NPNF2-01 Eusebius 657

657 34 We do not know when Christianity was first preached in Armenia, but late in the third century Gregory, “the Illuminator,” an Armenian of royal blood who had received a Christian training in Cappadocia, returned as a missionary to his native land, which was mainly heathen, and at the beginning of the fourth century succeeded in converting the king, Tiridates III., and a large number of the nobles and people, and Christianity was established as the state religion (see (the articles Armenia and Gregory, the Illuminator, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).

The Armenians had been friends of the Romans for many generations and allies in their wars with the Persians on many occasions. The present war is mentioned, so far as I know, only by Eusebius. According to §4, below, it ended in a defeat for Maximinus. It cannot have been a war of great consequence. It was very likely little more than a temporary misunderstanding, resulting perhaps in a few skirmishes between troops on the border, and speedily settled by a treaty of some kind or another. Maximinus at any rate could not afford to quarrel long with his Eastern neighbors, in view of the struggle with Licinius which he knew must come in time. Whether the Armenians or the Romans were the aggressors in this affair, Eusebius does not tell us. It is very probable, as Mason suggests, that Maximinus tried to put down Christianity in Lesser Armenia, which was a Roman province and therefore under his sway, and that their brethren in the kingdom of Armenia took up arms against Rome to avenge their kindred and their faith.

35 See the previous chapter, §8.

36 An Attic drachm was a silver coin, worth about eighteen or nineteen cents.

37 aulwn te kai ktupwn).

38 All the mss., followed by Valesius and Crusè, give this as the title of the next chapter, and give as the title of this chapter the one which I have placed at the head of chapter 10. It is plain enough from the contents of the two chapters that the titles have in some way become transposed in the mss., and so they are restored to their proper position by the majority of the editors, whom I have followed.

39 See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13.

40 On Licinius. see ibid. note 21. Constantine and Licinius were both Augusti, and thus nominally of equal rank. Nevertheless, both in the edict of Galerius, quoted in Bk. VIII. chap. 17, and in the edict of Milan, given in full in the De Mort. pers. chap. 48, Constantine’s name precedes that of Licinius, showing that he was regarded as in some sense the latter’s senior, and thus confirming Eusebius’ statement, the truth of which Closs unnecessarily denies. It seems a little peculiar that Constantine should thus be recognized as Licinius’ senior, especially in the edict of Galerius; for although it is true that he had been a Caesar some time before Licinius had been admitted to the imperial college, yet, on the other hand, Licinius was made Augustus by Galerius before Constantine was, and enjoyed his confidence and favor much more fully than the latter.

41 On Maxentius, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 1.

42 i.e. Maximinus. For an account of his defeat by Licinius and his death, see below, chap. 10.

43 oupw manento" tote. This refers to Licinius’ hostility to the Christians, which made its appearance some years later, and resulted in a persecution (see (below, Bk. X. chap. 8). The clause, if a part of the original, obliges us to suppose that the ninth book was composed after Licinius had begun to persecute, but there are strong reasons for thinking that the first nine books were completed before 314 (see (above, p. 45); indeed, we cannot explain Eusebius’ eulogistic words in speaking of Licinius here and elsewhere in this book on any other ground. It seems necessary, therefore, to regard this clause and the similar clause in §12, below, as later insertions, made possibly at the time of the addition of the tenth book (see (p. 45).

658 44 See above, note 2.

45 Constantine’s battle with Maxentius, described in this chapter, took place on the sixth anniversary of the latter’s accession, Oct. 27, 312 (see (Lactantius, De Mort. pers. 44 and 46). For particulars respecting Constantine himself and his campaign against Maxentius, see Dr. Richardson’s prolegomena to his translation of the Life of Constantine, p. 416. sq. of this volume.

46 (Ex 15,4,
Ex 15,5 Ex 15, phrase translated “charioteers” is anabata" tristata", which is employed in the LXX to translate the Hebrew wyvlvi

. The word vlvy

, which means literally a “third,” and hence a “third man” (Greek tristath", is used, according to Gesenius, to denote a chariot warrior, who was so called because “three always stood upon one chariot, one of whom fought, while the second protected him with the shield, and the third drove.”

47  Ex 15,5).

48 Psa. 7,15, Psa. 7,16.

49 (Ex 15,10 Ex 15,

50 Ibid. verse 1. Eusebius, in this and the next passage, follows the LXX, which differs considerably from the Hebrew.

51 The LXX, followed by Eusebius, reads dedoxasmeno" en agioi" to translate the Hebrew vdmbd DDABi

. It seems probable both from the Hebrew original and from the use of the plural doxai" in the next clause, that the LXX translator used the plural agioi", not to denote “saints,” as Closs renders (“ durch die Heiligen”), which would in strictness require the article, but “holiness.” I have therefore ventured to render the word thus in the text, although quite conscious that the translation does not accurately reproduce the Greek phrase as it stands.

659 52 (Ex 15,11 Ex 15,

53 Upon Constantine’s conversion, see Dr. Richardson’s prolegomena, p. 431, below. On the famous tale of the flaming cross with its inscription toutw nika, related in the Life of Constantine, I. 28, see his note on that passage, p. 490, below.

54 See above, note 5.

55 This is the famous edict of Milan, which was issued late in the year 312, and which is given in the Latin original in Lactantius’ De Mort. pers. 48, and in a Greek translation in Eusebius’ History, Bk. X. chap. 5, below. For a discussion of its date and significance, see the notes upon that chapter.

56 This epistle or rescript (Eusebius calls it here a gramma, just below an epistolh of Maximin’s was written before the end of the year 312, as can be seen from the fact that in §17, below, his visit to Nicomedia is spoken of as having taken place in the previous year. But that visit, as we learn from the De Mort. pers. chap. 36, occurred in 311 (cf. chap. 2, note 1, above). It must therefore have been issued immediately upon the receipt of the edict of Constantine and Licinius. As Mason remarks, his reasons for writing this epistle can hardly have been fear of Constantine and Licinius, as Eusebius states, for he was bent upon war against them, and attacked Licinius at the earliest possible moment. He cannot have cared, therefore, to take any special pains to conciliate them. He was probably moved by a desire to conciliate, just at this crisis, the numerous and influential body of his subjects whom he had persecuted, in order that he might not have to contend with disaffection and disloyalty within his own dominions during his impending conflict with Licinius. The document itself is a most peculiar one, full of false statements and contradictions. Mason well says: “In this curious letter Maximin contradicts himself often enough to make his Christian subjects dizzy. First he justifies bloody persecution, then plumes himself upon having stopped it, next apologizes for having set it again on foot, then denies that it was going on, and lastly orders it to cease. We cannot wonder at what Eusebius relates, that the people whose wrongs the letter applauded and forbade, neither built church nor held meeting in public on the strength of it; they did not know where to have it.”

57 On Sabinus, see above, chap. 1, note 3).

58 Nothing could be farther from the truth than this and the following statement.

59 That is, after the death of Galerius in the year 311. “Maximinus, on receiving this news (i.e. of the death of Galerius), hasted with relays of horses from the East that he might seize the provinces, and, while Licinius delayed, might arrogate to himself the Chalcedonian straits. On his entry into Bithynia, with the view of acquiring immediate popularity, he abolished the tax to the great joy of all. Dissension arose between the two emperors, and almost war. They stood on the opposite shores with their armies. But peace and friendship were established under certain conditions; a treaty was concluded on the narrow sea, and they joined hands” (Lactantius, De morg. pers. 36). See above, chap. 2, note 1.

60 On these embassies, see ibid. note 1.

61 There is no sign of such consideration in Maximin’s rescript, quoted in chap. 7, above. The sentences which follow are quite contradictory. Certainly no one could gain from them any idea as to what the emperor had done in the matter.

62 seismou", literally, “shakings,” or “shocks.” The word is doubtless used to translate the Latin concussio, which in legal language meant the extortion of money by threats or other similar means. The words concussio, concussor, concurtit, are used very frequently by Tertullian in this sense; e.g. in his De fuga in persecutione, chap. 12, ad Scap. chaps. 4 and 5, Apol. chap. 7. See especially Oehler’s note on the word in his edition of Tertullian’s works, I. p. 484.

660 63 benefikialiwn, a simple reproduction of the Latin beneficiarii. These beneficiarii were “free or privileged soldiers, who through the favor of their commander were exempt from menial offices” (Andrews’ Lexicon). We are nowhere told, so far as I am aware, that these beneficiarii were especially active in thus practicing extortions upon the Christians; but we can gather from Tertullian’s words in the various passages referred to that the Christians had to suffer particularly from the soldiers in this respect, and doubtless from the beneficiarii most of all; for they possessed more leisure than the common soldiers, and at the same time greater opportunity, because of their more intimate relations with the authorities, of bringing the Christians into difficulty by entering accusations against them.

64 toi" grammasi. On the use of the plural in speaking of a single epistle, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 12.

65 See note 24.

66 See above, note 17, and below, Bk. X. chap. 5).

67 On the transposition of the titles of chaps. 9 and 10, see the previous chapter, note 1.

68 That Maximin should arrogate to himself, as Eusebius says, the highest rank is not very surprising, when we realize that that position, in so far as any difference in rank between the different rulers was acknowledged, belonged to him by right, inasmuch as he was Constantine’s senior (having been first Caesar when the latter was only second), while Constantine (see (above, chap. 9, note 2) was regarded as the senior of Licinius.

69 The treaty made in 311,just after the death of Galerius (see (De mort. pers. 36).

70 This battle between Licinius and Maximin was fought on April 30, 313, at Adrianople, in Thrace. For a more detailed but somewhat imaginative account of the battle, see De mort. pers. chap. 45 sq. Lactantius is considerate enough to accord Licinius the honor of a divine vision, that he may not be behind his imperial colleague Constantine; and he is pious enough to ascribe the victory wholly to the divine aid vouchsafed in response to the prayers of Licinius and his soldiers.

71 The word Licinius is omitted by Laemmer and Heinichen, but without sufficient warrant, for it is found in nearly all the mss.

72 Lactantius (ibid. chap. 47) informs us that Maximin’s flight was so rapid that he reached Nicomedia, which was 160 miles from Adrianople, on the evening of the day following the battle. As Gibbon remarks, “The incredible speed which Maximin exerted in his flight is much more celebrated than his prowess in battle.”

73 (Ps 33,16–19.

661 74 The final toleration edict of Maximin must have been issued very soon after his defeat, and its occasion is plain enough. If he were to oppose Licinius successfully, he must secure the loyalty of all his subjects, and this could be done only by granting the Christians full toleration. He could see plainly enough that Licinius’ religious policy was a success in securing the allegiance of his subjects, and he found himself compelled in self-defense to pursue a similar course, distasteful as it was to him. There is no sign that he had any other motive in taking this step. Religious considerations seem to have had nothing to do with it; he was doubtless as much of a pagan as ever. The edict itself is composed in an admirable vein. As Mason remarks, “Maximin made the concession with so much dignity and grace, that it is impossible to help wishing that his language were truer.” As in the previous decree, he indulges his passion for lying without restraint; but, unlike that one, the present edict is straightforward and consistent throughout, and grants the Christians full liberty in the most unequivocal terms.

75 Maximin’s death took place at Tarsus (according to De mort. pers. chap. 49), and apparently within a few weeks after his defeat at Adrianople and the publication of his edict of toleration. The reports of his death are somewhat conflicting. Zosimus and the epitomist of Victor say merely that he died a natural death: Lactantius tells us that he took poison; while Eusebius in ae14 sq. gives us a horrible account of his last sickness which, according to him, was marked, to say the least, with some rather remarkable symptoms. Mason facetiously remarks that Eusebius seems to be thinking of a spontaneous combustion. It was quite the fashion in the early Church to tell dreadful tales in connection with the deaths of the persecutors, but in the present case exaggeration is hardly necessary, for it would seem from Lactantius’ account, that he died not of poison, as he states, but of delirium tremens. As Mason remarks, “It is probable that Maximin died of nothing worse than a natural death. But the death which was natural to him was the most dreadful perhaps that men can die. Maximin was known as an habitual drunkard; and in his dying delirium he is said to have cried out that he saw God, with assessors, all in white robes, judging him.”

76 See chap. 9, note 24.

77 i.e. the epistle addressed to Sabinus, and quoted in the previous chapter, which was written toward the end of 312 (see (that chapter, note 18).

78 See above, chap. 7.

79 Maximian died in 310 (see (above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 23), Galerius in 311 (see (ibid. chap. 16, note 5), Maxentius in 312 (see (above, chap. 9, note 7), and Diocletian early in 313 (see Bk. VIII. App. note 3)).

80 Of this Peucetius (Rufinus Peucedius)we know only what is told us here. Valesius says: “The name is to be rendered Picentius, a name which was borne by a certain calumniator in the time of Constantine, as is stated by Zosimus at the end of his second book. The Latins, indeed, call them Picentes whom the Greeks call Puketiou".”

81 twn kaqolou logwn eparco", apparently equivalent to the phrase epi twn kaqolou logwn, used in Bk. VII. chap. 10, §5. On its significance, see the note on that passage, and cf. Valesius’ note ad locum.

82 This same Culcianus appears in the Acts of St. Phileas of Thmuis (Ruinart, p. 434 sq.; see the extract printed in Mason, p. 290 sq). as the magistrate or governor under whom Phileas suffered in Thebais. He is doubtless to be identified, as Valesius remarks, with Culeianus (Koulhiano") mentioned by Epiphanius (Haer. LXVIII. 1) as governor of Thebais at the time of the rise of the Meletian schism, while Hierocles was governor of Alexandria.

83 Culcianus seems to have been governor of Thebais (where Phileas suffered, according to Bk. VIII. chap. 9), not of Egypt. Possibly Eusebius employs the word Egypt in its general sense, as including Thebais.

84 On Theotecnus, see above, chap. 2, note 4.

85 See chap. 3.

662 86 Lactantius (De mort. pers. chap. 50) tells us that Maximin left a wife and two children, a boy eight years old, named Maximus, and a daughter seven years old who was betrothed to Candidianus.

87 (Ps 146,3,
Ps 146,4 Ps 146,

88 See below, Bk. X. chap. 5).

1 This sketch of the life of Constantine is intended to give the thread of events, and briefly to supplement, especially for the earlier part of his reign, the life by Eusebius, which is distinctly confined to his religious acts and life.

2 “Imperator Caear Augustus Consul Proconsul Pontifex Maximus, Magnus, Maximus, Pius, Felix, Fidelis, Mansuetus, Benificus, Clementissimus, Victor, Invictus, Triumphator, Salus Reip. Beticus, Alemanicus, Gothicus, Sarmarticus, Germanicus, Britannicus, Hunnicus, Gallicanus,” is a portion of his title, as gathered from coins, inscriptions, and various documents.

3 Calendarium Rm in Petavius Uranal. p. 113. The date varies by a year or two, according to way of reckoning, but 274 is the date usually given. (Cf. Burckhardt, Manso, Keim, De Broglie, Wordsworth, etc). Eutropius and Hieronymus say he died in his sixty-sixth year, Theophanes says he was sixty-five years old, and Socrates and Sozomen say substantially the same, while Victor, Epit. has sixty-three, and Victor, Caes. sixty-two. Eusebius says he lived twice the length of his reign, i.e. 63 +.

Manso chose 274, because it agreed best with the representations of the two Victors as over against the: “later church historians.” But the two Victors say, one that he lived sixty-two y0ears and reigned thirty-two, and the other that he lived sixty-three 0and reigned thirty; while Eutropius, secretary to Constantine, gives length of reign correctly, and so establishes a slight presumption in favor of his other statement. Moreover, it is supported by Hieronymus, whose testimony is not of the highest quality, to be sure, and is quite likely taken from Eutropius, and Theophanes, who puts the same fact in another form, and who certainly chose that figure for a reason. The statement of Eusebius is a very elastic generalization, and is the only support of Victor, Epit.Socrates, who, according to Wordsworth, says he was in his sixty-fifth year, uses the idiom “mounting upon” (epiba") sixty-five years, which at the least must mean nearly sixty-five years old, and unless there, is some well-established usage to the contrary, seems to mean having lived already sixty-five years. In the interpretation of Sozomen (also given in translation “in his sixty-fifth year”) he was “about” sixty-five years old. Now if he died in May, his following birthday would not have been as “about,” and he must have been a little over sixty-five. This would make a strong consensus against Victor, against whom Eutropius alone would have a presumption of accuracy. On the whole it may be said that in the evidence, so far as cited by Manso, Wordsworth, Clinton, and the run of historians, there is no critical justification for the choice of the later date and the shorter life.

4 Anon. Vales. p. 471. Const. Porphyr. (De themat. 2. 9), Stephanus Byzant. art). Naisso" (ed. 1502, H. iii)., “Firmicus 1. 4.” According to some it was Tarsus (“Julius Firmic. 1. 2”), or Drepanum (Niceph. Callist)., or in Britain (the English chroniclers, Voragine, and others, the mistake arising from one of the panegyrists (c. 4) speaking of his taking his origin thence), or Trèves (Voragine). Compare Vogt, who adds Rome (“Pert. de Natalibus”), or Roba (“Eutychius”), or Gaul (“Meursius”). Compare also monographs by Janus and by Schoepflin under Literature.

5 For characterization of Constantius compare V. C. 1. 13 sq.

6 It has been a much discussed question, whether Helena was legitimate wife or not. Some (Zosimus 2. 8; Niceph. Callist. 7. 18) have asserted that Helena was a woman “indifferent honest,” and the birth of Constantine illegitimate. This view is simply psychologically impossible regarding a woman of so much and such strength of character. That she stood in the relation of legitimate concubinage (cf. Smith and Cheetham, Dict. 1. 422) is not improbable, since many (Hieron. Orosius, Zosimus 2.8; Chron. Pasch. p. 516, and others) assert this lesser relationship. This would have been not unlike a modern morganatic marriage. The facts are: 1. That she is often spoken of as concubine (cf. above). 2. That she is distinctly called wife, and that by some of the most competent authorities (Eutrop. 10. 2; Anon. Vales. p. 471; Euseb). H.E. 8. 13; Ephraem p. 21, etc)., also in various inscriptions (compare collected inscriptions in Clinton 2. 81). 3. That she was divorced (Anon. Vales. p. 47). The weight of testimony is clearly in favor of the word “wife,” though with divorce so easy it seems to have been a name only. The view that she was married in the full legal sense, but only after the birth of Constantine, is plausible enough, and has a support more apparent than real, in the fact that he “first established that natural children should be made legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents.” (Sandars Inst. Just. (1865) 113; cf. Cod. Just. V. 27,1 and 5 ed. Krueger 2 (1877) 216).

Of course the story of her violation by and subsequent marriage to Constantius (Inc. auct. ed. Heydenreich) is purely legendary, and the same may be said of the somewhat circumstantial account of her relation as concubine, given by Nicephorus Callistus 7, 18. For farther account of Helena, compare the V. C. 3.42 and notes.

663 7 Helena was born probably at Drepanum, afterwards called Helenopolis, in her honor, by Constantine (Procopius De aedif. V. 2P 311, Chron. Pasch. etc).).

8 This appears from the disregard of his father’s repeated requests that he be sent back to him (Lact., Anon. Vales. p. 471), and the whole story of his final flight. So also it is said by Anon. Vales. p. 471, and the two Victors (Caes. p. 156, Epit. p. 49). Zonaras (12. 33, ed. Migne 1091), gives both reasons for sending, and is likely right. Nicephorus Callistus (7. 18) suggests that he was sent there for education, since Constantius could not take him himself on account of Theodora.

9 (He was with Diocletian still in 305 (cf. Lact. and note, below), and was with his father early in 306.T

10 Eusebius, who saw him on his way to Egypt in 296, gives the impression which he made on him at that time (l.c).. According to some he was also with Galerius in his Persian war, and this is possible (cf. Clinton 1. 338–40). Theophanes describes him as “already eminent in war” (p. 10), Anon. Vales. p. 471, as conducting himself “bravely.”

11 This was probably a morganatic marriage or concubinate (Victor, Epit. 41, Zosimus 2. 20; Zonaras 13. 2, &c).. “The improbability that Constantine should have marked out an illegitimate son as his successor” which Ramsay (Smith, Dict. 2. 1090) mentions as the only argument against, is reduced to a minimum in view of Constantine’s law for the legitimization of natural children by rescript (Cod. Just. V. 27,ed. Krueger 2 (1877), 216–17; cf. notes of Sandars in his Inst. Just. (1865) 113). It would be uncritical, as in the case before mentioned, to lay stress on this as positive evidence, but over against a simple “improbability” it has a certain suggestiveness at least. The panegyrical praises of Constantine’s continence hardly justify Clinton’s claim that she was lawful wife; for to have a regular concubine would not have been considered in any sense immoral, and it would not have been particularly pertinent in a wedding oration to have introduced even a former wife. For what little is known of Minervina, compare Ramsay, in Smith Dict. 2. 1090, “Tillemont, Hist. Emp. IV. 4,p. 84,” and Clinton, Fasti Rom. 2. (1850) 86, note k.

12 Crispus was “already a young man” when made Caesar in 317 (Zos. 2. 30).

13 According to some (e.g. Victor, Caes. p. 156; Victor, Epit. p. 51; Zos. 2. 8) his father was already in Britain).

14 (So Eusebius H. E. 8. 13; Lact. c. 25; Julian Orat. 1P 13 (Paneg. 310, c. 7) says that he was elected “imperator,” but in speaks of him as having become Caesar. Eutropius (10. 2) also uses the word “imperator.” Zosimus, on the other hand (2. 9), and Anonymus Vales. say he was elected “Augustus,” but was only confirmed “Caesar” by Galerius (see (below). The elevation was in Britain (cf. Eutrop. 10. 2; Eumen). Paneg. Soz. 1P 1 1P 5, ..

15 See coins in Eckhel 8, p. 72, under the year. It is also expressly stated by Paneg. (307) c. 5.

16 It is said by many that the quarrel was a feigned one, and that it was wholly for the purpose of getting rid of Constantine in behalf of Maxentius that he betook himself to Gaul. That he went to Gaul with this purpose, at least, is mentioned by many (cf. Lact. c. 29; Oros. c. 28; Eutrop. 10. 2, “on a planned stratagem”). It seems curious, if he had attempted to supersede Maxentius by raising a mutiny (Eutrop. 10. 3), that he should now be working for him and planning to rejoin him (Eutrop. 10. 2), but it is no inconsistency in this man, who was consistent only in his unceasing effort to destroy others for his own advantage.

17 Compare on all this Lact. c. 29; Eumen). Paneg c. 14.

664 18 Socrates (1. 2) with many others (e.g. Zos. 2. 11) says he died at Tarsus, confusing him thus with Maximinus).

19 Notably at Autun. The city had been almost destroyed. Eumenius, whose oration of thanks in behalf of the people of Autun is extant, praises Constantine as the restorer, almost the founder. The work had been undertaken by Constantius, indeed, but was carried on by his son. Constantine’s work of internal improvement was in many ways distinctly a continuation of the work begun by Constantius. Compare Eumen). Paneg. (especially c. 13, 22, &c). and Grat. act.

20 “Raging against the nobles with every kind of destruction,” Eutrop. 10. 4).

21 Edict of toleration was April 30; Constantine’s anniversary, July 24.

22 This edict was signed by Constantine and Licinius as well as by Galerius. The Latin text is found in Lactantius, de mort. pers. c. 24, and the Greek translation in Eusebius, H. E. 8. 17.

23 Eusebius represents the occasion of Constantine’s movement as a philanthropic compassion for the people of Rome (V. C. 1. 56; H. E. 9.9).

Praxagoras (ed. Müller, p. 1) says distinctly that it was to avenge those who suffered under the tyrannical rule of Maxentius and Nazarius (Paneg. c. 19), that it was “for liberating Italy.” So, too, Nazarius (Paneg. [321] c. 27), Zonaras (13. 1), Cedrenus, and Ephraem (p. 22) speak of a legation of the Romans petitioning him to go.

Undoubtedly he did pity them, and as to the legation, every Roman who found his way to Trèves must have been an informal ambassador asking help. The fact seems to be that he had long suspected Maxentius (Zos. 2. 15), and now, learning of his preparations for war, saw that his suspicions were well grounded. Whatever underlying motive of personal ambition there may have been, it is probable that the philanthropic motive was his justification and pretext to his own conscience for the attempt to rid himself of this suspected and dangerous neighbor. Zosimus being Zosimus, it is probable that Maxentius was the aggressor if he says so.

24 Constantine numbered, according to Zosimus, 90,000 foot, 8,000 horse; and Maxentius, 170,000 foot, and 18,000 horse. According to Panegyr. (313) c. 3, he left the major part of his army to guard the Rhine and went to meet a force of 100,000 men with less than 40,000 (c. 5).

25 See note on Bk. I. c. 28.

26 That “on the same day the enemy of the Romans should perish” (Lact. c. 44)..

665 27 The circumstance pronounced by Wordsworth “almost incredible” is witnessed to by Eusebius (V. C. 1. 38), Zosimus (2. 15), Praxagoras (ed. Müller, p. 1). The bridge certainly broke as mentioned by Lactantius (c. 44) and as represented on the triumphal arch, but whether the “plot” was an ex post facto notion or not is unclear).

28 “Senate and people rejoiced with incredible rejoicing” (Vict. Caes. p. 159). Cf. Euseb. V. C. 1. 39; Paneg. [313] c. 19; Naz). Paneg. c. 30; Chron. Pasch. p. 521, &c.

29 It is said he put to death Romulus, son of Maxentius, but it lacks evidence, and the fact that Romulus was consul for two years (208–9) with Maxentius, and then Maxentius appears alone, seems to indicate that he died in 209 or 210 (cf. Clinton, under the years 208 and 209).

30 For the churches he is said to have founded, compare note on Bk. I. ch. 42.

The curious patchwork triumphal arch which still stands in a state of respectable dilapidation near the Coliseum at Rome, was erected in honor of this victory. It is to be hoped that it was erected after Constantine had gone, and that his aesthetic character is not to be charged with this crime. It was an arch to Trajan made over for the occasion,—by itself and piecemeal of great interest. Apart from the mutilation made for the glory of Constantine, it is a noble piece of work. The changes made were artistic disfigurements; but art’s loss is science’s gain, and for the historian it is most interesting. The phrase “instinctu divinitatis” has its value in the “Hoc signo” discussion (cf. notes to the V. C.); and the sculptures are most suggestive.

31 It has been maintained that there were three edicts of Constantine up to this time: 1. Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius in 311; 2. Constantine and Licinius in 312 (lost); 3. Constantine and Licinius in 313 (cf. Keim, p. 16 and 81–84; Zahn, p. 33). So Gass in Herzog, p. 201, Wordsworth (Ch. Hist.), and others. But, like most certain things, it seems to have been disproved. The “harder edict” seems to have been a product of Eusebius’ rather slovenly historical method, and to refer to the first, or Galerian edict.

32 The appeal of the Donatists to Constantine was first met by the appointment of a “court of enquiry,” held at Rome, Oct. 2, 313. The result was unsatisfactory, and Constantine ordered an examination on the spot, which took place at Carthage, Feb. 15, 314 (Phillott). The Donatists still urging, the Council of Arles was called, Aug. 1, 314, and some progress seemed to be made, but progress more satisfactory to the orthodox than to the schismatics, who urged again that Constantine hear the matter himself, as he finally did, November, 316 (Wordsworth; cf. Augustine,
Ep 43, ¶20). He confirmed the previous findings, and took vigorous but ineffective measures to suppress the Donatists, measures which he saw afterwards could not be carried out, and perhaps saw to be unjust. Compare Augustine, Ep. 43, ch. 2, and elsewhere, also various documents from Augustine, Lactantius, Eusebius, Optatus, &c., collected in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 673–784. Compare also Fuller, Donatism, Phillott, Felix,—articles in Smith and W). Dict. &c.; and for general sources and literature, cf). Donatist Schism, Hartranft, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 369–72; Völter, Ursprung des Donatismus, 1883; and Seeck in Brieger’s Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, 10 (1889), 505–508.

33 According to Lactantius (c. 49), an attempt at suicide by poison was followed by a wretched disease, bringing to a lingering and most painful death.

34 Bassianus, who had married Anastasia, sister of Constantine, was incited by his brother, who was an adherent of Licinius, to revolt against Constantine. The attempt was nipped in the bud, and Constantine demanded from Licinius the author of the plot. His refusal, together with the throwing down of the statues of Constantine, was the direct occasion of the war (Anon. Vales. p. 473). Compare Eusebius, V. C. 1. 50–51, and Socr. 1. 3, where Licinius is charged with repeated treachery, perjury, and hypocrisy. Zosimus, on the other hand (2. 18), distinctly says that Licinius was not to blame, but that Constantine, with characteristic faithlessness to their agreement, tried to alienate some of Licinius’ provinces. Here, however, notice that Zosimus would not count any movement in behalf of Christians as a proper motive, and sympathy for them was undoubtedly one of the underlying reasons).

35 Constantine at Cibalis had 20,000 Licinius 35,000 (Anon. Vales. p. 473).

36 Zos. 2. 18; “by a sudden attack” (Eutrop. 10. 4); “by night” (Vict). Epit. p. 50). Cf. Orosius, c. 28.

NPNF2-01 Eusebius 657