.

Marçay, De. Histoire de Constantin le Grand. Limoges, 1873, 8^o, 126 pp.

Martens. Die falsche General-Konzession Konstantins. München (Leipzig), 1889, 8^o. Contains especially convenient reprint, with commentary.

----. Die römische Frage unter Pipin und Karl dem Grossen, p. 327 sq. Says donation arose after 800, in last years of Charlemagne or beginning of Louis. Wieland, p. 141.

----. Die drei unechten Kapitel der Vita Hadrian. In Tübingen Theol. Quartalschrift (1886), 601.

----. Heinrich IV. und Gregor VII. nach der Schilderung von Ranke's Weltgeschichte. Kritische Betrachtungen. Danzig, 1887.

Martini, E. D. A. Ueber die Einführung der christlichen Religion als Staatsreligion im römischen Reiche durch den Kaiser Constantin. München, 1813. 4^o, 48 pp.

Mas, Auguste. L'empereur d'Arles. In Mém. de l'acad. de Vaucluse, IV. (1885), 197-213. Rev. of Alex. Mouzin's "drama in verse." Treats early events. Very full description and analysis of poem.

Mercersburg Review, 12 (1850), 173.

Meyer, P. In Festschrift d. Gymn. Adolfinum zu Moers. Bonn, 1882. 4^o. So noted; but the editor's copy of this Festschrift contains nothing by Meyer, while the separately printed De Vita Constantini Eusebiana, by Meyer, paged 23-28, which is at hand, has no indication of its origin and may be from Program.

Millerus, Joann. Martinus. De fide Constantini Magni haud dubie christiana. Dissertatio (præs. Jo. Frickii) e fontibus genuinis...Ulmæ (1613), 4^o, p. (4) 62. (Not Frick?)

Molinet, Cl. In Ephemer, erudit. Parisien. (1681), Eph. XI. Dissertatio de veritate Crucis a Constantino visæ ex numis antiquis confirmata.

Moller, Dan. Guil. Disputatio de labaro Constantiniano. Altorf, 1696. 4^o.

Monod, Paul. La politique religieuse de Constantin. Montaubon, 1886. 8^o.

Morin, Jean. Histoire de la déliverance de l'église chrétienne par l'empereur Constantin et de la grandeur et souveraineté temporelle donnée à l'église Romaine par les roys de France. Par. 1630. Fol. A translation of Eusebius' Life of Constantine.

Mouzin, Alex. Cf. Mas, Aug., in Mém, acad. Vaucluse, 1885, IV. 197-213.

Mühlbacher, E. In Mitth. Inst. öster. Geschforsch (1881), 2. 115-116.

Münch, Ernst. Jos. Herm. Uber die Schenkung Constantin's, beitrag zur Literatur u. Kritik der Quellen des kanonischen Rechts u. der Kirchengeschichte. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1824. 8^o, 102 pp. Also in Vermischte Schriften, Ludwigsburg, 1828, p. 185-.

Musset, Georges. Encore les statues équestres au portail des églises. In Rev. Poitev. et Saint. (1886), 71-76. Thinks Arbellot has not solved the question.

Nestius, Jacob. Apologia pro Constantino Magno. In Miscell. Lipsien. nova (1716), II. 471-476.

Nève, Felix. Constantin et Théodose devant les églises orientales, étude tirée des sources grecques et arméniennes, in Rev. catholiq. E. III. (1857), 356-364, 401-414, 507-521. Louvain, 1857. 8^o.

Nicolai, Joan. De Constantini baptismo, ubi, quando et a quo fuerit celebratus, historica dissertatio. Paris, 1680. 12^o, 266 pp. (1690, Vogt.)

Ohnesorge, W. Der Anonymus Valesii de Constantino. 1885. 8^o, 112 pp. Reviewed at length by Fr. Görres, in Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 29 (1886), 504-512. It is, in fact, a most interesting and exhaustive study of the document.

Ongaroni, Franc. Dissertationes III. de moribus et religione Constantini Magni, de Juliani religione et gestis, deque templi Hierosolymitani instauratione ab eodem Juliano attentata et divinitus impedita. Mediolani, 1778. 4^o.

Oordt, J. W. G. Van. Constantijn de Groote en zijne voorgangers, eine studie over den Romeinschen keizertijde. I Deel. Haarlem, 1868. 8^o, x, 383 pp. This first part takes only to Antoninus Pius.

Origine della Donazione di Costantino secundo il Döllinger. In Civilità cattolica, Ser. 5, v. 10 (1864), 303-330.

Papebrochius. Comment histor. In Acta s. s. Bolland. Maii V. (1685), 12-27 pl. Cf. Jun. p. 16-.

Penon. Des monnaies de Constantin-le-Grand relatives à la Provence. In Rep. Trav. soc. statist. Marseille. 28 (1866), 176-182. Such as relate to coinage at Arles.

Pfahler. Trad fr. Histoire de Constantin le Grand et de son siècle. 1862. 8^o, 202 pp.

(Pilati, C. Ant.) Gesch. d. Veränderungen in d. Regierungu d. Gesetzen u. d. menschl. Geiste von Constantins Bekehrung an bis auf d. Untergang d. weström-Reichs. A. d. Franz. Leipz. 1784.

Plate, W. Constantinus I. In Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biog. 1 (1859), 831-837.

Polus, Regin....De baptismo Constantini Magni imper....Romæ, Paul Manut, 1562, 4^o; Dilingæ, 1562, 8^o; Venet. 1563, 4^o; Lovanii, 1567, fol.

Prologue and epilogue to the last new play, Constan the Great [by N. Lee]. s. e. (1683), one leaf, fol.

Rallaye, Léonce de la. De la donation de Constantin d'après le Dr. Doellinger [i.e. Papst leg.]. In Le Monde (1864), Juillet, 3, p. 3-4; Juillet, 7, p. 3-4. Review, but has value of an original article. Origin in France.

La rappresentatione di Costantino imperatore et di San Silvestro Papa, et di Santa Elena Imperatrice. Stampata in Siena, con licenza de' superiori, et ristampata in Orvieto. [1550?? B. M. Catal.; Fierenze, 1562, 4^o; do. 1588. 4^o.]

Reign of Constantine the Great. In Dublin Rev. 1857. XLII. 490.

Reiskius, Joannes. (Program.) 1681. 4^o.

Reumont, Alfred von. Constantin der Grosse. In his Gesch. d. Stadt Rom, 1 (Berlin, 1867), B. 3, Abschn. 2=p. 595-646. p. 859-860 has a Chronological table of reign of Constantine.

Revellat, J. P. Notice sur une remarquable particularité que présente toute une série de milliaires de Constantin le Grand. In Rev. archéolog. 1883, c. 11. 39-48, 69-78, 148-155; Par. 188-. 8^o. Cf. Thédenat, H. in Bull. critiq. 1885, vi. 69-73. The name of Maximian removed.

Richardson, Samuel. The necessity of toleration in matters of religion...Here also is the copy of the Edict of the Emperors Constantine and Licinius. Lond. 1647, p. (2) 21 (1). Edict, p. 1-3.

Richter, Heinrich. Das weströmische Reich. Berlin, 1865. 8^o, p. 31-101, "Die römischen Kaiser und die christliche Kirche von Diocletian bis zum Tode Constantins I."

Romane, Alfred. Essai sur Constantin et ses rapports avec l'église chrétienne. Thèse présentée à la Faculté de théologie protestante de Strasbourg. Strasbourg, 1867. 8^o, p. (2) 114. Study of relation of church and state in fourth century. Does not find one solitary evidence of regenerate life in Constantine. He had no religion but his policy.

Rossignol, Jean. Pierre. Virgile et Constantin le Grand. 1^e p. Paris, 1845. 8^o. Première partie, p. (2) xxxvi, 351 (1). Examines Eclogue of Virgil found in C.'s Oration and arrives at conclusion that "beyond a doubt" Constantine did not write the oration, but Eusebius "le coupable c'est Eusèbe."

Rouille, Joannes Ludovicus du. Orat. posterior de Constantino Magno dicta...III. Nonas. Februarii, No. c/o, iocii. Delfis....4^o, 14 pp. Brief, rhetorical, eulogistic, worthless.

Royon, Jas. C. Hist. du Bas-Empire depuis Constantin. v. 1-4. Paris, xii-1803. 8^o.

Sagittarius, Joh. Christfried. Dissertatio histor. de Constantino Magno. Jenæ, 1650. 4^o.

Sandinus, Ant. Disput. histor. (1742), 135-149.

St. Victor, Léonard de. Fondation de Constantinople. In Anal. Jur. Pontif. XII. (1873), col. 402-414.

---- ----. Apparition de la croix à l'emper. Constantin. In Anal. juris pontif. XII. (1873), 389-401. Moyen d'accorder Lactance avec Eusèbe. Written middle of last century; mss. in Bibl. Nat.

Schaff, P. Constantine the Great and the Downfall of Paganism in the Roman Empire. In Biblioth. Sac. 1863; XX. 778. Review of Burckhardt, Keim, and Stanley's Eastern Church.

Scheffer-Boichorst, P. Neuere Forsuchungen über die konstantinische Schenkung. In Mtthlgn. des Inst. f. oesterreich. Geschichtsforschg. 10 (1889), 302-325.

Schelstrate, Emanuel. Antiq. illust. circa Concil Gen., etc., et præcipua tr. Hist. Eccles. Cog. Antv. 1678, p. 11, diss III. c. VI. De baptismo Constantini num Romæ a S. Silvestro num Nicomediæ ab Eusebio collatus fuit, an potius et Romæ et Nicomediæ.

Die Schenkung Constantin's. Mainz, 1866. 8^o. Translated from Civilità Cattolica.

Schmidius, Jo. Andr. In hist. Ser. IV. fabulis Variorum, etc. Helmst. 1712. 4^o. (Conradus resp.).

Schmidt, O. Zur Beurtheilung Constantins des Grossen. Duisberg, 1863. 4^o. Progr.

Schoepflin. Constantinus Magnus non fuit britannus. In Commentationes historicæ. Basil, 1741. 4^o.

Schroeckh, J. M. Leben des Kaisers Constantin des Grossen. In his Allgemeine Biographie. Cf. Num. 66.

Schultze, Viktor. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Konstantin's des Gr. In Ztschr. f. Kirchengeschichte, 7 (1885), 343-371; 8 (1886), 517-542. 1. Die römische Bildsäule mit dem Kreuze. 2. Die Tempelbauten in Konstantinopel. 3. Die Inschrift von Hispellum. 4. Konstantin und die Haruspicen. 5. Der Staat und das Osferwesen. 6. Der Untergang des Licinius.

Schurzfleisch, Conr. Sam. Quæ sit vera origo imperii Rom. christiani. In his Controverss, XXXV.

---- ----. Dissertatio de primo christianorum imperatore. Wittebergæ, 1679. 4^o, 52 pp. (præs. M. Difenbach).

Schwarz. Colleg. histor. 8 (1737), 436-715.

Scultetus, Abrah. Confutatio Cæs. Baronii de baptismo Constantini Magni. Neustadii, 1607. 4^o.

Seeberg. Zur konstantinischen Schenkung. In Theol. Literaturblatt, 1890, cols. 25-27, 33-36, 41-45. Rev. of Friedrich.

Seeck, Otto. Quellen und Urkunden über die Aufänge des Donatismus. In Ztschr. f. Kirchenges 10 (1889), 505-568. A very systematic and interesting examination of sources.

---- ----. Die Verwandtenmorde Constantin's des Grossen. In Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 33 (1890), 63-77. While disclaiming any attempt to whitewash Constantine, he finds his conduct not incompatible with being a good Christian.

Sevestre. Dict. patrol. I. (1861), 1137-1148.

Simonides, Constant. Panegyric of that holy and apostolic heaven-crowned King Constantine the Great. London, 1854. 8^o.

Smith, W. Browning. Constantine. In Enc. Brit. 6 (1878), 298-301.

Solikov, I. I. Moscow, 1810. In Russian.

Stapfer, Edm. Constantin I. In Lichtenberger, Encycl. des. sciences rel. 3 (1878), 388-393.

Steuchus, August. Contra Laurent Valla. De falsa donatione Constantini...Lugduni Bat. 1545, 8^o; 1547, 4^o.

Streso, J. A. Konstantijn de Groote en Karel de Groote. Arnhem, 1836. 8^o.

Struve, Bern. Gotth. Bibl. hist. V. (1790), 1, 178-207.

---- ----. Dissertatio de Constantino Magno ex rationibus politicis christiano. Jenæ, 1713. 4^o. See Hesse.

Suchier. Disputationis de Zosimi et Eusebii, historiarum scriptorum in Constantini Magni imperatoris rebus exponendis fide et auctoritate, part I. Hersfeld, 1856. 4^o. 25 pp. Gymn. Progr.

----. Qualem Eusebius Constantinum Magnum imperatorem adumbraverat, paucis exponitur. Hersfeld, 1857. 4^o, 36 pp.

Suhr, Balthus, Joachim. Constantini Magni signo crucis Christi in nubibus viso, ad Christianismum inauguratus (præs. J. J. Weidner). Rostochii, 1703. (Suhr, not Weidner?)

Tacut, Gulielmus. Oratio in Donationem Constantini Magni nomine falso jactatam. Delphis, 1726. 4^o. Do. Rom. 1755. No use.

Tentzel, Guil, Ern. Examen fabulæ Romanæ de duplici baptismo Constantini Magni. Witteberge, 1683. 4^o.

Thielmann. Ueber Sprache und Kritik des libellus de Constantino Magno ejusque matre Helena. In Blätter f. d. bayerische Gymnasialwesen, 16 (1880), 124-.

Theirry, Amadée. Constantin en Gaule. In Acad. d. sciences mor. et polit., 9 (1846), 349-364. Pleasantly written resumé of the period, with not very exact characterization of Constantine in very attractive style.

---- ----. XI. (1847), 374-387. Fragment d'histoire sur la politique chrètienne de Constantin. Takes the heathen side. Neat rhetorically.

Thomasius, Christ. De fide scriptorum Constantini Magni. In Observatt Hallens. XXII. I. Treats especially Zosimus. Cf. Vogt. p. 15-16.

---- ----. In fabulas de parentibus Constantini Magni. In Obs. Hall. T. 1, n. 23, p. 377-388.

Tillemont. Histoire des empereurs, 4 (1697), 76-381, 613-664.

Tiraboschi. Stor. lett. Ital. II. (1806), 373-377, 457.

Tobler, Adolf. Kaiser Constantinus als betrogner Ehemann. In Jahrb. Roman. Engl. Lit. 13 (=N.F.I.) (1874), 104-108. Various allusions in old French poetry.

Toderini, Giambatt. La Costantiniana apparizione della croce difesa contro...G. A. Fabrico. Venezia, 1773. 4^o.

Trescho, Leb. F. Beitr. üb. einige Vorwürfe wider d. Ksr. Constantin d. Gr. In his Brr. üb. d. neueste theol. Literat. II. 360-.

Unger, Friedrich Wilhelm. Die Bauten Constantin's des Grossen am heiligen Grabe zu Jerusalem. Göttingen, 1866. 8^o. iv, 128 pp. Abdruck aus Benfey, Th., Orient. u. Occid. II. 177-232, 385-466. He thinks to demonstrate that a part of the Haram in Jerusalem has indisputable evidences of Constantinian origin. He seems to build dangerously much on Fergusson (Lond. 1847).

Valentini. Il codice di Eusebio della Biblioteca Queriniana di Brescia illustrato. In Commentari dell' Ateneo di Brescia, 1885, p. 20-32 (?).

Valla, Laurentius. De falso credita et ementita donatione Constantini. For various editions, see Graesse, vol. 6. 2, p. 249, and the Étude of Bonneau. The edition of 1520 is usually cited as princeps, for the first edition was published clandestinely by Ulrich von Hutten in 1517. A convenient one is that with translation by Bonneau, Paris, 1879. It was written in the middle of the fifteenth century, and for venturing to deny the authority of the Donation, the author was obliged to flee in disguise from Rome.

Varenne, Bernard de. Histoire de Constantin le Grand, 1er empereur chrétien. Par. 1728. 4^o.

Valois, Charles de. Discours dans lequel on prétend faire voir que les médailles qui portent pour légende: F. Cl. Constantinus Jun N. C. n'apartiennent point à Constantin le jeune fils de Constantin le Grand. In Soc. Trav. Acad. inscr. et belles let. 4^o. V. 3. Maintains that all such medals belong to a brother of Constantine, and not to his son.

Vedelius, Nicolaus. De episcopatu Constantini Magni seu de potestate magistratuum Reformatorum circa res Ecclesiasticas dissertatio. Repetita cum responsione ad interrogata quædam. Franekenæ, Apud Uldericum Balck, 1642. p. (48) 143. Nature indicated by sub-title. Takes as text Constantine's remark that he, too, was a bishop. (V. c. 4, 24.)

Vincentius Belvacensis. Spec. hist. XIV. 1, 43-44, 47-58, 102.

Visconti. Sopra la cristianità di Costantino Magno, dimonstrata co monumenti e con le medaglie....In Atti Accad. Rom. Archeol. VI. (1835), 207-228. "Sopra il nimbo usato ne' ritiatti di esso imperatore."

Vogt, Joh. Historia litteraria Constantini Magni, plus centum et quinquaginta rerum Constantinianarum Scriptores sistens. Hamburgi, Apud Viduam B. Schilleri & J. C. Kisnerum, 1720.

Compare for older literature on Constantine. There is long account of literature by topics.

Voigt, Gottfr. Vita Constantini Magni disputatione historica descripta. Rostochii, 1675. 4^o.

Voigt, Moritz. Drei epigraphische Constitutionen Constantin's des Grossen und ein epigraphisches Rescript des præf. Præt. Ablavius....Leipzig, 1860. 8^o. ix. (1) 242. The documents occupy to p. 42. The remainder of the work taken up with an essay on the Pagi and Vici of the Roman Empire.

Walch, Chr. Guil. Franc. De tois eiso tes ekklesias et tois ektos Constantini Magni Commentatio. D. II. August, MCCDLXXXIII. lecta. In Comment. Soc. Reg. Sci. Gotting. vi. 2, 1783-84 (Got. 1785), 81-106. Separate title-page to part 2, dated 1784. Is a discussion of Constantin's famous saying. Gives passim many references to writers who have discussed the question.

Walther, Balthas. Diatribe elenchetica de imperatoris Constantini Magni baptismo, donatione et legatione ad concilium Nicænum. Jenæ, 1816. 12^o.

Wegnerus, Joh. Ernestus. Constantinus Magnus Imperator, Maximorum postulatus criminum, sed potiori parte absolutus ex Judiciali Gen. (Præs. Georgi Casp. Kirchmaieri.) Wittenbergæ, 1698, 16 pp. Note title.

Weidner, Johan. Joach. (resp. Johannes Goethe). Dissertatio historica de Constantino Magno qua illum honeste & ex legitimo matrimonio natum contra G. Arnoldum vindicatur ac defenditur. Rostochii, 1702. 4^o, p. (2) 34. Weidner is præses. The dedication is by Goethe to his father, and Goethe is called author by the British Museum Catalogue.

---- ----. Constantinus Magnus superatis juventæ discriminibus legitimus tandem patris Constantii successor. 1702; ib. 1703, p. (4) 40. Accorded to Weidner by Vogt. "Burck" is respondant, and seems by preface to be author, but?

---- ----. Dissertatio de Constantino Magno Signo crucis Christi in nubibus viso ad Christianismum inaugurato. ib. 1703. 4^o.

Weiland, L. Die constantinische Schenkung. In Ztschr. f. Kirchenrecht, 22 (1887), 137-160; 22 (1888), 185-210. Origin was between 813 and 875 and was by contemporary of Hadian I.

Wernsdorf, Jo. Chr. D. de visu Constantini Magni locus Eumenii Rhetoris capite xxi. Panegyrici Constantini dictus explicatus. In Stosch. Ferd., Museum Crit. II11. (Lemgoviae, 1778), 131-187. Shows that the "appearance related by Eumenius (as taking place in Gaul) is the same as that referred to by Eusebius."

Wernsdorf, E. F. De Constantini Magni religione Paschali ad Euseb. de vita Const. M. b. iv. c. 22. Wittebergæ, 1758. 4^o, pp. 24. Constantine's piety exemplified in his paschal observance.

Werveke, N. van. Trouvaille d'Ermsdorf. Médailles romaines de l'époque de Constantin. p. 440-498. Descriptive catalogue of coins and medals found at Emsdorf in 1880, intermingled with discussion. Large number. Interesting. Also something "In Public. hist. Instit. Luxembourg (1881-1882), XXXV. 450-476"?

Wesselofsky, Alex. Le dit de l'empereur Constant. In Romania, 6 (Paris, 1877), 161-198 (cf. G. Paris, 588-596, VII. 331. Poem from ms. in Copenhagen. Records three redactions of the story.

Westphalen, Comte de. La date de l'avènement au trône de Constantin le Grand, d'après Eusèbe et les médailles. In Revue numismatique (1877), 26-42.

Weytingh, Joannes Henricus Arnoldus. Disquisitio historica de Constantino Magno. Daventriæ, 1826. 8^o. (4) 74 (2). Treats: 1. State of empire to death of Augustus; 2. State of empire to death of Constantius Chlorus; 3. Constantine and his acts; 4. Critical estimate of Constantine.

Withof, Frid. Theod. Dissertatio histor. de ficta Constantini Magni lepra. Lingen, 1767. 4^o.

Wolff, Joh. Chrtph. Disputatio de visione crucis Constantino Magno in coelo oblatæ. Witteb. 1706. 4^o. "1707" (Danz); "also in Oelrichs German liter. opusce, II. 303-" (Danz).

Woltereck, Chr. Exercitatio critica qua disputatur crucem quam in coelis vidisse se juravit Constantinus Magnus Imperator, fuisse naturalem, in Halone Solari. (Praes J. A. Fabricius.) Hamburgi, 1706, pp. 32 and plate. (Not Fabricus?)

Wordsworth. Constantine the Great and his sons: Constantinus I. In Smith & Wace. Dict. 1 (1877), 624-649. Treats Authorities, Life, in three periods, Legislation and Policy, Character and Writings, Vision of the Cross, and Coins.

Zahn, Thdr. Constantin der Grosse und die Kirche. Hannover, 1876. Gr. 8^o, 35 pp.

Zeumer, K. Der älteste Text des Constitutum Constantini. Berlin, 1888. In Festgabe für Gneist.

Note 1.-The number of works which have suggested themselves as really necessary to complete a working list for the student of Constantine is very great. Some works like Hefele's Conciliengeschichte seem indispensable, others like Harnack's article in Herzog, Encykl. on the Konstantinopolitanisches Symbol have a very important correlative bearing, and ought really to be especially mentioned because the general student would not readily find them out. Several works on the historical value of Eusebius' Life of Constantine, also should really have been inserted. The latest of these is:

Crivellucci, A. Della fede storica di Eusebio nella vita di Costantino: appendice al volume I. della Storia delle relazioni tra lo stato e la chiesa. Livorno, tip. di Raffaelo Giusti edit. 1888. 8^o, 145 pp. Reviewed in Nuova Antologia, Ser. 3, vol. 21, 1 Maggio, 1889; by F. Görres, in Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 33. 1 (1890); by V. Schultze, Theol. Litbl. (1889), Nos. 9, 10. Says that the life of Constantine is no better than a historical novel.

For farther literature on special points compare references in the notes.

Note 2.--The attempt to secure accuracy in the above list has proved one of great difficulty. All references could not be verified, and as "conjectural emendation" is even more dangerous in bibliography than in textual criticism, readings have not generally been changed excepting on what seemed actual evidence. The only way to avoid laying oneself open to criticism in making a bibliography is not to make it. The editor can only say for this that a great deal of pains has been expended on improving accuracy as well as in gathering titles and anotating. The difficulty is shown in the fact that the work quoted on the double authority of Oettinger and of Chevalier as by Janus, proves on securing the work itself, after the list is in plate, to be really by Vogt and dedicated to Janus.

II.--Special Prolegomena.

§1. The Life of Constantine.

1. Editions

The Life is found in the editions of Eusebius (compare list in Dr. McGiffert's Prolegomena) of 1544 (p. 117^a-), 1612 (p. 301-), 1659, 1672, 1678, 1720 (p. 583-) and 1822 at least. The edition of Heinichen first published in 1830 (p. 1-332, 333-406, 407-500) and republished in 1869: Eusebius Pamphili Vita Constantini et Panegyricus atque Constantini ad sanctorum Coetum oratio. Recensuit cum annotatione critica atque indicibus denuo edidit...Lipsiæ, Hermann Mendelssohn, 1869. 8^o is the latest and best.

2. Translations

The editions of Latin translations are very numerous. Basil. 1549, Portesius (V.C. 650-698, O.C. 698-715, no L.C.); Basil, 1557, Musculus (V.C. 158-215, O.C. 217-231, no L.C.); Basil, 1559 (V.C. 650-698, O.C. 698-715); Par. 1562, Musculus (V.C. 160-218, O.C. 218-234); Antv. 1568 (?), Christophorson (V.C. 224-306^a, O.C. 306^b-326^a, L.C. 326^b-361); Basil, 1570, Portesius (V.C. 862-914, O.C. 915-932) and Christophorson (L.C. 932-971); Paris, 1571, Christophorson (258-341, 341-362, 362-397); Basil, 1579, Portesius (V.C. 862-914, O.C. 915-932), and Christophorson (L.C. 923-971); Paris, 1581 (V.C. p. 214-297, O.C. 297-317, L.C. 317-355); Colon. 1581, Christophorson (V.C. 195-268, O.C. 269-286, L.C. 287-317); "1591 (Grynæus)"; Basil, 1611 (Grynæus), Christophorson (V.C. 118-170, O.C. 171-184, no L.C.); Paris, 1677, Valesius (V.C. 164-232, O.C. 233-248; L.C. 249-275); Frf. ad M. 1695, Valesius (328-465, 466-497, 498-549); Cambr. 1720 (Reading) Valesius; Cambr. 1746 (Reading) Valesius; 1822 (Zimmermann), Valesius (772-1046, 1047-1117, 1118-1232); Par. 1842 (Cailleau). The editions of 1612, 1659, and 1672 at least also have Latin translations. There is a French translation by J. Morin, Histoire de la délivrance de l'Église, &c., Par. 1630, fol., and another by Cousin, Par. 1675, 4º, and 1686, 4º. There is a German translation by Stroth, Quedlinb. 1799, v. 2, p. 141-468, and one by Molzberger. Kempten, 1880. For English translations, see the following paragraph.

3. English translations

The first English translation of Eusebius was by Merideth Hanmer (compare Prolegomena of Dr. McGiffert). The first editions of Hanmer did not contain the Life of Constantine. It is a little hard to distinguish the early editions, but there were at least three, and perhaps four, editions (1577 (76), 1585 (84), 1607, 1619?), before there was added in 1637 to the 1636 edition ("fourth edition" not "fifth edition 1650," as Wood, Athenæ Oxon.), a translation by Wye Saltonstall as follows:

Eusebius | His life of Constantine, | in foure | bookes. | With Constantine's Oration to the Clergie |... | London. | Printed by Thomas Cotes, for Michael Sparke, and are to be | sold at the blue Bible in greene Arbour | 1637; fol. pp. (2) 1-106 (E), 107-132 (C), 133-163 (4) (L.C.). The dedication by the "translator" is signed Wye Saltonstall. This was reprinted: London. Printed by Abraham Miller, dwelling in Black Friers, 1649. fol., and is probably the same as that quoted often (e.g. Hoffmann) as 1650. The Life occupies p. 1-74. It was again reprinted, London, 1656, fol., it is said, revised and enlarged. The former editions having become exhausted, it was proposed to re-edit and republish Hanmer's (Saltonstall's) version, but the editor found it "a work of far greater labor to bring Dr. Hanmer's Translation to an agreement with the Greek Text of Valesius' Edition, than to make a New One," which latter thing he accordingly did and did well. It was published in 1682, with the following title:

The | Life | of | Constantine | in four books, | Written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cæsarea in | Palestine; done into English from that edition set forth by | Valesius, and Printed at Paris in the Year 1659. | Together with | Valesius's Annotations on the said Life, which are made | English, and set at their proper places in the margin. | Hereto is also annext the Emperour Constantine's Oration to the | Convention of the Saints, and Eusebius Pamphilus's Speech concerning the praises of Constantine, | spoken at his tricennalia. | Cambridge, | Printed by John Hayes, Printer to the University, 1682, fol. This was published with the 1683 edition of the History, and so is properly 1683 in spite of title-page. In 1692 this was reprinted with a general title-page, but otherwise identically the same edition with same sub-titles and same paging. In 1709 a new edition was published, also with the History, having substantially the same matter on the title-page but The second edition. London. Printed for N. and J. Churchill, in the Year 1709. In this paging is the same (527-633), but there is preliminary matter added before the History. This version is said by Crusé (compare also Dr. McGiffert's Prolegomena) to be by T. Shorting. Whoever it was by, it was well done and most interesting. In the course of time, however, it became antiquated in form, and there was added in 1845 to the Bagster edition of the ecclesiastical historians an anonymous translation:

The | Life | of | the Blessed Emperor | Constantine, | in four books. | From 306-337 a.d | By | Eusebius Pamphilus |... | London: | Samuel Bagster and Sons; |... | MDCCCXLV. 8º p. xx, 380. This translation is in somewhat inflated style, which perhaps represents Eusebius and Constantine better than a simpler one, but which sometimes out-Herods Herod, as, e.g. in the oration of Constantine, p. 279, where it takes fourteen English words to express seven Greek ones, "Far otherwise has it been during the corrupt and lawless period of human life" for "It was not thus in lawless times." A quotation from Matthew (xxvi. 52) on p. 267 takes eight words in the original, twelve in the 1881 Revised Version, sixteen in the phrase of Constantine, and twenty-two in this translation. The translation is made from the edition of Valesius, not the first of Heinichen, as appears from the division of Bk. I, chap. 10, and similar peculiarities. The present edition (1890) is a revision of the translation of 1845 founded on the edition of Heinichen.

4. Author and date

Almost no fact of history is unquestioned; therefore the unquestionable authorship of Eusebius has been questioned. Some have made the author Macarius (compare Vog. Hist. lit. p. 12), evidently on the ground of the letter (3. 52) which the author says was addressed to himself, but which is to Macarius and others, but there is no real doubt of the Eusebian authorship. It was written after the death of Constantine (337), and therefore between 337 and 340, when Eusebius died. The interesting hypothesis of Meyer (p. 28) that it was perhaps written mainly in Constantine's lifetime, at the suggestion and under the direction of Constantine, to defend him against charges brought, or which might be brought, against him, is worth mentioning, although it is more ingenious than probable. The headings of the chapters are by another, though probably not much later, and a competent hand (cf. Lightfoot).

5. Trustworthiness of Eusebius

The value of a writer is determined by (1) His sources of knowledge, (2) His own intellectual and moral ability. Again, the criticism of a given work seeks whether the aim proposed for that work has been truly fulfilled. A man who attempts a treatise on Geometry is not to be criticised because he omits mention of sulphuric acid, or if he proposes a description of Wagner's music, because he does not produce a Helmholtz on Sound. The application of these principles to Eusebius' Life of Constantine requires brief examination of 1. The proposed scope of the work. 2. The character of the sources. 3. The intellectual and moral competency of Eusebius on the premises.

(1) The Scope of the Work. This is quite definitely outlined (i. 11). In contrast with those who have recorded the evil deeds of other emperors and have thus "become to those who by some favor had been kept apart from evil, teachers not of good, but of what should be silenced in oblivion and darkness," he proposes to record the noble actions of this emperor. He proposes, however, to pass over many things,--his wars, personal bravery, victories, and successes, his legislative acts, and many other things, and confine himself to such things as have reference to his religious character. His aim, therefore, is distinctly limited to his religious acts, and it is not stretching his meaning too far to say, expressly limited to his virtuous actions.

(2) Character of the Sources. Respecting this there is endless controversy. The fullness of material is unquestionable, the intellectual competency of Eusebius is almost equally so, and the questionings regard mainly whether the author has made a proper use of material. Opinions are various, but this does not mean that they are equally well grounded and valuable. Some of the latest judgments are the most severe. Crivellucci (Livorno, 1888) calls it an historical novel, and Görres, in a review of Crivellucci, agrees that it is worth less than the Panegyrics of Eumenius and Nazarius, which is certainly milder than Manso's (p. 222) "more shameless and lying" than these. Right or wrong, this is a frequently repeated view. Some (Hely, p. 141) cannot speak too strongly of the "contempt" which he "deserves," and accuse of "pious fraud" or the next thing to it (Kestner, 1816, p. 67). For farther criticisms consult the works cited by Dr. McGiffert under Literature, and the special works on Eusebius cited in the Literature to Constantine above, passim. The criticisms group generally around 1. The suppression of the facts respecting the deaths of Crispus, &c., and various others derogatory to Constantine. 2. The eulogistic tone and coloring of the work, especially the very pietistic saintly sort of flavor given to Constantine.

As to the suppression of facts, note (1) That he gives entire warning of his plan. It would have been artistically and ethically improper, in a work which distinctly sets out with such purpose, to admit that class of facts. It takes more or less from the value of the work, but it does not reflect on the general trustworthiness of what is said. (2) No similar judgment is passed on Eutropius, the Victors, Anonymous Valesianus or Zosimus, for not mentioning his pious acts. (3) A comparison of most biographies of living and dead presidents, kings, and emperors will be greatly to the advantage, even, of this fourth century eulogist over those of our boasted critical age.

As to the eulogistic and exaggerated tone, observe (1) That it was more or less justified. That is, the premises of the criticism which are substantially that Constantine was not saintly or pietistic and was non-committal toward Christianity, are false. His extreme testimony is backed by very general testimony in the election of Constantine to technical saintship. (2) That is compares well with modern eulogists and extremely well with the contemporary Panegyrists of Constantine. (3) That Eusebius takes care frequently to guard his statements by quoting his source, as in the matter of the vision of the cross, or by ascribing to hearsay.

In general, the work stands much on the same level as the biographies of generals in the late civil war, or of presidents, written by admiring members of their staffs or cabinets, incorporating authentic documents, intending to be truthful, and generally succeeding, but yet full of the enthusiasm of admiring friendship and inclined not to see, or to extenuate or even suppress, faults and mistakes. Nevertheless, they are valuable on the positive side as the real testimony to genuinely believed excellency by those in the position to know intimately. Eusebius is, substantially, genuine. Such supreme hypocrisy as would produce this work, without admiring respect and after its subject was dead, is inconceivable in him. All the unconscious turns of phrase show at least a consistent attitude of mind. The work is, in brief, by a competent author, from ample sources and without intentional falsification or misrepresentation. It probably represents the current Christian view of the man as accurately and honestly as any biography of Lincoln or the Emperor William written within a year or two of their deaths has done. As we now think of these two men whom doubtless inquisitive criticism might find to have faults, so the Christians in general and his friend Eusebius in particular thought of the Great Emperor. Compare discussion and literature of the trustworthiness of Eusebius as a historical writer in the Prolegomena of Dr. McGiffert in this volume.

6. Value of the Work

That the work on any basis but the untenable one of out-and-out forgery should be characterized as "worthless" or "a mere romance" or "of less value than the heathen panegyrists" is a curious bit of psychological performance, for it does precisely what it grounds its contempt for Eusebius on,--suppresses and exaggerates. Taking the minimum residuum of the most penetrating criticism, and the work is yet a source of primary value for understanding the man Constantine. This residuum includes (1) The documents which the work contains. These amount at the very least estimate to more than one-fourth of the whole matter, and the appended oration of Constantine is nearly as much more. (2) Many facts and details where there could be no possibility of motive for falsifying. (3) Much which critical care can draw out of the over-statements of eulogy.

§2. Oration of Constantine.

The Editions and Translations of this work are substantially identical with those of the Life. See above, under Life. The Authenticity of the work has been doubted, and its composition ascribed to Eusebius or some other Christian writer, but without sufficient reason. It was appended by Eusebius to his Life of Constantine as specimens of the latter's style (cf. V.C. 4. 32). As such it shows a man of some learning, though learning taken at second hand, it is thought, from Lactantius and others (cf. Wordsworth's Constantine I.). It was composed in Latin, and translated into Greek by the special officials appointed for such work (V.C. 4. 32). It was delivered on Good Friday, but in what year or where is not known. It has been placed before the year 324 (Ceiller, 130), but the mention of events and the character of the work itself suggest a considerably later date.

§3. Oration of Eusebius.

The Editions and Translations of this work are substantially identical with those of the Life, above, but some of the earlier ones do not contain the work. It was delivered in the year 336 (or possibly 335) at Constantinople, in celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's accession, Constantine himself being present (cf. V.C. 4. 46 and O.C. 1). It gave the emperor lively satisfaction, from which one may safely infer a peculiar taste for combined panegyric and philosophical theology unless the hypothesis of a double work be true. According to this hypothesis the work consists of two separate orations, spoken perhaps at different times, the first including chapters 1-10, which are panegyrical in character, and the other chapters 11-18, which are theological (compare Lightfoot, Eusebius, p. 343; also McGiffert, Prolegomena, p. 43). It is like the oration of Constantine, a proper part of the Life of Constantine being appended according to his promise in Bk. 4, ch. 46.

The special points relating to these works are treated in the notes.

constantine.

I. The Life of Constantine.

II. The Oration of Constantine.