The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Endnotes

A considerable portion of this preface has already appeared before the public in the Quarterly Review. ↩
The editor regrets that he has not been able to find the Italian translation, mentioned by Gibbon himself with some respect. It is not in our great libraries, the Museum or the Bodleian; and he has never found any bookseller in London who has seen it. ↩
The first volume of the quarto, which contained the sixteen first chapters. ↩
The Author, as it frequently happens, took an inadequate measure of his growing work. The remainder of the first period has filled two volumes in quarto, being the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth volumes of the octavo edition. ↩
The first six volumes of the octavo edition. ↩
See Dr. William Robertson’s Preface to his History of America. ↩
The influence of Gibbon’s picture of Julian can be discerned in Ibsen’s Emperor and Galilaean. —⁠B. ↩
In a footnote to the Autobiography. —⁠B. ↩
In the Chronica minora (Monumenta Germaniae Historica), vol. I 512, sqq. See vol. II, p. 360. —⁠B. ↩
Gibbon had a notion of this, but did not apply it methodically. See this note: “but those modern Greeks had the opportunity of consulting many writers which have since been lost.” And see, in general, his Preface to the fourth volume of the quarto edition. —⁠B. ↩
In Muhammadan history in general, it may be added, not only has advance been made by access to new literary oriental documents, but its foundations have been more surely grounded by numismatic researches, especially those of Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole. This scholar’s recently published handbook containing tables and lists of the “Muhammadan” Dynasties is a guerdon for which students of history must be most deeply grateful. The special histories of Muhammadan Sicily and Spain have been worked out by Amari and Dozy. For the Mongols we have the overwhelming results of Sir Henry Howorth’s learning and devotion to his “vasty” subject. —⁠B. ↩
It may be said for Gibbon, however, that even Mommsen, in his volume on the Provinces, has adopted this practice of blending evidence of different dates. For the historical artist, it is very tempting, when the evidence for any particular period is scanty; but in the eyes of the scientific historian it is indefensible. —⁠B. ↩
Especially the Corpus Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. —⁠B. ↩
Hermann Usener, Der heilige Theodosios, 1890. Karl Krumbacher, Studien zu den Legenden des heiligen Theodosios, 1892. It is worth while to state briefly what the chief problem is. The legends of the saints were collected, rehandled, cleansed of casual heresy, and put into literary form in the tenth century (towards its close according to Vasilievski) by Symeon Metaphrastes. Most of our MSS. are derived from the edition of Symeon; but there are also extant, some, comparatively few, containing the original pre-Symeonic versions, which formed the chief literary recreation of ordinary men and women before the tenth century. The problem is to collect the materials for a critical edition of as many legends as have been preserved in their original form. When that is done, we shall have the data for fully appreciating the methods of Symeon. As for the text Krumbacher points out that what we want is a thoroughgoing study of the grammar of the MSS. —⁠B. ↩
M. Schlumberger followed up this work by an admirable monograph on Nicephorus Phocas, luxuriously illustrated; and we are looking forward to the appearance of a companion work on Basil II. —⁠B. ↩
The first volume of Mr. Pelham’s history of the Empire, which is expected shortly, will show, when compared with Merivale, how completely our knowledge of Roman institutions has been transformed within a very recent period. —⁠B. ↩
This has been best pointed out by C. Neumann. —⁠B. ↩
Chapter XLVIII ad init., where a full statement of his view of the later Empire will be found. —⁠B. ↩
I need not repeat here what I have said elsewhere, and what many others have said (recently Mr. Frederic Harrison in two essays in his volume entitled The Meaning of History), as to the various services of the Empire to Europe. They are beginning to be generally recognized and they have been brought out in Mr. C. W. Oman’s brief and skilful sketch of the Byzantine Empire (1892). —⁠B. ↩
Since then a Greek scholar, K. Paparrigopulos, has covered the whole history of Greece from the earliest times to the present century, in his Ἰστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἔθνους. The same gigantic task, but in a more popular form, has been undertaken and begun by Professor Lambros, but is not yet finished. —⁠B. ↩
Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (565-1453), 1891. —⁠B. ↩
I was seduced by this hypothesis of Ranke (Later Roman Empire I 363), but no longer believe in it. —⁠B. ↩
Procopiana, 1891. —⁠B. ↩
One of the author’s points is that Justinian was the real ruler during the nominal reign of Justin, who was an “ass.” Hence he dates Justinian’s administration (not of course his Imperial years) from 518. The consequence of this important discovery of Haury, which he has proved up to the hilt, is that the work was written in 550 (not, as before believed, in 559)⁠—the thirty-second year of Justinian’s administration. —⁠B. ↩
“The Life of Justinian by Theophilus,” in the English Historical Review. Vasil’ev has given an account of Mr. Bryce’s article in the Vizantiski Vremennik I 469, sqq. —⁠B. ↩
The Persian and Lazic wars have been related in detail in my Later Roman Empire, vol. I. —⁠B. ↩
His new work on the reservoirs of Constantinople may be specially mentioned. —⁠B. ↩
Byzantina. Ocherki, materialy, i zamietki po Vizantiskim drevnostiam, 1891-3. I must not omit to mention Dr. August Mordtmann’s valuable Esquisse topographique de Constantinople (1892), and N. Destunis has made noteworthy contributions to the subject. —⁠B. ↩
With blameworthy indiscretion I accepted this false view of Paspatês, in my Later Roman Empire, without having gone methodically into the sources. I was misled by the fame won by the supposed “topographical discoveries” of this diligent antiquarian and by his undeservedly high reputation; this, however, is no excuse, and unfortunately the error has vitiated my account of the Nika revolt. I have gone into the theory of Paspatês in the Scottish Review (April, 1894), where he is treated too leniently. His misuse of authorities is simply astounding. I may take the opportunity of saying that I hope to rewrite the two volumes of my Later Roman Empire and correct, so far as I may be able, its many faults. A third volume, dealing with the ninth century, will, I hope, appear at a not too distant date. —⁠B. ↩
The Greek and the French versions were published by Buchon, uncritically. A new edition of the Greek text is promised by Dr. John Schmitt. —⁠B. ↩
The history of medieval Athens has been recorded at length in an attractive work by Gregorovius, the counterpart of his great history of medieval Rome. —⁠B. ↩
For a full account of Vulgär-griechische Litterature, I may refer to Krumbacher’s Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur. Here it is unnecessary to do more than indicate its existence and importance. I may add that the historian cannot neglect the development of the language, for which these romances (and other documents) furnish ample data. Here the Greeks themselves have an advantage, and scholars like Hatzidakês, Psicharês, and Jannarês are in this field doing work of the best kind. —⁠B. ↩
Jakob Fallmerayer’s thesis that there was no pure Hellenic blood in Greece was triumphantly refuted. No one denies that there was a large Slavonic element in the country parts, especially of the Peloponnesus. —⁠B. ↩
In a paper entitled, “The Coming of the Hungarians,” in the Scottish Review of July, 1892, I have discussed the questions connected with early Magyar history, and criticized Hunfalvy’s Magyarország ethnographiája (1876) and Vámbéry’s A magyarok eredete (1882). One of the best works dealing with the subject has been written by a Slav (C. Grot). —⁠B. ↩
Dmitri Ilovaiski’s work Istorija Rossii, vol. I (Kiev period), is, though his main thesis is a mistake, most instructive. —⁠B. ↩
Daniel Chwolson, Izviestiia o Chozarach, Burtasach, Bolgarach, Madiarach, Slavaniach, i Rusach. —⁠B. ↩
And who regarded history as “little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind” (see here in chapter III). —⁠B. ↩
Dion Cassius (l. LIV, p. 736), with the annotations of Hermann Reimar, who has collected all that Roman vanity has left upon the subject. The marble of Ancyra, on which Augustus recorded his own exploits, asserted that he compelled the Parthians to restore the ensigns of Crassus. ↩
Strabo (l. XVI, p. 780), Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae, l. VI c. 32, 35, [28, 29 —⁠M.]), and Dion Cassius (l. LIII, p. 723, and l. LIV, p. 734), have left us very curious details concerning these wars. The Romans made themselves masters of Mariaba, or Merab, a city of Arabia Felix, well known to the Orientals. (See Abulfeda and the Nubian geography, p. 52.)8667 They were arrived within three days’8668 journey of the spice country, the rich object of their invasion. ↩
By the slaughter of Varus and his three legions. See the first book of the Annals of Tacitus, Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 23, and Velleius Paterculus, l. II c. 117, etc. Augustus did not receive the melancholy news with all the temper and firmness that might have been expected from his character. ↩
Tacitus, Annales, l. II, Dion Cassius, l. LVI, p. 833, and the speech of Augustus himself, in Julian’s Caesars. It receives great light from the learned notes of his French translator, M. Ézéchiel, Freiherr von Spanheim. ↩
Germanicus, Suetonius Paulinus, and Agricola were checked and recalled in the course of their victories. Corbulo was put to death. Military merit, as it is admirably expressed by Tacitus, was, in the strictest sense of the word, imperatoria virtus. ↩
Caesar himself conceals that ignoble motive; but it is mentioned by Suetonius, c. 47. The British pearls proved, however, of little value, on account of their dark and livid color. Tacitus observes, with reason (in De vita et moribus Iulii Agricola, c. 12), that it was an inherent defect. “Ego facilius crediderim, naturam margaritis deesse quam nobis avaritiam.” ↩
Claudius, Nero, and Domitian. A hope is expressed by Pomponius Mela, l. III c. 6 (he wrote under Claudius), that, by the success of the Roman arms, the island and its savage inhabitants would soon be better known. It is amusing enough to peruse such passages in the midst of London. ↩
See the admirable abridgment given by Tacitus, in the Life of Agricola, and copiously, though perhaps not completely, illustrated by our own antiquarians, William Camden and John Horsley. ↩
The Irish writers, jealous of their national honor, are extremely provoked on this occasion, both with Tacitus and with Agricola. ↩
See Horsley’s Britannia Romana, l. I c. 10.8669 ↩
The poet George Buchanan celebrates with elegance and spirit (see his “Sylvae,” V) the unviolated independence of his native country. But, if the single testimony of Richard of Cirencester was sufficient to create a Roman province of Vespasiana to the north of the wall, that independence would be reduced within very narrow limits. ↩
See Appian (in Prooemium) and the uniform imagery of Ossian’s Poems, which, according to every hypothesis, were composed by a native Caledonian. ↩
See Pliny the Younger’s “Panegyricus Traiani,” which seems founded on facts. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXVII. ↩
Herodotus, l. IV c. 94. Julian in the Caesars, with Spanheim’s observations. ↩
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae VIII 9. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXVIII, pp. 1123, 1131. Julian in Caesaribus. Eutropius VIII 2, 6. Aurelius Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. ↩
See a Memoir of M. Jean-Baptiste d’Anville, on the Province of Dacia, in the Académie des Inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, pp. 444⁠–⁠468. ↩
Trajan’s sentiments are represented in a very just and lively manner in the Caesars of Julian. ↩
Eutropius and Sextus Rufus have endeavored to perpetuate the illusion. See a very sensible dissertation of M. Nicolas Fréret in the Académie des Inscriptions, tom. XXI, p. 55. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXVIII; and the Abbreviators. ↩
Ovid, Fastorum libri sex, l. II verse 667. See Livy, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, under the reign of Tarquin. ↩
St. Augustine is highly delighted with the proof of the weakness of Terminus, and the vanity of the Augurs. See De civitate Dei IV 29.8670 ↩
See the Augustan History, p. 5, Jerome’s Chronicle, and all the Epitomizers. It is somewhat surprising that this memorable event should be omitted by Dion, or rather by Xiphilin. ↩
Dion, l. LXIX, p. 1158. Historia Augusta, pp. 5, 8. If all our historians were lost, medals, inscriptions, and other monuments would be sufficient to record the travels of Hadrian.8671 ↩
See the Augustan History and the Epitomes. ↩
We must, however, remember that, in the time of Hadrian, a rebellion of the Jews raged with religious fury, though only in a single province. Pausanias (l. VIII c. 43) mentions two necessary and successful wars, conducted by the generals of Pius.
1. Against the wandering Moors who were driven into the solitudes of Atlas.
2. Against the Brigantes of Britain, who had invaded the Roman province.
Both these wars (with several other hostilities) are mentioned in the Augustan History, p. 19. ↩
Appian of Alexandria, in the preface to his History of the Roman Wars. ↩
Dion, l. LXXI. Historia Augusta in “Marco.” The Parthian victories gave birth to a crowd of contemptible historians, whose memory has been rescued from oblivion, and exposed to ridicule, in a very lively piece of criticism of Lucian. ↩
The poorest rank of soldiers possessed above forty pounds sterling (Dionysius of Halicarnassus IV 17), a very high qualification at a time when money was so scarce that an ounce of silver was equivalent to seventy pounds weight of brass.8672 The populace, excluded by the ancient constitution, were indiscriminately admitted by Marius. See Sallust, De bello Catilinario et Jugurthino, c. 91. ↩
Caesar formed his legion Alauda of Gauls and strangers; but it was during the license of civil war; and after the victory, he gave them the freedom of the city for their reward. ↩
See Vegetius, De re militari, l. I c. 2⁠–⁠7. ↩
The oath of service and fidelity to the emperor was annually renewed by the troops on the first of January. ↩
Tacitus calls the Roman eagles, Bellorum Deos. They were placed in a chapel in the camp, and with the other deities received the religious worship of the troops.8673 ↩
See Johann Friedrich Gronovius, De sestertiis seu subsecivorum pecuniae veteris Graecae et Romanae, l. III, p. 120, etc. The emperor Domitian raised the annual stipend of the legionaries to twelve pieces of gold, which, in his time, was equivalent to about ten of our guineas. This pay, somewhat higher than our own, had been, and was afterwards, gradually increased, according to the progress of wealth and military government. After twenty years’ service, the veteran received three thousand denarii (about one hundred pounds sterling), or a proportionable allowance of land. The pay and advantages of the guards were, in general, about double those of the legions. ↩
Exercitus ab exercitando, Varro, De linguâ Latinâ, l. IV. Cicero in Tusculanae quaestiones, l. II 37, [15 —⁠M.]. There is room for a very interesting work, which should lay open the connection between the languages and manners of nations.8674 ↩
Vegetius, l. II and the rest of his first book. ↩
The Pyrrhic dance is extremely well illustrated by M. le Beau, in the Académie des Inscriptions, tom. XXXV, p. 262, etc. That learned academician, in a series of memoirs, has collected all the passages of the ancients that relate to the Roman legion. ↩
Josephus, De bello Judaico, l. III c. 5. We are indebted to this Jew for some very curious details of Roman discipline. ↩
Pliny the Younger, “Panegyricus,” c. 13. “Life of Hadrian,” in the Augustan History. ↩
See an admirable digression on the Roman discipline, in the sixth book of his History. ↩
Vegetius, De re militari, l. II c. 4, etc. Considerable part of his very perplexed abridgment was taken from the regulations of Trajan and Hadrian; and the legion, as he describes it, cannot suit any other age of the Roman empire. ↩
Vegetius, De re militari, l. II c. 1. In the purer age of Caesar and Cicero, the word miles was almost confined to the infantry. Under the lower empire, and the times of chivalry, it was appropriated almost as exclusively to the men at arms, who fought on horseback. ↩
In the time of Polybius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (l. V c. 45), the steel point of the pilum seems to have been much longer. In the time of Vegetius, it was reduced to a foot, or even nine inches. I have chosen a medium. ↩
For the legionary arms, see Justus Lipsius, De militiâ Romanâ, l. III c. 2⁠–⁠7. ↩
See the beautiful comparison of Virgil, Georgics II v. 279. ↩
M. Karl Gottlieb Guichard, Mémoires militaires sur les Grecs et les Romains, tom. I c. 4, and Mémoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d’antiquités militaires, tom. I, pp. 293⁠–⁠311, has treated the subject like a scholar and an officer. ↩
See Arrian’s Tactics. With the true partiality of a Greek, Arrian rather chose to describe the phalanx, of which he had read, than the legions which he had commanded. ↩
Polybius, l. XVII [l. XVIII 15 —S.]. ↩
Vegetius, De re militari, l. II c. 6. His positive testimony, which might be supported by circumstantial evidence, ought surely to silence those critics who refuse the Imperial legion its proper body of cavalry.8675 ↩
See Livy almost throughout, particularly XLII 61. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXIII 2. The true sense of that very curious passage was first discovered and illustrated by M. Louis de Beaufort, La République romaine, ou Plan général de l’ancien gouvernement de Rome, l. II c. 2. ↩
As in the instance of Horace and Agricola. This appears to have been a defect in the Roman discipline, which Hadrian endeavored to remedy by ascertaining the legal age of a tribune.8676 ↩
See Arrian’s Tactics. ↩
Such, in particular, was the state of the Batavians. Tacitus, Germania, c. 29. ↩
Marcus Antoninus obliged the vanquished Quadi and Marcomanni to supply him with a large body of troops, which he immediately sent into Britain. Dion Cassius, l. LXXI [c. 16 —⁠M.]. ↩
Tacitus, Annales IV 5. Those who fix a regular proportion of as many foot, and twice as many horse, confound the auxiliaries of the emperors with the Italian allies of the republic. ↩
Vegetius II 2. Arrian, in his order of march and battle against the Alani. ↩
The subject of the ancient machines is treated with great knowledge and ingenuity by the Chevalier Folard (Polybe, tom. II, pp. 233⁠–⁠290). He prefers them in many respects to our modern cannon and mortars. We may observe that the use of them in the field gradually became more prevalent in proportion as personal valor and military skill declined with the Roman empire. When men were no longer found, their place was supplied by machines. See Vegetius II 25. Arrian. ↩
Vegetius finishes his second book, and the description of the legion, with the following emphatic words:⁠—“Universa quae in quoque belli genere necessaria esse creduntur, secum legio debet ubique portare, ut in quovis loco fixerit castra, armatam faciat uvitatem.” ↩
For the Roman Castrametation, see Polybius, l. VI with Lipsius, De militiâ Romanâ; Josephus, De bello Judaico, l. III c. 5; Vegetius I 21⁠–⁠25, III 9; and Mémoires militaires de Guichard, tom. I c. 1. ↩
Cicero in Tusculanae quaestiones II 37, [15 —⁠M.]. Josephus, De bello Judaico, l. III 5. Frontinus IV 1. ↩
Vegetius I 9. See Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXV, p. 187. ↩
See those evolutions admirably well explained by M. Guichard, Mémoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d’antiquités militaires, tom. I, pp. 141⁠–⁠234. ↩
Tacitus (Annales IV 5) has given us a state of the legions under Tiberius; and Dion Cassius (l. LV, p. 794) under Alexander Severus. I have endeavored to fix on the proper medium between these two periods. See likewise Lipsius, De magnitudine Romanâ, l. I c. 4, 5. ↩
The Romans tried to disguise, by the pretence of religious awe, their ignorance and terror. See Tacitus, Germania, c. 34. ↩
Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Marcus Antonius” [c. 66 —⁠M.]. And yet, if we may credit Orosius, these monstrous castles were no more than ten feet above the water, VI 19. ↩
See Lipsius, De magnitudine Romanâ, l. I c. 5. The sixteen last chapters of Vegetius relate to naval affairs. ↩
Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XIV, c. 29. It must, however, be remembered that France still feels that extraordinary effort. ↩
See Strabo, l. II. It is natural enough to suppose that Arragon is derived from Tarraconensis, and several moderns who have written in Latin use those words as synonymous. It is, however, certain, that the Arragon, a little stream which falls from the Pyrenees into the Ebro, first gave its name to a country, and gradually to a kingdom. See d’Anville, Géographie du moyen age, p. 181. ↩
One hundred and fifteen cities appear in the Notitia dignitatum of Gaul; and it is well known that this appellation was applied not only to the capital town, but to the whole territory of each state. But Plutarch and Appian increase the number of tribes to three or four hundred. ↩
D’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule. ↩
John Whitaker’s History of Manchester, vol. I c. 3. ↩
The Italian Veneti, though often confounded with the Gauls, were more probably of Illyrian origin.8677 See M. Fréret, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XVIII. ↩
See Scipione Maffei, Verona illustrata, l. I.8678 ↩
The first contrast was observed by the ancients. See Florus I 11. The second must strike every modern traveller. ↩
Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae, l. III) follows the division of Italy by Augustus. ↩
Joseph Pitton de Tournefort, Voyages en Grèce et Asie Mineure, lettre XVIII. ↩
The name of Illyricum originally belonged to the seacoast of the Adriatic, and was gradually extended by the Romans from the Alps to the Euxine Sea. See Joannis Severini, Pannonia veterum monumentis illustrata, l. I c. 3. ↩
A Venetian traveller, the Abbate Fortis, has lately given us some account of those very obscure countries. But the geography and antiquities of the western Illyricum can be expected only from the munificence of the emperor, its sovereign. ↩
The Save rises near the confines of Istria, and was considered by the more early Greeks as the principal stream of the Danube. ↩
See the “Periplus Ponti Euxini” of Arrian. He examined the coasts of the Euxine when he was governor of Cappadocia. ↩
This comparison is exaggerated, with the intention, no doubt, of attacking the authority of the Bible, which boasts of the fertility of Palestine. Gibbon’s only authorities were that of Strabo (l. XVI 1104) and the present state of the country. But Strabo only speaks of the neighborhood of Jerusalem, which he calls barren and arid to the extent of sixty stadia round the city: in other parts he gives a favorable testimony to the fertility of many parts of Palestine: thus he says, “Near Jericho there is a grove of palms, and a country of a hundred stadia, full of springs, and well peopled.” Moreover, Strabo had never seen Palestine; he spoke only after reports, which may be as inaccurate as those according to which he has composed that description of Germany in which Cluverius has detected so many errors. (Cluverius, Germania antiqua III 1.) Finally, his testimony is contradicted and refuted by that of other ancient authors, and by medals. Tacitus says, in speaking of Palestine, “The inhabitants are healthy and robust; the rains moderate; the soil fertile.” (Historiae V 6). Ammianus Marcellinus says also, “The last of the Syrias is Palestine, a country of considerable extent, abounding in clean and well-cultivated land, and containing some fine cities, none of which yields to the other; but, as it were, being on a parallel, are rivals.”⁠—XIV 8. See also the historian Josephus, Antiquities VI 1. Procopius of Caeserea, who lived in the sixth century, says that Khosrow, king of Persia, had a great desire to make himself master of Palestine, on account of its extraordinary fertility, its opulence, and the great number of its inhabitants. The Saracens thought the same, and were afraid that Omar, when he went to Jerusalem, charmed with the fertility of the soil and the purity of the air, would never return to Medina. (Simon Ockley, History of the Saracens I 232.) The importance attached by the Romans to the conquest of Palestine, and the obstacles they encountered, prove also the richness and population of the country. Vespasian and Titus caused medals to be struck, with trophies, in which Palestine is represented by a female under a palm tree, to signify the richness of the country, with this legend: Judea capta. Other medals also indicate this fertility; for instance, that of Herod holding a bunch of grapes, and that of the young Agrippa displaying fruit. As to the present state of the country, one perceives that it is not fair to draw any inference against its ancient fertility: the disasters through which it has passed, the government to which it is subject, the disposition of the inhabitants, explain sufficiently the wild and uncultivated appearance of the land, where, nevertheless, fertile and cultivated districts are still found, according to the testimony of travellers; among others, of Shaw, Maundrell, La Rocque, etc. —⁠G.

The Abbé Guénée, in his Lettres de quelques juifs portugais, allemands et polonais, à M. de Voltaire, has exhausted the subject of the fertility of Palestine; for Voltaire had likewise indulged in sarcasm on this subject. Gibbon was assailed on this point, not, indeed, by Mr. Davis, who, he slyly insinuates, was prevented by his patriotism as a Welshman from resenting the comparison with Wales, but by other writers. In his Vindication, he first established the correctness of his measurement of Palestine, which he estimates as 7,600 square English miles, while Wales is about 7,011. As to fertility, he proceeds in the following dexterously composed and splendid passage: “The emperor, Frederick II, the enemy and the victim of the clergy, is accused of saying, after his return from his crusade, that the God of the Jews would have despised his promised land, if he had once seen the fruitful realms of Sicily and Naples.” (See Pietro Giannone, Istoria civile del regno di Napoli II 245). This raillery, which malice has, perhaps, falsely imputed to Frederick, is inconsistent with truth and piety; yet it must be confessed that the soil of Palestine does not contain that inexhaustible, and, as it were, spontaneous principle of fertility, which, under the most unfavorable circumstances, has covered with rich harvests the banks of the Nile, the fields of Sicily, or the plains of Poland. The Jordan is the only navigable river of Palestine: a considerable part of the narrow space is occupied, or rather lost, in the Dead Sea, whose horrid aspect inspires every sensation of disgust, and countenances every tale of horror. The districts which border on Arabia partake of the sandy quality of the adjacent desert. The face of the country, except the seacoast, and the valley of the Jordan, is covered with mountains, which appear, for the most part, as naked and barren rocks; and in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, there is a real scarcity of the two elements of earth and water. (See Maundrell’s Travels, p. 65, and Adriaan Reland’s Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata I 238, 395). These disadvantages, which now operate in their fullest extent, were formerly corrected by the labors of a numerous people, and the active protection of a wise government. The hills were clothed with rich beds of artificial mould, the rain was collected in vast cisterns, a supply of fresh water was conveyed by pipes and aqueducts to the dry lands. The breed of cattle was encouraged in those parts which were not adapted for tillage, and almost every spot was compelled to yield some production for the use of the inhabitants.

Pater ispe colendi
Haud facilem esse viam voluit, primusque per artem
Movit agros; curis acuens mortalia corda,
Nec torpere gravi passus sua Regna veterno.
Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works IV 540.

But Gibbon has here eluded the question about the land “flowing with milk and honey.” He is describing Judea only, without comprehending Galilee, or the rich pastures beyond the Jordan, even now proverbial for their flocks and herds. (See John Lewis Burckhardt’s Travels, and History of Jews I 178.) The following is believed to be a fair statement: “The extraordinary fertility of the whole country must be taken into the account. No part was waste; very little was occupied by unprofitable wood; the more fertile hills were cultivated in artificial terraces, others were hung with orchards of fruit trees; the more rocky and barren districts were covered with vineyards.” Even in the present day, the wars and misgovernment of ages have not exhausted the natural richness of the soil.

“Galilee,” says Malte-Brun, “would be a paradise were it inhabited by an industrious people under an enlightened government. No land could be less dependent on foreign importation; it bore within itself everything that could be necessary for the subsistence and comfort of a simple agricultural people. The climate was healthy, the seasons regular; the former rains, which fell about October, after the vintage, prepared the ground for the seed; that latter, which prevailed during March and the beginning of April, made it grow rapidly. Directly the rains ceased, the grain ripened with still greater rapidity, and was gathered in before the end of May. The summer months were dry and very hot, but the nights cool and refreshed by copious dews. In September, the vintage was gathered. Grain of all kinds, wheat, barley, millet, zea, and other sorts, grew in abundance; the wheat commonly yielded thirty for one. Besides the vine and the olive, the almond, the date, figs of many kinds, the orange, the pomegranate, and many other fruit trees, flourished in the greatest luxuriance. Great quantity of honey was collected. The balm-tree, which produced the opobalsamum, a great object of trade, was probably introduced from Arabia, in the time of Solomon. It flourished about Jericho and in Gilead.”
—⁠Milman’s History of the Jews. I 177.

—⁠M. ↩
The progress of religion is well known. The use of letters was introduced among the savages of Europe about fifteen hundred years before Christ; and the Europeans carried them to America about fifteen centuries after the Christian Era. But in a period of three thousand years the Phoenician alphabet received considerable alterations, as it passed through the hands of the Greeks and Romans. ↩
Dion Cassius, lib. LXVIII, p. 1131. ↩
Ptolemy and Strabo, with the modern geographers, fix the Isthmus of Suez as the boundary of Asia and Africa. Dionysius, Mela, Pliny, Sallust, Hirtius, and Solinus, have preferred for that purpose the western branch of the Nile, or even the great Catabathmus, or descent, which last would assign to Asia, not only Egypt, but part of Libya. ↩
The French editor has a long and unnecessary note on the history of Cyrene. For the present state of that coast and country, the volume of Captain Beechy is full of interesting details. Egypt, now an independent and improving kingdom, appears, under the enterprising rule of Muhammad Ali, likely to revenge its former oppression upon the decrepit power of the Turkish empire. —⁠M.

This note was written in 1838. The future destiny of Egypt is an important problem, only to be solved by time. This observation will also apply to the new French colony in Algiers. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The long range, moderate height, and gentle declivity of Mount Atlas (see Thomas Shaw’s Travels, or Observations Relating to Several Parts of Barbary and the Levant, p. 5), are very unlike a solitary mountain which rears its head into the clouds, and seems to support the heavens. The peak of Teneriff, on the contrary, rises a league and a half above the surface of the sea; and, as it was frequently visited by the Phoenicians, might engage the notice of the Greek poets. See Comte de Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. I, p. 312. Histoire des voyages, tom. II. ↩
M. de Voltaire, tom. XIV, p. 297, unsupported by either fact or probability, has generously bestowed the Canary Islands on the Roman empire. ↩
Minorca was lost to Great Britain in 1782. Annual Register for that year. —⁠M. ↩
The gallant struggles of the Corsicans for their independence, under Paoli, were brought to a close in the year 1769. This volume was published in 1776. See Carlo Botta, Storia d’Italia, vol. XIV. —⁠M. ↩
Malta, it need scarcely be said, is now in the possession of the English. We have not, however, thought it necessary to notice every change in the political state of the world since the time of Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
Nicolas Bergier, Histoire des grands chemins de l’empire Romain, l. III c. 1⁠–⁠4: a very useful collection. ↩
See Thomas Templeman’s Survey of the Globe; but I distrust both the Doctor’s learning and his maps. ↩
They were erected about the midway between Lahor and Delhi. The conquests of Alexander in Hindostan were confined to the Punjab, a country watered by the five great streams of the Indus.8679 ↩
See M. Joseph de Guignes, Histoire générale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mogols, l. XV, XVI, and XVII. ↩
There is not any writer who describes in so lively a manner as Herodotus the true genius of polytheism. The best commentary may be found in Mr. David Hume’s Natural History of Religion; and the best contrast in Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet’s Discourse on Universal History. Some obscure traces of an intolerant spirit appear in the conduct of the Egyptians (see Juvenal, Satires XV); and the Christians, as well as Jews, who lived under the Roman empire, formed a very important exception; so important indeed, that the discussion will require a distinct chapter of this work.8680 ↩
The rights, powers, and pretensions of the sovereign of Olympus are very clearly described in the fifteenth book of the Iliad; in the Greek original, I mean; for Mr. Pope, without perceiving it, has improved the theology of Homer.8681 ↩
See, for instance, Caesar, De bello Gallico VI 17. Within a century or two the Gauls themselves applied to their gods the names of Mercury, Mars, Apollo, etc. ↩
The admirable work of Cicero, De natura Deorum, is the best clue we have to guide us through the dark and profound abyss. He represents with candor, and confutes with subtlety, the opinions of the philosophers. ↩
I do not pretend to assert that, in this irreligious age, the natural terrors of superstition, dreams, omens, apparitions, etc., had lost their efficacy. ↩
Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, and Plutarch always inculcated a decent reverence for the religion of their own country and of mankind. The devotion of Epicurus was assiduous and exemplary. Diogenes Laertius X 10. ↩
Polybius, l. VI c. 53, 54. Juvenal, Satires XIII, laments that in his time this apprehension had lost much of its effect. ↩
See the fate of Syracuse, Tarentum, Ambracia, Corinth, etc., the conduct of Verres, in Cicero (Actio II Oratio 4), and the usual practice of governors, in the eighth Satire of Juvenal. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Claudius”⁠—Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXX 1. ↩
Simon Pelloutier, Histoire des Celtes, tom. VI, pp. 230⁠–⁠252. ↩
Seneca the Younger, “Consolatione ad Helviam,” p. 74, edit. Lipsius. ↩
Dionysius Halicarnasensis, Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, l. II [vol. I, p. 275, edit. Reiske —⁠M.]. ↩
Yet the worship of foreign gods at Rome was only guarantied to the natives of those countries from whence they came. The Romans administered the priestly offices only to the gods of their fathers. Gibbon, throughout the whole preceding sketch of the opinions of the Romans and their subjects, has shown through what causes they were free from religious hatred and its consequences. But, on the other hand, the internal state of these religions, the infidelity and hypocrisy of the upper orders, the indifference towards all religion, in even the better part of the common people, during the last days of the republic, and under the Caesars, and the corrupting principles of the philosophers, had exercised a very pernicious influence on the manners, and even on the constitution. —⁠W. ↩
In the year of Rome 701, the temple of Isis and Serapis was demolished by the order of the Senate (Dion Cassius, l. XL, p. 252); and even by the hands of the consul (Valerius Maximus, l. 3).8682 After the death of Caesar it was restored at the public expense (Dion, l. XLVII, p. 501). When Augustus was in Egypt, he revered the majesty of Serapis (Dion, l. LI, p. 647); but in the Pomoerium of Rome, and a mile round it, he prohibited the worship of the Egyptian gods (Dion, l. LIII, p. 679; l. LIV, p. 735). They remained, however, very fashionable under his reign (Ovid, De arte Amandi, l. I) and that of his successor, till the justice of Tiberius was provoked to some acts of severity. (See Tacitus, Annales II 85. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, l. XVIII c. 3.)8683 ↩
Tertullian in Apologeticus pro Christianis, c. 6, p. 74, edit. Havercamp. I am inclined to attribute their establishment to the devotion of the Flavian family. ↩
See Livy, l. XI [Suppl. —⁠M.] and XXIX. ↩
Macrobius, Saturnalia, l. III c. 9. He gives us a form of evocation. ↩
Minucius Felix in Octavius, p. 54. Arnobius, l. VI, p. 115. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XI 24. The Orbis Romanus of the learned Spanheim is a complete history of the progressive admission of Latium, Italy, and the provinces, to the freedom of Rome.8684 ↩
Herodotus V 97. It should seem, however, that he followed a large and popular estimation. ↩
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, l. VI, p. 272, edit. Casaubon. Meursius, De fortunâ atticâ, c. 4.8685 ↩
See a very accurate collection of the numbers of each Lustrum in M. de Beaufort, La République romaine, l. IV c. 4.8686 ↩
Appian, De bello Civili, l. I. Velleius Paterculus, l. II c. 15⁠–⁠17. ↩
Maecenas had advised him to declare, by one edict, all his subjects citizens. But we may justly suspect that the historian Dion was the author of a counsel so much adapted to the practice of his own age, and so little to that of Augustus. ↩
The senators were obliged to have one third of their own landed property in Italy. See Pliny the Younger, l. VI, “Epistola 19.” The qualification was reduced by Marcus to one fourth. Since the reign of Trajan, Italy had sunk nearer to the level of the provinces. ↩
It may be doubted whether the municipal government of the cities was not the old Italian constitution rather than a transcript from that of Rome. The free government of the cities, observes Fredrich Carl von Savigny, was the leading characteristic of Italy. Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter I, p. 16. —⁠M. ↩
The first part of the Verona illustrata of the Marquis Maffei gives the clearest and most comprehensive view of the state of Italy under the Caesars.8687 ↩
See Pausanias, l. VII. The Romans condescended to restore the names of those assemblies, when they could no longer be dangerous. ↩
They are frequently mentioned by Caesar. The Abbé Jean-Baptist Dubos attempts, with very little success, to prove that the assemblies of Gaul were continued under the emperors. Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie françoise dans les Gaules, l. I c. 4. ↩
This is, perhaps, rather overstated. Most cities retained the choice of their municipal officers: some retained valuable privileges; Athens, for instance, in form was still a confederate city. (Tacitus, Annales II 53.) These privileges, indeed, depended entirely on the arbitrary will of the emperor, who revoked or restored them according to his caprice. See Ferdinand Walter, Geschichte des römischen Rechts bis auf Justinian I 324⁠—an admirable summary of the Roman constitutional history. —⁠M. ↩
Seneca the Younger in “Consolatione ad Helviam,” c. 6. ↩
Memnon apud Photius (c. 33), [c. 224, p. 231, edit. Bekker —⁠M.]. Valerius Maximus IX 2. Plutarch and Dion Cassius swell the massacre to 150,000 citizens; but I should esteem the smaller number to be more than sufficient. ↩
Twenty-five colonies were settled in Spain (see Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae III 3, 4; IV 35); and nine in Britain, of which London, Colchester, Lincoln, Chester, Gloucester, and Bath still remain considerable cities. (See Richard of Cirencester, p. 36, and Whitaker’s History of Manchester, l. I c. 3.) ↩
Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae XVI 13. The Emperor Hadrian expressed his surprise that the cities of Utica, Gades, and Italica, which already enjoyed the rights of Municipia, should solicit the title of colonies. Their example, however, became fashionable, and the empire was filled with honorary colonies. See Ézechiél Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum XIII. ↩
The right of Latium conferred an exemption from the government of the Roman prefect. Strabo states this distinctly, l. IV, p. 295, edit. Casaub. See also Walter, p. 233. —⁠M. ↩
Spanheim, Orbis Romanus, c. 8, p. 62. ↩
Aristides in Romae encomio, tom. I, p. 218, edit. Jebb. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XI 23, 24. Historiae IV 74. ↩
See Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae III 5. Augustine, De civitate Dei XIX 7. Lipsius, De recta pronunciatione Latinae linguae dialogus, c. 3. ↩
Apuleius and Augustine will answer for Africa; Strabo for Spain and Gaul; Tacitus, in the life of Agricola, for Britain; and Velleius Paterculus, for Pannonia. To them we may add the language of the Inscriptions.8688 ↩
The Celtic was preserved in the mountains of Wales, Cornwall, and Armorica. We may observe that Apuleius reproaches an African youth, who lived among the populace, with the use of the Punic; whilst he had almost forgot Greek, and neither could nor would speak Latin (Apologeticus, p. 596). The greater part of St. Austin’s congregations were strangers to the Punic. ↩
Spain alone produced Columella, the Senecas, Lucan, Martial, and Quintilian. ↩
There is not, I believe, from Dionysius to Libanius, a single Greek critic who mentions Virgil or Horace. They seem ignorant that the Romans had any good writers. ↩
The curious reader may see in Louis Dupin (Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, tom. XIX, p. 1, c. 8) how much the use of the Syriac and Egyptian languages was still preserved. ↩
See Juvenal, Satires III and XV. Ammianus Marcellinus XXII 16. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXXVII, p. 1275. The first instance happened under the reign of Septimius Severus. ↩
See Valerius Maximus, l. II c. 2, n. 2. The emperor Claudius disfranchised an eminent Grecian for not understanding Latin. He was probably in some public office. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Claudius,” c. 16.8689 ↩
It was this which rendered the wars so sanguinary, and the battles so obstinate. The immortal Robertson, in an excellent discourse on the state of the world at the period of the establishment of Christianity, has traced a picture of the melancholy effects of slavery, in which we find all the depth of his views and the strength of his mind. I shall oppose successively some passages to the reflections of Gibbon. The reader will see, not without interest, the truths which Gibbon appears to have mistaken or voluntarily neglected, developed by one of the best of modern historians. It is important to call them to mind here, in order to establish the facts and their consequences with accuracy. I shall more than once have occasion to employ, for this purpose, the discourse of Robertson.

“Captives taken in war were, in all probability, the first persons subjected to perpetual servitude; and when the necessities or luxury of mankind increased the demand for slaves, every new war recruited their number by reducing the vanquished to that wretched condition. Hence proceeded the fierce and desperate spirit with which wars were carried on among ancient nations. While chains and slavery were the certain lot of the conquered, battles were fought, and towns defended, with a rage and obstinacy which nothing but horror at such a fate could have inspired; but, by putting an end to the cruel institution of slavery, Christianity extended its mild influences to the practice of war, and that barbarous art, softened by its humane spirit, ceased to be so destructive. Secure, in every event, of personal liberty, the resistance of the vanquished became less obstinate, and the triumph of the victor was less cruel. Thus humanity was introduced into the exercise of war, with which it appears to be almost incompatible; and it is to the merciful maxims of Christianity, much more than to any other cause, that we must ascribe the little ferocity and bloodshed which accompany modern victories.”

—⁠G. ↩
In the camp of Lucullus, an ox sold for a drachma, and a slave for four drachmae, or about three shillings. Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Lucullus,” p. 580.8690 ↩
Diodorus Siculus in Eclogues, Bibliotheca historica, l. XXXIV and XXXVI. Florus III 19, 20. ↩
The following is the example: we shall see whether the word “severe” is here in its place.

“At the time in which Lucius Domitius was praetor in Sicily, a slave killed a wild boar of extraordinary size. The praetor, struck by the dexterity and courage of the man, desired to see him. The poor wretch, highly gratified with the distinction, came to present himself before the praetor, in hopes, no doubt, of praise and reward; but Domitius, on learning that he had only a javelin to attack and kill the boar, ordered him to be instantly crucified, under the barbarous pretext that the law prohibited the use of this weapon, as of all others, to slaves.”

Perhaps the cruelty of Domitius is less astonishing than the indifference with which the Roman orator relates this circumstance, which affects him so little that he thus expresses himself: “Durum hoc fortasse videatur, neque ego in ullam partem disputo.” “This may appear harsh, nor do I give any opinion on the subject.” And it is the same orator who exclaims in the same oration, “Facinus est cruciare civem Romanum; scelus verberare; prope parricidium necare: quid dicam in crucem tollere?” “It is a crime to imprison a Roman citizen; wickedness to scourge; next to parricide to put to death: what shall I call it to crucify?”

In general, this passage of Gibbon on slavery, is full, not only of blamable indifference, but of an exaggeration of impartiality which resembles dishonesty. He endeavors to extenuate all that is appalling in the condition and treatment of the slaves; he would make us consider those cruelties as possibly “justified by necessity.” He then describes with minute accuracy the slightest mitigations of their deplorable condition; he attributes to the virtue or the policy of the emperors the progressive amelioration in the lot of the slaves; and he passes over in silence the most influential cause, that which, after rendering the slaves less miserable, has contributed at length entirely to enfranchise them from their sufferings and their chains⁠—Christianity. It would be easy to accumulate the most frightful, the most agonizing details, of the manner in which the Romans treated their slaves; whole works have been devoted to the description. I content myself with referring to them. Some reflections of Robertson, taken from the discourse already quoted, will make us feel that Gibbon, in tracing the mitigation of the condition of the slaves, up to a period little later than that which witnessed the establishment of Christianity in the world, could not have avoided the acknowledgment of the influence of that beneficent cause if he had not already determined not to speak of it.

“Upon establishing despotic government in the Roman empire, domestic tyranny rose, in a short time, to an astonishing height. In that rank soil, every vice, which power nourishes in the great, or oppression engenders in the mean, thrived and grew up apace.⁠ ⁠… It is not the authority of any single detached precept in the gospel, but the spirit and genius of the Christian religion, more powerful than any particular command, which hath abolished the practice of slavery throughout the world. The temper which Christianity inspired was mild and gentle; and the doctrines it taught added such dignity and lustre to human nature, as rescued it from the dishonorable servitude into which it was sunk.”

It is in vain, then, that Gibbon pretends to attribute solely to the desire of keeping up the number of slaves, the milder conduct which the Romans began to adopt in their favor at the time of the emperors. This cause had hitherto acted in an opposite direction; how came it on a sudden to have a different influence? “The masters,” he says, “encouraged the marriage of their slaves;⁠ ⁠… the sentiments of nature, the habits of education, contributed to alleviate the hardships of servitude.” The children of slaves were the property of their master, who could dispose of or alienate them like the rest of his property. Is it in such a situation, with such notions, that the sentiments of nature unfold themselves, or habits of education become mild and peaceful? We must not attribute to causes inadequate or altogether without force, effects which require to explain them a reference to more influential causes; and even if these slighter causes had in effect a manifest influence, we must not forget that they are themselves the effect of a primary, a higher, and more extensive cause, which, in giving to the mind and to the character a more disinterested and more humane bias, disposed men to second or themselves to advance, by their conduct, and by the change of manners, the happy results which it tended to produce. —⁠G.

I have retained the whole of M. Guizot’s note, though, in his zeal for the invaluable blessings of freedom and Christianity, he has done Gibbon injustice. The condition of the slaves was undoubtedly improved under the emperors. What a great authority has said, “The condition of a slave is better under an arbitrary than under a free government” (Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations IV 7), is, I believe, supported by the history of all ages and nations. The protecting edicts of Hadrian and the Antonines are historical facts, and can as little be attributed to the influence of Christianity, as the milder language of heathen writers, of Seneca (particularly Epistle 47), of Pliny, and of Plutarch. The latter influence of Christianity is admitted by Gibbon himself. The subject of Roman slavery has recently been investigated with great diligence in a very modest but valuable volume, by William Blair, Esq., Edinburgh 1833. May we be permitted, while on the subject, to refer to the most splendid passage extant of Mr. Pitt’s eloquence, the description of the Roman slave-dealer on the shores of Britain, condemning the island to irreclaimable barbarism, as a perpetual and prolific nursery of slaves? Speeches, vol. II, p. 80.

Gibbon, it should be added, was one of the first and most consistent opponents of the African slave-trade. (See chapter XXV and letters to Lord Sheffield, Miscellaneous Works.) —⁠M. ↩
See a remarkable instance of severity in Cicero, In verrem V 3. ↩
An active slave-trade, which was carried on in many quarters, particularly the Euxine, the eastern provinces, the coast of Africa, and Britain, must be taken into the account. Blair, 23⁠–⁠32. —⁠M. ↩
The Romans, as well in the first ages of the republic as later, allowed to their slaves a kind of marriage (contubernium); notwithstanding this, luxury made a greater number of slaves in demand. The increase in their population was not sufficient, and recourse was had to the purchase of slaves, which was made even in the provinces of the East subject to the Romans. It is, moreover, known that slavery is a state little favorable to population. [See Hume’s Essays, and Thomas Malthus’ An Essay on the Principle of Population I 334. —⁠G.] The testimony of Appian (De bello Civili, l. I c. 7) is decisive in favor of the rapid multiplication of the agricultural slaves; it is confirmed by the numbers engaged in the servile wars. Compare also Blair, p. 119; likewise Columella, De re rustica, l. VIII. —⁠M. ↩
See in Gruter, and the other collectors, a great number of inscriptions addressed by slaves to their wives, children, fellow-servants, masters, etc. They are all, most probably, of the Imperial age. ↩
See the Augustan History, and a dissertation of M. de Burigny, in the thirty-fifth volume of the Academy of Inscriptions, upon the Roman slaves. ↩
See another dissertation of M. de Burigny, in the thirty-seventh volume of the Academy of Inscriptions, on the Roman freedmen. ↩
Spanheim, Orbis Romanus, l. I c. 16, p. 124, etc. ↩
Seneca, “De Clementia” l. I c. 24. The original is much stronger, “Quantum periculum immineret si servi nostri numerare nos coepissent.” ↩
See Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae, l. XXXIII) and Athenaeus (Deipnosophistae, l. VI, p. 272). The latter boldly asserts that he knew very many (παμπολλοι) Romans who possessed, not for use, but ostentation, ten and even twenty thousand slaves. ↩
In Paris there are not more than 43,700 domestics of every sort, and not a twelfth part of the inhabitants. Louis Messance, Recherches sur la population, p. 186. ↩
A learned slave sold for many hundred pounds sterling; Atticus always bred and taught them himself. Cornelius Nepos in De vita Ciceronis, c. 13. [On the prices of slaves, Blair, 149. —⁠M.] ↩
Many of the Roman physicians were slaves. See Dr. Conyers Middleton’s Dissertation and Defence. ↩
Their ranks and offices are very copiously enumerated by Pignorius de Servis. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XIV 43. They were all executed for not preventing their master’s murder.8691 ↩
Apuleius in Apologia, p. 548, edit. Delphin. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. XXXIII 47. ↩
According to Robertson, there were twice as many slaves as free citizens. —⁠G.

Mr. Blair (p. 15) estimates three slaves to one freeman, between the conquest of Greece, BC 146, and the reign of Alexander Severus, AD 222, 235. The proportion was probably larger in Italy than in the provinces. —⁠M.

On the other hand, Karl Zumpt, in his dissertation quoted below (p. 86), asserts it to be a “gross error in Gibbon to reckon the number of slaves equal to that of the free population. The luxury and magnificence of the great” (he observes), “at the commencement of the empire, must not be taken as the groundwork of calculations for the whole Roman world. The agricultural laborer, and the artisan, in Spain, Gaul, Britain, Syria, and Egypt, maintained himself, as in the present day, by his own labor and that of his household, without possessing a single slave.” The latter part of my note was intended to suggest this consideration. Yet so completely was slavery rooted in the social system, both in the east and the west, that in the great diffusion of wealth at this time, everyone, I doubt not, who could afford a domestic slave, kept one; and generally, the number of slaves was in proportion to the wealth. I do not believe that the cultivation of the soil by slaves was confined to Italy; the holders of large estates in the provinces would probably, either from choice or necessity, adopt the same mode of cultivation. The latifundia, says Pliny the Elder, had ruined Italy, and had begun to ruin the provinces. Slaves were no doubt employed in agricultural labor to a great extent in Sicily, and were the estates of those six enormous landholders who were said to have possessed the whole province of Africa, cultivated altogether by free coloni? Whatever may have been the case in the rural districts, in the towns and cities the household duties were almost entirely discharged by slaves, and vast numbers belonged to the public establishments. I do not, however, differ so far from Zumpt, and from M. Dureau de La Malle, as to adopt the higher and bolder estimate of Robertson and Mr. Blair, rather than the more cautious suggestions of Gibbon. I would reduce rather than increase the proportion of the slave population. The very ingenious and elaborate calculations of the French writer, by which he deduces the amount of the population from the produce and consumption of corn in Italy, appear to me neither precise nor satisfactory bases for such complicated political arithmetic. I am least satisfied with his views as to the population of the city of Rome; but this point will be more fitly reserved for a note on the thirty-first chapter of Gibbon. The work, however, of M. Dureau de La Malle is very curious and full on some of the minuter points of Roman statistics. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Compute twenty millions in France, twenty-two in Germany, four in Hungary, ten in Italy with its islands, eight in Great Britain and Ireland, eight in Spain and Portugal, ten or twelve in the European Russia, six in Poland, six in Greece and Turkey, four in Sweden, three in Denmark and Norway, four in the Low Countries. The whole would amount to one hundred and five, or one hundred and seven millions. See Voltaire, Essai sur l’histoire générale, et sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations.8692 ↩
Josephus, De bello Judaico, l. II c. 16. The oration of Agrippa, or rather of the historian, is a fine picture of the Roman empire. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 28. Augustus built in Rome the temple and forum of Mars the Avenger; the temple of Jupiter Tonans in the Capitol; that of Apollo Palatine, with public libraries; the portico and basilica of Caius and Lucius; the porticos of Livia and Octavia; and the theatre of Marcellus. The example of the sovereign was imitated by his ministers and generals; and his friend Agrippa left behind him the immortal monument of the Pantheon. ↩
See Maffei, Verona illustrata, l. IV, p. 68. ↩
See the tenth book of Pliny the Younger’s Epistles. He mentions the following works carried on at the expense of the cities. At Nicomedia, a new forum, an aqueduct, and a canal, left unfinished by a king; at Nice, a gymnasium, and a theatre, which had already cost near ninety thousand pounds; baths at Prusa and Claudiopolis, and an aqueduct of sixteen miles in length for the use of Sinope. ↩
Hadrian afterwards made a very equitable regulation, which divided all treasure-trove between the right of property and that of discovery. Historia Augusta, p. 9. ↩
Philostratus in Vita Sophistarum, l. II, p. 548. ↩
Aulus Gellius in Noctes atticae I 2, IX 2, XVIII 10, XIX 12. Philostratus, p. 564. ↩
The Odeum served for the rehearsal of new comedies as well as tragedies; they were read or repeated, before representation, without music or decorations, etc. No piece could be represented in the theatre if it had not been previously approved by judges for this purpose. The king of Cappadocia who restored the Odeum, which had been burnt by Sylla, was Araobarzanes. See Martini, Dissertation on the Odeons of the Ancients, Leipzig, 1767, pp. 10⁠–⁠91. —⁠W. ↩
See Philostratus, l. II, pp. 548, 560. Pausanias, l. I and VII 10. The life of Herodes, in the thirtieth volume of the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions. ↩
It is particularly remarked of Athens by Dicaearchus, De statu Graeciae, p. 8, inter Geographiae veteris scriptores Graeci minores, edit. John Hudson. ↩
Donatus, Roma vetus ac recens, l. III c. 4⁠–⁠6. Famiano Nardini, Roma antica, l. III 11⁠–⁠13, and a MS. description of ancient Rome, by Bernardus Oricellarius, or Rucellai, of which I obtained a copy from the library of the Canon Ricardi at Florence. Two celebrated pictures of Timanthes and of Protogenes are mentioned by Pliny the Elder, as in the Temple of Peace; and the Laocoön was found in the baths of Titus. ↩
The Emperor Vespasian, who had caused the Temple of Peace to be built, transported to it the greatest part of the pictures, statues, and other works of art which had escaped the civil tumults. It was there that every day the artists and the learned of Rome assembled; and it is on the site of this temple that a multitude of antiques have been dug up. See notes of Reimar on Dion Cassius LXVI c. 15, p. 1083. —⁠W. ↩
Bernard de Montfaucon, L’Antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures, tom. IV, p. 2, l. I c. 9. Fabretti has composed a very learned treatise on the aqueducts of Rome. ↩
Claudius Aelianus, Varia historia, lib. IX c. 16. He lived in the time of Alexander Severus. See John Albert Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, l. IV c. 21. ↩
This may in some degree account for the difficulty started by Livy, as to the incredibly numerous armies raised by the small states around Rome where in his time a scanty stock of free soldiers among a larger population of Roman slaves broke the solitude. Vix seminario exiguo militum relicto, servitia Romana ab solitudine vindicant, Livy VI, VII. Compare Appian, De bello Civili I 7. —⁠M. substituted for G. ↩
Josephus, De bello Judaico II 16. The number, however, is mentioned, and should be received with a degree of latitude.8693 ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae III 5. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae III 3, 4, IV 35. The list seems authentic and accurate; the division of the provinces, and the different condition of the cities, are minutely distinguished. ↩
Strabonis geographica, l. XVII, p. 1189. ↩
Josephus, De bello Judaico II 16. Philostratus in Vita Sophistarum, l. II, p. 548, edit. Olearius. ↩
Tacitus, Annales IV 55. I have taken some pains in consulting and comparing modern travellers with regard to the fate of those eleven cities of Asia. Seven or eight are totally destroyed: Hypaepe, Tralles, Laodicea, Ilium, Halicarnassus, Miletus, Ephesus, and we may add Sardes. Of the remaining three, Pergamus is a straggling village of two or three thousand inhabitants; Magnesia, under the name of Guzelhissar, a town of some consequence; and Smyrna, a great city, peopled by a hundred thousand souls. But even at Smyrna, while the Franks have maintained a commerce, the Turks have ruined the arts. ↩
See a very exact and pleasing description of the ruins of Laodicea, in Richard Chandler’s Travels in Greece, p. 225, etc. ↩
Strabo, l. XII, p. 866. He had studied at Tralles. ↩
See a dissertation of M. de Boze, Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XVIII. Aristides pronounced an oration, which is still extant, to recommend concord to the rival cities. ↩
The inhabitants of Egypt, exclusive of Alexandria, amounted to seven millions and a half (Josephus, De bello Judaico II 16). Under the military government of the Mamelukes, Syria was supposed to contain sixty thousand villages (Histoire de Timur-Bec, l. V c. 20). ↩
The following itinerary may serve to convey some idea of the direction of the road, and of the distance between the principal towns.
1. From the wall of Antoninus to York, 222 Roman miles.
2. London, 227.
3. Rhutupiae or Sandwich, 67.
4. The navigation to Boulogne, 45.
5. Rheims, 174.
6. Lyons, 330.
7. Milan, 324.
8. Rome, 426.
9. Brundusium, 360.
10. The navigation to Dyrrachium, 40.
11. Byzantium, 711.
12. Ancyra, 283.
13. Tarsus, 301.
14. Antioch, 141.
15. Tyre, 252.
16. Jerusalem, 168.
In all 4,080 Roman, or 3,740 English miles. See the Itineraries published by Peter Wesseling, his annotations; Roger Gale and William Stukeley for Britain, and M. d’Anville for Gaul and Italy. ↩
Montfaucon, L’Antiquité expliquée (tom. 4, p. 2, l. I c. 5) has described the bridges of Narni, Alcantara, Nismes, etc. ↩
Bergier, Histoire des grands chemins de l’empire Romain, l. II s. 1⁠–⁠28. ↩
Procopius in Historia arcana, c. 30. Bergier, Histoire des grands chemins de l’empire Romain, l. IV. Codex Theodosianus, l. VIII tit. V vol. II, pp. 506⁠–⁠563, with Jacques Godefroy’s learned commentary. ↩
In the time of Theodosius, Caesarius, a magistrate of high rank, went post from Antioch to Constantinople. He began his journey at night, was in Cappadocia (165 miles from Antioch) the ensuing evening, and arrived at Constantinople the sixth day about noon. The whole distance was 725 Roman, or 665 English miles. See Libanius, “Oratio XXII,” and the Itineria, pp. 572⁠–⁠581.8694 ↩
Posts for the conveyance of intelligence were established by Augustus. Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, “Augustus” 49. The couriers travelled with amazing speed. Blair on Roman Slavery, note, p. 261. It is probable that the posts, from the time of Augustus, were confined to the public service, and supplied by impressment. Nerva, as it appears from a coin of his reign, made an important change; “he established posts upon all the public roads of Italy, and made the service chargeable upon his own exchequer.⁠ ⁠… Hadrian, perceiving the advantage of this improvement, extended it to all the provinces of the empire.” Edward Cardwell on Coins, p. 220. —⁠M. ↩
Pliny the Younger, though a favorite and a minister, made an apology for granting post-horses to his wife on the most urgent business. Epistulae X 121, 122. ↩
Bergier, Histoire des grands chemins de l’empire Romain, l. IV c. 49. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XIX i [In Prooemium —⁠M.].8695 ↩
It is not improbable that the Greeks and Phoenicians introduced some new arts and productions into the neighborhood of Marseilles and Gades. ↩
See Homer, Odyssey, l. IX v. 358. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. XIV. ↩
Strabonis geographica, l. IV, p. 269. The intense cold of a Gallic winter was almost proverbial among the ancients.8696 ↩
In the beginning of the fourth century, the orator Eumenius (Panegyrici veteres VIII 6, edit. Delphini) speaks of the vines in the territory of Autun, which were decayed through age, and the first plantation of which was totally unknown. The Pagus Arebrignus is supposed by M. d’Anville to be the district of Beaune, celebrated, even at present, for one of the first growths of Burgundy.8697 ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. XV. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. XIX. ↩
See the agreeable Essays on Agriculture by Mr. Walter Harte, in which he has collected all that the ancients and moderns have said of Lucerne. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 45. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXVII 13. The latter observed, with some humor, that even fashion had not yet found out the use of amber. Nero sent a Roman knight to purchase great quantities on the spot where it was produced, the coast of modern Prussia. ↩
Called Taprobana by the Romans, and Serindib by the Arabs. It was discovered under the reign of Claudius, and gradually became the principal mart of the East. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. VI. Strabo, l. XVII. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 224. A silk garment was considered as an ornament to a woman, but as a disgrace to a man. ↩
The two great pearl fisheries were the same as at present, Ormuz and Cape Comorin. As well as we can compare ancient with modern geography, Rome was supplied with diamonds from the mine of Jumelpur, in Bengal, which is described in the Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, tom. II, p. 281. ↩
Certainly not the only one. The Indians were not so contented with regard to foreign productions. Arrian has a long list of European wares, which they received in exchange for their own: Italian and other wines, brass, tin, lead, coral, chrysolith, storax, glass, dresses of one or many colors, zones, etc. See “Periplus Maris Erythraei” in Hudson, Geographi Graeci minores I, p. 27. —⁠W.

The German translator observes that Gibbon has confined the use of aromatics to religious worship and funerals. His error seems the omission of other spices, of which the Romans must have consumed great quantities in their cookery. Wenck, however, admits that silver was the chief article of exchange. —⁠M.

In 1787, a peasant (near Nellore in the Carnatic) struck, in digging, on the remains of a Hindu temple; he found, also, a pot which contained Roman coins and medals of the second century, mostly Trajans, Adrians, and Faustinas, all of gold, many of them fresh and beautiful, others defaced or perforated, as if they had been worn as ornaments. (Asiatick Researches II 19). —⁠M. ↩
Tacitus, Annales III 53. In a speech of Tiberius. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XII 18. In another place he computes half that sum; Quingenties sestertii for India exclusive of Arabia. ↩
The proportion, which was 1 to 10, and 12½, rose to 14⅖, the legal regulation of Constantine. See John Arbuthnot’s Tables of Ancient Coins, Weights and Measures, c. 5. ↩
Among many other passages, see Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae III 5), Aristides (De urbe Româ), and Tertullian (De animâ, c. 30). ↩
Herodes Atticus gave the sophist Polemo above eight thousand pounds for three declamations. See Philostratus, l. I, p. 538. The Antonines founded a school at Athens, in which professors of grammar, rhetoric, politics, and the four great sects of philosophy were maintained at the public expense for the instruction of youth.8698 The salary of a philosopher was ten thousand drachmae, between three and four hundred pounds a year. Similar establishments were formed in the other great cities of the empire. See Lucian in “Eunuchus,” tom. II, p. 352, edit. Reitz. Philostratus, l. II, p. 566. Historia Augusta, p. 21. Dion Cassius, l. LXXI, p. 1195. Juvenal himself, in a morose satire, which in every line betrays his own disappointment and envy, is obliged, however, to say⁠—

“… O Juvenes, circumspicit et stimulat vos,
Materiamque sibi Ducis indulgentia quaerit.”
—⁠“Satire VII” 20.

↩
This judgment is rather severe: besides the physicians, astronomers, and grammarians, among whom there were some very distinguished men, there were still, under Hadrian, Suetonius, Florus, Plutarch; under the Antonines, Arrian, Pausanias, Appian, Marcus Aurelius himself, Sextus Empiricus, etc. Jurisprudence gained much by the labors of Salvius Julianus, Julius Celsus, Sextus Pomponius, Caius, and others. —⁠G. from W.

Yet where among these is the writer of original genius, unless, perhaps, Plutarch? or even of a style really elegant? —⁠M. ↩
Longinus, De sublimitate, c. 44, p. 229, edit. Tollius. Here, too, we may say of Longinus, “his own example strengthens all his laws.” Instead of proposing his sentiments with a manly boldness, he insinuates them with the most guarded caution; puts them into the mouth of a friend, and as far as we can collect from a corrupted text, makes a show of refuting them himself. ↩
Often enough in the ages of superstition, but not in the interest of the people or the state, but in that of the church to which all others were subordinate. Yet the power of the pope has often been of great service in repressing the excesses of sovereigns, and in softening manners. —⁠W.

The history of the Italian republics proves the error of Gibbon, and the justice of his German translator’s comment. —⁠M. ↩
Orosius VI 18.8699 ↩
Julius Caesar introduced soldiers, strangers, and half-barbarians into the senate (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Julius Caesar,” c. 77, 80). The abuse became still more scandalous after his death. ↩
Of these Dion and Suetonius knew nothing. —⁠W.

Dion says the contrary, αὐτὸς μὲν οὐδένα αὐτῶν ἀπήλειψε. —⁠M. ↩
But Augustus, then Octavius, was censor, and in virtue of that office, even according to the constitution of the free republic, could reform the senate, expel unworthy members, name the Princeps Senatûs, etc. That was called, as is well known, Senatum legere. It was customary during the free republic for the censor to be named Princeps Senatûs (see Livy, l. XXVII c. 11, l. XL c. 51); and Dion expressly says that this was done according to ancient usage. He was empowered by a decree of the senate (βουλῆς ἐπιτρεψάσης) to admit a number of families among the patricians. Finally, the senate was not the legislative power. —⁠W. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LIII, p. 693. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 35. ↩
Dion (l. LIII, p. 698) gives us a prolix and bombast speech on this great occasion. I have borrowed from Suetonius and Tacitus the general language of Augustus. ↩
Imperator (from which we have derived Emperor) signified under her republic no more than general, and was emphatically bestowed by the soldiers, when on the field of battle they proclaimed their victorious leader worthy of that title. When the Roman emperors assumed it in that sense, they placed it after their name, and marked how often they had taken it. ↩
Dion, l. LIII, p. 703, etc. ↩
Livy, Epitome, l. XIV [c. 27 —⁠M.]. Valerius Maximus VI 3. ↩
See, in the eighth book of Livy, the conduct of Manlius Torquatus and Papirius Cursor. They violated the laws of nature and humanity, but they asserted those of military discipline; and the people, who abhorred the action, were obliged to respect the principle. ↩
By the lavish but unconstrained suffrages of the people, Pompey had obtained a military command scarcely inferior to that of Augustus. Among the extraordinary acts of power executed by the former, we may remark the foundation of twenty-nine cities, and the distribution of three or four millions sterling to his troops. The ratification of his acts met with some opposition and delays in the senate. See Plutarch, Appian, Dion Cassius, and the first book of the epistles to Atticus. ↩
Under the commonwealth, a triumph could only be claimed by the general, who was authorized to take the Auspices in the name of the people. By an exact consequence, drawn from this principle of policy and religion, the triumph was reserved to the emperor; and his most successful lieutenants were satisfied with some marks of distinction, which, under the name of triumphal honors, were invented in their favor. ↩
This distinction is without foundation. The lieutenants of the emperor, who were called Propraetors, whether they had been praetors or consuls, were attended by six lictors; those who had the right of the sword [of life and death over the soldiers. —⁠M.], bore the military habit (paludamentum) and the sword. The provincial governors commissioned by the senate, who, whether they had been consuls or not, were called Pronconsuls, had twelve lictors when they had been consuls, and six only when they had but been praetors. The provinces of Africa and Asia were only given to ex-consuls. See, on the organization of the provinces, Dion LIII 12, 16. Strabo XVII 840. —⁠W. ↩
Cicero (De legibus III 3) gives the consular office the name of Regia potestas; and Polybius (l. VI c. 3) observes three powers in the Roman constitution. The monarchical was represented and exercised by the consuls. ↩
As the tribunitian power (distinct from the annual office) was first invented by the dictator Caesar (Dion, l. XLIV, p. 384), we may easily conceive that it was given as a reward for having so nobly asserted, by arms, the sacred rights of the tribunes and people. See his own commentaries, De bello Civili, l. I. ↩
Augustus exercised nine annual consulships without interruption. He then most artfully refused that magistracy, as well as the dictatorship, absented himself from Rome, and waited till the fatal effects of tumult and faction forced the senate to invest him with a perpetual consulship. Augustus, as well as his successors, affected, however, to conceal so invidious a title. ↩
The note of M. Guizot on the tribunitian power applies to the French translation rather than to the original. The former has maintenir la balance toujours egale, which implies much more than Gibbon’s general expression. The note belongs rather to the history of the Republic than that of the Empire. —⁠M. ↩
See a fragment of a Decree of the Senate, conferring on the Emperor Vespasian all the powers granted to his predecessors, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius. This curious and important monument is published in Jan Gruter’s Inscriptiones antiquae totius orbis Romani, No. CCXLII.8700 ↩
Two consuls were created on the Calends of January; but in the course of the year others were substituted in their places, till the annual number seems to have amounted to no less than twelve. The praetors were usually sixteen or eighteen (Lipsius in Excursus D ad Tacitus, Annales, l. I). I have not mentioned the Aediles or Quaestors. Officers of the police or revenue easily adapt themselves to any form of government. In the time of Nero, the tribunes legally possessed the right of intercession, though it might be dangerous to exercise it (Tacitus, Annales XVI 26). In the time of Trajan, it was doubtful whether the tribuneship was an office or a name (Pliny the Younger, Epistulae I 23). ↩
The tyrants themselves were ambitious of the consulship. The virtuous princes were moderate in the pursuit, and exact in the discharge of it. Trajan revived the ancient oath, and swore before the consul’s tribunal that he would observe the laws (Pliny the Younger, “Panegyricus,” c. 64). ↩
Quoties Magistratuum Comitiis interesset. Tribus cum candidatis suis circunbat: supplicabatque more solemni. Ferebat et ipse suffragium in tribubus, ut unus e populo. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 56. ↩
Tum primum Comitia e campo ad patres translata sunt. Tacitus, Annales I 15. The word primum seems to allude to some faint and unsuccessful efforts which were made towards restoring them to the people.8701 ↩
Dion Cassius (l. LIII, pp. 703⁠–⁠714) has given a very loose and partial sketch of the Imperial system. To illustrate and often to correct him, I have meditated Tacitus, examined Suetonius, and consulted the following moderns: the Abbé de La Bléterie, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XIX, XXI, XXIV, XXV, XXVII. Beaufort, La République romaine, tom. I, pp. 255⁠–⁠275. The dissertations of Gerard Noodt and Johann Gronovius, De lege Regia, printed at Leyden, in the year 1731. Giovanni Gravina, De Romano imperio, pp. 479⁠–⁠544 of his Opuscula. Maffei, Verona illustrata, part I, p. 245, etc. ↩
A weak prince will always be governed by his domestics. The power of slaves aggravated the shame of the Romans; and the senate paid court to a Pallas or a Narcissus. There is a chance that a modern favorite may be a gentleman. ↩
See a treatise of Anton van Dale, De consecratione principium. It would be easier for me to copy, than it has been to verify, the quotations of that learned Dutchman. ↩
This is inaccurate. The successors of Alexander were not the first deified sovereigns; the Egyptians had deified and worshipped many of their kings; the Olympus of the Greeks was peopled with divinities who had reigned on earth; finally, Romulus himself had received the honors of an apotheosis (Titus Livius I 16) a long time before Alexander and his successors. It is also an inaccuracy to confound the honors offered in the provinces to the Roman governors, by temples and altars, with the true apotheosis of the emperors; it was not a religious worship, for it had neither priests nor sacrifices. Augustus was severely blamed for having permitted himself to be worshipped as a god in the provinces (Tacitus, Annales I 10); he would not have incurred that blame if he had only done what the governors were accustomed to do. —⁠G. from W.

M. Guizot has been guilty of a still greater inaccuracy in confounding the deification of the living with the apotheosis of the dead emperors. The nature of the king-worship of Egypt is still very obscure; the hero-worship of the Greeks very different from the adoration of the “praesens numen” in the reigning sovereign. —⁠M. ↩
See a dissertation of the Abbé Mongault in the first volume of the Academy of Inscriptions. ↩
Jurandasque tuum per nomen ponimus aras, says Horace to the emperor himself, and Horace was well acquainted with the court of Augustus.8702 ↩
The curious satire the ἀποκολυντωσις, in the works of Seneca, is the strongest remonstrance of profaned religion. —⁠M. ↩
See Cicero in Philippicae I 6. Julian in Caesaribus. Inque Deûm templis jurabit Roma per umbras, is the indignant expression of Lucan; but it is a patriotic rather than a devout indignation. ↩
Octavius was not of an obscure family, but of a considerable one of the equestrian order. His father, Gaius Octavius, who possessed great property, had been praetor, governor of Macedonia, adorned with the title of Imperator, and was on the point of becoming consul when he died. His mother, Attia, was daughter of Marcus Attius Balbus, who had also been praetor. Mark Anthony reproached Octavius with having been born in Aricia, which, nevertheless, was a considerable municipal city: he was vigorously refuted by Cicero. Philippicae III c. 6. —⁠W.

Gibbon probably meant that the family had but recently emerged into notice. —⁠M. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LIII, p. 710, with the curious annotations of Reimar. ↩
This title expressed something more. It recognized him as a being of a divine nature, and, on this account, entitled to the passive obedience of his subjects. Hence Dion says (LIII 16), Αὔγουστος, ὡς καὶ πλεῖον ἥ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ὤν, ἐπεχλήθη; and Vegetius (II 5) express still more clearly the full import of the word: “Nam imperatori, cum Augusti nomen accepit, tanquam praesenti et corporali deo fidelis est praestanda devotio et impendendus pervigil famulatus.” —⁠S. ↩
The princes who by their birth or their adoption belonged to the family of the Caesars, took the name of Caesar. After the death of Nero, this name designated the Imperial dignity itself, and afterwards the appointed successor. The time at which it was employed in the latter sense cannot be fixed with certainty. Johann Augustus Bach (Historia jurisprudentiae Romanae 304) affirms from Tacitus, Historiae I 15, and Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, “Galba” 17, that Galba conferred on Piso Licinianus the title of Caesar, and from that time the term had this meaning: but these two historians simply say that he appointed Piso his successor, and do not mention the word Caesar. Aurelius Victor (in De Caesaribus, “Trajan” 348, edit. Arntzenius) says that Hadrian first received this title on his adoption; but as the adoption of Hadrian is still doubtful, and besides this, as Trajan on his deathbed was not likely to have created a new title for his successor, it is more probable that Aelius Verus was the first who was called Caesar, when adopted by Hadrian. Spartianus in Historia Augusta, “Aelio Vero” 102. —⁠W. ↩
As Octavianus advanced to the banquet of the Caesars, his color changed like that of the chameleon; pale at first, then red, afterwards black, he at last assumed the mild livery of Venus and the Graces (Caesars, p. 309). This image, employed by Julian in his ingenious fiction, is just and elegant; but when he considers this change of character as real and ascribes it to the power of philosophy, he does too much honor to philosophy and to Octavianus. ↩
Two centuries after the establishment of monarchy, the emperor Marcus Antoninus recommends the character of Brutus as a perfect model of Roman virtue.8703 ↩
It is much to be regretted that we have lost the part of Tacitus which treated of that transaction. We are forced to content ourselves with the popular rumors of Josephus, and the imperfect hints of Dion and Suetonius. ↩
Augustus restored the ancient severity of discipline. After the civil wars, he dropped the endearing name of Fellow-Soldiers, and called them only Soldiers (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “August,” c. 25). See the use Tiberius made of the Senate in the mutiny of the Pannonian legions (Tacitus, Annales I). ↩
Caligula perished by a conspiracy formed by the officers of the praetorian troops, and Domitian would not, perhaps, have been assassinated without the participation of the two chiefs of that guard in his death. —⁠W. ↩
These words seem to have been the constitutional language. See Tacitus, Annales XIII 4.8704 ↩
The first was Camillus Scribonianus, who took up arms in Dalmatia against Claudius, and was deserted by his own troops in five days; the second, Lucius Antonius, in Germany, who rebelled against Domitian; and the third, Avidius Cassius, in the reign of Marcus Antoninus. The two last reigned but a few months, and were cut off by their own adherents. We may observe that both Camillus and Cassius colored their ambition with the design of restoring the republic; a task, said Cassius, peculiarly reserved for his name and family. ↩
Velleius Paterculus, l. II c. 121. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Tiberius,” c. 26. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Titus,” c. 6. Pliny the Elder in Praefatio Naturalis historiae. ↩
This idea is frequently and strongly inculcated by Tacitus. See Historiae I 5, 16, II 76. ↩
The emperor Vespasian, with his usual good sense, laughed at the genealogists, who deduced his family from Flavius, the founder of Reate (his native country), and one of the companions of Hercules. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Vespasian,” c. 12. ↩
Dion, l. LXVIII, p. 1121. Pliny Secundus in “Panegyricus Traiani.” ↩
Felicior Augusto, Melior Trajano. Eutropius VIII 5. ↩
Dion (l. LXIX, p. 1249) affirms the whole to have been a fiction, on the authority of his father, who, being governor of the province where Trajan died, had very good opportunities of sifting this mysterious transaction. Yet Henry Dodwell (Praelectiones academicae in schola historices Camdeniana XVII) has maintained that Hadrian was called to the certain hope of the empire during the lifetime of Trajan. ↩
Dion (l. LXX, p. 1171). Aurelius Victor. ↩
The deification of Antinous, his medals, his statues, temples, city, oracles, and constellation are well known, and still dishonor the memory of Hadrian. Yet we may remark that of the first fifteen emperors, Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct. For the honors of Antinous, see Spanheim, Commentaire sur Les Cesars de l’empereur Julien, p. 80. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 13. Aurelius Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. ↩
Without the help of medals and inscriptions, we should be ignorant of this fact, so honorable to the memory of Pius.8705 ↩
During the twenty-three years of Pius’s reign, Marcus was only two nights absent from the palace, and even those were at different times. Historia Augusta, p. 25. ↩
He was fond of the theatre, and not insensible to the charms of the fair sex. Marcus Antoninus I 16. Historia Augusta, pp. 20, 21. Julian in Caesars. ↩
The enemies of Marcus charged him with hypocrisy, and with a want of that simplicity which distinguished Pius and even Verus. (Historia Augusta 6, 34.) This suspicion, unjust as it was, may serve to account for the superior applause bestowed upon personal qualifications in preference to the social virtues. Even Marcus Antoninus has been called a hypocrite; but the wildest scepticism never insinuated that Caesar might possibly be a coward, or Tully a fool. Wit and valor are qualifications more easily ascertained than humanity or the love of justice. ↩
Tacitus has characterized, in a few words, the principles of the portico: Doctores sapientiae secutus est, qui sola bona quae honesta, mala tantum quae turpia; potentiam, anobilitatem, caeteraque extra animum, neque bonis neque malis adnumerant. Tacitus, Historiae IV 5. ↩
Before he went on the second expedition against the Germans, he read lectures of philosophy to the Roman people during three days. He had already done the same in the cities of Greece and Asia. Historia Augusta in “Cassio,” c. 3. ↩
Cassius was murdered by his own partisans. Vulcatius Gallicanus in “Cassio,” c. 7. Dion LXXI c. 27. —⁠W. ↩
Dion, l. LXXI, p. 1190. Historia Augusta in “Avidius Cassius.”8706 ↩
Marcus would not accept the services of any of the barbarian allies who crowded to his standard in the war against Avidius Cassius. “Barbarians,” he said, with wise but vain sagacity, “must not become acquainted with the dissensions of the Roman people.” Mai, Fragmenta Vaticana I 224. —⁠M. ↩
Historia Augusta in “Marcus Antoninus,” c. 18. ↩
Vitellius consumed in mere eating at least six millions of our money in about seven months. It is not easy to express his vices with dignity, or even decency. Tacitus fairly calls him a hog, but it is by substituting for a coarse word a very fine image. “At Vitellius, umbraculis hortorum abditus, ut ignava animalia, quibus si cibum suggeras, jacent torpentque, praeterita, instantia, futura, pari oblivione dimiserat. Atque illum nemore Aricino desidem et marcentum,” etc. Tacitus, Historiae III 36, II 95. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Vitellius,” c. 13. Dion Cassius, l. LXV, p. 1062. ↩
The execution of Helvidius Priscus, and of the virtuous Eponina, disgraced the reign of Vespasian. ↩
Voyages de Chardin en Perse, vol. III, p. 293. ↩
The practice of raising slaves to the great offices of state is still more common among the Turks than among the Persians. The miserable countries of Georgia and Circassia supply rulers to the greatest part of the East. ↩
Jean Chardin says that European travellers have diffused among the Persians some ideas of the freedom and mildness of our governments. They have done them a very ill office. ↩
They alleged the example of Scipio and Cato (Tacitus, Annales III 66). Marcellus Epirus and Crispus Vibius had acquired two millions and a half under Nero. Their wealth, which aggravated their crimes, protected them under Vespasian. See Tacitus, Historiae IV 43. Dialogus de oratoribus, c. 8. For one accusation, Regulus, the just object of Pliny the Younger’s satire, received from the senate the consular ornaments, and a present of sixty thousand pounds. ↩
The crime of majesty was formerly a treasonable offence against the Roman people. As tribunes of the people, Augustus and Tiberius applied it to their own persons, and extended it to an infinite latitude.8707 ↩
After the virtuous and unfortunate widow of Germanicus had been put to death, Tiberius received the thanks of the senate for his clemency. She had not been publicly strangled; nor was the body drawn with a hook to the Gemoniae, where those of common malefactors were exposed. See Tacitus, Annales VI 25. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Tiberius,” c. 53. ↩
Seriphus was a small rocky island in the Aegean Sea, the inhabitants of which were despised for their ignorance and obscurity. The place of Ovid’s exile is well known, by his just but unmanly lamentations. It should seem that he only received an order to leave Rome in so many days, and to transport himself to Tomi. Guards and jailers were unnecessary. ↩
Under Tiberius, a Roman knight attempted to fly to the Parthians. He was stopped in the straits of Sicily; but so little danger did there appear in the example, that the most jealous of tyrants disdained to punish it. Tacitus, Annales VI 14. ↩
Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares IV 7. ↩
See the complaints of Avidius Cassius, Historia Augusta, p. 45. These are, it is true, the complaints of faction; but even faction exaggerates, rather than invents. ↩
His brother by adoption, and his colleague, Lucius Verus. Marcus Aurelius had no other brother. —⁠W. ↩
Faustinam satis constat apud Cajetam conditiones sibi et nauticas et gladiatorias, elegisse. Historia Augusta, p. 30. Lampridius explains the sort of merit which Faustina chose, and the conditions which she exacted. Historia Augusta, p. 102. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 34. ↩
Meditatations, l. I. The world has laughed at the credulity of Marcus but Madam Dacier assures us (and we may credit a lady) that the husband will always be deceived, if the wife condescends to dissemble. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXXI [c. 31 —⁠M.], p. 1195. Historia Augusta, p. 33. Commentaire de Spanheim sur Les Cesars de l’empereur Julien, p. 289. The deification of Faustina is the only defect which Julian’s criticism is able to discover in the all-accomplished character of Marcus. ↩
Commodus was the first Porphyrogenitus (born since his father’s accession to the throne). By a new strain of flattery, the Egyptian medals date by the years of his life; as if they were synonymous to those of his reign. Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. II, p. 752. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 46. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXXII, p. 1203. ↩
According to Tertullian (Apologeticus, c. 25), he died at Sirmium. But the situation of Vindobona, or Vienna, where both the Victors place his death, is better adapted to the operations of the war against the Marcomanni and Quadi. ↩
Herodian, l. I, p. 12. ↩
Herodian, l. I, p. 16. ↩
This universal joy is well described (from the medals as well as historians) by Mr. William Wotton, History of Rome, pp. 192, 193. ↩
Manilius, the confidential secretary of Avidius Cassius, was discovered after he had lain concealed several years. The emperor nobly relieved the public anxiety by refusing to see him, and burning his papers without opening them. Dion Cassius, l. LXXII, p. 1209. ↩
See Maffei, Degli anfiteatri e singolarmente del veronese, p. 126. ↩
Dion, l. LXXII, p. 1205. Herodian, l. I, p. 16. Historia Augusta, p. 46. ↩
The conspirators were senators, even the assassin himself. Herodian I 31. —⁠G. ↩
This work was on agriculture, and is often quoted by later writers. See Peter Needham, Prolegemon ad Geoponica, Cambridge, 1704. —⁠W. ↩
In a note upon the Augustan History, Isaac Casaubon has collected a number of particulars concerning these celebrated brothers. See p. 96 of his learned commentary. ↩
Dion, l. LXXII, p. 1210. Herodian, l. I, p. 22. Historia Augusta, p. 48. Dion gives a much less odious character of Perennis, than the other historians. His moderation is almost a pledge of his veracity.8708 ↩
During the second Punic war, the Romans imported from Asia the worship of the mother of the gods. Her festival, the Megalesia, began on the fourth of April, and lasted six days. The streets were crowded with mad processions, the theatres with spectators, and the public tables with unbidden guests. Order and police were suspended, and pleasure was the only serious business of the city. See Ovid, Fastorum libri sex, l. IV 189, etc. ↩
Herodian, l. I, pp. 23, 28. ↩
Cicero, Pro Flacco, c. 27. ↩
One of these dear-bought promotions occasioned a current bon mot, that Julius Solon was banished into the senate. ↩
Dion (l. LXXII, pp. 12, 13) observes that no freedman had possessed riches equal to those of Cleander. The fortune of Pallas amounted, however, to upwards of five and twenty hundred thousand pounds⁠—Ter millies. ↩
Dion, l. LXXII, pp. 12, 13. Herodian, l. I, p. 29. Historia Augusta, p. 52. These baths were situated near the Porta Capena. See Nardini, Roma antica, p. 79. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 48. ↩
Herodian, l. I, p. 28. Dion, l. LXXII, p. 1215. The latter says that two thousand persons died every day at Rome, during a considerable length of time. ↩
Tuncque primum tres prefecti praetorio fuere: inter quos libertinus. From some remains of modesty, Cleander declined the title, whilst he assumed the powers, of Praetorian prefect. As the other freedmen were styled, from their several departments, a rationibus, ab epistolis, Cleander called himself a pugione, as entrusted with the defence of his master’s person. Claudius Salmasius and Casaubon seem to have talked very idly upon this passage.8709 ↩
Οι τῆς πόλεως πἐζοι οτρατιῶται. Herodian, l. I, p. 31. It is doubtful whether he means the Praetorian infantry, or the cohortes urbanae, a body of six thousand men, but whose rank and discipline were not equal to their numbers. Neither Tillemont nor Wotton choose to decide this question.8710 ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXXII, p. 1215. Herodian, l. I, p. 32. Historia Augusta, p. 48. ↩
Sororibus suis constupratis. Ipsas concubinas suas sub oculis stuprari jubebat. Nec irruentium in se juvenum carebat infamiâ, omni parte corporis atque ore in sexum utrumque pollutus. Historia Augusta, p. 47. ↩
The African lions, when pressed by hunger, infested the open villages and cultivated country; and they infested them with impunity. The royal beast was reserved for the pleasures of the emperor and the capital; and the unfortunate peasant who killed one of them, though in his own defence, incurred a very heavy penalty. This extraordinary game-law was mitigated by Honorius, and finally repealed by Justinian. Codex Theodosianus, tom. V, p. 92, et Comment Gothofredus. ↩
Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum XII tom. II, p. 493. ↩
Commodus placed his own head on the colossal statue of Hercules with the inscription, Lucius Commodus Hercules. The wits of Rome, according to a new fragment of Dion, published an epigram, of which, like many other ancient jests, the point is not very clear: “Διὸς παίς Καλλινικος Ἡρακλῆς, οὺκ εἰμὶ Δεύκιος, ἀλλ’ἀναγκάζουσι με.” It seems to be a protest of the god against being confounded with the emperor. Mai, Fragmenta Vaticana II 225. —⁠M. ↩
Dion, l. LXXII, p. 1216. Historia Augusta, p. 49. ↩
The ostrich’s neck is three feet long, and composed of seventeen vertebrae. See Buffon, Histoire naturelle. ↩
Commodus killed a camelopardalis or giraffe (Dion, l. LXXII, p. 1211), the tallest, the most gentle, and the most useless of the large quadrupeds. This singular animal, a native only of the interior parts of Africa, has not been seen in Europe since the revival of letters; and though M. de Buffon (Histoire naturelle, tom. XIII) has endeavored to describe, he has not ventured to delineate, the giraffe.8711 ↩
Herodian, l. I, p. 37. Historia Augusta, p. 50. ↩
The virtuous and even the wise princes forbade the senators and knights to embrace this scandalous profession, under pain of infamy, or, what was more dreaded by those profligate wretches, of exile. The tyrants allured them to dishonor by threats and rewards. Nero once produced in the arena forty senators and sixty knights. See Lipsius, Saturnalia, l. II c. 2. He has happily corrected a passage of Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Nero,” c. 12. ↩
Lipsius, l. II c. 7, 8. Juvenal, in the eighth satire, gives a picturesque description of this combat. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 50. Dion, l. LXXII, p. 1220. He received, for each time, decies, about £8,000 sterling. ↩
Victor tells us that Commodus only allowed his antagonists a leaden weapon, dreading most probably the consequences of their despair. ↩
They were obliged to repeat, 626 times, Paulus, first of the Secutors, etc. ↩
Dion, l. LXXII, p. 1221. He speaks of his own baseness and danger. ↩
He mixed, however, some prudence with his courage, and passed the greatest part of his time in a country retirement, alleging his advanced age, and the weakness of his eyes. “I never saw him in the senate,” says Dion, “except during the short reign of Pertinax.” All his infirmities had suddenly left him, and they returned as suddenly upon the murder of that excellent prince. Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1227. ↩
The prefects were changed almost hourly or daily; and the caprice of Commodus was often fatal to his most favored chamberlains. Historia Augusta, pp. 46, 51. ↩
Commodus had already resolved to massacre them the following night: they determined to anticipate his design. Herodian I 17. —⁠W. ↩
Dion, l. LXXII, p. 1222. Herodian, l. I, p. 43. Historia Augusta, p. 52. ↩
Pertinax was a native of Alba Pompeia, in Piedmont, and son of a timber merchant. The order of his employments (it is marked by Capitolinus) well deserves to be set down, as expressive of the form of government and manners of the age.
1. He was a centurion.
2. Prefect of a cohort in Syria, in the Parthian war, and in Britain.
3. He obtained an Ala, or squadron of horse, in Maesia.
4. He was commissary of provisions on the Aemilian way.
5. He commanded the fleet upon the Rhine.
6. He was procurator of Dacia, with a salary of about £1,600 a year.
7. He commanded the veterans of a legion.
8. He obtained the rank of senator.
9. Of praetor.
10. With the command of the first legion in Rhaetia and Noricum.
11. He was consul about the year 175.
12. He attended Marcus into the East.
13. He commanded an army on the Danube.
14. He was consular legate of Maesia.
15. Of Dacia.
16. Of Syria.
17. Of Britain.
18. He had the care of the public provisions at Rome.
19. He was proconsul of Africa.
20. Prefect of the city.
Herodian (l. I, p. 48) does justice to his disinterested spirit; but Capitolinus, who collected every popular rumor, charges him with a great fortune acquired by bribery and corruption. ↩
Julian, in the Caesars, taxes him with being accessory to the death of Commodus. ↩
The senate always assembled at the beginning of the year, on the night of the 1st January (see Savaron on Sidonius Apollinaris VIII 6), and this happened the present year, as usual, without any particular order. —⁠G. from W. ↩
What Gibbon improperly calls, both here and in the note, tumultuous decrees, were no more than the applauses and acclamations which recur so often in the history of the emperors. The custom passed from the theatre to the forum, from the forum to the senate. Applauses on the adoption of the Imperial decrees were first introduced under Trajan (Pliny Junior, “Panegyricus” 75). One senator read the form of the decree, and all the rest answered by acclamations, accompanied with a kind of chant or rhythm. These were some of the acclamations addressed to Pertinax, and against the memory of Commodus. Hosti patriae honores detrahantur. Parricidae honores detrahantur. Ut salvi simus, Jupiter, optime, maxime, serva nobis Pertinacem. This custom prevailed not only in the councils of state, but in all the meetings of the senate. However inconsistent it may appear with the solemnity of a religious assembly, the early Christians adopted and introduced it into their synods, notwithstanding the opposition of some of the Fathers, particularly of St. Chrysostom. See the Collection of Francisci Bernardini Ferrarius, De veterum acclamatione in Joannis Graevii, Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum I 6. —⁠W.

This note is rather hypercritical as regards Gibbon, but appears to be worthy of preservation. —⁠M. ↩
Capitolinus gives us the particulars of these tumultuary votes, which were moved by one senator, and repeated, or rather chanted, by the whole body. Historia Augusta, p. 52. ↩
The senate condemned Nero to be put to death more majorum. Suetonius, c. 49. ↩
No particular law assigned this right to the senate: it was deduced from the ancient principles of the republic. Gibbon appears to infer, from the passage of Suetonius, that the senate, according to its ancient right, punished Nero with death. The words, however, more majorum refer not to the decree of the senate, but to the kind of death, which was taken from an old law of Romulus. (See Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus, edit. Artzen, p. 484, n. 7.) —⁠W. ↩
Dion (l. LXXIII, p. 1223) speaks of these entertainments as a senator who had supped with the emperor; Capitolinus (Historia Augusta, p. 58), like a slave who had received his intelligence from one of the scullions. ↩
Decies. The blameless economy of Pius left his successors a treasure of vicies septies millies, above two and twenty millions sterling. Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1231. ↩
Besides the design of converting these useless ornaments into money, Dion (l. LXXIII, p. 1229) assigns two secret motives of Pertinax. He wished to expose the vices of Commodus, and to discover by the purchasers those who most resembled him. ↩
Though Capitolinus has picked up many idle tales of the private life of Pertinax, he joins with Dion and Herodian in admiring his public conduct. ↩
Leges, rem surdam, inexorabilem esse. Titus Livius II 3. ↩
If we credit Capitolinus (which is rather difficult), Falco behaved with the most petulant indecency to Pertinax on the day of his accession. The wise emperor only admonished him of his youth and inexperience. Historia Augusta, p. 55. ↩
The modern bishopric of Liège. This soldier probably belonged to the Batavian horseguards, who were mostly raised in the duchy of Gueldres and the neighborhood, and were distinguished by their valor, and by the boldness with which they swam their horses across the broadest and most rapid rivers. Tacitus, Historiae IV 12. Dion, l. LV, p. 797. Lipsius, De magnitudine Romanâ, l. I c. 4. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1232. Herodian, l. II, p. 60. Historia Augusta, p. 58. Aurelius Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. Eutropius VIII 16. ↩
They were originally nine or ten thousand men (for Tacitus and son are not agreed upon the subject), divided into as many cohorts. Vitellius increased them to sixteen thousand, and as far as we can learn from inscriptions, they never afterwards sunk much below that number. See Lipsius, De magnitudine Romanâ I 4. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 49. ↩
Tacitus, Annales IV 2. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Tiberius,” c. 37. Dion Cassius, l. LVII, p. 867. ↩
In the civil war between Vitellius and Vespasian, the Praetorian camp was attacked and defended with all the machines used in the siege of the best fortified cities. Tacitus, Historiae III 84. ↩
Close to the walls of the city, on the broad summit of the Quirinal and Viminal hills. See Nardini, Roma antica, p. 174. Donatus, De Roma antiquâ, p. 46.8712 ↩
Claudius, raised by the soldiers to the empire, was the first who gave a donative. He gave quina dena, £120 (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Claudius,” c. 10): when Marcus, with his colleague Lucius Verus, took quiet possession of the throne, he gave vicena, £160 to each of the guards. Historia Augusta, p. 25 (Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1231). We may form some idea of the amount of these sums, by Hadrian’s complaint that the promotion of a Caesar had cost him ter millies, two millions and a half sterling. ↩
Cicero, De legibus III 3. The first book of Livy, and the second of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, show the authority of the people even in the election of the kings. ↩
They were originally recruited in Latium, Etruria, and the old colonies (Tacitus, Annales IV 5). The emperor Otho compliments their vanity with the flattering titles of Italiae, Alumni, Romana vere juventus. Tacitus, Historiae I 84. ↩
In the siege of Rome by the Gauls. See Livy V 48. Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Camillus,” p. 143. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1234. Herodian, l. II, p. 63. Historia Augusta, p. 60. Though the three historians agree that it was in fact an auction, Herodian alone affirms that it was proclaimed as such by the soldiers. ↩
Spartianus softens the most odious parts of the character and elevation of Julian. ↩
One of the principal causes of the preference of Julianus by the soldiers was the dexterity with which he reminded them that Sulpicianus would not fail to revenge on them the death of his son-in-law. (See Dion, p. 1234, c. 11. Herodian II 6.) —⁠W. ↩
Dion Cassius, at that time praetor, had been a personal enemy to Julian, l. LXXIII, p. 1235. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 61. We learn from thence one curious circumstance, that the new emperor, whatever had been his birth, was immediately aggregated to the number of patrician families.8713 ↩
Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1235. Historia Augusta, p. 61. I have endeavored to blend into one consistent story the seeming contradictions of the two writers.8714 ↩
Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1235. ↩
The Posthumian and the Cejonian; the former of whom was raised to the consulship in the fifth year after its institution. ↩
Spartianus, in his undigested collections, mixes up all the virtues and all the vices that enter into the human composition, and bestows them on the same object. Such, indeed, are many of the characters in the Augustan History. ↩
Historia Augusta, pp. 80, 84. ↩
Pertinax, who governed Britain a few years before, had been left for dead in a mutiny of the soldiers. Historia Augusta, p. 54. Yet they loved and regretted him; admirantibus eam virtutem cui irascebantur. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Galba,” c. 10. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 76. ↩
Herodian, l. II, p. 68. The Chronicle of John Malalas, of Antioch, shows the zealous attachment of his countrymen to these festivals, which at once gratified their superstition and their love of pleasure. ↩
A king of Thebes, in Egypt, is mentioned, in the Augustan History, as an ally, and, indeed, as a personal friend of Niger. If Spartianus is not, as I strongly suspect, mistaken, he has brought to light a dynasty of tributary princes totally unknown to history. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1238. Herodian, l. II, p. 67. A verse in everyone’s mouth at that time seems to express the general opinion of the three rivals; Optimus est Niger, [Fuscus, which preserves the quantity. —⁠M.], bonus Afer pessimus Albus. Historia Augusta, p. 75. ↩
Herodian, l. II, p. 71. ↩
See an account of that memorable war in Velleius Paterculus II 110, etc., who served in the army of Tiberius. ↩
Such is the reflection of Herodian, l. II, p. 74. Will the modern Austrians allow the influence? ↩
In the letter to Albinus, already mentioned, Commodus accuses Severus as one of the ambitious generals who censured his conduct, and wished to occupy his place. Historia Augusta, p. 80. ↩
Pannonia was too poor to supply such a sum. It was probably promised in the camp, and paid at Rome, after the victory. In fixing the sum, I have adopted the conjecture of Casaubon. See Historia Augusta, p. 66, Comment p. 115. ↩
Herodian, l. II, p. 78. Severus was declared emperor on the banks of the Danube, either at Carnuntum, according to Spartianus (Historia Augusta, p. 65), or else at Sabaria, according to Victor. Mr. Hume, in supposing that the birth and dignity of Severus were too much inferior to the Imperial crown, and that he marched into Italy as general only, has not considered this transaction with his usual accuracy (Essay on the original contract).8715 ↩
Velleius Paterculus, l. II c. 3. We must reckon the march from the nearest verge of Pannonia, and extend the sight of the city as far as two hundred miles. ↩
This is not a puerile figure of rhetoric, but an allusion to a real fact recorded by Dion, l. LXXI, p. 1181. It probably happened more than once. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1233. Herodian, l. II, p. 81. There is no surer proof of the military skill of the Romans than their first surmounting the idle terror, and afterwards disdaining the dangerous use, of elephants in war.8716 ↩
Historia Augusta, pp. 62, 63.8717 ↩
Victor and Eutropius VIII 17, mention a combat near the Milvian bridge, the Ponte Molle, unknown to the better and more ancient writers. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIII, p. 1240. Herodian, l. II, p. 83. Historia Augusta, p. 63. ↩
From these sixty-six days, we must first deduct sixteen, as Pertinax was murdered on the 28th of March, and Severus most probably elected on the 13th of April (see Historia Augusta, p. 65, and Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. III, p. 393, note 7). We cannot allow less than ten days after his election to put a numerous army in motion. Forty days remain for this rapid march; and as we may compute about eight hundred miles from Rome to the neighborhood of Vienna, the army of Severus marched twenty miles every day, without halt or intermission. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIV, p. 1241. Herodian, l. II, p. 84. ↩
Dion (l. LXXIV, p. 1244), who assisted at the ceremony as a senator, gives a most pompous description of it. ↩
Herodian, l. III, p. 112. ↩
Though it is not, most assuredly, the intention of Lucan to exalt the character of Caesar, yet the idea he gives of that hero, in the tenth book of the Pharsalia, where he describes him, at the same time, making love to Cleopatra, sustaining a siege against the power of Egypt, and conversing with the sages of the country, is, in reality, the noblest panegyric.8718 ↩
Reckoning from his election, April 13, 193, to the death of Albinus, February 19, 197. See Tillemont’s Chronology. ↩
Herodian, l. II, p. 85. ↩
Whilst Severus was very dangerously ill, it was industriously given out that he intended to appoint Niger and Albinus his successors. As he could not be sincere with respect to both, he might not be so with regard to either. Yet Severus carried his hypocrisy so far as to profess that intention in the memoirs of his own life. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 65. ↩
This practice, invented by Commodus, proved very useful to Severus. He found at Rome the children of many of the principal adherents of his rivals; and he employed them more than once to intimidate, or seduce, the parents. ↩
Herodian, l. III, p. 95. Historia Augusta, pp. 67, 68. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 84. Spartianus has inserted this curious letter at full length. ↩
There were three actions; one near Cyzicus, on the Hellespont, one near Nice, in Bithynia, the third near the Issus, in Cilicia, where Alexander conquered Darius. Dion LXIV c. 6. Herodian III 2, 4. —⁠W.

Herodian represents the second battle as of less importance than Dion. —⁠M. ↩
Consult the third book of Herodian, and the seventy-fourth book of Dion Cassius. ↩
Dion, l. LXXV, p. 1260. ↩
Dion, l. LXXV, p. 1261. Herodian, l. III, p. 110. Historia Augusta, p. 68. The battle was fought in the plain of Trevoux, three or four leagues from Lyons. See Tillemont, tom. III, p. 406, note 18. ↩
According to Herodian, it was his lieutenant Laetus who led back the troops to the battle, and gained the day, which Severus had almost lost. Dion also attributes to Laetus a great share in the victory. Severus afterwards put him to death, either from fear or jealousy. —⁠W. and G.

Wenck and M. Guizot have not given the real statement of Herodian or of Dion. According to the former, Laetus appeared with his own army entire, which he was suspected of having designedly kept disengaged when the battle was still doubtful, or rather after the rout of Severus. Dion says that he did not move till Severus had won the victory. —⁠M. ↩
Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. XII. ↩
Most of these, as may be supposed, were small open vessels; some, however, were galleys of two, and a few of three ranks of oars. ↩
The engineer’s name was Priscus. His skill saved his life, and he was taken into the service of the conqueror. For the particular facts of the siege, consult Dion Cassius (l. LXXV, p. 1251) and Herodian (l. III, p. 95); for the theory of it, the fanciful Chevalier de Folard may be looked into. See Polybe, tom. I, p. 76. ↩
Notwithstanding the authority of Spartianus, and some modern Greeks, we may be assured, from Dion and Herodian, that Byzantium, many years after the death of Severus, lay in ruins.8719 ↩
Dion, l. LXXIV, p. 1250. ↩
Dion (l. LXXV, p. 1264); only twenty-nine senators are mentioned by him, but forty-one are named in the Augustan History, p. 69, among whom were six of the name of Pescennius. Herodian (l. III, p. 115) speaks in general of the cruelties of Severus. ↩
Wenck denies that there is any authority for this massacre of the wives of the senators. He adds that only the children and relatives of Niger and Albinus were put to death. This is true of the family of Albinus, whose bodies were thrown into the Rhône; those of Niger, according to Lampridius, were sent into exile, but afterwards put to death. Among the partisans of Albinus who were put to death were many women of rank, multae foeminae illustres. Lampridius in Historia Augusta, “Severus.” —⁠M. ↩
A new fragment of Dion describes the state of Rome during this contest. All pretended to be on the side of Severus; but their secret sentiments were often betrayed by a change of countenance on the arrival of some sudden report. Some were detected by overacting their loyalty, τινὲς, δε καὶ ἐκ τοῦσφόδρα προσποῖεῖσθαι πλέον ἑγινώσκοντο. Mai, Fragmenta Vaticana, p. 227. Severus told the senate he would rather have their hearts than their votes, ταῖς ψυχαῖς με φιλεῖτε, καὶ μὴ τοις ψηφῖσμασιν. Ibid. —⁠M. ↩
Aurelius Victor. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVI, p. 1272. Historia Augusta, p. 67. Severus celebrated the secular games with extraordinary magnificence, and he left in the public granaries a provision of corn for seven years, at the rate of 75,000 modii, or about 2,500 quarters per day. I am persuaded that the granaries of Severus were supplied for a long term, but I am not less persuaded that policy on one hand, and admiration on the other, magnified the hoard far beyond its true contents. ↩
See Spanheim’s treatise of ancient medals, the inscriptions, and our learned travellers Jacob Spon and George Wheler, Thomas Shaw, Edward Pococke, etc., who, in Africa, Greece, and Asia, have found more monuments of Severus than of any other Roman emperor whatsoever. ↩
He carried his victorious arms to Seleucia and Ctesiphon, the capitals of the Parthian monarchy. I shall have occasion to mention this war in its proper place. ↩
Etiam in Britannis, was his own just and emphatic expression. Historia Augusta 73. ↩
Herodian, l. III, p. 115. Historia Augusta, p. 68. ↩
Upon the insolence and privileges of the soldier, the 16th satire, falsely ascribed to Juvenal, may be consulted; the style and circumstances of it would induce me to believe that it was composed under the reign of Severus, or that of his son. ↩
Not of the army, but of the troops in Gaul. The contents of this letter seem to prove that Severus was really anxious to restore discipline. Herodian is the only historian who accuses him of being the first cause of its relaxation. —⁠G. from W.

Spartian mentions his increase of the pay. —⁠M. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 73. ↩
Herodian, l. III, p. 131. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIV, p. 1243. ↩
The Praetorian Prefect had never been a simple captain of the guards; from the first creation of this office, under Augustus, it possessed great power. That emperor, therefore, decreed that there should be always two Praetorian Prefects, who could only be taken from the equestrian order. Tiberius first departed from the former clause of this edict; Alexander Severus violated the second by naming senators prefects. It appears that it was under Commodus that the Praetorian Prefects obtained the province of civil jurisdiction: it extended only to Italy, with the exception of Rome and its district, which was governed by the Praefectus urbi. As to the control of the finances, and the levying of taxes, it was not entrusted to them till after the great change that Constantine I made in the organization of the empire; at least I know no passage which assigns it to them before that time; and Arnold Drakenborch, who has treated this question in his Dissertatio de officio prefectorum praetorio, c. VI, does not quote one. —⁠W. ↩
One of his most daring and wanton acts of power was the castration of a hundred free Romans, some of them married men, and even fathers of families; merely that his daughter, on her marriage with the young emperor, might be attended by a train of eunuchs worthy of an eastern queen. Dion, l. LXXVI, p. 1271. ↩
Plautianus was compatriot, relative, and the old friend of Severus; he had so completely shut up all access to the emperor that the latter was ignorant how far he abused his powers: at length, being informed of it, he began to limit his authority. The marriage of Plautilla with Caracalla was unfortunate; and the prince, who had been forced to consent to it, menaced the father and the daughter with death when he should come to the throne. It was feared, after that, that Plautianus would avail himself of the power which he still possessed against the Imperial family; and Severus caused him to be assassinated in his presence, upon the pretext of a conspiracy, which Dion considers fictitious. —⁠W.

This note is not, perhaps, very necessary, and does not contain the whole facts. Dion considers the conspiracy the invention of Caracalla, by whose command, almost by whose hand, Plautianus was slain in the presence of Severus. —⁠M. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVI, p. 1274. Herodian, l. III, pp. 122, 129. The grammarian of Alexandria seems, as is not unusual, much better acquainted with this mysterious transaction, and more assured of the guilt of Plautianus than the Roman senator ventures to be. ↩
Appian in Prooemium. ↩
Dion Cassius seems to have written with no other view than to form these opinions into an historical system. The Pandects will show how assiduously the lawyers, on their side, labored in the cause of prerogative. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 71. “Omnia fui, et nihil expedit.” ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXXVI, p. 1284. ↩
About the year 186. M. de Tillemont is miserably embarrassed with a passage of Dion, in which the empress Faustina, who died in the year 175, is introduced as having contributed to the marriage of Severus and Julia (l. LXXIV, p. 1243). The learned compiler forgot that Dion is relating not a real fact, but a dream of Severus; and dreams are circumscribed to no limits of time or space. Did M. de Tillemont imagine that marriages were consummated in the temple of Venus at Rome? Histoire des empereurs, tom. III, p. 389, Note 6. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 65. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 5. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXXVII, pp. 1304, 1314. ↩
See a dissertation of Gilles Ménage, at the end of his edition of Diogenes Laertius, “De foeminis philosophis.” ↩
Dion, l. LXXVI, p. 1285. Aurelius Victor. ↩
Bassianus was his first name, as it had been that of his maternal grandfather. During his reign, he assumed the appellation of Antoninus, which is employed by lawyers and ancient historians. After his death, the public indignation loaded him with the nicknames of Tarantus and Caracalla. The first was borrowed from a celebrated Gladiator, the second from a long Gallic gown which he distributed to the people of Rome. ↩
The elevation of Caracalla is fixed by the accurate M. de Tillemont to the year 198; the association of Geta to the year 208. ↩
Herodian, l. III, p. 130. The lives of Caracalla and Geta, in the Augustan History. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVI, p. 1280, etc. Herodian, l. III, p. 132, etc. ↩
Ossian’s Poems, vol. I, p. 175. ↩
That the Caracul of Ossian is the Caracalla of the Roman history, is, perhaps, the only point of British antiquity in which Mr. Macpherson and Mr. Whitaker are of the same opinion; and yet the opinion is not without difficulty. In the Caledonian war, the son of Severus was known only by the appellation of Antoninus, and it may seem strange that the Highland bard should describe him by a nickname, invented four years afterwards, scarcely used by the Romans till after the death of that emperor, and seldom employed by the most ancient historians. See Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1317. Historia Augusta, p. 89. Aurelius Victor. Eusebius in Chronicon, ad annum 214.8720 ↩
Dion, l. LXXVI, p. 1282. Historia Augusta, p. 71. Aurelius Victor. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVI, p. 1283. Historia Augusta, p. 89. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVI, p. 1284. Herodian, l. III, p. 135. ↩
Mr. Hume is justly surprised at a passage of Herodian (l. IV, p. 139), who, on this occasion, represents the Imperial palace as equal in extent to the rest of Rome. The whole region of the Palatine Mount, on which it was built, occupied, at most, a circumference of eleven or twelve thousand feet (see the Notitia and Victor, in Nardini’s Roma antica). But we should recollect that the opulent senators had almost surrounded the city with their extensive gardens and suburb palaces, the greatest part of which had been gradually confiscated by the emperors. If Geta resided in the gardens that bore his name on the Janiculum, and if Caracalla inhabited the gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline, the rival brothers were separated from each other by the distance of several miles; and yet the intermediate space was filled by the Imperial gardens of Sallust, of Lucullus, of Agrippa, of Domitian, of Caius, etc., all skirting round the city, and all connected with each other, and with the palace, by bridges thrown over the Tiber and the streets. But this explanation of Herodian would require, though it ill deserves, a particular dissertation, illustrated by a map of ancient Rome. [Hume, “Essay on Populousness of Ancient Nations.” —⁠M.] ↩
Herodian, l. IV, p. 139. ↩
Herodian, l. IV, p. 144. ↩
Caracalla consecrated, in the temple of Serapis, the sword with which, as he boasted, he had slain his brother Geta. Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1307. ↩
Herodian, l. IV, p. 147. In every Roman camp there was a small chapel near the headquarters, in which the statues of the tutelar deities were preserved and adored, and we may remark that the eagles, and other military ensigns, were in the first rank of these deities; an excellent institution, which confirmed discipline by the sanction of religion. See Lipsius, De militiâ Romanâ IV 5, V 2. ↩
Herodian, l. IV, p. 148. Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1289. ↩
The account of this transaction, in a new passage of Dion, varies in some degree from this statement. It adds that the next morning, in the senate, Antoninus requested their indulgence, not because he had killed his brother, but because he was hoarse, and could not address them. Mai, Fragmenta Vaticana, p. 228. —⁠M. ↩
Geta was placed among the gods. Sit divus, dum non sit vivus, said his brother. Historia Augusta, p. 91. Some marks of Geta’s consecration are still found upon medals. ↩
The favorable judgment which history has given of Geta is not founded solely on a feeling of pity; it is supported by the testimony of contemporary historians: he was too fond of the pleasures of the table, and showed great mistrust of his brother; but he was humane, well instructed; he often endeavored to mitigate the rigorous decrees of Severus and Caracalla. Herodian IV 3. Spartian in “Geta.” —⁠W. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1307. ↩
The most valuable paragraph of Dion, which the industry of M. Mai has recovered, relates to this daughter of Marcus, executed by Caracalla. Her name, as appears from Fronto, as well as from Dion, was Cornificia. When commanded to choose the kind of death she was to suffer, she burst into womanish tears; but remembering her father Marcus, she thus spoke:⁠—“O my hapless soul” (ψυχιδιον, animula), “now imprisoned in the body, burst forth! be free! show them, however reluctant to believe it, that thou art the daughter of Marcus.” She then laid aside all her ornaments, and preparing herself for death, ordered her veins to be opened. Mai, Fragmenta Vaticana II, p. 230. —⁠M. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1290. Herodian, l. IV, p. 150. Dion (p. 1298) says that the comic poets no longer durst employ the name of Geta in their plays, and that the estates of those who mentioned it in their testaments were confiscated. ↩
Caracalla had assumed the names of several conquered nations; Pertinax observed that the name of Geticus (he had obtained some advantage over the Goths, or Getae) would be a proper addition to Parthieus, Alemannicus, etc. Historia Augusta, p. 89. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1291. He was probably descended from Helvidius Priscus and Thrasea Paetus, those patriots, whose firm, but useless and unseasonable, virtue has been immortalized by Tacitus.8721 ↩
Caracalla reproached all those who demanded no favors of him. “It is clear that if you make me no requests, you do not trust me; if you do not trust me, you suspect me; if you suspect me, you fear me; if you fear me, you hate me.” And forthwith he condemned them as conspirators, a good specimen of the sorites in a tyrant’s logic. See Fragmenta Vaticana, p. 230. —⁠M. ↩
Papinian was no longer Praetorian Prefect. Caracalla had deprived him of that office immediately after the death of Severus. Such is the statement of Dion; and the testimony of Spartian, who gives Papinian the Praetorian prefecture till his death, is of little weight opposed to that of a senator then living at Rome. —⁠W. ↩
It is said that Papinian was himself a relation of the empress Julia. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XIV 2. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 88. ↩
With regard to Papinian, see Johann Heineccius’s Historia juris Romani, l. 330, etc. ↩
Tiberius and Domitian never moved from the neighborhood of Rome. Nero made a short journey into Greece. “Et laudatorum Principum usus ex aequo, quamvis procul agentibus. Saevi proximis ingruunt.” Tacitus, Historiae IV 74. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1294. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1307. Herodian, l. IV, p. 158. The former represents it as a cruel massacre, the latter as a perfidious one too. It seems probable that the Alexandrians has irritated the tyrant by their railleries, and perhaps by their tumults.8722 ↩
Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1296. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVI, p. 1284. Mr. Wotton (History of Rome, p. 330) suspects that this maxim was invented by Caracalla himself, and attributed to his father. ↩
Dion (l. LXXVIII, p. 1343) informs us that the extraordinary gifts of Caracalla to the army amounted annually to seventy millions of drachmae (about two millions three hundred and fifty thousand pounds). There is another passage in Dion, concerning the military pay, infinitely curious, were it not obscure, imperfect, and probably corrupt. The best sense seems to be, that the Praetorian guards received twelve hundred and fifty drachmae (forty pounds a year) (Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1307). Under the reign of Augustus, they were paid at the rate of two drachmae, or denarii, per day, 720 a year (Tacitus, Annales I 17). Domitian, who increased the soldiers’ pay one fourth, must have raised the Praetorians to 960 drachmae (Johann Gronovius, De pecuniâ vetere, l. III c. 2). These successive augmentations ruined the empire; for, with the soldiers’ pay, their numbers too were increased. We have seen the Praetorians alone increased from 10,000 to 50,000 men.8723 ↩
Carrhae, now Harran, between Edessan and Nisibis, famous for the defeat of Crassus⁠—the Haran from whence Abraham set out for the land of Canaan. This city has always been remarkable for its attachment to Sabaism. —⁠G. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVIII, p. 1312. Herodian, l. IV, p. 168. ↩
The fondness of Caracalla for the name and ensigns of Alexander is still preserved on the medals of that emperor. See Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum XII. Herodian (l. IV, p. 154) had seen very ridiculous pictures, in which a figure was drawn with one side of the face like Alexander, and the other like Caracalla. ↩
Herodian, l. IV, p. 169. Historia Augusta, p. 94. ↩
Dion, l. LXXXVIII, p. 1350. Elagabalus reproached his predecessor with daring to seat himself on the throne; though, as Praetorian prefect, he could not have been admitted into the senate after the voice of the crier had cleared the house. The personal favor of Plautianus and Sejanus had broke through the established rule. They rose, indeed, from the equestrian order; but they preserved the prefecture with the rank of senator, and even with the consulship. ↩
He was a native of Caesarea, in Numidia, and began his fortune by serving in the household of Plautian, from whose ruin he narrowly escaped. His enemies asserted that he was born a slave, and had exercised, among other infamous professions, that of gladiator. The fashion of aspersing the birth and condition of an adversary seems to have lasted from the time of the Greek orators to the learned grammarians of the last age. ↩
Both Dion and Herodian speak of the virtues and vices of Macrinus with candor and impartiality; but the author of his life, in the Augustan History, seems to have implicitly copied some of the venal writers employed by Elagabalus to blacken the memory of his predecessor. ↩
Dion, l. LXXXIII, p. 1336. The sense of the author is as clear as the intention of the emperor; but Mr. Wotton has mistaken both, by understanding the distinction, not of veterans and recruits, but of old and new legions. History of Rome, p. 347. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVIII, p. 1330. The abridgment of Xiphilin, though less particular, is in this place clearer than the original. ↩
As soon as this princess heard of the death of Caracalla, she wished to starve herself to death: the respect shown to her by Macrinus, in making no change in her attendants or her court, induced her to prolong her life. But it appears, as far as the mutilated text of Dion and the imperfect epitome of Xiphilin permit us to judge, that she conceived projects of ambition, and endeavored to raise herself to the empire. She wished to tread in the steps of Semiramis and Nitocris, whose country bordered on her own. Macrinus sent her an order immediately to leave Antioch, and to retire wherever she chose. She returned to her former purpose, and starved herself to death. —⁠G. ↩
He inherited this name from his great-grandfather on the mother’s side, Bassianus, father of Julia Maesa, his grandmother, and of Julia Domna, wife of Severus. Victor (in his epitome) is perhaps the only historian who has given the key to this genealogy when speaking of Caracalla. Hic Bassianus ex avi materni nomine dictus. Caracalla, Elagabalus, and Alexander Seyerus, bore successively this name. —⁠G. ↩
According to Lampridius (Historia Augusta, p. 135), Alexander Severus lived twenty-nine years three months and seven days. As he was killed March 19, 235, he was born December 12, 205, and was consequently about this time thirteen years old, as his elder cousin might be about seventeen. This computation suits much better the history of the young princes than that of Herodian (l. V, p. 181), who represents them as three years younger; whilst, by an opposite error of chronology, he lengthens the reign of Elagabalus two years beyond its real duration. For the particulars of the conspiracy, see Dion, l. LXXVIII, p. 1339. Herodian, l. V, p. 184. ↩
By a most dangerous proclamation of the pretended Antoninus, every soldier who brought in his officer’s head became entitled to his private estate, as well as to his military commission. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVIII, p. 1345. Herodian, l. V, p. 186. The battle was fought near the village of Immae, about two-and-twenty miles from Antioch. ↩
Gannys was not a eunuch. Dion, p. 1355. —⁠W. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIX, p. 1353. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIX, p. 1363. Herodian, l. V, p. 189. ↩
This name is derived by the learned from two Syriac words, Ela, a God, and Gabal, to form, the forming or plastic god, a proper, and even happy epithet for the sun.8724 Wotton’s History of Rome, p. 378. ↩
Herodian, l. V, p. 190. ↩
He broke into the sanctuary of Vesta, and carried away a statue which he supposed to be the Palladium; but the vestals boasted that, by a pious fraud, they had imposed a counterfeit image on the profane intruder. Historia Augusta, p. 103. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIX, p. 1360. Herodian, l. V, p. 193. The subjects of the empire were obliged to make liberal presents to the new-married couple; and whatever they had promised during the life of Elagabalus was carefully exacted under the administration of Mamaea. ↩
The invention of a new sauce was liberally rewarded; but if it was not relished, the inventor was confined to eat of nothing else till he had discovered another more agreeable to the Imperial palate. Historia Augusta, p. 111. ↩
He never would eat sea-fish except at a great distance from the sea; he then would distribute vast quantities of the rarest sorts, brought at an immense expense, to the peasants of the inland country. Historia Augusta, p. 109. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIX, p. 1358. Herodian, l. V, p. 192. ↩
Hierocles enjoyed that honor; but he would have been supplanted by one Zoticus, had he not contrived, by a potion, to enervate the powers of his rival, who, being found on trial unequal to his reputation, was driven with ignominy from the palace. Dion, l. LXXIX, pp. 1363, 1364. A dancer was made prefect of the city, a charioteer prefect of the watch, a barber prefect of the provisions. These three ministers, with many inferior officers, were all recommended enormitate membrorum. Historia Augusta, p. 105. ↩
Even the credulous compiler of his life, in the Augustan History (p. 111) is inclined to suspect that his vices may have been exaggerated. ↩
Wenck has justly observed that Gibbon should have reckoned the influence of Christianity in this great change. In the most savage times, and the most corrupt courts, since the introduction of Christianity there have been no Neros or Domitians, no Commodus or Elagabalus. —⁠M. ↩
Dion, l. LXXIX, p. 1365. Herodian, l. V, pp. 195⁠–⁠201. Historia Augusta, p. 105. The last of the three historians seems to have followed the best authors in his account of the revolution. ↩
The era of the death of Elagabalus, and of the accession of Alexander, has employed the learning and ingenuity of Pagi, Tillemont, Valsecchi, Vignoli, and Torre, bishop of Adria. The question is most assuredly intricate; but I still adhere to the authority of Dion, the truth of whose calculations is undeniable, and the purity of whose text is justified by the agreement of Xiphilin, Zonaras, and Cedrenus. Elagabalus reigned three years nine months and four days, from his victory over Macrinus, and was killed March 10, 222. But what shall we reply to the medals, undoubtedly genuine, which reckon the fifth year of his tribunitian power? We shall reply, with the learned Valsecchi, that the usurpation of Macrinus was annihilated, and that the son of Caracalla dated his reign from his father’s death. After resolving this great difficulty, the smaller knots of this question may be easily untied, or cut asunder.8725 ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 114. By this unusual precipitation, the senate meant to confound the hopes of pretenders, and prevent the factions of the armies. ↩
Metellus Numidicus, the censor, acknowledged to the Roman people, in a public oration, that had kind nature allowed us to exist without the help of women, we should be delivered from a very troublesome companion; and he could recommend matrimony only as the sacrifice of private pleasure to public duty. Aulus Gellius I 6. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XIII 5. ↩
Historia Augusta, pp. 102, 107. ↩
Dion, l. LXXX, p. 1369. Herodian, l. VI, p. 206. Historia Augusta, p. 131. Herodian represents the patrician as innocent. The Augustan History, on the authority of Dexippus, condemns him as guilty of a conspiracy against the life of Alexander. It is impossible to pronounce between them; but Dion is an irreproachable witness of the jealousy and cruelty of Mamaea towards the young empress, whose hard fate Alexander lamented, but durst not oppose. ↩
Herodian, l. VI, p. 203. Historia Augusta, p. 119. The latter insinuates that, when any law was to be passed, the council was assisted by a number of able lawyers and experienced senators, whose opinions were separately given and taken down in writing. ↩
Alexander received into his chapel all the religions which prevailed in the empire; he admitted Jesus Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, etc. It was almost certain that his mother Mamaea had instructed him in the morality of Christianity. Historians in general agree in calling her a Christian; there is reason to believe that she had begun to have a taste for the principles of Christianity. (See Tillemont, Alexander Severus.) Gibbon has not noticed this circumstance; he appears to have wished to lower the character of this empress; he has throughout followed the narrative of Herodian, who, by the acknowledgment of Capitolinus himself, detested Alexander. Without believing the exaggerated praises of Lampridius, he ought not to have followed the unjust severity of Herodian, and, above all, not to have forgotten to say that the virtuous Alexander Severus had insured to the Jews the preservation of their privileges, and permitted the exercise of Christianity. Historia Augusta, p. 121. The Christians had established their worship in a public place, of which the victuallers (cauponarii) claimed, not the property, but possession by custom. Alexander answered that it was better that the place should be used for the service of God, in any form, than for victuallers. —⁠G.

I have scrupled to omit this note, as it contains some points worthy of notice; but it is very unjust to Gibbon, who mentions almost all the circumstances which he is accused of omitting, in another, and, according to his plan, a fitter place, and, perhaps, in stronger terms than M. Guizot. See here and following in chapter XVI. —⁠M. ↩
See his life in the Augustan History. The undistinguishing compiler has buried these interesting anecdotes under a load of trivial and unmeaning circumstances. ↩
See the 13th Satire of Juvenal. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 119. ↩
Wenck observes that Gibbon, enchanted with the virtue of Alexander, has heightened, particularly in this sentence, its effect on the state of the world. His own account, which follows, of the insurrections and foreign wars, is not in harmony with this beautiful picture. —⁠M. ↩
See, in the Historia Augusta, pp. 116, 117, the whole contest between Alexander and the senate, extracted from the journals of that assembly. It happened on the sixth of March, probably of the year 223, when the Romans had enjoyed, almost a twelvemonth, the blessings of his reign. Before the appellation of Antoninus was offered him as a title of honor, the senate waited to see whether Alexander would not assume it as a family name. ↩
It was a favorite saying of the emperor’s, Se milites magis servare, quam seipsum; quod salus publica in his esset. Historia Augusta, p. 130. ↩
Gibbon has confounded two events altogether different⁠—the quarrel of the people with the Praetorians, which lasted three days, and the assassination of Ulpian by the latter. Dion relates first the death of Ulpian; afterwards, reverting back according to a manner which is usual with him, he says that during the life of Ulpian, there had been a war of three days between the Praetorians and the people. But Ulpian was not the cause. Dion says, on the contrary, that it was occasioned by some unimportant circumstance; whilst he assigns a weighty reason for the murder of Ulpian, the judgment by which that Praetorian prefect had condemned his predecessors, Chrestus and Flavian, to death, whom the soldiers wished to revenge. Zosimus (l. 1, c. XI) attributes this sentence to Mamaea; but, even then, the troops might have imputed it to Ulpian, who had reaped all the advantage and was otherwise odious to them. —⁠W. ↩
Though the author of the life of Alexander (Historia Augusta, p. 182) mentions the sedition raised against Ulpian by the soldiers, he conceals the catastrophe, as it might discover a weakness in the administration of his hero. From this designed omission, we may judge of the weight and candor of that author. ↩
For an account of Ulpian’s fate and his own danger, see the mutilated conclusion of Dion’s History, l. LXXX, p. 1371. ↩
Dion possessed no estates in Campania, and was not rich. He only says that the emperor advised him to reside, during his consulate, in some place out of Rome; that he returned to Rome after the end of his consulate, and had an interview with the emperor in Campania. He asked and obtained leave to pass the rest of his life in his native city (Nice, in Bithynia): it was there that he finished his history, which closes with his second consulship. —⁠W. ↩
Annotations Reimar ad Dion Cassius, l. LXXX, p. 1369. ↩
Julius Caesar had appeased a sedition with the same word, Quirites; which, thus opposed to soldiers, was used in a sense of contempt, and reduced the offenders to the less honorable condition of mere citizens. Tacitus, Annales I 43. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 132. ↩
From the Metelli. Historia Augusta, p. 119. The choice was judicious. In one short period of twelve years, the Metelli could reckon seven consulships and five triumphs. See Velleius Paterculus II 11, and the Fasti. ↩
The life of Alexander, in the Augustan History, is the mere idea of a perfect prince, an awkward imitation of the Cyropaedia. The account of his reign, as given by Herodian, is rational and moderate, consistent with the general history of the age; and, in some of the most invidious particulars, confirmed by the decisive fragments of Dion. Yet from a very paltry prejudice, the greater number of our modern writers abuse Herodian, and copy the Augustan History. See Mess. de Tillemont and Wotton. From the opposite prejudice, the emperor Julian (in Caesaribus, p. 315) dwells with a visible satisfaction on the effeminate weakness of the Syrian, and the ridiculous avarice of his mother. ↩
Historians are divided as to the success of the campaign against the Persians; Herodian alone speaks of defeat. Lampridius, Eutropius, Victor, and others, say it was very glorious to Alexander; that he beat Artaxerxes in a great battle and repelled him from the frontiers of the empire. This much is certain, that Alexander, on his return to Rome (Lampadius, Historia Augusta, c. 56, 133, 134), received the honors of a triumph, and that he said, in his oration to the people, Quirites, vicimus Persas, milites divites reduximus, vobis congiarium pollicemur, cras ludos circenses Persicos donabimus. Alexander, says Eckhel, had too much modesty and wisdom to permit himself to receive honors which ought only to be the reward of victory, if he had not deserved them; he would have contented himself with dissembling his losses. Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum VII 276. The medals represent him as in triumph; one, among others, displays him crowned by Victory between two rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris. P. M. TR. P. XII Cos. III PP. Imperator paludatus D. hastam, S. parazonium, stat inter duos fluvios humi jacentes, et ab accedente retro Victoria coronatur. AE. max. mod. (Museum Regis Galliarum.) Although Gibbon treats this question more in detail when he speaks of the Persian monarchy, I have thought fit to place here what contradicts his opinion. —⁠G. ↩
According to the more accurate Dionysius, the city itself was only a hundred stadia, or twelve miles and a half, from Rome, though some outposts might be advanced farther on the side of Etruria. Nardini, in a professed treatise, has combated the popular opinion and the authority of two popes, and has removed Veii from Civita Castellana, to a little spot called Isola, in the midway between Rome and the Lake Bracianno.8726 ↩
See the fourth and fifth books of Livy. In the Roman census, property, power, and taxation were commensurate with each other. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. XXXIII c. 3. Cicero, De officiis II 22. Plutarch, Parallel Lives, “Papullus Aemilius,” p. 275. ↩
See a fine description of this accumulated wealth of ages in Lucan’s Pharsalia, l. III v. 155, etc. ↩
The Rationarium or Breviarium imperii. Compare, besides Tacitus, Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. ultima, Dion, p. 832. Other emperors kept and published similar registers. See a dissertation of Dr. Christopher Wolle, De rationario imperii Romani Leipsig, 1773. The last book of Appian also contained the statistics of the Roman empire, but it is lost. —⁠W. ↩
Tacitus in Annals I 11. It seems to have existed in the time of Appian. ↩
Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Pompeio,” p. 642. ↩
Wenck contests the accuracy of Gibbon’s version of Plutarch, and supposes that Pompey only raised the revenue from 50,000,000 to 85,000,000 of drachms; but the text of Plutarch seems clearly to mean that his conquests added 85,000,000 to the ordinary revenue. Wenck adds, “Plutarch says in another part that Antony made Asia pay, at one time, 200,000 talents, that is to say, £38,875,000 sterling.” But Appian explains this by saying that it was the revenue of ten years, which brings the annual revenue, at the time of Antony, to £3,875,000 sterling. —⁠M. ↩
Strabo, l. XVII, p. 798. ↩
Velleius Paterculus, l. II c. 39. He seems to give the preference to the revenue of Gaul. ↩
The Euboic, the Phoenician, and the Alexandrian talents were double in weight to the Attic. See George Hooper on Ancient Weights and Measures, Part IV c. 5. It is very probable that the same talent was carried from Tyre to Carthage. ↩
Polybius, l. XV c. 2. ↩
Appian in “Punicis,” p. 84. ↩
Diodorus Siculus, l. 5. Cadiz was built by the Phoenicians a little more than a thousand years before Christ. See Velleius Paterculus I 2. ↩
Compare Arnold Heeren’s Historical Researches Into the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the Principal Nations of Antiquity, vol. I part II, p. 45, et seq. —⁠M. ↩
Strabo, l. III, p. 148. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. XXXIII c. 3. He mentions, likewise, a silver mine in Dalmatia that yielded every day fifty pounds to the state. ↩
Strabo, l. X, p. 485. Tacitus, Annales III 69, and IV 30. See in Tournefort (Relation d’un voyage du Levant, Lettre VIII) a very lively picture of the actual misery of Gyarus. ↩
Lipsius, De magnitudine Romanâ (l. II c. 3), computes the revenue at one hundred and fifty millions of gold crowns; but his whole book, though learned and ingenious, betrays a very heated imagination.8727 ↩
It is not astonishing that Augustus held this language. The senate declared also under Nero that the state could not exist without the imposts as well augmented as founded by Augustus. Tacitus, Annales XIII 50. After the abolition of the different tributes paid by Italy, an abolition which took place AUC 646, 694, and 695, the state derived no revenues from that great country but the twentieth part of the manumissions (vicesima manumissionum); and Cicero laments this in many places, particularly in his epistles to Atticus, II 15. —⁠G. from W. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XIII 31.8728 ↩
See Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae, l. VI c. 23, LXII c. 18). His observation, that the Indian commodities were sold at Rome at a hundred times their original price, may give us some notion of the produce of the customs, since that original price amounted to more than eight hundred thousand pounds. ↩
The ancients were unacquainted with the art of cutting diamonds. ↩
M. Matthieu-Antoine Bouchaud, in his treatise “Essai Historique sur l’Impot du 20^e sur les Successions, et de l’Impot sur les Marchandises chez les Romains,” has transcribed this catalogue from the Digest, and attempts to illustrate it by a very prolix commentary.8729 ↩
Tacitus, Annales I 78. Two years afterwards, the reduction of the poor kingdom of Cappadocia gave Tiberius a pretence for diminishing the excise to one half, but the relief was of very short duration. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LV, p. 794, l. LVI, p. 827.8730 ↩
The sum is only fixed by conjecture. ↩
As the Roman law subsisted for many ages, the Cognati, or relations on the mother’s side, were not called to the succession. This harsh institution was gradually undermined by humanity, and finally abolished by Justinian. ↩
Pliny the Younger, “Panegyricus,” c. 37. ↩
See Heineccius in the Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, l. II. ↩
Horatius, l. II Satires V. Petronius, c. 116, etc. Pliny the Younger, l. II Epistulae 20. ↩
Cicero in Philippicae II c. 16. ↩
See his epistles. Every such will gave him an occasion of displaying his reverence to the dead, and his justice to the living. He reconciled both in his behavior to a son who had been disinherited by his mother (V 1). ↩
Tacitus, Annales XIII 50. Esprit des loix, l. XII c. 19. ↩
See Pliny the Younger’s “Panegyricus,” the Augustan History, and Pieter Burman, De vectigalibus passim. ↩
The tributes (properly so called) were not farmed, since the good princes often remitted many millions of arrears. ↩
The situation of the new citizens is minutely described by Pliny the Younger (“Panegyricus,” c. 37⁠–⁠39). Trajan published a law very much in their favor. ↩
Gibbon has adopted the opinion of Spanheim and of Burman, which attributes to Caracalla this edict, which gave the right of the city to all the inhabitants of the provinces. This opinion may be disputed. Several passages of Spartianus, of Aurelius Victor, and of Aristides, attribute this edict to Marcus Aurelius. See a learned essay, entitled Johannes P. Mahneri, Commentatio de Marco Aurelio Antonino constitutionis de civitate universo orbi Romano data auctore, Halae, 1772, octavo. It appears that Marcus Aurelius made some modifications of this edict, which released the provincials from some of the charges imposed by the right of the city, and deprived them of some of the advantages which it conferred. Caracalla annulled these modifications. —⁠W. ↩
Dion, l. LXXVII, p. 1295. ↩
He who paid ten aurei, the usual tribute, was charged with no more than the third part of an aureus, and proportional pieces of gold were coined by Alexander’s order. Historia Augusta, p. 127, with the commentary of Salmasius. ↩
See the lives of Agricola, Vespasian, Trajan, Severus, and his three competitors; and indeed of all the eminent men of those times. ↩
There had been no example of three successive generations on the throne; only three instances of sons who succeeded their fathers. The marriages of the Caesars (notwithstanding the permission, and the frequent practice, of divorces) were generally unfruitful. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 138. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 140. Herodian, l. VI, p. 223. Aurelius Victor. By comparing these authors, it should seem that Maximin had the particular command of the Tribellian horse, with the general commission of disciplining the recruits of the whole army. His biographer ought to have marked, with more care, his exploits, and the successive steps of his military promotions. ↩
See the original letter of Alexander Severus, Historia Augusta, p. 149. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 135. I have softened some of the most improbable circumstances of this wretched biographer. From his ill-worded narration, it should seem that, the prince’s buffoon having accidentally entered the tent, and awakened the slumbering monarch, the fear of punishment urged him to persuade the disaffected soldiers to commit the murder. ↩
Herodian, l. VI 223⁠–⁠227. ↩
Caligula, the eldest of the four, was only twenty-five years of age when he ascended the throne; Caracalla was twenty-three, Commodus nineteen, and Nero no more than seventeen. ↩
It appears that he was totally ignorant of the Greek language; which, from its universal use in conversation and letters, was an essential part of every liberal education. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 141. Herodian, l. VII, p. 237. The latter of these historians has been most unjustly censured for sparing the vices of Maximin. ↩
The wife of Maximin, by insinuating wise counsels with female gentleness, sometimes brought back the tyrant to the way of truth and humanity. See Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XIV c. L, where he alludes to the fact which he had more fully related under the reign of the Gordians. We may collect from the medals, that Paullina was the name of this benevolent empress; and from the title of “Diva,” that she died before Maximin. (Valesius ad loc. cit. Ammianus.) Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum, tom. II, p. 300.8731 ↩
He was compared to Spartacus and Athenio. Historia Augusta, p. 141. ↩
Herodian, l. VII, p. 238. Zosimus, l. I, p. 15. ↩
In the fertile territory of Byzacium, 150 miles to the south of Carthage. This city was decorated, probably by the Gordians, with the title of colony, and with a fine amphitheatre, which is still in a very perfect state. See Wesseling, Intineraria, p. 59; and Shaw’s Travels, p. 117. ↩
Herodian, l. VII, p. 239. Historia Augusta, p. 153. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 152. The celebrated house of Pompey in carinis was usurped by Marc Antony, and consequently became, after the Triumvir’s death, a part of the Imperial domain. The emperor Trajan allowed and even encouraged the rich senators to purchase those magnificent and useless palaces (Pliny the Younger, “Panegyricus,” c. 50); and it may seem probable, that on this occasion, Pompey’s house came into the possession of Gordian’s great-grandfather. ↩
The Claudian, the Numidian, the Carystian, and the Synnadian. The colors of Roman marbles have been faintly described and imperfectly distinguished. It appears, however, that the Carystian was a sea-green, and that the marble of Synnada was white mixed with oval spots of purple. See Salmasius ad Historia Augusta, p. 164. ↩
Historia Augusta, pp. 151, 152. He sometimes gave five hundred pair of gladiators, never less than one hundred and fifty. He once gave for the use of the circus one hundred Sicilian and as many Cappadocian horses. The animals designed for hunting were chiefly bears, boars, bulls, stags, elks, wild asses, etc. Elephants and lions seem to have been appropriated to Imperial magnificence. ↩
See the original letter, in the Augustan History, p. 152, which at once shows Alexander’s respect for the authority of the senate, and his esteem for the proconsul appointed by that assembly. ↩
Herodian expressly says that he had administered many provinces, lib. VII 10. —⁠W. ↩
By each of his concubines, the younger Gordian left three or four children. His literary productions, though less numerous, were by no means contemptible. ↩
Not the personal likeness, but the family descent from the Scipios. —⁠W. ↩
Herodian, l. VII, p. 243. Historia Augusta, p. 144. ↩
Quod tamen patres dum periculosum existimant; inermes armato resistere approbaverunt. Aurelius Victor. ↩
Even the servants of the house, the scribes, etc., were excluded, and their office was filled by the senators themselves. We are obliged to the Augustan History, p. 159, for preserving this curious example of the discipline of the commonwealth. ↩
This spirited speech, translated from the Augustan historian, p. 156, seems transcribed by him from the original registers of the senate. ↩
Herodian, l. VII, p. 244. ↩
Herodian, l. VII, p. 247, l. VIII, p. 277. Historia Augusta, pp. 156⁠–⁠158. ↩
Herodian, l. VII, p. 254. Historia Augusta, pp. 150⁠–⁠160. We may observe that one month and six days for the reign of Gordian is a just correction of Casaubon and Panvinius, instead of the absurd reading of one year and six months. See Commentary p. 193. Zosimus relates, l. I, p. 17, that the two Gordians perished by a tempest in the midst of their navigation. A strange ignorance of history, or a strange abuse of metaphors! ↩
See the Augustan History, p. 166, from the registers of the senate; the date is confessedly faulty, but the coincidence of the Apollinarian games enables us to correct it. ↩
He was descended from Cornelius Balbus, a noble Spaniard, and the adopted son of Theophanes, the Greek historian. Balbus obtained the freedom of Rome by the favor of Pompey, and preserved it by the eloquence of Cicero. (See Oratio pro Cornelius Balbus.) The friendship of Caesar (to whom he rendered the most important secret services in the civil war) raised him to the consulship and the pontificate, honors never yet possessed by a stranger. The nephew of this Balbus triumphed over the Garamantes. See Dictionnaire de Bayle, au mot “Balbus,” where he distinguishes the several persons of that name, and rectifies, with his usual accuracy, the mistakes of former writers concerning them. ↩
Zonaras, l. XII, p. 622. But little dependence is to be had on the authority of a modern Greek, so grossly ignorant of the history of the third century that he creates several imaginary emperors, and confounds those who really existed. ↩
Herodian, l. VII, p. 256, supposes that the senate was at first convoked in the capitol, and is very eloquent on the occasion. The Augustan History, p. 116, seems much more authentic. ↩
According to some, the son. —⁠G. ↩
In Herodian, l. VII, p. 249, and in the Augustan History, we have three several orations of Maximin to his army, on the rebellion of Africa and Rome: M. de Tillemont has very justly observed that they neither agree with each other nor with truth. Histoire des empereurs, tom. III, p. 799. ↩
The carelessness of the writers of that age leaves us in a singular perplexity.
1. We know that Maximus and Balbinus were killed during the Capitoline games. Herodian, l. VIII, p. 285. The authority of Censorinus (De die natali, c. 18) enables us to fix those games with certainty to the year 238, but leaves us in ignorance of the month or day.
2. The election of Gordian by the senate is fixed with equal certainty to the 27th of May; but we are at a loss to discover whether it was in the same or the preceding year.
Tillemont and Muratori, who maintain the two opposite opinions, bring into the field a desultory troop of authorities, conjectures, and probabilities. The one seems to draw out, the other to contract, the series of events between those periods, more than can be well reconciled to reason and history. Yet it is necessary to choose between them.8732 ↩
Velleius Paterculus, l. II c. 24. The president de Montesquieu (in his dialogue between Sylla and Eucrates) expresses the sentiments of the dictator in a spirited, and even a sublime manner. ↩
Ludovico Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. II, p. 294) thinks the melting of the snows suits better with the months of June or July, than with those of February. The opinion of a man who passed his life between the Alps and the Apennines is undoubtedly of great weight; yet I observe:
1. That the long winter, of which Muratori takes advantage, is to be found only in the Latin version, and not in the Greek text of Herodian.
2. That the vicissitudes of suns and rains, to which the soldiers of Maximin were exposed (Herodian, l. VIII, p. 277), denotes the spring rather than the summer.
We may observe, likewise, that these several streams, as they melted into one, composed the Timavus, so poetically (in every sense of the word) described by Virgil. They are about twelve miles to the east of Aquileia. See Cluverius, Italia antiqua, tom. I, p. 189, etc. ↩
Herodian, l. VIII, p. 272. The Celtic deity was supposed to be Apollo, and received under that name the thanks of the senate. A temple was likewise built to Venus the Bald, in honor of the women of Aquileia, who had given up their hair to make ropes for the military engines. ↩
Herodian, l. VIII, p. 279. Historia Augusta, p. 146. The duration of Maximin’s reign has not been defined with much accuracy, except by Eutropius, who allows him three years and a few days (l. IX 1); we may depend on the integrity of the text, as the Latin original is checked by the Greek version of Paeanius. ↩
Eight Roman feet and one third, which are equal to above eight English feet, as the two measures are to each other in the proportion of 967 to 1000. See Graves’s discourse on the Roman foot. We are told that Maximin could drink in a day an amphora (or about seven gallons) of wine, and eat thirty or forty pounds of meat. He could move a loaded wagon, break a horse’s leg with his fist, crumble stones in his hand, and tear up small trees by the roots. See his Life in the Augustan History. ↩
See the congratulatory letter of Claudius Julianus, the consul to the two emperors, in the Augustan History. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 171. ↩
Herodian, l. VIII, p. 258. ↩
Herodian, l. VIII, p. 213. ↩
The observation had been made imprudently enough in the acclamations of the senate, and with regard to the soldiers it carried the appearance of a wanton insult. Historia Augusta, p. 170. ↩
Discordiae tacitae, et quae intelligerentur potius quam viderentur. Historia Augusta, p. 170. This well-chosen expression is probably stolen from some better writer. ↩
Herodian, l. VIII, pp. 287, 288. ↩
Quia non alius erat in praesenti, is the expression of the Augustan History. ↩
Quintus Curtius (l. X c. 9), pays an elegant compliment to the emperor of the day, for having, by his happy accession, extinguished so many firebrands, sheathed so many swords, and put an end to the evils of a divided government. After weighing with attention every word of the passage, I am of opinion that it suits better with the elevation of Gordian than with any other period of the Roman history. In that case, it may serve to decide the age of Quintus Curtius. Those who place him under the first Caesars argue from the purity of his style, but are embarrassed by the silence of Quintilian in his accurate list of Roman historians.8733 ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 161. From some hints in the two letters, I should expect that the eunuchs were not expelled the palace without some degree of gentle violence, and that the young Gordian rather approved of, than consented to, their disgrace. ↩
Duxit uxorem filiam Misithei, quem causâ eloquentiae dignum parentelâ suâ putavit; et prefectum statim fecit; post quod, non puerile jam et contemptibile videbatur imperium. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 162. Aurelius Victor. Porphyrius in Vita Plotinus, apud Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, l. IV c. 36. The philosopher Plotinus accompanied the army, prompted by the love of knowledge, and by the hope of penetrating as far as India. ↩
About twenty miles from the little town of Circesium, on the frontier of the two empires.8734 ↩
The inscription (which contained a very singular pun) was erased by the order of Licinius, who claimed some degree of relationship to Philip (Historia Augusta, p. 166); but the tumulus, or mound of earth which formed the sepulchre, still subsisted in the time of Julian. See Ammianus Marcellinus XXIII 5. ↩
Aurelius Victor. Eutropius IX 2. Orosius VII 20. Ammianus Marcellinus XXIII 5. Zosimus, l. I, p. 19. Philip, who was a native of Bostra,8735 was about forty years of age. ↩
Can the epithet of Aristocracy be applied, with any propriety, to the government of Algiers? Every military government floats between two extremes of absolute monarchy and wild democracy. ↩
The military republic of the Mamelukes in Egypt would have afforded M. de Montesquieu (see Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. 16) a juster and more noble parallel. ↩
The Augustan History (pp. 163, 164) cannot, in this instance, be reconciled with itself or with probability. How could Philip condemn his predecessor, and yet consecrate his memory? How could he order his public execution, and yet, in his letters to the senate, exculpate himself from the guilt of his death? Philip, though an ambitious usurper, was by no means a mad tyrant. Some chronological difficulties have likewise been discovered by the nice eyes of Tillemont and Muratori in this supposed association of Philip to the empire.8736 ↩
The account of the last supposed celebration, though in an enlightened period of history, was so very doubtful and obscure, that the alternative seems not doubtful. When the popish jubilees, the copy of the secular games, were invented by Boniface VIII, the crafty pope pretended that he only revived an ancient institution. See M. Charles Chais, Lettres historiques et dogmatiques sur les jubilés et les indulgences. ↩
Either of 100 or 110 years. Varro and Livy adopted the former opinion, but the infallible authority of the Sybil consecrated the latter (Censorinus, De die natali, c. 17). The emperors Claudius and Philip, however, did not treat the oracle with implicit respect. ↩
The idea of the secular games is best understood from the poem of Horace, and the description of Zosimus, l. II, p. 167, etc. ↩
The received calculation of Varro assigns to the foundation of Rome an era that corresponds with the 754th year before Christ. But so little is the chronology of Rome to be depended on in the more early ages, that Sir Isaac Newton has brought the same event as low as the year 627. [Compare Niebuhr, vol. I, p. 271. —⁠M.] ↩
An ancient chronologist, quoted by Velleius Paterculus (l. I c. 6), observes that the Assyrians, the Medes, the Persians, and the Macedonians, reigned over Asia 1,995 years, from the accession of Ninus to the defeat of Antiochus by the Romans. As the latter of these great events happened 289 years before Christ, the former may be placed 2,184 years before the same era. The Astronomical Observations, found at Babylon by Alexander, went fifty years higher. ↩
The Parthians were a tribe of the Indo-Germanic branch which dwelt on the southeast of the Caspian, and belonged to the same race as the Getae, the Massagetae, and other nations, confounded by the ancients under the vague denomination of Scythians. Julius Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 40. Strabo (p. 747) calls the Parthians Carduchi, i.e., the inhabitants of Curdistan. —⁠M. ↩
In the 538th year of the era of Seleucus. See Agathias, l. II, p. 63. This great event (such is the carelessness of the Orientals) is placed by Eutychius as high as the tenth year of Commodus, and by Moses of Chorene as low as the reign of Philip. Ammianus Marcellinus has so servilely copied (XXIII 6) his ancient materials, which are indeed very good, that he describes the family of the Arsacides as still seated on the Persian throne in the middle of the fourth century. ↩
The Persian History, if the poetry of the Shah Nameh, the Book of Kings, may deserve that name, mentions four dynasties from the earliest ages to the invasion of the Saracens. The Shah Nameh was composed with the view of perpetuating the remains of the original Persian records or traditions which had survived the Saracenic invasion. The task was undertaken by the poet Dukiki, and afterwards, under the patronage of Mahmood of Ghazni, completed by Ferdowsi. The first of these dynasties is that of Kaiomors, as Sir William Jones observes, the dark and fabulous period; the second, that of the Kaianian, the heroic and poetical, in which the learned have discovered some curious, and imagined some fanciful, analogies with the Jewish, the Greek, and the Roman accounts of the eastern world. See, on the Shah Nameh, translation by Joseph Goerres, with Joseph von Hammer’s Review, Wiener Jahrbücher der Literatur 17, 75, 77. John Malcolm’s History of Persia, octavo edition, I 503. Turner Macan’s Preface to his Critical Edition of the Shah Nameh. On the early Persian history, a very sensible abstract of various opinions in Malcolm’s History of Persia. —⁠M. ↩
The tanner’s name was Babec; the soldier’s, Sassan: from the former Artaxerxes obtained the surname of Babegan, from the latter all his descendants have been styled Sassanides. ↩
Barthélemy d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, “Ardshir.” ↩
In the plain of Hoormuz, the son of Babek was hailed in the field with the proud title of Shahan Shah, king of kings⁠—a name ever since assumed by the sovereigns of Persia. Malcolm I 71. —⁠M. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXXX. Herodian, l. VI, p. 207. Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 80. ↩
See the Persian account of the rise of Ardeschir Babegan, in Malcolm I 69. —⁠M. ↩
See Moses Chorenensis, l. II c. 65⁠–⁠71. ↩
Antoine Isaac, Baron Silvestre de Sacy (Mémoires sur diverses antiquités de la Perse) had proved the neglect of the Zoroastrian religion under the Parthian kings. —⁠M. ↩
Hyde and Prideaux, working up the Persian legends and their own conjectures into a very agreeable story, represent Zoroaster as a contemporary of Darius Hystaspes. But it is sufficient to observe that the Greek writers, who lived almost in the age of Darius, agree in placing the era of Zoroaster many hundred, or even thousand, years before their own time. The judicious criticisms of Mr. Walter Moyle perceived, and maintained against his uncle Dr. Humphrey Prideaux, the antiquity of the Persian prophet. See his work, vol. II.8737 ↩
That ancient idiom was called the Zend. The language of the commentary, the Pehlvi, though much more modern, has ceased many ages ago to be a living tongue. This fact alone (if it is allowed as authentic) sufficiently warrants the antiquity of those writings which M. d’Anquetil has brought into Europe, and translated into French.8738 ↩
Thomas Hyde, Historia Religionis veterum Persarum, c. 21. ↩
I have principally drawn this account from the Zendavesta of M. d’Anquetil, and the Sadder Bun-Dehesch, subjoined to Dr. Hyde’s treatise. It must, however, be confessed, that the studied obscurity of a prophet, the figurative style of the East, and the deceitful medium of a French or Latin version, may have betrayed us into error and heresy, in this abridgment of Persian theology.8739 ↩
Zeruane Akerene, so translated by Anquetil and Kleuker. There is a dissertation of Foucher on this subject, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXIX. According to Peter van Bohlen (Das alte Indien) it is the Sanskrit Sarvan Akaranam, the Uncreated Whole; or, according to Friedrich Schlegel, Sarvan Akharyam, the Uncreated Indivisible. —⁠M. ↩
This is an error. Ahriman was not forced by his invariable nature to do evil; the Zendavesta expressly recognizes (see the Izeschne) that he was born good, that in his origin he was light; envy rendered him evil; he became jealous of the power and attributes of Ormuzd; then light was changed into darkness, and Ahriman was precipitated into the abyss. See the Abridgment of the Doctrine of the Ancient Persians, by Anquetil, c. II § 2. —⁠G. ↩
The modern Parsees (and in some degree the Sadder) exalt Ormusd into the first and omnipotent cause, whilst they degrade Ahriman into an inferior but rebellious spirit. Their desire of pleasing the Muhammadans may have contributed to refine their theological systems. ↩
According to the Zendavesta, Ahriman will not be annihilated or precipitated forever into darkness; at the resurrection of the dead he will be entirely defeated by Ormuzd, his power will be destroyed, his kingdom overthrown to its foundations, he will himself be purified in torrents of melting metal; he will change his heart and his will, become holy, heavenly, establish in his dominions the law and word of Ormuzd, unite himself with him in everlasting friendship, and both will sing hymns in honor of the Great Eternal. See Anquetil’s Abridgment. Kleuker, Anhang zum Zend Avesta, part III, pp. 85, 86; and the Izeschne, one of the books of the Zendavesta. According to the Sadder Bun-Dehesch, a more modern work, Ahriman is to be annihilated: but this is contrary to the text itself of the Zendavesta, and to the idea its author gives of the kingdom of Eternity, after the twelve thousand years assigned to the contest between Good and Evil. —⁠G. ↩
Herodotus, l. I c. 131. But Dr. Prideaux thinks, with reason, that the use of temples was afterwards permitted in the Magian religion.8740 ↩
Among the Persians Mithra is not the Sun: Anquetil has contested and triumphantly refuted the opinion of those who confound them, and it is evidently contrary to the text of the Zendavesta. Mithra is the first of the genii, or jzeds, created by Ormuzd; it is he who watches over all nature. Hence arose the misapprehension of some of the Greeks, who have said that Mithra was the summus deus of the Persians: he has a thousand ears and ten thousand eyes. The Chaldeans appear to have assigned him a higher rank than the Persians. It is he who bestows upon the earth the light of the sun. The sun, named Khor (brightness), is thus an inferior genius, who, with many other genii, bears a part in the functions of Mithra. These assistant genii to another genius are called his kamkars; but in the Zendavesta they are never confounded. On the days sacred to a particular genius, the Persian ought to recite, not only the prayers addressed to him, but those also which are addressed to his kamkars; thus the hymn or iescht of Mithra is recited on the day of the sun (Khor), and vice versa. It is probably this which has sometimes caused them to be confounded; but Anquetil had himself exposed this error, which Kleuker, and all who have studied the Zendavesta, have noticed. See VIII Dissert. of Anquetil. Kleuker’s Anhang zum Zend Avesta, part III, p. 132. —⁠G.

M. Guizot is unquestionably right, according to the pure and original doctrine of the Zend. The Mithriac worship, which was so extensively propagated in the West, and in which Mithra and the sun were perpetually confounded, seems to have been formed from a fusion of Zoroastrianism and Chaldaism, or the Syrian worship of the sun. An excellent abstract of the question, with references to the works of the chief modern writers on his curious subject, De Sacy, Kleuker, von Hammer, etc., may be found in Joseph-Daniel Guigniaut’s translation of Kreuzer. Religions de l’antiquité, notes VIII, IX to book II vol. I second part, page 728. —⁠M. ↩
Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 8. Notwithstanding all their distinctions and protestations, which seem sincere enough, their tyrants, the Muhammadans, have constantly stigmatized them as idolatrous worshippers of the fire. ↩
See the Sadder, the smallest part of which consists of moral precepts. The ceremonies enjoined are infinite and trifling. Fifteen genuflections, prayers, etc., were required whenever the devout Persian cut his nails or made water; or as often as he put on the sacred girdle. Sadder, Art. 14, 50, 60.8741 ↩
See, on Zoroaster’s encouragement of agriculture, the ingenious remarks of Heeren, Ideen über die Politik, vol. I, p. 449, etc., and Rhode, Die heilige Sage und das gesammte Religionssystem, p. 517. —⁠M. ↩
Zendavesta, tom. I, p. 224, and Précis du Système de Zoroastre, tom. III. ↩
Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 19. ↩
Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 28. Both Hyde and Prideaux affect to apply to the Magian the terms consecrated to the Christian hierarchy. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XXIII 6. He informs us (as far as we may credit him) of two curious particulars: 1. That the Magi derived some of their most secret doctrines from the Indian Brachmans; and 2. That they were a tribe, or family, as well as order. ↩
The divine institution of tithes exhibits a singular instance of conformity between the law of Zoroaster and that of Moses. Those who cannot otherwise account for it may suppose, if they please, that the Magi of the latter times inserted so useful an interpolation into the writings of their prophet. ↩
Sadder, Art. VIII. ↩
The passage quoted by Gibbon is not taken from the writings of Zoroaster, but from the Sadder, a work, as has been before said, much later than the books which form the Zendavesta, and written by a Magus for popular use; what it contains, therefore, cannot be attributed to Zoroaster. It is remarkable that Gibbon should fall into this error, for Hyde himself does not ascribe the Sadder to Zoroaster; he remarks that it is written in verse, while Zoroaster always wrote in prose. Hyde, I, p. 27. Whatever may be the case as to the latter assertion, for which there appears little foundation, it is unquestionable that the Sadder is of much later date. The Abbé Foucher does not even believe it to be an extract from the works of Zoroaster. See his Dissertation before quoted. Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVII. —⁠G.

Perhaps it is rash to speak of any part of the Zendavesta as the writing of Zoroaster, though it may be a genuine representation of his. As to the Sadder, Hyde (in Praefatio) considered it not above 200 years old. It is manifestly post-Muhammadan. See Art. XXV on fasting. —⁠M. ↩
Plato in Alcibiades. ↩
Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae, l. XXX c. 1) observes that magic held mankind by the triple chain of religion, of physic, and of astronomy. ↩
Agathias, l. IV, p. 134. ↩
Mr. Hume, in the Natural History of Religion, sagaciously remarks that the most refined and philosophic sects are constantly the most intolerant.8742 ↩
Cicero, De legibus II 10. Xerxes, by the advice of the Magi, destroyed the temples of Greece. ↩
Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 23, 24. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, “Zurdusht.” Life of Zoroaster in tom. II of the Zendavesta. ↩
Compare Moses of Chorene, l. II c. 74, with Ammianus Marcellinus XXIII 6. Hereafter I shall make use of these passages. ↩
Rabbi Abraham, in the Tarikh Schickard, pp. 108, 109. ↩
Jacques Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. VIII c. 3. Sozomen, l. II c. 1. Manes, who suffered an ignominious death, may be deemed a Magian as well as a Christian heretic. ↩
Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 21. ↩
It is incorrect to attribute these persecutions to Artaxerxes. The Jews were held in honor by him, and their schools flourished during his reign. Compare Isaak Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten, b. XV 5, with Basnage. Sapor was forced by the people to temporary severities; but their real persecution did not begin till the reigns of Yezdigerd and Kobad. History of Jews III 236. According to Sozomen II 8, Sapor first persecuted the Christians. Manes was put to death by Varanes the First, AD 277. Isaac de Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme I 209. —⁠M. ↩
In the testament of Ardischer in Ferdowsi, the poet assigns these sentiments to the dying king, as he addresses his son: Never forget that as a king, you are at once the protector of religion and of your country. Consider the altar and the throne as inseparable; they must always sustain each other. Malcolm’s History of Persia I 74 —⁠M. ↩
These colonies were extremely numerous. Seleucus Nicator founded thirty-nine cities, all named from himself, or some of his relations (see Appian in Syriaca, p. 124). The era of Seleucus (still in use among the eastern Christians) appears as late as the year 508, of Christ 196, on the medals of the Greek cities within the Parthian empire. See Moyle’s Works, vol. I, p. 273, etc., and M. Fréret, Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XIX. ↩
The modern Persians distinguish that period as the dynasty of the kings of the nations. See Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VI 25. ↩
Eutychius (tom. I, pp. 367, 371, 375) relates the siege of the island of Mesene in the Tigris, with some circumstances not unlike the story of Nysus and Scylla. ↩
Agathias II 64 [and IV, p. 260 —⁠M.]. The princes of Segestan defended their independence during many years. As romances generally transport to an ancient period the events of their own time, it is not impossible that the fabulous exploits of Rustan, Prince of Segestan, may have been grafted on this real history. ↩
We can scarcely attribute to the Persian monarchy the seacoast of Gedrosia or Macran, which extends along the Indian Ocean from Cape Jask (the promontory Capella) to Cape Goadel. In the time of Alexander, and probably many ages afterwards, it was thinly inhabited by a savage people of Icthyophagi, or Fishermen, who knew no arts, who acknowledged no master, and who were divided by inhospitable deserts from the rest of the world. (See Arrian, De rebus gestis Alexandri regis Indicis.) In the twelfth century, the little town of Taiz (supposed by M. d’Anville to be the Teza of Ptolemy) was peopled and enriched by the resort of the Arabian merchants. (See Geographia nubiensis, p. 58, and d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, p. 283.) In the last age, the whole country was divided between three princes, one Muhammadan and two Idolaters, who maintained their independence against the successors of Shah Abbas. (Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, part I l. V, p. 635.) ↩
Chardin, tom. III c. 1 2, 3. ↩
Dion, l. XXVIII, p. 1335. ↩
For the precise situation of Babylon, Seleucia, Ctesiphon, Modain, and Baghdad, cities often confounded with each other, see an excellent geographical tract of M. d’Anville, in Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXX. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XI 42. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VI 26. ↩
This may be inferred from Strabo, l. XVI, p. 743. ↩
That most curious traveller, Bernier, who followed the camp of Aurengzebe from Delhi to Cashmir, describes with great accuracy the immense moving city. The guard of cavalry consisted of 35,000 men, that of infantry of 10,000. It was computed that the camp contained 150,000 horses, mules, and elephants; 50,000 camels, 50,000 oxen, and between 300,000 and 400,000 persons. Almost all Delhi followed the court, whose magnificence supported its industry. ↩
Dion, l. LXXI, p. 1178. Historia Augusta, p. 38. Eutropius VIII 10. Eusebius in Chronicon. Quadratus (quoted in the Augustan History) attempted to vindicate the Romans by alleging that the citizens of Seleucia had first violated their faith. ↩
Dion, l. LXXV, p. 1263. Herodian, l. III, p. 120. Historia Augusta, p. 70. ↩
The polished citizens of Antioch called those of Edessa mixed barbarians. It was, however, some praise, that, of the three dialects of the Syriac, the purest and most elegant (the Aramaean) was spoken at Edessa. This remark M. Theophilus Bayer (Historia Osrhoena et Edessena, p. 5) has borrowed from George of Malatia, a Syrian writer. ↩
Dion, l. LXXV, pp. 1248⁠–⁠1250. M. Bayer has neglected to use this most important passage. ↩
This kingdom, from Osrhoes, who gave a new name to the country, to the last Abgarus, had lasted 353 years. See the learned work of M. Bayer, Historia Osrhoena et Edessena. ↩
Xenophon, in the preface to the Cyropaedia, gives a clear and magnificent idea of the extent of the empire of Cyrus. Herodotus (l. III c. 79, etc.) enters into a curious and particular description of the twenty great Satrapies into which the Persian empire was divided by Darius Hystaspes. ↩
Herodian VI 209, 212. ↩
There were two hundred scythed chariots at the battle of Arbela, in the host of Darius. In the vast army of Tigranes, which was vanquished by Lucullus, seventeen thousand horse only were completely armed. Antiochus brought fifty-four elephants into the field against the Romans: by his frequent wars and negotiations with the princes of India, he had once collected a 150 of those great animals; but it may be questioned whether the most powerful monarch of Hindostan ever formed a line of battle of seven hundred elephants. Instead of three or four thousand elephants, which the Great Mogul was supposed to possess, Tavernier (Les Six Voyages, part II l. I, p. 198) discovered, by a more accurate inquiry, that he had only five hundred for his baggage, and eighty or ninety for the service of war. The Greeks have varied with regard to the number which Porus brought into the field, but Quintus Curtius (VIII 13), in this instance judicious and moderate, is contented with eighty-five elephants, distinguished by their size and strength. In Siam, where these animals are the most numerous and the most esteemed, eighteen elephants are allowed as a sufficient proportion for each of the nine brigades into which a just army is divided. The whole number, of 162 elephants of war, may sometimes be doubled. Histoire des voyages, tom. IX, p. 260.8743 ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 133.8744 ↩
M. de Tillemont has already observed that Herodian’s geography is somewhat confused. ↩
Moses of Chorene (History of Armenia, l. II c. 71) illustrates this invasion of Media, by asserting that Khosrow, king of Armenia, defeated Artaxerxes, and pursued him to the confines of India. The exploits of Khosrow have been magnified; and he acted as a dependent ally to the Romans. ↩
For the account of this war, see Herodian, l. VI, pp. 209, 212. The old abbreviators and modern compilers have blindly followed the Augustan History. ↩
Eutychius, tom. II, p. 180, vers. Edward Pococke. The great Khosrow Noushirwan sent the code of Artaxerxes to all his satraps, as the invariable rule of their conduct. ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, au mot “Ardshir.” We may observe that, after an ancient period of fables, and a long interval of darkness, the modern histories of Persia begin to assume an air of truth with the dynasty of the Sassanides. [Compare Malcolm I 79. —⁠M.] ↩
Herodian, l. VI, p. 214. Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XXIII c. 6. Some differences may be observed between the two historians, the natural effects of the changes produced by a century and a half. ↩
The Persians are still the most skilful horsemen, and their horses the finest, in the East. ↩
From Herodotus, Xenophon, Herodian, Ammianus, Chardin, etc., I have extracted such probable accounts of the Persian nobility, as seem either common to every age, or particular to that of the Sassanides. ↩
The Scythians, even according to the ancients, are not Sarmatians. [It may be doubted whether Gibbon intended to confound them. —⁠M.] The Greeks, after having divided the world into Greeks and barbarians, divided the barbarians into four great classes, the Celts, the Scythians, the Indians, and the Ethiopians. They called Celts all the inhabitants of Gaul. Scythia extended from the Baltic Sea to the Lake Aral: the people enclosed in the angle to the northeast, between Celtica and Scythia, were called Celto-Scythians, and the Sarmatians were placed in the southern part of that angle. But these names of Celts, of Scythians, of Celto-Scythians, and Sarmatians, were invented, says Schlözer, by the profound cosmographical ignorance of the Greeks, and have no real ground; they are purely geographical divisions, without any relation to the true affiliation of the different races. Thus all the inhabitants of Gaul are called Celts by most of the ancient writers; yet Gaul contained three totally distinct nations, the Belgae, the Aquitani, and the Gauls, properly so called. Hi omnes linguâ institutis, legibusque inter se differunt. Caesar, Commentarii, c. I. It is thus the Turks call all Europeans Franks. August Schlözer, Allgemeine nordische Geschichte, p. 289. 1771. Theophilus Siegfried Bayer (“De Origine et priscis Sedibus Scytharum,” in Opuscula ad historiam antiquatam, p. 64) says, Primus eorum, de quibus constat, Ephorus, in quarto historiarum libro, orbem terrarum inter Scythas, Indos, Aethiopas et Celtas divisit. Fragmentum ejus loci Cosmas Indicopleustes in topographia Christianâ, f. 148, conservavit. Video igitur Ephorum, cum locorum positus per certa capita distribuere et explicare constitueret, insigniorum nomina gentium vastioribus spatiis adhibuisse, nulla mala fraude et successu infelici. Nam Ephoro quoquomodo dicta pro exploratis habebant Graeci plerique et Romani: ita gliscebat error posteritate. Igitur tot tamque diversae stirpis gentes non modo intra communem quandam regionem definitae, unum omnes Scytharum nomen his auctoribus subierunt, sed etiam ab illâ regionis adpellatione in eandem nationem sunt conflatae. Sic Cimmeriorum res cum Scythicis, Scytharum cum Sarmaticis, Russicis, Hunnicis, Tataricis commiscentur. —⁠G. ↩
The Germania of Tacitus has been a fruitful source of hypothesis to the ingenuity of modern writers, who have endeavored to account for the form of the work and the views of the author. According to Heinrich Luden (Geschichte des Teutschen Volkes I 432, and note), it contains the unfinished and disarranged collectanea for a larger work. An anonymous writer, supposed by Luden to be M. Becker, conceives that it was intended as an episode in his larger history. According to M. Guizot, “Tacite a peint les Germains comme Montaigne et Rousseau les sauvages, dans un accés d’humeur contre sa patrie: son livre est une satire des moeurs Romaines, l’éloquente boutade d’un patriote philosophe qui veut voir la vertu là, où il ne rencontre pas la mollesse honteuse et la depravation savante d’une vielle société.” Histoire de la civilisation moderne I 258. —⁠M. ↩
Germany was not of such vast extent. It is from Caesar, and more particularly from Ptolemy (says Gatterer), that we can know what was the state of ancient Germany before the wars with the Romans had changed the positions of the tribes. Germany, as changed by these wars, has been described by Strabo, Pliny the Elder, and Tacitus. Germany, properly so called, was bounded on the west by the Rhine, on the east by the Vistula, on the north by the southern point of Norway, by Sweden, and Estonia. On the south, the Maine and the mountains to the north of Bohemia formed the limits. Before the time of Caesar, the country between the Maine and the Danube was partly occupied by the Helvetians and other Gauls, partly by the Hercynian forest; but, from the time of Caesar to the great migration, these boundaries were advanced as far as the Danube, or, what is the same thing, to the Suabian Alps, although the Hercynian forest still occupied, from north to south, a space of nine days’ journey on both banks of the Danube. Johann Christoph Gatterer, Versuch einer allgemeinen WeltGeschichte, p. 424, edit. de 1792. This vast country was far from being inhabited by a single nation divided into different tribes of the same origin. We may reckon three principal races, very distinct in their language, their origin, and their customs. 1. To the east, the Slavs or Vandals. 2. To the west, the Cimmerians or Cimbri. 3. Between the Slavs and Cimbrians, the Germans, properly so called, the Suevi of Tacitus. The South was inhabited, before Julius Caesar, by nations of Gaulish origin, afterwards by the Suevi. —⁠G.

On the position of these nations, the German antiquaries differ.

I. The Slavs, or Sclavonians, or Wendish tribes, according to Schlözer, were originally settled in parts of Germany unknown to the Romans, Mecklenburgh, Pomerania, Brandenburgh, Upper Saxony; and Lusatia. According to Gatterer, they remained to the east of the Theiss, the Niemen, and the Vistula, till the third century. The Slavs, according to Procopius and Jornandes, formed three great divisions. 1. The Venedi or Vandals, who took the latter name (the Wenden), having expelled the Vandals, properly so called (a Suevian race, the conquerors of Africa), from the country between the Memel and the Vistula. 2. The Antes, who inhabited between the Dneister and the Dnieper. 3. The Sclavonians, properly so called, in the north of Dacia. During the great migration, these races advanced into Germany as far as the Saal and the Elbe. The Sclavonian language is the stem from which have issued the Russian, the Polish, the Bohemian, and the dialects of Lusatia, of some parts of the duchy of Luneburgh, of Carniola, Carinthia, and Styria, etc.; those of Croatia, Bosnia, and Bulgaria. Schlözer, Allgemeine nordische Geschichte, pp. 323, 335.

II. The Cimbric race. Adelung calls by this name all who were not Suevi. This race had passed the Rhine, before the time of Caesar, occupied Belgium, and are the Belgae of Caesar and Pliny the Elder. The Cimbrians also occupied the isle of Jutland. The Cymri of Wales and of Britain are of this race. Many tribes on the right bank of the Rhine, the Guthini in Jutland, the Usipeti in Westphalia, the Sigambri in the duchy of Berg, were German Cimbrians.

III. The Suevi, known in very early times by the Romans, for they are mentioned by Lucius Cornelius Sisenna, who lived 123 years before Christ (Nonius v. Lancea). This race, the real Germans, extended to the Vistula, and from the Baltic to the Hercynian forest. The name of Suevi was sometimes confined to a single tribe, as by Caesar to the Catti. The name of the Suevi has been preserved in Suabia.

These three were the principal races which inhabited Germany; they moved from east to west, and are the parent stem of the modern natives. But northern Europe, according to Schlözer, was not peopled by them alone; other races, of different origin, and speaking different languages, have inhabited and left descendants in these countries.

The German tribes called themselves, from very remote times, by the generic name of Teutons (Teuten, Deutschen), which Tacitus derives from that of one of their gods, Tuisco. It appears more probable that it means merely men, people. Many savage nations have given themselves no other name. Thus the Laplanders call themselves Almag, people; the Samoiedes Nilletz, Nissetsch, men, etc. As to the name of Germans (Germani), Caesar found it in use in Gaul, and adopted it as a word already known to the Romans. Many of the learned (from a passage of Tacitus, De moribus Germanorum, c. 2) have supposed that it was only applied to the Teutons after Caesar’s time; but Adelung has triumphantly refuted this opinion. The name of Germans is found in the Fasti Capitolini. See Gruter, Inscriptiones 2899, in which the consul Marcellus, in the year of Rome 531, is said to have defeated the Gauls, the Insubrians, and the Germans, commanded by Virdomar. See Adelung, Aelteste Geschichte der Deutschen, p. 102. —⁠Compressed from G. ↩
The modern philosophers of Sweden seem agreed that the waters of the Baltic gradually sink in a regular proportion, which they have ventured to estimate at half an inch every year. Twenty centuries ago the flat country of Scandinavia must have been covered by the sea; while the high lands rose above the waters, as so many islands of various forms and dimensions. Such, indeed, is the notion given us by Mela, Pliny the Elder, and Tacitus, of the vast countries round the Baltic. See in the Bibliothèque Raisonnée, tom. XL and XLV, a large abstract of Olaf von Dalin’s History of Sweden, composed in the Swedish language.8745 ↩
In particular, Mr. Hume, the Abbé Dubos, and M. Pelloutier, Histoire des Celtes, tom. I. ↩
Diodorus Siculus, l. V, p. 340, edit. Wessel. Herodian, l. VI, p. 221. Jornandes, c. 55. On the banks of the Danube, the wine, when brought to table, was frequently frozen into great lumps, frusta vini. Ovid, Epistulae ex ponto, l. IV 7, 9, 10. Virgil, Georgics, l. IV 355. The fact is confirmed by a soldier and a philosopher, who had experienced the intense cold of Thrace. See Xenophon, Anabasis, l. VII, p. 560, edit. Hutchinson.8746 ↩
Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. XII, pp. 79, 116. ↩
Caesar, De bello Gallico VI 23, etc. The most inquisitive of the Germans were ignorant of its utmost limits, although some of them had travelled in it more than sixty days’ journey.8747 ↩
Cluverius (Germania antiqua, l. III c. 47) investigates the small and scattered remains of the Hercynian wood. ↩
Pierre Charlevoix, Histoire du Canada. ↩
Olaus Rudbeck asserts that the Swedish women often bear ten or twelve children, and not uncommonly twenty or thirty; but the authority of Rudbeck is much to be suspected. ↩
In hos artus, in haec corpora, quae miramur, excrescunt. Tacitus, Germania 3, 20. Cluverius, l. I c. 14. ↩
Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Gaius Marius.” The Cimbri, by way of amusement, often slid down mountains of snow on their broad shields. ↩
The Romans made war in all climates, and by their excellent discipline were in a great measure preserved in health and vigor. It may be remarked that man is the only animal which can live and multiply in every country from the equator to the poles. The hog seems to approach the nearest to our species in that privilege. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 3. The emigration of the Gauls followed the course of the Danube, and discharged itself on Greece and Asia. Tacitus could discover only one inconsiderable tribe that retained any traces of a Gallic origin.8748 ↩
According to Dr. Geoffrey Keating (History of Ireland, pp. 13, 14), the giant Portholanus, who was the son of Seara, the son of Esra, the son of Sru, the son of Framant, the son of Fathaclan, the son of Magog, the son of Japhet, the son of Noah, landed on the coast of Munster the 14th day of May, in the year of the world 1978. Though he succeeded in his great enterprise, the loose behavior of his wife rendered his domestic life very unhappy, and provoked him to such a degree, that he killed⁠—her favorite greyhound. This, as the learned historian very properly observes, was the first instance of female falsehood and infidelity ever known in Ireland. ↩
Genealogical History of the Tartars, by Abulghazi Bahadur Khan. ↩
His work, entitled Atlantica, is uncommonly scarce. Pierre Bayle has given two most curious extracts from it. Nouvelles de la République des lettres, Janvier et Fevrier, 1685. ↩
Tacitus, Germania II 19. Literarum secreta viri pariter ac foeminae ignorant. We may rest contented with this decisive authority, without entering into the obscure disputes concerning the antiquity of the Runic characters. The learned Celsius, a Swede, a scholar, and a philosopher, was of opinion that they were nothing more than the Roman letters, with the curves changed into straight lines for the ease of engraving. See Pelloutier, Histoire des Celtes, l. II c. 11. Dictionnaire diplomatique, tom. I, p. 223. We may add, that the oldest Runic inscriptions are supposed to be of the third century, and the most ancient writer who mentions the Runic characters is Venantius Fortunatus (Carmen VII 18), who lived towards the end of the sixth century.

Barbara fraxineis pingatur Runa tabellis.8749

↩
Luden (the author of the Geschichte des Teutschen Volkes) has surpassed most writers in his patriotic enthusiasm for the virtues and noble manners of his ancestors. Even the cold of the climate, and the want of vines and fruit trees, as well as the barbarism of the inhabitants, are calumnies of the luxurious Italians. M. Guizot, on the other side (in his Histoire de la civilisation, vol. I, p. 272, etc.), has drawn a curious parallel between the Germans of Tacitus and the North American Indians. —⁠M. ↩
Recherches philosophiques sur les Américains, tom. III, p. 228. The author of that very curious work is, if I am not misinformed, a German by birth. [De Pauw. —⁠M.] ↩
The Alexandrian Geographer is often criticized by the accurate Cluverius. ↩
See Caesar, and the learned Mr. Whitaker in his History of Manchester, vol. I. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 15. ↩
When the Germans commanded the Ubii of Cologne to cast off the Roman yoke, and with their new freedom to resume their ancient manners, they insisted on the immediate demolition of the walls of the colony. “Postulamus a vobis, muros coloniae, munimenta servitii, detrahatis; etiam fera animalia, si clausa teneas, virtutis obliviscuntur.” Tacitus, Historiae IV 64. ↩
The straggling villages of Silesia are several miles in length. See Cluverius, l. I c. 13. ↩
One hundred and forty years after Tacitus a few more regular structures were erected near the Rhine and Danube. Herodian, l. VII, p. 234. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 17. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 5. ↩
Caesar, De bello Gallico VI 21. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 26. Caesar VI 22. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 6. ↩
It is said that the Mexicans and Peruvians, without the use of either money or iron, had made a very great progress in the arts. Those arts, and the monuments they produced, have been strangely magnified. See Recherches sur les Américains, tom. II, p. 153, etc. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 15. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 22, 23. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 24. The Germans might borrow the arts of play from the Romans, but the passion is wonderfully inherent in the human species. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 14. ↩
Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Camillus.” Titus Livius V 33. ↩
Dubos, Histoire de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, p. 193. ↩
The Helvetian nation, which issued from a country called Switzerland, contained, of every age and sex, 368,000 persons (Caesar, De bello Gallico I 29). At present, the number of people in the Pays de Vaud (a small district on the banks of the Leman Lake, much more distinguished for politeness than for industry) amounts to 112,591. See an excellent tract of M. Muret, in the Mémoires de la société de Bern. ↩
Paul Diaconus, c. 1⁠–⁠3. Machiavel, Davila, and the rest of Paul’s followers, represent these emigrations too much as regular and concerted measures. ↩
Sir William Temple and Montesquieu have indulged, on this subject, the usual liveliness of their fancy. ↩
Machiavel, Istorie Fiorentine, l. I. Juan de Mariana, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, l. V c. 1. ↩
Robertson’s Charles V. Hume’s Political Essays.8750 ↩
Tacitus, Germania 44, 45. Johann Freinshem (who dedicated his supplement to Livy, to Christina of Sweden) thinks proper to be very angry with the Roman who expressed so very little reverence for Northern queens.8751 ↩
May we not suspect that superstition was the parent of despotism? The descendants of Odin (whose race was not extinct till the year 1060) are said to have reigned in Sweden above a thousand years. The temple of Upsal was the ancient seat of religion and empire. In the year 1153 I find a singular law prohibiting the use and profession of arms to any except the king’s guards. Is it not probable that it was colored by the pretence of reviving an old institution? See Dalin’s History of Sweden in the Bibliothèque Raisonnée, tom. XL and XLV. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 43. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 11⁠–⁠13, etc. ↩
Hugo Grotius changes an expression of Tacitus, pertractantur into proetractantur. The correction is equally just and ingenious. ↩
Even in our ancient parliament, the barons often carried a question, not so much by the number of votes as by that of their armed followers. ↩
Caesar, De bello Gallico VI 23. ↩
Minuunt controversias, is a very happy expression of Caesar’s. ↩
Reges ex nobilitate, duces ex virtute sumunt. Tacitus, Germania 7. ↩
Cluverius, Germania antiqua, l. I c. 38. ↩
Caesar VI 22. Tacitus, Germania 26. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 7. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 13, 14. ↩
Esprit des loix, l. XXX c. 3. The brilliant imagination of Montesquieu is corrected, however, by the dry, cold reason of the Abbé Gabriel Bonnot de Mably. Observations sur l’histoire de France, tom. I, p. 356. ↩
Gaudent muneribus, sed nec data imputant, nec acceptis obligautur. Tacitus, Germania, c. 21. ↩
The adulteress was whipped through the village. Neither wealth nor beauty could inspire compassion, or procure her a second husband. Tacitus, Germania 18, 19. ↩
Ovid employs two hundred lines in the research of places the most favorable to love. Above all, he considers the theatre as the best adapted to collect the beauties of Rome, and to melt them into tenderness and sensuality. ↩
Tacitus, Histories IV 61, 65. ↩
The marriage present was a yoke of oxen, horses, and arms. See Germania, c. 18. Tacitus is somewhat too florid on the subject. ↩
The change of exigere into exugere is a most excellent correction. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 7. Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Gaius Marius.” Before the wives of the Teutones destroyed themselves and their children, they had offered to surrender, on condition that they should be received as the slaves of the vestal virgins. ↩
Tacitus has employed a few lines, and Cluverius 124 pages, on this obscure subject. The former discovers in Germany the gods of Greece and Rome. The latter is positive that, under the emblems of the sun, the moon, and the fire, his pious ancestors worshipped the Trinity in unity. ↩
The sacred wood, described with such sublime horror by Lucan, was in the neighborhood of Marseilles; but there were many of the same kind in Germany.8752 ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 7. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 40. ↩
See Dr. Robertson’s History of Charles V, vol. I note 10. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 7. These standards were only the heads of wild beasts. ↩
See an instance of this custom, Tacitus, Annales XIII 57. ↩
Caesar, Diodorus, and Lucan seem to ascribe this doctrine to the Gauls, but M. Pelloutier (Histoire des Celtes, l. III c. 18) labors to reduce their expressions to a more orthodox sense. ↩
Concerning this gross but alluring doctrine of the Edda, see Fable XX in the curious version of that book, published by M. Paul Henri Mallet, in his Introduction to the History of Denmark. ↩
See Tacitus, Germania, c. 3. Diodorus Siculus, l. V. Strabo, l. IV, p. 197. The classical reader may remember the rank of Demodocus in the Phaeacian court, and the ardor infused by Tyrtaeus into the fainting Spartans. Yet there is little probability that the Greeks and the Germans were the same people. Much learned trifling might be spared, if our antiquarians would condescend to reflect that similar manners will naturally be produced by similar situations. ↩
Besides these battle songs, the Germans sang at their festival banquets (Tacitus, Annales I 65), and around the bodies of their slain heroes. King Theodoric, of the tribe of the Goths, killed in a battle against Attila, was honored by songs while he was borne from the field of battle. Jornandes, c. 41. The same honor was paid to the remains of Attila. Jornandes, c. 49. According to some historians, the Germans had songs also at their weddings; but this appears to me inconsistent with their customs, in which marriage was no more than the purchase of a wife. Besides, there is but one instance of this, that of the Gothic king, Ataulph, who sang himself the nuptial hymn when he espoused Placidia, sister of the emperors Arcadius and Honorius (Olympiodorus, p. 8). But this marriage was celebrated according to the Roman rites, of which the nuptial songs formed a part. Adelung, p. 382. —⁠G.

Charlemagne is said to have collected the national songs of the ancient Germans. Eginhard, Vita Karoli Magni. —⁠M. ↩
Missilia spargunt, Tacitus, Germania, c. 6. Either that historian used a vague expression, or he meant that they were thrown at random. ↩
It was their principal distinction from the Sarmatians, who generally fought on horseback. ↩
The relation of this enterprise occupies a great part of the fourth and fifth books of the History of Tacitus, and is more remarkable for its eloquence than perspicuity. Sir Henry Saville has observed several inaccuracies. ↩
Tacitus, Historiae IV 13. Like them he had lost an eye. ↩
It was contained between the two branches of the old Rhine, as they subsisted before the face of the country was changed by art and nature. See Cluverius, Germania antiqua, l. III c. 30, 37. ↩
Caesar, De bello Gallico, l. VI 23. ↩
The Bructeri were a non-Suevian tribe, who dwelt below the duchies of Oldenburgh and Lauenburgh, on the borders of the Lippe, and in the Hartz Mountains. It was among them that the priestess Velleda obtained her renown. —⁠G. ↩
They are mentioned, however, in the fourth and fifth centuries by Nazarius, Ammianus, Claudian, etc., as a tribe of Franks. See Cluverius, Germania antiqua, l. III c. 13. ↩
Urgentibus is the common reading; but good sense, Lipsius, and some MSS. declare for Vergentibus. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 33. The pious Abbé de La Bléterie is very angry with Tacitus, talks of the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning, etc., etc. ↩
Many traces of this policy may be discovered in Tacitus and Dion; and many more may be inferred from the principles of human nature. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 31. Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XXXI c. 5. Aurelius Victor. The emperor Marcus was reduced to sell the rich furniture of the palace, and to enlist slaves and robbers. ↩
The Marcomanni, a colony, who, from the banks of the Rhine, occupied Bohemia and Moravia, had once erected a great and formidable monarchy under their king Maroboduus. See Strabo, l. VII [p. 290 —⁠M.]. Velleius Paterculus II 108. Tacitus, Annales II 63.8753 ↩
Mr. Wotton (History of Rome, p. 166) increases the prohibition to ten times the distance. His reasoning is specious, but not conclusive. Five miles were sufficient for a fortified barrier. ↩
Dion, l. LXXI and LXXII. ↩
See an excellent dissertation on the origin and migrations of nations, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XVIII, pp. 48⁠–⁠71. It is seldom that the antiquarian and the philosopher are so happily blended. ↩
Should we suspect that Athens contained only 21,000 citizens, and Sparta no more than 39,000? See Hume and Wallace on the number of mankind in ancient and modern times.8754 ↩
The expression used by Zosimus and Zonaras may signify that Marinus commanded a century, a cohort, or a legion. ↩
His birth at Bubalia, a little village in Pannonia (Eutropius IX; Victor in Caesaribus et Epitome de Caesaribus), seems to contradict, unless it was merely accidental, his supposed descent from the Decii. Six hundred years had bestowed nobility on the Decii; but at the commencement of that period, they were only plebeians of merit, and among the first who shared the consulship with the haughty patricians. Plebeine Deciorum animae, etc. Juvenal, Satires VIII 254. See the spirited speech of Decius, in Livy X 9, 10. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 20, c. 22. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 624, edit. Louvre. ↩
See the prefaces of Cassiodorus and Jornandes; it is surprising that the latter should be omitted in the excellent edition, published by Grotius, of the Gothic writers. ↩
On the authority of Ablavius, Jornandes quotes some old Gothic chronicles in verse. De rebus Geticis, c. 4. ↩
The Goths have inhabited Scandinavia, but it was not their original habitation. This great nation was anciently of the Suevian race; it occupied, in the time of Tacitus, and long before, Mecklenburgh, Pomerania, Southern Prussia, and the northwest of Poland. A little before the birth of Jesus Christ, and in the first years of that century, they belonged to the kingdom of Marbod, king of the Marcomanni; but Cotwalda, a young Gothic prince, delivered them from that tyranny, and established his own power over the kingdom of the Marcomanni, already much weakened by the victories of Tiberius. The power of the Goths at that time must have been great; it was probably from them that the Sinus Codanus (the Baltic) took this name, as it was afterwards called Mare Suevicum, and Mare Venedicum, during the superiority of the proper Suevi and the Venedi. The epoch in which the Goths passed into Scandinavia is unknown. See Adelung, History of the Ancient Germans, p. 200. Gatterer, Abriss der Universalhistorie 458. —⁠G.

M. Antoine-Jean Saint-Martin observes that the Scandinavian descent of the Goths rests on the authority of Jornandes, who professed to derive it from the traditions of the Goths. He is supported by Procopius and Paulus Diaconus. Yet the Goths are unquestionably the same with the Getae of the earlier historians. Saint-Martin, note on Charles Le Beau, Histoire du Bas-Empire III 324. The identity of the Getae and Goths is by no means generally admitted. On the whole, they seem to be one vast branch of the Indo-Teutonic race, who spread irregularly towards the north of Europe, and at different periods, and in different regions, came in contact with the more civilized nations of the south. At this period, there seems to have been a reflux of these Gothic tribes from the North.

Malte-Brun considers that there are strong grounds for receiving the Islandic traditions commented by the Danish Varro, M. Suhm. From these, and the voyage of Pytheas, which Malte-Brun considers genuine, the Goths were in possession of Scandinavia, Ey-Gothland, 250 years before Jesus Christ, and of a tract on the continent (Reid-Gothland) between the mouths of the Vistula and the Oder. In their southern migration, they followed the course of the Vistula; afterwards, of the Dnieper. Malte-Brun, Géographie universelle I, p. 387, edit. 1832. Erik Geijer, the historian of Sweden, ably maintains the Scandinavian origin of the Goths. The Gothic language, according to Bopp, is the link between the Sanskrit and the modern Teutonic dialects: “I think that I am reading Sanskrit when I am reading Ulphilas.” Bopp, Conjugations System der Sanskrit Sprache, preface, p. X. —⁠M. ↩
Jornandes, c. 3. ↩
See in the Prolegomena of Grotius some large extracts from Adam of Bremen and Saxo-Grammaticus. The former wrote in the year 1077, the latter flourished about the year 1200. ↩
Voltaire, Histoire de Charles XII, l. III. When the Austrians desired the aid of the court of Rome against Gustavus Adolphus, they always represented that conqueror as the lineal successor of Alaric. Walter Harte’s History of Gustavus Adolphus, vol. II, p. 123. ↩
See Adam of Bremen in Grotii Prolegomenis, p. 105. The temple of Upsal was destroyed by Ingo, king of Sweden, who began his reign in the year 1075, and about fourscore years afterwards a Christian cathedral was erected on its ruins. See Dalin’s History of Sweden, in the Bibliothèque raisonée. ↩
The Eddas have at length been made accessible to European scholars by the completion of the publication of the Saemundine Edda by the Arna Magnaean Commission, in three volumes quarto, with a copious lexicon of northern mythology. —⁠M. ↩
Mallet, Introduction à l’histoire du Dannemarc. ↩
Mallet, c. IV, p. 55, has collected from Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, and Stephanus Byzantinus, the vestiges of such a city and people. ↩
This wonderful expedition of Odin, which, by deducing the enmity of the Goths and Romans from so memorable a cause, might supply the noble groundwork of an epic poem, cannot safely be received as authentic history. According to the obvious sense of the Edda, and the interpretation of the most skilful critics, As-gard, instead of denoting a real city of the Asiatic Sarmatia, is the fictitious appellation of the mystic abode of the gods, the Olympus of Scandinavia; from whence the prophet was supposed to descend, when he announced his new religion to the Gothic nations, who were already seated in the southern parts of Sweden.8755 ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 44. ↩
Tacitus, Annales II 62. If we could yield a firm assent to the navigations of Pytheas of Marseilles, we must allow that the Goths had passed the Baltic at least three hundred years before Christ. ↩
Ptolemy, l. II. ↩
By the German colonies who followed the arms of the Teutonic knights. The conquest and conversion of Prussia were completed by those adventurers in the thirteenth century. ↩
Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae IV 14) and Procopius (in De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 1) agree in this opinion. They lived in distant ages, and possessed different means of investigating the truth. ↩
The Ostro and Visi, the eastern and western Goths, obtained those denominations from their original seats in Scandinavia.8756 In all their future marches and settlements they preserved, with their names, the same relative situation. When they first departed from Sweden, the infant colony was contained in three vessels. The third being a heavy sailer lagged behind, and the crew, which afterwards swelled into a nation, received from that circumstance the appellation of Gepidae or Loiterers. Jornandes, c. 17. ↩
This opinion is by no means probable. The Vandals and the Goths equally belonged to the great division of the Suevi, but the two tribes were very different. Those who have treated on this part of history, appear to me to have neglected to remark that the ancients almost always gave the name of the dominant and conquering people to all the weaker and conquered races. So Pliny the Elder calls Vindeli, Vandals, all the people of the northeast of Europe, because at that epoch the Vandals were doubtless the conquering tribe. Caesar, on the contrary, ranges under the name of Suevi, many of the tribes whom Pliny the Elder reckons as Vandals, because the Suevi, properly so called, were then the most powerful tribe in Germany. When the Goths, become in their turn conquerors, had subjugated the nations whom they encountered on their way, these nations lost their name with their liberty, and became of Gothic origin. The Vandals themselves were then considered as Goths; the Heruli, the Gepidae, etc., suffered the same fate. A common origin was thus attributed to tribes who had only been united by the conquests of some dominant nation, and this confusion has given rise to a number of historical errors. —⁠G.

M. Saint-Martin has a learned note (to Le Beau V 261) on the origin of the Vandals. The difficulty appears to be in rejecting the close analogy of the name with the Vend or Wendish race, who were of Sclavonian, not of Suevian or German, origin. M. Saint-Martin supposes that the different races spread from the head of the Adriatic to the Baltic, and even the Veneti, on the shores of the Adriatic, the Vindelici, the tribes which gave their name to Vindobona, Vindoduna, Vindonissa, were branches of the same stock with the Sclavonian Venedi, who at one time gave their name to the Baltic; that they all spoke dialects of the Wendish language, which still prevails in Carinthia, Carniola, part of Bohemia, and Lusatia, and is hardly extinct in Mecklenburgh and Pomerania. The Vandal race, once so fearfully celebrated in the annals of mankind, has so utterly perished from the face of the earth, that we are not aware that any vestiges of their language can be traced, so as to throw light on the disputed question of their German, their Sclavonian, or independent origin. The weight of ancient authority seems against M. Saint-Martin’s opinion. Compare, on the Vandals, Malte-Brun I 394. Also Gibbon’s note here. —⁠M. ↩
See a fragment of Peter Patricius in the Excerpta legationum and with regard to its probable date, see Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. III, p. 346. ↩
Omnium harum gentium insigne, rotunda scuta, breves gladii, et erga rages obsequium. Tacitus, Germania, c. 43. The Goths probably acquired their iron by the commerce of amber. ↩
Jornandes, c. 13, 14. ↩
The Heruli, and the Uregundi or Burgundi, are particularly mentioned. See John Jacob Mascou’s History of the Ancient Germans, l. V. A passage in the Augustan History, p. 28, seems to allude to this great emigration. The Marcomannic war was partly occasioned by the pressure of barbarous tribes, who fled before the arms of more northern barbarians. ↩
D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, and the third part of his incomparable map of Europe. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 46. ↩
Cluverius, Germania antiqua, l. III c. 43. ↩
The Bastarnae cannot be considered original inhabitants of Germany; Strabo and Tacitus appear to doubt it; Pliny the Elder alone calls them Germans; Ptolemy and Dion treat them as Scythians, a vague appellation at this period of history; Livy, Plutarch, and Diodorus Siculus call them Gauls, and this is the most probable opinion. They descended from the Gauls who entered Germany under Signoesus. They are always found associated with other Gaulish tribes, such as the Boii, the Taurisci, etc., and not to the German tribes. The names of their chiefs or princes, Chlonix, Chlondicus, Deldon, are not German names. Those who were settled in the island of Peuce in the Danube, took the name of Peucini.

The Carpi appear in 237 as a Suevian tribe who had made an irruption into Maesia. Afterwards they reappear under the Ostrogoths, with whom they were probably blended. Adelung, pp. 236, 278. —⁠G. ↩
The Venedi, the Slavi, and the Antes, were the three great tribes of the same people. Jornandes, 24.8757 ↩
Tacitus most assuredly deserves that title, and even his cautious suspense is a proof of his diligent inquiries. ↩
Jacob Reineggs supposed that he had found, in the mountains of Caucasus, some descendants of the Alani. The Tartars call them Edeki-Alan; they speak a peculiar dialect of the ancient language of the Tartars of Caucasus. See Jacob Reineggs’ Description of Caucasus, pp. 11, 13. —⁠G.

According to Klaproth, they are the Ossetes of the present day in Mount Caucasus and were the same with the Albanians of antiquity. Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 180. —⁠M. ↩
Genealogical History of the Tartars, p. 593. Mr. John Bell (vol. II, p. 379) traversed the Ukraine, in his journey from Petersburgh to Constantinople. The modern face of the country is a just representation of the ancient, since, in the hands of the Cossacks, it still remains in a state of nature. ↩
In the sixteenth chapter of Jornandes, instead of secundo Maesiam we may venture to substitute secundam, the second Maesia, of which Marcianopolis was certainly the capital. (See Hierocles, De provinciis, and Wesseling ad loc., p. 636, Vetera Romanorum itineraria). It is surprising how this palpable error of the scribe should escape the judicious correction of Grotius.8758 ↩
The place is still called Nicop. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 307. The little stream, on whose banks it stood, falls into the Danube. ↩
Stephanus Byzantinus, De urbibus, p. 740. Wesseling, Vetera Romanorum itineraria, p. 136. Zonaras, by an odd mistake, ascribes the foundation of Philippopolis to the immediate predecessor of Decius.8759 ↩
Ammianus XXXI 5. ↩
Aurelius Victor, c. 29. ↩
Victorioe Carpicoe, on some medals of Decius, insinuate these advantages. ↩
Claudius (who afterwards reigned with so much glory) was posted in the pass of Thermopylae with 200 Dardanians, 100 heavy and 160 light horse, 60 Cretan archers, and 1,000 well-armed recruits. See an original letter from the emperor to his officer, in the Augustan History, p. 200. ↩
Jornandes, c. 16⁠–⁠18. Zosimus, l. I, p. 22. In the general account of this war, it is easy to discover the opposite prejudices of the Gothic and the Grecian writer. In carelessness alone they are alike. ↩
Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. VIII. He illustrates the nature and use of the censorship with his usual ingenuity, and with uncommon precision. ↩
Vespasian and Titus were the last censors (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VII 49; Censorinus, De die natali). The modesty of Trajan refused an honor which he deserved, and his example became a law to the Antonines. See Pliny the Younger’s “Panegyricus,” c. 45 and 60. ↩
Yet in spite of this exemption, Pompey appeared before that tribunal during his consulship. The occasion, indeed, was equally singular and honorable. Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Pompey,” p. 630. ↩
See the original speech in the Augustan History, pp. 173, 174. ↩
This transaction might deceive Zonaras, who supposes that Valerian was actually declared the colleague of Decius, l. XII, p. 625. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 174. The emperor’s reply is omitted. ↩
Such as the attempts of Augustus towards a reformation of manners. Tacitus, Annales III 24. ↩
Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. III, p. 598. As Zosimus and some of his followers mistake the Danube for the Tanais, they place the field of battle in the plains of Scythia. ↩
Aurelius Victor allows two distinct actions for the deaths of the two Decii; but I have preferred the account of Jornandes. ↩
I have ventured to copy from Tacitus (Annales I 64) the picture of a similar engagement between a Roman army and a German tribe. ↩
Jornandes, c. 18. Zosimus, l. I, p. 22, [c. 23 —⁠M.]. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 627. Aurelius Victor. ↩
The Decii were killed before the end of the year 251, since the new princes took possession of the consulship on the ensuing calends of January. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 223, gives them a very honorable place among the small number of good emperors who reigned between Augustus and Diocletian. ↩
Haec ubi Patres comperere⁠ ⁠… decernunt. Victor in Caesaribus. ↩
Zonaras, l. XII, p. 628. ↩
A Sella, a Toga, and a golden Patera of five pounds weight, were accepted with joy and gratitude by the wealthy king of Egypt. (Livy XXVII 4.) Quina millia Aeris, a weight of copper, in value about eighteen pounds sterling, was the usual present made to foreign ambassadors. (Livy XXXI 9.) ↩
See the firmness of a Roman general so late as the time of Alexander Severus, in the Excerpta legationum, p. 25, edit. Louvre. ↩
For the plague, see Jornandes, c. 19, and Victor in Caesaribus. ↩
These improbable accusations are alleged by Zosimus, l. I, pp. 23, 24. ↩
Jornandes, c. 19. The Gothic writer at least observed the peace which his victorious countrymen had sworn to Gallus. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, pp. 25, 26. ↩
Victor in Caesaribus. ↩
Zonaras, l. XII, p. 628. ↩
Anselmo Banduri, Numismata, p. 94. ↩
Eutropius, l. IX c. 6, says tertio mense. Eusebius omits this emperor. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 28. Eutropius and Victor station Valerian’s army in Rhaetia. ↩
Aurelius Victor says that Aemilianus died of a natural disorder. Eutropius, in speaking of his death, does not say that he was assassinated. —⁠G. ↩
He was about seventy at the time of his accession, or, as it is more probable, of his death. Historia Augusta, p. 173. Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. III, p. 893, note 1. ↩
Inimicus tyrannorum. Historia Augusta, p. 173. In the glorious struggle of the senate against Maximin, Valerian acted a very spirited part. Historia Augusta, p. 156. ↩
According to the distinction of Victor, he seems to have received the title of Imperator from the army, and that of Augustus from the senate. ↩
From Victor and from the medals, Tillemont (tom. III, p. 710) very justly infers that Gallienus was associated to the empire about the month of August of the year 253. ↩
Various systems have been formed to explain a difficult passage in Gregory of Tours, l. II c. 9. ↩
The Geographer of Ravenna, I 11, by mentioning Mauringania, on the confines of Denmark, as the ancient seat of the Franks, gave birth to an ingenious system of Leibritz. ↩
See Cluverius, Germania antiqua, l. III c. 20. M. Fréret, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XVIII. ↩
Most probably under the reign of Gordian, from an accidental circumstance fully canvassed by Tillemont, tom. III, pp. 710, 1181. ↩
The confederation of the Franks appears to have been formed,
1. Of the Chauci.
2. Of the Sicambri, the inhabitants of the duchy of Berg.
3. Of the Attuarii, to the north of the Sicambri, in the principality of Waldeck, between the Dimel and the Eder.
4. Of the Bructeri, on the banks of the Lippe, and in the Hartz.
5. Of the Chamavii, the Gambrivii of Tacitus, who were established, at the time of the Frankish confederation, in the country of the Bructeri.
6. Of the Catti, in Hessia. —⁠G.
The Salii and Cherusci are added in Thomas Greenwood’s History of the Germans I 193. —⁠M. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XVI 1. The Panegyrists frequently allude to the morasses of the Franks. ↩
Tacitus, Germania, c. 30, 37. ↩
In a subsequent period, most of those old names are occasionally mentioned. See some vestiges of them in Cluverius, Germania antiqua, l. III. ↩
Josias Simler, De republicâ Helvetiorum cum notis Fueslinus. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 27. ↩
M. de Brequigny (in the Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXX) has given us a very curious life of Posthumus. A series of the Augustan History from Medals and Inscriptions has been more than once planned, and is still much wanted.8760 ↩
Aurelius Victor, c. 33. Instead of Poene direpto, both the sense and the expression require deleto; though indeed, for different reasons, it is alike difficult to correct the text of the best, and of the worst, writers. ↩
In the time of Ausonius (the end of the fourth century) Ilerda or Lerida was in a very ruinous state (Ausonius, Epistolarum XXV 58), which probably was the consequence of this invasion. ↩
Valesius is therefore mistaken in supposing that the Franks had invaded Spain by sea. ↩
Aurelius Victor. Eutropius IX 6. ↩
Tacitus, Germania 38. ↩
Cluverius, Germania antiqua III 25. ↩
Sic Suevi a ceteris Germanis, sic Suevorum ingenui a servis separantur. A proud separation! ↩
Caesar in De bello Gallico IV 7. ↩
Victor in Caesaribus, “Caracalla.” Dion Cassius LXVII, p. 1350. ↩
The nation of the Alemanni was not originally formed by the Suevi properly so called; these have always preserved their own name. Shortly afterwards they made (AD 357) an irruption into Rhaetia, and it was not long after that they were reunited with the Alemanni. Still they have always been a distinct people; at the present day, the people who inhabit the northwest of the Black Forest call themselves Schwaben, Suabians, Suaves, while those who inhabit near the Rhine, in Ortenau, the Brisgaw, the Margraviate of Baden, do not consider themselves Suabians, and are by origin Alemanni.

The Tencteri and the Usipetae, inhabitants of the interior and of the north of Westphalia, formed, says Gatterer, the nucleus of the Alemannic nation; they occupied the country where the name of the Alemanni first appears, as conquered in 213, by Caracalla. They were well trained to fight on horseback (according to Tacitus, Germania, c. 32); and Aurelius Victor gives the same praise to the Alemanni: finally, they never made part of the Frankish league. The Alemanni became subsequently a centre round which gathered a multitude of German tribes. See Eumenius, Panegyrici veteres, c. 2. Ammianus Marcellinus XVIII 2, XXIX 4. —⁠G.

The question whether the Suevi was a generic name comprehending the clans which peopled central Germany, is rather hastily decided by M. Guizot. Mr. Greenwood, who has studied the modern German writers on their own origin, supposes the Suevi, Alemanni, and Marcomanni, one people, under different appellations. History of the Germans, vol. I. —⁠M. ↩
This etymology (far different from those which amuse the fancy of the learned) is preserved by Asinius Quadratus, an original historian, quoted by Agathias, I c. 5. ↩
The Suevi engaged Caesar in this manner, and the manoeuvre deserved the approbation of the conqueror (in De bello Gallico I 48). ↩
Historia Augusta, pp. 215, 216. Dexippus in the Excerpta legationum, p. 8. Hieronymus, Chronicon. Orosius VII 22. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 34. ↩
Aurelius Victor, in “Gallieno” et “Probo.” His complaints breathe as uncommon spirit of freedom. ↩
Zonaras, l. XII, p. 631. ↩
One of the Victors calls him king of the Marcomanni; the other of the Germans. ↩
See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. III, p. 398, etc. ↩
See the lives of Claudius, Aurelian, and Probus, in the Augustan History. ↩
It is about half a league in breadth. Genealogical History of the Tartars, p. 598. ↩
M. Claude-Charles de Peyssonnel, who had been French Consul at Caffa, in his Observations historiques et géographiques, sur les peuples barbares qui ont habité les bords du Danube & du Pont-Euxin. ↩
Euripides in Iphigenia in Tauris. ↩
Strabo, l. VII, p. 309. The first kings of Bosphorus were the allies of Athens. ↩
Appian in De bello Mithridatico. ↩
It was reduced by the arms of Agrippa. Orosius VI 21. Eutropius VII 9. The Romans once advanced within three days’ march of the Tanais. Tacitus, Annales XII 17. ↩
See the “Toxaris” of Lucian, if we credit the sincerity and the virtues of the Scythian, who relates a great war of his nation against the kings of Bosphorus. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 28. ↩
Strabo, l. XI. Tacitus, Historiae III 47. They were called Camaroe. ↩
See a very natural picture of the Euxine navigation, in the sixteenth letter of Tournefort. ↩
Arrian places the frontier garrison at Dioscurias, or Sebastopolis, forty-four miles to the east of Pityus. The garrison of Phasis consisted in his time of only four hundred foot. See the “Periplus of the Euxine Sea.”8761 ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 30. ↩
Arrian (in “Periplus Ponti Euxini,” p. 130) calls the distance 2,610 stadia. ↩
Xenophon, Anabasis, l. IV, p. 348, edit. Hutchinson.8762 ↩
Arrian, p. 129. The general observation is Tournefort’s. ↩
See an epistle of Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Caesarea, quoted by Mascou, V 37. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, pp. 32, 33. ↩
It has preserved its name, joined to the preposition of place, in that of Is Nikmid. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne II 28. —⁠G. ↩
Hierosolymus, Vetera Romanorum itineraria, p. 572, Wesseling. ↩
Now Isnik, Bursa, Mondania, Ghic, or Kemlik. D’Anville II 23. —⁠G. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, pp. 32, 33. ↩
He besieged the place with 400 galleys, 150,000 foot, and a numerous cavalry. See Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Lucullus.” Appian in Mithridatico. Cicero, Pro lege Manilia, c. 8. ↩
Strabo, l. XII, p. 573. ↩
Richard Pococke’s Description of the East, l. II c. 23, 24. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 33. ↩
Syncellus tells an unintelligible story of Prince Odenathus, who defeated the Goths, and who was killed by Prince Odenathus. ↩
Voyages de Chardin en Perse, tom. I, p. 45. He sailed with the Turks from Constantinople to Caffa. ↩
Syncellus (p. 382) speaks of this expedition as undertaken by the Heruli. ↩
Strabo, l. XI, p. 495. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae III 7. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 181. Victor, c. 33. Orosius VII 42. Zosimus, l. I, p. 35. Zonaras, l. XII 635. Syncellus, p. 382. It is not without some attention that we can explain and conciliate their imperfect hints. We can still discover some traces of the partiality of Dexippus, in the relation of his own and his countrymen’s exploits.8763 ↩
Syncellus, p. 382. This body of Heruli was for a long time faithful and famous. ↩
Claudius, who commanded on the Danube, thought with propriety and acted with spirit. His colleague was jealous of his fame. Historia Augusta, p. 181. ↩
Jornandes, c. 20. ↩
Zosimus and the Greeks (as the author of the Philopatris) give the name of Scythians to those whom Jornandes and the Latin writers constantly represent as Goths. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 178. Jornandes, c. 20. ↩
Strabo, l. XIV, p. 640. Vitruvius, l. I c. I, praefatio l. VII. Tacitus, Annales III 61. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXVI 14. ↩
The length of St. Peter’s is 840 Roman palms; each palm is very little short of nine English inches. See John Greaves’s Miscellaneous Works, vol. I, p. 233, on the Roman foot.8764 ↩
The policy, however, of the Romans induced them to abridge the extent of the sanctuary or asylum, which by successive privileges had spread itself two stadia round the temple. Strabo, l. XIV, p. 641. Tacitus, Annales III 60, etc. ↩
They offered no sacrifices to the Grecian gods. See Epistola canonica, Gregory Thaumaturgus. ↩
Zonaras, l. XII, p. 635. Such an anecdote was perfectly suited to the taste of Montaigne. He makes use of it in his agreeable “Essay on Pedantry,” l. I c. 24. ↩
Moses Chorenensis, l. II c. 71, 73, 74. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 628. The anthentic relation of the Armenian historian serves to rectify the confused account of the Greek. The latter talks of the children of Tiridates, who at that time was himself an infant. [Compare Saint-Martin, Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur l’Arménie I, p. 301. —⁠M.] ↩
Nisibis, according to Persian authors, was taken by a miracle; the wall fell, in compliance with the prayers of the army. Malcolm’s History of Persia I 76. —⁠M. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 191. As Macrianus was an enemy to the Christians, they charged him with being a magician. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 33. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 174. ↩
Victor in Caesaribus. Eutropius IX 7. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 33. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 630. Peter Patricius in the Excerpta legationum, p. 29. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 185. The reign of Cyriades appears in that collection prior to the death of Valerian; but I have preferred a probable series of events to the doubtful chronology of a most inaccurate writer. ↩
The sack of Antioch, anticipated by some historians, is assigned, by the decisive testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus, to the reign of Gallienus, XXIII 5.8765 ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 35. ↩
John Malalas, tom. I, p. 391. He corrupts this probable event by some fabulous circumstances. ↩
Zonaras, l. XII, p. 630. Deep valleys were filled up with the slain. Crowds of prisoners were driven to water like beasts, and many perished for want of food. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 25, asserts that Sapor, had he not preferred spoil to conquest, might have remained master of Asia. ↩
Peter Patricius in Excerpta legationum, p. 29. ↩
Syrorum agrestium manû. Sextus Rufus, c. 23. Rufus, Victor, the Augustan History (p. 192), and several inscriptions agree in making Odenathus a citizen of Palmyra. ↩
He possessed so powerful an interest among the wandering tribes, that Procopius (De bello Persico, l. II c. 5) and John Malalas (tom. I, p. 391) style him Prince of the Saracens. ↩
Peter Patricius, p. 25. ↩
The Pagan writers lament, the Christian insult, the misfortunes of Valerian. Their various testimonies are accurately collected by Tillemont, tom. III, p. 739, etc. So little has been preserved of eastern history before Muhammad, that the modern Persians are totally ignorant of the victory of Sapor, an event so glorious to their nation. See Bibliothèque Orientale.8766 ↩
Yet Gibbon himself records a speech of the emperor Galerius, which alludes to the cruelties exercised against the living, and the indignities to which they exposed the dead Valerian, here in ch. 13. Respect for the kingly character would by no means prevent an eastern monarch from ratifying his pride and his vengeance on a fallen foe. —⁠M. ↩
One of these epistles is from Artavasdes, king of Armenia; since Armenia was then a province of Persia, the king, the kingdom, and the epistle must be fictitious. ↩
See his life in the Augustan History. ↩
There is still extant a very pretty Epithalamium, composed by Gallienus for the nuptials of his nephews:⁠—

“Ite ait, O juvenes, pariter sudate medullis
Omnibus, inter vos: non murmura vestra columbae,
Brachia non hederae, non vincant oscula conchae.”

↩
He was on the point of giving Plotinus a ruined city of Campania to try the experiment of realizing Plato’s Republic. See the life of Plotinus, by Porphyry, in Fabricius’s Bibliotheca Graeca, l. IV. ↩
A medal which bears the head of Gallienus has perplexed the antiquarians by its legend and reverse; the former Gallienae Augustae, the latter Ubique Pax. M. Spanheim supposes that the coin was struck by some of the enemies of Gallienus, and was designed as a severe satire on that effeminate prince. But as the use of irony may seem unworthy of the gravity of the Roman mint, M. de Vallemont has deduced from a passage of Trebellius Pollio (Historia Augusta, p. 198) an ingenious and natural solution. Galliena was first cousin to the emperor. By delivering Africa from the usurper Celsus, she deserved the title of Augusta. On a medal in the French king’s collection, we read a similar inscription of Faustina Augusta round the head of Marcus Aurelius. With regard to the Ubique Pax, it is easily explained by the vanity of Gallienus, who seized, perhaps, the occasion of some momentary calm. See Nouvelles de la République des lettres, Janvier, 1700, pp. 21⁠–⁠34. ↩
This singular character has, I believe, been fairly transmitted to us. The reign of his immediate successor was short and busy; and the historians who wrote before the elevation of the family of Constantine could not have the most remote interest to misrepresent the character of Gallienus. ↩
Pollio expresses the most minute anxiety to complete the number.8767 ↩
The place of his reign is somewhat doubtful; but there was a tyrant in Pontus, and we are acquainted with the seat of all the others. ↩

Captain Smyth, in his Catalogue of Medals, p. 307, substitutes two new names to make up the number of nineteen, for those of Odenathus and Zenobia. He subjoins this list:⁠—

1.	2.	3.
Of those whose coins are undoubtedly true	Those whose coins are suspected	Those of whom no coins are known
Posthumus	Cyriades	Valens
Laelianus [Lollianus —⁠G.]	Ingenuus	Balista
Victorinus	Celsus	Saturninus
Marius	Piso Frugi	Trebellianus
Tetricus		—⁠M. 1845
Macrianus
Quietus
Regalianus [Regillianus —⁠G.]
Alex. Aemilianus
Aureolus
Sulpicius Actoninus

↩

Tillemont, tom. III, p. 1163, reckons them somewhat differently. ↩
See the speech of Marius in the Augustan History, p. 197. The accidental identity of names was the only circumstance that could tempt Pollio to imitate Sallust. ↩
Marius was killed by a soldier, who had formerly served as a workman in his shop, and who exclaimed, as he struck, “Behold the sword which thyself hast forged.” Trebellius Pollio in Vitâ. —⁠G. ↩
“Vos, O Pompilius sanguis!” is Horace’s address to the Pisos. See “Ars poetica” v. 292, with Dacier’s and Sanadon’s notes. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XV 48. Historiae I 15. In the former of these passages we may venture to change paterna into materna. In every generation from Augustus to Alexander Severus, one or more Pisos appear as consuls. A Piso was deemed worthy of the throne by Augustus (Tacitus, Annales I 13); a second headed a formidable conspiracy against Nero; and a third was adopted, and declared Caesar, by Galba. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 195. The senate, in a moment of enthusiasm, seems to have presumed on the approbation of Gallienus. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 196. ↩
The association of the brave Palmyrenian was the most popular act of the whole reign of Gallienus. Historia Augusta, p. 180. ↩
Gallienus had given the titles of Caesar and Augustus to his son Saloninus, slain at Cologne by the usurper Posthumus. A second son of Gallienus succeeded to the name and rank of his elder brother. Valerian, the brother of Gallienus, was also associated to the empire: several other brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces of the emperor formed a very numerous royal family. See Tillemont, tom. III, and M. de Brequigny in the Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXXII, p. 262. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 188. ↩
Regillianus had some bands of Roxolani in his service; Posthumus a body of Franks. It was, perhaps, in the character of auxiliaries that the latter introduced themselves into Spain. ↩
The Augustan History, p. 177, calls it servile bellum. See Diodorus Siculus, l. XXXIV. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae V 10. ↩
Diodorus Siculus, l. XVII, p. 590, edit. Wesseling. ↩
Berenice, or Myos-Hormos, on the Red Sea, received the eastern commodities. From thence they were transported to the Nile, and down the Nile to Alexandria. —⁠M. ↩
See a very curious letter of Hadrian, in the Augustan History, p. 245. ↩
Such as the sacrilegious murder of a divine cat. See Diodorus Siculus, l. I.8768 c. XXI, c. XLVII. —⁠M. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 195. This long and terrible sedition was first occasioned by a dispute between a soldier and a townsman about a pair of shoes. ↩
Dionysius apud Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica VII c. 21. Ammianus XXII 16. ↩
The Bruchion was a quarter of Alexandria which extended along the largest of the two ports, and contained many palaces inhabited by the Ptolemies. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne III 10. —⁠G. ↩
Joseph Justus Scaliger, Animadversiones ad Eusebius, Chronicon, p. 258. Three dissertations of M. Pierre Nicolas Bonamy, in the Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. IX. ↩
Strabo, l. XIII, p. 569. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 197. ↩
See Christoph Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. II, p. 137, upon the limits of Isauria. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 177. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 177. Zosimus, l. I, p. 24. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 623. Eusebius, Chronicon. Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. Victor in Caesaribus. Eutropius IX 5. Orosius VII 21. ↩
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica VII 21. The fact is taken from the Letters of Dionysius, who, in the time of those troubles, was bishop of Alexandria. ↩
In a great number of parishes, 11,000 persons were found between fourteen and eighty; 5,365 between forty and seventy. See Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. II, p. 590. ↩
Pons Aureoli, thirteen miles from Bergamo, and thirty-two from Milan. See Cluverius, Italia antiqua, tom. I, p. 245. Near this place, in the year 1703, the obstinate battle of Cassano was fought between the French and Austrians. The excellent relation of the Chevalier de Folard, who was present, gives a very distinct idea of the ground. See Polybe de Folard, tom. III, pp. 232⁠–⁠248. ↩
On the death of Gallienus, see Trebellius Pollio in Historia Augusta, p. 181. Zosimus, l. I, p. 37. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 634. Eutropius IX 11. Aurelius Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus, Victor in Caesaribus. I have compared and blended them all, but have chiefly followed Aurelius Victor, who seems to have had the best memoirs. ↩
Some supposed him, oddly enough, to be a bastard of the younger Gordian. Others took advantage of the province of Dardania, to deduce his origin from Dardanus and the ancient kings of Troy. ↩
Notoria, a periodical and official despatch which the emperor received from the frumentarii, or agents dispersed through the provinces. Of these we may speak hereafter. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 208. Gallienus describes the plate, vestments, etc., like a man who loved and understood those splendid trifles. ↩
Julian (“Oratio I,” p. 6) affirms that Claudius acquired the empire in a just and even holy manner. But we may distrust the partiality of a kinsman. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 203. There are some trifling differences concerning the circumstances of the last defeat and death of Aureolus. ↩
Aurelius Victor in Gallienus. The people loudly prayed for the damnation of Gallienus.8769 The senate decreed that his relations and servants should be thrown down headlong from the Gemonian stairs. An obnoxious officer of the revenue had his eyes torn out whilst under examination. ↩
Zonaras, l. XII, p. 137. ↩
Zonaras on this occasion mentions Posthumus, but the registers of the senate (Historia Augusta, p. 203) prove that Tetricus was already emperor of the western provinces. ↩
The Augustan History mentions the smaller, Zonaras the larger, number; the lively fancy of Montesquieu induced him to prefer the latter. ↩
Trebellius Pollio in Historia Augusta, p. 204. ↩
Historia Augusta in “Claudius.” Aurelian, et Probus. Zosimus, l. I, pp. 38⁠–⁠42. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 638. Aurelius Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus, Victor Junior in Caesaribus. Eutropius IX 11. Eusebius, in Chronicon. ↩
According to Zonaras (l. XII, p. 638), Claudius, before his death, invested him with the purple; but this singular fact is rather contradicted than confirmed by other writers. ↩
See the “Life of Claudius” by Pollio, and the orations of Mamertinus, Eumenius, and Julian. See likewise the Caesars of Julian, p. 318. In Julian it was not adulation, but superstition and vanity. ↩
Such is the narrative of the greater part of the older historians; but the number and the variety of his medals seem to require more time, and give probability to the report of Zosimus, who makes him reign some months. —⁠G. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 42. Pollio (Historia Augusta, p. 107) allows him virtues, and says, that, like Pertinax, he was killed by the licentious soldiers. According to Dexippus, he died of a disease. ↩
Theoclius (as quoted in the Augustan History, p. 211) affirms that in one day he killed with his own hand forty-eight Sarmatians, and in several subsequent engagements nine hundred and fifty. This heroic valor was admired by the soldiers, and celebrated in their rude songs, the burden of which was mille, mile, mille, occidit. ↩
Acholius (apud Historia Augusta, p. 213) describes the ceremony of the adoption, as it was performed at Byzantium, in the presence of the emperor and his great officers. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 211. This laconic epistle is truly the work of a soldier; it abounds with military phrases and words, some of which cannot be understood without difficulty. Ferramenta samiata is well explained by Salmasius. The former of the words means all weapons of offence, and is contrasted with Arma, defensive armor. The latter signifies keen and well-sharpened. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 45. ↩
The five hundred stragglers were all slain. —⁠M. ↩
Dexippus (apud Excerpta legationum, p. 12) relates the whole transaction under the name of Vandals. Aurelian married one of the Gothic ladies to his general Bonosus, who was able to drink with the Goths and discover their secrets. Historia Augusta, p. 247. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 222. Eutropius IX 15. Sextus Rufus, c. 9. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 9. ↩
The Wallachians still preserve many traces of the Latin language, and have boasted, in every age, of their Roman descent. They are surrounded by, but not mixed with, the barbarians. See a Memoir of M. d’Anville on ancient Dacia, in the Academy of Inscriptions, tom. XXX. ↩
The connection between the Getae and the Goths is still, in my opinion, incorrectly maintained by some learned writers. —⁠M. ↩
See the first chapter of Jornandes. The Vandals, however (c. 22), maintained a short independence between the rivers Marisia and Grissia (Maros and Keres), which fell into the Theiss. ↩
Dexippus, pp. 7⁠–⁠12. Zosimus, l. I, p. 43. Vopiscus in “Aurelianus” in Historia Augusta. However these historians differ in names (Alemanni, Juthungi, and Marcomanni), it is evident that they mean the same people, and the same war; but it requires some care to conciliate and explain them. ↩
Cantoclarus, with his usual accuracy, chooses to translate three hundred thousand; his version is equally repugnant to sense and to grammar. ↩
We may remark, as an instance of bad taste, that Dexippus applies to the light infantry of the Alemanni the technical terms proper only to the Grecian phalanx. ↩
In Dexippus, we at present read Rhodanus; M. de Valois very judiciously alters the word to Eridanus. ↩
The emperor Claudius was certainly of the number; but we are ignorant how far this mark of respect was extended; if to Caesar and Augustus, it must have produced a very awful spectacle; a long line of the masters of the world. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 210. ↩
Dexippus gives them a subtle and prolix oration, worthy of a Grecian sophist. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 215. ↩
Dexippus, p. 12. ↩
Victor Junior in Aurelian. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 216. ↩
The little river, or rather torrent, of Metaurus, near Fano, has been immortalized by finding such an historian as Livy, and such a poet as Horace. ↩
It is recorded by an inscription found at Pesaro. See Gruter CCLXXVI 3. ↩
One should imagine, he said, that you were assembled in a Christian church, not in the temple of all the gods. ↩
Vopiscus, in Historia Augusta, pp. 215, 216, gives a long account of these ceremonies from the Registers of the senate. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae III 5. To confirm our idea, we may observe that for a long time Mount Caelius was a grove of oaks, and Mount Viminal was overrun with osiers; that in the fourth century, the Aventine was a vacant and solitary retirement; that, till the time of Augustus, the Esquiline was an unwholesome burying-ground; and that the numerous inequalities remarked by the ancients in the Quirinal sufficiently prove that it was not covered with buildings. Of the seven hills, the Capitoline and Palatine only, with the adjacent valleys, were the primitive habitation of the Roman people. But this subject would require a dissertation. ↩
Exspatiantia tecta multas addidere urbes, is the expression of Pliny the Elder. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 222. Both Lipsius and Isaac Vossius have eagerly embraced this measure. ↩
See Nardini, Roma antica, l. I c. 8.8770 ↩
Neither of these numbers can be admitted. The walls which surround the modern city of Rome are, with the exception of the part beyond the Tiber, essentially the same as those of Aurelian. The latter were restored by Honorius, as we learn from an inscription on the walls now extant; and the walls of Honorius are universally allowed to be those which we see at present. Now these walls measure between twelve and thirteen miles, and, excluding the additions by the popes, between eleven and twelve. Not only must we therefore reject the incredible number of fifty miles, but even the less startling number of twenty-one. The former of these two numbers rests on the authority of Vopiscus, who says, “Muros urbis Romae sic ampliavit, ut quinquaginta prope millia murorum ejus ambitus teneant.” It has been ingeniously conjectured by Wilhelm Becker that in this passage we ought to understand pedum, not pasuum, after the millia, which would give ten Roman miles for the circuit, a measurement very near the truth. The measurement of twenty-one miles rests upon the authority of Olympiodorus, who says that the walls of Honorius, as measured by the geometer Ammon, just before the siege of the city by Alaric, were twenty-one miles in circumference (Olympiodorus apud Photius, Bibliotheca Graeca 80, p. 63, edit. Bekker). Here it is proposed to read ιά (11) instead of κά (21), but this arbitrary alteration of numbers is always unsatisfactory. See Becker, De Romae veteris muris atque portis, p. 109, et seq.; Bunbury on the Topography of Rome and Its Vicinity, in the Classicum Museum, vol. III, p. 367. —⁠S. ↩
Tacitus, Historiae IV 23. ↩
For Aurelian’s walls, see Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, pp. 216, 222. Zosimus, l. I, p. 43. Eutropius IX 15. Aurelius Victor in “Aurelian.” Victor Junior in “Aurelian.” Eusebius, Hieronymus et Idacius in Chronicon. ↩
His competitor was Lollianus,8771 or Aelianus, if, indeed, these names mean the same person. See Tillemont, tom. III, p. 1177. ↩
The character of this prince by Julius Aterianus (apud Historia Augusta, p. 187) is worth transcribing, as it seems fair and impartial. Victorino qui Post Junium Posthumium Gallias rexit neminem existimo praeferendum; non in virtute Trajanum; non Antoninum in clementia; non in gravitate Nervam; non in gubernando aerario Vespasianum; non in Censura totius vitae ac severitate militari Pertinacem vel Severum. Sed omnia haec libido et cupiditas voluptatis mulierariae sic perdidit, ut nemo audeat virtutes ejus in literas mittere quem constat omnium judicio meruisse puniri. ↩
He ravished the wife of Attitianus, an actuary, or army agent. Historia Augusta, p. 186. Aurelius Victor in “Aurelian.” ↩
Pollio assigns her an article among the thirty tyrants. Historia Augusta, p. 200. ↩
Pollio in Historia Augusta, p. 196. Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 220. The two Victors, in the lives of Gallienus and Aurelian. Eutropius IX 13. Eusebius, in Chronicon. Of all these writers, only the two last (but with strong probability) place the fall of Tetricus before that of Zenobia. M. de Boze (in the Academy of Inscriptions, tom. XXX) does not wish, and Tillemont (tom. III, p. 1189) does not dare, to follow them. I have been fairer than the one, and bolder than the other. ↩
Victor Junior in Aurelian. Eumenius mentions Batavicoe; some critics, without any reason, would fain alter the word to Bagaudicoe. ↩
Eumenius in Panegyrici veteres IV 8. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 246. Autun was not restored till the reign of Diocletian. See Eumenius, “Pro Restaurandis Scholis.” ↩
Almost everything that is said of the manners of Odenathus and Zenobia is taken from their lives in the Augustan History, by Trebellius Pollio; see pp. 192, 198. ↩
According to some Christian writers, Zenobia was a Jewess. (Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten IV 16. History of the Jews III 175.) —⁠M. ↩
She never admitted her husband’s embraces but for the sake of posterity. If her hopes were baffled, in the ensuing month she reiterated the experiment. ↩
According to Zosimus, Odenathus was of a noble family in Palmyra, and, according to Procopius, he was prince of the Saracens who inhabit the ranks of the Euphrates. Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum VII 489. —⁠G. ↩
Historia Augusta, pp. 192, 193. Zosimus, l. I, p. 36. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 633. The last is clear and probable, the others confused and inconsistent. The text of Syncellus, if not corrupt, is absolute nonsense. ↩
Odenathus and Zenobia often sent him, from the spoils of the enemy, presents of gems and toys, which he received with infinite delight. ↩
Some very unjust suspicions have been cast on Zenobia, as if she was accessory to her husband’s death. ↩
Historia Augusta, pp. 180, 181. ↩
See, in Historia Augusta, p. 198, Aurelian’s testimony to her merit; and for the conquest of Egypt, Zosimus, l. I, pp. 39, 40. —⁠G. ↩
This seems very doubtful. Claudius, during all his reign, is represented as emperor on the medals of Alexandria, which are very numerous. If Zenobia possessed any power in Egypt, it could only have been at the beginning of the reign of Aurelian. The same circumstance throws great improbability on her conquests in Galatia. Perhaps Zenobia administered Egypt in the name of Claudius, and emboldened by the death of that prince, subjected it to her own power. —⁠G. ↩
Timolaus, Herennianus, and Vaballathus. It is supposed that the two former were already dead before the war. On the last, Aurelian bestowed a small province of Armenia, with the title of king; several of his medals are still extant. See Tillemont, tom. 3, p. 1190. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 44. ↩
Vopiscus (in Historia Augusta, p. 217) gives us an authentic letter, and a doubtful vision, of Aurelian. Apollonius of Tyana was born about the same time as Jesus Christ. His life (that of the former) is related in so fabulous a manner by his disciples, that we are at a loss to discover whether he was a sage, an impostor, or a fanatic. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 46. ↩
At a place called Immae. Eutropius, Sextus Rufus, and Jerome mention only this first battle. ↩
Vopiscus (in Historia Augusta, p. 217) mentions only the second. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, pp. 44⁠–⁠48. His account of the two battles is clear and circumstantial. ↩
It was 537 miles from Seleucia, and 203 from the nearest coast of Syria, according to the reckoning of Pliny the Elder, who, in a few words (Naturalis historiae V 21), gives an excellent description of Palmyra.8772 ↩
Some English travellers from Aleppo discovered the ruins of Palmyra about the end of the last century. Our curiosity has since been gratified in a more splendid manner by Messieurs Wood and Dawkins. For the history of Palmyra, we may consult the masterly dissertation of Dr. Halley in the Philosophical Transactions; John Lowthorp’s Abridgment, vol. III, p. 518. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 218. ↩
From a very doubtful chronology I have endeavored to extract the most probable date. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 218. Zosimus, l. I, p. 50. Though the camel is a heavy beast of burden, the dromedary, which is either of the same or of a kindred species, is used by the natives of Asia and Africa on all occasions which require celerity. The Arabs affirm that he will run over as much ground in one day as their fleetest horses can perform in eight or ten. See Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. XI, p. 222, and Shaw’s Travels, p. 167. ↩
Pollio in Historia Augusta, p. 199. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 219. Zosimus, l. I, p. 51. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 219. ↩
See Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, pp. 220, 242. As an instance of luxury, it is observed that he had glass windows. He was remarkable for his strength and appetite, his courage and dexterity. From the letter of Aurelian we may justly infer that Firmus was the last of the rebels, and consequently that Tetricus was already suppressed. ↩
See the triumph of Aurelian, described by Vopiscus. He relates the particulars with his usual minuteness; and on this occasion they happen to be interesting. Historia Augusta, p. 220. ↩
Among barbarous nations, women have often combatted by the side of their husbands. But it is almost impossible that a society of Amazons should ever have existed either in the old or new world.8773 ↩
The use of braccae, breeches, or trousers, was still considered in Italy as a Gallic and barbarian fashion. The Romans, however, had made great advances towards it. To encircle the legs and thighs with fasciae, or bands, was understood in the time of Pompey and Horace to be a proof of ill health or effeminacy. In the age of Trajan, the custom was confined to the rich and luxurious. It gradually was adopted by the meanest of the people. See a very curious note of Casaubon, ad Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 82. ↩
Most probably the former: the latter, seen on the medals of Aurelian, only denote (according to the learned Cardinal Henry Noris) an oriental victory. ↩
The expression of Calpurnius (Eclogues I 50), Nullos decet captiva triumphos, as applied to Rome, contains a very manifest allusion and censure. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 199. Hieronymus in Chronicon. Prosper Aquitanus in Epitoma chronicon. Baronius supposes that Zenobius, bishop of Florence in the time of St. Ambrose, was of her family. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 222. Eutropius IX 13. Victor Junior. But Pollio, in Historia Augusta, p. 196, says that Tetricus was made corrector of all Italy. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 197. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta 222. Zosimus, l. I, p. 56. He placed in it the images of Belus and of the Sun, which he had brought from Palmyra. It was dedicated in the fourth year of his reign (Eusebius in Chronicon), but was most assuredly begun immediately on his accession. ↩
See, in the Augustan History, p. 210, the omens of his fortune. His devotion to the sun appears in his letters, on his medals, and is mentioned in the Caesars of Julian. Commentaire de Spanheim, p. 109. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 221. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 222. Aurelian calls these soldiers “Hiberi,” “Riporiences,” “Castriani,” and “Dacisci.” ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 56. Eutropius IX 14. Aurelius Victor. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 222. Aurelius Victor. ↩
It already raged before Aurelian’s return from Egypt. See Vopiscus, who quotes an original letter. Historia Augusta, p. 244. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 222. The two Victors. Eutropius IX 14. Zosimus (l. I, p. 43) mentions only three senators, and places their death before the eastern war. ↩
Nulla catenati feralis pompa senatûs
Carnificum lassabit opus; nec carcere pleno
Infelix raros numerabit curia Patres.
Calpurnius, “Eclogue I” 60.

↩
According to the younger Victor, he sometimes wore the diadem. “Deus” and “Dominus” appear on his medals. ↩
It was the observation of Diocletian. See Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 224. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 221. Zosimus, l. I, p. 57. Eutropius IX 15. The two Victors. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 222. Aurelius Victor mentions a formal deputation from the troops to the senate. ↩
Vopiscus, our principal authority, wrote at Rome, sixteen years only after the death of Aurelian; and, besides the recent notoriety of the facts, constantly draws his materials from the Journals of the Senate, and the original papers of the Ulpian library. Zosimus and Zonaras appear as ignorant of this transaction as they were in general of the Roman constitution. ↩
The interregnum could not be more than seven months; Aurelian was assassinated in the middle of March, the year of Rome 1028. Tacitus was elected the 25th September in the same year. —⁠G. ↩
Livy I 17. Dionysi Halicarnasensis, l. II, p. 115. Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Numa,” p. 60. The first of these writers relates the story like an orator, the second like a lawyer, and the third like a moralist, and none of them probably without some intermixture of fable. ↩
Vopiscus (in Historia Augusta, p. 227) calls him “primae sententia consularis”; and soon afterwards Princeps senatûs. It is natural to suppose that the monarchs of Rome, disdaining that humble title, resigned it to the most ancient of the senators. ↩
The only objection to this genealogy is that the historian was named Cornelius, the emperor, Claudius. But under the Lower Empire, surnames were extremely various and uncertain. ↩
Zonaras, l. XII, p. 637. The Alexandrian World Chronicle, by an obvious mistake, transfers that age to Aurelian. ↩
In the year 273, he was ordinary consul. But he must have been Suffectus many years before, and most probably under Valerian. ↩
Bis millies octingenties. Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 229. This sum, according to the old standard, was equivalent to eight hundred and forty thousand Roman pounds of silver, each of the value of three pounds sterling. But in the age of Tacitus, the coin had lost much of its weight and purity. ↩
After his accession, he gave orders that ten copies of the historian should be annually transcribed and placed in the public libraries. The Roman libraries have long since perished, and the most valuable part of Tacitus was preserved in a single MS., and discovered in a monastery of Westphalia. See Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, article “Tacite,” and Lipsius ad Annales Tacitus II 9. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 227. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 228. Tacitus addressed the Praetorians by the appellation of sanctissimi milites, and the people by that of sacratissimi Quirites. ↩
In his manumissions he never exceeded the number of a hundred, as limited by the Caninian law, which was enacted under Augustus, and at length repealed by Justinian. See Casaubon ad loc. “Vopisci.” ↩
See the lives of Tacitus, Florianus, and Probus, in the Augustan History; we may be well assured that whatever the soldier gave the senator had already given. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 216. The passage is perfectly clear, yet both Casaubon and Salmasius wish to correct it. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, pp. 230, 232, 233. The senators celebrated the happy restoration with hecatombs and public rejoicings. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 228. ↩
On the Alani, see this note. —⁠M. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 230. Zosimus, l. I, p. 57. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 637. Two passages in the life of Probus (pp. 236, 238) convince me that these Scythian invaders of Pontus were Alani. If we may believe Zosimus (l. I, p. 58), Florianus pursued them as far as the Cimmerian Bosphorus. But he had scarcely time for so long and difficult an expedition. ↩
Eutropius and Aurelius Victor only say that he died; Victor Junior adds that it was of a fever. Zosimus and Zonaras affirm that he was killed by the soldiers. Vopiscus mentions both accounts, and seems to hesitate. Yet surely these jarring opinions are easily reconciled. ↩
According to the two Victors, he reigned exactly two hundred days. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 231. Zosimus, l. I, pp. 58, 59. Zonaras, l. XII, p. 637. Aurelius Victor says that Probus assumed the empire in Illyricum; an opinion which (though adopted by a very learned man) would throw that period of history into inextricable confusion. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 229. ↩
He was to send judges to the Parthians, Persians, and Sarmatians, a president to Taprobana, and a proconsul to the Roman island (supposed by Casaubon and Salmasius to mean Britain). Such a history as mine (says Vopiscus with proper modesty) will not subsist a thousand years, to expose or justify the prediction. ↩
For the private life of Probus, see Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, pp. 234⁠–⁠237. ↩
According to the Alexandrian World Chronicle, he was fifty at the time of his death. ↩
This letter was addressed to the Praetorian prefect, whom (on condition of his good behavior) he promised to continue in his great office. See Historia Augusta, p. 237. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 237. The date of the letter is assuredly faulty. Instead of Non. Februar. we may read Non. August. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 238. It is odd that the senate should treat Probus less favorably than Marcus Antoninus. That prince had received, even before the death of Pius, Jus quintoe relationis. See Capitolinus in Historia Augusta, p. 24. ↩
See the dutiful letter of Probus to the senate, after his German victories. Historia Augusta, p. 239. ↩
The date and duration of the reign of Probus are very correctly ascertained by Cardinal Noris in his learned work, De epochis Syro-Macedonum, pp. 96⁠–⁠105. A passage of Eusebius connects the second year of Probus with the eras of several of the Syrian cities. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 239. ↩
Zosimus (l. I, pp. 62⁠–⁠65) tells us a very long and trifling story of Lydius, the Isaurian robber. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 65. Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, pp. 239, 240. But it seems incredible that the defeat of the savages of Aethiopia could affect the Persian monarch. ↩
Besides these well-known chiefs, several others are named by Vopiscus (Historia Augusta, p. 241), whose actions have not reached our knowledge. ↩
See the Caesars of Julian, and Historia Augusta, pp. 238, 240, 241. ↩
It was only under the emperors Diocletian and Maximian that the Burgundians, in concert with the Alemanni, invaded the interior of Gaul; under the reign of Probus, they did no more than pass the river which separated them from the Roman Empire: they were repelled. Gatterer presumes that this river was the Danube; a passage in Zosimus appears to me rather to indicate the Rhine. Zosimus, l. I, p. 37, edit. Henry Estienne, 1581. —⁠G.

On the origin of the Burgundians may be consulted Malte-Brun, Géographie universelle VI, p. 396 (edit. 1831), who observes that all the remains of the Burgundian language indicate that they spoke a Gothic dialect. —⁠M. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 62. Historia Augusta, p. 240. But the latter supposes the punishment inflicted with the consent of their kings: if so, it was partial, like the offence. ↩
See Cluverius, Germania antiqua, l. III. Ptolemy places in their country the city of Calisia, probably Calish in Silesia.8774 ↩
Feralis umbra, is the expression of Tacitus; it is surely a very bold one. ↩
Tacitus, Germania (c. 43). ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 238. ↩
Historia Augusta, pp. 238, 239. Vopiscus quotes a letter from the emperor to the senate, in which he mentions his design of reducing Germany into a province. ↩
Strabo, l. VII. According to Velleius Paterculus (II 108), Maroboduus led his Marcomanni into Bohemia; Cluverius (Germania antiqua III 8) proves that it was from Swabia. ↩
These settlers, from the payment of tithes, were denominated Decumates. Tacitus, Germania, c. 29. ↩
See notes de l’Abbé de La Bléterie à la Germanie de Tacite, p. 183. His account of the wall is chiefly borrowed (as he says himself) from the Alsatia illustrata of Johann Schöpflin. ↩
See Recherches philosophiques sur les Égyptiens et les Chinois, tom. II, pp. 81⁠–⁠102. The anonymous author is well acquainted with the globe in general, and with Germany in particular: with regard to the latter, he quotes a work of M. Hanselman; but he seems to confound the wall of Probus, designed against the Alemanni, with the fortification of the Mattiaci, constructed in the neighborhood of Frankfurt against the Catti.8775 ↩
He distributed about fifty or sixty barbarians to a Numerus, as it was then called, a corps with whose established number we are not exactly acquainted. ↩
Camden’s Britannia, Introduction, p. 136; but he speaks from a very doubtful conjecture. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 62. According to Vopiscus, another body of Vandals was less faithful. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 240. They were probably expelled by the Goths. Zosimus, l. I, p. 66. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 240. ↩
Panegyrici veteres V 18. Zosimus, l. I, p. 66. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, pp. 245, 246. The unfortunate orator had studied rhetoric at Carthage; and was therefore more probably a Moor (Zosimus, l. I, p. 60) than a Gaul, as Vopiscus calls him. ↩
Zonaras, l. XII, p. 638. ↩
A very surprising instance is recorded of the prowess of Proculus. He had taken one hundred Sarmatian virgins. The rest of the story he must relate in his own language: “Ex his unâ necte decem inivi; omnes tamen, quod in me erat, mulieres intra dies quindecim reddidi.” Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 246. ↩
Proculus, who was a native of Albengue, on the Genoese coast, armed two thousand of his own slaves. His riches were great, but they were acquired by robbery. It was afterwards a saying of his family, sibi non placere esse vel principes vel latrones. Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 247. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 240. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 66. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 236. ↩
Aurelius Victor in “Probus.” But the policy of Hannibal, unnoticed by any more ancient writer, is irreconcilable with the history of his life. He left Africa when he was nine years old, returned to it when he was forty-five, and immediately lost his army in the decisive battle of Zama. Livius XXX 37. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 240. Eutropius IX 17. Aurelius Victor in “Probus.” Victor Junior. He revoked the prohibition of Domitian, and granted a general permission of planting vines to the Gauls, the Britons, and the Pannonians. ↩
Julian bestows a severe, and indeed excessive, censure on the rigor of Probus, who, as he thinks, almost deserved his fate. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 241. He lavishes on this idle hope a large stock of very foolish eloquence. ↩
Turris ferrata. It seems to have been a movable tower, and cased with iron. ↩
Probus, et vere probus situs est; Victor omnium gentium Barbararum; victor etiam tyrannorum. ↩
Yet all this may be conciliated. He was born at Narbonne in Illyricum, confounded by Eutropius with the more famous city of that name in Gaul. His father might be an African, and his mother a noble Roman. Carus himself was educated in the capital. See Scaliger, Animadversiones ad Eusebius, Chronicon, p. 241. ↩
Probus had requested of the senate an equestrian statue and a marble palace, at the public expense, as a just recompense of the singular merit of Carus. Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 249. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, pp. 242, 249. Julian excludes the emperor Carus and both his sons from the banquet of the Caesars. ↩
John Malalas, tom. I, p. 401. But the authority of that ignorant Greek is very slight. He ridiculously derives from Carus the city of Carrhae, and the province of Caria, the latter of which is mentioned by Homer. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 249. Carus congratulated the senate, that one of their own order was made emperor. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 242. ↩
See the first eclogue of Calpurnius. The design of it is preferred by Bernard Fontenelle to that of Virgil’s Pollio. See tom. III, p. 148. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 353. Eutropius IX 18. Pagi, Annales. ↩
Three monarchs had intervened, Sapor (Shahpour), Hormisdas (Hôrmooz), Varanes or Baharam the First. —⁠M. ↩
Agathias, l. IV, p. 135. We find one of his sayings in the Bibliothèque Orientale of M. d’Herbelot. “The definition of humanity includes all other virtues.”8776 ↩
Synesius tells this story of Carinus; and it is much more natural to understand it of Carus than (as Petavius and Tillemont choose to do) of Probus. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 250. Eutropius IX 18. The two Victors. ↩
To the Persian victory of Carus I refer the dialogue of the Philopatris, which has so long been an object of dispute among the learned. But to explain and justify my opinion would require a dissertation.8777 ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 250. Yet Eutropius, Festus, Rufus, the two Victors, Jerome, Sidonius Apollinaris, Syncellus, and Zonaras, all ascribe the death of Carus to lightning. ↩
See Nemesianus, Cynegeticon, v. 71, etc. ↩
See Festus and his commentators on the word Scribonianum. Places struck by lightning were surrounded with a wall; things were buried with mysterious ceremony. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 250. Aurelius Victor seems to believe the prediction, and to approve the retreat. ↩
Nemesianus, Cynegeticon, v. 69. He was a contemporary, but a poet. ↩
Cancellarius. This word, so humble in its origin, has, by a singular fortune, risen into the title of the first great office of state in the monarchies of Europe. See Casaubon and Salmasius, ad Historia Augusta, p. 253. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, pp. 253, 254. Eutropius IX 19. Victor Junior. The reign of Diocletian, indeed, was so long and prosperous, that it must have been very unfavorable to the reputation of Carinus. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 254. He calls him Carus, but the sense is sufficiently obvious, and the words were often confounded. ↩
See Calpurnius, Eclogue VII 43. We may observe that the spectacles of Probus were still recent, and that the poet is seconded by the historian. ↩
The philosopher Michel de Montaigne (Essais, l. III 6) gives a very just and lively view of Roman magnificence in these spectacles. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 240. ↩
They are called Onagri; but the number is too inconsiderable for mere wild asses. Gisbert Cuper (De elephantis in nummis obviis exercitationes duae II 7) has proved from Oppian, Dion, and an anonymous Greek, that zebras had been seen at Rome. They were brought from some island of the ocean, perhaps Madagascar. ↩
Carinus gave a hippopotamus (see Calpurnius, Eclogue VI 66). In the latter spectacles, I do not recollect any crocodiles, of which Augustus once exhibited thirty-six. Dion Cassius, l. LV, p. 781. ↩
Capitolinus in Historia Augusta, pp. 164, 165. We are not acquainted with the animals which he calls archeleontes; some read argoleontes, others agrioleontes; both corrections are very nugatory. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VIII 6, from the annals of Piso. ↩
See Maffei, Verona illustrata, p. IV l. I c. 2. ↩
Maffei, l. II c. 2. The height was very much exaggerated by the ancients. It reached almost to the heavens, according to Calpurnius (Eclogue VII 23), and surpassed the ken of human sight according to Ammianus Marcellinus (XVI 10). Yet how trifling to the great pyramid of Egypt, which rises 500 feet perpendicular! ↩
According to different copies of Victor, we read 77,000 or 87,000 spectators; but Maffei (l. II c. 12) finds room on the open seats for no more than 34,000. The remainder were contained in the upper covered galleries. ↩
See Maffei, l. II c. 5⁠–⁠12. He treats the very difficult subject with all possible clearness, and like an architect, as well as an antiquarian. ↩
Calpurnius, Eclogue VII 64⁠–⁠73. These lines are curious, and the whole eclogue has been of infinite use to Maffei. Calpurnius, as well as Martial (see his first book), was a poet; but when they described the amphitheatre they both wrote from their own senses, and to those of the Romans. ↩
Consult Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXIII 16, XXXVII 11. ↩
Balteus en gemmis, en inlita porticus auro
Certatim radiant, etc.
Calpurnius VII.

↩
Et Martis vultus et Apollinis esse putavi, says Calpurnius; but John Malalas, who had perhaps seen pictures of Carinus, describes him as thick, short, and white, tom. I, p. 403. ↩
With regard to the time when these Roman games were celebrated, Scaliger, Salmasius, and Cuper have given themselves a great deal of trouble to perplex a very clear subject. ↩
Nemesianus (in the Cynegeticon) seems to anticipate in his fancy that auspicious day. ↩
He won all the crowns from Nemesianus, with whom he vied in didactic poetry. The senate erected a statue to the son of Carus, with a very ambiguous inscription, “To the most powerful of orators.” See Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 251. ↩
A more natural cause, at least, than that assigned by Vopiscus (Historia Augusta, p. 251), incessantly weeping for his father’s death. ↩
In the Persian war, Aper was suspected of a design to betray Carus. Historia Augusta, p. 250. ↩
We are obliged to the Alexandrian World Chronicle, p. 274, for the knowledge of the time and place where Diocletian was elected emperor. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 251. Eutropius IX 88. Hieronymus in Chronicon. According to these judicious writers, the death of Numerian was discovered by the stench of his dead body. Could no aromatics be found in the Imperial household? ↩
Aurelius Victor. Eutropius IX 20. Hieronymus in Chronicon. ↩
Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 252. The reason why Diocletian killed Aper (a wild boar), was founded on a prophecy and a pun, as foolish as they are well known. ↩
Eutropius marks its situation very accurately; it was between the Mons Aureus and Viminiacum. M. d’Anville (Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 304) places Margus at Kastolatz8778 in Serbia, a little below Belgrade and Semendria. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 254. Eutropius IX 20. Aurelius Victor. Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. ↩
Eutropius IX 19. Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. The town seems to have been properly called Doclia, from a small tribe of Illyrians (see Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. I, p. 393); and the original name of the fortunate slave was probably Docles; he first lengthened it to the Grecian harmony of Diocles, and at length to the Roman majesty of Diocletianus. He likewise assumed the Patrician name of Valerius, and it is usually given him by Aurelius Victor. ↩
See Dacier on the sixth satire of the second book of Horace. Cornelius Nepos, in Excellentium imperatorum vitae, “Vita Eumenius,” c. 1. ↩
Lactantius (or whoever was the author of the little treatise De mortibus persecutorum) accuses Diocletian of timidity in two places, c. 7, 8. In ch. 9 he says of him, “erat in omni tumultu meticulosus et animi disjectus.” ↩
In this encomium, Aurelius Victor seems to convey a just, though indirect, censure of the cruelty of Constantius. It appears from the Fasti, that Aristobulus remained prefect of the city, and that he ended with Diocletian the consulship which he had commenced with Carinus. ↩
Aurelius Victor styles Diocletian, “Parentum potius quam Dominum.” See Historia Augusta, p. 30. ↩
The question of the time when Maximian received the honors of Caesar and Augustus has divided modern critics, and given occasion to a great deal of learned wrangling. I have followed M. de Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, pp. 500⁠–⁠505), who has weighed the several reasons and difficulties with his scrupulous accuracy.8779 ↩
In an oration delivered before him (Panegyrici veteres II 8), Mamertinus expresses a doubt whether his hero, in imitating the conduct of Hannibal and Scipio, had ever heard of their names. From thence we may fairly infer that Maximian was more desirous of being considered as a soldier, than as a man of letters, and it is in this manner that we can often translate the language of flattery into that of truth. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 8. Aurelius Victor. As among the Panegyrics we find orations pronounced in praise of Maximian, and others which flatter his adversaries at his expense, we derive some knowledge from the contrast. ↩
See the second and third Panegyrics, particularly III 3, 10, 14; but it would be tedious to copy the diffuse and affected expressions of their false eloquence. With regard to the titles, consult Aurelius Victor, Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 52. Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum Dissertatio XII 8. ↩
On the relative power of the Augusti and the Caesars, consult a dissertation at the end of Manso’s Leben Constantius des Grossen. —⁠M. ↩
Aurelius Victor. Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. Eutropius IX 22. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 8. Hieronymus in Chronicon. ↩
It is only among the modern Greeks that Tillemont can discover his appellation of Chlorus. Any remarkable degree of paleness seems inconsistent with the rubor mentioned in Panegyrici veteres V 19. ↩
Julian, the grandson of Constantius, boasts that his family was derived from the warlike Maesians. “Misopogon,” p. 348. The Dardanians dwelt on the edge of Maesia. ↩
Galerius married Valeria, the daughter of Diocletian; if we speak with strictness, Theodora, the wife of Constantius, was daughter only to the wife of Maximian. Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum XI 2. ↩
This division agrees with that of the four prefectures; yet there is some reason to doubt whether Spain was not a province of Maximian. See Tillemont, tom. IV, p. 517.8780 ↩
Julian in Caesaribus, p. 315. Spanheim’s notes to the French translation, p. 122. ↩
The general name of Bagaudae (in the signification of rebels) continued till the fifth century in Gaul. Some critics derive it from a Celtic word Bagad, a tumultuous assembly. Scaliger ad Eusebius, Du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis. [Compare Sharon Turner, History of the Anglo-Saxons I 214. —⁠M.] ↩
Chronique de Froissart, vol. I c. 182, II 73, 79. The naivete of his story is lost in our best modern writers. ↩
Caesar, De bello Gallico VI 13. Orgetorix, the Helvetian, could arm for his defence a body of ten thousand slaves. ↩
Their oppression and misery are acknowledged by Eumenius (Panegyrici veteres VI 8), Gallias efferatas injuriis. ↩
Panegyrici veteres II 4. Aurelius Victor. ↩
Aelianus and Amandus. We have medals coined by them. Goltzius in Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum, pp. 117, 121. ↩
Levibus proeliis domuit. Eutropius IX 20. ↩
The fact rests indeed on very slight authority, a life of St. Babolinus, which is probably of the seventh century. See Duchesne, Historiae Francorum scriptores, tom. I, p. 662. ↩
Aurelius Victor calls them Germans. Eutropius (IX 21) gives them the name of Saxons. But Eutropius lived in the ensuing century, and seems to use the language of his own times. ↩
The three expressions of Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, and Eumenius, “vilissime natus,” “Bataviae alumnus,” and “Menapiae civis,” give us a very doubtful account of the birth of Carausius. Dr. William Stukely, however (History of Carausius, p. 62), chooses to make him a native of St. David’s and a prince of the blood royal of Britain. The former idea he had found in Richard of Cirencester, p. 44.8781 ↩
Panegyrici veteres V 12. Britain at this time was secure, and slightly guarded. ↩
Panegyrici veteres V 11, VII 9. The orator Eumenius wished to exalt the glory of the hero (Constantius), with the importance of the conquest. Notwithstanding our laudable partiality for our native country, it is difficult to conceive that in the beginning of the fourth century, England deserved all these commendations. A century and a half before, it hardly paid its own establishment. See Appian in Prooemium. ↩
As a great number of medals of Carausius are still preserved, he is become a very favorite object of antiquarian curiosity, and every circumstance of his life and actions has been investigated with sagacious accuracy. Dr. Stukely in particular has devoted a large volume to the British emperor. I have used his materials, and rejected most of his fanciful conjectures. ↩
When Mamertinus pronounced his first panegyric, the naval preparations of Maximian were completed; and the orator presaged an assured victory. His silence in the second panegyric might alone inform us that the expedition had not succeeded. ↩
Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, and the medals (Pax Augg.), inform us of this temporary reconciliation; though I will not presume (as Dr. Stukely has done, Medallic History of Carausius, p. 86, etc.) to insert the identical articles of the treaty. ↩
With regard to the recovery of Britain, we obtain a few hints from Aurelius Victor and Eutropius. ↩
John Malalas, in Chronographia, “Antiochenos,” tom. I, pp. 408, 409. ↩
Zosimus, l. I, p. 3. That partial historian seems to celebrate the vigilance of Diocletian, with a design of exposing the negligence of Constantine; we may, however, listen to an orator: “Nam quid ego alarum et cohortium castra percenseam, toto Rheni et Istri et Euphratis limite restituta?” Panegyrici veteres IV 18. ↩
Ruunt omnes in sanguinem suum populi, quibus non contigit esse Romanis, obstinataeque feritatis poenas nunc sponte persolvunt. Panegyrici veteres III 16. Mamertinus illustrates the fact by the example of almost all the nations of the world. ↩
He complained, though not with the strictest truth, “Jam fluxisse annos quindecim in quibus, in Illyrico, ad ripam Danubii relegatus cum gentibus barbaris luctaret.” Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 18. ↩
In the Greek text of Eusebius, we read six thousand, a number which I have preferred to the sixty thousand of Jerome, Orosius, Eutropius, and his Greek translator Paeanius. ↩
Panegyrici veteres VII 21. ↩
There was a settlement of the Sarmatians in the neighborhood of Treves, which seems to have been deserted by those lazy barbarians; Ausonius speaks of them in his “Mosella”:⁠—

“Unde iter ingrediens nemorosa per avia solum,
Et nulla humani spectans vestigia cultus;
⋮
Arvaque Sauromatûm nuper metata colonis.”

There was a town of the Carpi in the Lower Maesia. ↩
See the rhetorical exultation of Eumenius. Panegyrici veteres VII 9. ↩
Scaliger (Animadversiones ad Eusebius, p. 243) decides, in his usual manner, that the Quinque gentiani, or five African nations, were the five great cities, the Pentapolis of the inoffensive province of Cyrene. ↩
After his defeat, Julian stabbed himself with a dagger, and immediately leaped into the flames. Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. ↩
Tu ferocissimos Mauritaniae populos inaccessis montium jugis et naturali munitione fidentes, expugnasti, recepisti, transtulisti. Panegyrici veteres VI 8. ↩
See the description of Alexandria in Hirtius, De bello Alexandrino, c. 5. ↩
Eutropius IX 24. Orosius VII 25. John Malalas in Chronographia, “Antiochenos,” pp. 409, 410. Yet Eumenius assures us that Egypt was pacified by the clemency of Diocletian. ↩
Eusebius (in Chronicon) places their destruction several years sooner, and at a time when Egypt itself was in a state of rebellion against the Romans. ↩
Strabo, l. XVII, pp. 1, 172. Pomponius Mela, l. I c. 4. His words are curious: “Intra, si credere libet, vix homines magisque semiferi; Aegipanes, et Blemmyes, et Satyri.” ↩
Ausus sese inserere fortunae et provocare arma Romana. ↩
See Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 19.8782 ↩
He fixed the public allowance of corn, for the people of Alexandria, at two millions of medimni; about four hundred thousand quarters. Chronicon Paschale, p. 276. Procopius, Historia arcana, c. 26. ↩
John Antioch, in Excerptum Valesianum, p. 834. Suidas in Diocletian. ↩
See a short history and confutation of alchemy, in the works of that philosophical compiler, François de La Mothe Le Vayer, tom. I, pp. 327⁠–⁠353. ↩
See the education and strength of Tiridates in the Armenian history of Moses of Chorene, l. II c. 76. He could seize two wild bulls by the horns, and break them off with his hands. ↩
If we give credit to the younger Victor, who supposes that in the year 323 Licinius was only sixty years of age, he could scarcely be the same person as the patron of Tiridates; but we know from much better authority (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. X c. 8), that Licinius was at that time in the last period of old age: sixteen years before, he is represented with gray hairs, and as the contemporary of Galerius. See Lactantius, c. 32. Licinius was probably born about the year 250. ↩
See the sixty-second and sixty-third books of Dion Cassius. ↩
Moses of Chorene, History of Armenia, l. II c. 74. The statues had been erected by Valarsaces, who reigned in Armenia about 130 years before Christ, and was the first king of the family of Arsaces (see Moses, History of Armenia, l. II 2, 3). The deification of the Arsacides is mentioned by Justin (XLI 5), and by Ammianus Marcellinus (XXXIII 6). ↩
The Armenian nobility was numerous and powerful. Moses mentions many families which were distinguished under the reign of Valarsaces (l. II 7), and which still subsisted in his own time, about the middle of the fifth century. See the preface of his editors. ↩
She was named Chosroiduchta, and had not the os patulum like other women. (History of Armenia, l. II c. 79.) I do not understand the expression.8783 ↩
Mamgo (according to M. Saint-Martin, note to Le Beau, II 213) belonged to the imperial race of Hon, who had filled the throne of China for four hundred years. Dethroned by the usurping race of Wei, Mamgo found a hospitable reception in Persia in the reign of Ardeschir. The emperor of China having demanded the surrender of the fugitive and his partisans, Sapor, then king, threatened with war both by Rome and China, counselled Mamgo to retire into Armenia. “I have expelled him from my dominions” (he answered the Chinese ambassador); “I have banished him to the extremity of the earth, where the sun sets; I have dismissed him to certain death.” Compare Mémoires sur l’Arménie II 25. —⁠M. ↩
In the Armenian History (l. II 78), as well as in the Geography (p. 367), China is called Zenia, or Zenastan. It is characterized by the production of silk, by the opulence of the natives, and by their love of peace, above all the other nations of the earth.8784 ↩
Wu-ti, the first emperor of the seventh dynasty, who then reigned in China, had political transactions with Fergana, a province of Sogdiana, and is said to have received a Roman embassy (Histoire des Huns, tom. I, p. 38). In those ages the Chinese kept a garrison at Kashgar, and one of their generals, about the time of Trajan, marched as far as the Caspian Sea. With regard to the intercourse between China and the western countries, a curious memoir of M. de Guignes may be consulted in the Académie des Inscriptions, tom. XXII, p. 355.8785 ↩
See History of Armenia, l. II c. 81. ↩
Ipsos Persas ipsumque Regem ascitis Saccis, et Russis, et Gellis, petit frater Ormies. Panegyrici veteres III 1. The Saccae were a nation of wandering Scythians, who encamped towards the sources of the Oxus and the Jaxartes. The Gelli were the inhabitants of Ghilan along the Caspian Sea, and who so long, under the name of Dilemites, infested the Persian monarchy. See d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale. ↩
M. Saint-Martin represents this differently. Le roi de Perse⁠ ⁠… profite d’un voyage que Tiridate avoit fait à Rome pour attaquer ce royaume. This reads like the evasion of the national historians to disguise the fact discreditable to their hero. See Mémoires sur l’Arménie I 304. —⁠M. ↩
Moses of Chorene takes no notice of this second revolution, which I have been obliged to collect from a passage of Ammianus Marcellinus (l. XXIII c. 5). Lactantius speaks of the ambition of Narses: “Concitatus domesticis exemplis avi sui Saporis ad occupandum orientem magnis copiis inhiabat.” De mortibus persecutorum, c. 9. ↩
We may readily believe that Lactantius ascribes to cowardice the conduct of Diocletian. Julian, in his oration, says, that he remained with all the forces of the empire; a very hyperbolical expression. ↩
Our five abbreviators, Eutropius, Festus, the two Victors, and Orosius, all relate the last and great battle; but Orosius is the only one who speaks of the two former. ↩
The nature of the country is finely described by Plutarch, in the life of Crassus; and by Xenophon, in the first book of the Anabasis. ↩
See Foster’s Dissertation in the second volume of the translation of the Anabasis by Edward Spelman; which I will venture to recommend as one of the best versions extant. ↩
History of Armenia, l. II c. 76. I have transferred this exploit of Tiridates from an imaginary defeat to the real one of Galerius. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XIV. The mile, in the hands of Eutropius (IX 24), of Festus (c. 25), and of Orosius (VII 25), easily increased to several miles. ↩
Aurelius Victor. Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 21. ↩
Aurelius Victor says, “Per Armeniam in hostes contendit, quae ferme sola, seu facilior vincendi via est.” He followed the conduct of Trajan, and the idea of Julius Caesar. ↩
Xenophon’s Anabasis, l. III. For that reason the Persian cavalry encamped sixty stadia from the enemy. ↩
The story is told by Ammianus, l. XXII. Instead of saccum, some read scutum. ↩
The Persians confessed the Roman superiority in morals as well as in arms. Eutropius IX 24. But this respect and gratitude of enemies is very seldom to be found in their own accounts. ↩
The account of the negotiation is taken from the fragments of Peter the Patrician, in the Excerpta legationum, published in the Byzantine Collection. Peter lived under Justinian; but it is very evident, from the nature of his materials, that they are drawn from the most authentic and respectable writers. ↩
Adeo Victor (says Aurelius) ut ni Valerius, cujus nutu omnis gerebantur, abnuisset, Romani fasces in provinciam novam ferrentur. Verum pars terrarum tamen nobis utilior quaesita. ↩
He had been governor of Sumium8786 (Peter Patricius in Excerpta legationum, p. 30). This province seems to be mentioned by Moses of Chorene (Geographia, p. 360), and lay to the east of Mount Ararat. ↩
By an error of the geographer Ptolemy, the position of Singara is removed from the Aboras to the Tigris, which may have produced the mistake of Peter in assigning the latter river for the boundary, instead of the former. The line of the Roman frontier traversed, but never followed, the course of the Tigris.8787 ↩
Procopius, De aedificiis, l. II c. 6. ↩
Three of the provinces, Zabdicene, Arzanene, and Carduene, are allowed on all sides. But instead of the other two, Peter (in Excerpta legationum, p. 30) inserts Rehimene and Sophene. I have preferred Ammianus (l. XXV 7), because it might be proved that Sophene was never in the hands of the Persians, either before the reign of Diocletian, or after that of Jovian. For want of correct maps, like those of M. d’Anville, almost all the moderns, with Tillemont and Valesius at their head, have imagined that it was in respect to Persia, and not to Rome, that the five provinces were situate beyond the Tigris. ↩
See Saint-Martin, note on Le Beau, I 380. He would read for Intiline, Ingeleme, the name of a small province of Armenia, near the sources of the Tigris, mentioned by St. Epiphanius (Adversus haereses 60); for the unknown name Arzacene, with Gibbon, Arzanene. These provinces do not appear to have made an integral part of the Roman empire; Roman garrisons replaced those of Persia, but the sovereignty remained in the hands of the feudatory princes of Armenia. A prince of Carduene, ally or dependent on the empire, with the Roman name of Jovianus, occurs in the reign of Julian. —⁠M. ↩
Xenophon’s Anabasis, l. IV. Their bows were three cubits in length, their arrows two; they rolled down stones that were each a wagon load. The Greeks found a great many villages in that rude country. ↩
I travelled through this country in 1810, and should judge, from what I have read and seen of its inhabitants, that they have remained unchanged in their appearance and character for more than twenty centuries. Malcolm, note to History of Persia, vol. I, p. 82. —⁠M. ↩
According to Eutropius (VI 9, as the text is represented by the best MSS.), the city of Tigranocerta was in Arzanene. The names and situation of the other three may be faintly traced. ↩
Compare Herodotus, l. I c. 97, with Moses Choronensis, History of Armenia, l. II c. 84, and the map of Armenia given by his editors. ↩
Hiberi, locorum potentes, Caspiâ viâ Sarmatam in Armenios raptim effundunt. Tacitus, Annales VI 34. See Strabonis geographica, l. XI, p. 764 [edit. Casaubon —⁠M.]. ↩
Peter Patricius (in Excerpta legationum, p. 30) is the only writer who mentions the Iberian article of the treaty. ↩
Eusebius, in Chronicon, Pagi ad annum. Till the discovery of the treatise De mortibus persecutorum, it was not certain that the triumph and the Vicennalia was celebrated at the same time. ↩
At the time of the Vicennalia, Galerius seems to have kept station on the Danube. See Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 38. ↩
Eutropius (IX 27) mentions them as a part of the triumph. As the persons had been restored to Narses, nothing more than their images could be exhibited. ↩
Livy gives us a speech of Camillus on that subject (V 51⁠–⁠55), full of eloquence and sensibility, in opposition to a design of removing the seat of government from Rome to the neighboring city of Veii. ↩
Julius Caesar was reproached with the intention of removing the empire to Ilium or Alexandria. See Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Julius Caesar,” c. 79. According to the ingenious conjecture of Le Fevre and Dacier, the third ode of the third book of Horace was intended to divert Augustus from the execution of a similar design. ↩
See Aurelius Victor, who likewise mentions the buildings erected by Maximian at Carthage, probably during the Moorish war. We shall insert some verses of Ausonius, De claris urbibus V.

Et Mediolani mirae omnia: copia rerum;
Innumerae cultaeque domus; facunda virorum
Ingenia, et mores laeti: tum duplice muro
Amplificata loci species; populique voluptas
Circus; et inclusi moles cuneata Theatri;
Templa, Palatinaeque arces, opulensque Moneta,
Et regio Herculei celebris sub honore lavacri.
Cunctaque marmoreis ornata Peristyla signis;
Moeniaque in valli formam circumdata labro,
Omnia quae magnis operum velut aemula formis
Excellunt: nec juncta premit vicinia Romae.

↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 17. Libanius, Orations VIII, p. 203. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 17. On a similar occasion, Ammianus mentions the dicacitas plebis, as not very agreeable to an Imperial ear. (See l. XVI c. 10.) ↩
Lactantius accuses Maximian of destroying fictis criminationibus lumina senatus (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 8). Aurelius Victor speaks very doubtfully of the faith of Diocletian towards his friends. ↩
Truncatae vires urbis, imminuto praetoriarum cohortium atque in armis vulgi numero. Aurelius Victor. Lactantius attributes to Galerius the prosecution of the same plan (c. 26). ↩
They were old corps stationed in Illyricum; and according to the ancient establishment, they each consisted of six thousand men. They had acquired much reputation by the use of the plumbatae, or darts loaded with lead. Each soldier carried five of these, which he darted from a considerable distance, with great strength and dexterity. See Vegetius I 17. ↩
See the Theodosian Code, l. VI tit. II, with Godefroy’s commentary. ↩
See the 12th dissertation in Spanheim’s excellent work Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum. From medals, inscriptions, and historians, he examines every title separately, and traces it from Augustus to the moment of its disappearing. ↩
Pliny the Younger (in “Panegyricus,” c. 3, 55, etc.) speaks of Dominus with execration, as synonymous to Tyrant, and opposite to Prince. And the same Pliny regularly gives that title (in the tenth book of the epistles) to his friend rather than master, the virtuous Trajan. This strange contradiction puzzles the commentators, who think, and the translators, who can write. ↩
Synesius, “De Regno,” edit. Petavius, p. 15. I am indebted for this quotation to the Abbé de La Bléterie. ↩
See Anton van Dale, De consecrationibus ethnicis, p. 354, etc. It was customary for the emperors to mention (in the preamble of laws) their numen, sacred majesty, divine oracles, etc. According to Tillemont, Gregory Nazianzen complains most bitterly of the profanation, especially when it was practiced by an Arian emperor.8788 ↩
See Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum XII. ↩
Aurelius Victor. Eutropius IX 26. It appears by the Panegyrists that the Romans were soon reconciled to the name and ceremony of adoration. ↩
The innovations introduced by Diocletian are chiefly deduced: first, from some very strong passages in Lactantius; and, secondly, from the new and various offices which, in the Theodosian code, appear already established in the beginning of the reign of Constantine. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 7. ↩
The most curious document which has come to light since the publication of Gibbon’s History is the edict of Diocletian published from an inscription found at Eskihissar (Stratoniccia), by Col. William Martin Leake. This inscription was first copied by Sherard, afterwards much more completely by Mr. Bankes. It is confirmed and illustrated by a more imperfect copy of the same edict, found in the Levant by a gentleman of Aix, and brought to this country by M. Vescovali. This edict was issued in the name of the four Caesars, Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius, and Galerius. It fixed a maximum of prices throughout the empire for all the necessaries and commodities of life. The preamble insists, with great vehemence, on the extortion and inhumanity of the venders and merchants. Quis enim adeo obtunisi (obtusi) pectores (is) et a sensu inhumanitatis extorris est qui ignorare potest immo non senserit in venalibus rebus quae vel in mercimoniis aguntur vel diurnâ urbium conversatione tractantur, in tantum se licentiam defusisse, ut effraenata libido rapien⁠—rum copia nec annorum ubertatibus mitigaretur. The edict, as Col. Leake clearly shows, was issued AUC 303. Among the articles of which the maximum value is assessed, are oil, salt, honey, butchers’ meat, poultry, game, fish, vegetables, fruit; the wages of laborers and artisans, schoolmasters and orators, clothes, skins, boots and shoes, harness, timber, corn, wine, and beer (zythus). The depreciation in the value of money, or the rise in the price of commodities, had been so great during the last century, that butchers’ meat, which in the second century of the empire was in Rome about two denarii the pound, was now fixed at a maximum of eight. Col. Leake supposes the average price could not be less than four; at the same time the maximum of the wages of the agricultural laborers was twenty-five. The whole edict is, perhaps, the most gigantic effort of a blind though well-intentioned despotism, to control that which is, and ought to be, beyond the regulation of the government. See An Edict of Diocletian, by Col. Leake, London, 1826.

Col. Leake has not observed that this Edict is expressly named in the treatise De mortibus persecutorum, ch. VII. Idem cum variis iniquitatibus immensam faceret caritatem, legem pretiis rerum venalium statuere conatus est. —⁠M. ↩
Indicta lex nova quae sane illorum temporum modestiâ tolerabilis, in perniciem processit. Aurelius Victor, who has treated the character of Diocletian with good sense, though in bad Latin. ↩
Solus omnium, post conditum Romanum Imperium, qui ex tanto fastigio sponte ad privatae vitae statum civilitatemque remearet. Eutropius IX 28. ↩
The particulars of the journey and illness are taken from Lactantius (c. 17), who may sometimes be admitted as an evidence of public facts, though very seldom of private anecdotes. ↩
Aurelius Victor ascribes the abdication, which had been so variously accounted for, to two causes: first, Diocletian’s contempt of ambition; and secondly, his apprehension of impending troubles. One of the panegyrists (VI 9) mentions the age and infirmities of Diocletian as a very natural reason for his retirement.8789 ↩
The difficulties as well as mistakes attending the dates both of the year and of the day of Diocletian’s abdication are perfectly cleared up by Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 525, note 19, and by Pagi ad annum. ↩
See Panegyrici veteres VI 9. The oration was pronounced after Maximian had resumed the purple. ↩
Eumenius pays him a very fine compliment: “At enim divinum illum virum, qui primus imperium et participavit et posuit, consilii et facti sui non poenitet; nec amisisse se putat quod sponte transcripsit. Felix beatusque vere quem vestra, tantorum principum, colunt obsequia privatum.” Panegyrici veteres VII 15. ↩
We are obliged to the younger Victor for this celebrated bon mot. Eutropius mentions the thing in a more general manner. ↩
Historia Augusta, pp. 223, 224. Vopiscus had learned this conversation from his father. ↩
The younger Victor slightly mentions the report. But as Diocletian had disobliged a powerful and successful party, his memory has been loaded with every crime and misfortune. It has been affirmed that he died raving mad, that he was condemned as a criminal by the Roman senate, etc. ↩
See the Vetera Romanorum itineraria, pp. 269, 272, edit. Wesseling. ↩
The Abate Fortis, in his Viaggio in Dalmazia, p. 43 (printed at Venice in the year 1774, in two small volumes in quarto), quotes a MS. account of the antiquities of Salona, composed by Giambattista Giustiniani about the middle of the sixteenth century. ↩
Robert Adam’s Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Diocletian at Spalatro, p. 6. We may add a circumstance or two from the Abate Fortis: the little stream of the Hyader, mentioned by Lucan, produces most exquisite trout, which a sagacious writer, perhaps a monk, supposes to have been one of the principal reasons that determined Diocletian in the choice of his retirement. Fortis, p. 45. The same author (p. 38) observes that a taste for agriculture is reviving at Spalatro; and that an experimental farm has lately been established near the city, by a society of gentlemen. ↩
Constantine, “Oratio ad Coetum Sanctorum,” c. 25. In this sermon, the emperor, or the bishop who composed it for him, affects to relate the miserable end of all the persecutors of the church. ↩
Constantinos Porphyrogenitus, De statu Imperio, p. 86. ↩
D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 162. ↩
Messieurs Robert Adam and Charles-Louis Clérisseau, attended by two draughtsmen, visited Spalatro in the month of July, 1757. The magnificent work which their journey produced was published in London seven years afterwards. ↩
I shall quote the words of the Abate Fortis. “E’bastevolmente nota agli amatori dell’ Architettura, e dell’ Antichità, l’opera del Signor Adams, che a donato molto a que’ superbi vestigi coll’abituale eleganza del suo toccalapis e del bulino. In generale la rozzezza del scalpello, e’l cattivo gusto del secolo vi gareggiano colla magnificenza del fabricato.” See Viaggio in Dalmazia, p. 40. ↩
The orator Eumenius was secretary to the emperors Maximian and Constantius, and Professor of Rhetoric in the college of Autun. His salary was six hundred thousand sesterces, which, according to the lowest computation of that age, must have exceeded three thousand pounds a year. He generously requested the permission of employing it in rebuilding the college. See his Oration “Pro Restaurandis Scholis”; which, though not exempt from vanity, may atone for his panegyrics. ↩
Porphyry died about the time of Diocletian’s abdication. The life of his master Plotinus, which he composed, will give us the most complete idea of the genius of the sect, and the manners of its professors. This very curious piece is inserted in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. IV, pp. 88⁠–⁠148. ↩
M. de Montesquieu (Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. 17) supposes, on the authority of Orosius and Eusebius, that, on this occasion, the empire, for the first time, was really divided into two parts. It is difficult, however, to discover in what respect the plan of Galerius differed from that of Diocletian. ↩
Hic non modo amabilis, sed etiam venerabilis Gallis fuit; praecipue quòd Diocletiani suspectam prudentiam, et Maximiani sanguinariam violentiam imperio ejus evaserant. Eutropius, Breviarium historiae Romanae X i. ↩
Divitiis Provincialium (mel. provinciarum) ac privatorum studens, fisci commoda non admodum affectans; ducensque melius publicas opes a privatis haberi, quam intra unum claustrum reservari. Eutropius, Breviarium historiae Romanae X i. He carried this maxim so far, that whenever he gave an entertainment he was obliged to borrow a service of plate. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum. c. 18. Were the particulars of this conference more consistent with truth and decency, we might still ask how they came to the knowledge of an obscure rhetorician.8790 But there are many historians who put us in mind of the admirable saying of the great Condé to Cardinal dé Retz: “Ces coquins nous font parlor et agir, comme ils auroient fait eux-mêmes à notre place.” ↩
Sublatus nuper a pecoribus et silvis (says Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 19) statim Scutarius, continuo Protector, mox Tribunus, postridie Caesar, accepit Orientem. Aurelius Victor is too liberal in giving him the whole portion of Diocletian. ↩
His diligence and fidelity are acknowledged even by Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 18. ↩
These schemes, however, rest only on the very doubtful authority of Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 20. ↩
This tradition, unknown to the contemporaries of Constantine, was invented in the darkness of monasteries, was embellished by Jeffrey of Monmouth and the writers of the twelfth century, has been defended by our antiquarians of the last age, and is seriously related in the ponderous History of England, compiled by Mr. Thomas Carte (vol. I, p. 147). He transports, however, the kingdom of Coil, the imaginary father of Helena, from Essex to the wall of Antoninus. ↩
Eutropius (X 2) expresses, in a few words, the real truth, and the occasion of the error, “ex obscuriori matrimonio ejus filius.” Zosimus (l. II, p. 78) eagerly seized the most unfavorable report, and is followed by Orosius (VII 25), whose authority is oddly enough overlooked by the indefatigable but partial Tillemont. By insisting on the divorce of Helena, Diocletian acknowledged her marriage. ↩
There are three opinions with regard to the place of Constantine’s birth.
1. Our English antiquarians were used to dwell with rapture on the words of his panegyrist, “Britannias illic oriendo nobiles fecisti.” But this celebrated passage may be referred with as much propriety to the accession as to the nativity of Constantine.
2. Some of the modern Greeks have ascribed the honor of his birth to Drepanum, a town on the Gulf of Nicomedia (Cellarius, tom. II, p. 174), which Constantine dignified with the name of Helenopolis and Justinian adorned with many splendid buildings (Procopius, De aedificiis V 2). It is indeed probable enough that Helena’s father kept an inn at Drepanum, and that Constantius might lodge there when he returned from a Persian embassy in the reign of Aurelian. But in the wandering life of a soldier, the place of his marriage, and the places where his children are born, have very little connection with each other.
3. The claim of Naissus is supported by the anonymous writer, published at the end of Ammianus, p. 710, and who in general copied very good materials, and it is confirmed by Julius Firmicus (De astrologia, l. I c. 4), who flourished under the reign of Constantine himself. Some objections have been raised against the integrity of the text, and the application, of the passage of Firmicus; but the former is established by the best MSS., and the latter is very ably defended by Lipsius, De magnitudine Romanâ, l. IV c. 11, et Supplement.
↩
Literis minus instructus. Anonymus Valesianus ad Ammianus, p. 710. ↩
Galerius, or perhaps his own courage, exposed him to single combat with a Sarmatian (Anonymus Valesianus, p. 710), and with a monstrous lion. See Praxagoras apud Photius, p. 63. Praxagoras, an Athenian philosopher, had written a life of Constantine in two books, which are now lost. He was a contemporary. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 78, 79. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 24. The former tells a very foolish story, that Constantine caused all the post-horses which he had used to be hamstrung. Such a bloody execution, without preventing a pursuit, would have scattered suspicions, and might have stopped his journey.8791 ↩
Anonymus Valesianus, p. 710. Panegyrici veteres VII 4. But Zosimus, l. II, p. 79, Eusebius, De vita Constantini, l. I c. 21, and Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 24, suppose, with less accuracy, that he found his father on his deathbed. ↩
Cunctis qui aderant annitentibus, sed praecipue Croco (alii Eroco) [Erich? —⁠M.] Alamannorum Rege, auxilii gratiâ Constantium comitato, imperium capit. Victor Junior, c. 41. This is perhaps the first instance of a barbarian king who assisted the Roman arms with an independent body of his own subjects. The practice grew familiar, and at last became fatal. ↩
His panegyrist Eumenius (VII 8) ventures to affirm, in the presence of Constantine, that he put spurs to his horse, and tried, but in vain, to escape from the hands of his soldiers. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 25. Eumenius (VII 8) gives a rhetorical turn to the whole transaction. ↩
The choice of Constantine by his dying father, which is warranted by reason, and insinuated by Eumenius, seems to be confirmed by the most unexceptionable authority, the concurring evidence of Lactantius (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 24) and of Libanius (“Oratio I”), of Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. I c. 18, 21) and of Julian (“Oratio I”). ↩
Of the three sisters of Constantine, Constantia married the emperor Licinius, Anastasia the Caesar Bassianus, and Eutropia the consul Nepotianus. The three brothers were Dalmatius, Julius Constantius, and Annibalianus, of whom we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. ↩
See Gruter, Inscriptiones, p. 178. The six princes are all mentioned, Diocletian and Maximian as the senior Augusti, and fathers of the emperors. They jointly dedicate, for the use of their own Romans, this magnificent edifice. The architects have delineated the ruins of these Thermae, and the antiquarians, particularly Donatus and Nardini, have ascertained the ground which they covered. One of the great rooms is now the Carthusian church; and even one of the porter’s lodges is sufficient to form another church, which belongs to the Feuillans. ↩
See Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 26, 31. ↩
Savigny, in his memoir on Roman taxation (Memoirs of the Berlin Academy, 1822, 1823, p. 5), dates from this period the abolition of the Jus Italicum. He quotes a remarkable passage of Aurelius Victor. Hinc denique parti Italiae invectum tributorum ingens malum. Aurelius Victor, c. 39. It was a necessary consequence of the division of the empire: it became impossible to maintain a second court and executive, and leave so large and fruitful a part of the territory exempt from contribution. —⁠M. ↩
The sixth Panegyric represents the conduct of Maximian in the most favorable light, and the ambiguous expression of Aurelius Victor, “retractante diu,” may signify either that he contrived, or that he opposed, the conspiracy. See Zosimus, l. II, p. 79, and Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 26. ↩
The circumstances of this war, and the death of Severus, are very doubtfully and variously told in our ancient fragments (see Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV part I, p. 555). I have endeavored to extract from them a consistent and probable narration.8792 ↩
The sixth Panegyric was pronounced to celebrate the elevation of Constantine; but the prudent orator avoids the mention either of Galerius or of Maxentius. He introduces only one slight allusion to the actual troubles, and to the majesty of Rome.8793 ↩
With regard to this negotiation, see the fragments of an anonymous historian, published by Valesius at the end of his edition of Ammianus Marcellinus, p. 711. These fragments have furnished us with several curious, and, as it should seem, authentic anecdotes. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 28. The former of these reasons is probably taken from Virgil’s Shepherd: “Illam⁠ ⁠… ego huic nostrae similem, Meliboee, putavi,” etc. Lactantius delights in these poetical illusions. ↩
Castra super Tusci si ponere Tybridis undas (jubeus)
Hesperios audax veniam metator in agros.
Tu quoscunque voles in planum effundere muros,
His aries actus disperget saxa lacertis;
Illa licet penitus tolli quam jusseris urbem
Roma sit.
Lucan, Pharsalia I 381.

↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 27. Zosimus, l. II, p. 82. The latter insinuates that Constantine, in his interview with Maximian, had promised to declare war against Galerius. ↩
M. de Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV part I, p. 559) has proved that Licinius, without passing through the intermediate rank of Caesar, was declared Augustus, the 11th of November, AD 307, after the return of Galerius from Italy. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 32. When Galerius declared Licinius Augustus with himself, he tried to satisfy his younger associates, by inventing for Constantine and Maximin (not Maxentius; see Baluze, p. 81) the new title of sons of the Augusti. But when Maximin acquainted him that he had been saluted Augustus by the army, Galerius was obliged to acknowledge him, as well as Constantine, as equal associates in the Imperial dignity. ↩
See Panegyrici veteres VI 9. Audi doloris nostri liberam vocem, etc. The whole passage is imagined with artful flattery, and expressed with an easy flow of eloquence. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 28. Zosimus, l. II, p. 82. A report was spread, that Maxentius was the son of some obscure Syrian, and had been substituted by the wife of Maximian as her own child. See Aurelius Victor, Anonymus Valesianus, and Panegyrici veteres IX 3, 4. ↩
Ab urbe pulsum, ab Italia fugatum, ab Illyrico repudiatum, tuis provinciis, tuis copiis, tuo palatio recepisti. Eumenius in Panegyrici veteres VII 14. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 29. Yet, after the resignation of the purple, Constantine still continued to Maximian the pomp and honors of the Imperial dignity; and on all public occasions gave the right-hand place to his father-in-law. Panegyrici veteres VIII 15. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 82. Eumenius in Panegyrici veteres VII 16⁠–⁠21. The latter of these has undoubtedly represented the whole affair in the most favorable light for his sovereign. Yet even from this partial narrative we may conclude that the repeated clemency of Constantine, and the reiterated treasons of Maximian, as they are described by Lactantius (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 29, 30), and copied by the moderns, are destitute of any historical foundation.8794 ↩
Aurelius Victor, c. 40. But that lake was situated on the upper Pannonia, near the borders of Noricum; and the province of Valeria (a name which the wife of Galerius gave to the drained country) undoubtedly lay between the Drave and the Danube (Sextus Rufus, c. 9). I should therefore suspect that Victor has confounded the Lake Pelso with the Volocean marshes, or, as they are now called, the Lake Sabaton. It is placed in the heart of Valeria, and its present extent is not less than twelve Hungarian miles (about seventy English) in length, and two in breadth. See Severini, Pannonia veterum monumentis illustrata, l. I c. 9. ↩
Lactantius (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 33) and Eusebius (l. VIII c. 16) describe the symptoms and progress of his disorder with singular accuracy and apparent pleasure. ↩
If any (like the late Dr. John Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, pp. 307⁠–⁠356) still delight in recording the wonderful deaths of the persecutors, I would recommend to their perusal an admirable passage of Grotius (Annales et Historiae de Rebus Belgicis, l. VII, p. 332) concerning the last illness of Philip II of Spain. ↩
See Eusebius, l. IX 6, 10. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 36. Zosimus is less exact, and evidently confounds Maximian with Maximin. ↩
See the eighth Panegyric, in which Eumenius displays, in the presence of Constantine, the misery and the gratitude of the city of Autun. ↩
Eutropius X 3. Panegyrici veteres VII 10⁠–⁠12. A great number of the French youth were likewise exposed to the same cruel and ignominious death. ↩
Yet the panegyric assumes something of an apologetic tone. Te vero, Constantine, quantumlibet oderint hostes, dum perhorrescant. Haec est enim vera virtus, ut non ament et quiescant. The orator appeals to the ancient ideal of the republic. —⁠M. ↩
Julian excludes Maxentius from the banquet of the Caesars with abhorrence and contempt; and Zosimus (l. II, p. 85) accuses him of every kind of cruelty and profligacy. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 83⁠–⁠85. Aurelius Victor. ↩
The passage of Aurelius Victor should be read in the following manner: Primus instituto pessimo, munerum specie, Patres Oratoresque pecuniam conferre prodigenti sibi cogeret. ↩
Panegyrici veteres IX 3. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica VIII 14, et in De vita Constantini I 33, 34. Rufinus, c. 17. The virtuous matron, who stabbed herself to escape the violence of Maxentius, was a Christian, wife to the prefect of the city, and her name was Sophronia. It still remains a question among the casuists, whether, on such occasions, suicide is justifiable. ↩
Praetorianis caedem vulgi quondam annueret, is the vague expression of Aurelius Victor. See more particular, though somewhat different, accounts of a tumult and massacre which happened at Rome, in Eusebius (l. VIII c. 14), and in Zosimus (l. II, p. 84). ↩
See, in the Panegyrics (IX 14), a lively description of the indolence and vain pride of Maxentius. In another place the orator observes that the riches which Rome had accumulated in a period of 1,060 years were lavished by the tyrant on his mercenary bands; redemptis ad civile latrocinium manibus ingesserat. ↩
After the victory of Constantine, it was universally allowed that the motive of delivering the republic from a detested tyrant would, at any time, have justified his expedition into Italy. Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. I c. 26. Panegyrici veteres IX 2. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 84, 85. Nazarius in Panegyrici veteres X 7⁠–⁠13. ↩
See Panegyrici veteres IX 2. Omnibus fere tuis Comitibus et Ducibus non solum tacite mussantibus, sed etiam aperte timentibus; contra consilia hominum, contra Haruspicum monita, ipse per temet liberandae urbis tempus venisse sentires. The embassy of the Romans is mentioned only by Zonaras (l. XIII), and by Cedrenus (in Historiarum compendium, p. 270); but those modern Greeks had the opportunity of consulting many writers which have since been lost, among which we may reckon the life of Constantine by Praxagoras. Photius (p. 63) has made a short extract from that historical work. ↩
Zosimus (l. II, p. 86) has given us this curious account of the forces on both sides. He makes no mention of any naval armaments, though we are assured (Panegyrici veteres IX 25) that the war was carried on by sea as well as by land; and that the fleet of Constantine took possession of Sardinia, Corsica, and the ports of Italy. ↩
Panegyrici veteres IX 3. It is not surprising that the orator should diminish the numbers with which his sovereign achieved the conquest of Italy; but it appears somewhat singular that he should esteem the tyrant’s army at no more than 100,000 men. ↩
The three principal passages of the Alps between Gaul and Italy are those of Mount St. Bernard, Mount Cenis, and Mount Genevre. Tradition, and a resemblance of names (Alpes Penninoe), had assigned the first of these for the march of Hannibal (see Simler, De alpibus). The Chevalier de Folard (Polybe, tom. IV) and M. d’Anville have led him over Mount Genevre. But notwithstanding the authority of an experienced officer and a learned geographer, the pretensions of Mount Cenis are supported in a specious, not to say a convincing manner, by M. Pierre Grosley. Observations sur l’Italie, tom. I, p. 40, etc.8795 ↩
La Brunette near Suse, Demont, Exiles, Fenestrelles, Coni, etc. ↩
See Ammianus Marcellinus XV 10. His description of the roads over the Alps is clear, lively, and accurate. ↩
Zosimus as well as Eusebius hasten from the passage of the Alps to the decisive action near Rome. We must apply to the two Panegyrics for the intermediate actions of Constantine. ↩
The Marquis Maffei has examined the siege and battle of Verona with that degree of attention and accuracy which was due to a memorable action that happened in his native country. The fortifications of that city, constructed by Gallienus, were less extensive than the modern walls, and the amphitheatre was not included within their circumference. See Verona illustrata, part I, pp. 142, 150. ↩
They wanted chains for so great a multitude of captives; and the whole council was at a loss; but the sagacious conqueror imagined the happy expedient of converting into fetters the swords of the vanquished. Panegyrici veteres IX 11. ↩
Panegyrici veteres IX 10. ↩
Literas calamitatum suarum indices supprimebat. Panegyrici veteres IX 15. ↩
Remedia malorum potius quam mala differebat, is the fine censure which Tacitus passes on the supine indolence of Vitellius. ↩
The Marquis Maffei has made it extremely probable that Constantine was still at Verona, the 1st of September, AD 312, and that the memorable era of the indictions was dated from his conquest of the Cisalpine Gaul. ↩
See Panegyrici veteres XI 16. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 44. ↩
Illo die hostem Romanorum esse periturum. The vanquished prince became of course the enemy of Rome. ↩
See Panegyrici veteres IX 16, X 27. The former of these orators magnifies the hoards of corn, which Maxentius had collected from Africa and the islands. And yet, if there is any truth in the scarcity mentioned by Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. I c. 36), the Imperial granaries must have been open only to the soldiers. ↩
Maxentius⁠ ⁠… tandem urbe in Saxa Rubra, millia ferme novem aegerrime progressus. Aurelius Victor. See Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. I, p. 463. Saxa Rubra was in the neighborhood of the Cremera, a trifling rivulet, illustrated by the valor and glorious death of the three hundred Fabii. ↩
The post which Maxentius had taken, with the Tiber in his rear, is very clearly described by the two Panegyrists, IX 16, X 28. ↩
Exceptis latrocinii illius primis auctoribus, qui desperatâ veniâ, locum quem pugnae sumpserant texere corporibus. Panegyrici veteres IX 17. ↩
A very idle rumor soon prevailed, that Maxentius, who had not taken any precaution for his own retreat, had contrived a very artful snare to destroy the army of the pursuers; but that the wooden bridge, which was to have been loosened on the approach of Constantine, unluckily broke down under the weight of the flying Italians. M. de Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV part I, p. 576) very seriously examines whether, in contradiction to common sense, the testimony of Eusebius and Zosimus ought to prevail over the silence of Lactantius, Nazarius, and the anonymous, but contemporary orator, who composed the ninth Panegyric.8796 ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 86⁠–⁠88, and the two Panegyrics, the former of which was pronounced a few months afterwards, afford the clearest notion of this great battle. Lactantius, Eusebius, and even the Epitomes, supply several useful hints. ↩
Zosimus, the enemy of Constantine, allows (l. II, p. 88) that only a few of the friends of Maxentius were put to death; but we may remark the expressive passage of Nazarius (Panegyrici veteres X 6): Omnibus qui labefactari statum ejus poterant cum stirpe deletis.8797 The other orator (Panegyrici veteres IX 20, 21) contents himself with observing that Constantine, when he entered Rome, did not imitate the cruel massacres of Cinna, of Marius, or of Sylla. ↩
See the two Panegyrics, and the laws of this and the ensuing year, in the Theodosian Code. ↩
Panegyrici veteres IX 20. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 44. Maximin, who was confessedly the eldest Caesar, claimed, with some show of reason, the first rank among the Augusti. ↩
Adhuc cuncta opera quae magnifice construxerat, urbis fanum atque basilicam, Flavii meritis patres sacravere. Aurelius Victor. With regard to the theft of Trajan’s trophies, consult Flaminius Vacca, apud Montfaucon, Diarium Italicum, p. 250, and L’Antiquité Expliquée of the latter, tom. IV, p. 171. ↩
Praetoriae legiones ac subsidia factionibus aptiora quam urbi Romae, sublata penitus; simul arma atque usus indumenti militaris. Aurelius Victor. Zosimus (l. II, p. 89) mentions this fact as an historian, and it is very pompously celebrated in the ninth Panegyric. ↩
Ex omnibus provinciis optimates viros Curiae tuae pigneraveris; ut Senatûs dignitas⁠ ⁠… ex totius Orbis flore consisteret. Nazarius in Panegyrici veteres X 35. The word pigneraveris might almost seem maliciously chosen. Concerning the senatorial tax, see Zosimus, l. II, p. 115, the second title of the sixth book of the Theodosian Code, with Godefroy’s Commentary, and Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, p. 726. ↩
From the Theodosian Code, we may now begin to trace the motions of the emperors; but the dates both of time and place have frequently been altered by the carelessness of transcribers. ↩
Zosimus (l. II, p. 89) observes that, before the war, the sister of Constantine had been betrothed to Licinius. According to the younger Victor, Diocletian was invited to the nuptials; but having ventured to plead his age and infirmities, he received a second letter filled with reproaches for his supposed partiality to the cause of Maxentius and Maximin. ↩
Zosimus mentions the defeat and death of Maximin as ordinary events; but Lactantius expatiates on them (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 45⁠–⁠50), ascribing them to the miraculous interposition of Heaven. Licinius at that time was one of the protectors of the church. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 50. Aurelius Victor touches on the different conduct of Licinius, and of Constantine, in the use of victory. ↩
The sensual appetites of Maximin were gratified at the expense of his subjects. His eunuchs, who forced away wives and virgins, examined their naked charms with anxious curiosity, lest any part of their body should be found unworthy of the royal embraces. Coyness and disdain were considered as treason, and the obstinate fair one was condemned to be drowned. A custom was gradually introduced, that no person should marry a wife without the permission of the emperor, “ut ipse in omnibus nuptiis praegustator esset.” Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 38. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 39. ↩
Diocletian at last sent cognatum suum, quendam militarem ac potentem virum, to intercede in favor of his daughter (Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 41). We are not sufficiently acquainted with the history of these times to point out the person who was employed. ↩
Valeria quoque per varias provincias quindecim mensibus plebeio cultû pervagata. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 51. There is some doubt whether we should compute the fifteen months from the moment of her exile, or from that of her escape. The expression of pervagata seems to denote the latter; but in that case we must suppose that the treatise of Lactantius was written after the first civil war between Licinius and Constantine. See Cuper, p. 254. ↩
Ita illis pudicitia et conditio exitio fuit. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 51. He relates the misfortunes of the innocent wife and daughter of Discletian with a very natural mixture of pity and exultation. ↩
The curious reader who consults the Valesian fragment, p. 713, will probably accuse me of giving a bold and licentious paraphrase; but if he considers it with attention, he will acknowledge that my interpretation is probable and consistent. ↩
The situation of Aemona, or, as it is now called, Laybach, in Carniola (d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 187), may suggest a conjecture. As it lay to the northeast of the Julian Alps, that important territory became a natural object of dispute between the sovereigns of Italy and of Illyricum. ↩
Cibalis or Cibalae (whose name is still preserved in the obscure ruins of Swilei) was situated about fifty miles from Sirmium, the capital of Illyricum, and about one hundred from Taurunum, or Belgrade, and the conflux of the Danube and the Save. The Roman garrisons and cities on those rivers are finely illustrated by M. d’Anville, in a memoir inserted in Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII. ↩
Zosimus (l. II, pp. 90, 91) gives a very particular account of this battle; but the descriptions of Zosimus are rhetorical rather than military. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 92, 93. Anonymus Valesianus, p. 713. The Epitomes furnish some circumstances; but they frequently confound the two wars between Licinius and Constantine. ↩
Petrus Patricius in Excerpta legationum, p. 27. If it should be thought that γάμβρος signifies more properly a son-in-law, we might conjecture that Constantine, assuming the name as well as the duties of a father, had adopted his younger brothers and sisters, the children of Theodora. But in the best authors, γάμβρος sometimes signifies a husband, sometimes a father-in-law, and sometimes a kinsman in general. See Spanheim, Observations ad Julianus, “Oratio I,” p. 72. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 93. Anonymus Valesianus, p. 713. Eutropius X 5. Aurelius Victor. Eusebius, in Chronicon. Sozomen, l. I c. 2. Four of these writers affirm that the promotion of the Caesars was an article of the treaty. It is, however, certain that the younger Constantine and Licinius were not yet born; and it is highly probable that the promotion was made the 1st of March, AD 317. The treaty had probably stipulated that the two Caesars might be created by the Western, and one only by the Eastern emperor; but each of them reserved to himself the choice of the persons. ↩
This explanation appears to me little probable. Godefroy has made a much more happy conjecture, supported by all the historical circumstances which relate to this edict. It was published the 12th of May, AD 315, at Naissus in Pannonia, the birthplace of Constantine. The 8th of October, in that year, Constantine gained the victory of Cibalis over Licinius. He was yet uncertain as to the fate of the war: the Christians, no doubt, whom he favored, had prophesied his victory. Lactantius, then preceptor of Crispus, had just written his work upon Christianity (his Divine Institutes); he had dedicated it to Constantine. In this book he had inveighed with great force against infanticide, and the exposure of infants (l. VI c. 20). Is it not probable that Constantine had read this work, that he had conversed on the subject with Lactantius, that he was moved, among other things, by the passage to which I have referred, and in the first transport of his enthusiasm, he published the edict in question? The whole of the edict bears the character of precipitation, of excitement (entrainement), rather than of deliberate reflection⁠—the extent of the promises, the indefiniteness of the means, of the conditions, and of the time during which the parents might have a right to the succor of the state. Is there not reason to believe that the humanity of Constantine was excited by the influence of Lactantius, by that of the principles of Christianity, and of the Christians themselves, already in high esteem with the emperor, rather than by some “extraordinary instances of despair”?⁠ ⁠… See Hegewisch, Essai historique sur les finances Romaines.

The edict for Africa was not published till 322: of that we may say in truth that its origin was in the misery of the times. Africa had suffered much from the cruelty of Maxentius. Constantine says expressly that he had learned that parents, under the pressure of distress, were there selling their children. This decree is more distinct, more maturely deliberated than the former; the succor which was to be given to the parents, and the source from which it was to be derived, are determined. (Codex Theodosianus, l. XI tit. 27, c. 2.) If the direct utility of these laws may not have been very extensive, they had at least the great and happy effect of establishing a decisive opposition between the principles of the government and those which, to this time, had prevailed among the subjects of the empire. —⁠G. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XI tit. 27, tom. IV, p. 188, with Godefroy’s observations. See likewise l. V tit. 7, 8. ↩
Omnia foris placita, domi prospera, annonae ubertate, fructuum copiâ, etc. Panegyrici veteres X 38. This oration of Nazarius was pronounced on the day of the Quinquennalia of the Caesars, the 1st of March, AD 321. ↩
See the edict of Constantine, addressed to the Roman people, in the Theodosian Code, l. IX tit. 24, tom. III, p. 189. ↩
His son very fairly assigns the true reason of the repeal: “Ne sub specie atrocioris judicii aliqua in ulciscendo crimine dilatio nasceretur.” Codex Theodosianus, tom. III, p. 193. ↩
Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. III c. 1) chooses to affirm that in the reign of this hero, the sword of justice hung idle in the hands of the magistrates. Eusebius himself (l. IV c. 29, 54), and the Theodosian Code, will inform us that this excessive lenity was not owing to the want either of atrocious criminals or of penal laws. ↩
Nazarius in Panegyrici veteres X. The victory of Crispus over the Alemanni is expressed on some medals.8798 ↩
Campona, Old Buda in Hungary; Margus, Kastolatz C. Kollucza; Bononia, Widdin, in Maesia. —⁠G. and M. ↩
See Zosimus, l. II, pp. 93, 94; though the narrative of that historian is neither clear nor consistent. The Panegyric of Optatianus (c. 23) mentions the alliance of the Sarmatians with the Carpi and Getae, and points out the several fields of battle. It is supposed that the Sarmatian games, celebrated in the month of November, derived their origin from the success of this war. ↩
In the Caesars of Julian (p. 329; Commentaire de Spanheim, p. 252). Constantine boasts that he had recovered the province (Dacia) which Trajan had subdued. But it is insinuated by Silenus that the conquests of Constantine were like the gardens of Adonis, which fade and wither almost the moment they appear. ↩
Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 21. I know not whether we may entirely depend on his authority. Such an alliance has a very recent air, and scarcely is suited to the maxims of the beginning of the fourth century. ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. I c. 8. This passage, however, is taken from a general declamation on the greatness of Constantine, and not from any particular account of the Gothic war. ↩
Constantinus tamen, vir ingens, et omnia efficere nitens quae animo praeparasset, simul principatum totius orbis affectans, Licinio bellum intulit. Eutropius X 5. Zosimus, l. II, p. 89. The reasons which they have assigned for the first civil war may, with more propriety, be applied to the second. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 94, 95. ↩
Constantine was very attentive to the privileges and comforts of his fellow-veterans (Conveterani), as he now began to style them. See the Theodosian Code, l. VII tit. 10, tom. II, pp. 419, 429. ↩
Whilst the Athenians maintained the empire of the sea, their fleet consisted of three, and afterwards of four, hundred galleys of three ranks of oars, all completely equipped and ready for immediate service. The arsenal in the port of Piraeus had cost the republic a thousand talents, about two hundred and sixteen thousand pounds. See Thucydides, De bello Peloponnesiano, l. II c. 13, and Meursius, De fortunâ atticâ, c. 19. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 95, 96. This great battle is described in the Valesian fragment (p. 714), in a clear though concise manner. “Licinius vero circum Hadrianopolin maximo exercitu latera ardui montis impleverat; illuc toto agmine Constantinus inflexit. Cum bellum terrâ marique traheretur, quamvis per arduum suis nitentibus, attamen disciplinâ militari et felicitate, Constantinus Licinii confusum et sine ordine agentem vicit exercitum; leviter femore sauciatus.” ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 97, 98. The current always sets out of the Hellespont; and when it is assisted by a north wind, no vessel can attempt the passage. A south wind renders the force of the current almost imperceptible. See Tournefort’s Voyage au Levant, Lettre XI. ↩
Aurelius Victor. Zosimus, l. II, p. 93. According to the latter, Martinianus was Magister Officiorum (he uses the Latin appellation in Greek). Some medals seem to intimate that during his short reign he received the title of Augustus. ↩
Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. II c. 16, 17) ascribes this decisive victory to the pious prayers of the emperor. The Valesian fragment (p. 714) mentions a body of Gothic auxiliaries, under their chief Aliquaca, who adhered to the party of Licinius. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 102. Victor Junior in Epitome. Anonymus Valesianus, p. 714. ↩
Contra religionem sacramenti Thessalonicae privatus occisus est. Eutropius X 6; and his evidence is confirmed by Jerome (in Chronicon) as well as by Zosimus, l. II, p. 102. The Valesian writer is the only one who mentions the soldiers, and it is Zonaras alone who calls in the assistance of the senate. Eusebius prudently slides over this delicate transaction. But Sozomen, a century afterwards, ventures to assert the treasonable practices of Licinius. ↩
See the Theodosian Code, l. XV tit. 15, tom. V, pp. 404, 405. These edicts of Constantine betray a degree of passion and precipitancy very unbecoming the character of a lawgiver. ↩
In spite of my resolution, Lardner led me to look through the famous fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Gibbon. I could not lay them down without finishing them. The causes assigned, in the fifteenth chapter, for the diffusion of Christianity, must, no doubt, have contributed to it materially; but I doubt whether he saw them all. Perhaps those which he enumerates are among the most obvious. They might all be safely adopted by a Christian writer, with some change in the language and manner. Mackintosh, see The Life of Sir James Mackintosh I, p. 244. —⁠M. ↩
The art of Gibbon, or at least the unfair impression produced by these two memorable chapters, consists in confounding together, in one undistinguishable mass, the origin and apostolic propagation of the Christian religion with its later progress. The main question, the divine origin of the religion, is dexterously eluded or speciously conceded; his plan enables him to commence his account, in most parts, below the apostolic times; and it is only by the strength of the dark coloring with which he has brought out the failings and the follies of succeeding ages, that a shadow of doubt and suspicion is thrown back on the primitive period of Christianity. Divest this whole passage of the latent sarcasm betrayed by the subsequent tone of the whole disquisition, and it might commence a Christian history, written in the most Christian spirit of candor. —⁠M. ↩
Though we are thus far agreed with respect to the inflexibility and intolerance of Christian zeal, yet as to the principle from which it was derived, we are, toto coelo, divided in opinion. You deduce it from the Jewish religion; I would refer it to a more adequate and a more obvious source, a full persuasion of the truth of Christianity. Richard Watson, Letters to Gibbon I 9. —⁠M. ↩
This facility has not always prevented intolerance, which seems inherent in the religious spirit, when armed with authority. The separation of the ecclesiastical and civil power appears to be the only means of at once maintaining religion and tolerance: but this is a very modern notion. The passions, which mingle themselves with opinions, made the Pagans very often intolerant and persecutors; witness the Persians, the Egyptians, even the Greeks and Romans.

1. The Persians.⁠—Cambyses, conqueror of the Egyptians, condemned to death the magistrates of Memphis, because they had offered divine honors to their god, Apis: he caused the god to be brought before him, struck him with his dagger, commanded the priests to be scourged, and ordered a general massacre of all the Egyptians who should be found celebrating the festival of Apis: he caused all the statues of the gods to be burnt. Not content with this intolerance, he sent an army to reduce the Ammonians to slavery, and to set on fire the temple in which Jupiter delivered his oracles. See Herodotus III 25⁠–⁠29, 37.

Xerxes, during his invasion of Greece, acted on the same principles: he destroyed all the temples of Greece and Ionia, except that of Ephesus. See Pausanias, l. VII, p. 533, and X, p. 887. Strabo, l. XIV, p. 941.

2. The Egyptians.⁠—They thought themselves defiled when they had drunk from the same cup or eaten at the same table with a man of a different belief from their own. “He who has voluntarily killed any sacred animal is punished with death; but if anyone, even involuntarily, has killed a cat or an ibis, he cannot escape the extreme penalty: the people drag him away, treat him in the most cruel manner, sometimes without waiting for a judicial sentence.⁠ ⁠… Even at the time when King Ptolemy was not yet the acknowledged friend of the Roman people, while the multitude were paying court with all possible attention to the strangers who came from Italy⁠ ⁠… a Roman having killed a cat, the people rushed to his house, and neither the entreaties of the nobles, whom the king sent to them, nor the terror of the Roman name, were sufficiently powerful to rescue the man from punishment, though he had committed the crime involuntarily.” Diodorus Siculus I 83. Juvenal, in his 13th Satire, describes the sanguinary conflict between the inhabitants of Ombos and of Tentyra, from religious animosity. The fury was carried so far, that the conquerors tore and devoured the quivering limbs of the conquered.

Ardet adhuc Ombos et Tentyra, summus utrinque
Inde furor vulgo, quod numina vicinorum
Odit uterque locus; quum solos credat habendos
Esse Deos quos ipse colit.
Satires XV v. 85.

3. The Greeks.⁠—“Let us not here,” says the Abbé Guenée, “refer to the cities of Peloponnesus and their severity against atheism; the Ephesians prosecuting Heraclitus for impiety; the Greeks armed one against the other by religious zeal, in the Amphictyonic war. Let us say nothing either of the frightful cruelties inflicted by three successors of Alexander upon the Jews, to force them to abandon their religion, nor of Antiochus expelling the philosophers from his states. Let us not seek our proofs of intolerance so far off. Athens, the polite and learned Athens, will supply us with sufficient examples. Every citizen made a public and solemn vow to conform to the religion of his country, to defend it, and to cause it to be respected. An express law severely punished all discourses against the gods, and a rigid decree ordered the denunciation of all who should deny their existence.⁠ ⁠… The practice was in unison with the severity of the law. The proceedings commenced against Protagoras; a price set upon the head of Diagoras; the danger of Alcibiades; Aristotle obliged to fly; Stilpo banished; Anaxagoras hardly escaping death; Pericles himself, after all his services to his country, and all the glory he had acquired, compelled to appear before the tribunals and make his defence;⁠ ⁠… a priestess executed for having introduced strange gods; Socrates condemned and drinking the hemlock, because he was accused of not recognizing those of his country, etc.; these facts attest too loudly, to be called in question, the religious intolerance of the most humane and enlightened people in Greece.” Lettres de quelques juifs à M. Voltaire, I, p. 221. [Compare Richard Bentley on Remarks on a Late Discourse of Freethinking, from which much of this is derived. —⁠M.]

4. The Romans.⁠—The laws of Rome were not less express and severe. The intolerance of foreign religions reaches, with the Romans, as high as the laws of the twelve tables; the prohibitions were afterwards renewed at different times. Intolerance did not discontinue under the emperors; witness the counsel of Maecenas to Augustus. This counsel is so remarkable, that I think it right to insert it entire. “Honor the gods yourself,” says Maecenas to Augustus, “in every way according to the usage of your ancestors, and compel (ἀνάγκαζι) others to worship them. Hate and punish those who introduce strange gods (τούς δὲ δὴ ξενίζοντας μισει και κόλαζε), not only for the sake of the gods, (he who despises them will respect no one), but because those who introduce new gods engage a multitude of persons in foreign laws and customs. From hence arise unions bound by oaths, and confederacies, and associations, things dangerous to a monarchy.” Dion Cassius, l. II c. 36. (But, though some may differ from it, see Gibbon’s just observation on this passage in Dion Cassius, in this note; impugned, indeed, in this note by M. Guizot) —⁠M.

Even the laws which the philosophers of Athens and of Rome wrote for their imaginary republics are intolerant. Plato does not leave to his citizens freedom of religious worship; and Cicero expressly prohibits them from having other gods than those of the state. Lettres de quelques juifs à M. Voltaire, I, p. 226. —⁠G.

According to M. Guizot’s just remarks, religious intolerance will always ally itself with the passions of man, however different those passions may be. In the instances quoted above, with the Persians it was the pride of despotism; to conquer the gods of a country was the last mark of subjugation. With the Egyptians, it was the gross Fetishism of the superstitious populace, and the local jealousy of neighboring towns. In Greece, persecution was in general connected with political party; in Rome, with the stern supremacy of the law and the interests of the state. Gibbon has been mistaken in attributing to the tolerant spirit of Paganism that which arose out of the peculiar circumstances of the times. 1. The decay of the old Polytheism, through the progress of reason and intelligence, and the prevalence of philosophical opinions among the higher orders. 2. The Roman character, in which the political always predominated over the religious part. The Romans were contented with having bowed the world to a uniformity of subjection to their power, and cared not for establishing the (to them) less important uniformity of religion. —⁠M. ↩
Dum Assyrios penes, Medosque, et Persas Oriens fuit, despectissima pars servientium. Tacitus, Historiae V 8. Herodotus, who visited Asia whilst it obeyed the last of those empires, slightly mentions the Syrians of Palestine, who, according to their own confession, had received from Egypt the rite of circumcision. See l. II c. 104. ↩
Diodorus Siculus, l. XL. Dion Cassius, l. XXXVII, p. 121. Tacitus, Historiae V 1⁠–⁠9. Justin XXXVI 2, 3. ↩
Tradidit arcano quaecunque volumine Moses,
Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti,
Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos.

The letter of this law is not to be found in the present volume of Moses. But the wise, the humane Maimonides openly teaches that, if an idolater fall into the water, a Jew ought not to save him from instant death. See Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. VI c. 28.8799 ↩
A Jewish sect, which indulged themselves in a sort of occasional conformity, derived from Herod, by whose example and authority they had been seduced, the name of Herodians. But their numbers were so inconsiderable, and their duration so short, that Josephus has not thought them worthy of his notice. See Prideaux’s The Old and New Testament Connected, vol. II, p. 285.8800 ↩
Cicero, “Pro Flacco,” c. 28.8801 ↩
Philo, De legatione. Augustus left a foundation for a perpetual sacrifice. Yet he approved of the neglect which his grandson Caius expressed towards the temple of Jerusalem. See Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 93, and Casaubon’s notes on that passage. ↩
See, in particular, Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews XVII 6, XVIII 3; and De bello Judaico I 33, and II 9, edit. Havercamp.8802 ↩
Jussi a Caio Caesare, effigiem ejus in templo locare, arma potius sumpsere. Tacitus, Historiae V 9. Philo and Josephus gave a very circumstantial, but a very rhetorical, account of this transaction, which exceedingly perplexed the governor of Syria. At the first mention of this idolatrous proposal, King Agrippa fainted away; and did not recover his senses until the third day. (History of the Jews II 181, etc.) ↩
For the enumeration of the Syrian and Arabian deities, it may be observed that Milton has comprised in one hundred and thirty very beautiful lines the two large and learned syntagmas which Selden had composed on that abstruse subject. ↩
“How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shown among them?” (Numbers 14:11.) It would be easy, but it would be unbecoming, to justify the complaint of the Deity from the whole tenor of the Mosaic history.8803 ↩
All that relates to the Jewish proselytes has been very ably treated by Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. VI c. 6, 7. ↩
See Exodus 34:23, Deuteronomy 16:16, the commentators, and a very sensible note in the Universal History, vol. I, p. 603, edit. folio. ↩
When Pompey, using or abusing the right of conquest, entered into the Holy of Holies, it was observed with amazement, “Nullâ intus Deûm effigie, vacuam sedem et inania arcana.” Tacitus, Historiae V 9. It was a popular saying, with regard to the Jews,

Nil praeter nubes et coeli numen adorant.

↩
A second kind of circumcision was inflicted on a Samaritan or Egyptian proselyte. The sullen indifference of the Talmudists, with respect to the conversion of strangers, may be seen in Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. VI c. 6. ↩
These arguments were urged with great ingenuity by the Jew Orobio, and refuted with equal ingenuity and candor by the Christian Limborch. See the Amica collatio (it well deserves that name) or account of the dispute between them. ↩
Jesus⁠ ⁠… circumcisus erat; cibis utebatur Judaicis; vestitû simili; purgatos scabie mittebat ad sacerdotes; Paschata et alios dies festos religiosè observabat: Si quos sanavit sabbatho, ostendit non tantum ex lege, sed et ex receptis sententiis, talia opera sabbatho non interdicta. Grotius, De veritate religionis Christianae, l. V c. 7. A little afterwards (c. 12), he expatiates on the condescension of the apostles. ↩
Paene omnes Christum Deum sub legis observatione credebant. Sulpicius Severus II 31. See Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. IV c. 5. ↩
Johann Lorenz Mosheim, De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum commentarii, p. 153. In this masterly performance, which I shall often have occasion to quote, he enters much more fully into the state of the primitive church than he has an opportunity of doing in his Ecclesiastical History. ↩
This is incorrect: all the traditions concur in placing the abandonment of the city by the Christians, not only before it was in ruins, but before the seige had commenced. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. IV c. 5, and Jean Leclerc. —⁠M. ↩
Eusebius, l. III c. 5. Leclerc, Historia ecclesiastica, p. 605. During this occasional absence, the bishop and church of Pella still retained the title of Jerusalem. In the same manner, the Roman pontiffs resided seventy years at Avignon; and the patriarchs of Alexandria have long since transferred their episcopal seat to Cairo. ↩
Dion Cassius, l. LXIX. The exile of the Jewish nation from Jerusalem is attested by Aristo of Pella (apud Eusebius, l. IV c. 6), and is mentioned by several ecclesiastical writers; though some of them too hastily extend this interdiction to the whole country of Palestine. ↩
Eusebius, l. IV c. 6. Sulpicius Severus II 31. By comparing their unsatisfactory accounts, Mosheim (p. 327, etc.) has drawn out a very distinct representation of the circumstances and motives of this revolution. ↩
Leclerc (Historia ecclesiastica, pp. 477, 535) seems to have collected from Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and other writers, all the principal circumstances that relate to the Nazarenes or Ebionites. The nature of their opinions soon divided them into a stricter and a milder sect; and there is some reason to conjecture that the family of Jesus Christ remained members, at least, of the latter and more moderate party. ↩
Some writers have been pleased to create an Ebion, the imaginary author of their sect and name. But we can more safely rely on the learned Eusebius than on the vehement Tertullian or the credulous Epiphanius. According to Leclerc, the Hebrew word Ebjonim may be translated into Latin by that of Pauperes. See Historia ecclesiastica, p. 477.8804 ↩
See the very curious dialogue of Justin Martyr with the Jew Tryphon.8805 The conference between them was held at Ephesus, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and about twenty years after the return of the church of Pella to Jerusalem. For this date consult the accurate note of Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. II, p. 511. ↩
Of all the systems of Christianity, that of Abyssinia is the only one which still adheres to the Mosaic rites. (Michael Geddes’s Church History of Aethiopia, and Dissertations de La Grand sur la Relation du Père Jerónimo Lobo.) The eunuch of the queen Candace might suggest some suspicions; but as we are assured (Socrates I 19; Sozomen II 24; Ludolphus, p. 281) that the Aethiopians were not converted till the fourth century, it is more reasonable to believe that they respected the sabbath, and distinguished the forbidden meats, in imitation of the Jews, who, in a very early period, were seated on both sides of the Red Sea. Circumcision had been practiced by the most ancient Aethiopians, from motives of health and cleanliness, which seem to be explained in the Recherches philosophiques sur les Américains, tom. II, p. 117. ↩
Isaac de Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, l. I c. 3, has stated their objections, particularly those of Faustus, the adversary of Augustine, with the most learned impartiality. ↩
On the “war law” of the Jews, see History of the Jews I 137. —⁠M. ↩
Apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in promptû: adversus amnes alios hostile odium. Tacitus, Historiae V 4. Surely Tacitus had seen the Jews with too favorable an eye.8806 The perusal of Josephus must have destroyed the antithesis. ↩
Dr. Thomas Burnet (Archaeologia philosophicae, l. II c. 7) has discussed the first chapters of Genesis with too much wit and freedom.8807 ↩
The milder Gnostics considered Jehovah, the Creator, as a Being of a mixed nature between God and the Demon. Others confounded him with the evil principle. Consult the second century of the general history of Mosheim, which gives a very distinct, though concise, account of their strange opinions on this subject. ↩
The Gnostics, and the historian who has stated these plausible objections with so much force as almost to make them his own, would have shown a more considerate and not less reasonable philosophy, if they had considered the religion of Moses with reference to the age in which it was promulgated; if they had done justice to its sublime as well as its more imperfect views of the divine nature; the humane and civilizing provisions of the Hebrew law, as well as those adapted for an infant and barbarous people. See History of the Jews I 36, 37, etc. —⁠M. ↩
See Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, l. I c. 4. Origen and St. Augustine were among the allegorists. ↩
Hegesippus, apud Eusebius, l. III 32, IV 22. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata VII 17.8808 ↩
In the account of the Gnostics of the second and third centuries, Mosheim is ingenious and candid; Leclerc dull, but exact; Beausobre almost always an apologist; and it is much to be feared that the primitive fathers are very frequently calumniators.8809 ↩
See the catalogues of Irenaeus and Epiphanius. It must indeed be allowed that those writers were inclined to multiply the number of sects which opposed the unity of the church. ↩
Eusebius, l. IV c. 15. Sozomen, l. II c. 32. See in Bayle, in the article of “Marcion,” a curious detail of a dispute on that subject. It should seem that some of the Gnostics (the Basilidians) declined, and even refused, the honor of martyrdom. Their reasons were singular and abstruse. See Mosheim, p. 539. ↩
M. Hahn has restored the Marcionite Gospel with great ingenuity. His work is reprinted in Johann Thilo, Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti, vol. I. —⁠M. ↩
See a very remarkable passage of Origen (Proem ad Lucam). That indefatigable writer, who had consumed his life in the study of the Scriptures, relies for their authenticity on the inspired authority of the church. It was impossible that the Gnostics could receive our present Gospels, many parts of which (particularly in the resurrection of Christ) are directly, and as it might seem designedly, pointed against their favorite tenets. It is therefore somewhat singular that Ignatius (Epistles ad Smyrnaeos, Patres apostoli, tom. II, p. 34) should choose to employ a vague and doubtful tradition, instead of quoting the certain testimony of the evangelists.8810 ↩
Faciunt favos et vespae; faciunt ecclesias et Marcionitae, is the strong expression of Tertullian, which I am obliged to quote from memory. In the time of Epiphanius (Adversus haereses, p. 302) the Marcionites were very numerous in Italy, Syria, Egypt, Arabia, and Persia. ↩
Augustine is a memorable instance of this gradual progress from reason to faith. He was, during several years, engaged in the Manichaean sect. ↩
The unanimous sentiment of the primitive church is very clearly explained by Justin Martyr, Apologia major, by Athenagoras of Athens, Legatio pro Christianis, c. 22, etc., and by Lactantius, Institutiones divinae II 14⁠–⁠19. ↩
Tertullian (Apologeticus, c. 23) alleges the confession of the demons themselves as often as they were tormented by the Christian exorcists. ↩
Tertullian has written a most severe treatise against idolatry, to caution his brethren against the hourly danger of incurring that guilt. Recogita sylvam, et quantae latitant spinae. De coronâ militis, c. 10. ↩
The Roman senate was always held in a temple or consecrated place. (Aulus Gellius XIV 7). Before they entered on business, every senator dropped some wine and frankincense on the altar. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 35. ↩
See Tertullian, De spectaculis. This severe reformer shows no more indulgence to a tragedy of Euripides than to a combat of gladiators. The dress of the actors particularly offends him. By the use of the lofty buskin, they impiously strive to add a cubit to their stature, c. 23. ↩
The ancient practice of concluding the entertainment with libations may be found in every classic. Socrates and Seneca, in their last moments, made a noble application of this custom. Postremo stagnum calidae aquae introiit, respergens proximos servorum, additâ voce, libare se liquorem illum Jovi Liberatori. Tacitus, Annales XV 64. ↩
See the elegant but idolatrous hymn of Catullus, on the nuptials of Manlius and Julia. O Hymen, Hymenaee Iö! Quis huic Deo compararier ausit? ↩
The ancient funerals (in those of Misenus and Pallas) are no less accurately described by Virgil than they are illustrated by his commentator Servius. The pile itself was an altar, the flames were fed with the blood of victims, and all the assistants were sprinkled with lustral water. ↩
Tertullian, De idololatriâ, c. 11.8811 ↩
See every part of Montfaucon’s Antiquities. Even the reverses of the Greek and Roman coins were frequently of an idolatrous nature. Here indeed the scruples of the Christian were suspended by a stronger passion.8812 ↩
Tertullian, De idololatriâ, c. 20⁠–⁠22. If a Pagan friend (on the occasion perhaps of sneezing) used the familiar expression of “Jupiter bless you,” the Christian was obliged to protest against the divinity of Jupiter. ↩
Consult the most labored work of Ovid, his imperfect Fasti. He finished no more than the first six months of the year. The compilation of Macrobius is called the Saturnalia, but it is only a small part of the first book that bears any relation to the title. ↩
Tertullian has composed a defence, or rather panegyric, of the rash action of a Christian soldier, who, by throwing away his crown of laurel, had exposed himself and his brethren to the most imminent danger.8813 By the mention of the emperors (Severus and Caracalla), it is evident, notwithstanding the wishes of M. de Tillemont, that Tertullian composed his treatise De coronâ militis long before he was engaged in the errors of the Montanists. See Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. III, p. 384.8814 ↩
In particular, the first book of the Tusculan Questions, and the treatise “Cato maior de Senectute,” and the Somnium Scipionis, contain, in the most beautiful language, everything that Grecian philosophy, or Roman good sense, could possibly suggest on this dark but important object. ↩
The preexistence of human souls, so far at least as that doctrine is compatible with religion, was adopted by many of the Greek and Latin fathers. See Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, l. VI c. 4. ↩
See Cicero, “Pro Cluentio,” c. 61. Caesar apud Sallustii, De bello Catilinae, c. 50. Juvenal, Satires II 149.

Esse aliquid manes, et subterranea regna,
⋮
Nec pueri credunt, nisi qui nondum aere lavantur.

↩
The eleventh book of the Odyssey gives a very dreary and incoherent account of the infernal shades. Pindar and Virgil have embellished the picture; but even those poets, though more correct than their great model, are guilty of very strange inconsistencies. See Bayle, Réponse aux questions d’un provincial, part III c. 22. ↩
See sixteenth epistle of the first book of Horace, the thirteenth Satire of Juvenal, and the second Satire of Persius: these popular discourses express the sentiment and language of the multitude. ↩
If we confine ourselves to the Gauls, we may observe that they entrusted, not only their lives, but even their money, to the security of another world. Vetus ille mos Gallorum occurrit (says Valerius Maximus, l. II c. 6, p. 10) quos, memoria proditum est, pecunias mutuas, quae his apud inferos redderentur, dare solitos. The same custom is more darkly insinuated by Mela, l. III c. 2. It is almost needless to add that the profits of trade hold a just proportion to the credit of the merchant, and that the Druids derived from their holy profession a character of responsibility which could scarcely be claimed by any other order of men. ↩
The right reverend author of the Divine Legation of Moses assigns a very curious reason for the omission, and most ingeniously retorts it on the unbelievers.8815 ↩
See Leclerc (Prolegomena ad Historia ecclesiastica sect. 1, c. 8). His authority seems to carry the greater weight, as he has written a learned and judicious commentary on the books of the Old Testament. ↩
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, l. XIII c. 10. De bello Judaico II 8. According to the most natural interpretation of his words, the Sadducees admitted only the Pentateuch; but it has pleased some modern critics to add the Prophets to their creed, and to suppose that they contented themselves with rejecting the traditions of the Pharisees. Dr. Jortin has argued that point in his Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, p. 103. ↩
This was, in fact, an integral part of the Jewish notion of the Messiah, from which the minds of the apostles themselves were but gradually detached. See Leonhard Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, concluding chapters. —⁠M. ↩
This expectation was countenanced by the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew, and by the first epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. Erasmus removes the difficulty by the help of allegory and metaphor; and the learned Grotius ventures to insinuate that, for wise purposes, the pious deception was permitted to take place.8816 ↩
See Thomas Burnet’s Sacred Theory of the Earth, part III c. 5. This tradition may be traced as high as the author of Epistle of Barnabas, who wrote in the first century, and who seems to have been half a Jew.8817 ↩
The primitive church of Antioch computed almost 6,000 years from the creation of the world to the birth of Christ. Africanus, Lactantius, and the Greek church, have reduced that number to 5,500, and Eusebius has contented himself with 5,200 years. These calculations were formed on the Septuagint, which was universally received during the six first centuries. The authority of the Vulgate and of the Hebrew text has determined the moderns, Protestants as well as Catholics, to prefer a period of about 4,000 years; though, in the study of profane antiquity, they often find themselves straitened by those narrow limits.8818 ↩
Most of these pictures were borrowed from a misrepresentation of Isaiah, Daniel, and the Apocalypse. One of the grossest images may be found in Irenaeus (l. V, p. 455), the disciple of Papias, who had seen the apostle St. John. ↩
See the second dialogue of Justin with Tryphon, and the seventh book of Lactantius. It is unnecessary to allege all the intermediate fathers, as the fact is not disputed. Yet the curious reader may consult Jean Daillé, De usu patrum, l. II c. 4. ↩
The testimony of Justin of his own faith and that of his orthodox brethren, in the doctrine of a Millennium, is delivered in the clearest and most solemn manner (Dialogus cum Tryphone, Justin Martyr, pp. 177, 178, edit. Benedicti). If in the beginning of this important passage there is anything like an inconsistency, we may impute it, as we think proper, either to the author or to his transcribers.8819 ↩
Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. I, p. 223, tom. II, p. 366, and Mosheim, p. 720; though the latter of these learned divines is not altogether candid on this occasion. ↩
In the council of Laodicea (about the year 360), the Apocalypse was tacitly excluded from the sacred canon, by the same churches of Asia to which it is addressed; and we may learn from the complaint of Sulpicius Severus that their sentence had been ratified by the greater number of Christians of his time. From what causes, then, is the Apocalypse at present so generally received by the Greek, the Roman, and the Protestant churches? The following ones may be assigned.
1. The Greeks were subdued by the authority of an impostor, who, in the sixth century, assumed the character of Dionysius the Areopagite.
2. A just apprehension, that the grammarians might become more important than the theologians, engaged the council of Trent to fix the seal of their infallibility on all the books of Scripture contained in the Latin Vulgate, in the number of which the Apocalypse was fortunately included (Fra Paolo Sarpi, Istoria del Concilio tridentino, l. II).
3. The advantage of turning those mysterious prophecies against the See of Rome inspired the Protestants with uncommon veneration for so useful an ally. See the ingenious and elegant discourses of the present bishop of Litchfield on that unpromising subject.8820
↩
Lactantius (Institutiones divinae VII 15, etc.) relates the dismal talk of futurity with great spirit and eloquence.8821 ↩
On this subject every reader of taste will be entertained with the third part of Burnet’s Sacred Theory of the Earth. He blends philosophy, Scripture, and tradition into one magnificent system; in the description of which he displays a strength of fancy not inferior to that of Milton himself. ↩
And yet whatever may be the language of individuals, it is still the public doctrine of all the Christian churches; nor can even our own refuse to admit the conclusions which must be drawn from the eighth and the eighteenth of her Articles. The Jansenists, who have so diligently studied the works of the fathers, maintain this sentiment with distinguished zeal; and the learned M. de Tillemont never dismisses a virtuous emperor without pronouncing his damnation. Zuinglius is perhaps the only leader of a party who has ever adopted the milder sentiment, and he gave no less offence to the Lutherans than to the Catholics. See Bossuet, Histoire des variations des Églises protestantes, l. II c. 19⁠–⁠22. ↩
Justin and Clement of Alexandria allow that some of the philosophers were instructed by the Logos; confounding its double signification of the human reason and of the Divine Word. ↩
This translation is not exact: the first sentence is imperfect. Tertullian says, Ille dies nationibus insperatus, ille derisus, cum tanta saecculi vetustas et tot ejus nativitates uno igne haurientur. The text does not authorize the exaggerated expressions, so many magistrates, so many sago philosophers, so many poets, etc.; but simply magistrates, philosophers, poets. —⁠G.

It is not clear that Gibbon’s version or paraphrase is incorrect: Tertullian writes, tot tantosque reges item praesides, etc. —⁠M. ↩
Tertullian, De spectaculis, c. 30. In order to ascertain the degree of authority which the zealous African had acquired, it may be sufficient to allege the testimony of Cyprian, the doctor and guide of all the western churches. (See Prudentius, Hymns XIII 100.) As often as he applied himself to his daily study of the writings of Tertullian, he was accustomed to say, “Da mihi magistrum, Give me my master.” (Hieronymus, De viris illustribus, tom. I, p. 284.) ↩
The object of Tertullian’s vehemence in his Treatise was to keep the Christians away from the secular games celebrated by the Emperor Severus: It has not prevented him from showing himself in other places full of benevolence and charity towards unbelievers: the spirit of the gospel has sometimes prevailed over the violence of human passions: Qui ergo putaveris nihil nos de salute Caesaris curare (he says in his Apology) inspice Dei voces, literas nostras. Scitote ex illis praeceptum esse nobis ad redudantionem, benignitates etiam pro inimicis Deûm orare, et pro persecutoribus bona precari. Sed etiam nominatim atque manifestè orate inquit (Christus) pro regibus et pro principibus et potestatibus ut omnia sint tranquilla vobis. Tertullian, Apologeticus, c. 31. —⁠G.

It would be wiser for Christianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament, to disclaim this fierce African, than to identify itself with his furious invectives by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian fanaticism. —⁠M. ↩
Notwithstanding the evasions of Dr. Middleton, it is impossible to overlook the clear traces of visions and inspiration, which may be found in the apostolic fathers.8822 ↩
Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, Proem, p. 3.8823 Dr. Middleton (A Free Inquiry Into the Miraculous Powers, p. 96, etc.) observes that as this pretension of all others was the most difficult to support by art, it was the soonest given up. The observation suits his hypothesis.8824 ↩
Athenagoras in Legatio pro Christianis. Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Gentes. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, l. IV. These descriptions are not very unlike the prophetic fury, for which Cicero (De divinatione II 54) expresses so little reverence. ↩
Tertullian (Apologeticus, c. 23) throws out a bold defiance to the Pagan magistrates. Of the primitive miracles, the power of exorcising is the only one which has been assumed by Protestants.8825 ↩
Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, l. II 56, 57, l. V c. 6. Mr. Dodwell (Dissertationes ad Irenaeum II 42) concludes that the second century was still more fertile in miracles than the first.8826 ↩
Theophilus of Antioch, Apologia ad autolycum, l. I, p. 345. Edit. Benedictin, Paris, 1742.8827 ↩
Dr. Middleton sent out his Introduction in the year 1747, published his Free Inquiry in 1749, and before his death, which happened in 1750, he had prepared a vindication of it against his numerous adversaries. ↩
The university of Oxford conferred degrees on his opponents. From the indignation of Mosheim (p. 221), we may discover the sentiments of the Lutheran divines.8828 ↩
It may seem somewhat remarkable that Bernard of Clairvaux, who records so many miracles of his friend St. Malachi, never takes any notice of his own, which, in their turn, however, are carefully related by his companions and disciples. In the long series of ecclesiastical history, does there exist a single instance of a saint asserting that he himself possessed the gift of miracles? ↩
The conversion of Constantine is the era which is most usually fixed by Protestants. The more rational divines are unwilling to admit the miracles of the fourth, whilst the more credulous are unwilling to reject those of the fifth century.8829 ↩
These, in the opinion of the editor, are the most uncandid paragraphs in Gibbon’s History. He ought either, with manly courage, to have denied the moral reformation introduced by Christianity, or fairly to have investigated all its motives; not to have confined himself to an insidious and sarcastic description of the less pure and generous elements of the Christian character as it appeared even at that early time. —⁠M. ↩
The imputations of Celsus and Julian, with the defence of the fathers, are very fairly stated by Spanheim, Commentaire sur Les Cesars de l’empereur Julien, p. 468. ↩
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae X 97. ↩
And this blamelessness was fully admitted by the candid and enlightened Roman. —⁠M. ↩
Tertullian, Apologeticus, c. 44. He adds, however, with some degree of hesitation, “Aut si aliud, jam non Christianus.”8830 ↩
The philosopher Peregrinus (of whose life and death Lucian has left us so entertaining an account) imposed, for a long time, on the credulous simplicity of the Christians of Asia. ↩
See a very judicious treatise of Jean Barbeyrac, Traité de la morale des Pères de l’Eglise. ↩
Et que me fait cette homélie semi-stoicienne, semi-épicurienne? A-t-on jamais regardé l’amour du plaisir comme l’un des principes de la perfection morale? Et de quel droit faites vous de l’amour de l’action, et de l’amour du plaisir, les seuls élémens de l’être humain? Est ce que vous faites abstraction de la vérité en elle-même, de la conscience et du sentiment du devoir? Est ce que vous ne sentez point, par exemple, que le sacrifice du moi à la justice et à la verité, est aussi dans le coeur de l’homme: que tout n’est pas pour lui action ou plaisir, et que dans le bien ce n’est pas le mouvement, mais la vérité, qu’il cherche? Et puis⁠ ⁠… Thucydide et Tacite, ces maîtres de l’histoire, ont ils jamais introduits dans leur récits un fragment de dissertation sur le plaisir et sur l’action. Abel-François Villemain, Cours de la littérature Françoise, part II Leçon V. —⁠M. ↩
Lactantius, Institutiones divinae, l. VI c. 20⁠–⁠22. ↩
Consult a work of Clement of Alexandria, entitled The Paedagogue, which contains the rudiments of ethics, as they were taught in the most celebrated of the Christian schools. ↩
Tertullian, De spectaculis, c. 23. Clemens Alexandrinus, Paedagogus, l. III c. 8. ↩
Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, l. VII c. 3. Justin, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, etc., strongly incline to this opinion.8831 ↩
Some of the Gnostic heretics were more consistent; they rejected the use of marriage. ↩
See a chain of tradition, from Justin Martyr to Jerome, in the Morale des Pères, c. IV 6⁠–⁠26. ↩
See a very curious “Dissertation on the Vestals,” in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. IV, pp. 161⁠–⁠227. Notwithstanding the honors and rewards which were bestowed on those virgins, it was difficult to procure a sufficient number; nor could the dread of the most horrible death always restrain their incontinence. ↩
Cupiditatem procreandi aut unam scimus aut nullam. Minucius Felix, c. 31. Justin Martyr, Apologia major. Athenagoras in Legatio pro Christianis, c. 28. Tertullian, De cultu feminarum, l. II. ↩
Eusebius, l. VI 8. Before the fame of Origen had excited envy and persecution, this extraordinary action was rather admired than censured. As it was his general practice to allegorize Scripture, it seems unfortunate that, in this instance only, he should have adopted the literal sense. ↩
Cyprianus, Epistolae 4, and Dodwell, Dissertationes Cyprianicae III. Something like this rash attempt was long afterwards imputed to the founder of the order of Fontevrault. Bayle has amused himself and his readers on that very delicate subject. ↩
Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. I, p. 195) gives a particular account of the dialogue of the ten virgins, as it was composed by Methodius, Bishop of Tyre. The praises of virginity are excessive. ↩
The Ascetics (as early as the second century) made a public profession of mortifying their bodies, and of abstaining from the use of flesh and wine. Mosheim, p. 310. ↩
See the Morale des Pères. The same patient principles have been revived since the Reformation by the Socinians, the modern Anabaptists, and the Quakers. Barclay, the apologist of the Quakers, has protected his brethren by the authority of the primitive Christian, pp. 542⁠–⁠549. ↩
Tertullian, Apologeticus, c. 21. De idololatriâ, c. 17, 18. Origen, Contra Celsum, l. V, p. 253, l. VII, p. 348, l. VIII, pp. 423⁠–⁠428. ↩
Tertullian (De coronâ militis, c. 11) suggested to them the expedient of deserting; a counsel which, if it had been generally known, was not very proper to conciliate the favor of the emperors towards the Christian sect.8832 ↩
As well as we can judge from the mutilated representation of Origen (l. VIII, p. 423), his adversary, Celsus, had urged his objection with great force and candor. ↩
The aristocratical party in France, as well as in England, has strenuously maintained the divine origin of bishops. But the Calvinistical presbyters were impatient of a superior; and the Roman Pontiff refused to acknowledge an equal. See Fra Paolo Sarpi. ↩
In the history of the Christian hierarchy, I have, for the most part, followed the learned and candid Mosheim. ↩
For the prophets of the primitive church, see Mosheim, Dissertationes ad historia ecclesiastica pertinentes, tom. II, pp. 132⁠–⁠208. ↩
St. Paul distinctly reproves the intrusion of females into the prophetic office. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35; 1 Timothy 2:11. —⁠M. ↩
See the epistles of St. Paul, and of Clemens, to the Corinthians.8833 ↩
Richard Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, l. VII. ↩
See Jerome ad Titum, c. I and Epistola 85 (in the Benedictine edition, 101), and the elaborate apology of David Blondel, Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi. The ancient state, as it is described by Jerome, of the bishop and presbyters of Alexandria, receives a remarkable confirmation from the patriarch Eutychius (Annales, tom. I, p. 330, vers. Pococke); whose testimony I know not how to reject, in spite of all the objections of the learned Pearson in his Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, part I c. 11. ↩
See the introduction to the Apocalypse. Bishops, under the name of angels, were already instituted in the seven cities of Asia. And yet the epistle of Clemens (which is probably of as ancient a date) does not lead us to discover any traces of episcopacy either at Corinth or Rome. ↩
Nulla Ecclesia sine Episcopo, has been a fact as well as a maxim since the time of Tertullian and Irenaeus. ↩
After we have passed the difficulties of the first century, we find the episcopal government universally established, till it was interrupted by the republican genius of the Swiss and German reformers. ↩
See Mosheim in the first and second centuries. Ignatius (Ad Smyrnaeos, c. 8, etc.) is fond of exalting the episcopal dignity. Leclerc (Historia ecclesiastica, p. 569) very bluntly censures his conduct. Mosheim, with a more critical judgment (p. 161), suspects the purity even of the smaller epistles. ↩
Nonne et Laici sacerdotes sumus?8834 Tertullian, De exhortationis castitatis, c. 7. As the human heart is still the same, several of the observations which Mr. Hume has made on Enthusiasm (Essays, vol. I, p. 76, quarto edition) may be applied even to real inspiration. ↩
The synods were not the first means taken by the insulated churches to enter into communion and to assume a corporate character. The dioceses were first formed by the union of several country churches with a church in a city: many churches in one city uniting among themselves, or joining a more considerable church, became metropolitan. The dioceses were not formed before the beginning of the second century: before that time the Christians had not established sufficient churches in the country to stand in need of that union. It is towards the middle of the same century that we discover the first traces of the metropolitan constitution. (Probably the country churches were founded in general by missionaries from those in the city, and would preserve a natural connection with the parent church.) —⁠M.

The provincial synods did not commence till towards the middle of the third century, and were not the first synods. History gives us distinct notions of the synods, held towards the end of the second century, at Ephesus, at Jerusalem, at Pontus, and at Rome, to put an end to the disputes which had arisen between the Latin and Asiatic churches about the celebration of Easter. But these synods were not subject to any regular form or periodical return; this regularity was first established with the provincial synods, which were formed by a union of the bishops of a district, subject to a metropolitan. Planck, p. 90, Geschichte der Christlichen-kirchlichen Gesellschafts-verfassung. —⁠G. ↩
Acta Concilio Carthagine, apud Cyprianus, edit. Fell, p. 158. This council was composed of eighty-seven bishops from the provinces of Mauritania, Numidia, and Africa; some presbyters and deacons assisted at the assembly; praesente plebis maximâ parte. ↩
Aguntur praeterea per Graecias illas, certis in locis concilia, etc. Tertullian, De Jejuniis, c. 13. The African mentions it as a recent and foreign institution. The coalition of the Christian churches is very ably explained by Mosheim, pp. 164⁠–⁠170. ↩
Cyprian, in his admired treatise De ecclesiae Catholicae unitate, pp. 75⁠–⁠86. ↩
We may appeal to the whole tenor of Cyprian’s conduct, of his doctrine, and of his epistles. Leclerc, in a short life of Cyprian (Bibliothèque universelle, tom. XII, pp. 207⁠–⁠378), has laid him open with great freedom and accuracy. ↩
If Novatus, Felicissimus, etc., whom the Bishop of Carthage expelled from his church, and from Africa, were not the most detestable monsters of wickedness, the zeal of Cyprian must occasionally have prevailed over his veracity. For a very just account of these obscure quarrels, see Mosheim, pp. 497⁠–⁠512. ↩
Mosheim, pp. 269, 574. Dupin, De antiqua ecelesiae disciplina, pp. 19, 20. ↩
Tertullian, in a distinct treatise, has pleaded against the heretics the right of prescription, as it was held by the apostolic churches. ↩
The journey of St. Peter to Rome is mentioned by most of the ancients (see Eusebius II 25), maintained by all the Catholics, allowed by some Protestants (see John Pearson and Henry Dodwell, De successione episcoporum Romae), but has been vigorously attacked by Spanheim (Miscellanes sacra III 3). According to Father Hardouin, the monks of the thirteenth century, who composed the Aeneid, represented St. Peter under the allegorical character of the Trojan hero.8835 ↩
It is in French only that the famous allusion to St. Peter’s name is exact. Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre.⁠—The same is imperfect in Greek, Latin, Italian, etc., and totally unintelligible in our Teutonic languages.8836 ↩
Irenaeus, Adversus haereses III 3. Tertullian, De praescriptione hereticorum, c. 36, and Cyprian, Epistolae 27, 55, 71, 75. Leclerc (Historia ecclesiastica, p. 764), and Mosheim (pp. 258, 578) labor in the interpretation of these passages. But the loose and rhetorical style of the fathers often appears favorable to the pretensions of Rome. ↩
See the sharp epistle from Firmilianus, bishop of Caesarea, to Stephen, bishop of Rome, apud Cyprian, Epistolae 75. ↩
Concerning this dispute of the rebaptism of heretics, see the epistles of Cyprian, and the seventh book of Eusebius. ↩
For the origin of these words, see Mosheim, p. 141. Spanheim, Historia ecclesiastica, p. 633. The distinction of Clerus and Laicus was established before the time of Tertullian. ↩
The community instituted by Plato is more perfect than that which Sir Thomas More had imagined for his Utopia. The community of women, and that of temporal goods, may be considered as inseparable parts of the same system. ↩
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews XVIII 2. Philo, De vita Contemplativa. ↩
See the Acts of the Apostles, 5:2, 4, 5, with Grotius’s Commentary. Mosheim, in a particular dissertation, attacks the common opinion with very inconclusive arguments.8837 ↩
Justin Martyr, Apologia major, c. 89. Tertullian, Apologeticus, c. 39. ↩
Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, l. IV c. 27, 34. Origen, In numeros homilia II. Cyprian, De ecclesiae Catholicae unitate. Constitutiones apostolorum, l. II c. 34, 35, with the notes of Cotelerius. The Constitutions introduce this divine precept by declaring that priests are as much above kings as the soul is above the body. Among the tithable articles, they enumerate corn, wine, oil, and wool. On this interesting subject, consult Prideaux’s The Original and Right of Tithes, and Fra Paolo Sarpi, Delle materie beneficiarie; two writers of a very different character. ↩
The same opinion which prevailed about the year one thousand was productive of the same effects. Most of the Donations express their motive, “appropinquante mundi fine.” See Mosheim’s General History of the Church, vol. I, p. 457. ↩
Tum summa cura est fratribus
(Ut sermo testatur loquax),
Offerre, fundis venditis
Sestertiorum millia.
Addicta avorum praedia
Foedis sub auctionibus,
Successor exheres gemit
Sanctis egens Parentibus.
Haec occuluntur abditis
Ecclesiarum in angulis.
Et summa pietas creditur
Nudare dulces liberos.
Prudentius, περὶ στεφάνων, Hymn 2

The subsequent conduct of the deacon Laurence only proves how proper a use was made of the wealth of the Roman church; it was undoubtedly very considerable; but Fra Paolo Sarpi (c. 3) appears to exaggerate when he supposes that the successors of Commodus were urged to persecute the Christians by their own avarice, or that of their Praetorian prefects. ↩
Cyprian, Epistolae 62. ↩
Tertullian, De praescriptione hereticorum, c. 30. ↩
Diocletian gave a rescript, which is only a declaration of the old law; “Collegium, si nullo speciali privilegio subnixum sit, haereditatem capere non posse, dubium non est.” Fra Paolo Sarpi (c. 4) thinks that these regulations had been much neglected since the reign of Valerian. ↩
Historia Augusta, p. 131. The ground had been public; and was now disputed between the society of Christians and that of butchers.8838 ↩
Constitutiones apostolorum II 35. ↩
Cyprian, “De Lapsis,” p. 89. Epistolae 65. The charge is confirmed by the 19th and 20th canon of the council of Illiberis. ↩
See the apologies of Justin, Tertullian, etc. ↩
The wealth and liberality of the Romans to their most distant brethren is gratefully celebrated by Dionysius of Corinth, apud Eusebius, l. IV c. 23. ↩
See Lucian in “De Morte Peregrini.” Julian (“Epistle 49”) seems mortified that the Christian charity maintains not only their own, but likewise the heathen poor. ↩
Such, at least, has been the laudable conduct of more modern missionaries, under the same circumstances. Above three thousand newborn infants are annually exposed in the streets of Peking. See Le Comte, Mémoires sur la Chine, and the Recherches sur les Chinois et les Egyptiens, tom. I, p. 61. ↩
The Montanists and the Novatians, who adhered to this opinion with the greatest rigor and obstinacy, found themselves at last in the number of excommunicated heretics. See the learned and copious Mosheim, Seculum II and III. ↩
Dionysius apud Eusebius IV 23. Cyprian, “De Lapsis.” ↩
Cave’s Primitive Christianity, part III c. 5. The admirers of antiquity regret the loss of this public penance. ↩
See in Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. II, pp. 304⁠–⁠313, a short but rational exposition of the canons of those councils, which were assembled in the first moments of tranquillity after the persecution of Diocletian. This persecution had been much less severely felt in Spain than in Galatia; a difference which may, in some measure, account for the contrast of their regulations. ↩
Gibbon has been accused of injustice to the character of Cyprian, as exalting the “censures and authority of the church above the observance of the moral duties.” Felicissimus had been condemned by a synod of bishops (non tantum meâ, sed plurimorum coepiscorum, sententia condemnatum), on the charge not only of schism, but of embezzlement of public money, the debauching of virgins, and frequent acts of adultery. His violent menaces had extorted his readmission into the church, against which Cyprian protests with much vehemence: ne pecuniae commissae sibi fraudator, ne stuprator virginum, ne matrimoniorum multorum depopulator et corruptor, ultra adhuc sponsam Christi incorruptam praesentiae suae dedecore, et impudicâ atque incestâ contagione, violaret. See Chelsum’s remarks, p. 134. If these charges against Felicissimus were true, they were something more than “irregularities.” A Roman censor would have been a fairer subject of comparison than a consul. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the charge of adultery deepens very rapidly as the controversy becomes more violent. It is first represented as a single act, recently detected, and which men of character were prepared to substantiate: adulterii etiam crimen accedit, quod patres nostri graves viri deprehendisse se nuntiaverunt, et probaturos se asseverarunt. “Epistle XXXVIII.” The heretic has now darkened into a man of notorious and general profligacy. Nor can it be denied that of the whole long epistle, very far the larger and the more passionate part dwells on the breach of ecclesiastical unity, rather than on the violation of Christian holiness. —⁠M. ↩
Cyprian, Epistolae 69. ↩
This supposition appears unfounded: the birth and the talents of Cyprian might make us presume the contrary. Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus, Carthaginensis, artis oratoriae professione clarus, magnam sibi gloriam, opes, honores acquisivit, epularibus caenis et largis dapibus assuetus, pretiosâ veste conspicuus, auro atque purpurâ fulgens, fascibus oblectatus et honoribus, stipatus clientium cuneis, frequentiore comitatu officii agminis honestatus, ut ipse de se loquitur, in Epistolâ ad donatum. See Dr. Cave, Historia literaria, b. I, p. 87. —⁠G.

Cave has rather embellished Cyprian’s language. —⁠M. ↩
The arts, the manners, and the vices of the priests of the Syrian goddess are very humorously described by Apuleius, in the eighth book of his Metamorphoses. ↩
The office of Asiarch was of this nature, and it is frequently mentioned in Aristides, the Inscriptions, etc. It was annual and elective. None but the vainest citizens could desire the honor; none but the most wealthy could support the expense. See, in the Patres apostoli, tom. II, p. 200, with how much indifference Philip the Asiarch conducted himself in the martyrdom of Polycarp. There were likewise Bithyniarchs, Lyciarchs, etc. ↩
The modern critics are not disposed to believe what the fathers almost unanimously assert, that St. Matthew composed a Hebrew gospel, of which only the Greek translation is extant. It seems, however, dangerous to reject their testimony.8839 ↩
Under the reigns of Nero and Domitian, and in the cities of Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Ephesus. See John Mill, Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci, and Dr. Lardner’s fair and extensive collection, vol. XV.8840 ↩
The Alogians (Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 51) disputed the genuineness of the Apocalypse, because the church of Thyatira was not yet founded. Epiphanius, who allows the fact, extricates himself from the difficulty by ingeniously supposing that St. John wrote in the spirit of prophecy. See Abauzit, Discours sur l’Apocalypse. ↩
The epistles of Ignatius and Dionysius (apud Eusebius IV 23) point out many churches in Asia and Greece. That of Athens seems to have been one of the least flourishing. ↩
Lucian in “Alexandro,” c. 25. Christianity however, must have been very unequally diffused over Pontus; since in the middle of the third century there was no more than seventeen believers in the extensive diocese of Neo-Caesarea. See M. de Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IV, p. 675, from Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, who were themselves natives of Cappadocia.8841 ↩
According to the ancients, Jesus Christ suffered under the consulship of the two Gemini, in the year 29 of our present era. Pliny the Younger was sent into Bithynia (according to Pagi) in the year 110. ↩
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae X 97. ↩
Chrysostom, Opera omnia quae exstant, tom. VII, pp. 658, 810 [edit. Savillii, II 422, 529 —⁠M.]. ↩
John Malalas, tom. II, p. 144. He draws the same conclusion with regard to the populousness of Antioch. ↩
Chrysostom, tom. I, p. 592. I am indebted for these passages, though not for my inference, to the learned Dr. Nathaniel Lardner. Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. XII, p. 370.8842 ↩
Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. 2, c. 20⁠–⁠23, has examined with the most critical accuracy the curious treatise of Philo, which describes the Therapeutae. By proving that it was composed as early as the time of Augustus, Basnage has demonstrated, in spite of Eusebius (l. II c. 17) and a crowd of modern Catholics, that the Therapeutae were neither Christians nor monks. It still remains probable that they changed their name, preserved their manners, adopted some new articles of faith, and gradually became the fathers of the Egyptian Ascetics. ↩
See a letter of Hadrian in the Augustan History, p. 245. ↩
For the succession of Alexandrian bishops, consult Renaudot’s History, p. 24, etc. This curious fact is preserved by the patriarch Eutychius (Annales, tom. I, p. 334, vers. Pococke), and its internal evidence would alone be a sufficient answer to all the objections which Bishop Pearson has urged in the Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XXII 16. ↩
Origen, Contra Celsum, l. I, p. 40. ↩
Ingens multitudo is the expression of Tacitus, XV 44. ↩
Titus Livius XXXIX 13, 15⁠–⁠17. Nothing could exceed the horror and consternation of the senate on the discovery of the Bacchanalians, whose depravity is described, and perhaps exaggerated, by Livy. ↩
Eusebius, l. VI c. 43. The Latin translator (M. de Valois) has thought proper to reduce the number of presbyters to forty-four. ↩
This proportion of the presbyters and of the poor to the rest of the people was originally fixed by Burnet (Travels Into Italy, p. 168), and is approved by Moyle (vol. II, p. 151). They were both unacquainted with the passage of Chrysostom, which converts their conjecture almost into a fact. ↩
Serius trans Alpes, religione Dei suscepta. Sulpicius Severus, l. II. With regard to Africa, see Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, c. 3. It is imagined that the Scyllitan martyrs were the first (Acta primorum martyrum sincera, Dom Thierry Ruinart, p. 34). One of the adversaries of Apuleius seems to have been a Christian. Apologia, pp. 496, 497, edit. Delphin. ↩
Tum primum intra Gallias martyria visa. Sulpicius Severus, l. II. These were the celebrated martyrs of Lyons. See Eusebius V 1. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. II, p. 316. According to the Donatists, whose assertion is confirmed by the tacit acknowledgment of Augustine, Africa was the last of the provinces which received the gospel. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. I, p. 754. ↩
Rarae in aliquibus civitatibus ecclesiae, paucorum Christianorum devotione, resurgerent. Acta sincera, p. 130. Gregory of Tours, l. I c. 28. Mosheim, pp. 207, 449. There is some reason to believe that, in the beginning of the fourth century, the extensive dioceses of Liège, of Treves, and of Cologne composed a single bishopric, which had been very recently founded. See Mémoires de Tillemont, tom. VI part I, pp. 43, 411. ↩
The date of Tertullian’s Apology is fixed, in a dissertation of Mosheim, to the year 198. ↩
In the fifteenth century, there were few who had either inclination or courage to question, whether Joseph of Arimathea founded the monastery of Glastonbury, and whether Dionysius the Areopagite preferred the residence of Paris to that of Athens. ↩
The stupendous metamorphosis was performed in the ninth century. See Mariana (Historiae Hispaniae, l. VII c. 13, tom. I, p. 285, edit. Hagae Comitum 1733), who, in every sense, imitates Livy, and the honest detection of the legend of St. James by Dr. Geddes, Miscellaneous Tracts, vol. II, p. 221. ↩
Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone, p. 341. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, l. I c. 10. Tertullian, De adversus Judaeos, c. 7. See Mosheim, p. 203. ↩
See the fourth century of Mosheim’s History of the Church. Many, though very confused circumstances, that relate to the conversion of Iberia and Armenia, may be found in Moses of Chorene, l. II c. 78⁠–⁠89.8843 ↩
According to Tertullian, the Christian faith had penetrated into parts of Britain inaccessible to the Roman arms. About a century afterwards, Ossian, the son of Fingal, is said to have disputed, in his extreme old age, with one of the foreign missionaries, and the dispute is still extant, in verse, and in the Erse language. See Mr. Macpherson’s “Dissertation on the Antiquity of Ossian’s Poems,” p. 10. ↩
The Goths, who ravaged Asia in the reign of Gallienus, carried away great numbers of captives; some of whom were Christians, and became missionaries. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IV, p. 44. ↩
The legends of Abgarus, fabulous as it is, affords a decisive proof that many years before Eusebius wrote his history, the greatest part of the inhabitants of Edessa had embraced Christianity. Their rivals, the citizens of Carrhae, adhered, on the contrary, to the cause of Paganism, as late as the sixth century. ↩
According to Bardesanes (apud Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica) there were some Christians in Persia before the end of the second century. In the time of Constantine (see his epistle to Sapor, De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 13) they composed a flourishing church. Consult Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. I, p. 180, and the Bibliotheca orientalis of Giuseppe Assemani. ↩
Origen, Contra Celsum, l. VIII, p. 424. ↩
Minucius Felix, c. 8, with Wowerus’s notes. Celsus apud Origen, l. III, pp. 138, 142. Julian apud Cyril. l. VI, p. 206, edit. Spanheim. ↩
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica IV 3. Hieronymus, “Epistle 83.” ↩
The story is prettily told in Justin’s Dialogues. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. II, p. 384), who relates it after him, is sure that the old man was a disguised angel. ↩
Eusebius V 28. It may be hoped that none, except the heretics, gave occasion to the complaint of Celsus (apud Origen, l. II, p. 77) that the Christians were perpetually correcting and altering their Gospels.8844 ↩
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae X 97. Fuerunt alii similis amentiae, cives Romani.⁠ ⁠… Multi enim omnis aetatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexûs, etiam vocuntur in periculum et vocabuntur. ↩
Tertullian, Ad Scapulam. Yet even his rhetoric rises no higher than to claim a tenth part of Carthage. ↩
Cyprian, Epistolae 79. ↩
This incomplete enumeration ought to be increased by the names of several Pagans converted at the dawn of Christianity, and whose conversion weakens the reproach which the historian appears to support. Such are, the Proconsul Sergius Paulus, converted at Paphos (Acts 13:7⁠–⁠12); Dionysius, member of the Areopagus, converted with several others, at Athens (Acts 17:34); several persons at the court of Nero (Philippians 4:22); Erastus, receiver at Corinth (Romans 16:23); some Asiarchs (Acts 19:31). As to the philosophers, we may add Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Hegesippus, Melito, Miltiades, Pantaenus, Ammonius, etc., all distinguished for their genius and learning. —⁠G. ↩
Dr. Lardner, in his first and second volumes of Jewish and Christian testimonies, collects and illustrates those of Pliny the Younger, of Tacitus, of Galen, of Marcus Antoninus, and perhaps of Epictetus (for it is doubtful whether that philosopher means to speak of the Christians). The new sect is totally unnoticed by Seneca, the elder Pliny, and Plutarch. ↩
The emperors Hadrian, Antoninus, etc., read with astonishment the apologies of Justin Martyr, of Aristides, of Melito, etc. (See St. Hieronymus ad mag. oratio Orosius LVIII c. 13.) Eusebius says expressly that the cause of Christianity was defended before the senate, in a very elegant discourse, by Apollonius the Martyr. Πολλὰ λιπαρως ἰκετεύσαντος τοῦ δικαστοῦ, καὶ λόγον ἐπί τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς αἰτήσαντος, λογιωτάτην ὑπὲρ ἧς ἐμαρτύρει πίστεως ἐπὶ πάντων παρασχων άπολογίαν. —⁠G.

Gibbon, in his severer spirit of criticism, may have questioned the authority of Jerome and Eusebius. There are some difficulties about Apollonius, which Heinichen (note in loc. Eusebii) would solve, by supposing him to have been, as Jerome states, a senator. —⁠M. ↩
If the famous prophecy of the Seventy Weeks had been alleged to a Roman philosopher, would he not have replied in the words of Cicero, “Quae tandem ista auguratio est, annorum potius quam aut mensium aut dierum?” De divinatione II 30. Observe with what irreverence Lucian (in “Alexandro,” c. 13), and his friend Celsus apud Origen (l. VII, p. 327), express themselves concerning the Hebrew prophets. ↩
The Philosophers, who derided the more ancient predictions of the Sibyls, would easily have detected the Jewish and Christian forgeries, which have been so triumphantly quoted by the fathers, from Justin Martyr to Lactantius. When the Sibylline verses had performed their appointed task, they, like the system of the millennium, were quietly laid aside. The Christian Sybil had unluckily fixed the ruin of Rome for the year 195, AUC 948. ↩
The fathers, as they are drawn out in battle array by Dom Calmet (Dissertations sur l’Ecriture, tom. III, pp. 295⁠–⁠308), seem to cover the whole earth with darkness, in which they are followed by most of the moderns. ↩
Origen ad Matthew 27, and a few modern critics, Beza, Leclerc, Lardner, etc., are desirous of confining it to the land of Judea. ↩
The celebrated passage of Phlegon is now wisely abandoned. When Tertullian assures the Pagans that the mention of the prodigy is found in Arcanis (not Archivis) vestris (see his Apologeticus, c. 21), he probably appeals to the Sibylline verses, which relate it exactly in the words of the Gospel.8845 ↩
Seneca, De quaestionibus naturalibus, l. I 15, VI 1, VII 17. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. II. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae II 30. ↩
Virgil, Georgics I 466. Tibullus, l. I, “Elegy V” ver. 75. Ovid, Metamorphoses XV 782. Lucan, Pharsalia I 540. The last of these poets places this prodigy before the civil war. ↩
See a public epistle of Marc Antony in Josephus, Antiquities XIV 12. Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Caesar,” p. 471. Appian, De bello Civili, l. IV. Dion Cassius, l. XLV, p. 431. Julius Obsequens, c. 128. His little treatise is an abstract of Livy’s prodigies. ↩
The sixteenth chapter I cannot help considering as a very ingenious and specious, but very disgraceful extenuation of the cruelties perpetrated by the Roman magistrates against the Christians. It is written in the most contemptibly factious spirit of prejudice against the sufferers; it is unworthy of a philosopher and of a man of humanity. Let the narrative of Cyprian’s death be examined. He had to relate the murder of an innocent man of advanced age, and in a station deemed venerable by a considerable body of the provincials of Africa, put to death because he refused to sacrifice to Jupiter. Instead of pointing the indignation of posterity against such an atrocious act of tyranny, he dwells, with visible art, on the small circumstances of decorum and politeness which attended this murder, and which he relates with as much parade as if they were the most important particulars of the event.

Dr. William Robertson has been the subject of much blame for his real or supposed lenity towards the Spanish murderers and tyrants in America. That the sixteenth chapter of Mr. G. did not excite the same or greater disapprobation, is a proof of the unphilosophical and indeed fanatical animosity against Christianity, which was so prevalent during the latter part of the eighteenth century. —⁠Mackintosh: see The Life of Sir James Mackintosh I, pp. 244, 245 ↩
The history of the first age of Christianity is only found in the Acts of the Apostles, and in order to speak of the first persecutions experienced by the Christians, that book should naturally have been consulted; those persecutions, then limited to individuals and to a narrow sphere, interested only the persecuted, and have been related by them alone. Gibbon, making the persecutions ascend no higher than Nero, has entirely omitted those which preceded this epoch, and of which St. Luke has preserved the memory. The only way to justify this omission was to attack the authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles; for, if authentic, they must necessarily be consulted and quoted. Now, antiquity has left very few works of which the authenticity is so well established as that of the Acts of the Apostles. (See Lardner’s The Credibility of the Gospel History, part II.) It is, therefore, without sufficient reason that Gibbon has maintained silence concerning the narrative of St. Luke, and this omission is not without importance. —⁠G. ↩
In Cyrene, they massacred 220,000 Greeks; in Cyprus, 240,000; in Egypt, a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawn asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood, and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies. See Dion Cassius, l. LXVIII, p. 1145.8846 ↩
Without repeating the well-known narratives of Josephus, we may learn from Dion (l. LXIX, p. 1162), that in Hadrian’s war 580,000 Jews were cut off by the sword, besides an infinite number which perished by famine, by disease, and by fire. ↩
For the sect of the Zealots, see Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. I c. 17; for the characters of the Messiah, according to the Rabbis, l. V c. 11⁠–⁠13; for the actions of Barchochebas, l. VII c. 12. (History of the Jews III 115, etc.) —⁠M. ↩
It is to Modestinus, a Roman lawyer (l. VI regular) that we are indebted for a distinct knowledge of the Edict of Antoninus. See Casaubon ad Historia Augusta, p. 27. ↩
See Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. III c. 2, 3. The office of Patriarch was suppressed by Theodosius the Younger. ↩
We need only mention the Purim, or deliverance of the Jews from the rage of Haman, which, till the reign of Theodosius, was celebrated with insolent triumph and riotous intemperance. Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. VI c. 17, l. VIII c. 6. ↩
According to the false Josephus, Tsepho, the grandson of Esau, conducted into Italy the army of Eneas, king of Carthage. Another colony of Idumaeans, flying from the sword of David, took refuge in the dominions of Romulus. For these, or for other reasons of equal weight, the name of Edom was applied by the Jews to the Roman empire.8847 ↩
In all this there is doubtless much truth; yet does not the more important difference lie on the surface? The Christians made many converts, the Jews but few. Had the Jewish been equally a proselyting religion, would it not have encountered as violent persecution? —⁠M. ↩
From the arguments of Celsus, as they are represented and refuted by Origen (l. V, pp. 247⁠–⁠259), we may clearly discover the distinction that was made between the Jewish people and the Christian sect. See, in the Dialogue of Minucius Felix (c. 5, 6), a fair and not inelegant description of the popular sentiments, with regard to the desertion of the established worship. ↩
Cur nullas aras habent? Templa nulla? nulla nota simulacra!⁠ ⁠… Unde autem, vel quis ille, aut ubi, Deus unicus, solitarius, destitutus? Minucius Felix, c. 10. The Pagan interlocutor goes on to make a distinction in favor of the Jews, who had once a temple, altars, victims, etc. ↩
It is difficult (says Plato) to attain, and dangerous to publish, the knowledge of the true God. See the “Remarques sur la théologie des philosophes grecs,” in the Abbé d’Olivet’s French translation of Tully De natura Deorum, tom. I, p. 275. ↩
The author of the Philopatris perpetually treats the Christians as a company of dreaming enthusiasts, δαίμονίοι ἀιθέριοι ἀιθεροβατοῦντες ἀεροβατοῦντες, etc.; and in one place he manifestly alludes to the vision in which St. Paul was transported to the third heaven. In another place, Triephon, who personates a Christian, after deriding the gods of Paganism, proposes a mysterious oath.

Ὑψιμέδοντα θεὸν, μέγαν, ἅμβροτον, οὐρανίωνα,
Υιὸν πατρὸς, πνεῦμα ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
Ἕν ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ ἐξ ένὸς τρία.

Ἀριθμέειν με διδάσκεις (is the profane answer of Critias) καὶ ὄρκος ἡ ἀριθμητίκή οὐκ οἶδα γὰρ τι λέγεις, ἓν τρία, τρία ἓν. ↩
According to Justin Martyr (Apologia major, c. 70⁠–⁠85), the demon who had gained some imperfect knowledge of the prophecies, purposely contrived this resemblance, which might deter, though by different means, both the people and the philosophers from embracing the faith of Christ. ↩
In the first and second books of Origen, Celsus treats the birth and character of our Savior with the most impious contempt. The orator Libanius praises Porphyry and Julian for confuting the folly of a sect which styles a dead man of Palestine God, and the Son of God. Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica III 23. ↩
The emperor Trajan refused to incorporate a company of 150 firemen for the use of the city of Nicomedia. He disliked all associations. See Pliny the Younger, Epistulae X 42, 43. ↩
The proconsul Pliny the Younger had published a general edict against unlawful meetings. The prudence of the Christians suspended their Agapae; but it was impossible for them to omit the exercise of public worship. ↩
As the prophecies of the Antichrist, approaching conflagration, etc., provoked those Pagans whom they did not convert, they were mentioned with caution and reserve; and the Montanists were censured for disclosing too freely the dangerous secret. See Mosheim, 413. ↩
Neque enim dubitabam, quodcunque esset quod faterentur (such are the words of Pliny the Younger), pervicaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri. ↩
See Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, vol. I, p. 101, and Spanheim, Remarques sur les Caesars de Julien, p. 468, etc. ↩
See Justin Martyr, Apologia I 35, II 14. Athenagoras, in Legatio pro Christianis, c. 27. Tertullian, Apologeticus, c. 7⁠–⁠9. Minucius Felix, c. 9, 10, 30, 31. The last of these writers relates the accusation in the most elegant and circumstantial manner. The answer of Tertullian is the boldest and most vigorous. ↩
In the persecution of Lyons, some Gentile slaves were compelled, by the fear of tortures, to accuse their Christian master. The church of Lyons, writing to their brethren of Asia, treat the horrid charge with proper indignation and contempt. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica V 1. ↩
See Justin Martyr, Apologia I 35. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses I 24. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, l. III, p. 438. Eusebius IV 8. It would be tedious and disgusting to relate all that the succeeding writers have imagined, all that Epiphanius has received, and all that Tillemont has copied. M. de Beausobre (Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, l. IX c. 8, 9) has exposed, with great spirit, the disingenuous arts of Augustine and Pope Leo I. ↩
When Tertullian became a Montanist, he aspersed the morals of the church which he had so resolutely defended. “Sed majoris est Agape, quia per hanc adolescentes tui cum sororibus dormiunt. Appendices scilicet gulae lascivia et luxuria.” De Jejuniis, c. 17. The 35th canon of the council of Illiberis provides against the scandals which too often polluted the vigils of the church, and disgraced the Christian name in the eyes of unbelievers. ↩
Tertullian (Apologeticus, c. 2) expatiates on the fair and honorable testimony of Pliny, with much reason, and some declamation. ↩
In the various compilation of the Augustan History (a part of which was composed under the reign of Constantine), there are not six lines which relate to the Christians; nor has the diligence of Xiphilin discovered their name in the large history of Dion Cassius.8848 ↩
An obscure passage of Suetonius (in De vita Caesarum, “Claudius,” c. 25) may seem to offer a proof how strangely the Jews and Christians of Rome were confounded with each other. ↩
See, in the eighteenth and twenty-fifth chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, the behavior of Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, and of Festus, procurator of Judea. ↩
In the time of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, the glory of martyrdom was confined to St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. James. It was gradually bestowed on the rest of the apostles, by the more recent Greeks, who prudently selected for the theatre of their preaching and sufferings some remote country beyond the limits of the Roman empire. See Mosheim, p. 81; and Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. I part III. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XV 38⁠–⁠44. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Nero,” c. 38. Dion Cassius, l. LXII, p. 1014. Orosius VII 7. ↩
The price of wheat (probably of the modius), was reduced as low as terni Nummi; which would be equivalent to about fifteen shillings the English quarter. ↩
We may observe that the rumor is mentioned by Tacitus with a very becoming distrust and hesitation, whilst it is greedily transcribed by Suetonius, and solemnly confirmed by Dion. ↩
This testimony is alone sufficient to expose the anachronism of the Jews, who place the birth of Christ near a century sooner. (Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. V c. 14, 15.) We may learn from Josephus (Antiquitatus Judaicae XVIII 3) that the procuratorship of Pilate corresponded with the last ten years of Tiberius, AD 27⁠–⁠37. As to the particular time of the death of Christ, a very early tradition fixed it to the 25th of March, AD 29, under the consulship of the two Gemini. (Tertullian, Adversus judaeos, c. 8.) This date, which is adopted by Pagi, Cardinal Noris, and Leclerc, seems at least as probable as the vulgar era, which is placed (I know not from what conjectures) four years later. ↩
This single phrase, Repressa in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat, proves that the Christians had already attracted the attention of the government; and that Nero was not the first to persecute them. I am surprised that more stress has not been laid on the confirmation which the Acts of the Apostles derive from these words of Tacitus, Repressa in praesens, and rursus erumpebat. —⁠G.

I have been unwilling to suppress this note, but surely the expression of Tacitus refers to the expected extirpation of the religion by the death of its founder, Christ. —⁠M. ↩
Odio humani generis convicti. These words may either signify the hatred of mankind towards the Christians, or the hatred of the Christians towards mankind. I have preferred the latter sense, as the most agreeable to the style of Tacitus, and to the popular error, of which a precept of the gospel (see Luke 14:26) had been, perhaps, the innocent occasion. My interpretation is justified by the authority of Lipsius; of the Italian, the French, and the English translators of Tacitus; of Mosheim (p. 102), of Leclerc (Historia ecclesiastica, p. 427), of Dr. Lardner (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. I, p. 345), and of the Bishop of Gloucester (Divine Legation of Moses, vol. III, p. 38). But as the word convicti does not unite very happily with the rest of the sentence, James Gronovius has preferred the reading of conjuncti, which is authorized by the valuable MS. of Florence. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XV 44. ↩
Nardini, Roma antica, p. 487. Donatus, De Roma antiquâ, l. III, p. 449. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Nero,” c. 16. The epithet of malefica, which some sagacious commentators have translated magical, is considered by the more rational Mosheim as only synonymous to the exitiabilis of Tacitus. ↩
The passage concerning Jesus Christ, which was inserted into the text of Josephus between the time of Origen and that of Eusebius, may furnish an example of no vulgar forgery. The accomplishment of the prophecies, the virtues, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus are distinctly related. Josephus acknowledges that he was the Messiah, and hesitates whether he should call him a man. If any doubt can still remain concerning this celebrated passage, the reader may examine the pointed objections of Le Fevre (Havercamp, Josephus, tom. II, pp. 267⁠–⁠273), the labored answers of Daubuz (pp. 187⁠–⁠232), and the masterly reply (Bibliothèque ancienne et moderne, tom. VII, pp. 237⁠–⁠288) of an anonymous critic, whom I believe to have been the learned Abbé de Longuerue.8849 ↩
See the lives of Tacitus, by Lipsius and the Abbé de La Bléterie, Dictionnaire de Bayle à l’article “Tacite,” and Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. II, p. 386, edit. Ernesti. ↩
Principatum Divi Nervae, et imperium Trajani, uberiorem securioremque materiam senectuti seposui. Tacitus, Historiae I. ↩
See Tacitus, Annales II 61, IV 4.8850 ↩
The player’s name was Aliturus. Through the same channel, Josephus (De vitâ suâ, c. 2), about two years before, had obtained the pardon and release of some Jewish priests, who were prisoners at Rome. ↩
The learned Dr. Lardner (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. II, pp. 102, 103) has proved that the name of Galilaeans was a very ancient and, perhaps, the primitive appellation of the Christians. ↩
Josephus, Antiquitatus Judaicae XVIII 1, 2. Tillemont, Ruine des Juifs, p. 742. The sons of Judas were crucified in the time of Claudius. His grandson Eleazar, after Jerusalem was taken, defended a strong fortress with 960 of his most desperate followers. When the battering ram had made a breach, they turned their swords against their wives, their children, and at length against their own breasts. They died to the last man. ↩
This conjecture is entirely devoid, not merely of verisimilitude, but even of possibility. Tacitus could not be deceived in appropriating to the Christians of Rome the guilt and the sufferings which he might have attributed with far greater truth to the followers of Judas the Gaulonite; for the latter never went to Rome. Their revolt, their attempts, their opinions, their wars, their punishment, had no other theatre but Judea. (Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, t. I, p. 491.) Moreover, the name of Christians had long been given in Rome to the disciples of Jesus; and Tacitus affirms too positively, refers too distinctly to its etymology, to allow us to suspect any mistake on his part. —⁠G.

M. Guizot’s expressions are not in the least too strong against this strange imagination of Gibbon; it may be doubted whether the followers of Judas were known as a sect under the name of Galilaeans. —⁠M. ↩
See Dodwell, De paucitatate martyrum, l. XIII. The Spanish Inscription in Gruter, p. 238, No. 9, is a manifest and acknowledged forgery, contrived by that noted imposter, Cyriacus of Ancona, to flatter the pride and prejudices of the Spaniards. See Jean de Ferreras, Histoire générale d’Espagne, tom. I, p. 192. ↩
M. Guizot, on the authority of Sulpicius Severus, II 37, and of Orosius, VIII 5, inclines to the opinion of those who extend the persecution to the provinces. Mosheim rather leans to that side on this much disputed question (c. XXXV). Neander takes the view of Gibbon, which is in general that of the most learned writers. There is indeed no evidence, which I can discover, of its reaching the provinces; and the apparent security, at least as regards his life, with which St. Paul pursued his travels during this period, affords at least a strong inference against a rigid and general inquisition against the Christians in other parts of the empire. —⁠M. ↩
The capitol was burnt during the civil war between Vitellius and Vespasian, the 19th of December, AD 69. On the 10th of August, AD 70, the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the hands of the Jews themselves, rather than by those of the Romans. ↩
The new capitol was dedicated by Domitian. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Domitian,” c. 5. Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Poplicola,” tom. I, p. 230, edit. Bryant. The gilding alone cost 12,000 talents (above two millions and a half). It was the opinion of Martial (l. IX Epigram 4) that, if the emperor had called in his debts, Jupiter himself, even though he had made a general auction of Olympus, would have been unable to pay two shillings in the pound. ↩
With regard to the tribute, see Dion Cassius, l. LXVI, p. 1082, with Reimarus’s notes. Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum, tom. II, p. 571, and Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. VII c. 2. ↩
Suetonius (in De vita Caesarum, “Domitian,” c. 12) had seen an old man of ninety publicly examined before the procurator’s tribunal. This is what Martial calls, Mentula tributis damnata. ↩
This appellation was at first understood in the most obvious sense, and it was supposed that the brothers of Jesus were the lawful issue of Joseph and Mary. A devout respect for the virginity of the mother of God suggested to the Gnostics, and afterwards to the orthodox Greeks, the expedient of bestowing a second wife on Joseph. The Latins (from the time of Jerome) improved on that hint, asserted the perpetual celibacy of Joseph, and justified by many similar examples the new interpretation that Jude, as well as Simon and James, who were styled the brothers of Jesus Christ, were only his first cousins. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. I part III, and Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, l. II c. 2. ↩
Thirty-nine πλεθρα, squares of a hundred feet each, which, if strictly computed, would scarcely amount to nine acres. But the probability of circumstances, the practice of other Greek writers, and the authority of M. de Valois, incline me to believe that the πλεθρον is used to express the Roman jugerum. ↩
Eusebius III 20. The story is taken from Hegesippus. ↩
See the death and character of Sabinus in Tacitus (Historiae III 74, 75). Sabinus was the elder brother, and, till the accession of Vespasian, had been considered as the principal support of the Flavian family ↩
Flavium Clementem patruelem suum contemptissimoe inertaei⁠ ⁠… ex tenuissimâ suspicione interemit. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Domitian,” c. 15. ↩
The isle of Pandataria, according to Dion. Bruttius Praesens (apud Eusebius III 18) banishes her to that of Pontia, which was not far distant from the other. That difference, and a mistake, either of Eusebius or of his transcribers, have given occasion to suppose two Domitillas, the wife and the niece of Clemens. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. II, p. 224. ↩
Dion, l. LXVII, p. 1112. If the Bruttius Praesens, from whom it is probable that he collected this account, was the correspondent of Pliny the Younger (Epistulae VII 3), we may consider him as a contemporary writer. ↩
This is an uncandid sarcasm. There is nothing to connect Stephen with the religion of Domitilla. He was a knave detected in the malversation of money⁠—interceptarum pecuniaram reus. —⁠M. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Domitian,” c. 17. Philostratus in Vita Apollonii, l. VIII. ↩
Dion, l. LXVIII, p. 1118. Pliny the Younger, Epistulae IV 22. ↩
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae X 97. The learned Mosheim expresses himself (pp. 147, 232) with the highest approbation of Pliny’s moderate and candid temper. Notwithstanding Dr. Lardner’s suspicions (see Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. II, p. 46), I am unable to discover any bigotry in his language or proceedings.8851 ↩
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae V 8. He pleaded his first cause AD 81; the year after the famous eruptions of Mount Vesuvius, in which his uncle lost his life. ↩
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae X 98. Tertullian (Apologeticus, c. 5) considers this rescript as a relaxation of the ancient penal laws, “quas Trajanus exparte frustratus est”; and yet Tertullian, in another part of his Apology, exposes the inconsistency of prohibiting inquiries and enjoining punishments. ↩
Eusebius (Historia ecclesiastica, l. IV c. 9) has preserved the edict of Hadrian. He has likewise (c. 13) given us one still more favorable under the name of Antoninus; the authenticity of which is not so universally allowed. The second Apology of Justin contains some curious particulars relative to the accusations of Christians.8852 ↩
The enactment of this law affords strong presumption that accusations of the “crime of Christianity,” were by no means so uncommon, nor received with so much mistrust and caution by the ruling authorities, as Gibbon would insinuate. —⁠M. ↩
See Tertullian (Apologeticus, c. 40). The acts of the martyrdom of Polycarp exhibit a lively picture of these tumults, which were usually fomented by the malice of the Jews. ↩
These regulations are inserted in the above-mentioned document of Hadrian and Pius. See the “Apology” of Melito (apud Eusebius, l. IV 26). ↩
See the rescript of Trajan, and the conduct of Pliny the Younger. The most authentic acts of the martyrs abound in these exhortations.8853 ↩
In particular, see Tertullian (Apologeticus, c. 2, 3), and Lactantius (Institutiones divinae V 9). Their reasonings are almost the same; but we may discover that one of these apologists had been a lawyer, and the other a rhetorician. ↩
The more ancient as well as authentic memorials of the church relate many examples of the fact (of these severe trials), which there is nothing to contradict. Tertullian, among others, says, Nam proximè ad lenonem damnando Christianam, potius quam ad leonem, confessi estis labem pudicitiae apud nos atrociorem omni poenâ et omni morte reputari, Apologeticus, c. L. Eusebius likewise says, “Other virgins, dragged to brothels, have lost their life rather than defile their virtue.” Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica VIII 14. —⁠G.

The miraculous interpositions were the offspring of the coarse imaginations of the monks. —⁠M. ↩
See two instances of this kind of torture in the Acta primorum martyrum sincera, published by Ruinart, pp. 160, 399. Jerome, in his Life of St. Paul the First Hermit, tells a strange story of a young man who was chained naked on a bed of flowers, and assaulted by a beautiful and wanton courtesan. He quelled the rising temptation by biting off his tongue. ↩
The conversion of his wife provoked Claudius Herminianus, governor of Cappadocia, to treat the Christians with uncommon severity. Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, c. 3. ↩
Tertullian, in his epistle to the governor of Africa, mentions several remarkable instances of lenity and forbearance which had happened within his knowledge. ↩
Neque enim in universum aliquid quod quasi certam formam habeat, constitui potest; an expression of Trajan which gave a very great latitude to the governors of provinces.8854 ↩
In metalla damnamur, in insulas relegamur. Tertullian, Apologeticus, c. 12. The mines of Numidia contained nine bishops, with a proportionable number of their clergy and people, to whom Cyprian addressed a pious epistle of praise and comfort. See Cyprian, Epistolae 76, 77. ↩
Though we cannot receive with entire confidence either the epistles or the acts of Ignatius (they may be found in the second volume of the Apostolic Fathers), yet we may quote that bishop of Antioch as one of these exemplary martyrs. He was sent in chains to Rome as a public spectacle; and when he arrived at Troas, he received the pleasing intelligence that the persecution of Antioch was already at an end.8855 ↩
Among the martyrs of Lyons (Eusebius, l. V c. 1), the slave Blandina was distinguished by more exquisite tortures. Of the five martyrs so much celebrated in the acts of Felicitas and Perpetua, two were of a servile, and two others of a very mean, condition. ↩
Origen, Contra Celsum, l. III, p. 116. His words deserve to be transcribed. “Ὀλίγοι κατὰ καιρούς, καὶ σφόδρα εὐαρίξμητοι ὑπὲρ τῶν Χριστιανῶν θεοσεβείας τεθνήκασι.”8856 ↩
If we recollect that all the Plebeians of Rome were not Christians, and that all the Christians were not saints and martyrs, we may judge with how much safety religious honors can be ascribed to bones or urns indiscriminately taken from the public burial-place. After ten centuries of a very free and open trade, some suspicions have arisen among the more learned Catholics. They now require, as a proof of sanctity and martyrdom, the letters B.M., a vial full of red liquor supposed to be blood, or the figure of a palm tree. But the two former signs are of little weight, and with regard to the last, it is observed by the critics:
1. That the figure, as it is called, of a palm is perhaps a cypress, and perhaps only a stop, the flourish of a comma, used in the monumental inscriptions.
2. That the palm was the symbol of victory among the Pagans.
3. That among the Christians it served as the emblem, not only of martyrdom, but in general of a joyful resurrection.
See the epistle of Père Jean Mabillon on the worship of unknown saints, and Muratori, Dissertazioni sopra le antichità Italiane, Dissertazion LVIII. ↩
As a specimen of these legends, we may be satisfied with 10,000 Christian soldiers crucified in one day, either by Trajan or Hadrian on Mount Ararat. See Baronius ad Martyrologium Romanum; Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. II part II, p. 438; and Geddes’s Miscellaneous Tracts, vol. II, p. 203. The abbreviation of Mil., which may signify either soldiers or thousands, is said to have occasioned some extraordinary mistakes. ↩
Dionysius apud Eusebius, l. VI c. 41. One of the seventeen was likewise accused of robbery.8857 ↩
The letters of Cyprian exhibit a very curious and original picture both of the man and of the times. See likewise the two Lives of Cyprian, composed with equal accuracy, though with very different views; the one by Leclerc (Bibliothèque universelle, tom. XII, pp. 208⁠–⁠378), the other by Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IV part I, pp. 76⁠–⁠459. ↩
See the polite but severe epistle of the clergy of Rome to the bishop of Carthage (Cyprian, Epistolae 8, 9). Pontius labors with the greatest care and diligence to justify his master against the general censure. ↩
In particular those of Dionysius of Alexandria and Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neo-Caesarea. See Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. VI c. 40; and Mémoires de Tillemont, tom. IV part II, p. 685. ↩
See Cyprian, Epistolae 16, and his life by Pontius. ↩
We have an original life of Cyprian by the deacon Pontius, the companion of his exile and the spectator of his death; and we likewise possess the ancient proconsular acts of his martyrdom. These two relations are consistent with each other and with probability; and, what is somewhat remarkable, they are both unsullied by any miraculous circumstances. ↩
It should seem that these were circular orders, sent at the same time to all the governors. Dionysius (apud Eusebius, l. VII c. 11) relates the history of his own banishment from Alexandria almost in the same manner. But, as he escaped and survived the persecution, we must account him either more or less fortunate than Cyprian. ↩
See Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae V 3. Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, part III, p. 96. Shaw’s Travels, p. 90; and for the adjacent country (which is terminated by Cape Bona, or the promontory of Mercury), L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. II, p. 494. There are the remains of an aqueduct near Curubis, or Curbis, at present altered into Gurbes; and Dr. Shaw read an inscription, which styles that city Colonia Fulvia. The deacon Pontius (in Vita Cyprianus, c. 12) calls it “Apricum et competentem locum, hospitium pro voluntate secretum, et quicquid apponi eis ante promissum est, qui regnum et justitiam Dei quaerunt.” ↩
See Cyprian, Epistolae 77, edit. Fell. ↩
Upon his conversion, he had sold those gardens for the benefit of the poor. The indulgence of God (most probably the liberality of some Christian friend) restored them to Cyprian. See Pontius, c. 15. ↩
When Cyprian, a twelvemonth before, was sent into exile, he dreamt that he should be put to death the next day. The event made it necessary to explain that word as signifying a year. Pontius, c. 12. ↩
This was not, as it appears, the motive which induced St. Cyprian to conceal himself for a short time; he was threatened to be carried to Utica; he preferred remaining at Carthage, in order to suffer martyrdom in the midst of his flock, and in order that his death might conduce to the edification of those whom he had guided during life. Such, at least, is his own explanation of his conduct in one of his letters: Cum perlatum ad nos fuisset, fratres carissimi, frumentarios esse missos qui me Uticam perducerent, et consilio carissimorum persuasum est, ut de hortis nostris interim secederemus, justâ interveniente causâ, consensi; eo quod congruat episcopum in eâ civitate, in quâ Ecclesiae dominicae praeest, illic Dominum confiteri et plebem universam praepositi praesentis confessione clarificari. Epistolae 83. —⁠G. ↩
Pontius (c. 15) acknowledges that Cyprian, with whom he supped, passed the night custodia delicata. The bishop exercised a last and very proper act of jurisdiction, by directing that the younger females, who watched in the streets, should be removed from the dangers and temptations of a nocturnal crowd. Acta Preconsularia, c. 2. ↩
See the original sentence in the Acts, c. 4; and in Pontius, c. 17. The latter expresses it in a more rhetorical manner. ↩
There is nothing in the Life of St. Cyprian, by Pontius, nor in the ancient manuscripts, which can make us suppose that the presbyters and deacons, in their clerical character, and known to be such, had the permission to attend their holy bishop. Setting aside all religious considerations, it is impossible not to be surprised at the kind of complaisance with which the historian here insists, in favor of the persecutors, on some mitigating circumstances allowed at the death of a man whose only crime was maintaining his own opinions with frankness and courage. —⁠G. ↩
Pontius, c. 19. M. de Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IV part I, p. 450, note 50) is not pleased with so positive an exclusion of any former martyr of the episcopal rank.8858 ↩
Whatever opinion we may entertain of the character or principles of Thomas Becket, we must acknowledge that he suffered death with a constancy not unworthy of the primitive martyrs. See Lord George Lyttelton’s History of the Life of Henry II, vol. II, p. 592, etc. ↩
See in particular the treatise of Cyprian, “De Lapsis,” pp. 87⁠–⁠98, edit. Fell. The learning of Dodwell (Dissertationes Cyprianicae XII, XIII), and the ingenuity of Middleton (Free Inquiry, p. 162, etc.), have left scarcely anything to add concerning the merit, the honors, and the motives of the martyrs. ↩
Cyprian, Epistolae 5⁠–⁠7, 22, 24;8859 and De ecclesiae Catholicae unitate. The number of pretended martyrs has been very much multiplied by the custom which was introduced of bestowing that honorable name on confessors. ↩
Certatim gloriosa in certamina ruebatur; multoque avidius tum martyriâ gloriosis mortibus quaerebantur, quam nunc Episcopatus pravis ambitionibus appetuntur. Sulpicius Severus, l. II. He might have omitted the word nunc. ↩
See “Epistle ad Romanos,” c. 4, 5, apud Patres apostoli, tom. II, p. 27. It suited the purpose of Bishop Pearson (see Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, part II c. 9) to justify, by a profusion of examples and authorities, the sentiments of Ignatius. ↩
The story of Polyeuctes, on which Pierre Corneille has founded a very beautiful tragedy, is one of the most celebrated, though not perhaps the most authentic, instances of this excessive zeal. We should observe that the 60th canon of the council of Illiberis refuses the title of martyrs to those who exposed themselves to death by publicly destroying the idols. ↩
See Epictetus, l. IV c. 7 (though there is some doubt whether he alludes to the Christians). Marcus Antoninus, De rebus Suis, l. XI c. 3. Lucian in “De Morte Peregrini.” ↩
Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, c. 5. The learned are divided between three persons of the same name, who were all proconsuls of Asia. I am inclined to ascribe this story to Antoninus Pius, who was afterwards emperor; and who may have governed Asia under the reign of Trajan. ↩
Mosheim, De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, p. 235. ↩
See the “Epistle of the Church of Smyrna,” apud Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. IV c. 158860 ↩
In the second apology of Justin, there is a particular and very curious instance of this legal delay. The same indulgence was granted to accused Christians, in the persecution of Decius: and Cyprian (“De Lapsis”) expressly mentions the “Dies negantibus praestitutus.”8861 ↩
Tertullian considers flight from persecution as an imperfect, but very criminal apostasy, as an impious attempt to elude the will of God, etc., etc. He has written a treatise on this subject (see pp. 536⁠–⁠544, edit. Nicolas Rigalt), which is filled with the wildest fanaticism and the most incoherent declamation. It is, however, somewhat remarkable that Tertullian did not suffer martyrdom himself. ↩
The libellatici, who are chiefly known by the writings of Cyprian, are described, with the utmost precision, in the copious commentary of Mosheim, pp. 483⁠–⁠489. ↩
The penance was not so slight, for it was exactly the same with that of apostates who had sacrificed to idols; it lasted several years. See Claude Fleury, Justification des discours et de l’histoire ecclésiastique V ii, p. 171. —⁠G. ↩
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae X 97. Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusebius, l. VI c. 41. Ad prima statim verba minantis inimici maximus fratrum numerus fidem suam prodidit: nec prostratus est persecutionis impetu, sed voluntario lapsu seipsum prostravit. Cyprianus Opera, p. 89. Among these deserters were many priests, and even bishops. ↩
It was on this occasion that Cyprian wrote his treatise “De Lapsis,” and many of his epistles. The controversy concerning the treatment of penitent apostates does not occur among the Christians of the preceding century. Shall we ascribe this to the superiority of their faith and courage, or to our less intimate knowledge of their history? ↩
Pliny the Younger says that the greater part of the Christians persisted in avowing themselves to be so; the reason for his consulting Trajan was the periclitantium numerus. Eusebius (l. VI c. 41) does not permit us to doubt that the number of those who renounced their faith was infinitely below the number of those who boldly confessed it. The prefect, he says, and his assessors present at the council, were alarmed at seeing the crowd of Christians; the judges themselves trembled. Lastly, St. Cyprian informs us that the greater part of those who had appeared weak brethren in the persecution of Decius, signalized their courage in that of Gallius. Steterunt fortes, et ipso dolore poenitentiae facti ad praelium fortiores. Epistulae LX, p. 142. —⁠G. ↩
See Mosheim, p. 97. Sulpicius Severus was the first author of this computation; though he seemed desirous of reserving the tenth and greatest persecution for the coming of the Antichrist. ↩
The testimony given by Pontius Pilate is first mentioned by Justin. The successive improvements which the story acquired (as it has passed through the hands of Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Orosius, Gregory of Tours, and the authors of the several editions of the acts of Pilate) are very fairly stated by Dom Calmet, Dissertations sur l’Ecriture, tom. III, p. 651, etc. ↩
On this miracle, as it is commonly called, of the thundering legion, see the admirable criticism of Mr. Moyle, in his Works, vol. II, pp. 81⁠–⁠390. ↩
Gibbon, with this phrase, and that below, which admits the injustice of Marcus, has dexterously glossed over one of the most remarkable facts in the early Christian history, that the reign of the wisest and most humane of the heathen emperors was the most fatal to the Christians. Most writers have ascribed the persecutions under Marcus to the latent bigotry of his character; Mosheim, to the influence of the philosophic party; but the fact is admitted by all. A late writer (Mr. George Waddington, History of the Church, p. 47) has not scrupled to assert that “this prince polluted every year of a long reign with innocent blood”; but the causes as well as the date of the persecutions authorized or permitted by Marcus are equally uncertain.

Of the Asiatic edict recorded by Melito, the date is unknown, nor is it quite clear that it was an Imperial edict. If it was the act under which Polycarp suffered, his martyrdom is placed by Ruinart in the sixth, by Mosheim in the ninth, year of the reign of Marcus. The martyrs of Vienne and Lyons are assigned by Dodwell to the seventh, by most writers to the seventeenth. In fact, the commencement of the persecutions of the Christians appears to synchronize exactly with the period of the breaking out of the Marcomannic war, which seems to have alarmed the whole empire and the emperor himself into a paroxysm of returning piety to their gods, of which the Christians were the victims. See Julius Capitolinus, Scriptores historiae Augustae, p. 181, edit. 1661. It is remarkable that Tertullian (Apologeticus, c. V) distinctly asserts that Verus (Marcus Aurelius) issued no edicts against the Christians, and almost positively exempts him from the charge of persecution. —⁠M.

This remarkable synchronism, which explains the persecutions under M. Aurelius, is shown at length in Milman’s History of Christianity, book II c. 7. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Dion Cassius, or rather his abbreviator Xiphilin, l. LXXII, p. 1206. Mr. Moyle (p. 266) has explained the condition of the church under the reign of Commodus. ↩
The Jews and Christians contest the honor of having furnished a nurse to the fratricide son of Severus Caracalla. History of the Jews III 158. —⁠M. ↩
Compare the life of Caracalla in the Augustan History with the epistle of Tertullian to Scapula. Dr. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, p. 5, etc.) considers the cure of Severus by the means of holy oil, with a strong desire to convert it into a miracle. ↩
Tertullian, De fugâ in persecutione, c. 13. The present was made during the feast of the Saturnalia; and it is a matter of serious concern to Tertullian that the faithful should be confounded with the most infamous professions which purchased the connivance of the government. ↩
Eusebius, l. V c. 23, 24. Mosheim, pp. 435⁠–⁠447. ↩
Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam de Christianis sanxit. Historia Augusta, p. 70. ↩
Sulpicius Severus, l. II, p. 384. This computation (allowing for a single exception) is confirmed by the history of Eusebius, and by the writings of Cyprian. ↩
The antiquity of Christian churches is discussed by Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. III part II, pp. 68⁠–⁠72), and by Mr. Moyle (vol. I, pp. 378⁠–⁠398). The former refers the first construction of them to the peace of Alexander Severus; the latter, to the peace of Gallienus. ↩
See the Augustan History, p. 130. The emperor Alexander adopted their method of publicly proposing the names of those persons who were candidates for ordination. It is true that the honor of this practice is likewise attributed to the Jews. ↩
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. VI c. 21. Hieronymus, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, c. 54. Mamaea was styled a holy and pious woman, both by the Christians and the Pagans. From the former, therefore, it was impossible that she should deserve that honorable epithet. ↩
See the Augustan History, p. 123. Mosheim (p. 465) seems to refine too much on the domestic religion of Alexander. His design of building a public temple to Christ (Historia Augusta, p. 129), and the objection which was suggested either to him, or in similar circumstances to Hadrian, appear to have no other foundation than an improbable report, invented by the Christians, and credulously adopted by an historian of the age of Constantine. ↩
Eusebius, l. VI c. 28. It may be presumed that the success of the Christians had exasperated the increasing bigotry of the Pagans. Dion Cassius, who composed his history under the former reign, had most probably intended for the use of his master those counsels of persecution which he ascribes to a better age and to the favorite of Augustus. Concerning this oration of Maecenas, or rather of Dion,8862 I may refer to my own unbiased opinion (this note), and to the Abbé de La Bléterie (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXIV, p. 303, tom. XXV, p. 432). ↩
It is with good reason that this massacre has been called a persecution, for it lasted during the whole reign of Maximin, as may be seen in Eusebius (l. VI c. 28). Rufinus expressly confirms it: Tribus annis a Maximino persecutione commotâ, in quibus finem et persecutionis fecit et vitae. Historia ecclesiastica, l. VI c. 19. —⁠G. ↩
Orosius, l. VII c. 19, mentions Origen as the object of Maximin’s resentment; and Firmilianus, a Cappadocian bishop of that age, gives a just and confined idea of this persecution (apud Cyprian, Epistolae 75). ↩
The mention of those princes who were publicly supposed to be Christians, as we find it in an epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria (apud Eusebius, l. VII c. 10), evidently alludes to Philip and his family, and forms a contemporary evidence that such a report had prevailed; but the Egyptian bishop, who lived at an humble distance from the court of Rome, expresses himself with a becoming diffidence concerning the truth of the fact. The epistles of Origen (which were extant in the time of Eusebius, see l. VI c. 36) would most probably decide this curious, rather than important, question. ↩
Eusebius, l. VI c. 34. The story, as is usual, has been embellished by succeeding writers, and is confuted, with much superfluous learning, by Frederick Spanheim (Opera Varia, tom. II, p. 400, etc.). ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 3, 4. After celebrating the felicity and increase of the church, under a long succession of good princes, he adds, “Extitit post annos plurimos, execrabile animal, Decius, qui vexaret Ecclesiam.” ↩
Eusebius, l. VI c. 39. Cyprian, Epistolae 55. The see of Rome remained vacant from the martyrdom of Fabianus, the 20th of January, AD 250, till the election of Cornelius, the 4th of June, AD 251. Decius had probably left Rome, since he was killed before the end of that year. ↩
Eusebius, l. VII c. 10. Mosheim (p. 548) has very clearly shown that the prefect Macrianus and the Egyptian Magus are one and the same person. ↩
Eusebius (l. VII c. 13) gives us a Greek version of this Latin edict, which seems to have been very concise. By another edict he directed that the Coemeteria should be restored to the Christians. ↩
Eusebius, l. VII c. 30. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 6. Hieronymus, in Chronicon, p. 177. Orosius, l. VII c. 23. Their language is in general so ambiguous and incorrect that we are at a loss to determine how far Aurelian had carried his intentions before he was assassinated. Most of the moderns (except Dodwell, Dissertationes Cyprianicae XI 64) have seized the occasion of gaining a few extraordinary martyrs.8863 ↩
Paul was better pleased with the title of “Ducenarius,” than with that of bishop. The Ducenarius was an Imperial procurator, so called from his salary of two hundred Sestertia, or £1,600 a year. (See Salmasius ad Historia Augusta, p. 124.) Some critics suppose that the bishop of Antioch had actually obtained such an office from Zenobia, while others consider it only as a figurative expression of his pomp and insolence. ↩
Simony was not unknown in those times; and the clergy sometimes bought what they intended to sell. It appears that the bishopric of Carthage was purchased by a wealthy matron, named Lucilla, for her servant Majorinus. The price was 400 folles. (De schismate donatistarum aliaque huc pertinentia vetera monumenta ad calcem Optati, p. 263.) Every follis contained 125 pieces of silver, and the whole sum may be computed at about £2,400. ↩
If we are desirous of extenuating the vices of Paul, we must suspect the assembled bishops of the East of publishing the most malicious calumnies in circular epistles addressed to all the churches of the Empire (apud Eusebius, l. VII c. 30). ↩
It appears, nevertheless, that the vices and immoralities of Paul of Samosata had much weight in the sentence pronounced against him by the bishops. The object of the letter, addressed by the synod to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, was to inform them of the change in the faith of Paul, the altercations and discussions to which it had given rise, as well as of his morals and the whole of his conduct. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. VII c. XXX. —⁠G. ↩
His heresy (like those of Noetus and Sabellius, in the same century) tended to confound the mysterious distinction of the divine persons. See Mosheim, p. 702, etc. ↩
“Her favorite,” (Zenobia’s) “Paul of Samosata, seems to have entertained some views of attempting a union between Judaism and Christianity; both parties rejected the unnatural alliance.” History of the Jews III 175, and Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten IV 167. The protection of the severe Zenobia is the only circumstance which may raise a doubt of the notorious immorality of Paul. —⁠M. ↩
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. VII c. 30. We are entirely indebted to him for the curious story of Paul of Samosata. ↩
The Era of Martyrs, which is still in use among the Copts and the Abyssinians, must be reckoned from the 29th of August, AD 284; as the beginning of the Egyptian year was nineteen days earlier than the real accession of Diocletian. See Dissertation Preliminaire à L’Art de vérifier les dates.8864 ↩
The expression of Lactantius (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 15), “sacrificio pollui coegit,” implies their antecedent conversion to the faith, but does not seem to justify the assertion of Mosheim (p. 912) that they had been privately baptized. ↩
M. de Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. V part I, pp. 11, 12) has quoted from the Spicilegium of Dom Luc d’Archery a very curious instruction which Bishop Theonas composed for the use of Lucian. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 10. ↩
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. VIII c. 1. The reader who consults the original will not accuse me of heightening the picture. Eusebius was about sixteen years of age at the accession of the emperor Diocletian. ↩
We might quote, among a great number of instances, the mysterious worship of Mithras,8865 and the Taurobolia; the latter of which became fashionable in the time of the Antonines (see a dissertation of M. de Boze, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. II, p. 443). The romance of Apuleius is as full of devotion as of satire. ↩
The impostor Alexander very strongly recommended the oracle of Trophonius at Mallos, and those of Apollo at Claros and Miletus (Lucian, tom. II, p. 236, edit. Reitz). The last of these, whose singular history would furnish a very curious episode, was consulted by Diocletian before he published his edicts of persecution (Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 11). ↩
Besides the ancient stories of Pythagoras and Aristeas, the cures performed at the shrine of Aesculapius and the fables related of Apollonius of Tyana were frequently opposed to the miracles of Christ; though I agree with Dr. Lardner (see Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. III, pp. 253, 352) that, when Philostratus composed the Life of Apollonius, he had no such intention. ↩
It is seriously to be lamented that the Christian fathers, by acknowledging the supernatural, or, as they deem it, the infernal part of Paganism, destroy with their own hands the great advantage which we might otherwise derive from the liberal concessions of our adversaries. ↩
Julian (p. 301, edit. Spanheim) expresses a pious joy that the providence of the gods had extinguished the impious sects, and for the most part destroyed the books of the Pyrrhonians and Epicuraeans, which had been very numerous, since Epicurus himself composed no less than 300 volumes. See Diogenes Laertius, l. X c. 26. ↩
Cumque alios audiam mussitare indignanter, et dicere opportere statui per Senatum, aboleantur ut haec scripta, quibus Christiana Religio comprobetur, et vetustatis opprimatur auctoritas. Arnobius of Sicca, Adversus gentes, l. III, pp. 103, 104. He adds very properly, Erroris convincite Ciceronem⁠ ⁠… nam intercipere scripta, et publicatam velle submergere lectionem, non est Deum defendere sed veritatis testificationem timere. ↩
Lactantius (Institutiones divinae, l. V c. 2, 3) gives a very clear and spirited account of two of these philosophic adversaries of the faith. The large treatise of Porphyry against the Christians consisted of thirty books, and was composed in Sicily about the year 270. ↩
See Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica, l. I c. 9, and Codex Justinianus, l. I tit. I leg. 3. ↩
Eusebius, l. VIII c. 4, c. 17. He limits the number of military martyrs, by a remarkable expression (σπανίως τούτων εῖς που καὶ δεύτερος), of which neither his Latin nor French translator have rendered the energy. Notwithstanding the authority of Eusebius, and the silence of Lactantius, Ambrose, Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., it has been long believed that the Thebaean legion, consisting of 6,000 Christians, suffered martyrdom, by the order of Maximian, in the valley of the Pennine Alps. The story was first published about the middle of the fifth century by Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, who received it from certain persons, who received it from Isaac, bishop of Geneva, who is said to have received it from Theodore, bishop of Octodurum. The abbey of St. Maurice still subsists, a rich monument of the credulity of Sigismund, king of Burgundy. See an excellent Dissertation in the thirty-sixth volume of the Bibliothèque Raisonnée, pp. 427⁠–⁠454. ↩
M. Guizot criticizes Gibbon’s account of this incident. He supposes that Maximilian was not “produced by his father as a recruit,” but was obliged to appear by the law, which compelled the sons of soldiers to serve at 21 years old. Was not this a law of Constantine? Neither does this circumstance appear in the acts. His father had clearly expected him to serve, as he had bought him a new dress for the occasion; yet he refused to force the conscience of his son, and when Maximilian was condemned to death, the father returned home in joy, blessing God for having bestowed upon him such a son. —⁠M. ↩
See the Acta sincera, p. 299. The accounts of his martyrdom, and that of Marcellus, bear every mark of truth and authenticity. ↩
Acta sincera, p. 302.8866 ↩
De mortibus persecutorum, c. 11. Lactantius (or whoever was the author of this little treatise) was, at that time, an inhabitant of Nicomedia; but it seems difficult to conceive how he could acquire so accurate a knowledge of what passed in the Imperial cabinet.8867 ↩
This permission was not extorted from Diocletian; he took the step of his own accord. Lactantius says, in truth, Nec tamen deflectere notuit (Diocletianus) praecipitis hominis insaniam; placuit ergo amicorum sententiam experiri. (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 11.) But this measure was in accordance with the artificial character of Diocletian, who wished to have the appearance of doing good by his own impulse, and evil by the impulse of others. Nam erat hujus malitiae, cum bonum quid facere decrevisset, sine consilio faciebat, ut ipse laudaretur. Cum autem malum, quoniam id reprehendendum sciebat, in consilium multos advocabat, ut alioram culpae adscriberetur quicquid ipse deliquerat. Lactantius, ibid. Eutropius says likewise, Miratus callidè fuit, sagax praeterea et admodum subtlis ingenio, et qui severitatem suam alienâ invidiâ vellet explere. Eutropius IX c. 26. —⁠G.

The manner in which the coarse and unfriendly pencil of the author of the treatise De mortibus persecutorum has drawn the character of Diocletian seems inconsistent with this profound subtlety. Many readers will perhaps agree with Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
The only circumstance which we can discover is the devotion and jealousy of the mother of Galerius. She is described by Lactantius as Deorum montium cultrix; mulier admodum superstitiosa. She had a great influence over her son, and was offended by the disregard of some of her Christian servants.8868 ↩
The worship and festival of the god Terminus are elegantly illustrated by M. de Boze, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. I, p. 50. ↩
In our only MS. of Lactantius, we read profectus; but reason, and the authority of all the critics, allow us, instead of that word, which destroys the sense of the passage, to substitute proefectus. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 12, gives a very lively picture of the destruction of the church. ↩
Mosheim (pp. 922⁠–⁠926), from many scattered passages of Lactantius and Eusebius, has collected a very just and accurate notion of this edict; though he sometimes deviates into conjecture and refinement. ↩
This wants proof. The edict of Diocletian was executed in all its rigor during the rest of his reign. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. VIII c. 13. —⁠G. ↩
Many ages afterwards, Edward I practiced, with great success, the same mode of persecution against the clergy of England. See Hume’s History of England, vol. II, p. 300, last quarto edition. ↩
Lactantius only calls him quidam, etsi non recte, magno tamer animo, etc., c. 12. Eusebius (l. VIII c. 5) adorns him with secular honors. Neither have condescended to mention his name; but the Greeks celebrate his memory under that of John. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. V part II, p. 320. ↩
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 13, 14. Potentissimi quondam Eunuchi necati, per quos Palatium et ipse constabat. Eusebius (l. VIII c. 6) mentions the cruel executions of the eunuchs, Gorgonius and Dorotheus, and of Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia; and both those writers describe, in a vague but tragical manner, the horrid scenes which were acted even in the Imperial presence. ↩
See Lactantius, Eusebius, and Constantine, ad “Coetum Sanctorum,” c. XXV. Eusebius confesses his ignorance of the cause of this fire.8869 ↩
Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. V part I, p. 43. ↩
See the Acta sincera of Ruinart, p. 353; those of Felix of Thibara, or Tibiur, appear much less corrupted than in the other editions, which afford a lively specimen of legendary license. ↩
See the first book of Optatus of Milevis against the Donatists. Paris, 1700, edit. Dupin. He lived under the reign of Valens. ↩
The ancient monuments, published at the end of Optatus, p. 261, etc., describe, in a very circumstantial manner, the proceedings of the governors in the destruction of churches. They made a minute inventory of the plate, etc., which they found in them. That of the church of Cirta, in Numidia, is still extant. It consisted of two chalices of gold, and six of silver; six urns, one kettle, seven lamps, all likewise of silver; besides a large quantity of brass utensils, and wearing apparel. ↩
Lactantius (Institutiones divinae V 11) confines the calamity to the conventiculum, with its congregation. Eusebius (VIII 11) extends it to a whole city,8870 and introduces something very like a regular siege. His ancient Latin translator, Rufinus, adds the important circumstance of the permission given to the inhabitants of retiring from thence. As Phrygia reached to the confines of Isauria, it is possible that the restless temper of those independent barbarians may have contributed to this misfortune. ↩
Eusebius, l. VIII c. 6. M. de Valois (with some probability) thinks that he has discovered the Syrian rebellion in an oration of Libanius; and that it was a rash attempt of the tribune Eugenius, who with only five hundred men seized Antioch, and might perhaps allure the Christians by the promise of religious toleration. From Eusebius (l. IX c. 8), as well as from Moses of Chorene (History of Armenia, l. II c. 77, etc.), it may be inferred that Christianity was already introduced into Armenia. ↩
He had already passed them in his first edict. It does not appear that resentment or fear had any share in the new persecutions: perhaps they originated in superstition, and a specious apparent respect for its ministers. The oracle of Apollo, consulted by Diocletian, gave no answer; and said that just men hindered it from speaking. Constantine, who assisted at the ceremony, affirms, with an oath, that when questioned about these men, the high priest named the Christians. “The Emperor eagerly seized on this answer; and drew against the innocent a sword, destined only to punish the guilty: he instantly issued edicts, written, if I may use the expression, with a poniard; and ordered the judges to employ all their skill to invent new modes of punishment.” Eusebius, De vita Constantini, l. II c. 54. —⁠G. ↩
See Mosheim, p. 938: the text of Eusebius very plainly shows that the governors, whose powers were enlarged, not restrained, by the new laws, could punish with death the most obstinate Christians, as an example to their brethren. ↩
Athanasius, p. 833, apud Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. V part I 90. ↩
Eusebius, l. VIII c. 13. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 15. Dodwell (Dissertationes Cyprianicae XI 75) represents them as inconsistent with each other. But the former evidently speaks of Constantius in the station of Caesar, and the latter of the same prince in the rank of Augustus. ↩
Datianus is mentioned, in Gruter’s Inscriptions, as having determined the limits between the territories of Pax Julia, and those of Ebora, both cities in the southern part of Lusitania. If we recollect the neighborhood of those places to Cape St. Vincent, we may suspect that the celebrated deacon and martyr of that name has been inaccurately assigned by Prudentius, etc., to Saragossa, or Valentia. See the pompous history of his sufferings, in the Mémoires de Tillemont, tom. V part II, pp. 58⁠–⁠85. Some critics are of opinion that the department of Constantius, as Caesar, did not include Spain, which still continued under the immediate jurisdiction of Maximian. ↩
Eusebius, l. VIII c. 11. Gruter, Inscriptiones, p. 1171, No. 18. Rufinus has mistaken the office of Adauctus, as well as the place of his martyrdom.8871 here in chapter 16. —⁠M. ↩
Eusebius, l. VIII c. 14. But as Maxentius was vanquished by Constantine, it suited the purpose of Lactantius to place his death among those of the persecutors.8872 ↩
The epitaph of Marcellus is to be found in Gruter, Inscriptiones, p. 1172, No. 3, and it contains all that we know of his history. Marcellinus and Marcellus, whose names follow in the list of popes, are supposed by many critics to be different persons; but the learned Abbé de Longuerue was convinced that they were one and the same.

Veridicus rector lapsis quia crimina flere
Praedixit miseris, fuit omnibus hostis amarus.
Hinc furor, hinc odium; sequitur discordia, lites,
Seditio, caedes; solvuntur foedera pacis.
Crimen ob alterius, Christum qui in pace negavit
Finibus expulsus patriae est feritate Tyranni.
Haec breviter Damasus voluit comperta referre:
Marcelli populus meritum cognoscere posset.

We may observe that Damasus was made Bishop of Rome, AD 366. ↩
Optatus contra Donatists, l. I c. 17, 18.8873 ↩
The Acts of the Passion of St. Boniface, which abound in miracles and declamation, are published by Ruinart (pp. 283⁠–⁠291), both in Greek and Latin, from the authority of very ancient manuscripts.8874 ↩
A little after this, Christianity was propagated to the north of the Roman provinces, among the tribes of Germany: a multitude of Christians, forced by the persecutions of the Emperors to take refuge among the Barbarians, were received with kindness. Eusebius, De vita Constantini II 53. Johann Semler, Selecta capita historiae ecclesiasticae, p. 115. The Goths owed their first knowledge of Christianity to a young girl, a prisoner of war; she continued in the midst of them her exercises of piety; she fasted, prayed, and praised God day and night. When she was asked what good would come of so much painful trouble she answered, “It is thus that Christ, the Son of God, is to be honored.” Sozomen II c. 6. —⁠G. ↩
During the four first centuries, there exist few traces of either bishops or bishoprics in the western Illyricum. It has been thought probable that the primate of Milan extended his jurisdiction over Sirmium, the capital of that great province. See the Geographia sacra of Charles Vialart de Saint-Paul, pp. 68⁠–⁠76, with the observations of Lucas Holstenius. ↩
The eighth book of Eusebius, as well as the supplement concerning the martyrs of Palestine, principally relate to the persecution of Galerius and Maximin. The general lamentations with which Lactantius opens the fifth book of his Divine Institutes allude to their cruelty. ↩
Eusebius (l. VIII c. 17) has given us a Greek version, and Lactantius (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 34) the Latin original, of this memorable edict. Neither of these writers seems to recollect how directly it contradicts whatever they have just affirmed of the remorse and repentance of Galerius.8875 ↩
Eusebius, l. IX c. 1. He inserts the epistle of the prefect. ↩
See Eusebius, l. VIII c. 14, l. IX c. 2⁠–⁠8. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 36. These writers agree in representing the arts of Maximin; but the former relates the execution of several martyrs, while the latter expressly affirms, occidi servos Dei vetuit.8876 ↩
A few days before his death, he published a very ample edict of toleration, in which he imputes all the severities which the Christians suffered to the judges and governors, who had misunderstood his intentions. See the edict of Eusebius, l. IX c. 10. ↩
Such is the fair deduction from two remarkable passages in Eusebius, l. VIII c. 2, and De martyribus Palestinae, c. 12. The prudence of the historian has exposed his own character to censure and suspicion. It was well known that he himself had been thrown into prison; and it was suggested that he had purchased his deliverance by some dishonorable compliance. The reproach was urged in his lifetime, and even in his presence, at the council of Tyre. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII part I, p. 67.8877 ↩
This sentence of Gibbon has given rise to several learned dissertations: Janus Möller, De fide Eusebii Caesareensis, etc., Havniae, 1813. Johann Traugott Leberecht Danz (Danzius), De Eusebio Caesarea histoire ecclesiastica Scriptore, ejusque tide historica recte aestimanda, Jenae, 1815. Christiani Kestner, Commentatio de Eusebii histoire ecclesiastica conditoris auctoritate et fide, etc. See also Henrik Reuterdahl, De fontibus historiae ecclesiastica Eusebianae, Londonini Gothorum, 1826. Gibbon’s inference may appear stronger than the text will warrant, yet it is difficult, after reading the passage, to dismiss all suspicion of partiality from the mind. —⁠M. ↩
The ancient, and perhaps authentic, account of the sufferings of Tarachus8878 and his companions (Acta primorum martyrum sincera, Ruinart, pp. 419⁠–⁠448), is filled with strong expressions of resentment and contempt, which could not fail of irritating the magistrate. The behavior of Aedesius to Hierocles, prefect of Egypt, was still more extraordinary. λόγοις τε καὶ ἔργοις τὸν δικαστὴν⁠ ⁠… περιβαλὼν. Eusebius, De martyribus Palestinae, c. 5.8879 ↩
Eusebius, De martyribus Palestinae, c. 13. ↩
Augustine, Collationis Carthaginiensis Dei III c. 13, apud Tillanant, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. V part I, p. 46. The controversy with the Donatists has reflected some, though perhaps a partial, light on the history of the African church. ↩
Perhaps there never was an instance of an author committing so deliberately the fault which he reprobates so strongly in others. What is the dexterous management of the more inartificial historians of Christianity, in exaggerating the numbers of the martyrs, compared to the unfair address with which Gibbon here quietly dismisses from the account all the horrible and excruciating tortures which fell short of death? The reader may refer to the twelth chapter (book VIII) of Eusebius for the description and for the scenes of these tortures. —⁠M. ↩
Eusebius, De martyribus Palestinae, c. 13. He closes his narration by assuring us that these were the martyrdoms inflicted in Palestine during the whole course of the persecution. The ninth chapter of his eighth book, which relates to the province of Thebais in Egypt, may seem to contradict our moderate computation; but it will only lead us to admire the artful management of the historian. Choosing for the scene of the most exquisite cruelty the most remote and sequestered country of the Roman empire, he relates that in Thebais from ten to one hundred persons had frequently suffered martyrdom in the same day. But when he proceeds to mention his own journey into Egypt, his language insensibly becomes more cautious and moderate. Instead of a large, but definite number, he speaks of many Christians (πλείους), and most artfully selects two ambiguous words (ἰστορήσαμεν and ὑπομείναντας),8880 which may signify either what he had seen or what he had heard; either the expectation or the execution of the punishment. Having thus provided a secure evasion, he commits the equivocal passage to his readers and translators; justly conceiving that their piety would induce them to prefer the most favorable sense. There was perhaps some malice in the remark of Theodorus Metochita, that all who, like Eusebius, had been conversant with the Egyptians, delighted in an obscure and intricate style. (See Valesius ad loc.) ↩
This calculation is made from the martyrs, of whom Eusebius speaks by name; but he recognizes a much greater number. Thus the ninth and tenth chapters of his work are entitled, “Of Antoninus, Zebinus, Germanus, and other martyrs; of Peter the monk, of Asclepius the Maroionite, and other martyrs.” [Are these vague contents of chapters very good authority? —⁠M.] Speaking of those who suffered under Diocletian, he says, “I will only relate the death of one of these, from which the reader may divine what befell the rest.” Historia ecclesiastica VIII 6. [This relates only to the martyrs in the royal household. —⁠M.] Dodwell had made, before Gibbon, this calculation and these objections; but Ruinart (Acta primorum martyrum sincera, p. 27, et seq.) has answered him in a peremptory manner: Nobis constat Eusebium in historiâ infinitos passim martyres admisisse, quamvis reverâ paucorum nomina recensuerit. Nec alium Eusebii interpretem quam ipsummet Eusebium proferimus, qui (l. III c. 33) ait sub Trajano plurimosa ex fidelibus martyrii certamen subiisse (l. V init.) sub Antonino et Vero innumerabiles prope martyres per universum orbem enituisse affirmat. (l. VI c. 1.) Severum persecutionem concitasse refert, in qua per omnes ubique locorum Ecclesias, ab athletis pro pietate certantibus, illustria confecta fuerunt martyria. Sic de Decii, sic de Valeriani, persecutionibus loquitur, quae an Dodwelli faveant conjectionibus judicet aequus lector. Even in the persecutions which Gibbon has represented as much more mild than that of Diocletian, the number of martyrs appears much greater than that to which he limits the martyrs of the latter; and this number is attested by incontestable monuments. I will quote but one example. We find among the letters of St. Cyprian one from Lucianus to Celerinus, written from the depth of a prison, in which Lucianus names seventeen of his brethren dead, some in the quarries, some in the midst of tortures, some of starvation in prison. Jussi sumus (he proceeds) secundum praeceptum imperatoris, fame et siti necari, et reclusi sumus in duabus cellis ita ut nos afficerent fame et siti et ignis vapore. —⁠G. ↩
When Palestine was divided into three, the prefecture of the East contained forty-eight provinces. As the ancient distinctions of nations were long since abolished, the Romans distributed the provinces according to a general proportion of their extent and opulence. ↩
Ut gloriari possint nullam se innocentium peremisse, nam et ipse audivi aloquos gloriantes, quia administratio sua, in hâc parte, fuerit incruenta. Lactantius, Institutiones divinae V 11. ↩
Grotius, Annales et Historiae de Rebus Belgicis, l. I, p. 12, edit. folio. ↩
Fra Paola (Historia del Concilio Tridentino, l. III) reduces the number of the Belgic martyrs to 50,000. In learning and moderation Fra Paola was not inferior to Grotius. The priority of time gives some advantage to the evidence of the former, which he loses, on the other hand, by the distance of Venice from the Netherlands. ↩
Eusebius and the author of the treatise De mortibus persecutorum. It is deeply to be regretted that the history of this period rests so much on the loose and, it must be admitted, by no means scrupulous authority of Eusebius. Ecclesiastical history is a solemn and melancholy lesson that the best, even the most sacred, cause will eventually suffer by the least departure from truth! —⁠M. ↩
Polybius, l. IV, p. 423, edit. Casaubon. He observes that the peace of the Byzantines was frequently disturbed, and the extent of their territory contracted, by the inroads of the wild Thracians. ↩
The navigator Byzas, who was styled the son of Neptune, founded the city 656 years before the Christian era. His followers were drawn from Argos and Megara. Byzantium was afterwards rebuilt and fortified by the Spartan general Pausanias. See Scaliger Animadversion ad Eusebius, p. 81. Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. I part I c. 15, 16. With regard to the wars of the Byzantines against Philip, the Gauls, and the kings of Bithynia, we should trust none but the ancient writers who lived before the greatness of the Imperial city had excited a spirit of flattery and fiction. ↩
The Bosphorus has been very minutely described by Dionysius of Byzantium, who lived in the time of Domitian (Hudson, Geographi Graeci minores, tom. III), and by Pierre Gilles (Petrus Gyllius), a French traveller of the sixteenth century. Tournefort (Lettre XV) seems to have used his own eyes and the learning of Gyllius. [Add Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Constantinopolis und der Bosporos, octavo. —⁠M.] ↩
There are very few conjectures so happy as that of Leclerc (Bibliothèque universelle, tom. I, p. 148), who supposes that the harpies were only locusts. The Syriac or Phoenician name of those insects, their noisy flight, the stench and devastation which they occasion, and the north wind which drives them into the sea, all contribute to form the striking resemblance. ↩
The residence of Amycus was in Asia, between the old and the new castles, at a place called Laurus Insana. That of Phineus was in Europe, near the village of Mauromole and the Black Sea. See Gyllius, De Bosphoro Thracio, l. II c. 23. Tournefort, Lettre XV. ↩
The deception was occasioned by several pointed rocks, alternately covered and abandoned by the waves. At present there are two small islands, one towards either shore; that of Europe is distinguished by the column of Pompey. ↩
The ancients computed one hundred and twenty stadia, or fifteen Roman miles. They measured only from the new castles, but they carried the straits as far as the town of Chalcedon. ↩
Ducas, Historia, c. 34. Johannes Leunclavius, Historiae Mussulmanae Turcorum, de monumentis ipsorum exscriptae, l. XV, p. 577. Under the Greek empire these castles were used as state prisons, under the tremendous name of Lethe, or towers of oblivion. ↩
Darius engraved in Greek and Assyrian letters on two marble columns the names of his subject nations, and the amazing numbers of his land and sea forces. The Byzantines afterwards transported these columns into the city, and used them for the altars of their tutelar deities. Herodotus, l. IV c. 87. ↩
Namque arctissimo inter Europam Asiamque divortio Byzantium in extremâ Europâ posuere Greci, quibus, Pythium Apollinem consulentibus ubi conderent urbem, redditum oraculum est, quaererent sedem coecerum terris adversam. Eâ ambage Chalcedonii monstrabantur quod priores illuc advecti, praevisâ locorum utilitate pejora legissent. Tacitus, Annales XII 63. ↩
Strabo, l. VII, p. 492 [edit. Casaubon —⁠M.]. Most of the antlers are now broken off; or, to speak less figuratively, most of the recesses of the harbor are filled up. See Gyllius, De Bosphoro Thracio, l. I c. 5. ↩
Procopius, De aedificiis, l. I c. 5. His description is confirmed by modern travellers. See Jean de Thévenot, part I l. I c. 15. Tournefort, Lettre XII. Carsten Niebuhr, Voyage de M. Niebuhr en Arabie, p. 22. ↩
See du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. I part I c. 16, and his Observations sur Villehardouin, p. 289. The chain was drawn from the Acropolis near the modern Kiosk to the tower of Galata, and was supported at convenient distances by large wooden piles. ↩
Thévenot (Relation d’un voyage fait au Levant, part I l. I c. 14) contracts the measure to 125 small Greek miles. Pierre Belon (Les observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses mémorables, trouvées en Greece, Asie, Egypte, Arabie, l. II c. 1) gives a good description of the Propontis, but contents himself with the vague expression of one day and one night’s sail. When George Sandys (Sandys Travels, p. 21) talks of 150 furlongs in length as well as breadth, we can only suppose some mistake of the press in the text of that judicious traveller. ↩
See an admirable dissertation of M. d’Anville upon the Hellespont or Dardanelles, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, pp. 318⁠–⁠346. Yet even that ingenious geographer is too fond of supposing new and perhaps imaginary measures, for the purpose of rendering ancient writers as accurate as himself. The stadia employed by Herodotus in the description of the Euxine, the Bosphorus, etc. (l. IV c. 85), must undoubtedly be all of the same species; but it seems impossible to reconcile them either with truth or with each other. ↩
The oblique distance between Sestus and Abydus was thirty stadia. The improbable tale of Hero and Leander is exposed by M. Mahudel, but is defended on the authority of poets and medals by M. de la Nauze. See the Académie des Inscriptions, tom. VII. Histoire, p. 74. Mémoires, p. 240.8881 ↩
See the seventh book of Herodotus, who has erected an elegant trophy to his own fame and to that of his country. The review appears to have been made with tolerable accuracy; but the vanity, first of the Persians and afterwards of the Greeks, was interested to magnify the armament and the victory. I should much doubt whether the invaders have ever outnumbered the men of any country which they attacked. ↩
Gibbon does not allow greater width between the two nearest points of the shores of the Hellespont than between those of the Bosphorus; yet all the ancient writers speak of the Hellespontic strait as broader than the other: they agree in giving it seven stadia in its narrowest width (Herodotus, Historia in “Melpomene,” c. 85, “Polymnia,” c. 34; Strabo, p. 591; Pliny the Elder IV c. 12), which make 875 paces. It is singular that Gibbon, who in previous note in this chapter reproaches d’Anville with being fond of supposing new and perhaps imaginary measures, has here adopted the peculiar measurement which d’Anville has assigned to the stadium. This great geographer believes that the ancients had a stadium of fifty-one toises, and it is that which he applies to the walls of Babylon. Now, seven of these stadia are equal to about 500 paces, 7 stadia = 2,142 feet; 500 paces = 2,135 feet 5 inches. —⁠G.

See James Rennell, Geographical System of Herodotus, p. 121. Add Ukert, Geographie der Griechen und Römer, v. I, pp. 2, 71. —⁠M. ↩
See Robert Wood’s An Essay on the Original Genius of Homer, p. 320. I have, with pleasure, selected this remark from an author who in general seems to have disappointed the expectation of the public as a critic, and still more as a traveller. He had visited the banks of the Hellespont; he had read Strabo; he ought to have consulted the Roman itineraries. How was it possible for him to confound Ilium and Alexandria Troas (Essay on Homer, pp. 340, 341), two cities which were sixteen miles distant from each other?8882 ↩
Demetrius of Scepsis wrote sixty books on thirty lines of Homer’s catalogue. The thirteenth book of Strabo is sufficient for our curiosity. ↩
Strabo, l. XIII, p. 595, [890, edit. Casaubon —⁠M.]. The disposition of the ships, which were drawn upon dry land, and the posts of Ajax and Achilles, are very clearly described by Homer. See Iliad IX 220. ↩
Zosimus, l. II [c. 30 —⁠M.], p. 105. Sozomen, l. II c. 3. Theophanes, p. 18. Nicephorus Callistus, l. VII, p. 48. Zonaras, tom. II l. XIII, p. 6. Zosimus places the new city between Ilium and Alexandria, but this apparent difference may be reconciled by the large extent of its circumference. Before the foundation of Constantinople, Thessalonica is mentioned by Cedrenus (p. 283), and Sardica by Zonaras, as the intended capital. They both suppose, with very little probability, that the emperor, if he had not been prevented by a prodigy, would have repeated the mistake of the blind Chalcedonians. ↩
Pococke’s Description of the East, vol. II part II, p. 127. His plan of the seven hills is clear and accurate. That traveller is seldom unsatisfactory. ↩
See Belon, Observations, c. 72⁠–⁠76. Among a variety of different species, the Pelamides, a sort of Thunnies, were the most celebrated. We may learn from Polybius, Strabo, and Tacitus that the profits of the fishery constituted the principal revenue of Byzantium. ↩
See the eloquent description of Augerius Busbequius, Turcicae epistolae I, p. 64. Est in Europa; habet in conspectu Asiam, Egyptum, Africamque a dextrâ: quae tametsi contiguae non sunt, maris tamen navigandique commoditate veluti junguntur. A sinistra vero Pontus est Euxinus, etc. ↩
Datur haec venia antiquitati, ut miscendo humana divinis, primordia urbium augustiora faciat. Titus Livius in Prooemium. ↩
He says in one of his laws, pro commoditate urbis quam aeteras nomine, jubente Deo, donavimus. Codex Theodosianus, l. XIII tit. V leg. 7. ↩
The Greeks, Theophanes, Cedrenus, and the author of the Alexandrian World Chronicle, confine themselves to vague and general expressions. For a more particular account of the vision, we are obliged to have recourse to such Latin writers as William of Malmesbury. See du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. I, pp. 24, 25. ↩
See Plutarch in “Romulus,” tom. I, p. 49, edit. Bryan. Among other ceremonies, a large hole, which had been dug for that purpose, was filled up with handfuls of earth, which each of the settlers brought from the place of his birth, and thus adopted his new country. ↩
Philostorgius, l. II c. 9. This incident, though borrowed from a suspected writer, is characteristic and probable. ↩
See in the Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXXV, pp. 747⁠–⁠758, a dissertation of M. d’Anville on the extent of Constantinople. He takes the plan inserted in the Imperium orientale sive antiquitates Constantinopolitanae of Banduri as the most complete; but, by a series of very nice observations, he reduces the extravagant proportion of the scale, and instead of 9,500, determines the circumference of the city as consisting of about 7,800 French toises. ↩
Codinus, Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, p. 12. He assigns the church of St. Anthony as the boundary on the side of the harbor. It is mentioned in du Cange, l. IV c. 6; but I have tried, without success, to discover the exact place where it was situated. ↩
The new wall of Theodosius was constructed in the year 413. In 447 it was thrown down by an earthquake, and rebuilt in three months by the diligence of the prefect Cyrus. The suburb of the Blanchernae was first taken into the city in the reign of Heraclius. Du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. I c. 10, 11. ↩
The measurement is expressed in the Notitia by 14,075 feet. It is reasonable to suppose that these were Greek feet, the proportion of which has been ingeniously determined by M. d’Anville. He compares the 180 feet with 78 Hashemite cubits, which in different writers are assigned for the heights of St. Sophia. Each of these cubits was equal to 27 French inches. ↩
The accurate Thévenot (l. I c. 15) walked in one hour and three quarters round two of the sides of the triangle, from the Kiosk of the Seraglio to the seven towers. D’Anville examines with care, and receives with confidence, this decisive testimony, which gives a circumference of ten or twelve miles. The extravagant computation of Tournefort (Lettre XI) of thirty-four or thirty miles, without including Scutari, is a strange departure from his usual character. ↩
The sycae, or fig-trees, formed the thirteenth region, and were very much embellished by Justinian. It has since borne the names of Pera and Galata. The etymology of the former is obvious; that of the latter is unknown. See du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. I c. 22, and Gyllius de Byzantium, l. IV c. 10. ↩
One hundred and eleven stadia, which may be translated into modern Greek miles each of seven stadia, or 660, sometimes only 600 French toises. See d’Anville, Traité des mesures itinéraires, p. 53. ↩
When the ancient texts which describe the size of Babylon and Thebes are settled, the exaggerations reduced, and the measures ascertained, we find that those famous cities filled the great but not incredible circumference of about twenty-five or thirty miles. Compare d’Anville, Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXVIII, p. 235, with his Mémoires sur l’Egypte ancienne et moderne, pp. 201, 202. ↩
If we divide Constantinople and Paris into equal squares of 50 French toises, the former contains 850, and the latter 1160, of those divisions. ↩
Six hundred centenaries, or sixty thousand pounds’ weight of gold. This sum is taken from Codinus, Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, p. 11; but unless that contemptible author had derived his information from some purer sources, he would probably have been unacquainted with so obsolete a mode of reckoning. ↩
For the forests of the Black Sea, consult Tournefort, Lettre XVI; for the marble quarries of Proconnesus, see Strabo, l. XIII, p. 588 [881, edit. Casaubon —⁠M.]. The latter had already furnished the materials of the stately buildings of Cyzicus. ↩
See the Codex Theodosianus, l. XIII tit. IV leg. 1. This law is dated in the year 334, and was addressed to the prefect of Italy, whose jurisdiction extended over Africa. The commentary of Godefroy on the whole title well deserves to be consulted. ↩
Constantinopolis dedicatur poene omnium urbium nuditate. Hieronymus, Chronicon, p. 181. See Codinus, pp. 8, 9. The author of the Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, l. III (apud Banduri, Imperium orientale, tom. I, p. 41) enumerates Rome, Sicily, Antioch, Athens, and a long list of other cities. The provinces of Greece and Asia Minor may be supposed to have yielded the richest booty. ↩
Historiarum compendium, p. 369. He describes the statue, or rather bust, of Homer with a degree of taste which plainly indicates that Cadrenus copied the style of a more fortunate age. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 106. Chronicum Alexandrinum vel Chronicon Paschale, p. 284. Du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. I c. 24. Even the last of those writers seems to confound the Forum of Constantine with the Augusteum, or court of the palace. I am not satisfied whether I have properly distinguished what belongs to the one and the other. ↩
The most tolerable account of this column is given by Pococke, Description of the East, vol. II part II, p. 131. But it is still in many instances perplexed and unsatisfactory. ↩
Du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. I c. 24, p. 76, and his notes ad Alexias, p. 382. The statue of Constantine or Apollo was thrown down under the reign of Alexius Comnenus.8883 ↩
Tournefort (Lettre XII) computes the Atmeidan at four hundred paces. If he means geometrical paces of five feet each, it was three hundred toises in length, about forty more than the great circus of Rome. See d’Anville, Traité des mesures itinéraires, p. 73. ↩
The guardians of the most holy relics would rejoice if they were able to produce such a chain of evidence as may be alleged on this occasion. See Banduri ad Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, p. 668. Gyllius de Byzantium, l. II c. 13.
1. The original consecration of the tripod and pillar in the temple of Delphi may be proved from Herodotus and Pausanias.
2. The Pagan Zosimus agrees with the three ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius, Socrates, and Sozomen, that the sacred ornaments of the temple of Delphi were removed to Constantinople by the order of Constantine; and among these the serpentine pillar of the Hippodrome is particularly mentioned.
3. All the European travellers who have visited Constantinople, from Buondelmonte to Pococke, describe it in the same place, and almost in the same manner; the differences between them are occasioned only by the injuries which it has sustained from the Turks. Muhammad the Second broke the underjaw of one of the serpents with a stroke of his battle-axe. Thévenot, l. I c. 17.8884
↩
In 1808 the Janizaries revolted against the vizier Mustapha Baisactar, who wished to introduce a new system of military organization, besieged the quarter of the Hippodrome, in which stood the palace of the viziers, and the Hippodrome was consumed in the conflagration. —⁠G. ↩
The Latin name Cochlea was adopted by the Greeks, and very frequently occurs in the Byzantine history. Du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. II c. 1, p. 104. ↩
There are three topographical points which indicate the situation of the palace.
1. The staircase which connected it with the Hippodrome or Atmeidan.
2. A small artificial port on the Propontis, from whence there was an easy ascent, by a flight of marble steps, to the gardens of the palace.
3. The Augusteum was a spacious court, one side of which was occupied by the front of the palace, and another by the church of St. Sophia.
↩
Zeuxippus was an epithet of Jupiter, and the baths were a part of old Byzantium. The difficulty of assigning their true situation has not been felt by du Cange. History seems to connect them with St. Sophia and the palace; but the original plan inserted in Banduri places them on the other side of the city, near the harbor. For their beauties, see Chronicon Paschale, p. 285, and Gyllius de Byzantium, l. II c. 7. Christodorus (see Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, l. VII) composed inscriptions in verse for each of the statues. He was a Theban poet in genius as well as in birth:⁠—

Baeotum in crasso jurares aëre natum.8885

↩
See the Notitia. Rome only reckoned 1,780 large houses, domus; but the word must have had a more dignified signification. No insulae are mentioned at Constantinople. The old capital consisted of 424 streets, the new of 322. ↩
Liutprand of Cremona, Legatio de legatione Constantinopolitana ad Nicephorum Phocam, p. 153. The modern Greeks have strangely disfigured the antiquities of Constantinople. We might excuse the errors of the Turkish or Arabian writers; but it is somewhat astonishing that the Greeks, who had access to the authentic materials preserved in their own language, should prefer fiction to truth and loose tradition to genuine history. In a single page of Codinus we may detect twelve unpardonable mistakes: the reconciliation of Severus and Niger, the marriage of their son and daughter, the siege of Byzantium by the Macedonians, the invasion of the Gauls, which recalled Severus to Rome, the sixty years which elapsed from his death to the foundation of Constantinople, etc. ↩
Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. 17. ↩
Themistii orationes III, p. 48, edit. Hardouin. Sozomen, l. II c. 3. Zosimus, l. II, p. 107. Anonymus Valesianus, p. 715. If we could credit Codinus (p. 10), Constantine built houses for the senators on the exact model of their Roman palaces, and gratified them, as well as himself, with the pleasure of an agreeable surprise; but the whole story is full of fictions and inconsistencies. ↩
The law by which the younger Theodosius, in the year 438, abolished this tenure may be found among the Novellae of that emperor at the end of the Theodosian Code, tom. VI nov. 12. M. de Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 371) has evidently mistaken the nature of these estates. With a grant from the Imperial demesnes, the same condition was accepted as a favor which would justly have been deemed a hardship, if it had been imposed upon private property. ↩
The passages of Zosimus, of Eunapius, of Sozomen, and of Agathias, which relate to the increase of buildings and inhabitants at Constantinople, are collected and connected by Gyllius de Byzantium, l. I c. 3. Sidonius Apollinaris (in “Panegyricus Anthemius” 56, p. 279, edit. Sirmond) describes the moles that were pushed forwards into the sea; they consisted of the famous Puzzolan sand, which hardens in the water. ↩
Sozomen, l. II c. 3. Philostorgius, l. II c. 9. Codinus, Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, p. 8. It appears by Socrates, l. II c. 13, that the daily allowance of the city consisted of eight myriads of σιτου which we may either translate, with Valesius, by the words modii of corn, or consider as expressive of the number of loaves of bread.8886 ↩
See Codex Theodosianus, l. XIII and XIV, and Codex Justinianus, Edictum XII tom. II, p. 648, edit. Geneva. See the beautiful complaint of Rome in the poem of Claudian, De bello Gildonico, ver. 60⁠–⁠62.

Cum subiit par Roma mihi, divisaque sumsit
Aequales aurora togas: Aegyptia rura
In partem cessere novam.

↩
This was also at the expense of Rome. The emperor ordered that the fleet of Alexandria should transport to Constantinople the grain of Egypt which it carried before to Rome: this grain supplied Rome during four months of the year. Claudian has described with force the famine occasioned by this measure:⁠—

Haec nobis, haec ante dabas; nunc pabula tantum
Roma precor: miserere tuae, pater optime, gentis.
Extremam defende famem.
Claudian, De bello Gildonico, v. 34.

⁠—G.

It was scarcely this measure. Gildo had cut off the African as well as the Egyptian supplies. —⁠M. ↩
The regions of Constantinople are mentioned in the code of Justinian, and particularly described in the Notitia of the younger Theodosius; but as the four last of them are not included within the wall of Constantine, it may be doubted whether this division of the city should be referred to the founder. ↩
Senatum constituit secundi ordinis; Claros vocavit. Anonymus Valesianus, p. 715. The senators of old Rome were styled “Clarissimi.” See a curious note of Valesius ad Ammianus Marcellinus XXII 9. From the eleventh epistle of Julian, it should seem that the place of senator was considered as a burden, rather than as an honor; but the Abbé de La Bléterie (Vie de Jovien, tom. II, p. 371) has shown that this epistle could not relate to Constantinople. Might we not read, instead of the celebrated name of Βυζαντιοις, the obscure but more probable word Βισανθήνοις? Bisanthe or Rhoedestus, now Rhodosto, was a small maritime city of Thrace. See Stephanus Byzantinus, De urbibus, p. 225, and Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. I, p. 849. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XIV 13. The commentary of Godefroy (tom. V, p. 220) is long, but perplexed; nor indeed is it easy to ascertain in what the Jus Italicum could consist, after the freedom of the city had been communicated to the whole empire.8887 ↩
Julian (“Oratio I,” p. 8) celebrates Constantinople as not less superior to all other cities than she was inferior to Rome itself. His learned commentator (Spanheim, pp. 75, 76) justifies this language by several parallel and contemporary instances. Zosimus, as well as Socrates and Sozomen, flourished after the division of the empire between the two sons of Theodosius, which established a perfect equality between the old and the new capital. ↩
Codinus (Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, p. 8) affirms that the foundations of Constantinople were laid in the year of the world 5837 (AD 329), on the 26th of September, and that the city was dedicated the 11th of May, 5838 (AD 330). He connects those dates with several characteristic epochs, but they contradict each other; the authority of Codinus is of little weight, and the space which he assigns must appear insufficient. The term of ten years is given us by Julian (“Oratio I,” p. 8); and Spanheim labors to establish the truth of it (pp. 69⁠–⁠75), by the help of two passages from Themistius (Orationes IV, p. 58), and of Philostorgius (l. II c. 9), which form a period from the year 324 to the year 334. Modern critics are divided concerning this point of chronology, and their different sentiments are very accurately described by Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, pp. 619⁠–⁠625. ↩
Themistii orationes III, p. 47. Zosimus, l. II, p. 108. Constantine himself, in one of his laws (Codex Theodosianus, l. XV tit. I), betrays his impatience. ↩
Cedrenus and Zonaras, faithful to the mode of superstition which prevailed in their own times, assure us that Constantinople was consecrated to the virgin Mother of God. ↩
The earliest and most complete account of this extraordinary ceremony may be found in the Alexandrian World Chronicle, p. 285. Tillemont, and the other friends of Constantine, who are offended with the air of Paganism which seems unworthy of a Christian prince, had a right to consider it as doubtful, but they were not authorized to omit the mention of it. ↩
Sozomen, l. II c. 2. Du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. I c. 6. Velut ipsius Romae filiam, is the expression of Augustine. De civitate Dei, l. V c. 25. ↩
Eutropius, l. X c. 8. Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 8. Du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. I c. 5. The name of Constantinople is extant on the medals of Constantine. ↩
The lively Bernard Fontenelle (Nouveaux dialogues des morts XII) affects to deride the vanity of human ambition, and seems to triumph in the disappointment of Constantine, whose immortal name is now lost in the vulgar appellation of Istambol, a Turkish corruption of ἐις τήν πόλιν. Yet the original name is still preserved:
1. By the nations of Europe.
2. By the modern Greeks.
3. By the Arabs, whose writings are diffused over the wide extent of their conquests in Asia and Africa. See d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 275.
4. By the more learned Turks, and by the emperor himself in his public mandates. Dimitrie Cantemir’s History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire, p. 51.
↩
The Theodosian code was promulgated AD 438. See the Prolegomena of Godefroy, c. I, p. 185. ↩
The Notitia dignitatum imperii Romani is a description of all the offices in the court and the state, of the legions, etc. It resembles our court almanacs (Red Books), with this single difference, that our almanacs name the persons in office, the Notitia only the offices. It is of the time of the emperor Theodosius II, that is to say, of the fifth century, when the empire was divided into the Eastern and Western. It is probable that it was not made for the first time, and that descriptions of the same kind existed before. —⁠G. ↩
Pancirolus, in his elaborate Commentary, assigns to the Notitia a date almost similar to that of the Theodosian Code; but his proofs, or rather conjectures, are extremely feeble. I should be rather inclined to place this useful work between the final division of the empire (AD 395) and the successful invasion of Gaul by the barbarians (AD 407). See Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VII, p. 40. ↩
Scilicet externae superbiae sueto, non inerat notitia nostri (perhaps nostroe); apud quos vis Imperii valet, inania transmittuntur. Tacitus, Annales XV 31. The gradation from the style of freedom and simplicity, to that of form and servitude, may be traced in the epistles of Cicero, of Pliny the Younger, and of Symmachus. ↩
The emperor Gratian, after confirming a law of precedency published by Valentinian, the father of his Divinity, thus continues: Siquis igitur indebitum sibi locum usurpaverit, nulla se ignoratione defendat; sitque plane sacrilegii reus, qui divina praecepta neglexerit. Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. V leg. 2. ↩
Consult the Notitia dignitatum at the end of the Theodosian Code, tom. VI, p. 316.8888 ↩
Pancirolus ad Notitia dignitatum utriusque imperii, p. 39. But his explanations are obscure, and he does not sufficiently distinguish the painted emblems from the effective ensigns of office. ↩
In the Pandects, which may be referred to the reigns of the Antonines, “Clarissimus” is the ordinary and legal title of a senator. ↩
Pancirolus, pp. 12⁠–⁠17. I have not taken any notice of the two inferior ranks, “Prefectissimus” and “Egregius,” which were given to many persons who were not raised to the senatorial dignity. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. VI. The rules of precedency are ascertained with the most minute accuracy by the emperors, and illustrated with equal prolixity by their learned interpreter. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. XXII. ↩
Ausonius (in “Gratiarum Actio pro Consulatu”) basely expatiates on this unworthy topic, which is managed by Mamertinus (Panegyrici veteres XI [X —⁠M.] 16, 19) with somewhat more freedom and ingenuity. ↩
Cum de Consulibus in annum creandis, solus mecum volutarem⁠ ⁠… te Consulem et designavi, et declaravi, et priorem nuncupavi; are some of the expressions employed by the emperor Gratian to his preceptor, the poet Ausonius. ↩
Immanesque⁠ ⁠… dentes
Qui secti ferro in tabulas auroque micantes,
Inscripti rutilum coelato Consule nomen
Per proceres et vulgus eant.
Claudian in “III Consulatu Stilichonis” 346.

Montfaucon has represented some of these tablets or dypticks, see Supplement à L’Antiquité expliquée, tom. III, p. 220. ↩
Consule laetatur post plurima secula viso
Pallanteus apex: agnoscunt rostra curules
Auditas quondam proavis: desuetaque cingit
Regius auratis Fora fascibus Ulpia lictor.
Claudian in “VI Consulatu Honorii” 643.

From the reign of Carus to the sixth consulship of Honorius, there was an interval of one hundred and twenty years, during which the emperors were always absent from Rome on the first day of January. See the Chronologie de Tillemonte, tom. III, IV, and V. ↩
See Claudian in “Panegyricus dictus Probino et Olybrio Consulibus,” 178, etc.; and in “IV Consulatu Honorii Augusti,” 585, etc.; though in the latter it is not easy to separate the ornaments of the emperor from those of the consul. Ausonius received from the liberality of Gratian a vestis palmata, or robe of state, in which the figure of the emperor Constantius was embroidered. ↩
Cernis ut armorum proceres legumque potentes:
Patricios sumunt habitus; et more Gabino
Discolor incedit legio, positisque parumper
Bellorum signis, sequitur vexilla Quirini?
Lictori cedunt aquilae, ridetque togatus
Miles, et in mediis effulget curia castris?
Claudian in “IV Consulatu Honorii” 5.

… strictasque procul radiare secures.
In “Probino et Olybrio consulibus,” 231.

↩
See Valesius ad Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XXII c. 7. ↩
Auspice mox laetum sonuit clamore tribunal;
Te fastos ineunte quater; solemnia ludit
Omina libertas: deductum Vindice morem
Lex servat, famulusque jugo laxatus herili
Ducitur, et grato remeat securior ictu.
Claudian in “IV Consulatu Honorii” 611

↩
Celebrant quidem solemnes istos dies omnes ubique urbes quae sub legibus agunt; et Roma de more, et Constantinopolis de imitatione, et Antiochia pro luxu, et discincta Carthago, et domus fluminis Alexandria, sed Treviri Principis beneficio. Ausonius in “Gratiarum Actio pro Consulatu.” ↩
Claudian (in “Consulatu Manlii Theodori” 279⁠–⁠331) describes, in a lively and fanciful manner, the various games of the circus, the theatre, and the amphitheatre, exhibited by the new consul. The sanguinary combats of gladiators had already been prohibited. ↩
Procopius in Historia arcana, c. 26. ↩
In Consulatu honos sine labore suscipitur. (Mamertinus in Panegyrici veteres XI [X —⁠M.] 2.) This exalted idea of the consulship is borrowed from an oration (III, p. 107) pronounced by Julian in the servile court of Constantius. See the Abbé de La Bléterie (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXIV, p. 289), who delights to pursue the vestiges of the old constitution, and who sometimes finds them in his copious fancy. ↩
Intermarriages between the Patricians and Plebeians were prohibited by the laws of the XII Tables; and the uniform operations of human nature may attest that the custom survived the law. See in Livy (IV 1⁠–⁠6) the pride of family urged by the consul, and the rights of mankind asserted by the tribune Canuleius. ↩
See the animated picture drawn by Sallust, in the Jugurthine war, of the pride of the nobles, and even of the virtuous Metellus, who was unable to brook the idea that the honor of the consulship should be bestowed on the obscure merit of his lieutenant Marius (c. 64). Two hundred years before, the race of the Metelli themselves were confounded among the Plebeians of Rome; and from the etymology of their name of Coecilius, there is reason to believe that those haughty nobles derived their origin from a sutler. ↩
In the year of Rome 800, very few remained, not only of the old Patrician families, but even of those which had been created by Caesar and Augustus (Tacitus, Annales XI 25). The family of Scaurus (a branch of the Patrician Aemilii) was degraded so low that his father, who exercised the trade of a charcoal merchant, left him only ten slaves, and somewhat less than three hundred pounds sterling (Valerius Maximus, l. IV c. 4, n. 11, Aurelius Victor in “Scauro.”) The family was saved from oblivion by the merit of the son. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XI 25. Dion Cassius, l. III, p. 693. The virtues of Agricola, who was created a Patrician by the emperor Vespasian, reflected honor on that ancient order; but his ancestors had not any claim beyond an Equestrian nobility. ↩
This failure would have been almost impossible if it were true, as Casaubon compels Aurelius Victor to affirm (ad Suetonius, in De vita Caesarum, “Julius Caesar,” c. 42. See Historia Augusta, p. 203 and Casaubon Commentary, p. 220) that Vespasian created at once a thousand Patrician families. But this extravagant number is too much even for the whole Senatorial order, unless we should include all the Roman knights who were distinguished by the permission of wearing the laticlave. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 118; and Godefroy ad Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. VI. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 109, 110. If we had not fortunately possessed this satisfactory account of the division of the power and provinces of the Praetorian prefects, we should frequently have been perplexed amidst the copious details of the Code, and the circumstantial minuteness of the Notitia. ↩
See a law of Constantine himself. A prefectis autem praetorio provocare non sinimus. Codex Justinianus, l. VII tit. LXII leg. 19. Charisius, a lawyer of the time of Constantine (Heineccius, Historia juris Romani, p. 349), who admits this law as a fundamental principle of jurisprudence, compares the Praetorian prefects to the masters of the horse of the ancient dictators. Pandectae, l. I tit. XI. ↩
When Justinian, in the exhausted condition of the empire, instituted a Praetorian prefect for Africa, he allowed him a salary of one hundred pounds of gold. Codex Justinianus, l. I tit. XXVII leg. I. ↩
For this, and the other dignities of the empire, it may be sufficient to refer to the ample commentaries of Pancirolus and Godefroy, who have diligently collected and accurately digested in their proper order all the legal and historical materials. From those authors, Dr. William Howell (History of the World, vol. II, pp. 24⁠–⁠77) has deduced a very distinct abridgment of the state of the Roman empire. ↩
Tacitus, Annales VI 11. Eusebius in Chronicon, p. 155. Dion Cassius, in the oration of Maecenas (l. LVII, p. 675), describes the prerogatives of the prefect of the city as they were established in his own time. ↩
The fame of Messalla has been scarcely equal to his merit. In the earliest youth he was recommended by Cicero to the friendship of Brutus. He followed the standard of the republic till it was broken in the fields of Philippi; he then accepted and deserved the favor of the most moderate of the conquerors; and uniformly asserted his freedom and dignity in the court of Augustus. The triumph of Messalla was justified by the conquest of Aquitain. As an orator he disputed the palm of eloquence with Cicero himself. Messalla cultivated every muse, and was the patron of every man of genius. He spent his evenings in philosophic conversation with Horace; assumed his place at table between Delia and Tibullus; and amused his leisure by encouraging the poetical talents of young Ovid. ↩
Incivilem esse potestatem contestans, says the translator of Eusebius. Tacitus expresses the same idea in other words: quasi nescius exercendi. ↩
See Lipsius, Excursus D ad 1 lib. Tacitus, Annales. ↩
Heineccius, Elementa juris civilis, secundum ordinem pandectarum, tom. I, p. 70. See, likewise, Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum, tom. II dissertat. X, p. 119. In the year 450, Marcian published a law that three citizens should be annually created Praetors of Constantinople by the choice of the senate, but with their own consent. Codex Justinianus, l. I tit. XXXIX leg. 2. ↩
Quidquid igitur intra urbem admittitur, ad prefectum urbis videtur pertinere; sed et siquid intra centesimum milliarium. Ulpian in Pandectae, l. I tit. XIII n. 1. He proceeds to enumerate the various offices of the prefect, who, in the code of Justinian (l. I tit. XXXIX leg. 3), is declared to precede and command all city magistrates sine injuriâ ac detrimento honoris alieni. ↩
Besides our usual guides, we may observe that Felix Cantelorius has written a separate treatise, De prefecto urbis; and that many curious details concerning the police of Rome and Constantinople are contained in the fourteenth book of the Theodosian Code. ↩
Eunapius affirms that the proconsul of Asia was independent of the prefect; which must, however, be understood with some allowance: the jurisdiction of the vice-prefect he most assuredly disclaimed. Pancirolus, p. 161. ↩
The proconsul of Africa had four hundred apparitors; and they all received large salaries, either from the treasury or the province. See Pancirolus, p. 26, and Codex Justinianus, l. XII tit. LVI, LVII. ↩
In Italy there was likewise the Vicar of Rome. It has been much disputed whether his jurisdiction measured one hundred miles from the city, or whether it stretched over the ten southern provinces of Italy. ↩
Among the works of the celebrated Ulpian, there was one in ten books concerning the office of a proconsul, whose duties in the most essential articles were the same as those of an ordinary governor of a province. ↩
The presidents, or consulars, could impose only two ounces: the vice-prefects, three; the proconsuls, count of the east, and prefect of Egypt, six. See Heineccius, Elementa juris civilis, tom. I, p. 75. Pandectae, l. XLVIII tit. XIX n. 8. Codex Justinianus, l. I tit. LIV leg. 4, 6. ↩
Ut nulli patriae suae administratio sine speciali principis permissu permittatur. Codex Justinianus, l. I tit. XLI. This law was first enacted by the emperor Marcus, after the rebellion of Cassius (Dion, l. LXXI). The same regulation is observed in China, with equal strictness and with equal effect. ↩
Pandectae, l. XXIII tit. II n. 38, 57, 63. ↩
In jure continetur, ne quis in administratione constitutus aliquid compararet. Codex Theodosianus, l. VIII tit. XV leg. 1. This maxim of common law was enforced by a series of edicts (see the remainder of the title) from Constantine to Justin. From this prohibition, which is extended to the meanest officers of the governor, they except only clothes and provisions. The purchase within five years may be recovered; after which, on information, it devolves to the treasury. ↩
Cessent rapaces jam nunc officialium manus; cessent, inquam, nam si moniti non cessaverint, gladiis praecidentur, etc. Codex Theodosianus, l. I tit. VII leg. 1. Zeno enacted that all governors should remain in the province, to answer any accusations, fifty days after the expiration of their power. Codex Justinianus, l. II tit. XLIX leg. 1. ↩
Summâ igitur ope, et alacri studio has leges nostras accipite; et vosmetipsos sic eruditos ostendite, ut spes vos pulcherrima foveat; toto legitimo opere perfecto, posse etiam nostram rempublicam in partibus ejus vobis credendis gubernari. Justinian in proem, Institutiones Justiniani. ↩
The splendor of the school of Berytus, which preserved in the East the language and jurisprudence of the Romans, may be computed to have lasted from the third to the middle of the sixth century. Heineccius, Historia juris Romani, pp. 351⁠–⁠356. ↩
As in a former period I have traced the civil and military promotion of Pertinax, I shall here insert the civil honors of Mallius Theodorus.
1. He was distinguished by his eloquence, while he pleaded as an advocate in the court of the Praetorian prefect.
2. He governed one of the provinces of Africa, either as president or consular, and deserved, by his administration, the honor of a brass statue.
3. He was appointed vicar, or vice-prefect, of Macedonia.
4. Quaestor.
5. Count of the sacred largesses.
6. Praetorian prefect of the Gauls; whilst he might yet be represented as a young man.
7. After a retreat, perhaps a disgrace, of many years, which Mallius (confounded by some critics with the poet Manilius; see Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina, edit. Ernesti, tom. I c. 18, p. 501) employed in the study of the Grecian philosophy, he was named Praetorian prefect of Italy, in the year 397.
8. While he still exercised that great office, he was created, in the year 399, consul for the West; and his name, on account of the infamy of his colleague, the eunuch Eutropius, often stands alone in the Fasti.
9. In the year 408, Mallius was appointed a second time Praetorian prefect of Italy.
Even in the venal panegyric of Claudian, we may discover the merit of Mallius Theodorus, who, by a rare felicity, was the intimate friend both of Symmachus and of St. Augustine. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 1110⁠–⁠1114. ↩
Mamertinus in Panegyrici veteres XI [X —⁠M.] 20. Asterius apud Photius, p. 1500. ↩
The curious passage of Ammianus (l. XXX c. 4), in which he paints the manners of contemporary lawyers, affords a strange mixture of sound sense, false rhetoric, and extravagant satire. Godefroy (Prolegomena ad Codex Theodosianus, c. I, p. 185) supports the historian by similar complaints and authentic facts. In the fourth century, many camels might have been laden with law-books. Eunapius in De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, “Aedesius,” p. 72. ↩
See a very splendid example in the Life of Agricola, particularly c. 20, 21. The lieutenant of Britain was entrusted with the same powers which Cicero, proconsul of Cilicia, had exercised in the name of the senate and people. ↩
The Abbé Dubos, who has examined with accuracy (see Histoire de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, pp. 41⁠–⁠100, edit. 1742) the institutions of Augustus and of Constantine, observes that if Otho had been put to death the day before he executed his conspiracy, Otho would now appear in history as innocent as Corbulo. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 110. Before the end of the reign of Constantius, the magistri militum were already increased to four. See Valesius ad Ammianus, l. XVI c. 7. ↩
Though the military counts and dukes are frequently mentioned, both in history and the codes, we must have recourse to the Notitia for the exact knowledge of their number and stations. For the institution, rank, privileges, etc., of the counts in general, see Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. XII⁠–⁠XX, with the commentary of Godefroy. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 111. The distinction between the two classes of Roman troops is very darkly expressed in the historians, the laws, and the Notitia. Consult, however, the copious paratitlon, or abstract, which Godefroy has drawn up of the seventh book, De re militari, of the Theodosian Code, l. VII tit. I leg. 18, l. VIII tit. I leg. 10. ↩
Ferox erat in suos miles et rapax, ignavus vero in hostes et fractus. Ammianus, l. XXII c. 4. He observes that they loved downy beds and houses of marble; and that their cups were heavier than their swords. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VII tit. I leg. 1, tit. XII leg. I. See Howell’s History of the World, vol. II, p. 19. That learned historian, who is not sufficiently known, labors to justify the character and policy of Constantine. ↩
Ammianus, l. XIX c. 2. He observes (c. 5) that the desperate sallies of two Gallic legions were like a handful of water thrown on a great conflagration. ↩
Pancirolus ad Notitia dignitatum utriusque imperii, p. 96. Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXV, p. 491. ↩
Romana acies unius prope formae erat et hominum et armorum genere.⁠—Regia acies varia magis multis gentibus dissimilitudine armorum auxiliorumque erat. Titus Livius, l. XXXVII c. 39, 40. Flaminius, even before the event, had compared the army of Antiochus to a supper, in which the flesh of one vile animal was diversified by the skill of the cooks. See the “Life of Flaminius” in Plutarch. ↩
Agathias, l. V, p. 157, edit. Louvre. ↩
Valentinian (Codex Theodosianus, l. VII tit. XIII leg. 3) fixes the standard at five feet seven inches, about five feet four inches and a half, English measure. It had formerly been five feet ten inches, and in the best corps, six Roman feet. Sed tunc erat amplior multitudo, et plures sequebantur militiam armatam. Vegetius, De re militari, l. I c. V. ↩
See the two titles, “De Veteranis” and “De Filiis Veteranorum,” in the seventh book of the Theodosian Code. The age at which their military service was required varied from twenty-five to sixteen. If the sons of the veterans appeared with a horse, they had a right to serve in the cavalry; two horses gave them some valuable privileges. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VII tit. XIII leg. 7. According to the historian Socrates (see Godefroy ad loc.), the same emperor Valens sometimes required eighty pieces of gold for a recruit. In the following law it is faintly expressed that slaves shall not be admitted inter optimas lectissimorum militum turmas. ↩
The person and property of a Roman knight, who had mutilated his two sons, were sold at public auction by order of Augustus (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 27). The moderation of that artful usurper proves that this example of severity was justified by the spirit of the times. Ammianus makes a distinction between the effeminate Italians and the hardy Gauls (l. XV c. 12). Yet only 15 years afterwards, Valentinian, in a law addressed to the prefect of Gaul, is obliged to enact that these cowardly deserters shall be burnt alive (Codex Theodosianus, l. VII tit. XIII leg. 5). Their numbers in Illyricum were so considerable that the province complained of a scarcity of recruits (idem, leg. 10). ↩
They were called Murci. Murcidus is found in Plautus and Festus, to denote a lazy and cowardly person, who, according to Arnobius and Augustine, was under the immediate protection of the goddess Murcia. From this particular instance of cowardice, murcare is used as synonymous to mutilare, by the writers of the middle Latinity. See Henricus Lindenbrogius, and Valesius ad Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XV c. 12. ↩
Malarichus⁠—adhibitis Francis quorum ea tempestate in palatio multitudo florebat, erectius jam loquebatur tumultuabaturque. Ammianus, l. XV c. 5. ↩
Barbaros omnium primus, ad usque fasces auxerat et trabeas consulares. Ammianus, l. XX c. 10. Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 7) and Aurelius Victor seem to confirm the truth of this assertion; yet in the thirty-two consular Fasti of the reign of Constantine, I cannot discover the name of a single Barbarian. I should therefore interpret the liberality of that prince as relative to the ornaments, rather than to the office, of the consulship. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. 8. ↩
By a very singular metaphor, borrowed from the military character of the first emperors, the steward of their household was styled the count of their camp (comes castrensis). Cassiodorus very seriously represents to him that his own fame, and that of the empire, must depend on the opinion which foreign ambassadors may conceive of the plenty and magnificence of the royal table (Variarum, l. VI epistola 9). ↩
Gutherius (De officiis domus Augustae, l. II c. 20, l. III) has very accurately explained the functions of the master of the offices and the constitution of the subordinate scrinia. But he vainly attempts, on the most doubtful authority, to deduce from the time of the Antonines, or even of Nero, the origin of a magistrate who cannot be found in history before the reign of Constantine. ↩
Tacitus (Annales XI 22) says that the first quaestors were elected by the people, sixty-four years after the foundation of the republic; but he is of opinion that they had, long before that period, been annually appointed by the consuls, and even by the kings. But this obscure point of antiquity is contested by other writers. ↩
Tacitus (Annales XI 22) seems to consider twenty as the highest number of quaestors; and Dion (l. XLIII, p. 374) insinuates that if the dictator Caesar once created forty, it was only to facilitate the payment of an immense debt of gratitude. Yet the augmentation which he made of praetors subsisted under the succeeding reigns. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 65, and Torrentius, ad loc. Dion Cassius, p. 755. ↩
The youth and inexperience of the quaestors, who entered on that important office in their twenty-fifth year (Lipsius, Excursus ad Tacitus, l. III D), engaged Augustus to remove them from the management of the treasury; and, though they were restored by Claudius, they seem to have been finally dismissed by Nero (Tacitus, Annales XIII 29; Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 36, in “Claudian,” c. 24; Dion, pp. 696, 961, etc.; Pliny the Younger, Epistulae X 20, et alibi). In the provinces of the Imperial division, the place of the quaestors was more ably supplied by the procurators (Dion Cassius, p. 707, Tacitus in Vita Agricola, c. 15); or, as they were afterwards called, rationales (Historia Augusta, p. 130). But in the provinces of the senate we may still discover a series of quaestors till the reign of Marcus Antoninus (see the Inscriptions of Gruter, the Epistles of Pliny the Younger, and a decisive fact in the Augustan History, p. 64). From Ulpian we may learn (Pandectae, l. I tit. 13) that, under the government of the house of Severus, their provincial administration was abolished; and in the subsequent troubles the annual or triennial elections of quaestors must have naturally ceased. ↩
Cum patris nomine et epistolas ipse dictaret, et edicta conscriberet, orationesque in senatu recitaret, etiam quaestoris vice. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Titus,” c. 6. The office must have acquired new dignity, which was occasionally executed by the heir apparent of the empire. Trajan entrusted the same care to Hadrian, his quaestor and cousin. See Dodwell, Praelectiones Cambdeniana X, XI, pp. 362⁠–⁠394. ↩
… Terris edicta daturus;
Supplicibus responsa, venis.⁠—Oracula regis
Eloquio crevere tuo; nec dignius unquam
Majestas meminit sese Romana locutam.
Claudian in “Consulatu Manlii Theodori” 33.

See likewise Symmachus (“Epistle I” 17) and Cassiodorus (Variarum VI 5). ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. 30. Codex Justinianus, l. XII tit. 24. ↩
In the departments of the two counts of the treasury, the eastern part of the Notitia happens to be very defective. It may be observed that we had a treasury chest in London, and a gyneceum or manufacture at Winchester. But Britain was not thought worthy either of a mint or of an arsenal. Gaul alone possessed three of the former, and eight of the latter. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. XXX leg. 2, and Godefroy ad loc. ↩
Strabonis geographica, l. XXII, p. 809 [edit. Casaubon —⁠M.]. The other temple of Comana, in Pontus, was a colony from that of Cappadocia, l. XII, p. 835. The President Charles de Brosses (see his Salluste, tom. II, p. 21 [edit. Causubon —⁠M.]), conjectures that the deity adored in both Comanas was Beltis, the Venus of the east, the goddess of generation; a very different being indeed from the goddess of war. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. X tit. VI, “De Grege Dominico.” Godefroy has collected every circumstance of antiquity relative to the Cappadocian horses. One of the finest breeds, the Palmatian, was the forfeiture of a rebel, whose estate lay about sixteen miles from Tyana, near the great road between Constantinople and Antioch. ↩
Justinian (Novella 30) subjected the province of the count of Cappadocia to the immediate authority of the favorite eunuch, who presided over the sacred bedchamber. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. XXX leg. 4, etc. ↩
Pancirolus, pp. 102, 136. The appearance of these military domestics is described in the Latin poem of Corippus, De laudibus Justini Minoris, l. III 157⁠–⁠179, pp. 419, 420 of the Appendix, Historiae Byzantinae, Rome 1777. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus, who served so many years, obtained only the rank of a protector. The first ten among these honorable soldiers were “Clarissimi.” ↩
Xenophon, Cyropaedia, l. VIII. Barnabé Brisson, De regno Persico, l. I No. 190, p. 264. The emperors adopted with pleasure this Persian metaphor. ↩
For the Agentes in Rebus, see Ammianus, l. XV c. 3, l. XVI c. 5, l. XXII c. 7, with the curious annotations of Valesius. Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX. Among the passages collected in the Commentary of Godefroy, the most remarkable is one from Libanius, in his discourse concerning the death of Julian. ↩
The Pandects (l. XLVIII tit. XVIII) contain the sentiments of the most celebrated civilians on the subject of torture. They strictly confine it to slaves; and Ulpian himself is ready to acknowledge that Res est fragilis, et periculosa, et quae veritatem fallat. ↩
In the conspiracy of Piso against Nero, Epicharis (libertina mulier) was the only person tortured; the rest were intacti tormentis. It would be superfluous to add a weaker, and it would be difficult to find a stronger, example. Tacitus, Annales XV 57. ↩
Dicendum⁠ ⁠… de Institutis Atheniensium. Rhodiorum, doctissimorum hominum, apud quos etiam (id quod acerbissimum est) liberi, civesque torquentur. Cicero, Partitiones oratoriae, c. 34. We may learn from the trial of Philotas the practice of the Macedonians (Diodorus Siculus, l. XVII, p. 604; Quintus Curtius Rufus, l. VI c. 11). ↩
Heineccius (Elementa juris civilis, part VII, p. 81) has collected these exemptions into one view. ↩
This definition of the sage Ulpian (Pandectae, l. XLVIII tit. IV) seems to have been adapted to the court of Caracalla, rather than to that of Alexander Severus. See the Codes of Theodosius and ad legem “Juliam majestatis.” ↩
Arcadius Charisius is the oldest lawyer quoted in the Pandects to justify the universal practice of torture in all cases of treason; but this maxim of tyranny, which is admitted by Ammianus (l. XIX c. 12) with the most respectful terror, is enforced by several laws of the successors of Constantine. See Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. XXXV. In majestatis crimine omnibus aequa est conditio. ↩
Montesquieu, De l’esprit des loix, l. XII c. 13. ↩
Mr. Hume (Essays, vol. I, p. 389) has seen this important truth, with some degree of perplexity. ↩
The cycle of indictions, which may be traced as high as the reign of Constantius, or perhaps of his father, Constantine, is still employed by the Papal court: but the commencement of the year has been very reasonably altered to the first of January. See L’Art de vérifier les dates, p. XI; and Dictionnaire raisonné de la diplomatique, tom. II, p. 25; two accurate treatises, which come from the workshop of the Benedictines.8889 ↩
The first twenty-eight titles of the eleventh book of the Theodosian Code are filled with the circumstantial regulations on the important subject of tributes; but they suppose a clearer knowledge of fundamental principles than it is at present in our power to attain. ↩
The title concerning the Decurions (l. XII tit. I) is the most ample in the whole Theodosian Code; since it contains not less than 192 distinct laws to ascertain the duties and privileges of that useful order of citizens.8890 ↩
Habemus enim et hominum numerum qui delati sunt, et agrûm modum. Eumenius in Panegyrici veteres VIII 6. See Codex Theodosianus, l. XIII tit. X, XI, with Godefroy’s Commentary. ↩
Siquis sacrilegâ vitem falce succiderit, aut feracium ramorum foetus hebetaverit, quo delinet fidem Censuum, et mentiatur callide paupertatis ingenium, mox detectus capitale subibit exitium, et bona ejus in Fisci jura migrabunt. Codex Theodosianus, l. XIII tit. XI leg. 1. Although this law is not without its studied obscurity, it is, however, clear enough to prove the minuteness of the inquisition, and the disproportion of the penalty. ↩
The astonishment of Pliny the Elder would have ceased. Equidem miror populum Romanum victis gentibus argentum semper imperitasse non aurum. Naturalis historiae XXXIII 15. ↩
The proprietors were not charged with the expense of this transport; in the provinces situated on the seashore or near the great rivers, there were companies of boatmen, and of masters of vessels, who had this commission, and furnished the means of transport at their own expense. In return, they were themselves exempt altogether, or in part, from the indiction and other imposts. They had certain privileges; particular regulations determined their rights and obligations (Codex Theodosianus, l. XIII tit. V leg. 9). The transports by land were made in the same manner, by the intervention of a privileged company called Bastaga; the members were called Bastagarii. Codex Theodosianus, l. VIII tit. V. —⁠G. ↩
Some precautions were taken (see Codex Theodosianus, l. XI tit. II and Codex Justinianus, l. X tit. XXVII leg. 1⁠–⁠3) to restrain the magistrates from the abuse of their authority, either in the exaction or in the purchase of corn: but those who had learning enough to read the orations of Cicero against Verres (III “De Frumento”) might instruct themselves in all the various arts of oppression, with regard to the weight, the price, the quality, and the carriage. The avarice of an unlettered governor would supply the ignorance of precept or precedent. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XI tit. XXVIII leg. 2, published the 24th of March, AD 395, by the emperor Honorius, only two months after the death of his father, Theodosius. He speaks of 528,042 Roman jugera, which I have reduced to the English measure. The jugerum contained 28,800 square Roman feet. ↩
Godefroy (Codex Theodosianus, tom. VI, p. 116) argues with weight and learning on the subject of the capitation; but while he explains the caput, as a share or measure of property, he too absolutely excludes the idea of a personal assessment. ↩
Quid profuerit (Julianus) anhelantibus extremâ penuriâ Gallis, hinc maxime claret, quod primitus partes eas ingressus, pro capitibus singulis tributi nomine vicenos quinos aureos reperit flagitari; discedens vero septenos tantum numera universa complentes. Ammianus, l. XVI c. 5. ↩
In the calculation of any sum of money under Constantine and his successors, we need only refer to the excellent discourse of Mr. Greaves on the denarius, for the proof of the following principles:
1. That the ancient and modern Roman pound, containing 5,256 grains of Troy weight, is about one twelfth lighter than the English pound, which is composed of 5,760 of the same grains.
2. That the pound of gold, which had once been divided into forty-eight aurei, was at this time coined into seventy-two smaller pieces of the same denomination.
3. That five of these aurei were the legal tender for a pound of silver, and that consequently the pound of gold was exchanged for fourteen pounds eight ounces of silver according to the Roman, or about thirteen pounds according to the English, weight.
4. That the English pound of silver is coined into sixty-two shillings.
From these elements we may compute the Roman pound of gold, the usual method of reckoning large sums, at forty pounds sterling, and we may fix the currency of the aureus at somewhat more than eleven shillings.8891 ↩
Two masterly dissertations of M. Savigny, in the Memoirs of the Berlin Academy (1822 and 1823) have thrown new light on the taxation system of the Empire. Gibbon, according to M. Savigny, is mistaken in supposing that there was but one kind of capitation tax; there was a land tax, and a capitation tax, strictly so called. The land tax was, in its operation, a proprietor’s or landlord’s tax. But, besides this, there was a direct capitation tax on all who were not possessed of landed property. This tax dates from the time of the Roman conquests; its amount is not clearly known. Gradual exemptions released different persons and classes from this tax. One edict exempts painters. In Syria, all under twelve or fourteen, or above sixty-five, were exempted; at a later period, all under twenty, and all unmarried females; still later, all under twenty-five, widows and nuns, soldiers, veterani and clerici⁠—whole dioceses, that of Thrace and Illyricum. Under Galerius and Licinius, the plebs urbana became exempt; though this, perhaps, was only an ordinance for the East. By degrees, however, the exemption was extended to all the inhabitants of towns; and as it was strictly capitatio plebeia, from which all possessors were exempted, it fell at length altogether on the coloni and agricultural slaves. These were registered in the same cataster (capitastrum) with the land tax. It was paid by the proprietor, who raised it again from his coloni and laborers. —⁠M. ↩
Geryones nos esse puta, monstrumque tributum,
Hic capita ut vivam, tu mihi tolle tria.
Sidonius Appolinaris, “Carmen XIII.”

The reputation of Father Jacques Sirmond led me to expect more satisfaction than I have found in his note (p. 144) on this remarkable passage. The words, suo vel suorum nomine, betray the perplexity of the commentator. ↩
This assertion, however formidable it may seem, is founded on the original registers of births, deaths, and marriages, collected by public authority, and now deposited in the Contrôle Général at Paris. The annual average of births throughout the whole kingdom, taken in five years (from 1770 to 1774, both inclusive), is 479,649 boys, and 449,269 girls, in all 928,918 children. The province of French Hainault alone furnishes 9,906 births; and we are assured, by an actual enumeration of the people, annually repeated from the year 1773 to the year 1776, that, upon an average, Hainault contains 257,097 inhabitants. By the rules of fair analogy, we might infer that the ordinary proportion of annual births to the whole people, is about 1 to 26; and that the kingdom of France contains 24,151,868 persons of both sexes and of every age. If we content ourselves with the more moderate proportion of 1 to 25, the whole population will amount to 23,222,950. From the diligent researches of the French Government (which are not unworthy of our own imitation), we may hope to obtain a still greater degree of certainty on this important subject.8892 ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. V tit. IX, X, XI. Codex Justinianus, l. XI tit. LXIII. Coloni appellantur qui conditionem debent genitali solo, propter agriculturum sub dominio possessorum. Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. X c. I. ↩
The ancient jurisdiction of (Augustodunum) Autun in Burgundy, the capital of the Aedui, comprehended the adjacent territory of (Noviodunum) Nevers. See d’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, p. 491. The two dioceses of Autun and Nevers are now composed, the former of 610, and the latter of 160 parishes. The registers of births, taken during eleven years, in 476 parishes of the same province of Burgundy, and multiplied by the moderate proportion of 25 (see Messance, Recherches sur la population, p. 142), may authorize us to assign an average number of 656 persons for each parish, which being again multiplied by the 770 parishes of the dioceses of Nevers and Autun, will produce the sum of 505,120 persons for the extent of country which was once possessed by the Aedui. ↩
We might derive an additional supply of 301,750 inhabitants from the dioceses of Châlons (Cabillonum) and of Maçon (Matisco), since they contain, the one 200, and the other 260 parishes. This accession of territory might be justified by very specious reasons.
1. Châlons and Maçon were undoubtedly within the original jurisdiction of the Aedui. (See d’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, pp. 187, 443.)
2. In the Notitia of Gaul, they are enumerated not as Civitates, but merely as Castra.
3. They do not appear to have been episcopal seats before the fifth and sixth centuries.
Yet there is a passage in Eumenius (Panegyrici veteres VIII 7) which very forcibly deters me from extending the territory of the Aedui, in the reign of Constantine, along the beautiful banks of the navigable Saône.8893 ↩
Eumenius in Panegyrici veteres. VIII 11. ↩
L’Abbé Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, p. 121. ↩
See Codex Theodosianus, l. XIII tit. I and IV. ↩
The emperor Theodosius put an end, by a law, to this disgraceful source of revenue. (Godefroy ad Codex Theodosianus XIII tit. I c. 1.) But before he deprived himself of it, he made sure of some way of replacing this deficit. A rich patrician, Florentius, indignant at this legalized licentiousness, had made representations on the subject to the emperor. To induce him to tolerate it no longer, he offered his own property to supply the diminution of the revenue. The emperor had the baseness to accept his offer. —⁠G. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 115. There is probably as much passion and prejudice in the attack of Zosimus as in the elaborate defence of the memory of Constantine by the zealous Dr. Howell. History of the World, vol. II, p. 20. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XI tit. VII leg. 3. ↩
See Lipsius, De magnitudine Romanâ, l. II c. 9. The Tarragonese Spain presented the emperor Claudius with a crown of gold of seven, and Gaul with another of nine, hundred pounds weight. I have followed the rational emendation of Lipsius.8894 ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XII tit. XIII. The senators were supposed to be exempt from the Aurum Coronarium; but the Auri Oblatio, which was required at their hands, was precisely of the same nature. ↩
The great Theodosius, in his judicious advice to his son (Claudian in “IV Consulatu Honorii Augusti,” 214, etc.), distinguishes the station of a Roman prince from that of a Parthian monarch. Virtue was necessary for the one; birth might suffice for the other. ↩
On ne se trompera point sur Constantin, en croyant tout le mal qu’en dit Eusèbe, et tout le bien qu’en dit Zosime. Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. III, p. 233. Eusebius and Zosimus form indeed the two extremes of flattery and invective. The intermediate shades are expressed by those writers whose character or situation variously tempered the influence of their religious zeal. ↩
The virtues of Constantine are collected for the most part from Eutropius and the younger Victor, two sincere pagans, who wrote after the extinction of his family. Even Zosimus and the emperor Julian acknowledge his personal courage and military achievements. ↩
See Eutropius X 6. In primo Imperii tempore optimis principibus, ultimo mediis comparandus. From the ancient Greek version of Poeanius (edit. Havercamp, p. 697), I am inclined to suspect that Eutropius had originally written vix mediis; and that the offensive monosyllable was dropped by the wilful inadvertency of transcribers. Aurelius Victor expresses the general opinion by a vulgar and indeed obscure proverb. Trachala decem annis praestantissimus; duodecim sequentibus latro; decem novissimis pupillus ob immodicas profusiones. ↩
Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 8, in a flattering discourse pronounced before the son of Constantine; and Caesares, p. 336. Zosimus, pp. 114, 115. The stately buildings of Constantinople, etc., may be quoted as a lasting and unexceptionable proof of the profuseness of their founder. ↩
The impartial Ammianus deserves all our confidence. Proximorum fauces aperuit primus omnium Constantinus. L. XVI c. 8. Eusebius himself confesses the abuse (De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 29, 54); and some of the Imperial laws feebly point out the remedy. See here in chapter 17. ↩
Julian, in the Caesars, attempts to ridicule his uncle. His suspicious testimony is confirmed, however, by the learned Spanheim, with the authority of medals (see Commentaire, pp. 156, 299, 397, 459). Eusebius (Oratio c. 5) alleges that Constantine dressed for the public, not for himself. Were this admitted, the vainest coxcomb could never want an excuse. ↩
Zosimus and Zonaras agree in representing Minervina as the concubine of Constantine; but du Cange has very gallantly rescued her character, by producing a decisive passage from one of the panegyrics: “Ab ipso fine pueritiae te matrimonii legibus dedisti.” ↩
Du Cange (Familiae Byzantinae, p. 44) bestows on him, after Zosimus, the name of Constantine; a name somewhat unlikely, as it was already occupied by the elder brother. That of Hannibalianus is mentioned in the Paschal Chronicle, and is approved by Tillemont. Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 527. ↩
Jerome in Chronicon. The poverty of Lactantius may be applied either to the praise of the disinterested philosopher, or to the shame of the unfeeling patron. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI part I, p. 345. Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. I, p. 205. Lardner’s The Credibility of the Gospel History, part II vol. VII, p. 66. ↩
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. X c. 9. Eutropius (X 6) styles him “egregium virum”; and Julian (“Oratio I”) very plainly alludes to the exploits of Crispus in the civil war. See Spanheim, Commentaire, p. 92. ↩
Compare Idacius and the Paschal Chronicle, with Ammianus (l. XIV c. 5). The year in which Constantius was created Caesar seems to be more accurately fixed by the two chronologists; but the historian who lived in his court could not be ignorant of the day of the anniversary. For the appointment of the new Caesar to the provinces of Gaul, see Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 12, Godefroy, Chronologia Legum, p. 26, and Blondel, De la primauté en l’Église, p. 1183. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. IV. Godefroy suspected the secret motives of this law. Commentary tom. III, p. 9. ↩
Du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 28. Tillemont, tom. IV, p. 610. ↩
His name was Porphyrius Optatianus. The date of his panegyric, written, according to the taste of the age, in vile acrostics, is settled by Scaliger ad Eusebius, p. 250, Tillemont, tom. IV, p. 607, and Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina, l. IV c. 1. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 103. Godefroy, Chronologia Legum, p. 28. ↩
Ἀκρίτως, without a trial, is the strong, and most probably the just, expression of Suidas. The elder Victor, who wrote under the next reign, speaks with becoming caution. “Natû grandior incertum quâ causâ, patris judicio occidisset.” If we consult the succeeding writers, Eutropius, the younger Victor, Orosius, Jerome, Zosimus, Philostorgius, and Gregory of Tours, their knowledge will appear gradually to increase, as their means of information must have diminished⁠—a circumstance which frequently occurs in historical disquisition. ↩
Ammianus (l. XIV c. 11) uses the general expression of peremptum. Codinus (p. 34) beheads the young prince; but Sidonius Apollinaris (“Epistle V” 8), for the sake perhaps of an antithesis to Fausta’s warm bath, chooses to administer a draught of cold poison. ↩
Sororis filium, commodae indolis juvenem. Eutropius X 6. May I not be permitted to conjecture that Crispus had married Helena, the daughter of the emperor Licinius, and that on the happy delivery of the princess, in the year 322, a general pardon was granted by Constantine? See du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 47, and the law (l. IX tit. XXXVII) of the Theodosian Code, which has so much embarrassed the interpreters. Godefroy, tom. III, p. 267.8895 ↩
See the Life of Constantine, particularly l. II c. 19, 20. Two hundred and fifty years afterwards Evagrius (l. III c. 41) deduced from the silence of Eusebius a vain argument against the reality of the fact. ↩
Histoire de Pierre le Grand, par Voltaire, part II c. 10. ↩
In order to prove that the statue was erected by Constantine, and afterwards concealed by the malice of the Arians, Codinus very readily creates (p. 34) two witnesses, Hippolytus and the younger Herodotus, to whose imaginary histories he appeals with unblushing confidence. ↩
Zosimus (l. II, p. 103) may be considered as our original. The ingenuity of the moderns, assisted by a few hints from the ancients, has illustrated and improved his obscure and imperfect narrative. ↩
Philostorgius, l. II c. 4. Zosimus (l. II, pp. 104, 116) imputes to Constantine the death of two wives, of the innocent Fausta, and of an adulteress, who was the mother of his three successors. According to Jerome, three or four years elapsed between the death of Crispus and that of Fausta. The elder Victor is prudently silent. ↩
If Fausta was put to death, it is reasonable to believe that the private apartments of the palace were the scene of her execution. The orator Chrysostom indulges his fancy by exposing the naked empress on a desert mountain to be devoured by wild beasts. ↩
Julian, “Oratio I.” He seems to call her the mother of Crispus. She might assume that title by adoption. At least, she was not considered as his mortal enemy. Julian compares the fortune of Fausta with that of Parysatis, the Persian queen. A Roman would have more naturally recollected the second Agrippina:⁠—

Et moi, qui sur le trone ai suivi mes ancêtres:
Moi, fille, femme, soeur, et mère de vos maîtres.

↩
“Monody” in Constantine Junior, c. 4, ad calcem Eutropius, edit. Havercamp. The orator styles her the most divine and pious of queens. ↩
Manso (Leben Constantius des Grossen, p. 65) treats this inference of Gibbon, and the authorities to which he appeals, with too much contempt, considering the general scantiness of proof on this curious question. —⁠M. ↩
Interfecit numerosos amicos. Eutropius X 6. ↩
Saturni aurea saecula quis requirat?
Sunt haec gemmea, sed Neroniana.
Sidonius Apollinaris V 8.

It is somewhat singular that these satirical lines should be attributed, not to an obscure libeller, or a disappointed patriot, but to Ablavius, prime minister and favorite of the emperor. We may now perceive that the imprecations of the Roman people were dictated by humanity, as well as by superstition. Zosimus, l. II, p. 105. ↩
Eusebius, Oratio in De vita Constantini, c. 3. These dates are sufficiently correct to justify the orator. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 117. Under the predecessors of Constantine, Nobilissimus was a vague epithet, rather than a legal and determined title. ↩
Adstruunt nummi veteres ac singulares. Spanheim, Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum XII vol. II, p. 357. Ammianus speaks of this Roman king (l. XIV c. 1, and Valesius ad loc.). The Valesian fragment styles him King of kings; and the Paschal Chronicle, by employing the word Ρηγα, acquires the weight of Latin evidence.8896 ↩
His dexterity in martial exercises is celebrated by Julian (“Oratio I,” p. 11, “Oratio II,” p. 53), and allowed by Ammianus (l. XXI c. 16). ↩
Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 51. Julian, “Oratio I,” pp. 11⁠–⁠16, with Spanheim’s elaborate commentary. Libanius, “Oratio III,” p. 109. Constantius studied with laudable diligence; but the dullness of his fancy prevented him from succeeding in the art of poetry, or even of rhetoric. ↩
Eusebius (l. IV c. 51, 52), with a design of exalting the authority and glory of Constantine, affirms that he divided the Roman empire as a private citizen might have divided his patrimony. His distribution of the provinces may be collected from Eutropius, the two Victors and the Valesian fragment. ↩
Calocerus, the obscure leader of this rebellion, or rather tumult, was apprehended and burnt alive in the marketplace of Tarsus, by the vigilance of Dalmatius. See the elder Victor, the Chronicle of Jerome, and the doubtful traditions of Theophanes and Cedrenus. ↩
Cellarius has collected the opinions of the ancients concerning the European and Asiatic Sarmatia; and M. d’Anville has applied them to modern geography with the skill and accuracy which always distinguish that excellent writer. ↩
Ammianus, l. XVII c. 12. The Sarmatian horses were castrated to prevent the mischievous accidents which might happen from the noisy and ungovernable passions of the males. ↩
Pausanius, l. I, p. 50, edit. Kuhn. That inquisitive traveller had carefully examined a Sarmatian cuirass, which was preserved in the temple of Aesculapius at Athens. ↩
Aspicis et mitti sub adunco toxica ferro,
Et telum causas mortis habere duas.
Ovid, Epistulae ex ponto, l. IV, “Epistula 7” verse 7.

See in the Recherches sur les Américains, tom. II, pp. 236⁠–⁠271, a very curious dissertation on poisoned darts. The venom was commonly extracted from the vegetable reign: but that employed by the Scythians appears to have been drawn from the viper and a mixture of human blood. The use of poisoned arms, which has been spread over both worlds, never preserved a savage tribe from the arms of a disciplined enemy. ↩
The nine books of Poetical Epistles which Ovid composed during the seven first years of his melancholy exile, possess, beside the merit of elegance, a double value. They exhibit a picture of the human mind under very singular circumstances; and they contain many curious observations, which no Roman, except Ovid, could have an opportunity of making. Every circumstance which tends to illustrate the history of the Barbarians has been drawn together by the very accurate Count Louis-Gabriel Du Buat, Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. IV c. XVI, pp. 286⁠–⁠317. ↩
The Sarmatian Jazygae were settled on the banks of Pathissus or Tibiscus, when Pliny the Elder, in the year 79, published his Natural History. See l. IV c. 25. In the time of Strabo and Ovid, sixty or seventy years before, they appear to have inhabited beyond the Getae, along the coast of the Euxine. ↩
Principes Sarmaturum Jazygum penes quos civitatis regimen⁠ ⁠… plebem quoque et vim equitum, quâ solâ valent, offerebant. Tacitus, Historiae III 5. This offer was made in the civil war between Vitellius and Vespasian. ↩
This hypothesis of a Vandal king reigning over Sarmatian subjects seems necessary to reconcile the Goth Jornandes with the Greek and Latin historians of Constantine. It may be observed that Isidore, who lived in Spain under the dominion of the Goths, gives them for enemies, not the Vandals, but the Sarmatians. See his Gothorum, Vandalorum, et Suevorum in Hispania chronicon in Grotius, p. 709.8897 ↩
Gibbon states that Constantine was defeated by the Goths in a first battle. No ancient author mentions such an event. It is, no doubt, a mistake in Gibbon. Saint-Martin, note to Le Beau, I 324. —⁠M. ↩
I may stand in need of some apology for having used, without scruple, the authority of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in all that relates to the wars and negotiations of the Chersonites. I am aware that he was a Greek of the tenth century, and that his accounts of ancient history are frequently confused and fabulous. But on this occasion his narrative is, for the most part, consistent and probable; nor is there much difficulty in conceiving that an emperor might have access to some secret archives, which had escaped the diligence of meaner historians. For the situation and history of Chersone, see Claude-Charles de Peyssonnel, Observations historiques et géographiques, sur les peuples barbares qui ont habité les bords du Danube & du Pont-Euxin, c. XVI, pp. 84⁠–⁠90.8898 ↩
Gibbon supposes that this war took place because Constantine had deducted a part of the customary gratifications, granted by his predecessors to the Sarmatians. Nothing of this kind appears in the authors. We see, on the contrary, that after his victory, and to punish the Sarmatians for the ravages they had committed, he withheld the sums which it had been the custom to bestow. Saint-Martin, note to Le Beau, I 327. —⁠M. ↩
The Gothic and Sarmatian wars are related in so broken and imperfect a manner that I have been obliged to compare the following writers, who mutually supply, correct, and illustrate each other. Those who will take the same trouble, may acquire a right of criticizing my narrative. Ammianus, l. XVII c. 12. Anonymus Valesianus, p. 715. Eutropius X 7. Sextus Rufus, De provinciis, c. 26. Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 9, and Spanheim, Commentaire, p. 94. Hieronymus, in Chronicon. Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 6. Socrates, l. I c. 18. Sozomen, l. I c. 8. Zosimus, l. II, p. 108. Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 22. Isidorus Hispalensis in Chronicon, p. 709, in Historia Gotthorum, Vandalorum, & Langobardorum. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, c. 53, p. 208, edit. Meursii.8899 ↩
Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 50) remarks three circumstances relative to these Indians.
1. They came from the shores of the Eastern ocean; a description which might be applied to the coast of China or Coromandel.
2. They presented shining gems and unknown animals.
3. They protested their kings had erected statues to represent the supreme majesty of Constantine.
↩
Funus relatum in urbem sui nominis, quod sane populus Romanus aegerrime tulit. Aurelius Victor. Constantine prepared for himself a stately tomb in the church of the Holy Apostles. Eusebius, l. IV c. 60. The best, and indeed almost the only, account of the sickness, death, and funeral of Constantine is contained in the fourth book of his Life, by Eusebius. ↩
Eusebius (l. IV c. 68) terminates his narrative by this loyal declaration of the troops, and avoids all the invidious circumstances of the subsequent massacre. ↩
The character of Dalmatius is advantageously, though concisely, drawn by Eutropius (X 9). Dalmatius Caesar prosperrimâ indole, neque patruo absimilis, haud multo post oppressus est factione militari. As both Jerome and the Alexandrian World Chronicle mention the third year of the Caesar, which did not commence till the 18th or 24th of September, AD 337, it is certain that these military factions continued above four months. ↩
I have related this singular anecdote on the authority of Philostorgius, l. II c. 16. But if such a pretext was ever used by Constantius and his adherents, it was laid aside with contempt, as soon as it served their immediate purpose. Athanasius (tom. I, p. 856) mentions the oath which Constantius had taken for the security of his kinsmen.8900 ↩
Conjugia sobrinarum diu ignorata, tempore addito percrebuisse. Tacitus, Annales XII 6, and Lipsius ad loc. The repeal of the ancient law, and the practice of five hundred years, were insufficient to eradicate the prejudices of the Romans, who still considered the marriages of cousins-german as a species of imperfect incest (Augustine, De civitate Dei XV 6); and Julian, whose mind was biased by superstition and resentment, stigmatizes these unnatural alliances between his own cousins with the opprobrious epithet of γαμῶν τε οὐ γαμῶν (“Oratio VII,” p. 228). The jurisprudence of the canons has since revived and enforced this prohibition, without being able to introduce it either into the civil or the common law of Europe. See on the subject of these marriages, John Taylor’s Elements of Civil Law, p. 331; Henrici Brouwer, De jure connubiorum, l. II c. 12; Louis de Héricourt, Les loix ecclésiastiques de France, part III c. 5; Fleury, Institution au droit ecclésiastique, tom. I, p. 331, Paris, 1767; and Fra Paolo Sarpi, Istoria del Concilio tridentino, l. VIII. ↩
Julian (ad “Senatus Populusque Athena,” p. 270) charges his cousin Constantius with the whole guilt of a massacre from which he himself so narrowly escaped. His assertion is confirmed by Athanasius, who, for reasons of a very different nature, was not less an enemy of Constantius (tom. I, p. 856). Zosimus joins in the same accusation. But the three abbreviators, Eutropius and the Victors, use very qualifying expressions: “sinente potius quam jubente”; “incertum quo suasore”; “vi militum.” ↩
Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 69. Zosimus, l. II, p. 117. Idacius in Chronicon. See two notes of Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, pp. 1086⁠–⁠1091. The reign of the eldest brother at Constantinople is noticed only in the Alexandrian World Chronicle. ↩
Agathias, who lived in the sixth century, is the author of this story (l. IV, p. 135, edit. Louvre). He derived his information from some extracts of the Persian Chronicles, obtained and translated by the interpreter Sergius, during his embassy at that country. The coronation of the mother of Sapor is likewise mentioned by Wilhelm Schikard (Tarich, p. 116), and d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 763).8901 ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 764. ↩
Gibbon, according to Sir J. Malcolm, has greatly mistaken the derivation of this name; it means Zoolaktaf, the Lord of the Shoulders, from his directing the shoulders of his captives to be pierced and then dislocated by a string passed through them. Eastern authors are agreed with respect to the origin of this title. Malcolm I 84. Gibbon took his derivation from d’Herbelot, who gives both, the latter on the authority of the Leb. Tarikh. —⁠M. ↩
Sextus Rufus (c. 26), who on this occasion is no contemptible authority, affirms that the Persians sued in vain for peace, and that Constantine was preparing to march against them: yet the superior weight of the testimony of Eusebius obliges us to admit the preliminaries, if not the ratification, of the treaty. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 420.8902 ↩
Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 20. ↩
Tiridates had sustained a war against Maximin, caused by the hatred of the latter against Christianity. Armenia was the first nation which embraced Christianity. About the year 276 it was the religion of the king, the nobles, and the people of Armenia. From Saint-Martin, Supplement to Le Beau, vol. I, p. 78. Compare preface to History of Vartan by Professor Karl Neumann, p. IX. —⁠M. ↩
Khosrow was restored probably by Licinius, between 314 and 319. There was an Antiochus who was prefectus vigilum at Rome, as appears from the Theodosian Code (l. III de inf. his quae sub ty.), in 326, and from a fragment of the same work published by M. Amédee Peyron, in 319. He may before this have been sent into Armenia. Saint-Martin, p. 407. [Is it not more probable that Antiochus was an officer in the service of the Caesar who ruled in the East? —⁠M.] Khosrow was succeeded in the year 322 by his son Diran. Diran was a weak prince, and in the sixteenth year of his reign, AD 337, was betrayed into the power of the Persians by the treachery of his chamberlain and the Persian governor of Atropatene or Aderbidjan. He was blinded: his wife and his son Arsaces shared his captivity, but the princes and nobles of Armenia claimed the protection of Rome; and this was the cause of Constantine’s declaration of war against the Persians.⁠—The king of Persia attempted to make himself master of Armenia; but the brave resistance of the people, the advance of Constantius, and a defeat which his army suffered at Oskha in Armenia, and the failure before Nisibis, forced Shahpour to submit to terms of peace. Varaz-Shahpour, the perfidious governor of Atropatene, was flayed alive; Diran and his son were released from captivity; Diran refused to ascend the throne, and retired to an obscure retreat: his son Arsaces was crowned king of Armenia. Arsaces pursued a vacillating policy between the influence of Rome and Persia, and the war recommenced in the year 345. At least that was the period of the expedition of Constantius to the East. See Saint-Martin, additions to Le Beau, I 442. The Persians have made an extraordinary romance out of the history of Shahpour, who went as a spy to Constantinople, was taken, harnessed like a horse, and carried to witness the devastation of his kingdom. Malcolm I 84. —⁠M. ↩
Julian, “Oratio I,” pp. 20, 21. Moses of Chorene, l. II c. 89, l. III c. 1⁠–⁠9, pp. 226⁠–⁠240. The perfect agreement between the vague hints of the contemporary orator and the circumstantial narrative of the national historian gives light to the former and weight to the latter. For the credit of Moses, it may be likewise observed that the name of Antiochus is found a few years before in a civil office of inferior dignity. See Godefroy, Codex Theodosianus, tom. VI, p. 350.8903 ↩
It was during this war that a bold flatterer (whose name is unknown) published the Itineraries of Alexander and Trajan, in order to direct the victorious Constantius in the footsteps of those great conquerors of the East. The former of these has been published for the first time by M. Angelo Mai (Milan, 1817, reprinted at Frankfurt, 1818). It adds so little to our knowledge of Alexander’s campaigns that it only excites our regret that it is not the Itinerary of Trajan, of whose eastern victories we have no distinct record. —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus (XIV 4) gives a lively description of the wandering and predatory life of the Saracens, who stretched from the confines of Assyria to the cataracts of the Nile. It appears from the adventures of Malchus, which Jerome has related in so entertaining a manner, that the high road between Beraea and Edessa was infested by these robbers. See Hieronymus, tom. I, p. 256. ↩
We shall take from Eutropius the general idea of the war (X 10). A Persis enim multa et gravia perpessus, saepe captis oppidis, obsessis urbibus, caesis exercitibus, nullumque ei contra Saporem prosperum praelium fuit, nisi quod apud Singaram, etc. This honest account is confirmed by the hints of Ammianus, Rufus, and Jerome. The two first orations of Julian and the third oration of Libanius exhibit a more flattering picture; but the recantation of both those orators, after the death of Constantius, while it restores us to the possession of the truth, degrades their own character, and that of the emperor. The commentary of Spanheim on the first oration of Julian is profusely learned. See likewise the judicious observations of Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 656. ↩
Now Sinjar, on the River Claboras. —⁠M. ↩
Acerrimâ nocturnâ concertatione pugnatum est, nostrorum copiis ingenti strage confossis. Ammianus XVIII 5. See likewise Eutropius X 10, and Sextus Rufus, c. 27.8904 ↩
Libanius, “Oratio III,” p. 133, with Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 24, and Spanheim’s Commentary, p. 179. ↩
See Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 27, “Oratio II,” p. 62, etc., with the commentary of Spanheim (pp. 188⁠–⁠202), who illustrates the circumstances, and ascertains the time of the three sieges of Nisibis. Their dates are likewise examined by Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, pp. 668, 671, 674). Something is added from Zosimus, l. III, p. 151, and the Alexandrian World Chronicle, p. 290. ↩
Sallustii Fragment LXXXIV edit. de Brosses, and Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Lucullus,” tom. III, p. 184. Nisibis is now reduced to 150 houses: the marshy lands produce rice, and the fertile meadows, as far as Mosul and the Tigris, are covered with the ruins of towns and allages. See Niebuhr, Voyage en Arabie, tom. II, pp. 300⁠–⁠309. ↩
The miracles which Theodoret (l. II c. 30) ascribes to St. James, Bishop of Edessa, were at least performed in a worthy cause, the defence of his country. He appeared on the walls under the figure of the Roman emperor, and sent an army of gnats to sting the trunks of the elephants, and to discomfit the host of the new Sennacherib. ↩
Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 27. Though Niebuhr (tom. II, p. 307) allows a very considerable swell to the Mygdonius, over which he saw a bridge of twelve arches; it is difficult, however, to understand this parallel of a trifling rivulet with a mighty river. There are many circumstances obscure, and almost unintelligible, in the description of these stupendous waterworks. ↩
John Macdonald Kinneir observes on these floating batteries, “As the elevation of place is considerably above the level of the country in its immediate vicinity, and the Mygdonius is a very insignificant stream, it is difficult to imagine how this work could have been accomplished, even with the wonderful resources which the king must have had at his disposal.” A Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire, p. 262. —⁠M. ↩
We are obliged to Zonaras (tom. II l. XIII, p. 11) for this invasion of the Massagetae, which is perfectly consistent with the general series of events, to which we are darkly led by the broken history of Ammianus. ↩
The causes and the events of this civil war are related with much perplexity and contradiction. I have chiefly followed Zonaras and the younger Victor. The monody (ad calcem Eutropius, edit. Havercamp) pronounced on the death of Constantine, might have been very instructive; but prudence and false taste engaged the orator to involve himself in vague declamation. ↩
Quarum (gentium) obsides pretio quaesitos pueros venustiores quod cultius habuerat libidine hujusmodi arsisse pro certo habetur. Had not the depraved taste of Constans been publicly avowed, the elder Victor, who held a considerable office in his brother’s reign, would not have asserted it in such positive terms. ↩
Julian, Oratio I and II. Zosimus, l. II, p. 134. Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. There is reason to believe that Magnentius was born in one of those Barbarian colonies which Constantius Chlorus had established in Gaul (see here in chapter XIII). His behavior may remind us of the patriot Earl of Leicester, the famous Simon de Montfort, who could persuade the good people of England that he, a Frenchman by birth, had taken arms to deliver them from foreign favorites. ↩
This ancient city had once flourished under the name of Illiberis (Pomponius Mela II 5). The munificence of Constantine gave it new splendor, and his mother’s name. Helena (it is still called Elne) became the seat of a bishop, who long afterwards transferred his residence to Perpignan, the capital of modern Rousillon. See d’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, p. 380. Longuerue, Description historique et géographique de la France ancienne et moderne, p. 223, and the Marca Hispanica, l. I c. 2. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, pp. 119, 120. Zonaras, tom. II l. XIII, p. 13, and the Abbreviators. ↩
Eutropius (X 10) describes Vetranio with more temper, and probably with more truth, than either of the two Victors. Vetranio was born of obscure parents in the wildest parts of Maesia; and so much had his education been neglected that, after his elevation, he studied the alphabet. ↩
The doubtful, fluctuating conduct of Vetranio is described by Julian in his first oration, and accurately explained by Spanheim, who discusses the situation and behavior of Constantina. ↩
See Peter the Patrician, in the Excerpta legationum, p. 27. ↩
Zonaras, tom. II l. XIII, p. 16. The position of Sardica, near the modern city of Sophia, appears better suited to this interview than the situation of either Naissus or Sirmium, where it is placed by Jerome, Socrates, and Sozomen. ↩
See the two first orations of Julian, particularly p. 31; and Zosimus, l. II, p. 122. The distinct narrative of the historian serves to illustrate the diffuse but vague descriptions of the orator. ↩
The younger Victor assigns to his exile the emphatical appellation of “Voluptarium otium.” Socrates (l. II c. 28) is the voucher for the correspondence with the emperor, which would seem to prove that Vetranio was, indeed, prope ad stultitiam simplicissimus. ↩
Eum Constantius⁠ ⁠… facundiae vi dejectum Imperio in privatum otium removit. Quae gloria post natum Imperium soli processit eloquio clementiâque, etc. Aurelius Victor, Julian, and Themistius (Orationes III and IV) adorn this exploit with all the artificial and gaudy coloring of their rhetoric. ↩
Busbequius (p. 112) traversed the Lower Hungary and Sclavonia at a time when they were reduced almost to a desert, by the reciprocal hostilities of the Turks and Christians. Yet he mentions with admiration the unconquerable fertility of the soil; and observes that the height of the grass was sufficient to conceal a loaded wagon from his sight. See likewise Edward Browne’s Travels, in John Harris’s Collection of Voyages and Travels, vol. II, p. 762, etc. ↩
Zosimus gives a very large account of the war and the negotiation (l. II, pp. 123⁠–⁠130). But as he neither shows himself a soldier nor a politician, his narrative must be weighed with attention, and received with caution. ↩
This remarkable bridge, which is flanked with towers, and supported on large woodenpiles, was constructed AD 1566, by Sultan Soliman, to facilitate the march of his armies into Hungary. See Browne’s Travels, and Busching’s A New System of Geography, vol. II, p. 90. ↩
This position, and the subsequent evolutions, are clearly, though concisely, described by Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 36. ↩
Sulpicius Severus, l. II, p. 405. The emperor passed the day in prayer with Valens, the Arian bishop of Mursa, who gained his confidence by announcing the success of the battle. M. de Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 1110) very properly remarks the silence of Julian with regard to the personal prowess of Constantius in the battle of Mursa. The silence of flattery is sometimes equal to the most positive and authentic evidence. ↩
Julian, “Oratio I,” pp. 36, 37; and “Oratio II,” pp. 59, 60. Zonaras, tom. II l. XIII, p. 17. Zosimus, l. II, pp. 130⁠–⁠133. The last of these celebrates the dexterity of the archer Menelaus, who could discharge three arrows at the same time; an advantage which, according to his apprehension of military affairs, materially contributed to the victory of Constantius. ↩
According to Zonaras, Constantius, out of 80,000 men, lost 30,000; and Magnentius lost 24,000 out of 36,000. The other articles of this account seem probable and authentic, but the numbers of the tyrant’s army must have been mistaken, either by the author or his transcribers. Magnentius had collected the whole force of the West, Romans and Barbarians, into one formidable body, which cannot fairly be estimated at less than 100,000 men. Julian, “Oratio I,” pp. 34, 35. ↩
Ingentes Romani imperii vires eâ dimicatione consumptae sunt, ad quaelibet bella externa idoneae, quae multum triumphorum possent securitatisque conferre. Eutropius X 13. The younger Victor expresses himself to the same effect. ↩
On this occasion, we must prefer the unsuspected testimony of Zosimus and Zonaras to the flattering assertions of Julian. The younger Victor paints the character of Magnentius in a singular light: “Sermonis acer, animi tumidi, et immodice timidus; artifex tamen ad occultandam audaciae specie formidinem.” Is it most likely that in the battle of Mursa his behavior was governed by nature or by art? I should incline for the latter. ↩
Julian, “Oratio I,” pp. 38, 39. In that place, however, as well as in “Oration II,” p. 97, he insinuates the general disposition of the senate, the people, and the soldiers of Italy, towards the party of the emperor. ↩
The elder Victor describes, in a pathetic manner, the miserable condition of Rome: “Cujus stolidum ingenium adeo plebi Romanae patribusque exitio fuit, uti passim domus, fora, viae, templaque, cruore, cadaveribusque opplerentur bustorum modo.” Athanasius (tom. I, p. 677) deplores the fate of several illustrious victims, and Julian (“Oratio II,” p. 58) execrates the cruelty of Marcellinus, the implacable enemy of the house of Constantine. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 133. Victor in Epitome de Caesaribus. The panegyrists of Constantius, with their usual candor, forget to mention this accidental defeat. ↩
Zonaras, tom. II l. XIII, p. 17. Julian, in several places of the two orations, expatiates on the clemency of Constantius to the rebels. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 133. Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 40, II, p. 74. ↩
Ammianus XV 6. Zosimus, l. II, p. 123. Julian, who (“Oratio I,” p. 40) unveighs against the cruel effects of the tyrant’s despair, mentions (“Oratio I,” p. 34) the oppressive edicts which were dictated by his necessities, or by his avarice. His subjects were compelled to purchase the Imperial demesnes; a doubtful and dangerous species of property, which, in case of a revolution, might be imputed to them as a treasonable usurpation. ↩
The medals of Magnentius celebrate the victories of the two Augusti, and of the Caesar. The Caesar was another brother, named Desiderius. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 757. ↩
Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 40, II, p. 74; with Spanheim, p. 263. His Commentary illustrates the transactions of this civil war. Mons Seleuci was a small place in the Cottian Alps, a few miles distant from Vapincum, or Gap, an episcopal city of Dauphiné. See d’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, p. 464; and Longuerue, Description de la France, p. 327.8905 ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 134. Libanius, “Oratio X,” pp. 268, 269. The latter most vehemently arraigns this cruel and selfish policy of Constantius. ↩
Julian, “Oratio I,” p. 40. Zosimus, l. II, p. 134. Socrates, l. II c. 32. Sozomen, l. IV c. 7. The younger Victor describes his death with some horrid circumstances: Transfosso latere, ut erat vasti corporis, vulnere naribusque et ore cruorem effundens, exspiravit. If we can give credit to Zonaras, the tyrant, before he expired, had the pleasure of murdering with his own hand his mother and his brother Desiderius. ↩
Julian (“Oratio I,” pp. 58, 59) seems at a loss to determine whether he inflicted on himself the punishment of his crimes, whether he was drowned in the Drave, or whether he was carried by the avenging demons from the field of battle to his destined place of eternal tortures. ↩
This is scarcely correct, ut erat in complicandis negotiis artifex dirus, unde ei Catenae inditum est cognomentum. Ammianus Marcellinus XIV 5. —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XIV 5, XXI 16. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus (l. XIV c. 6) imputes the first practice of castration to the cruel ingenuity of Semiramis, who is supposed to have reigned above nineteen hundred years before Christ. The use of eunuchs is of high antiquity, both in Asia and Egypt. They are mentioned in the law of Moses, Deuteronomy 33:1. See Antoine-Yves Goguet, De l’origine des loix, des arts, et des sciences, et de leurs progrès ches les anciens peuples, part I l. I c. 3. ↩
Eunuchum dixti velle te;
Quia solae utuntur his reginae⁠ ⁠…
Terentius, Eunuchus, Act I Scene 2.

This play is translated from Menander, and the original must have appeared soon after the eastern conquests of Alexander. ↩
Miles⁠ ⁠… spadonibus
Servire rugosis potest.
Horatius, Carmina V 9, and Dacier ad loc.

By the word spado, the Romans very forcibly expressed their abhorrence of this mutilated condition. The Greek appellation of eunuchs, which insensibly prevailed, had a milder sound, and a more ambiguous sense. ↩
We need only mention Posides, a freedman and eunuch of Claudius, in whose favor the emperor prostituted some of the most honorable rewards of military valor. See Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Claudius,” c. 28. Posides employed a great part of his wealth in building.

Ut Spado vincebat Capitolia nostra
Posides.
Juvenal, Satires XIV

↩
Castrari mares vetuit. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Domitian,” c. 7. See Dion Cassius, l. LXVII, p. 1107, LXVIII, p. 1119. ↩
There is a passage in the Augustan History, p. 137, in which Lampridius, whilst he praises Alexander Severus and Constantine for restraining the tyranny of the eunuchs, deplores the mischiefs which they occasioned in other reigns. Huc accedit quod eunuchos nec in consiliis nec in ministeriis habuit; qui soli principes perdunt, dum eos more gentium aut regum Persarum volunt vivere; qui a populo etiam amicissimum semovent; qui internuntii sunt, aliud quam respondetur, referentes; claudentes principem suum, et agentes ante omnia ne quid sciat. ↩
Xenophon (Cyropaedia, l. VIII, p. 540) has stated the specious reasons which engaged Cyrus to entrust his person to the guard of eunuchs. He had observed in animals that, although the practice of castration might tame their ungovernable fierceness, it did not diminish their strength or spirit; and he persuaded himself that those who were separated from the rest of human kind would be more firmly attached to the person of their benefactor. But a long experience has contradicted the judgment of Cyrus. Some particular instances may occur of eunuchs distinguished by their fidelity, their valor, and their abilities; but if we examine the general history of Persia, India, and China, we shall find that the power of the eunuchs has uniformly marked the decline and fall of every dynasty. ↩
See Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XXI c. 16, l. XXII c. 4. The whole tenor of his impartial history serves to justify the invectives of Mamertinus, of Libanius, and of Julian himself, who have insulted the vices of the court of Constantius. ↩
Aurelius Victor censures the negligence of his sovereign in choosing the governors of the provinces and the generals of the army, and concludes his history with a very bold observation, as it is much more dangerous under a feeble reign to attack the ministers than the master himself. “Uti verum absolvam brevi, ut Imperatore ipso clarius ita apparitorum plerisque magis atrox nihil.” ↩
Apud quem (si vere dici debeat) multum Constantius potuit. Ammianus, l. XVIII c. 4. ↩
Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio III,” p. 90) reproaches the apostate with his ingratitude towards Mark, bishop of Arethusa, who had contributed to save his life; and we learn, though from a less respectable authority (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 916), that Julian was concealed in the sanctuary of a church.8906 ↩
The most authentic account of the education and adventures of Julian is contained in the epistle or manifesto which he himself addressed to the senate and people of Athens. Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis”), on the side of the Pagans, and Socrates (l. III c. 1), on that of the Christians, have preserved several interesting circumstances. ↩
For the promotion of Gallus, see Idacius, Zosimus, and the two Victors. According to Philostorgius (l. IV c. 1), Theophilus, an Arian bishop, was the witness, and, as it were, the guarantee of this solemn engagement. He supported that character with generous firmness; but M. de Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 1120) thinks it very improbable that a heretic should have possessed such virtue. ↩
Julian was at first permitted to pursue his studies at Constantinople, but the reputation which he acquired soon excited the jealousy of Constantius; and the young prince was advised to withdraw himself to the less conspicuous scenes of Bithynia and Ionia. ↩
See Julian ad “Senatus Populusque Athena,” p. 271. Jerome in Chronicon. Aurelius Victor, Eutropius X 14. I shall copy the words of Eutropius, who wrote his abridgment about fifteen years after the death of Gallus, when there was no longer any motive either to flatter or to depreciate his character. “Multis incivilibus gestis Gallus Caesar⁠ ⁠… vir naturâ ferox et ad tyrannidem pronior, si suo jure imperare licuisset.” ↩
Megaera quaedem mortalis, inflammatrix saevientis assidua, humani cruoris avida, etc. Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XIV c. 1. The sincerity of Ammianus would not suffer him to misrepresent facts or characters, but his love of ambitious ornaments frequently betrayed him into an unnatural vehemence of expression. ↩
His name was Clematius of Alexandria, and his only crime was a refusal to gratify the desires of his mother-in-law; who solicited his death, because she had been disappointed of his love. Ammianus, l. XIV c. I. ↩
See in Ammianus (l. XIV c. 1, 7) a very ample detail of the cruelties of Gallus. His brother Julian (p. 272) insinuates that a secret conspiracy had been formed against him; and Zosimus names (l. II, p. 135) the persons engaged in it; a minister of considerable rank, and two obscure agents, who were resolved to make their fortune. ↩
Zonaras, l. XIII tom. II, pp. 17, 18. The assassins had seduced a great number of legionaries; but their designs were discovered and revealed by an old woman in whose cottage they lodged. ↩
The commission seems to have been granted to Domitian alone. Montius interfered to support his authority. Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XIV c. 1, 7. —⁠M. ↩
In the present text of Ammianus, we read Asper, quidem, sed ad lenitatem propensior; which forms a sentence of contradictory nonsense. With the aid of an old manuscript Valesius has rectified the first of these corruptions, and we perceive a ray of light in the substitution of the word vafer. If we venture to change lenitatem into levitatem, this alteration of a single letter will render the whole passage clear and consistent. ↩
Instead of being obliged to collect scattered and imperfect hints from various sources, we now enter into the full stream of the history of Ammianus, and need only refer to the seventh and ninth chapters of his fourteenth book. Philostorgius, however (l. III c. 28), though partial to Gallus, should not be entirely overlooked. ↩
She had preceded her husband, but died of a fever on the road, at a little place in Bithynia, called Coenum Gallicanum. ↩
The Thebaean legions, which were then quartered at Hadrianople, sent a deputation to Gallus, with a tender of their services. Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XIV c. 11. The Notitia dignitatum (s. 6, 20, 38, edit. Labbe) mentions three several legions which bore the name of Thebaean. The zeal of M. de Voltaire, to destroy a despicable though celebrated legend, has tempted him on the slightest grounds to deny the existence of a Thebaean legion in the Roman armies. See Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire, tom. XV, p. 414, quarto edition. ↩
Pettau in Styria. —⁠M. ↩
Rather to Flanonia, now Fianone, near Pola. Saint-Martin. —⁠M. ↩
See the complete narrative of the journey and death of Gallus in Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XIV c. 11. Julian complains that his brother was put to death without a trial; attempts to justify, or at least to excuse, the cruel revenge which he had inflicted on his enemies; but seems at last to acknowledge that he might justly have been deprived of the purple. ↩
Philostorgius, l. IV c. 1. Zonaras, l. XIII tom. II, p. 19. But the former was partial towards an Arian monarch, and the latter transcribed, without choice or criticism, whatever he found in the writings of the ancients. ↩
See Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XV c. 1, 3, 8. Julian himself, in his epistle to the Athenians, draws a very lively and just picture of his own danger, and of his sentiments. He shows, however, a tendency to exaggerate his sufferings, by insinuating, though in obscure terms, that they lasted above a year; a period which cannot be reconciled with the truth of chronology. ↩
Julian has worked the crimes and misfortunes of the family of Constantine into an allegorical fable, which is happily conceived and agreeably related. It forms the conclusion of the seventh Oration, from whence it has been detached and translated by the Abbé de La Bléterie, Vie de Jovien, tom. II, pp. 385⁠–⁠408. ↩
She was a native of Thessalonica in Macedonia, of a noble family, and the daughter as well as sister of consuls. Her marriage with the emperor may be placed in the year 352. In a divided age the historians of all parties agree in her praises. See their testimonies collected by Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, pp. 750⁠–⁠754. ↩
Libanius and Gregory Nazianzen have exhausted the arts as well as the powers of their eloquence, to represent Julian as the first of heroes, or the worst of tyrants. Gregory was his fellow-student at Athens; and the symptoms, which he so tragically describes, of the future wickedness of the apostate amount only to some bodily imperfections and to some peculiarities in his speech and manner. He protests, however that he then foresaw and foretold the calamities of the church and state (Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio IV,” pp. 121, 122). ↩
Succumbere tot necessitatibus tamque crebris unum se, quod nunquam fecerat, aperte demonstrans. Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XV c. 8. He then expresses, in their own words, the flattering assurances of the courtiers. ↩
Tantum a temperatis moribus Juliani differens fratris quantum inter Vespasiani filios fuit, Domitianum et Titum. Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XIV c. 11. The circumstances and education of the two brothers were so nearly the same as to afford a strong example of the innate difference of characters. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XV c. 8. Zosimus, l. III, pp. 137, 138. ↩
Julian ad “Senatus Populusque Athena,” pp. 275, 276. Libanius, “Oratio X,” p. 268. Julian did not yield till the gods had signified their will by repeated visions and omens. His piety then forbade him to resist. ↩
Julian himself relates (p. 274), with some humor, the circumstances of his own metamorphoses, his downcast looks, and his perplexity at being thus suddenly transported into a new world, where every object appeared strange and hostile. ↩
See Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XV c. 8. Zosimus, l. III, p. 139. Aurelius Victor. Victor Junior in Epitome de Caesaribus. Eutropius X 14. ↩
Militares omnes horrendo fragore scuta genibus illidentes; quod est prosperitatis indicium plenum; nam contra cum hastis clypei feriuntur, irae documentum est et doloris⁠ ⁠… Ammianus adds, with a nice distinction, Eumque ut potiori reverentia servaretur, nec supra modum laudabant nec infra quam decebat. ↩
Ἑλλαβε πορφύρεος θάνατος, καὶ μοῖρα κραταιή. The word purple, which Homer had used as a vague but common epithet for death, was applied by Julian to express, very aptly, the nature and object of his own apprehensions. ↩
He represents, in the most pathetic terms (p. 277), the distress of his new situation. The provision for his table was, however, so elegant and sumptuous that the young philosopher rejected it with disdain. Quum legeret libellum assidue, quem Constantius ut privignum ad studia mittens manû suâ conscripserat, praelicenter disponens quid in convivio Caesaris impendi deberit: Phasianum, et vulvam et sumen exigi vetuit et inferri. Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XVI c. 5. ↩
If we recollect that Constantine, the father of Helena, died above eighteen years before in a mature old age, it will appear probable that the daughter, though a virgin, could not be very young at the time of her marriage. She was soon afterwards delivered of a son, who died immediately, quod obstetrix, corrupta mercede, mox natum praesecto plusquam convenerat umbilico necavit. She accompanied the emperor and empress in their journey to Rome, and the latter, quaesitum venenum bibere per fraudem illexit, ut quotiescunque concepisset, immaturum abjicerit partum. Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XVI c. 10. Our physicians will determine whether there exists such a poison. For my own part, I am inclined to hope that the public malignity imputed the effects of accident as the guilt of Eusebia. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus (XV 5) was perfectly well informed of the conduct and fate of Sylvanus. He himself was one of the few followers who attended Ursicinus in his dangerous enterprise. ↩
For the particulars of the visit of Constantius to Rome, see Ammianus, l. XVI c. 10. We have only to add that Themistius was appointed deputy from Constantinople, and that he composed his fourth oration for this ceremony. ↩
Hormisdas, a fugitive prince of Persia, observed to the emperor that if he made such a horse, he must think of preparing a similar stable (the Forum of Trajan). Another saying of Hormisdas is recorded, “that one thing only had displeased him, to find that men died at Rome as well as elsewhere.” If we adopt this reading of the text of Ammianus (displicuisse, instead of placuisse), we may consider it as a reproof of Roman vanity. The contrary sense would be that of a misanthrope. ↩
When Germanicus visited the ancient monuments of Thebes, the eldest of the priests explained to him the meaning of these hieroglyphics. Tacitus, Annales II c. 60. But it seems probable that before the useful invention of an alphabet, these natural or arbitrary signs were the common characters of the Egyptian nation. See Warburton’s Divine Legation of Moses, vol. III, pp. 69⁠–⁠243. ↩
See Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. XXXVI c. 14, 15. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XVII c. 4. He gives us a Greek interpretation of the hieroglyphics, and his commentator Lindenbrogius adds a Latin inscription, which, in twenty verses of the age of Constantius, contain a short history of the obelisk. ↩
See Donatus, De Roma antiquâ, l. III c. 14, l. IV c. 12, and the learned, though confused, dissertation of Bargaeus on Obelisks, inserted in the fourth volume of Graevius’s Roman Antiquities, pp. 1897⁠–⁠1936. This dissertation is dedicated to Pope Sixtus V, who erected the obelisk of Constantius in the square before the patriarchal church of St. John Lateran.8907 ↩
The events of this Quadian and Sarmatian war are related by Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 10; XVII 12, 13; XIX 11. ↩
Reinesius reads Warrha, Warrha, Guerre, War. Wagner, note on Ammianus Marcellinus XIX 11. —⁠M. ↩
Genti Sarmatarum magno decori considens apud eos regem dedit. Aurelius Victor. In a pompous oration pronounced by Constantius himself, he expatiates on his own exploits with much vanity, and some truth. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 9. ↩
In Persian, Ten-schah-pour. Saint-Martin II 177. —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus (XVII 5) transcribes the haughty letter. Themistius (Orationes IV, p. 57, edit. Petavius) takes notice of the silken covering. Idacius and Zonaras mention the journey of the ambassador; and Peter the Patrician (in Excerpta legationum, p. 28) has informed us of his conciliating behavior. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVII 5, and Valesius ad loc. The sophist, or philosopher (in that age these words were almost synonymous), was Eustathius the Cappadocian, the disciple of Jamblichus, and the friend of St. Basil. Eunapius (in De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, “Aedesius,” pp. 44⁠–⁠47) fondly attributes to this philosophic ambassador the glory of enchanting the Barbarian king by the persuasive charms of reason and eloquence. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, pp. 828, 1132. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVIII 5, 6, 8. The decent and respectful behavior of Antoninus towards the Roman general sets him in a very interesting light; and Ammianus himself speaks of the traitor with some compassion and esteem. ↩
This circumstance, as it is noticed by Ammianus, serves to prove the veracity of Herodotus (l. I c. 133), and the permanency of the Persian manners. In every age the Persians have been addicted to intemperance, and the wines of Shiraz have triumphed over the law of Muhammad. Brisson, De regio Persarum, l. II, pp. 462⁠–⁠472, and Chardin, Voyages en Perse, tom. III, p. 90. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus LXVIII 6⁠–⁠8, 10. ↩
These perhaps were the barbarous tribes who inhabit the northern part of the present Schirwan, the Albania of the ancients. This country, now inhabited by the Lezghis, the terror of the neighboring districts, was then occupied by the same people, called by the ancients Legae, by the Armenians Gheg, or Leg. The latter represent them as constant allies of the Persians in their wars against Armenia and the Empire. A little after this period, a certain Schergir was their king, and it is of him doubtless that Ammianus Marcellinus speaks. Saint-Martin II 285. —⁠M. ↩
For the description of Amida, see d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 108. Histoire de Timur-Bec, par Cherefeddin Ali, l. III c. 41. Ahmed Arabsiades, tom. I, p. 331, c. 43. Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, tom. I, p. 301. Voyages d’Otter, tom. II, p. 273, and Voyages de Niebuhr, tom. II, pp. 324⁠–⁠328. The last of these travellers, a learned and accurate Dane, has given a plan of Amida, which illustrates the operations of the siege. ↩
Diarbekir, which is styled Amid, or Kara Amid, in the public writings of the Turks, contains above 16,000 houses, and is the residence of a pasha with three tails. The epithet of Kara is derived from the blackness of the stone which composes the strong and ancient wall of Amida.8908 ↩
The operations of the siege of Amida are very minutely described by Ammianus (XIX 1⁠–⁠9), who acted an honorable part in the defence, and escaped with difficulty when the city was stormed by the Persians. ↩
Of these four nations, the Albanians are too well known to require any description. The Segestans [Sacastenè —⁠Saint-Martin] inhabited a large and level country, which still preserves their name, to the south of Khorasan, and the west of Hindostan. (See Geographia nubiensis, p. 133, and d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 797.) Notwithstanding the boasted victory of Bahram (vol. I, p. 410), the Segestans, above fourscore years afterwards, appear as an independent nation, the ally of Persia. We are ignorant of the situation of the Vertae and Chionites, but I am inclined to place them (at least the latter) towards the confines of India and Scythia. See Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 9.8909 ↩
Ammianus has marked the chronology of this year by three signs, which do not perfectly coincide with each other, or with the series of the history.
1. The corn was ripe when Sapor invaded Mesopotamia; “Cum jam stipulâ flavente turgerent”; a circumstance, which, in the latitude of Aleppo, would naturally refer us to the month of April or May. See Thomas Harmer’s Observations on Various Passages of Scripture, vol. I, p. 41. Shaw’s Travels, p. 335, edit. quarto.
2. The progress of Sapor was checked by the overflowing of the Euphrates, which generally happens in July and August. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae V 21. Viaggi di Pietro della Valle, tom. I, p. 696.
3. When Sapor had taken Amida, after a siege of seventy-three days, the autumn was far advanced. “Autumno praecipiti haedorumque improbo sidere exorto.”
To reconcile these apparent contradictions, we must allow for some delay in the Persian king, some inaccuracy in the historian, and some disorder in the seasons. ↩
The account of these sieges is given by Ammianus Marcellinus XX 6, 7.8910 ↩
For the identity of Virtha and Tecrit, see d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, p. 201. For the siege of that castle by Timur-Bec, or Tamerlane, see Cherefeddin Ali, l. III c. 33. The Persian biographer exaggerates the merit and difficulty of this exploit, which delivered the caravans of Baghdad from a formidable gang of robbers.8911 ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus (XVIII 5, 6, XIX 3, XX 2) represents the merit and disgrace of Ursicinus with that faithful attention which a soldier owed to his general. Some partiality may be suspected, yet the whole account is consistent and probable. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XX 11. Omisso vano incepto, hiematurus Antiochiae redit in Syriam aerumnosam, perpessus et ulcerum sed et atrocia, diuque deflenda. It is thus that James Gronovius has restored an obscure passage; and he thinks that this correction alone would have deserved a new edition of his author; whose sense may now be darkly perceived. I expected some additional light from the recent labors of the learned Ernestus (Lipsiae, 1773).8912 ↩
The ravages of the Germans, and the distress of Gaul, may be collected from Julian himself. Oratio ad “Senatus Populusque Athena,” p. 277. Ammianus Marcellinus XV 11. Libanius, “Oratio X.” Zosimus, l. III, p. 140. Sozomen, l. III c. 1. [Mamertinus, “Gratiarum actio Juliano Augusto,” c. IV. —⁠M.] ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 8. This name seems to be derived from the Toxandri of Pliny the Elder, and very frequently occurs in the histories of the Middle Age. Toxandria was a country of woods and morasses which extended from the neighborhood of Tongres to the conflux of the Vahal and the Rhine. See Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, p. 558. ↩
The paradox of Père Daniel, that the Franks never obtained any permanent settlement on this side of the Rhine before the time of Clovis, is refuted with much learning and good sense by M. Biet, who has proved, by a chain of evidence, their uninterrupted possession of Toxandria 130 years before the accession of Clovis. The dissertation of M. Biet was crowned by the Academy of Soissons, in the year 1736, and seems to have been justly preferred to the discourse of his more celebrated competitor, the Abbé Jean Lebeuf, an antiquarian whose name was happily expressive of his talents. ↩
The private life of Julian in Gaul, and the severe discipline which he embraced, are displayed by Ammianus (XVI 5), who professes to praise, and by Julian himself, who affects to ridicule (“Misopogon,” p. 340), a conduct which, in a prince of the house of Constantine, might justly excite the surprise of mankind. ↩
Aderat Latine quoque disserenti sufficiens sermo. Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 5. But Julian, educated in the schools of Greece, always considered the language of the Romans as a foreign and popular dialect, which he might use on necessary occasions. ↩
We are ignorant of the actual office of this excellent minister, whom Julian afterwards created prefect of Gaul. Sallust was speedly recalled by the jealousy of the emperor; and we may still read a sensible but pedantic discourse (pp. 240⁠–⁠252), in which Julian deplores the loss of so valuable a friend, to whom he acknowledges himself indebted for his reputation. See la Bléterie, Preface à la Vie de Jovien, p. 20. ↩
Aliis per Arbor⁠—quibusdam per Sedelaucum et Coram iri debere firrantibus. Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 2. I do not know what place can be meant by the mutilated name Arbor. Sedelanus is Saulieu, a small town of the department of the Côte d’Or, six leagues from Autun. Cora answers to the village of Cure, on the river of the same name, between Autun and Nevers. Saint-Martin II 162. —⁠M. ↩
At Brocomages, Brumat, near Strasburgh. Saint-Martin II 164. —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus (XVI 2, 3) appears much better satisfied with the success of this campaign than Julian himself; who very fairly owns that he did nothing of consequence, and that he fled before the enemy. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 7. Libanius speaks rather more advantageously of the military talents of Marcellus, “Oratio X,” p. 272. And Julian insinuates that he would not have been so easily recalled, unless he had given other reasons of offence to the court, p. 278. ↩
Severus, non discors, non arrogans, sed longa militiae frugalitate compertus; et eum recta praeeuntem secuturus, ut ductorem morigerus miles. Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 11. Zosimus, l. III, p. 140. ↩
On the design and failure of the cooperation between Julian and Barbatio, see Ammianus Marcellinus (XVI 11) and Libanius (“Oratio X,” p. 273).8913 ↩
Ammianus (XVI 12) describes with his inflated eloquence the figure and character of Chnodomar. Audax et fidens ingenti robore lacertorum, ubi ardor proelii sperabatur immanis, equo spumante sublimior, erectus in jaculum formidandae vastitatis, armorumque nitore conspicuus: antea strenuus et miles, et utilis praeter caeteros ductor.⁠ ⁠… Decentium Caesarem superavit aequo marte congressus. ↩
After the battle, Julian ventured to revive the rigor of ancient discipline by exposing these fugitives in female apparel to the derision of the whole camp. In the next campaign, these troops nobly retrieved their honor. Zosimus, l. III, p. 142. ↩
Julian himself (ad “Senatus Populusque Athena,” p. 279) speaks of the battle of Strasburgh with the modesty of conscious merit; ὲμαχεσάμην ουκ ἀκλεῶς, ἲσως καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς ἀφίκετο ἡ τοιαύτη μάχη. Zosimus compares it with the victory of Alexander over Darius; and yet we are at a loss to discover any of those strokes of military genius which fix the attention of ages on the conduct and success of a single day. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 12. Libanius adds 2,000 more to the number of the slain (“Oratio X,” p. 274). But these trifling differences disappear before the 60,000 Barbarians whom Zosimus has sacrificed to the glory of his hero (l. III, p. 141). We might attribute this extravagant number to the carelessness of transcribers, if this credulous or partial historian had not swelled the army of 35,000 Alemanni to an innumerable multitude of Barbarians, πλῆθος ἄπειρον βαρβάρον. It is our own fault if this detection does not inspire us with proper distrust on similar occasions. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 12. Libanius, “Oratio X,” p. 276. ↩
Libanius (“Oratio III,” p. 137) draws a very lively picture of the manners of the Franks. ↩
Ammianus XVII 2. Libanius, “Oratio X,” p. 278. The Greek orator, by misapprehending a passage of Julian, has been induced to represent the Franks as consisting of a thousand men; and as his head was always full of the Peloponnesian war, he compares them to the Lacedaemonians, who were besieged and taken in the Island of Sphacteria. ↩
Julian ad “Senatus Populusque Athena,” p. 280. Libanius, “Oratio X,” p. 278. According to the expression of Libanius, the emperor δῶρα ὡνομαζε, which Bléterie understands (Vie de Julien, p. 118) as an honest confession, and Valesius (ad Ammianus XVII 2) as a mean evasion, of the truth. Dom Martin Bouquet (Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, tom. I, p. 733), by substituting another word, ἐνόμισε, would suppress both the difficulty and the spirit of this passage. ↩
Ammianus Μarcellinus, XVII 8. Zosimus, l. III, pp. 146⁠–⁠150 (his narrative is darkened by a mixture of fable); and Julian ad “Senatus Populusque Athena,” p. 280. His expression, ὑπεδεξάμην μὲν μοίραν τοῦ Σαλίωνἔθνους, Χαμάβους δὲ ἐξήλασα. This difference of treatment confirms the opinion that the Salian Franks were permitted to retain the settlements in Toxandria.8914 ↩
This interesting story, which Zosimus has abridged, is related by Eunapius (in Excerpta legationum, pp. 15⁠–⁠17), with all the amplifications of Grecian rhetoric: but the silence of Libanius, of Ammianus, and of Julian himself, renders the truth of it extremely suspicious. ↩
Libanius, the friend of Julian, clearly insinuates (“Oratio IX,” p. 178) that his hero had composed the history of his Gallic campaigns. But Zosimus (l. III, p. 140) seems to have derived his information only from the Orations (λόγοι) and the Epistles of Julian. The discourse which is addressed to the Athenians contains an accurate, though general, account of the war against the Germans. ↩
See Ammianus Marcellinus XVII 1, 10, XVIII 2, and Zosimus, l. III, p. 144. Julian ad “Senatus Populusque Athena,” p. 280. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVIII 2. Libanius, “Oratio X,” pp. 279, 280. Of these seven posts, four are at present towns of some consequence: Bingen, Andernach, Bonn, and Nuyss. The other three, Tricesimae, Quadriburgium, and Castra Herculis, or Heraclea, no longer subsist; but there is room to believe that on the ground of Quadriburgium the Dutch have constructed the fort of Schenk, a name so offensive to the fastidious delicacy of Boileau. See d’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, p. 183. Boileau, Epitre IV and the notes.8915 ↩
We may credit Julian himself (Oratio ad “Senatus Populusque Atheniensem,” p. 280), who gives a very particular account of the transaction. Zosimus adds two hundred vessels more (l. III, p. 145). If we compute the 600 corn ships of Julian at only seventy tons each, they were capable of exporting 120,000 quarters (see Arbuthnot’s Tables of Ancient Coins, p. 237); and the country which could bear so large an exportation must already have attained an improved state of agriculture. ↩
The troops once broke out into a mutiny, immediately before the second passage of the Rhine. Ammianus Marcellinus XVII 9. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVI 5, XVIII 1. Mamertinus in Panegyrici veteres XI 4. ↩
Ammianus Marcellinus XVII 3. Julian, “Epistola XV” edit. Spanheim. Such a conduct almost justifies the encomium of Mamertinus. Ita illi anni spatia divisa sunt, ut aut Barbaros domitet, aut civibus jura restituat, perpetuum professus, aut contra hostem, aut contra vitia, certamen. ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis in Julianum Imperatorem,” c. 38, in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VII, pp. 263, 264. ↩
See Julian in “Misopogon,” pp. 340, 341. The primitive state of Paris is illustrated by Henry Valesius (ad Ammianus XX 4), his brother Hadrian Valesius, or de Valois, and M. d’Anville (in their respective Notitias of ancient Gaul), the Abbé de Longuerue (Description de la France, tom. I, pp. 12, 13), and M. Bonamy (in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XV, pp. 656⁠–⁠691). ↩
Τὴν Φίλην Λευκετίαν. Julian, in “Misopogon,” p. 340. Leucetia, or Lutetia, was the ancient name of the city which, according to the fashion of the fourth century, assumed the territorial appellation of Parisii. ↩
Julian in “Misopogon,” pp. 359, 360. ↩
The date of the Divine Institutes of Lactantius has been accurately discussed, difficulties have been started, solutions proposed, and an expedient imagined of two original editions: the former published during the persecution of Diocletian, the latter under that of Licinius. See Nicolas Lenglet du Fresnoy, Praefatio, p. v. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, pp. 465⁠–⁠470. Lardner’s The Credibility of the Gospel History, part II vol. VII, pp. 78⁠–⁠86. For my own part, I am almost convinced that Lactantius dedicated his Institutions to the sovereign of Gaul, at a time when Galerius, Maximin, and even Licinius persecuted the Christians; that is, between the years 306 and 311. ↩
Lactantius, Institutiones divinae I 1, VII 27. The first and most important of these passages is indeed wanting in twenty-eight manuscripts, but it is found in nineteen. If we weigh the comparative value of those manuscripts, one of 900 years old, in the king of France’s library, may be alleged in its favor; but the passage is omitted in the correct manuscript of Bologna, which the Père de Montfaucon ascribes to the sixth or seventh century (Diarium Italicum, p. 409). The taste of most of the editors (except Isaeus; see Lactantius edit. du Fresnoy, tom. I, p. 596) has felt the genuine style of Lactantius. ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. I c. 27⁠–⁠32. ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 104. ↩
That rite was always used in making a catechumen (see Joseph Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, l. X c. I, p. 419; Dom Mathias Chardon, Histoire des sacremens, tom. I, p. 62), and Constantine received it for the first time (Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 61) immediately before his baptism and death. From the connection of these two facts, Valesius (ad loc. Eusebius) has drawn the conclusion, which is reluctantly admitted by Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 628), and opposed with feeble arguments by Mosheim (p. 968). ↩
Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 61⁠–⁠63. The legend of Constantine’s baptism at Rome, thirteen years before his death, was invented in the eighth century, as a proper motive for his donation. Such has been the gradual progress of knowledge that a story of which Cardinal Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 324,” No. 43⁠–⁠49) declared himself the unblushing advocate is now feebly supported, even within the verge of the Vatican. See the Originum et antiquitates Christianae, tom. II, p. 232; a work published with six approbations at Rome, in the year 1751, by Father Thomas Mamachi, a learned Dominican. ↩
The questor, or secretary, who composed the law of the Theodosian Code, makes his master say with indifference, “hominibus supradictae religionis” (l. XVI tit. II leg. 1). The minister of ecclesiastical affairs was allowed a more devout and respectful style, τῆς ἐνθέσμου καὶ ἁγιωτάτης καθολικῆς θρησκείας; the legal, most holy, and Catholic worship. See Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. X c. 6. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. II tit. VIII leg. 1. Codex Justinianus, l. III tit. XII leg. 3. Constantine styles the Lord’s day dies solis, a name which could not offend the ears of his pagan subjects. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. X leg. 1. Godefroy, in the character of a commentator, endeavors (tom. VI, p. 257) to excuse Constantine; but the more zealous Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 321,” No. 18) censures his profane conduct with truth and asperity. ↩
Theodoret (l. L c. 18) seems to insinuate that Helena gave her son a Christian education; but we may be assured, from the superior authority of Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. III c. 47) that she herself was indebted to Constantine for the knowledge of Christianity. ↩
See the medals of Constantine in du Cange and Banduri. As few cities had retained the privilege of coining, almost all the medals of that age issued from the mint under the sanction of the Imperial authority.8916 ↩
The panegyric of Eumenius (VII inter Panegyrici veteres), which was pronounced a few months before the Italian war, abounds with the most unexceptionable evidence of the Pagan superstition of Constantine, and of his particular veneration for Apollo, or the Sun; to which Julian alludes (“Oratio VII,” p. 228, ἀπολείπων σέ). See Commentaire de Spanheim sur les Cesars, p. 317. ↩
Constantini, Oratio ad Sanctos, c. 25. But it might easily be shown that the Greek translator has improved the sense of the Latin original; and the aged emperor might recollect the persecution of Diocletian with a more lively abhorrence than he had actually felt in the days of his youth and Paganism. ↩
See Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. VIII 13, l. IX 9; and in De vita Constantini, l. I c. 16, 17. Lactantius, Institutiones divinae I 1. Caecilius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 25. ↩
Caecilius (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 48) has preserved the Latin original; and Eusebius (Historia ecclesiastica, l. X c. 5) has given a Greek translation of this perpetual edict, which refers to some provisional regulations. ↩
A panegyric of Constantine, pronounced seven or eight months after the edict of Milan (see Gothofredus, Chronologia Legum, p. 7; and Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 246), uses the following remarkable expression: “Summe reram sator, cujus tot nomina sunt, quot linguas gentium esse voluisti, quem enim te ipse dicivelis, scire non possumus.” (Panegyrici veteres IX 26). In explaining Constantine’s progress in the faith, Mosheim (p. 971, etc.) is ingenious, subtle, prolix. ↩
See the elegant description of Lactantius (Institutiones divinae V 8), who is much more perspicuous and positive than becomes a discreet prophet. ↩
The political system of the Christians is explained by Grotius, De jure belli et pacis, l. I c. 3, 4. Grotius was a republican and an exile, but the mildness of his temper inclined him to support the established powers. ↩
Tertullian, Apologeticus, c. 32, 34⁠–⁠36. Tamen nunquam Albiniani, nec Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani. “Ad Scapulam,” c. 2. If this assertion be strictly true, it excludes the Christians of that age from all civil and military employments, which would have compelled them to take an active part in the service of their respective governors. See Moyle’s Works, vol. II, p. 349. ↩
See the artful Bossuet (Histoire des variations des Églises protestantes, tom. III, pp. 210⁠–⁠258), and the malicious Bayle (tom. II, p. 620). I name Bayle, for he was certainly the author of the Avis aux Réfugiés; consult the Nouveau dictionnaire critique de Chauffepié, tom. I part II, p. 145. ↩
George Buchanan is the earliest, or at least the most celebrated, of the reformers, who has justified the theory of resistance. See his De jure regni apud Scotos, tom. II, pp. 28, 30, edit. folio, Ruddiman. ↩
Lactantius, Institutiones divinae I 1. Eusebius, in the course of his history, his life, and his oration, repeatedly inculcates the divine right of Constantine to the empire. ↩
Our imperfect knowledge of the persecution of Licinius is derived from Eusebius (Historia ecclesiastica, l. X c. 8; De vita Constantini, l. I c. 49⁠–⁠56, l. II c. 1, 2). Aurelius Victor mentions his cruelty in general terms. ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. II c. 24⁠–⁠42, 48⁠–⁠60, ↩
In the beginning of the last century, the papists of England were only a thirtieth, and the Protestants of France only a fifteenth, part of the respective nations to whom their spirit and power were a constant object of apprehension. See the relations which Guido Bentivoglio (who was then nuncio at Brussels, and afterwards cardinal) transmitted to the court of Rome (Relationi del cardinale Bentivoglio, tom. II, pp. 211, 241). Bentivoglio was curious, well-informed, but somewhat partial. ↩
This careless temper of the Germans appears almost uniformly in the history of the conversion of each of the tribes. The legions of Constantine were recruited with Germans (Zosimus, l. II, p. 86); and the court even of his father had been filled with Christians. See the first book of the Life of Constantine, by Eusebius. ↩
De his qui arma projiciunt in pace, placuit eos abstinere a comnmnione. Canones Concilii Arelatensis III. The best critics apply these words to the peace of the church. ↩
Eusebius always considers the second civil war against Licinius as a sort of religious crusade. At the invitation of the tyrant, some Christian officers had resumed their zones; or, in other words, had returned to the military service. Their conduct was afterwards censured by the twelfth canon of the Council of Nice; if this particular application may be received, instead of the loose and general sense of the Greek interpreters, Balsamon, Zonaras, and Alexis Aristenus. See Beveridge, Pandectae canonum SS. Apostolorum, et conciliorum ab ecclesia Graeca receptorum, tom. I, p. 72, tom. II, p. 78, Annotation. ↩
Nomen ipsum crucis abeit non modo a corpore civium Romanorum, sed etiam a cogitatione, oculis, auribus. Cicero, Pro Rabirio, c. 5. The Christian writers, Justin, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Jerome, and Maximus of Turin, have investigated with tolerable success the figure or likeness of a cross in almost every object of nature or art; in the intersection of the meridian and equator, the human face, a bird flying, a man swimming, a mast and yard, a plough, a standard, etc., etc., etc. See Lipsius, De cruce, l. I c. 9. ↩
See Aurelius Victor, who considers this law as one of the examples of Constantine’s piety. An edict so honourable to Christianity deserved a place in the Theodosian Code, instead of the indirect mention of it, which seems to result from the comparison of the fifth and eighteenth titles of the ninth book. ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. I c. 40. This statue, or at least the cross and inscription, may be ascribed with more probability to the second, or even third, visit of Constantine to Rome. Immediately after the defeat of Maxentius, the minds of the senate and people were scarcely ripe for this public monument. ↩
Agnoscas, regina, libens mea signa necesse est;
In quibus effigies crucis aut gemmata refulget
Aut longis solido ex auro praefertur in hastis.
Hoc signo invictus, transmissis Alpibus Ultor
Servitium solvit miserabile Constantius.
⋮
Christus purpureum gemmanti textus in auro
Signabat Labarum, clypeorum insignia Christus
Scripserat; ardebat summis crux addita cristis.
Prudentius, in Contra Q. Aurelium Symmachum, l. II 464, 486.

↩
The derivation and meaning of the word Labarum or Laborum, which is employed by Gregory Nasianzen, Ambrose, Prudentius, etc., still remain totally unknown, in spite of the efforts of the critics, who have ineffectually tortured the Latin, Greek, Spanish, Celtic, Teutonic, Illyric, Armenian, etc., in search of an etymology. See du Cange, in Glossarium Mediae et infimae Latinitatis, sub voce “Labarum,” and Godefroy, ad Codex Theodosianus, tom. II, p. 143. ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. I c. 30, 31. Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 312,” No. 26) has engraved a representation of the Labarum. ↩
Transversâ X literâ, summo capite circumflexo, Christum in scutis notat. Caecilius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 44. Cuper (ad De mortibus persecutorum in edit. Lactantius, tom. II, p. 500) and Baronius (“AD 312,” No. 25) have engraved from ancient monuments several specimens of these monograms (⳨ or ⳩), which became extremely fashionable in the Christian world. ↩
Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. II c. 7⁠–⁠9. He introduces the Labarum before the Italian expedition; but his narrative seems to indicate that it was never shown at the head of an army, till Constantine, above ten years afterwards, declared himself the enemy of Licinius and the deliverer of the church. ↩
See Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. XXV. Sozomen, l. I c. 2. Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 11. Theophanes lived towards the end of the eighth century, almost five hundred years after Constantine. The modern Greeks were not inclined to display in the field the standard of the empire and of Christianity; and though they depended on every superstitious hope of defence, the promise of victory would have appeared too bold a fiction. ↩
The Abbé du Voisin, p. 103, etc., alleges several of these medals, and quotes a particular dissertation of a Jesuit, the Père de Grainville, on this subject. ↩
Tertullian, De coronâ militis, c. 3. Athanasius, tom. I, p. 101. The learned Jesuit Petavius (Dogmata theologica, l. XV c. 9, 10) has collected many similar passages on the virtues of the cross, which in the last age embarrassed our Protestant disputants. ↩
Manso has observed that Gibbon ought not to have separated the vision of Constantine from the wonderful apparition in the sky, as the two wonders are closely connected in Eusebius. Manso, Leben Constantius des Grossen, p. 82. —⁠M. ↩
Caecilius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 44. It is certain that this historical declamation was composed and published while Licinius, sovereign of the East, still preserved the friendship of Constantine and of the Christians. Every reader of taste must perceive that the style is of a very different and inferior character to that of Lactantius; and such indeed is the judgment of Leclerc and Lardner (Bibliothèque ancienne et moderne, tom. III, p. 438; Credibility of the Gospel History, part II vol. VII, p. 94). Three arguments from the title of the book, and from the names of Donatus and Caecilius, are produced by the advocates for Lactantius (see the Père Lestocq, tom. II, pp. 46⁠–⁠60). Each of these proofs is singly weak and defective; but their concurrence has great weight. I have often fluctuated, and shall tamely follow the Colbert MS. in calling the author (whoever he was) Caecilius. ↩
Caecilius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 46. There seems to be some reason in the observation of M. de Voltaire (Oeuvres complètes, tom. XIV, p. 307), who ascribes to the success of Constantine the superior fame of his Labarum above the angel of Licinius. Yet even this angel is favorably entertained by Pagi, Tillemont, Fleury, etc., who are fond of increasing their stock of miracles. ↩
Besides these well-known examples, Tollius (Preface to Boileau’s translation of Longinus) has discovered a vision of Antigonus, who assured his troops that he had seen a pentagon (the symbol of safety) with these words, “In this conquer.” But Tollius has most inexcusably omitted to produce his authority; and his own character, literary as well as moral, is not free from reproach (see Chauffepié, Nouveau dictionnaire critique, tom. IV, p. 460). Without insisting on the silence of Diodorus, Plutarch, Justin, etc., it may be observed that Polyaenus, who in a separate chapter (l. IV c. 6) has collected nineteen military stratagems of Antigonus, is totally ignorant of this remarkable vision. ↩
Instinctu Divinitatis, mentis magnitudine. The inscription on the triumphal arch of Constantine, which has been copied by Baronius, Gruter, etc., may still be perused by every curious traveller. ↩
Habes profecto aliquid cum illâ mente Divinâ secretum; quae delegatâ nostrâ Diis Minoribus curâ uni se tibi dignatur ostendere. Panegyrici veteres IX 2. ↩
M. Fréret (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. IV, pp. 411⁠–⁠437) explains, by physical causes, many of the prodigies of antiquity; and Fabricius, who is abused by both parties, vainly tries to introduce the celestial cross of Constantine among the solar halos. Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, pp. 8⁠–⁠29.8917 ↩
Nazarius inter Panegyrici veteres X 14, 15. It is unnecessary to name the moderns, whose undistinguishing and ravenous appetite has swallowed even the Pagan bait of Nazarius. ↩
The apparitions of Castor and Pollux, particularly to announce the Macedonian victory, are attested by historians and public monuments. See Cicero, De natura Deorum II 2, III 5, 6. Florus II 12. Valerius Maximus, l. I c. 8, No. 1. Yet the most recent of these miracles is omitted, and indirectly denied, by Livy (XLV i). ↩
Eusebius, l. I c. 28⁠–⁠30. The silence of the same Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, is deeply felt by those advocates for the miracle who are not absolutely callous. ↩
The narrative of Constantine seems to indicate that he saw the cross in the sky before he passed the Alps against Maxentius. The scene has been fixed by provincial vanity at Treves, Besançon, etc. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 573. ↩
The pious Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, p. 1317) rejects with a sigh the useful acts of Artemius, a veteran and a martyr, who attests as an eyewitness the vision of Constantine. ↩
Gelasius Cyzicus in Acta Concilio Nicae, l. I c. 4. ↩
The advocates for the vision are unable to produce a single testimony from the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, who, in their voluminous writings, repeatedly celebrate the triumph of the church and of Constantine. As these venerable men had not any dislike to a miracle, we may suspect (and the suspicion is confirmed by the ignorance of Jerome) that they were all unacquainted with the Life of Constantine by Eusebius. This tract was recovered by the diligence of those who translated or continued his Ecclesiastical History, and who have represented in various colors the vision of the cross. ↩
Godefroy was the first who, in the year 1643 (Not. ad Philostorgius, l. I c. 6, p. 16), expressed any doubt of a miracle which had been supported with equal zeal by Cardinal Baronius and the Centuriators of Magdeburgh. Since that time many of the Protestant critics have inclined towards doubt and disbelief. The objections are urged, with great force, by M. Chauffepié (Nouveau dictionnaire critique, tom. IV, pp. 6⁠–⁠11); and in the year 1774 a doctor of Sorbonne, the Abbé du Voisin, published an apology, which deserves the praise of learning and moderation.8918 ↩
Lore Constantin dit ces propres paroles:
J’ai renversé le culte des idoles:
Sur les débris de leurs temples fumans
Au Dieu du Ciel j’ai prodigué l’encens.
Mais tous mes soins pour sa grandeur suprême
N’eurent jamais d’autre objêt que moi-même;
Les saints autels n’étoient à mes regards
Qu’un marchepié du trône des Césars.
L’ambition, la fureur, les délices
Etoient mes Dieux, avoient mes sacrifices.
L’or des Chrêtiens, leurs intrigues, leur sang
Ont cimenté ma fortune et mon rang.

The poem which contains these lines may be read with pleasure, but cannot be named with decency. ↩
This favorite was probably the great Osius, bishop of Cordova, who preferred the pastoral care of the whole church to the government of a particular diocese. His character is magnificently, though concisely, expressed by Athanasius (tom. I, p. 703). See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 524⁠–⁠561. Osius was accused, perhaps unjustly, of retiring from court with a very ample fortune. ↩
See Eusebius (in De vita Constantini passim), and Zosimus, l. II, p. 104. ↩
The Christianity of Lactantius was of a moral rather than of a mysterious cast. “Erat paene rudis” (says the orthodox Bull) “disciplinae Christianae, et in rhetoricâ melius quam in theologiâ versatus.” Defensio fidei Nicaenae, sect. II c. 14. ↩
Fabricius, with his usual diligence, has collected a list of between three and four hundred authors quoted in the Evangelical Preparation of Eusebius. See Bibliotheca Graeca, l. V c. 4, tom. VI, pp. 37⁠–⁠56. ↩
See Constantini, Oratio ad Sanctos, c. 19, 20. He chiefly depends on a mysterious acrostic, composed in the sixth age after the Deluge by the Erythraean Sibyl, and translated by Cicero into Latin. The initial letters of the thirty-four Greek verses form this prophetic sentence: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior of the World. ↩
In his paraphrase of Virgil the emperor has frequently assisted and improved the literal sense of the Latin text. See Blondel, Des Sibylles célébrées tant par l’antiquité payenne que par le saincts Pères, l. I c. 14⁠–⁠16. ↩
The different claims of an elder and younger son of Pollio, of Julia, of Drusus, of Marcellus, are found to be incompatible with chronology, history, and the good sense of Virgil. ↩
See Robert Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum XXI, pp. 289⁠–⁠293. In the examination of the fourth eclogue, the respectable bishop of London has displayed learning, taste, ingenuity, and a temperate enthusiasm, which exalts his fancy without degrading his judgment. ↩
The distinction between the public and the secret parts of divine service, the missa catechumenorum and the missa fidelium, and the mysterious veil which piety or policy had cast over the latter, are very judiciously explained by Jean-Baptiste Thiers, Traité de l’exposition du saint sacrement, l. I c. 8⁠–⁠12, pp. 59⁠–⁠91; but as on this subject the Papists may reasonably be suspected, a Protectant reader will depend with more confidence on the learned Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, l. X c. 5. ↩
See Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 15⁠–⁠32, and the whole tenor of Constantine’s sermon. The faith and devotion of the emperor has furnished Baronius with a specious argument in favor of his early baptism.8919 ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 105. ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 15, 16. ↩
The theory and practice of antiquity with regard to the sacrament of baptism have been copiously explained by Dom Chardon, Histoire des sacremens, tom. I, pp. 3⁠–⁠405; Dom Edmond Martène, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus, tom. I; and by Bingham, in the tenth and eleventh books of his Antiquities of the Christian Church. One circumstance may be observed in which the modern churches have materially departed from the ancient custom. The sacrament of baptism (even when it was administered to infants) was immediately followed by confirmation and the holy communion. ↩
The Fathers, who censured this criminal delay, could not deny the certain and victorious efficacy even of a deathbed baptism. The ingenious rhetoric of Chrysostom could find only three arguments against these prudent Christians.
1. That we should love and pursue virtue for her own sake, and not merely for the reward.
2. That we may be surprised by death without an opportunity of baptism.
3. That, although we shall be placed in heaven, we shall only twinkle like little stars, when compared to the suns of righteousness who have run their appointed course with labor, with success, and with glory. Chrysostom, in Epistolam ad Hebraeos, “Homilia XIII” apud Chardon, Histoire des sacremens, tom. I, p. 49.
I believe that this delay of baptism, though attended with the most pernicious consequences, was never condemned by any general or provincial council, or by any public act or declaration of the church. The zeal of the bishops was easily kindled on much slighter occasions.8920 ↩
Zosimus, l. II, p. 104. For this disingenuous falsehood he has deserved and experienced the harshest treatment from all the ecclesiastical writers, except Cardinal Baronius (“AD 324,” No. 15⁠–⁠28), who had occasion to employ the infidel on a particular service against the Arian Eusebius.8921 ↩
Eusebius, l. IV c. 61⁠–⁠63. The bishop of Caesarea supposes the salvation of Constantine with the most perfect confidence. ↩
See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 429. The Greeks, the Russians, and, in the darker ages, the Latins themselves, have been desirous of placing Constantine in the catalogue of saints. ↩
See the third and fourth books of his Life. He was accustomed to say that, whether Christ was preached in pretence or in truth, he should still rejoice (l. III c. 58). ↩
M. de Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, pp. 374, 616) has defended with strength and spirit the virgin purity of Constantinople against some malevolent insinuations of the Pagan Zosimus. ↩
The author of the Histoire philosophique et politique des établissements et du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes (tom. I, p. 9) condemns a law of Constantine which gave freedom to all the slaves who should embrace Christianity. The emperor did indeed publish a law which restrained the Jews from circumcising, perhaps from keeping, any Christian slaves (see Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 27, and Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. IX, with Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. VI, p. 247). But this imperfect exception related only to the Jews; and the great body of slaves, who were the property of Christian or Pagan masters, could not improve their temporal condition by changing their religion. I am ignorant by what guides the Abbé Raynal was deceived, as the total absence of quotations is the unpardonable blemish of his entertaining history. ↩
See Acta Sancti Silvestri, and Historia ecclesiastica, Nicephorus Callistus, l. VII c. 34, apud Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 324,” No. 67, 74. Such evidence is contemptible enough; but these circumstances are in themselves so probable that the learned Dr. Howell (History of the World, vol. III, p. 14) has not scrupled to adopt them. ↩
The conversion of the Barbarians under the reign of Constantine is celebrated by the ecclesiastical historians (see Sozomen, l. II c. 6, and Theodoret, l. I c. 23, 24). But Rufinus, the Latin translator of Eusebius, deserves to be considered as an original authority. His information was curiously collected from one of the companions of the Apostle of Aethiopia, and from Bacarius, an Iberian prince, who was count of the domestics. Father Mamachi has given an ample compilation on the progress of Christianity, in the first and second volumes of his great but imperfect work. ↩
According to the Georgian chronicles, Iberia (Georgia) was converted by the virgin Nino, who effected an extraordinary cure on the wife of the king, Mihran. The temple of the god Aramazt, or Armaz, not far from the capital Mtskitha, was destroyed, and the cross erected in its place. Le Beau I 292, with Saint-Martin’s notes.

Saint-Martin has likewise clearly shown (Saint-Martin, Addition to Le Beau, I 291) that Armenia was the first nation which embraced Christianity (Addition to Le Beau, I 76, and Mémoires sur l’Arménie I 305). Gibbon himself suspected this truth.⁠—“Instead of maintaining that the conversion of Armenia was not attempted with any degree of success till the sceptre was in the hands of an orthodox emperor, I ought to have said that the seeds of the faith were deeply sown during the season of the last and greatest persecution that many Roman exiles might assist the labours of Gregory, and that the renowned Tiridates, the hero of the East, may dispute with Constantine the honor of being the first sovereign who embraced the Christian religion.” Vindication, Miscellaneous Works IV 577. —⁠M. ↩
See in Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 9) the pressing and pathetic epistle of Constantine in favor of his Christian brethren of Persia. ↩
See Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, tom. VII, p. 182, tom. VIII, p. 333, tom. IX, p. 810. The curious diligence of this writer pursues the Jewish exiles to the extremities of the globe. ↩
Abba Salama, or Fremonatos, is mentioned in the Tareek Negushti, or Chronicle of the Kings of Abyssinia, Henry Salt’s A Voyage to Abyssinia, and Travels Into the Interior of That Country, vol. II, p. 464. —⁠M. ↩
Theophilus had been given in his infancy as a hostage by his countrymen of the isle of Diva, and was educated by the Romans in learning and piety. The Maldives, of which Male, or Diva, may be the capital, are a cluster of 1,900 or 2,000 minute islands in the Indian Ocean. The ancients were imperfectly acquainted with the Maldives, but they are described in the two Muhammadan travellers of the ninth century, published by Renaudot, Geographia nubiensis, pp. 30, 31. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 704. Histoire générale des Voyages, tom. VIII.8922 ↩
Philostorgius, l. III c. 4⁠–⁠6, with Godefroy’s learned observations. The historical narrative is soon lost in an inquiry concerning the seat of Paradise, strange monsters, etc. ↩
See the epistle of Osius, apud Athanasius, vol. I, p. 840. The public remonstrance which Osius was forced to address to the son contained the same principles of ecclesiastical and civil government which he had secretly instilled into the mind of the father. ↩
M. de la Bastie (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XV, pp. 38⁠–⁠61) has evidently proved that Augustus and his successors exercised in person all the sacred functions of pontifex maximus, or high priest, of the Roman empire. ↩
Something of a contrary practice had insensibly prevailed in the church of Constantinople; but the rigid Ambrose commanded Theodosius to retire below the rails, and taught him to know the difference between a king and a priest. See Theodoret, l. V c. 18. ↩
At the table of the emperor Maximus, Martin, bishop of Tours, received the cup from an attendant, and gave it to the presbyter his companion, before he allowed the emperor to drink; the empress waited on Martin at table. Sulpicius Severus, in Vita Sancti Martini, c. 23, and “Dialogue II” 7. Yet it may be doubted whether these extraordinary compliments were paid to the bishop or the saint. The honours usually granted to the former character may be seen in Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, l. II c. 9, and Valesius ad Theodoret, l. IV c. 6. See the haughty ceremonial which Leontius, bishop of Tripoli, imposed on the empress. Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 754. (Patres apostoli, tom. II, p. 179.) ↩
Plutarch, in his treatise of Isis and Osiris, informs us that the kings of Egypt, who were not already priests, were initiated, after their election, into the sacerdotal order. ↩
The numbers are not ascertained by any ancient writer or original catalogue; for the partial lists of the eastern churches are comparatively modern. The patient diligence of Charles a Sancto Paolo, of Luke Holstenius, and of Bingham has laboriously investigated all the episcopal sees of the Catholic church, which was almost commensurate with the Roman empire. The ninth book of the Antiquities of the Christian Church is a very accurate map of ecclesiastical geography. ↩
On the subject of the rural bishops, or Chorepiscopi, who voted in synods, and conferred the minor orders, see Louis Thomassin, Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de l'église touchant les bénéfices et les bénéficiers, tom. I, p. 447, etc., and Chardon, Histoire des sacremens, tom. V, p. 395, etc. They do not appear till the fourth century; and this equivocal character, which had excited the jealousy of the prelates, was abolished before the end of the tenth, both in the East and the West. ↩
Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. II l. II c. 1⁠–⁠8, pp. 673⁠–⁠721) has copiously treated of the election of bishops during the five first centuries, both in the East and in the West; but he shows a very partial bias in favor of the episcopal aristocracy. Bingham (l. IV c. 2) is moderate; and Chardon (Histoire des sacremens, tom. V, pp. 108⁠–⁠128) is very clear and concise.8923 ↩
Incredibilis multitudo, non solum ex eo oppido (Tours), sed etiam ex vicinis urbibus ad suffragia, ferenda convenerat, etc. Sulpicius Severus, in Vita Sancti Martini, c. 7. The council of Laodicea (canon XIII) prohibits mobs and tumults; and Justinian confines the right of election to the nobility. Novella CXXIII 1. ↩
The epistles of Sidonius Apollinaris (IV 25, VII 5, 9) exhibit some of the scandals of the Gallican church; and Gaul was less polished and less corrupt than the East. ↩
A compromise was sometimes introduced by law or by consent; either the bishops or the people chose one of the three candidates who had been named by the other party. ↩
All the examples quoted by Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. II l. II c. VI, pp. 704⁠–⁠714) appear to be extraordinary acts of power, and even of oppression. The confirmation of the bishop of Alexandria is mentioned by Philostorgius as a more regular proceeding (Historia ecclesiastica, l. II 11).8924 ↩
The celibacy of the clergy during the first five or six centuries is a subject of discipline, and indeed of controversy, which has been very diligently examined. See in particular Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. I l. II c. LX, LXI, pp. 886⁠–⁠902; and Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, l. IV c. 5. By each of these learned but partial critics one half of the truth is produced, and the other is concealed.8925 ↩
Diodorus Siculus attests and approves the hereditary succession of the priesthood among the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, and the Indians (l. I, p. 84, l. II, pp. 142, 153, edit. Wesseling). The Magi are described by Ammianus as a very numerous family: “Per saecula multa ad praesens unâ eâdemque prosapiâ multitudo creata, Deorum cultibus dedicatur” (XXIII 6). Ausonius celebrates the Stirps Druidarum (Commemoratio professorum Burdigalensium IV); but we may infer from the remark of Caesar (De bello Gallico VI 13) that in the Celtic hierarchy, some room was left for choice and emulation. ↩
The subject of the vocation, ordination, obedience, etc., of the clergy, is laboriously discussed by Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠83) and Bingham (in the fourth book of his Antiquities of the Christian Church, more especially the fourth, sixth, and seventh chapters). When the brother of St. Jerome was ordained in Cyprus, the deacons forcibly stopped his mouth, lest he should make a solemn protestation which might invalidate the holy rites. ↩
This exemption was very much limited. The municipal offices were of two kinds; the one attached to the individual in his character of inhabitant, the other in that of proprietor. Constantine had exempted ecclesiastics from offices of the first description. (Codex Theodosianus XVI tit. II leg. 1, 2; Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. X c. 7.) They sought also to be exempted from those of the second (munera patrimoniorum). The rich, to obtain this privilege, obtained subordinate situations among the clergy. Constantine published in 320 an edict, by which he prohibited the more opulent citizens (decuriones and curiales) from embracing the ecclesiastical profession, and the bishops from admitting new ecclesiastics, before a place should be vacant by the death of the occupant (Godefroy ad Codex Theodosianus, l. XII tit. I de Decurionibus). Valentinian the First, by a rescript still more general, enacted that no rich citizen should obtain a situation in the church (De episcoporum ordinatione, l. LXVII). He also enacted that ecclesiastics, who wished to be exempt from offices which they were bound to discharge as proprietors, should be obliged to give up their property to their relations. Codex Theodosianus, l. XII tit. I leg. 49. —⁠G. ↩
The charter of immunities, which the clergy obtained from the Christian emperors, is contained in the 16th book of the Theodosian code; and is illustrated with tolerable candor by the learned Godefroy, whose mind was balanced by the opposite prejudices of a civilian and a Protestant. ↩
Justinian, Novella CIII. Sixty presbyters or priests, one hundred deacons, forty deaconesses, ninety sub-deacons, one hundred and ten readers, twenty-five chanters, and one hundred doorkeepers; in all, five hundred and twenty-five. This moderate number was fixed by the emperor to relieve the distress of the church, which had been involved in debt and usury by the expense of a much higher establishment. ↩
Universus clerus ecclesiae Carthaginiensis⁠ ⁠… fere quingenti vel amplius; inter quos quamplurimi erant lectores infantuli. Victor Vitensis, Commentarius historicus de persecutione Vandalica V 9, p. 78, edit. Ruinart. This remnant of a more prosperous state still subsisted under the oppression of the Vandals. ↩
The number of seven orders has been fixed in the Latin church, exclusive of the episcopal character. But the four inferior ranks, the minor orders, are now reduced to empty and useless titles. ↩
See Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. II leg. 42, 43. Godefroy’s Commentary, and the Ecclesiastical History of Alexandria, show the danger of these pious institutions, which often disturbed the peace of that turbulent capital. ↩
The edict of Milan (De mortibus persecutorum, c. 48) acknowledges, by reciting, that there existed a species of landed property, ad jus corporis eorum, id est, ecclesiarum non hominum singulorum pertinentia. Such a solemn declaration of the supreme magistrate must have been received in all the tribunals as a maxim of civil law. ↩
Habeat unusquisque licentiam sanctissimo Catholicae (ecclesiae) venerabilique concilio, decedens bonorum quod optavit relinquere. Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. II leg. 4. This law was published at Rome, AD 321, at a time when Constantine might foresee the probability of a rupture with the emperor of the East. ↩
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. X 6, in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 28. He repeatedly expatiates on the liberality of the Christian hero, which the bishop himself had an opportunity of knowing, and even of tasting. ↩
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. X c. 2⁠–⁠4. The bishop of Caesarea, who studied and gratified the taste of his master, pronounced in public an elaborate description of the church of Jerusalem (in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 46). It no longer exists, but he has inserted in the Life of Constantine (l. III c. 36) a short account of the architecture and ornaments. He likewise mentions the church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople (l. IV c. 59). ↩
See Justinian, Novella CXXIII 3. The revenue of the patriarchs, and the most wealthy bishops, is not expressed: the highest annual valuation of a bishopric is stated at thirty, and the lowest at two, pounds of gold; the medium might be taken at sixteen, but these valuations are much below the real value. ↩
See Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 324,” No. 58, 65, 70, 71). Every record which comes from the Vatican is justly suspected; yet these rent-rolls have an ancient and authentic color; and it is at least evident that, if forged, they were forged in a period when farms, not kingdoms, were the objects of papal avarice. ↩
See Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. III l. II c. 13⁠–⁠15, pp. 680⁠–⁠706. The legal division of the ecclesiastical revenue does not appear to have been established in the time of Ambrose and Chrysostom. Simplicius and Gelasius, who were bishops of Rome in the latter part of the fifth century, mention it in their pastoral letters as a general law, which was already confirmed by the custom of Italy. ↩
Ambrose, the most strenuous asserter of ecclesiastical privileges, submits without a murmur to the payment of the land-tax. “Si tributum petit Imperator, non negamus; agri ecclesiae solvunt tributum; solvimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo; tributum Caesaris est; non negatur.” Baronius labours to interpret this tribute as an act of charity rather than of duty (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 587”); but the words, if not the intentions, of Ambrose are more candidly explained by Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. III l. I c. 34, p. 268. ↩
In Ariminensi synodo super ecclesiarum et clericorum privilegiis tractatû habito, usque eo dispositio progressa est, ut juga quae viderentur ad ecclesiam pertinere, a publicâ functione caesarent inquietudine desistente; quod nostra videtur dudum sanctio repulsisse. Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. II leg. 15. Had the synod of Rimini carried this point, such practical merit might have atoned for some speculative heresies. ↩
From Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 27) and Sozomen (l. I c. 9) we are assured that the episcopal jurisdiction was extended and confirmed by Constantine; but the forgery of a famous edict, which was never fairly inserted in the Theodosian Code (see at the end, tom. VI, p. 303), is demonstrated by Godefroy in the most satisfactory manner. It is strange that M. de Montesquieu, who was a lawyer as well as a philosopher, should allege this edict of Constantine (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXIX c. 16) without intimating any suspicion. ↩
The subject of ecclesiastical jurisdiction has been involved in a mist of passion, of prejudice, and of interest. Two of the fairest books which have fallen into my hands are the Institutes of Canon Law, by the Abbé de Fleury, and the Civil History of Naples, by Giannone. Their moderation was the effect of situation as well as of temper. Fleury was a French ecclesiastic, who respected the authority of the parliaments; Giannone was an Italian lawyer, who dreaded the power of the church. And here let me observe that, as the general propositions which I advance are the result of many particular and imperfect facts, I must either refer the reader to those modern authors who have expressly treated the subject, or swell these notes to a disagreeable and disproportioned size. ↩
Tillemont has collected from Rufinus, Theodoret, etc., the sentiments and language of Constantine. Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. III, pp. 749, 750. ↩
See Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. XLV leg. 4. In the works of Fra Paolo Sarpi (tom. IV, p. 192, etc.) there is an excellent discourse on the origin, claims, abuses, and limits of sanctuaries. He justly observes that ancient Greece might perhaps contain fifteen or twenty asyla or sanctuaries; a number which at present may be found in Italy within the walls of a single city. ↩
The penitential jurisprudence was continually improved by the canons of the councils. But as many cases were still left to the discretion of the bishops, they occasionally published, after the example of the Roman praetor, the rules of discipline which they proposed to observe. Among the canonical epistles of the fourth century, those of Basil the Great were the most celebrated. They are inserted in the Pandects of Beveridge (tom. II, pp. 47⁠–⁠151), and are translated by Chardon, Histoire des sacremens, tom. IV, pp. 219⁠–⁠277. ↩
Basil, “Epistle XLVII” in Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 370,” No. 91), who declares that he purposely relates it to convince governors that they were not exempt from a sentence of excommunication. In his opinion, even a royal head is not safe from the thunders of the Vatican; and the cardinal shows himself much more consistent than the lawyers and theologians of the Gallican church. ↩
The long series of his ancestors, as high as Eurysthenes, the first Doric king of Sparta, and the fifth in lineal descent from Hercules, was inscribed in the public registers of Cyrene, a Lacedaemonian colony. (Synesius, “Epistle LVII,” p. 197, edit. Petavius.) Such a pure and illustrious pedigree of seventeen hundred years, without adding the royal ancestors of Hercules, cannot be equalled in the history of mankind. ↩
Synesius (“De Regno,” p. 2) pathetically deplores the fallen and ruined state of Cyrene, πόλις Ἑλληνις, παλαιὸν ὄνομα καὶ σεμνὸν καὶ ἐν ᾠδῇ μυρίᾳ τῶν πάλαι σόφῶν, νῦν πένης καὶ κατηφὴς, καὶ μέγα ἐπείπιον. Ptolemais, a new city, 82 miles to the westward of Cyrene, assumed the metropolitan honours of the Pentapolis, or Upper Libya, which were afterwards transferred to Sozusa. See Wesseling, Intineraria, pp. 67, 68, 732. Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. II part II, pp. 72, 74. Carolo a S. Paulo Geographia sacra, p. 273. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. III, pp. 43, 44. Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXXVII, pp. 363⁠–⁠391. ↩
Synesius had previously represented his own disqualifications (“Epistle CV,” pp. 246⁠–⁠250). He loved profane studies and profane sports; he was incapable of supporting a life of celibacy; he disbelieved the resurrection; and he refused to preach fables to the people, unless he might be permitted to philosophize at home. Theophilus, primate of Egypt, who knew his merit, accepted this extraordinary compromise. See the “Life of Synesius” in Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XII, pp. 499⁠–⁠554. ↩
See the invective of Synesius, “Epistle LVII,” pp. 191⁠–⁠201. The promotion of Andronicus was illegal, since he was a native of Berenice, in the same province. The instruments of torture are curiously specified⁠—the πιεστήριον, or press, the δακτυλήθρα, the ποδοστράβη, the ῤινολαβίς, the ὠτάγρα, and the χειλοστρόφιον that variously pressed or distended the fingers, the feet, the nose, the ears, and the lips of the victims. ↩
The sentence of excommunication is expressed in a rhetorical style. (Synesius, “Epistle LVIII,” pp. 201⁠–⁠203.) The method of involving whole families, though somewhat unjust, was improved into national interdicts. ↩
See Synesius, “Epistle XLVII,” pp. 186, 187. “Epistle LXXII,” pp. 218, 219. “Epistle LXXXIX,” pp. 230, 231. ↩
See Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. II l. III c. 83, pp. 1761⁠–⁠1770) and Bingham (Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. I l. XIV c. 4, pp. 688⁠–⁠717). Preaching was considered as the most important office of the bishop; but this function was sometimes entrusted to such presbyters as Chrysostom and Augustine. ↩
Queen Elizabeth used this expression, and practiced this art, whenever she wished to prepossess the minds of her people in favor of any extraordinary measure of government. The hostile effects of this music were apprehended by her successor, and severely felt by his son. “When pulpit, drum ecclesiastic,” etc., see Peter Heylyn’s Life of Archbishop Laud, p. 153. ↩
Those modest orators acknowledged that, as they were destitute of the gift of miracles, they endeavored to acquire the arts of eloquence. ↩
The council of Nice, in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh canons, has made some fundamental regulations concerning synods, metropolitans, and primates. The Nicene canons have been variously tortured, abused, interpolated, or forged, according to the interest of the clergy. The Suburbicarian churches, assigned (by Rufinus) to the bishop of Rome, have been made the subject of vehement controversy. (See Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. IV, pp. 1⁠–⁠238.) ↩
We have only thirty-three or forty-seven episcopal subscriptions; but Ado, a writer indeed of small account, reckons six hundred bishops in the council of Arles. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, p. 422. ↩
See Tillemont, tom. VI, p. 915, and Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. I, p. 529. The name of bishop, which is given by Eutychius to the 2,048 ecclesiastics (Annales, tom. I, p. 440, vers. Pococke), must be extended far beyond the limits of an orthodox or even episcopal ordination. ↩
See Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. III c. 6⁠–⁠21. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, pp. 669⁠–⁠759. ↩
Sancimus igitur vicem legum obtinere, quae a quatuor Sanctis Conciliis⁠ ⁠… expositae sunt aut firmatae. Praedictarum enim quatuor synodorum dogmata sicut sanctas Scripturas et regulas sicut leges observamus. Justinian, Novella CXXXI. Beveridge (ad Pandectae prolegemon, p. 2) remarks that the emperors never made new laws in ecclesiastical matters; and Giannone observes, in a very different spirit, that they gave a legal sanction to the canons of councils. Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. I, p. 136. ↩
See the article “Concile” in the Encyclopédie, tom. III, pp. 668⁠–⁠679, édition de Lucques. The author, M. le docteur Bouchaud, has discussed, according to the principles of the Gallican church, the principal questions which relate to the form and constitution of general, national, and provincial councils. The editors (see Preface, p. XVI) have reason to be proud of this article. Those who consult their immense compilation seldom depart so well satisfied. ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. III c. 63⁠–⁠66. ↩
After some examination of the various opinions of Tillemont, Beausobre, Lardner, etc., I am convinced that Manes did not propagate his sect, even in Persia, before the year 270. It is strange that a philosophic and foreign heresy should have penetrated so rapidly into the African provinces; yet I cannot easily reject the edict of Diocletian against the Manichaeans, which may be found in Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 287”). ↩
Constantinus enim, cum limatius superstitionum quaeroret sectas, Manichaeorum et similium, etc. Ammianus XV 15. Strategius, who from this commission obtained the surname of Musonianus, was a Christian of the Arian sect. He acted as one of the counts at the council of Sardica. Libanius praises his mildness and prudence. Valesius ad loc. Ammianus. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. 5, leg. 2. As the general law is not inserted in the Theodosian Code, it probable that, in the year 438, the sects which it had condemned were already extinct. ↩
Sozomen, l. I c. 22. Socrates, l. I c. 10. These historians have been suspected, but I think without reason, of an attachment to the Novatian doctrine. The emperor said to the bishop, “Acesius, take a ladder, and get up to Heaven by yourself.” Most of the Christian sects have, by turns, borrowed the ladder of Acesius. ↩
The best materials for this part of ecclesiastical history may be found in the edition of Optatus Milevitanus, published (Paris, 1700) by M. Dupin, who has enriched it with critical notes, geographical discussions, original records, and an accurate abridgment of the whole controversy. M. de Tillemont has bestowed on the Donatists the greatest part of a volume (tom. VI part I); and I am indebted to him for an ample collection of all the passages of his favorite St. Augustine which relate to those heretics. ↩
Schisma igitur illo tempore confusae mulieris iracundia peperit; ambitus nutrivit; avaritia roboravit. Optatus, l. I c. 19. The language of Purpurius is that of a furious madman. Dicitur te necasse filios sororis tuae duos. Purpurius respondit: Putas me terreri à te⁠ ⁠… occidi; et occido eos qui contra me faciunt. Acta Concilia Cirtensis, ad calcem Optatus, p. 274. When Caecilian was invited to an assembly of bishops, Purpurius said to his brethren, or rather to his accomplices, “Let him come hither to receive our imposition of hands, and we will break his head by way of penance.” Optatus, l. I c. 19. ↩
The councils of Arles, of Nice, and of Trent confirmed the wise and moderate practice of the church of Rome. The Donatists, however, had the advantage of maintaining the sentiment of Cyprian, and of a considerable part of the primitive church. Vincentius Lirinesis (p. 332, apud Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, p. 138) has explained why the Donatists are eternally burning with the Devil, while St. Cyprian reigns in heaven with Jesus Christ. ↩
See the sixth book of Optatus Milevitanus, pp. 91⁠–⁠100. ↩
Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI part I, p. 253. He laughs at their partial credulity. He revered Augustine, the great doctor of the system of predestination. ↩
Plato Aegyptum peragravit ut a sacerdotibus Barbaris numeros et coelestia acciperet. Cicero, De finibus Bonorum et Malorum V 25. The Egyptians might still preserve the traditional creed of the Patriarchs. Josephus has persuaded many of the Christian fathers that Plato derived a part of his knowledge from the Jews; but this vain opinion cannot be reconciled with the obscure state and unsocial manners of the Jewish people, whose scriptures were not accessible to Greek curiosity till more than one hundred years after the death of Plato. See John Marsham, Canon chronicus Aegyptiacus, Ebraicus, Graecus et disquisitiones, p. 144. Leclerc, Epistolae criticae et ecclesiasticae VII, pp. 177⁠–⁠194. ↩
This exposition of the doctrine of Plato appears to me contrary to the true sense of that philosopher’s writings. The brilliant imagination which he carried into metaphysical inquiries, his style, full of allegories and figures, have misled those interpreters who did not seek, from the whole tenor of his works and beyond the images which the writer employs, the system of this philosopher. In my opinion, there is no Trinity in Plato; he has established no mysterious generation between the three pretended principles which he is made to distinguish. Finally, he conceives only as attributes of the Deity, or of matter, those ideas, of which it is supposed that he made substances, real beings.

According to Plato, God and matter existed from all eternity. Before the creation of the world, matter had in itself a principle of motion, but without end or laws: it is this principle which Plato calls the irrational soul of the world (ἂλογος ψῦχη), because, according to his doctrine, every spontaneous and original principle of motion is called soul. God wished to impress form upon matter, that is to say, 1. To mould matter, and make it into a body; 2. To regulate its motion, and subject it to some end and to certain laws. The Deity, in this operation, could not act but according to the ideas existing in his intelligence: their union filled this, and formed the ideal type of the world. It is this ideal world, this divine intelligence, existing with God from all eternity, and called by Plato νους or λόγος, which he is supposed to personify, to substantialize; while an attentive examination is sufficient to convince us that he has never assigned it an existence external to the Deity (hors de la Divinité), and that he considered the λόγος as the aggregate of the ideas of God, the divine understanding in its relation to the world. The contrary opinion is irreconcilable with all his philosophy: thus he says (Timaeus, p. 348, edit. Biponti) that to the idea of the Deity is essentially united that of intelligence, of a logos. He would thus have admitted a double logos; one inherent in the Deity as an attribute, the other independently existing as a substance. He affirms (Timaeus 316, 337, 348, “Sophista,” vol. II, pp. 265, 266) that the intelligence, the principle of order, νους or λόγος, cannot exist but as an attribute of a soul (ψῦχη), the principle of motion and of life, of which the nature is unknown to us. How, then, according to this, could he consider the logos as a substance endowed with an independent existence? In other places, he explains it by these two words, ἐπιστὴμη (knowledge, science), and διάνοια (intelligence), which signify the attributes of the Deity (“Sophista,” vol. II, p. 299). Lastly, it follows from several passages, among others from “Philebus,” v. IV, pp. 247, 248, that Plato has never given to the words νους, λόγος, but one of these two meanings: 1. The result of the action of the Deity; that is, order, the collective laws which govern the world; and 2. The rational soul of the world (λογιστίκη ψῦχη), or the cause of this result, that is to say, the divine intelligence. When he separates God, the ideal archetype of the world and matter, it is to explain how, according to his system, God has proceeded, at the creation, to unite the principle of order, which he had within himself, his proper intelligence, the λόγος, the principle of motion, to the principle of motion, the irrational soul, the ἂλογος ψῦχη, which was in matter. When he speaks of the place occupied by the ideal world (τόπος νοητὸς), it is to designate the divine intelligence, which is its cause. Finally, in no part of his writings do we find a true personification of the pretended beings of which he is said to have formed a trinity: and if this personification existed, it would equally apply to many other notions, of which might be formed many different trinities.

This error, into which many ancient as well as modern interpreters of Plato have fallen, was very natural. Besides the snares which were concealed in his figurative style; besides the necessity of comprehending as a whole the system of his ideas, and not to explain isolated passages, the nature of his doctrine itself would conduce to this error. When Plato appeared, the uncertainty of human knowledge and the continual illusions of the senses were acknowledged, and had given rise to a general scepticism. Socrates had aimed at raising morality above the influence of this scepticism: Plato endeavored to save metaphysics, by seeking in the human intellect a source of certainty which the senses could not furnish. He invented the system of innate ideas, of which the aggregate formed, according to him, the ideal world, and affirmed that these ideas were real attributes, not only attached to our conceptions of objects, but to the nature of the objects themselves; a nature of which from them we might obtain a knowledge. He gave, then, to these ideas a positive existence as attributes; his commentators could easily give them a real existence as substances; especially as the terms which he used to designate them, ἄυτο τοκάλον, ἄυτο τὸ ἄγαφον, essential beauty, essential goodness, lent themselves to this substantialization (hypostasis). —⁠G.

We have retained this view of the original philosophy of Plato, in which there is probably much truth. The genius of Plato was rather metaphysical than impersonative: his poetry was in his language, rather than, like that of the Orientals, in his conceptions. —⁠M. ↩
The modern guides who lead me to the knowledge of the Platonic system are Ralph Cudworth (The True Intellectual System of the Universe, pp. 568⁠–⁠620), Basnage (Histoire des Juifs, l. IV c. 4), Leclerc (Epistolae criticae et ecclesiasticae VII, pp. 194⁠–⁠209), and Johann Jakob Brucker (Historia critica philosophiae, tom. I, pp. 675⁠–⁠706). As the learning of these writers was equal, and their intention different, an inquisitive observer may derive instruction from their disputes, and certainty from their agreement. ↩
Brucker, Historia critica philosophiae, tom. I, pp. 1349⁠–⁠1357. The Alexandrian school is celebrated by Strabo (l. XVII) and Ammianus (XXII 6).8926 ↩
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, l. XII c. 1, 3. Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, l. VII c. 7. ↩
For the origin of the Jewish philosophy, see Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica VIII 9, 10. According to Philo, the Therapeutae studied philosophy; and Brucker has proved (Historia critica philosophiae, tom. II, p. 787) that they gave the preference to that of Plato. ↩
See Calmet, Dissertations sur l’Ecriture, tom. II, p. 277. The book of the Wisdom of Solomon was received by many of the fathers as the work of that monarch: and although rejected by the Protestants for want of a Hebrew original, it has obtained, with the rest of the Vulgate, the sanction of the council of Trent. ↩
The Platonism of Philo, which was famous to a proverb, is proved beyond a doubt by Leclerc (Epistolae criticae et ecclesiasticae VIII, pp. 211⁠–⁠228). Basnage (Histoire des Juifs, l. IV c. 5) has clearly ascertained that the theological works of Philo were composed before the death, and most probably before the birth, of Christ. In such a time of darkness, the knowledge of Philo is more astonishing than his errors. George Bull, Defensio fidei Nicaenae, s. I c. I, p. 12. ↩
Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet.

Besides this material soul, Cudworth has discovered (p. 562) in Amelius, Porphyry, Plotinus, and, as he thinks, in Plato himself, a superior, spiritual, hyercosmian soul of the universe. But this double soul is exploded by Brucker, Basnage, and Leclerc, as an idle fancy of the latter Platonists. ↩
Petavius, Dogmata theologica, tom. II l. VIII c. 2, p. 791. Bull, Defensio fidei Nicaenae, s. I c. L, pp. 8, 13. This notion, till it was abused by the Arians, was freely adopted in the Christian theology. Tertullian (Adversus praxeam, c. 16) has a remarkable and dangerous passage. After contrasting, with indiscreet wit, the nature of God and the actions of Jehovah, he concludes: Scilicet ut haec de filio Dei non credenda fuisse, si non scripta essent; fortasse non credenda de Patre licet scripta.8927 ↩
The Platonists admired the beginning of the Gospel of St. John as containing an exact transcript of their own principles. Augustine, De civitate Dei X 29. Amelius apud Cyrillus, “Contra Julianum,” l. VIII, p. 283. But in the third and fourth centuries, the Platonists of Alexandria might improve their Trinity by the secret study of the Christian theology.8928 ↩
See Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. I, p. 377. The Gospel according to St. John is supposed to have been published about seventy years after the death of Christ. ↩
The sentiments of the Ebionites are fairly stated by Mosheim (p. 331) and Leclerc (Historia ecclesiastica, p. 535). The Clementines, published among the apostolical fathers, are attributed by the critics to one of these sectaries. ↩
Stanch polemics, like Bull (Judicium ecclesiae catholicae, c. 2), insist on the orthodoxy of the Nazarenes; which appears less pure and certain in the eyes of Mosheim (p. 330). ↩
The humble condition and sufferings of Jesus have always been a stumbling block to the Jews. “Deus⁠ ⁠… contrariis coloribus Messiam depinxerat; futurus, erat Rex, Judex, Pastor,” etc. See Limborch et Orobio, Amica collatio, pp. 8, 19, 53⁠–⁠76, 192⁠–⁠234. But this objection has obliged the believing Christians to lift up their eyes to a spiritual and everlasting kingdom. ↩
Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone, pp. 143, 144. See Leclerc, Historia ecclesiastica, p. 615. Bull and his editor Grabe (Judicium ecclesiae catholicae, c. 7, and Appendix) attempt to distort either the sentiments or the words of Justin; but their violent correction of the text is rejected even by the Benedictine editors. ↩
The Arians reproached the orthodox party with borrowing their Trinity from the Valentinians and Marcionites. See Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, l. III c. 5, 7. ↩
Non dignum est ex utero credere Deum, et Deum Christum⁠ ⁠… non dignum est ut tanta majestas per sordes et squalores mulieris transire credatur. The Gnostics asserted the impurity of matter and of marriage; and they were scandalized by the gross interpretations of the fathers, and even of Augustine himself. See Beausobre, tom. II, p. 523.8929 ↩
Apostolis adhuc in saeculo superstitibus apud Judaeam Christi sanguine recente, et phantasma corpus Domini asserebatur. Cotelerius thinks (Patres apostoli, tom. II, p. 24) that those who will not allow the Docetes to have arisen in the time of the Apostles may with equal reason deny that the sun shines at noonday. These Docetes, who formed the most considerable party among the Gnostics, were so called because they granted only a seeming body to Christ.8930 ↩
Some proofs of the respect which the Christians entertained for the person and doctrine of Plato may be found in La Mothe Le Vayer, tom. V, p. 135, etc., edit. 1757; and Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, tom. IV, pp. 29, 70, etc. ↩
Doleo bona fide, Platonem omnium heraeticorum condimentarium factum. Tertullian, De animâ, c. 23. Petavius (Dogmata theologica, tom. III prolegemon 2) shows that this was a general complaint. Beausobre (tom. I l. III c. 9, 10) has deduced the Gnostic errors from Platonic principles; and as in the school of Alexandria, those principles were blended with the Oriental philosophy (Brucker, tom. I, p. 1356), the sentiment of Beausobre may be reconciled with the opinion of Mosheim (General History of the Church, vol. I, p. 37). ↩
If Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (see Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. I, p. 66), was the first who employed the word Triad, Trinity, that abstract term, which was already familiar to the schools of philosophy, must have been introduced into the theology of the Christians after the middle of the second century. ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, p. 808. His expressions have an uncommon energy; and as he was writing to monks, there could not be any occasion for him to affect a rational language. ↩
In a treatise which professed to explain the opinions of the ancient philosophers concerning the nature of the gods we might expect to discover the theological Trinity of Plato. But Cicero very honestly confessed that, although he had translated the Timaeus, he could never understand that mysterious dialogue. See Hieronymus, praefatio ad l. XII in Isaiam, tom. V, p. 154. ↩
Tertullian in Apologeticus, c. 46. See Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, au mot “Simonide.” His remarks on the presumption of Tertullian are profound and interesting. ↩
Lactantius IV 8. Yet the Probole, or Prolatio, which the most orthodox divines borrowed without scruple from the Valentinians, and illustrated by the comparisons of a fountain and stream, the sun and its rays, etc., either meant nothing or favored a material idea of the divine generation. See Beausobre, tom. I l. III c. 7, p. 548. ↩
Many of the primitive writers have frankly confessed that the Son owed his being to the will of the Father. See Samuel Clarke’s The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 280⁠–⁠287. On the other hand, Athanasius and his followers seem unwilling to grant what they are afraid to deny. The schoolmen extricate themselves from this difficulty by the distinction of a preceding and a concomitant will. Petavius, Dogmata theologica, tom. II l. VI c. 8, pp. 587⁠–⁠603. ↩
See Petavius, Dogmata theologica, tom. II l. II c. 10, p. 159. ↩
Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem. Pliny the Younger, Epistulae X 97. The sense of Deus, Θεός, Elohim, in the ancient languages, is critically examined by Leclerc (Ars critica, pp. 150⁠–⁠156), and the propriety of worshipping a very excellent creature is ably defended by the Socinian Thomas Emlyn (Collection of Tracts, pp. 29⁠–⁠36, 51⁠–⁠145). ↩
See Jean Daillé, De usu patrum ad ea definienda religionis capita, and Leclerc, Bibliothèque universelle, tom. X, p. 409. To arraign the faith of the Ante-Nicene fathers was the object, or at least has been the effect, of the stupendous work of Petavius on the Trinity (Dogmata theologica, tom. II); nor has the deep impression been erased by the learned defence of Bishop Bull.8931 ↩
The most ancient creeds were drawn up with the greatest latitude. See Bull (Judicium ecclesiae catholicae), who tries to prevent Episcopius from deriving any advantage from this observation. ↩
The heresies of Praxeas, Sabellius, etc., are accurately explained by Mosheim (pp. 425, 680⁠–⁠714). Praxeas, who came to Rome about the end of the second century, deceived, for some time, the simplicity of the bishop, and was confuted by the pen of the angry Tertullian. ↩
Socrates acknowledges that the heresy of Arius proceeded from his strong desire to embrace an opinion the most diametrically opposite to that of Sabellius. ↩
The figure and manners of Arius, the character and numbers of his first proselytes, are painted in very lively colors by Epiphanius (tom. I, Adversus haereses LXIX 3, p. 729) and we cannot but regret that he should soon forget the historian, to assume the task of controversy. ↩
See Philostorgius (l. I c. 3) and Godefroy’s ample commentary. Yet the credibility of Philostorgius is lessened in the eyes of the orthodox by his Arianism; and in those of rational critics by his passion, his prejudice, and his ignorance. ↩
Sozomen (l. I c. 15) represents Alexander as indifferent, and even ignorant, in the beginning of the controversy; while Socrates (l. I c. 5) ascribes the origin of the dispute to the vain curiosity of his theological speculations. Dr. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, p. 178) has censured, with his usual freedom, the conduct of Alexander: πρὸς ὀργὴν ἐξάπτέται⁠ ⁠… ὁμοίως φρονεῖν ἐκέλευσε. ↩
The flames of Arianism might burn for some time in secret; but there is reason to believe that they burst out with violence as early as the year 319. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, pp. 774⁠–⁠780. ↩
Quid credidit? Certe, aut tria nomina audiens tres Deos esse credidit, et idololatra effectus est; aut in tribus vocabulis trinominem credens Deum, in Sabellii haeresim incurrit; aut edoctus ab Arianis unum esse verum Deum Patrem, filium et spiritum sanctum credidit creaturas. Aut extra haec quid credere potuerit nescio. Hieronymus, “Dialogus adversus Luciferianos.” Jerome reserves for the last the orthodox system, which is more complicated and difficult. ↩
As the doctrine of absolute creation from nothing was gradually introduced among the Christians (Beausobre, tom. II, pp. 165⁠–⁠215), the dignity of the workman very naturally rose with that of the work. ↩
The metaphysics of Dr. Clarke (The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 276⁠–⁠280) could digest an eternal generation from an infinite cause. ↩
This profane and absurd simile is employed by several of the primitive fathers, particularly by Athenagoras, in his Apology to the emperor Marcus and his son; and it is alleged, without censure, by Bull himself. See Defensio fidei Nicaenae, sect. III c. 5, No. 4. ↩
See Ralph Cudworth’s The True Intellectual System of the Universe, pp. 559, 579. This dangerous hypothesis was countenanced by the two Gregories, of Nyssa and Nazianzen, by Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus, etc. See Cudworth, p. 603. Leclerc, Bibliothèque universelle, tom. XVIII, pp. 97⁠–⁠105. ↩
Augustine seems to envy the freedom of the Philosophers. Liberis verbis loquuntur philosophi⁠ ⁠… Nos autem non dicimus duo vel tria principia, duos vel tres Deos. De civitate Dei X 23. ↩
Boethius, who was deeply versed in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, explains the unity of the Trinity by the indifference of the three persons. See the judicious remarks of Leclerc, Bibliothèque choisie, tom. XVI, p. 225, etc. ↩
If the Sabellians were startled at this conclusion, they were driven down another precipice into the confession that the Father was born of a virgin, that he had suffered on the cross; and thus deserved the epithet of Patripassians, with which they were branded by their adversaries. See the invectives of Tertullian against Praxeas, and the temperate reflections of Mosheim (pp. 423, 681); and Beausobre, tom. I l. III c. 6, p. 533. ↩
The transactions of the council of Nice are related by the ancients, not only in a partial, but in a very imperfect manner. Such a picture as Fra Paolo Sarpi would have drawn can never be recovered; but such rude sketches as have been traced by the pencil of bigotry, and that of reason, may be seen in Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. V, pp. 669⁠–⁠759), and in Leclerc (Bibliothèque universelle, tom. X, pp. 435⁠–⁠454). ↩
We are indebted to Ambrose (De fide de Gratianum Augustum, l. III cap. ult.) for the knowledge of this curious anecdote. Hoc verbum posuerunt Patres, quod viderunt adversariis esse formidini; ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio, ipsum nefandae caput haereseos amputarent. ↩
See Bull, Defensio fidei Nicaenae, sect. II c. I, pp. 25⁠–⁠36. He thinks it his duty to reconcile two orthodox synods. ↩
According to Aristotle, the stars were homoousian to each other. “That Homoousios means of one substance in kind, hath been shown by Petavius, Caeurcellaeus, Cudworth, Leclerc, etc., and to prove it would be actum agere.” This is the just remark of Dr. Jortin (vol. II, p. 212), who examines the Arian controversy with learning, candor, and ingenuity. ↩
See Petavius (Dogmata theologica, tom. II l. IV c. 16, p. 453, etc.), Cudworth (p. 559), Bull (sect. IV, pp. 285⁠–⁠290, edit. Grabe). The περιχώρησις, or circumincessio, is perhaps the deepest and darkest corner of the whole theological abyss. ↩
The third section of Bull’s Defence of the Nicene Faith, which some of his antagonists have called nonsense, and others heresy, is consecrated to the supremacy of the Father. ↩
The ordinary appellation with which Athanasius and his followers chose to compliment the Arians was that of Ariomanites. ↩
Epiphanius, tom. I Adversus haereses LXXII 4, p. 837. See the adventures of Marcellus, in Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII i, pp. 880⁠–⁠899). His work, in one book, of the unity of God, was answered in the three books, which are still extant, of Eusebius. After a long and careful examination, Petavius (tom. II l. I c. 14, p. 78) has reluctantly pronounced the condemnation of Marcellus. ↩
Athanasius, in his epistle concerning the Synods of Seleucia and Rimini (tom. I, pp. 886⁠–⁠905), has given an ample list of Arian creeds which has been enlarged and improved by the labors of the indefatigable Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, p. 477). ↩
Erasmus, with admirable sense and freedom, has delineated the just character of Hilary. To revise his text, to compose the annals of his life, and to justify his sentiments and conduct, is the province of the Benedictine editors. ↩
Absque episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo, ex majore parte Asianae decem provinciae, inter quas consisto, vere Deum nesciunt. Atque utinam penitus nescirent! cum procliviore enim veniâ ignorarent quam obtrectarent. Hilarius, Liber de synodis seu de fide orientalium, c. 63, p. 1186, edit. Benedicti. In the celebrated parallel between atheism and superstition, the bishop of Poitiers would have been surprised in the philosophic society of Bayle and Plutarch. ↩
Hilarius, “Ad Constantium Augustum,” l. I c. 4, 5, pp. 1227, 1228. This remarkable passage deserved the attention of Mr. John Locke, who has transcribed it (vol. III, p. 470) into the model of his new commonplace book. ↩
In Philostorgius (l. III c. 15) the character and adventures of Aetius appear singular enough, though they are carefully softened by the hand of a friend. The editor, Godefroy (p. 153), who was more attached to his principles than to his author, has collected the odious circumstances which his various adversaries have preserved or invented. ↩
According to the judgment of a man who respected both these sectaries, Aetius had been endowed with a stronger understanding, and Eunomius had acquired more art and learning (Philostorgius, l. VIII c. 18). The confession and apology of Eunomius (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VIII, pp. 258⁠–⁠305) is one of the few heretical pieces which have escaped. ↩
Yet, according to the opinion of Estius and Bull (p. 297), there is one power⁠—that of creation⁠—which God cannot communicate to a creature. Estius, who so accurately defined the limits of Omnipotence, was a Dutchman by birth, and by trade a scholastic divine. Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. XVII, p. 45. ↩
Sabinus (apud Socrates, l. II c. 39) had copied the acts; Athanasius and Hilary have explained the divisions of this Arian synod; the other circumstances which are relative to it are carefully collected by Baronius and Tillemont. ↩
Fideli et piâ intelligentiâ⁠ ⁠… “De Synodis,” c. 77, p. 1193. In his short apologetical notes (first published by the Benedictines from a MS. of Chartres) he observes that he used this cautious expression, qui-intelligerum et impiam, p. 1206. See p. 1146. Philostorgius, who saw those objects through a different medium, is inclined to forget the difference of the important diphthong. See in particular VIII 17, and Godefroy, p. 352. ↩
Testor Deum coeli atque terrae me cum neutrum audissem, semper tamen utrumque sensisse.⁠ ⁠… Regeneratus pridem et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens fidem Nicenam nunquam nisi exsulaturus audivi. Hilarius, “De Synodis,” c. XCI, p. 1205. The Benedictines are persuaded that he governed the diocese of Poitiers several years before his exile. ↩
Seneca (Epistulae morales LVIII) complains that even the τὸ ὄν of the Platonists (the ens of the bolder schoolmen) could not be expressed by a Latin noun. ↩
The preference which the fourth council of the Lateran at length gave to a numerical rather than a generical unity (see Petavius, tom. II l. IV c. 13, p. 424) was favored by the Latin language; πριας seems to excite the idea of substance, trinitas of qualities. ↩
Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est. Hieronymus, “Dialogus adversus Luciferianos,” tom. I, p. 145. ↩
The story of the council of Rimini is very elegantly told by Sulpicius Severus (Historia sacra, l. II, pp. 419⁠–⁠430, edit. Lugduni Batavorum, 1647), and by Jerome, in his dialogue against the Luciferians. The design of the latter is to apologize for the conduct of the Latin bishops, who were deceived, and who repented. ↩
Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. II c. 64⁠–⁠72. The principles of toleration and religious indifference, contained in this epistle, have given great offence to Baronius, Tillemont, etc., who suppose that the emperor had some evil counsellor, either Satan or Eusebius, at his elbow. See Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, tom. II, p. 183.8932 ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. III c. 13. ↩
Theodoret has preserved (l. I c. 20) an epistle from Constantine to the people of Nicomedia, in which the monarch declares himself the public accuser of one of his subjects; he styles Eusebius ὁ τῆς τυραννίχης ὠμοτήτος συμμύστης, and complains of his hostile behavior during the civil war. ↩
See in Socrates (l. I c. 8), or rather in Theodoret (l. I c. 12), an original letter of Eusebius of Caesarea, in which he attempts to justify his subscribing the Homoousion. The character of Eusebius has always been a problem; but those who have read the second critical epistle of Leclerc (Ars critica, tom. III, pp. 30⁠–⁠69), must entertain a very unfavorable opinion of the orthodoxy and sincerity of the bishop of Caesarea. ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, p. 727. Philostorgius, l. I c. 10, and Godefroy’s Commentary, p. 41. ↩
Socrates, l. I c. 9. In his circular letters, which were addressed to the several cities, Constantine employed against the heretics the arms of ridicule and comic raillery. ↩
We derive the original story from Athanasius (tom. I, p. 670), who expresses some reluctance to stigmatize the memory of the dead. He might exaggerate; but the perpetual commerce of Alexandria and Constantinople would have rendered it dangerous to invent. Those who press the literal narrative of the death of Arius (his bowels suddenly burst out in a privy) must make their option between poison and miracle. ↩
The change in the sentiments, or at least in the conduct, of Constantine, may be traced in Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. III c. 23, l. IV c. 41), Socrates (l. I c. 23⁠–⁠39), Sozomen (l. II c. 16⁠–⁠34), Theodoret (l. I c. 14⁠–⁠34), and Philostorgius (l. II c. 1⁠–⁠17). But the first of these writers was too near the scene of action, and the others were too remote from it. It is singular enough that the important task of continuing the history of the church should have been left for two laymen and a heretic. ↩
Quia etiam tum catechumenus sacramentum fidei merito videretir potuisse nescire. Sulpicius Severus, Historia sacra, l. II, p. 410. ↩
Socrates, l. II c. 2. Sozomen, l. III c. 18. Athanasius, tom. I, pp. 813, 834. He observes that the eunuchs are the natural enemies of the Son. Compare Dr. Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 3, with a certain genealogy in Candide (ch. IV), which ends with one of the first companions of Christopher Columbus. ↩
Sulpicius Severus in Historia sacra, l. II, pp. 405, 406. ↩
Cyril (apud Baronius, “AD 353,” No. 26) expressly observes that in the reign of Constantine the cross had been found in the bowels of the earth; but that it had appeared, in the reign of Constantius, in the midst of the heavens. This opposition evidently proves that Cyril was ignorant of the stupendous miracle to which the conversion of Constantine is attributed; and this ignorance is the more surprising, since it was no more than twelve years after his death that Cyril was consecrated bishop of Jerusalem by the immediate successor of Eusebius of Caesarea. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, p. 715. ↩
It is not easy to determine how far the ingenuity of Cyril might be assisted by some natural appearances of a solar halo. ↩
Philostorgius, l. III c. 26. He is followed by the author of the Alexandrian World Chronicle, by Cedrenus, and by Nicephorus. (See Gothofredi, Dissertations, p. 188.) They could not refuse a miracle, even from the hand of an enemy. ↩
So curious a passage well deserves to be transcribed. Christianam religionem absolutam et simplicem, anili superstitione confundens; in quâ scrutandâ perplexius, quam componendâ gravius excitaret discidia plurima; quae progressa fusius aluit concertatione verborum, ut catervis antistium jumentis publicis ultro citroque discarrentibus, per synodos (quas appellant) dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conantur (Valesius reads conatur) rei vehiculariae concideret servos. Ammianus XXI 16. ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, p. 870. ↩
Socrates, l. II c. 35⁠–⁠47. Sozomen, l. IV c. 12⁠–⁠30. Theodoret LI c. 18⁠–⁠32. Philostorgius, l. IV c. 4⁠–⁠12, l. V c. 1⁠–⁠4, l. VI c. 1⁠–⁠5. ↩
Sozomen, l. IV c. 23. Athanasius, tom. I, p. 831. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, p. 947) has collected several instances of the haughty fanaticism of Constantius from the detached treatises of Lucifer of Cagliari. The very titles of these treaties inspire zeal and terror; “Moriendum pro Dei Filio,” “De Regibus Apostaticis,” “De non conveniendo cum Haeretico,” “De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus.” ↩
Sulpicius Severus, Historia sacra, l. II, pp. 418⁠–⁠430. The Greek historians were very ignorant of the affairs of the West. ↩
We may regret that Gregory Nazianzen composed a panegyric instead of a life of Athanasius; but we should enjoy and improve the advantage of drawing our most authentic materials from the rich fund of his own epistles and apologies (tom. I, pp. 670⁠–⁠951). I shall not imitate the example of Socrates (l. II c. 1), who published the first edition of his history without giving himself the trouble to consult the writings of Athanasius. Yet even Socrates, the more curious Sozomen, and the learned Theodoret connect the life of Athanasius with the series of ecclesiastical history. The diligence of Tillemont (tom. VIII) and of the Benedictine editors has collected every fact, and examined every difficulty. ↩
Sulpicius Severus (Historia sacra, l. II, p. 396) calls him a lawyer, a jurisconsult. This character cannot now be discovered either in the life or writings of Athanasius. ↩
Dicebatur enim fatidicarum sortium fidem, quaeve augurales portenderent alites scientissime callens aliquoties praedixisse futura. Ammianus XV 7. A prophecy, or rather a joke, is related by Sozomen (l. IV c. 10), which evidently proves (if the crows speak Latin) that Athanasius understood the language of the crows. ↩
The irregular ordination of Athanasius was slightly mentioned in the councils which were held against him. See Philostorgius, l. II c. 11, and Godefroy, p. 71; but it can scarcely be supposed that the assembly of the bishops of Egypt would solemnly attest a public falsehood. Athanasius, tom. I, p. 726. ↩
See the history of the Fathers of the Desert, published by Rosweyde; and Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, in the lives of Antony, Pachomius, etc. Athanasius himself, who did not disdain to compose the life of his friend Antony, has carefully observed how often the holy monk deplored and prophesied the mischiefs of the Arian heresy. Athanasius, tom. II, pp. 492, 498, etc. ↩
At first Constantine threatened in speaking, but requested in writing, καὶ ἀγράφως μὲν ἠπείλει, γράφων δὲ, ἠξιου. His letters gradually assumed a menacing tone; but, while he required that the entrance of the church should be open to all, he avoided the odious name of Arius. Athanasius, like a skilful politician, has accurately marked these distinctions (tom. I, p. 788), which allowed him some scope for excuse and delay. ↩
The Meletians in Egypt, like the Donatists in Africa, were produced by an episcopal quarrel which arose from the persecution. I have not leisure to pursue the obscure controversy, which seems to have been misrepresented by the partiality of Athanasius and the ignorance of Epiphanius. See Mosheim’s General History of the Church, vol. I, p. 201. ↩
The treatment of the six bishops is specified by Sozomen (l. II c. 25); but Athanasius himself, so copious on the subject of Arsenius and the chalice, leaves this grave accusation without a reply.8933 ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, p. 788. Socrates, l. I c. 28. Sozomen, l. II c. 25. The emperor, in his “Epistle of Convocation” (Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 42), seems to prejudge some members of the clergy, and it was more than probable that the synod would apply those reproaches to Athanasius. ↩
See, in particular, the second Apology of Athanasius (tom. I, pp. 763⁠–⁠808), and his “Epistles to the Monks” (pp. 808⁠–⁠866). They are justified by original and authentic documents; but they would inspire more confidence if he appeared less innocent, and his enemies less absurd. ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. IV c. 41⁠–⁠47. ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, p. 804. In a church dedicated to St. Athanasius, this situation would afford a better subject for a picture than most of the stories of miracles and martyrdoms. ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, p. 729. Eunapius has related (in De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, pp. 36, 37, edit. Commelin) a strange example of the cruelty and credulity of Constantine on a similar occasion. The eloquent Sopater, a Syrian philosopher, enjoyed his friendship, and provoked the resentment of Ablavius, his Praetorian prefect. The corn-fleet was detained for want of a south wind; the people of Constantinople were discontented; and Sopater was beheaded, on a charge that he had bound the winds by the power of magic. Suidas adds that Constantine wished to prove, by this execution, that he had absolutely renounced the superstition of the Gentiles. ↩
In his return he saw Constantius twice⁠—at Viminiacum, and at Caesarea in Cappadocia (Athanasius, tom. I, p. 676). Tillemont supposes that Constantine introduced him to the meeting of the three royal brothers in Pannonia (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, p. 69). ↩
See Beveridge, Pandectae, tom. I, pp. 429⁠–⁠452, and tom. II, Annotation p. 182. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, pp. 310⁠–⁠324. St. Hilary of Poitiers has mentioned this synod of Antioch with too much favor and respect. He reckons ninety-seven bishops. ↩
This magistrate, so odious to Athanasius, is praised by Gregory Nazianzen, tom. I, “Oratio XXI,” pp. 390, 391.

Saepe premente Deo fert Deus alter opem.

For the credit of human nature, I am always pleased to discover some good qualities in those men whom party has represented as tyrants and monsters. ↩
The chronological difficulties which perplex the residence of Athanasius at Rome are strenuously agitated by Valesius (Observations ad calcem, tom. II; Histoire Ecclesiastica, l. I c. 1⁠–⁠5) and Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, p. 674, etc.). I have followed the simple hypothesis of Valesius, who allows only one journey, after the intrusion of Gregory. ↩
I cannot forbear transcribing a judicious observation of Wetstein (Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci, p. 19): Si tamen Historiam Ecclesiasticam velimus consulere, patebit jam inde a seculo quarto, cum, ortis controversiis, ecclesiae Graeciae doctores in duas partes scinderentur, ingenio, eloquentiâ, numero, tantum non aequales, eam partem quae vincere cupiebat Romam confugisse, majestatemque pontificis comiter coluisse, eoque pacto oppressis per pontificem et episcopos Latinos adversariis praevaluisse, atque orthodoxiam in conciliis stabilivisse. Eam ob causam Athanasius, non sine comitatu, Roman petiit, pluresque annos ibi haesit. ↩
Philostorgius, l. III c. 12. If any corruption was used to promote the interest of religion, an advocate of Athanasius might justify or excuse this questionable conduct by the example of Cato and Sidney; the former of whom is said to have given, and the latter to have received, a bribe in the cause of liberty. ↩
The Canon which allows appeals to the Roman pontiffs has almost raised the council of Sardica to the dignity of a general council; and its acts have been ignorantly or artfully confounded with those of the Nicene synod. See Tillemont, tom. VII, p. 689, and Geddes’s Miscellaneous Tracts, vol. II, pp. 419⁠–⁠460. ↩
As Athanasius dispersed secret invectives against Constantius (see the “Epistle to the Monks”), at the same time that he assured him of his profound respect, we might distrust the professions of the archbishop. Tom. I, p. 677. ↩
Notwithstanding the discreet silence of Athanasius, and the manifest forgery of a letter inserted by Socrates, these menaces are proved by the unquestionable evidence of Lucifer of Cagliari, and even of Constantius himself. See Tillemont, tom. VIII, p. 693. ↩
I have always entertained some doubts concerning the retraction of Ursacius and Valens (Athanasius, tom. I, p. 776). Their epistles to Julius, bishop of Rome, and to Athanasius himself, are of so different a cast from each other that they cannot both be genuine. The one speaks the language of criminals who confess their guilt and infamy; the other of enemies who solicit on equal terms an honorable reconciliation.8934 ↩
The circumstances of his second return may be collected from Athanasius himself, tom. I, p. 769, and 822, 843; Socrates, l. II c. 15; Sozomen, l. III c. 19; Theodoret, l. II c. 11, 12; Philostorgius, l. III c. 12. ↩
Athanasius (tom. I, pp. 677, 678) defends his innocence by pathetic complaints, solemn assertions, and specious arguments. He admits that letters had been forged in his name, but he requests that his own secretaries and those of the tyrant might be examined, whether those letters had been written by the former or received by the latter. ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, pp. 825⁠–⁠844. ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, p. 861. Theodoret, l. II c. 16. The emperor declared that he was more desirous to subdue Athanasius than he had been to vanquish Magnentius or Sylvanus. ↩
The affairs of the council of Milan are so imperfectly and erroneously related by the Greek writers that we must rejoice in the supply of some letters of Eusebius, extracted by Baronius from the archives of the church of Vercellae, and of an old life of Dionysius of Milan, published by Bollandus. See Baronius, “AD 355,” and Tillemont, tom. VII, p. 1415. ↩
The honors, presents, feasts, which seduced so many bishops, are mentioned with indignation by those who were too pure or too proud to accept them. “We combat” (says Hilary of Poitiers) “against Constantius the Antichrist; who strokes the belly instead of scourging the back”; qui non dorsa caedit; sed ventrem palpat. Hilarius, Contra Constantium Augustum, c. 5, p. 1240. ↩
Something of this opposition is mentioned by Ammianus (XV 7), who had a very dark and superficial knowledge of ecclesiastical history. Liberius⁠ ⁠… perseveranter renitebatur, nec visum hominem, nec auditum damnare, nefas ultimum saepe exclamans; aperte scilicet recalcitrans Imperatoris arbitrio. Id enim ille Athanasio semper infestus, etc. ↩
More properly by the orthodox part of the council of Sardica. If the bishops of both parties had fairly voted, the division would have been ninety-four to seventy-six. M. de Tillemont (see tom. VIII, pp. 1147⁠–⁠1158) is justly surprised that so small a majority should have proceeded as vigorously against their adversaries, the principal of whom they immediately deposed. ↩
Sulpicius Severus in Historia sacra, l. II, p. 412. ↩
The exile of Liberius is mentioned by Ammianus XV 7. See Theodoret, l. II c. 16. Athanasius, tom. I, pp. 834⁠–⁠837. Hilarius, Fragmenta historica I. ↩
The life of Osius is collected by Tillemont (tom. VII, pp. 524⁠–⁠561), who, in the most extravagant terms, first admires, and then reprobates, the bishop of Cordova. In the midst of their lamentations on his fall, the prudence of Athanasius may be distinguished from the blind and intemperate zeal of Hilary. ↩
The confessors of the West were successively banished to the deserts of Arabia, or Thebais, the lonely places of Mount Taurus, the wildest parts of Phrygia, which were in the possession of the impious Montanists, etc. When the heretic Aetius was too favorably entertained at Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the place of his exile was changed, by the advice of Acacius, to Amblada, a district inhabited by savages and infested by war and pestilence. Philostorgius, l. V c. 2. ↩
See the cruel treatment and strange obstinacy of Eusebius, in his own letters, published by Baronius, “AD 356,” No. 92⁠–⁠102. ↩
Caeterum exules satis constat, totius orbis studiis celebratos, pecuniasque eis in sumptum affatim congestas, legationibus quoque eos plebis Catholicae ex omnibus fere provinciis frequentatos. Sulpicius Severus, Historia sacra, p. 414. Athanasius, tom. I, pp. 836, 840. ↩
Ample materials for the history of this third persecution of Athanasius may be found in his own works. See particularly his very able Apology to Constantius (tom. I, p. 673), his first Apology for his flight (p. 701), his prolix “Epistle to the Solitaries” (p. 808), and the original protest of the people of Alexandria against the violences committed by Syrianus (p. 866). Sozomen (l. IV c. 9) has thrown into the narrative two or three luminous and important circumstances. ↩
Athanasius had lately sent for Antony and some of his chosen monks. They descended from their mountain, announced to the Alexandrians the sanctity of Athanasius, and were honorably conducted by the archbishop as far as the gates of the city. Athanasius, tom. II, pp. 491, 492. See likewise Rufinus III 164, in Vitae Patrum, p. 524. ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, p. 694. The emperor, or his Arian secretaries, while they express their resentment, betray their fears and esteem of Athanasius. ↩
These minute circumstances are curious, as they are literally transcribed from the protest, which was publicly presented three days afterwards by the Catholics of Alexandria. See Athanasius, tom. I, p. 867. ↩
The Jansenists have often compared Athanasius and Arnauld, and have expatiated with pleasure on the faith and zeal, the merit and exile, of those celebrated doctors. This concealed parallel is very dexterously managed by the Abbé de La Bléterie, Vie de Jovien, tom. I, p. 130. ↩
These princes were called Aeizanas and Saiazanas. Athanasius calls them the kings of Axum (ὀί’ ἐν Αὐξούμει Τύραννοι). In the superscription of his letter, Constantius gives them no title, Νικήτης Κονστάντιος μέγιστος σέβαστος Αιξανᾶ καὶ Σαζανᾶ. Mr. Salt, during his first journey in Ethiopia (in 1806), discovered, in the ruins of Axum, a long and very interesting inscription relating to these princes. It was erected to commemorate the victory of Aeizanas over the Bougaitae (Saint-Martin considers them the Blemmyes, whose true name is Bedjah or Bodjah). Aeizanas is styled king of the Axumites, the Homerites, of Raeidan, of the Ethiopians, of the Sabarites, of Silea, of Tiamo, of the Bougaites, and of Kaei. It appears that at this time the king of the Ethiopians ruled over the Homerites, the inhabitants of Yemen. He was not yet a Christian, as he calls himself son of the invincible Mars, υἱὸς θεοῦ ἀνικήτου Ἄρεως. Another brother besides Saiazanas, named Adephas, is mentioned, though Aeizanas seems to have been sole king. See Saint-Martin, note on Le Beau, II 151. Salt’s Voyage to Abyssinia. Silvestre de Sacy, note in Annales des voyages XII, p. 53. —⁠M. ↩
Hinc jam toto orbe profugus Athanasius, nec ullus ci tutus ad latendum supererat locus. Tribuni, Prefecti, Comites, exercitus quoque ad pervestigandum cum moventur edictis Imperialibus; praemia delatoribus proponuntur, si quis eum vivum, si id minus, caput certe Athanasii detulisset. Rufinus, l. I c. 16. ↩
Gregory Nazianzen, tom. I, “Oratio XXI,” pp. 384, 385. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 176⁠–⁠410, 820⁠–⁠880. ↩
Et nulla tormentorum vis inveneri, adhuc potuit, quae obdurato illius tractus latroni invito elicere potuit, ut nomen proprium dicat. Ammianus XXII 16, and Valesius ad loc. ↩
Rufinus, l. I c. 18. Sozomen, l. IV c. 10. This and the following story will be rendered impossible if we suppose that Athanasius always inhabited the asylum which he accidentally or occasionally had used. ↩
Palladius (Historia Lausiaca, c. 136, in Vitae Patrum, p. 776), the original author of this anecdote, had conversed with the damsel, who in her old age still remembered with pleasure so pious and honorable a connection. I cannot indulge the delicacy of Baronius, Valesius, Tillemont, etc., who almost reject a story so unworthy, as they deem it, of the gravity of ecclesiastical history. ↩
Athanasius, tom. I, p. 869. I agree with Tillemont (tom. III, p. 1197), that his expressions imply a personal, though perhaps secret, visit to the synods. ↩
The epistle of Athanasius to the monks is filled with reproaches, which the public must feel to be true (vol. I, pp. 834, 856); and, in compliment to his readers, he has introduced the comparisons of Pharaoh, Ahab, Belshazzar, etc. The boldness of Hilary was attended with less danger, if he published his invective in Gaul after the revolt of Julian; but Lucifer sent his libels to Constantius, and almost challenged the reward of martyrdom. See Tillemont, tom. VII, p. 905. ↩
Athanasius (tom. I, p. 811) complains in general of this practice, which he afterwards exemplifies (p. 861) in the pretended election of Felix. Three eunuchs represented the Roman people, and three prelates, who followed the court, assumed the functions of the bishops of the Suburbicarian provinces. ↩
Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. I l. II c. 72, 73, pp. 966⁠–⁠984) has collected many curious facts concerning the origin and progress of church singing, both in the East and West.8935 ↩
Philostorgius, l. III c. 13. Godefroy has examined this subject with singular accuracy (p. 147, etc.). There were three heterodox forms: “To the Father by the Son, and in the Holy Ghost,” “To the Father and the Son in the Holy Ghost”; and “To the Father in the Son and the Holy Ghost.” ↩
After the exile of Eustathius, under the reign of Constantine, the rigid party of the orthodox formed a separation which afterwards degenerated into a schism, and lasted about fourscore years. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 35⁠–⁠54, 1137⁠–⁠1158, tom. VIII, pp. 537⁠–⁠632, 1314⁠–⁠1332. In many churches, the Arians and Homoousians, who had renounced each other’s communion, continued for some time to join in prayer. Philostorgius, l. III c. 14. ↩
See, on this ecclesiastical revolution of Rome, Ammianus XV 7; Athanasius, tom. I, pp. 834, 861; Sozomen, l. IV c. 15; Theodoret, l. II c. 17; Sulpicius Severus, Historia sacra, l. II, p. 413; Hieronymus, Chronicon; Marcellinus et Faustinus, Libellus precum, pp. 3, 4; Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, p. 336. ↩
Cucusus was the last stage of his life and sufferings. The situation of that lonely town, on the confines of Cappadocia, Cilicia, and the Lesser Armenia, has occasioned some geographical perplexity; but we are directed to the true spot by the course of the Roman road from Caesarea to Anazarbus. See Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. II, p. 213; Wesseling ad Intineraria, pp. 179, 703. ↩
Athanasius (tom. I, pp. 703, 813, 814) affirms, in the most positive terms, that Paul was murdered; and appeals not only to common fame, but even to the unsuspicious testimony of Philagrius, one of the Arian persecutors. Yet he acknowledges that the heretics attributed to disease the death of the bishop of Constantinople. Athanasius is servilely copied by Socrates (l. II c. 26); but Sozomen, who discovers a more liberal temper, presumes (l. IV c. 2) to insinuate a prudent doubt. ↩
Ammianus (XIV 10) refers to his own account of this tragic event. But we no longer possess that part of his history.8936 ↩
See Socrates, l. II c. 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 26, 27, 38; and Sozomen, l. III 3, 4, 7, 9, l. IV c. II 21. The acts of St. Paul of Constantinople, of which Photius has made an abstract (Photius, Bibliotheca, pp. 1419⁠–⁠1430), are an indifferent copy of these historians; but a modern Greek, who could write the life of a saint without adding fables and miracles, is entitled to some commendation. ↩
Socrates, l. II c. 27, 38. Sozomen, l. IV c. 21. The principal assistants of Macedonius, in the work of persecution, were the two bishops of Nicomedia and Cyzicus, who were esteemed for their virtues, and especially for their charity. I cannot forbear reminding the reader that the difference between the Homoousion and Homoiousion is almost invisible to the nicest theological eye. ↩
We are ignorant of the precise situation of Mantinium. In speaking of these four bands of legionaries, Socrates, Sozomen, and the author of the acts of St. Paul use the indefinite terms of ἀριθμοί, φάλαγγες, τάγματα, which Nicephorus very properly translates thousands. Valesius ad Socrates, l. II c. 38. ↩
Julian, “Epistle LII,” p. 436, edit. Spanheim. ↩
See Optatus Milevitanus (particularly III 4), with the Donatist history, by M. Dupin, and the original pieces at the end of his edition. The numerous circumstances which Augustine has mentioned of the fury of the Circumcellions against others, and against themselves, have been laboriously collected by Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, pp. 147⁠–⁠165; and he has often, though without design, exposed injuries which had provoked those fanatics. ↩
It is amusing enough to observe the language of opposite parties when they speak of the same men and things. Gratus, bishop of Carthage, begins the acclamations of an orthodox synod, “Gratias Deo omnipotenti et Christu Jesu⁠ ⁠… qui imperavit religiosissimo Constanti Imperatori, ut votum gereret unitatis, et mitteret ministros sancti operis famulos Dei Paulum et Macarium.” De schismate donatistarum aliaque huc pertinentia vetera monumenta ad calcem Optati, p. 313. “Ecce subito,” (says the Donatist author of the “Passion of Marculus”), “de Constantis regif tyrannicâ domo⁠ ⁠… pollutum Macarianae persecutionis murmur increpuit, et duabus bestiis ad Africam missis, eodem scilicet Macario et Paulo, execrandum prorsus ac dirum ecclesiae certamen indictum est; ut populus Christianus ad unionem cum traditoribus faciendam, nudatis militum gladiis et draconum praesentibus signis, et tubarum vocibus cogeretur.” Monumenta, p. 304. ↩
The Histoire des Camisards, in three vols., duodecimo, Villefranche, 1760, may be recommended as accurate and impartial. It requires some attention to discover the religion of the author. ↩
The Donatist suicides alleged in their justification the example of Razias, which is related in the 14th chapter of the second book of the Maccabees. ↩
Nullus infestas hominibus bestias, ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christianorum, expertus. Ammianus XXII 5. ↩
Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio I,” p. 33. See Tillemont, tom. VI, p. 501, quarto edition. ↩
Histoire philosophique et politique des établissements et du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes, tom. I, p. 9. ↩
According to Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. II c. 45), the emperor prohibited, both in cities and in the country, τà μυσαρà⁠ ⁠… τῆς Εὶδωλολατρείας; the abominable acts or parts of idolatry. Socrates (l. I c. 17) and Sozomen (l. II c. 4, 5) have represented the conduct of Constantine with a just regard to truth and history, which has been neglected by Theodoret (l. V c. 21) and Orosius (VII 28). Tum deinde (says the latter) primus Constantinus justo ordine et pio vicem vertit edicto; siquidem statuit citra ullam hominum caedem, paganorum templa claudi. ↩
See Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. II c. 56, 60. In the sermon to the assembly of saints, which the emperor pronounced when he was mature in years and piety, he declares to the idolaters (c. XII) that they are permitted to offer sacrifices and to exercise every part of their religious worship. ↩
See Eusebius, in De vita Constantini, l. III c. 54⁠–⁠58, and l. IV c. 23, 25. These acts of authority may be compared with the suppression of the Bacchanals, and the demolition of the temple of Isis, by the magistrates of pagan Rome. ↩
Eusebius (in De vita Constantini, l. III c. 54) and Libanius (“Oratio pro Templis,” pp. 9, 10, edit. Gothofred) both mention the pious sacrilege of Constantine, which they viewed in very different lights. The latter expressly declares that “he made use of the sacred money, but made no alteration in the legal worship; the temples indeed were impoverished, but the sacred rites were performed there.” Lardner’s Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. IV, p. 140. ↩
Ammianus (XXII 4) speaks of some court eunuchs who were spoliis templorum pasti. Libanius says (“Oratio pro Templis,” p. 23) that the emperor often gave away a temple, like a dog, or a horse, or a slave, or a gold cup; but the devout philosopher takes care to observe that these sacrilegious favorites very seldom prospered. ↩
See Gothofredus, Codex Theodosianus, tom. VI, p. 262. Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. X in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VII, p. 235. ↩
Placuit omnibus locis atque urbibus universis claudi protinus templa, et accessu vetitis omnibus licentiam delinquendi perditis abnegari. Volumus etiam cunctos a sacrificiis abstinere. Quod siquis aliquid forte hujusmodi perpetraverit, gladio sternatur: facultates etiam perempti fisco decernimus vindicari: et similiter adfligi rectores provinciarum si facinora vindicare neglexerint. Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. X leg. 4. Chronology has discovered some contradiction in the date of this extravagant law; the only one, perhaps, by which the negligence of magistrates is punished by death and confiscation. M. de la Bastie (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XV, p. 98) conjectures, with a show of reason, that this was no more than the minutes of a law, the heads of an intended bill, which were found in Scriniis Memoriae among the papers of Constantius, and afterwards inserted, as a worthy model, in the Theodosian Code. ↩
Symmachus, “Epistle X” 54. ↩
The fourth Dissertation of M. de la Bastie, sur le “Souverain Pontificat des Empereurs Romains” (in the Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XV, pp. 75⁠–⁠144), is a very learned and judicious performance, which explains the state, and proves the toleration, of paganism from Constantine to Gratian. The assertion of Zosimus that Gratian was the first who refused the pontifical robe is confirmed beyond a doubt; and the murmurs of bigotry on that subject are almost silenced. ↩
As I have freely anticipated the use of pagans and paganism, I shall now trace the singular revolutions of those celebrated words.
1. Πάγη, in the Doric dialect, so familiar to the Italians, signifies a fountain; and the rural neighborhood which frequented the same fountain derived the common appellation of pagus and pagans (Festus sub voce, and Servius ad Virgilius, Georgics II 382).
2. By an easy extension of the word, pagan and rural became almost synonymous (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXVIII 5); and the meaner rustics acquired that name, which has been corrupted into peasants in the modern languages of Europe.
3. The amazing increase of the military order introduced the necessity of a correlative term (Hume’s Essays, vol. I, p. 555); and all the people who were not enlisted in the service of the prince were branded with the contemptuous epithets of pagans. (Tacitus, Historiae III 24, 43, 77. Juvenal, Satires 16. Tertullian, De pallio, c. 4).
4. The Christians were the soldiers of Christ; their adversaries, who refused his sacrament, or military oath of baptism, might deserve the metaphorical name of pagans; and this popular reproach was introduced as early as the reign of Valentinian (AD 365) into Imperial laws (Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. II leg. 18) and theological writings.
5. Christianity gradually filled the cities of the empire: the old religion, in the time of Prudentius (Adversus Symmachum, l. I ad fin.) and Orosius (in Praefatio Historiae adversus Paganos), retired and languished in obscure villages; and the word pagans, with its new signification, reverted to its primitive origin.
6. Since the worship of Jupiter and his family has expired, the vacant title of pagans has been successively applied to all the idolaters and polytheists of the old and new world.
7. The Latin Christians bestowed it, without scruple, on their mortal enemies the Muhammadans; and the purest Unitarians were branded with the unjust reproach of idolatry and paganism. See Gerard Vossius, Etymologicum linguae Latinae, in his works, tom. I, p. 420; Godefroy’s Commentary on the Theodosian Code, tom. VI, p. 250; and du Cange, Glossarium Mediae et infimae Latinitatis.
↩
In the pure language of Ionia and Athens, Εἴδωλον and Λατρεία were ancient and familiar words. The former expressed a likeness, an apparition (Homer, Odyssey XI 601), a representation, an image, created either by fancy or art. The latter denoted any sort of service or slavery. The Jews of Egypt, who translated the Hebrew Scriptures, restrained the use of these words (Exodus 20:4, 5) to the religious worship of an image. The peculiar idiom of the Hellenists, or Grecian Jews, has been adopted by the sacred and ecclesiastical writers and the reproach of idolatry (Εἰδωλολατρεία) has stigmatized that visible and abject mode of superstition which some sects of Christianity should not hastily impute to the polytheists of Greece and Rome. ↩
Omnes qui plus poterant in palatio, adulandi professores jam docti, recte consulta, prospereque completa vertebant in deridiculum: talia sine modo strepentes insulse; in odium venit cum victoriis suis; capella, non homo; ut hirsutum Julianum carpentes, appellantesque loquacem talpam, et purpuratam simiam, et litterionem Graecum: et his congruentia plurima atque vernacula principi resonantes, audire haec taliaque gestienti, virtutes ejus obruere verbis impudentibus conabantur, ut segnem incessentes et timidum et umbratilem, gestaque secus verbis comptioribus exornantem. Ammianus XVII 11.8937 ↩
Ammianus XVI 12. The orator Themistius (IV, pp. 56, 57) believed whatever was contained in the Imperial letters which were addressed to the senate of Constantinople. Aurelius Victor, who published his Abridgment in the last year of Constantius, ascribes the German victories to the wisdom of the emperor and the fortune of the Caesar. Yet the historian, soon afterwards, was indebted to the favor or esteem of Julian for the honor of a brass statue, and the important offices of consular of the second Pannonia and prefect of the city. Ammianus XXI 10. ↩
Callido nocendi artificio, accusatoriam diritatem laudum titulis peragebant.⁠ ⁠… Hae voces fuerunt ad inflammanda odia probria omnibus potentiores. See Mamertinus in “Gratiarum actio Juliano Augusto” in Panegyrici veteres. XI 4, 5. ↩
The minute interval which may be interposed between the hieme adultâ and the primo vere of Ammianus (XX 1, 4), instead of allowing a sufficient space for a march of three thousand miles, would render the orders of Constantius as extravagant as they were unjust. The troops of Gaul could not have reached Syria till the end of autumn. The memory of Ammianus must have been inaccurate, and his language incorrect.8938 ↩
Ammianus XX 1. The valor of Lupicinus, and his military skill, are acknowledged by the historian, who, in his affected language, accuses the general of exalting the horns of his pride, bellowing in a tragic tone, and exciting a doubt whether he was more cruel or avaricious. The danger from the Scots and Picts was so serious that Julian himself had some thoughts of passing over into the island. ↩
He granted them the permission of the cursus clavularis, or clabularis. These post-wagons are often mentioned in the Code, and were supposed to carry fifteen hundred pounds weight. See Valesius ad Ammianus XX 4. ↩
Most probably the palace of the baths (Thermarum), of which a solid and lofty hall still subsists in the Rue de la Harpe. The buildings covered a considerable space of the modern quarter of the university; and the gardens, under the Merovingian kings, communicated with the abbey of St. Germain des Prez. By the injuries of time and the Normans, this ancient palace was reduced in the twelfth century to a maze of ruins, whose dark recesses were the scene of licentious love.

Explicat aula sinus montemque amplectitur alis;
Multiplici latebrâ scelerum tersura ruborem.
… pereuntis saepe pudoris
Celatura nefas, Venerisque accommoda furtis.

(These lines are quoted from the Architrenius, l. IV c. 8, a poetical work of Jean de Hauteville, or Hanville, a monk of St. Alban’s about the year 1190. See Thomas Warton’s History of English Poetry, vol. I dissert. II.) Yet such thefts might be less pernicious to mankind than the theological disputes of the Sorbonne, which have been since agitated on the same ground. Bonamy, Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XV, pp. 678⁠–⁠682. ↩
Even in this tumultuous moment, Julian attended to the forms of superstitious ceremony, and obstinately refused the inauspicious use of a female necklace, or a horse collar, which the impatient soldiers would have employed in the room of a diadem. ↩
An equal proportion of gold and silver, five pieces of the former, one pound of the latter; the whole amounting to about five pounds ten shillings of our money. ↩
For the whole narrative of this revolt, we may appeal to authentic and original materials; Julian himself (ad “Senatus Populusque Atheniensem,” pp. 282⁠–⁠284), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 44⁠–⁠48, in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VII, pp. 269⁠–⁠273), Ammianus (XX 4), and Zosimus (l. III, pp. 151⁠–⁠153), who, in the reign of Julian, appears to follow the more respectable authority of Eunapius. With such guides we might neglect the abbreviators and ecclesiastical historians. ↩
Eutropius, a respectable witness, uses a doubtful expression, “consensu militum” (X 15). Gregory Nazianzen, whose ignorance might excuse his fanaticism, directly charges the apostate with presumption, madness, and impious rebellion, αὐθάδεια, ἀπόνοια, ἀσίβεια. “Oratio III,” p. 67. ↩
Julian ad “Senatus Populusque Atheniensem,” p. 284. The devout Abbé de La Bléterie (Vie de Julien, p. 159) is almost inclined to respect the devout protestations of a Pagan. ↩
Ammianus XX 5, with the note of Lindenbrogius on the Genius of the empire. Julian himself, in a confidential letter to his friend and physician, Oribasius (“Epistle XVII,” p. 384), mentions another dream, to which, before the event, he gave credit; of a stately tree thrown to the ground, of a small plant striking a deep root into the earth. Even in his sleep the mind of the Caesar must have been agitated by the hopes and fears of his fortune. Zosimus (l. III, p. 155) relates a subsequent dream. ↩
The difficult situation of the prince of a rebellious army is finely described by Tacitus (Historiae I 80⁠–⁠85). But Otho had much more guilt and much less abilities than Julian. ↩
To this ostensible epistle he added, says Ammianus, private letters, objurgatorias et mordaces, which the historian had not seen, and would not have published. Perhaps they never existed. ↩
See the first transactions of his reign, in Julian ad “Senatus Populusque Atheniensem,” pp. 285, 286. Ammianus XX 5, 8. Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 49, 50, pp. 273⁠–⁠275. ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 50, pp. 275, 276. A strange disorder, since it continued above seven years. In the factions of the Greek republics, the exiles amounted to twenty-thousand persons; and Isocrates assures Philip that it would be easier to raise an army from the vagabonds than from the cities. See Hume’s Essays, tom. I, pp. 426, 427. ↩
Julian (“Epistle XXXVIII,” p. 414) gives a short description of Vesontio, or Besançon; a rocky peninsula almost encircled by the River Doubs; once a magnificent city, filled with temples, etc., now reduced to a small town, emerging however from its ruins. ↩
Vadomair entered into the Roman service, and was promoted from a Barbarian kingdom to the military rank of duke of Phoenicia. He still retained the same artful character (Ammianus XXI 3); but under the reign of Valens, he signalized his valor in the Armenian war (XXIX 1). ↩
Ammianus XX 10, XXI 3, 4. Zosimus, l. III, p. 155. ↩
Her remains were sent to Rome, and interred near those of her sister Constantina, in the suburb of the Via Nomentana. Ammianus XXI 1. Libanius has composed a very weak apology to justify his hero from a very absurd charge: of poisoning his wife, and rewarding her physician with his mother’s jewels. (See the seventh of seventeen new orations, published at Venice 1754, from a MS. in St. Mark’s Library, pp. 117⁠–⁠127.) Elpidius, the Praetorian prefect of the East, to whose evidence the accuser of Julian appeals, is arraigned by Libanius as effeminate and ungrateful; yet the religion of Elpidius is praised by Jerome (tom. I, p. 243), and his humanity by Ammianus (XXI 6). ↩
Feriarum die, quem celebrantes mense Januario, Christiani Epiphania dictitant, progressus in eorum ecclesiam, solemniter numine orato discessit. Ammianus XXI 2. Zonaras observes that it was on Christmas day, and his assertion is not inconsistent; since the churches of Egypt, Asia, and perhaps Gaul celebrated on the same day (the 6th of January) the nativity and the baptism of their Savior. The Romans, as ignorant as their brethren of the real date of his birth, fixed the solemn festival to the 25th of December, the Brumalia, or winter solstice, when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of the sun. See Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, l. XX c. 4, and Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. II, pp. 690⁠–⁠700. ↩
The public and secret negotiations between Constantius and Julian must be extracted, with some caution, from Julian himself (Oratio ad “Senatus Populusque Atheniensem,” p. 286), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 51, p. 276), Ammianus (XX 9), Zosimus (l. III, p. 154), and even Zonaras (tom. II l. XIII, pp. 20⁠–⁠22), who, on this occasion, appears to have possessed and used some valuable materials. ↩
Three hundred myriads, or three millions of medimni, a corn measure familiar to the Athenians, and which contained six Roman modii. Julian explains, like a soldier and a statesman, the danger of his situation, and the necessity and advantages of an offensive war (ad “Senatus Populusque Atheniensem,” pp. 286, 287). ↩
See his oration, and the behavior of the troops, in Ammianus XXI 5. ↩
He sternly refused his hand to the suppliant prefect, whom he sent into Tuscany (Ammianus XXI 5). Libanius, with savage fury, insults Nebridius, applauds the soldiers, and almost censures the humanity of Julian (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 53, p. 278). ↩
Ammianus XXI 8. In this promotion Julian obeyed the law which he publicly imposed on himself. Neque civilis quisquam judex nec militaris rector, alio quodam praeter merita suffragante, ad potiorem veniat gradum (Ammianus XX 5). Absence did not weaken his regard for Sallust, with whose name (AD 363) he honored the consulship. ↩
Ammianus (XXI 8) ascribes the same practice and the same motive to Alexander the Great and other skilful generals. ↩
This wood was a part of the great Hercynian forest, which, in the time of Caesar, stretched away from the country of the Rauraci (Basel) into the boundless regions of the north. See Cluverius, Germania antiqua, l. III c. 47. ↩
Compare Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 53, pp. 278, 279, with Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” p. 68. Even the saint admires the speed and secrecy of this march. A modern divine might apply to the progress of Julian the lines which were originally designed for another apostate:⁠—

… So eagerly the fiend,
O’er bog, or steep, through strait, rough, dense, or rare,
With head, hands, wings, or feet, pursues his way,
And swims, or sinks, or wades, or creeps, or flies.

↩
In that interval the Notitia dignitatum places two or three fleets, the Lauriacensis (at Lauriacum, or Lorch), the Arlapensis, the Maginensis; and mentions five legions, or cohorts, of Libernarii, who should be a sort of marines. Sect. LVIII, edit. Labbe. ↩
Zosimus alone (l. III, p. 156) has specified this interesting circumstance. Mamertinus (in Panegyrici veteres XI 6⁠–⁠8), who accompanied Julian, as count of the sacred largesses, describes this voyage in a florid and picturesque manner, challenges Triptolemus and the Argonauts of Greece, etc. ↩
Banostor. Mannert. —⁠M. ↩
The description of Ammianus, which might be supported by collateral evidence, ascertains the precise situation of the Angustiae Succorum, or passes of Succi. M. d’Anville, from the trifling resemblance of names, has placed them between Sardica and Naissus. For my own justification, I am obliged to mention the only error which I have discovered in the maps or writings of that admirable geographer. ↩
Whatever circumstances we may borrow elsewhere, Ammianus (XX 8⁠–⁠10) still supplies the series of the narrative. ↩
Ammianus XXI 9, 10. Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 54, pp. 279, 280. Zosimus, l. III, pp. 156, 157. ↩
Julian (ad “Senatus Populusque Atheniensem,” p. 286) positively asserts that he intercepted the letters of Constantius to the barbarians; and Libanius as positively affirms that he read them on his march to the troops and the cities. Yet Ammianus (XXI 4) expresses himself with cool and candid hesitation, si famoe solius admittenda est fides. He specifies, however, an intercepted letter from Vadomair to Constantius, which supposes an intimate correspondence between them: “Caesar tuus disciplinam non habet.” ↩
Zosimus mentions his epistles to the Athenians, the Corinthians, and the Lacedaemonians. The substance was probably the same, though the address was properly varied. The epistle to the Athenians is still extant (pp. 268⁠–⁠287), and has afforded much valuable information. It deserves the praises of the Abbé de La Bléterie (Praefatio à l’Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, pp. 24, 25), and is one of the best manifestos to be found in any language. ↩
Auctori tuo reverentiam rogamus. Ammianus XXI 10. It is amusing enough to observe the secret conflicts of the senate between flattery and fear. See Tacitus, Historiae I 85. ↩
Tanquam venaticiam praedam caperet: hoc enim ad leniendum suorum metum subinde praedicabat. Ammianus XXII 7. ↩
See the speech and preparations in Ammianus XXI 13. The vile Theodotus afterwards implored and obtained his pardon from the merciful conqueror, who signified his wish of diminishing his enemies, and increasing the numbers of his friends (XXII 14). ↩
Ammianus XXI 7, 11, 12. He seems to describe, with superfluous labor, the operations of the siege of Aquileia, which on this occasion maintained its impregnable fame. Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio III,” p. 68) ascribes this accidental revolt to the wisdom of Constantius, whose assured victory he announces with some appearance of truth. Constantio, quem credebat proculdubio fore victorem; nemo enim omnium tunc ab hac constanti sententia discrepebat. Ammianus XXI 7. ↩
His death and character are faithfully delineated by Ammianus (XXI 14⁠–⁠16); and we are authorized to despise and detest the foolish calumny of Gregory (“Oratio III,” p. 68), who accuses Julian of contriving the death of his benefactor. The private repentance of the emperor, that he had spared and promoted Julian (p. 69, and “Oratio XXI,” p. 389), is not improbable in itself, nor incompatible with the public verbal testament which prudential considerations might dictate in the last moments of his life.8939 ↩
In describing the triumph of Julian, Ammianus (XXII 1, 2) assumes the lofty tone of an orator or poet; while Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 56, p. 281) sinks to the grave simplicity of an historian. ↩
The funeral of Constantius is described by Ammianus (XXI 16), Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio IV,” p. 119), Mamertinus, (in Panegyrici veteres XI 27), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. LVII, p. 283), and Philostorgius (l. VI c. 6, with Godefroy’s Dissertations, p. 265). These writers, and their followers, Pagans, Catholics, Arians, beheld with very different eyes both the dead and the living emperor. ↩
The day and year of the birth of Julian are not perfectly ascertained. The day is probably the sixth of November, and the year must be either 331 or 332. Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 693. Du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 50. I have preferred the earlier date. ↩
Julian himself (pp. 253⁠–⁠267) has expressed these philosophical ideas with much eloquence and some affectation, in a very elaborate epistle to Themistius. The Abbé de La Bléterie (tom. II, pp. 146⁠–⁠193), who has given an elegant translation, is inclined to believe that it was the celebrated Themistius, whose orations are still extant. ↩
Julianus ad Themistius, p. 258. Petavius (note p. 95) observes that this passage is taken from the fourth book De legibus; but either Julian quoted from memory, or his MSS. were different from ours. Xenophon opens the Cyropaedia with a similar reflection. ↩
Ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπον κελεύων ἄρχειν, προστίθησι καὶ θήριον. Aristotle apud Julianus, p. 261. The MS. of Vossius, unsatisfied with the single beast, affords the stronger reading of θήρια, which the experience of despotism may warrant. ↩
Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. LXXXIV, LXXXV, pp. 310⁠–⁠312) has given this interesting detail of the private life of Julian. He himself (in “Misopogon,” p. 350) mentions his vegetable diet, and upbraids the gross and sensual appetite of the people of Antioch. ↩
Lectulus⁠ ⁠… Vestalium toris purior, is the praise which Mamertinus (Panegyrici veteres XI 13) addresses to Julian himself. Libanius affirms, in sober peremptory language, that Julian never knew a woman before his marriage, or after the death of his wife (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. LXXXVIII, p. 313). The chastity of Julian is confirmed by the impartial testimony of Ammianus (XXV 4), and the partial silence of the Christians. Yet Julian ironically urges the reproach of the people of Antioch that he almost always (ὠς ἔπιπαν in “Misopogon,” p. 345) lay alone. This suspicious expression is explained by the Abbé de La Bléterie (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. II, pp. 103⁠–⁠109) with candor and ingenuity. ↩
See Salmasius ad Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Claudius,” c. XXI. A twenty-fifth race, or missus, was added, to complete the number of one hundred chariots, four of which, the four colors, started each heat.

Centum quadrijugos agitabo ad flumina currus.

It appears that they ran five or seven times round the Meta (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Domitian,” c. 4), and (from the measure of the Circus Maximus at Rome, the Hippodrome at Constantinople, etc.) it might be about a four mile course. ↩
Julian in “Misopogon,” p. 340. Julius Caesar had offended the Roman people by reading his despatches during the actual race. Augustus indulged their taste, or his own, by his constant attention to the important business of the Circus, for which he professed the warmest inclination. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. XLV. ↩
The reformation of the palace is described by Ammianus (XXII 4), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. LXII, p. 288, etc.), Mamertinus (Panegyrici veteres XI 11), Socrates (l. III c. 1), and Zonaras (tom. II l. XIII, p. 24). ↩
Ego non rationalem jussi sed tonsorem acciri. Zonaras uses the less natural image of a senator. Yet an officer of the finances, who was satiated with wealth, might desire and obtain the honors of the senate. ↩
Μαγείρους μὲν χιλίους, κουρέας δὲ οὐκ ἐλάττους, οἰνοχόους δὲ πλείους, σμήνη τραπεζοποιῶν, εὐνούχους ὑπὲρ τὰς μυίας παρὰ τοῖς ποιμέσιν εν ἦρι, are the original words of Libanius, which I have faithfully quoted, lest I should be suspected of magnifying the abuses of the royal household. ↩
The expressions of Mamertinus are lively and forcible. Quin etiam prandiorum et caenarum elaboratas magnitudines Romanus populus sensit; cum quaesitissimae dapes non gustu sed difficultatibus aestimarentur; miracula avium, longinqui maris pisces, alieni temporis poma, aestivae nives, hybernae rosae. ↩
Yet Julian himself was accused of bestowing whole towns on the eunuchs (“Oratio VII” against Polyclet, pp. 117⁠–⁠127). Libanius contents himself with a cold but positive denial of the fact, which seems indeed to belong more properly to Constantius. This charge, however, may allude to some unknown circumstance. ↩
In the “Misopogon” (pp. 338, 339) he draws a very singular picture of himself, and the following words are strangely characteristic: αὐτὸς προστὲθεικα τὸν βαθὺν τουτονὶ πώγωνα⁠ ⁠… ταῦτὰ τοι διαθέοντων ἀνέχομαι των φθειρῶν ὦσπερ ἐν λοχμῇ τῶν θηρίων. The friends of the Abbé de La Bléterie adjured him, in the name of the French nation, not to translate this passage, so offensive to their delicacy (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. II, p. 94). Like him, I have contented myself with a transient allusion; but the little animal which Julian names, is a beast familiar to man, and signifies love. ↩
Julian, “Epistle XXIII,” p. 389. He uses the words πολυκέφαλον ὕδραν, in writing to his friend Hermogenes, who, like himself, was conversant with the Greek poets. ↩
The two Sallusts, the prefect of Gaul and the prefect of the East, must be carefully distinguished (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 696). I have used the surname of Secundus, as a convenient epithet. The second Sallust extorted the esteem of the Christians themselves; and Gregory Nazianzen, who condemned his religion, has celebrated his virtues (“Oratio III,” p. 90). See a curious note of the Abbé de La Bléterie, Vie de Julien, p. 363.8940 ↩
Mamertinus praises the emperor (XI 1) for bestowing the offices of treasurer and prefect on a man of wisdom, firmness, integrity, etc., like himself. Yet Ammianus ranks him (XXI 1) among the ministers of Julian, quorum merita nôrat et fidem. ↩
The proceedings of this chamber of justice are related by Ammianus (XXII 3), and praised by Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 74, pp. 299, 300). ↩
Ursuli vero necem ipsa mihi videtur flêsse Justitia. Libanius, who imputes his death to the soldiers, attempts to criminate the count of the largesses. ↩
Such respect was still entertained for the venerable names of the commonwealth that the public was surprised and scandalized to hear Taurus summoned as a criminal under the consulship of Taurus. The summons of his colleague Florentius was probably delayed till the commencement of the ensuing year. ↩
Ammianus XXII 7. ↩
For the guilt and punishment of Artemius, see Julian (“Epistle X,” p. 379) and Ammianus (XXII 11, and Valesius, ad loc.). The merit of Artemius, who demolished temples, and was put to death by an apostate, has tempted the Greek and Latin churches to honor him as a martyr. But as ecclesiastical history attests that he was not only a tyrant, but an Arian, it is not altogether easy to justify this indiscreet promotion. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, p. 1319. ↩
See Ammianus XXII 6, and Valesius, ad loc.; and the Codex Theodosianus, l. II tit. XXIX leg. I; and Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. I, p. 218, ad loc. ↩
The president Montesquieu (Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. XIV in his Works, tom. III, pp. 448, 449) excuses this minute and absurd tyranny, by supposing that actions the most indifferent in our eyes might excite, in a Roman mind, the idea of guilt and danger. This strange apology is supported by a strange misapprehension of the English laws, “chez une nation⁠ ⁠… où il est défendu de boire à la santé d’une certaine personne.” ↩
The clemency of Julian, and the conspiracy which was formed against his life at Antioch, are described by Ammianus (XXII 9, 10, and Valesius ad loc.) and Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 99, p. 323). ↩
According to some, says Aristotle (as he is quoted by Julian ad Themistius, p. 261), the form of absolute government, the παμβασίλεια, is contrary to nature. Both the prince and the philosopher choose, however, to involve this eternal truth in artful and labored obscurity. ↩
That sentiment is expressed almost in the words of Julian himself. Ammianus XXII 10. ↩
Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 95, p. 320), who mentions the wish and design of Julian, insinuates, in mysterious language (θεῶν οὓτω γυόντων⁠ ⁠… ἄλλ’ἦν ἀμείνων ὁ κωλύων) that the emperor was restrained by some particular revelation. ↩
Julian in “Misopogon,” p. 343. As he never abolished, by any public law, the proud appellations of “Despot,” or “Dominus,” they are still extant on his medals (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 38, 39); and the private displeasure which he affected to express only gave a different tone to the servility of the court. The Abbé de La Bléterie (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. II, pp. 99⁠–⁠102) has curiously traced the origin and progress of the word “Dominus” under the Imperial government. ↩
Ammianus XXII 7. The consul Mamertinus (in Panegyrici veteres XI 28⁠–⁠30) celebrates the auspicious day, like an eloquent slave, astonished and intoxicated by the condescension of his master. ↩
Personal satire was condemned by the laws of the twelve tables:

Si male condiderit in quem quis carmina, jus est
Judiciumque⁠ ⁠…
Horatius, Satires II 1, 82.

Julian (in “Misopogon,” p. 337) owns himself subject to the law; and the Abbé de La Bléterie (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. II, p. 92) has eagerly embraced a declaration so agreeable to his own system, and indeed to the true spirit of the Imperial constitution. ↩
Zosimus, l. III, p. 158. ↩
Ἡ τῆς βοῦλης ἴσχυς ψύχη πόλεως ἔστιν. See Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 71, p. 296), Ammianus (XXII 9), and the Theodosian Code (l. XII tit. I leg. 50⁠–⁠55) with Godefroy’s Commentary (tom. IV, pp. 390⁠–⁠402). Yet the whole subject of the Curia, notwithstanding very ample materials, still remains the most obscure in the legal history of the empire. ↩
Quae paulo ante arida et siti anhelantia visebantur, ea nunc perlui, mundari, madere; Fora, Deambulacra, Gymnasia, laetis et gaudentibus populis frequentari; dies festos, et celebrari veteres, et novos in honorem principis consecrari (Mamertinus XI 9). He particularly restored the city of Nicopolis, and the Actiac games, which had been instituted by Augustus. ↩
Julian, “Epistle XXXV,” pp. 407⁠–⁠411. This epistle, which illustrates the declining age of Greece, is omitted by the Abbé de La Bléterie; and strangely disfigured by the Latin translator, who, by rendering ἀτίλεια, tributum, and ἰδιώται, populus, directly contradicts the sense of the original. ↩
He reigned in Mycenae, at the distance of fifty stadia, or six miles from Argos: but these cities, which alternately flourished, are confounded by the Greek poets. Strabo, l. VIII, p. 579, edit. Amstelaedami, 1707. ↩
Marsham, Canon chronicus, p. 421. This pedigree from Temenus and Hercules may be suspicious; yet it was allowed, after a strict inquiry by the judges of the Olympic games (Herodotus, l. V c. 22), at a time when the Macedonian kings were obscure and unpopular in Greece. When the Achaean league declared against Philip, it was thought decent that the deputies of Argos should retire (Titus Livius XXXII 22). ↩
His eloquence is celebrated by Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 75, 76, pp. 300, 301), who distinctly mentions the orators of Homer. Socrates (l. III c. 1) has rashly asserted that Julian was the only prince since Julius Caesar who harangued the senate. All the predecessors of Nero (Tacitus, Annales XIII 3), and many of his successors, possessed the faculty of speaking in public; and it might be proved by various examples that they frequently exercised it in the senate. ↩
Ammianus (XXII 10) has impartially stated the merits and defects of his judicial proceedings. Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 90, 91, p. 315, etc.) has seen only the fair side, and his picture, if it flatters the person, expresses at least the duties, of the judge. Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio IV,” p. 120), who suppresses the virtues, and exaggerates even the venial faults of the Apostate, triumphantly asks, Whether such a judge was fit to be seated between Minos and Rhadamanthus in the Elysian Fields? ↩
Of the laws which Julian enacted in a reign of sixteen months, fifty-four have been admitted into the codes of Theodosius and Justinian. (Gothofredus, Chronologia Legum, pp. 64⁠–⁠67.) The Abbé de La Bléterie (tom. II, pp. 329⁠–⁠336) has chosen one of these laws to give an idea of Julian’s Latin style, which is forcible and elaborate, but less pure than his Greek. ↩
… Ductor fortissimus armis;
Conditor et legum celeberrimus; ore manuque
Consultor patriae; sed non consultor habendae
Religionis; amans tercentûm millia Divûm.
Perfidus ille Deo, quamvis non et perfidus orbi.
Prudentius, “Apotheosis” 450, etc.

The consciousness of a generous sentiment seems to have raised the Christian poet above his usual mediocrity. ↩
I shall transcribe some of his own expressions from a short religious discourse which the Imperial pontiff composed to censure the bold impiety of a Cynic. Ἄλλ ὄμως οὕτω δή τι τοὺς θεους πεφρικα, και φιλῶ, καὶ σέβω, καὶ ἇζομαι, καὶ πάνθ ἀπλῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα πρὸς αὐτοὺς πὰσχω, ὂσαπερ ἄν τις καὶ οῖα πρὸς ἀγαθούς δεσπότας, πρὸς διδασκάλόυς, πρὸς πατερας, πρὸς κηδεμόνας. “Oratio VII,” p. 212. The variety and copiousness of the Greek tongue seem inadequate to the fervor of his devotion. ↩
The orator, with some eloquence, much enthusiasm, and more vanity, addresses his discourse to heaven and earth, to men and angels, to the living and the dead; and above all, to the great Constantius (εἰ τις αἴσθησις, an odd Pagan expression). He concludes with a bold assurance that he has erected a monument not less durable, and much more portable, than the columns of Hercules. See Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” p. 50, IV, p. 134. ↩
See this long invective, which has been injudiciously divided into two orations in Gregory’s works, tom. I, pp. 49⁠–⁠134, Paris, 1630. It was published by Gregory and his friend Basil (IV, p. 133), about six months after the death of Julian, when his remains had been carried to Tarsus (IV, p. 120); but while Jovian was still on the throne (III, p. 54, IV, p. 117). I have derived much assistance from a French version and remarks, printed at Lyons, 1735. ↩
Nicomediae ab Eusebio educatus Episcopo, quem genere longius contingebat (Ammianus XXII 9). Julian never expresses any gratitude towards that Arian prelate; but he celebrates his preceptor, the eunuch Mardonius, and describes his mode of education, which inspired his pupil with a passionate admiration for the genius, and perhaps the religion of Homer. “Misopogon,” pp. 351, 352. ↩
Gregory Nazianzen, III, p. 70. He labored to effect that holy mark in the blood, perhaps of a Taurobolium. Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 361,” No. 3, 4. ↩
Julian himself (“Epistle LI,” p. 454) assures the Alexandrians that he had been a Christian (he must mean a sincere one) till the twentieth year of his age. ↩
See his Christian, and even ecclesiastical education, in Gregory (III, p. 58), Socrates (l. III c. 1), and Sozomen (l. V c. 2). He escaped very narrowly from being a bishop, and perhaps a saint. ↩
The share of the work which had been allotted to Gallus was prosecuted with vigor and success; but the earth obstinately rejected and subverted the structures which were imposed by the sacrilegious hand of Julian. Gregory Nazianzen, III, pp. 59⁠–⁠61. Such a partial earthquake, attested by many living spectators, would form one of the clearest miracles in ecclesiastical story. ↩
The philosopher (Fragment, p. 288), ridicules the iron chains, etc., of these solitary fanatics (see Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IX, pp. 661, 632), who had forgot that man is by nature a gentle and social animal, ἀνθρώπου φύσει πολιτικοῦ ζώου καὶ ἡμέρου. The Pagan supposes that because they had renounced the gods, they were possessed and tormented by evil demons. ↩
See Julian apud Cyril, l. VI, p. 206, l. VIII, pp. 253, 262. “You persecute,” says he, “those heretics who do not mourn the dead man precisely in the way which you approve.” He shows himself a tolerable theologian; but he maintains that the Christian Trinity is not derived from the doctrine of Paul, of Jesus, or of Moses. ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 9, 10, p. 232, etc. Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” p. 61. Eunapius, De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum in “Maximus,” pp. 68⁠–⁠70, edit. Commelin. ↩
A modern philosopher has ingeniously compared the different operation of theism and polytheism, with regard to the doubt or conviction which they produce in the human mind. See Hume’s Essays, vol. II, pp. 444⁠–⁠457, in octavo edit., 1777. ↩
The Idaean mother landed in Italy about the end of the second Punic war. The miracle of Claudia, either virgin or matron, who cleared her fame by disgracing the graver modesty of the Roman ladies, is attested by a cloud of witnesses. Their evidence is collected by Drakenborch (ad Silius Italicus XVII 33); but we may observe that Livy (XXIX 14) slides over the transaction with discreet ambiguity. ↩
I cannot refrain from transcribing the emphatical words of Julian: ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ ταῖς πόλεσι πιστεύειν μἁλλον τὰ τοιαῦτα ἤ τουτοισι τοῖς κομψοις, ὧν τὸ ψυχάριον δριμύ μὲν, ὑγιὲς δὲ οὐδὲ ἐν βλἐπει. “Oratio V,” p. 161. Julian likewise declares his firm belief in the ancilia, the holy shields, which dropped from heaven on the Quirinal hill; and pities the strange blindness of the Christians, who preferred the cross to these celestial trophies. Apud Cyril, l. VI, p. 194. ↩
See the principles of allegory in Julian (“Oratio VII,” pp. 216, 222). His reasoning is less absurd than that of some modern theologians, who assert that an extravagant or contradictory doctrine must be divine; since no man alive could have thought of inventing it. ↩
Eunapius has made these sophists the subject of a partial and fanatical history; and the learned Brucker (Historia critica philosophiae, tom. II, pp. 217⁠–⁠303) has employed much labor to illustrate their obscure lives and incomprehensible doctrines. ↩
Julian, “Oratio VII,” p. 222. He swears with the most fervent and enthusiastic devotion; and trembles lest he should betray too much of these holy mysteries, which the profane might deride with an impious sardonic laugh. ↩
See the fifth oration of Julian. But all the allegories which ever issued from the Platonic school are not worth the short poem of Catullus on the same extraordinary subject. The transition of Atys from the wildest enthusiasm to sober pathetic complaint, for his irretrievable loss, must inspire a man with pity, a eunuch with despair. ↩
The true religion of Julian may be deduced from the Caesars, p. 308, with Spanheim’s notes and illustrations, from the fragments in Cyril, l. II, pp. 57, 58, and especially from the theological oration in “Solem Regem,” pp. 130⁠–⁠158, addressed, in the confidence of friendship, to the prefect Sallust. ↩
Julian adopts this gross conception by ascribing it to his favorite Marcus Antoninus (Caesars, p. 333). The Stoics and Platonists hesitated between the analogy of bodies and the purity of spirits; yet the gravest philosophers inclined to the whimsical fancy of Aristophanes and Lucian that an unbelieving age might starve the immortal gods. See Observations de Spanheim, pp. 284, 444, etc. ↩
Ἤλιον λέγω, τὸ ζῶν ἄγαλμα καὶ ἔμψυχον, καὶ ἔννουν, καὶ ἀγαθοεργὸν τοῦ νοητοῦ πατρὸς. Julian, “Epistle LI.” In another place (apud Cyrillus, l. II, p. 69), he calls the Sun, God, and the throne of God. Julian believed the Platonician Trinity; and only blames the Christians for preferring a mortal to an immortal Logos. ↩
The sophists of Eunapias perform as many miracles as the saints of the desert; and the only circumstance in their favor is that they are of a less gloomy complexion. Instead of devils with horns and tails, Iamblichus evoked the genii of love, Eros and Anteros, from two adjacent fountains. Two beautiful boys issued from the water, fondly embraced him as their father, and retired at his command, pp. 26, 27. ↩
The dexterous management of these sophists, who played their credulous pupil into each other’s hands, is fairly told by Eunapius (pp. 69⁠–⁠79) with unsuspecting simplicity. The Abbé de La Bléterie understands, and neatly describes, the whole comedy (Vie de Julien, pp. 61⁠–⁠67). ↩
When Julian, in a momentary panic, made the sign of the cross, the demons instantly disappeared (Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” p. 71). Gregory supposes that they were frightened, but the priests declared that they were indignant. The reader, according to the measure of his faith, will determine this profound question. ↩
A dark and distant view of the terrors and joys of initiation is shown by Dion Chrysostom, Themistius, Proclus, and Stobaeus. The learned author of the Divine Legation of Moses has exhibited their words (vol. I, pp. 239, 247, 248, 280, edit. 1765), which he dexterously or forcibly applies to his own hypothesis. ↩
Julian’s modesty confined him to obscure and occasional hints: but Libanius expiates with pleasure on the facts and visions of the religious hero. (Legatio ad Julianus, p. 157, and “Oratio Parentalis,” c. LXXXIII, pp. 309, 310.) ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. X, pp. 233, 234. Gallus had some reason to suspect the secret apostasy of his brother; and in a letter, which may be received as genuine, he exhorts Julian to adhere to the religion of their ancestors; an argument which, as it should seem, was not yet perfectly ripe. See Julian, Opera, p. 454, and Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. II, p. 141. ↩
Gregory (III, p. 50), with inhuman zeal, censures Constantius for sparing the infant apostate (κάκως σώθεντα). His French translator (p. 265) cautiously observes that such expressions must not be prises à la lettre. ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. IX, p. 233. ↩
Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, l. V c. VIII, pp. 88⁠–⁠90) and Lardner (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. IV, pp. 44⁠–⁠47) have accurately compiled all that can now be discovered of Julian’s work against the Christians. ↩
About seventy years after the death of Julian, he executed a task which had been feebly attempted by Philip of Side, a prolix and contemptible writer. Even the work of Cyril has not entirely satisfied the most favorable judges: and the Abbé de La Bléterie (Preface a l’Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, pp. 30, 32) wishes that some théologien philosophe (a strange centaur) would undertake the refutation of Julian. ↩
Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. LXXXVII, p. 313), who has been suspected of assisting his friend, prefers this divine vindication (“Oratio IX” in necem Julianus, p. 255, edit. Morelli) to the writings of Porphyry. His judgment may be arraigned (Socrates, l. III c. 23), but Libanius cannot be accused of flattery to a dead prince. ↩
Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. LVIII, pp. 283, 284) has eloquently explained the tolerating principles and conduct of his Imperial friend. In a very remarkable epistle to the people of Bostra, Julian himself (“Epistle LII”) professes his moderation and betrays his zeal; which is acknowledged by Ammianus, and exposed by Gregory (“Oratio III,” p.72). ↩
In Greece the temples of Minerva were opened by his express command, before the death of Constantius (Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 55, p. 280); and Julian declares himself a pagan in his public manifesto to the Athenians. This unquestionable evidence may correct the hasty assertion of Ammianus, who seems to suppose Constantinople to be the place where he discovered his attachment to the gods. ↩
Ammianus XXII 5. Sozomen, l. V c. 5. Bestia moritur, tranquillitas redit⁠ ⁠… omnes episcopi qui de propriis sedibus fuerant exterminati per indulgentiam novi principis ad acclesias redeunt. Jerome, “Dialogus adversus Luciferianos,” tom. II, p. 143. Optatus accuses the Donatists for owing their safety to an apostate (l. II c. 16, pp. 36, 37, edit. Dupin). ↩
The restoration of the Pagan worship is described by Julian (“Misopogon,” p. 346), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 60, pp. 286, 287, and “Oratio Consularis” ad Julianus, pp. 245, 246, edit. Morelli), Ammianus (XXII 12), and Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio IV,” p. 121). These writers agree in the essential, and even minute, facts; but the different lights in which they view the extreme devotion of Julian are expressive of the gradations of self-applause, passionate admiration, mild reproof, and partial invective. ↩
See Julian, Epistolae XLIX, LXII, LXIII, and a long and curious fragment, without beginning or end (pp. 288⁠–⁠305). The supreme pontiff derides the Mosaic history and the Christian discipline, prefers the Greek poets to the Hebrew prophets, and palliates, with the skill of a Jesuit, the relative worship of images. ↩
The exultation of Julian (p. 301) that these impious sects, and even their writings, are extinguished may be consistent enough with the sacerdotal character: but it is unworthy of a philosopher to wish that any opinions and arguments the most repugnant to his own should be concealed from the knowledge of mankind. ↩
Yet he insinuates that the Christians, under the pretence of charity, inveigled children from their religion and parents, conveyed them on shipboard, and devoted those victims to a life of poverty or pervitude in a remote country (p. 305). Had the charge been proved, it was his duty, not to complain, but to punish.8941 ↩
Gregory Nazianzen is facetious, ingenious, and argumentative (“Oratio III,” pp. 101, 102, etc.). He ridicules the folly of such vain imitation; and amuses himself with inquiring what lessons, moral or theological, could be extracted from the Grecian fables. ↩
He accuses one of his pontiffs of a secret confederacy with the Christian bishops and presbyters (“Epistle LXII”). Ὁρῶν οὗν πολλὴν μὲν ὀλιγωρίαν οὔσαν ἡμῖν πρὸς τοὐς θεὸυς, and again, ἠμᾶς δὲ οὗτω ῤαθύμως, etc. “Epistle LXIII.” ↩
He praises the fidelity of Callixene, priestess of Ceres, who had been twice as constant as Penelope, and rewards her with the priesthood of the Phrygian goddess at Pessinus (Julian, “Epistle XXI”). He applauds the firmness of Sopater of Hierapolis, who had been repeatedly pressed by Constantius and Gallus to apostatize (“Epistle XXVII,” p. 401). ↩
Ὁ δὲ νομίζων ἂδελφα λόγους τε καὶ θεῶν ἴερα. “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 77, p. 302. The same sentiment is frequently inculcated by Julian, Libanius, and the rest of their party. ↩
The curiosity and credulity of the emperor, who tried every mode of divination, are fairly exposed by Ammianus, XXII 12. ↩
Julian, “Epistle XXXVIII.” Three other epistles (XV, XVI, XXXIX) in the same style of friendship and confidence are addressed to the philosopher Maximus. ↩
Eunapius (in De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, “Maximus,” pp. 77⁠–⁠79, and in “Chrysanthio,” pp. 147, 148) has minutely related these anecdotes, which he conceives to be the most important events of the age. Yet he fairly confesses the frailty of Maximus. His reception at Constantinople is described by Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 86, p. 301) and Ammianus (XXII 7).8942 ↩
Chrysanthius, who had refused to quit Lydia, was created high priest of the province. His cautious and temperate use of power secured him after the revolution; and he lived in peace, while Maximus, Priscus, etc., were persecuted by the Christian ministers. See the adventures of those fanatic sophists, collected by Brucker, tom. II, pp. 281⁠–⁠293. ↩
Sec Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 101, 102, pp. 324⁠–⁠326) and Eunapius (De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum in “Proaeresius,” p. 126). Some students, whose expectations perhaps were groundless or extravagant, retired in disgust (Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio IV,” p. 120). It is strange that we should not be able to contradict the title of one of Tillemont’s chapters (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 960), “La Cour de Julien est pleine de philosphes et de gens perdûs.” ↩
Under the reign of Lewis XIV his subjects of every rank aspired to the glorious title of “Convertisseur,” expressive of their zeal and success in making proselytes. The word and the idea are growing obsolete in France; may they never be introduced into England. ↩
See the strong expressions of Libanius, which were probably those of Julian himself (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 59, p. 285). ↩
When Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio X,” p. 167) is desirous to magnify the Christian firmness of his brother Caesarius, physician to the Imperial court, he owns that Caesarius disputed with a formidable adversary, πόλυν ἐν ὀπλοῖς, καὶ μέγαν ἐν λόγων δεινότητι. In his invectives he scarcely allows any share of wit or courage to the apostate. ↩
Julian, “Epistle XXXVIII.” Ammianus XXII 12. Adeo ut in dies paene singulos milites carnis distentiore sagina victitantes incultius, potusque aviditate correpti, humeris impositi transeuntium per plateas, ex publicis aedibus⁠ ⁠… ad sua diversoria portarentur. The devout prince and the indignant historian describe the same scene; and in Illyricum or Antioch similar causes must have produced similar effects. ↩
Gregory (“Oratio III,” pp. 74, 75, 83⁠–⁠86) and Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. LXXXI, LXXXII, pp. 307, 308), περι ταῦτην τὴν σποῦδην, οὐκ ἀρνοῦμαι πλοῦτον ανηλωσθαι μέγαν. The sophist owns and justifies the expense of these military conversions. ↩
Julian’s epistle (XXV) is addressed to the community of the Jews. Aldus Manutius (Venetiis, 1499) has branded it with an εἰ γνήσιος; but this stigma is justly removed by the subsequent editors, Petavius and Spanheim. This epistle is mentioned by Sozomen (l. V c. 22), and the purport of it is confirmed by Gregory (“Oratio IV,” p. 111), and by Julian himself (Fragment, p. 295). ↩
The Mishnah denounced death against those who abandoned the foundation. The judgment of zeal is explained by Marsham (Canon chronicus, pp. 161, 162, edit. folio London, 1672) and Basnage (Histoire des Juifs, tom. VIII, p. 120). Constantine made a law to protect Christian converts from Judaism. Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. VIII leg. 1. Godefroy, tom. VI, p. 215. ↩
Et interea (during the civil war of Magnentius) Judaeorum seditio, qui Patricium, nefarie in regni speciem sustulerunt, oppressa. Aurelius Victor, in “Constantio,” c. XLII. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 379, in quarto. ↩
The city and synagogue of Tiberias are curiously described by Reland, Palaestina, tom. II, pp. 1036⁠–⁠1042. ↩
Basnage has fully illustrated the state of the Jews under Constantine and his successors (tom. VIII c. IV, pp. 111⁠–⁠153). ↩
Reland (Palaestina, l. I, pp. 309, 390, l. III, p. 838) describes, with learning and perspicuity, Jerusalem, and the face of the adjacent country. ↩
I have consulted a rare and curious treatise of M. d’Anville (Dissertation sur l’étendue de l’ancienne Jérusalem, Paris, 1747, p. 75). The circumference of the ancient city (Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, l. IX c. 36) was 27 stadia, or 2,550 toises. A plan taken on the spot assigns no more than 1,980 for the modern town. The circuit is defined by natural landmarks which cannot be mistaken or removed. ↩
See two curious passages in Jerome (tom. I, p. 102, tom. VI, p. 315), and the ample details of Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. I, p. 569, tom. II, pp. 289, 294, quarto edition). ↩
On the site of the Holy Sepulchre, compare the chapter in Professor George Robinson’s Travels in Palestine and Syria, which has renewed the old controversy with great vigor. To me, this temple of Venus, said to have been erected by Hadrian to insult the Christians, is not the least suspicious part of the whole legend. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Eusebius in De vita Constantini, l. III c. 25⁠–⁠47, 51⁠–⁠53. The emperor likewise built churches at Bethlehem, the Mount of Olives, and the oak of Mambre. The Holy Sepulchre is described by Sandys (Travels, pp. 125⁠–⁠133), and curiously delineated by Cornelius de Bruyn (Voyage au Levant, pp. 288⁠–⁠296). ↩
The Itinerary from Bourdeaux to Jerusalem was composed in the year 333, for the use of pilgrims; among whom Jerome (tom. I, p. 126) mentions the Britons and the Indians. The causes of this superstitious fashion are discussed in the learned and judicious preface of Wesseling (Intineraria, pp. 537⁠–⁠545).8943 ↩
Cicero (De finibus Bonorum et Malorum V 1) has beautifully expressed the common sense of mankind. ↩
Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 326,” No. 42⁠–⁠50) and Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 8⁠–⁠16) are the historians and champions of the miraculous invention of the cross, under the reign of Constantine. Their oldest witnesses are Paulinus, Sulpicius Severus, Rufinus, Ambrose, and perhaps Cyril of Jerusalem. The silence of Eusebius and the Bourdeaux pilgrim, which satisfies those who think, perplexes those who believe. See Jortin’s sensible remarks, vol. II, pp. 238⁠–⁠248. ↩
This multiplication is asserted by Paulinus (“Epistle XXXVI.” See Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. III, p. 149), who seems to have improved a rhetorical flourish of Cyril into a real fact. The same supernatural privilege must have been communicated to the Virgin’s milk (Erasmi, Opera omnia, tom. I, p. 778, Lugduni Batavorum, 1703, in “Colloquiorum de peregrinatione religionis ergo”), saints’ heads, etc., and other relics, which are repeated in so many different churches.8944 ↩
Jerome (tom. I, p. 103), who resided in the neighboring village of Bethlehem, describes the vices of Jerusalem from his personal experience. ↩
Gregory Nyssen, apud Wesseling, p. 539. The whole epistle, which condemns either the use or the abuse of religious pilgrimage, is painful to the Catholic divines, while it is dear and familiar to our Protestant polemics. ↩
He renounced his orthodox ordination, officiated as a deacon, and was re-ordained by the hands of the Arians. But Cyril afterwards changed with the times, and prudently conformed to the Nicene faith. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII), who treats his memory with tenderness and respect, has thrown his virtues into the text, and his faults into the notes, in decent obscurity, at the end of the volume. ↩
Imperii sui memoriam magnitudine operum gestiens propagare. Ammianus XXIII 1. The temple of Jerusalem had been famous even among the Gentiles. They had many temples in each city (at Sichem five, at Gaza eight, at Rome four hundred and twenty-four); but the wealth and religion of the Jewish nation was centred in one spot. ↩
The secret intentions of Julian are revealed by the late bishop of Gloucester, the learned and dogmatic William Warburton; who, with the authority of a theologian, prescribes the motives and conduct of the Supreme Being. The discourse entitled Julian (second edition, London, 1751) is strongly marked with all the peculiarities which are imputed to the Warburtonian school. ↩
I shelter myself behind Maimonides, Marsham, Spencer, Leclerc, Warburton, etc., who have fairly derided the fears, the folly, and the falsehood of some superstitious divines. See Divine Legation of Moses, vol. IV, p. 25, etc. ↩
Julian (Fragment, p. 295) respectfully styles him μέγας θέος, and mentions him elsewhere (“Epistle LXIII”) with still higher reverence. He doubly condemns the Christians: for believing and for renouncing the religion of the Jews. Their Deity was a true, but not the only, God. Apud Cyril, l. IX, pp. 305, 306. ↩
1 Kings 8:63. 2 Chronicles 7:5. Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, l. VIII c. 4, p. 431, edit. Havercamp. As the blood and smoke of so many hecatombs might be inconvenient, Lightfoot, the Christian Rabbi, removes them by a miracle. Leclerc (ad loc.) is bold enough to suspect the fidelity of the numbers.8945 ↩
Julian, epistles XXIX, XXX. La Bléterie has neglected to translate the second of these epistles. ↩
See the zeal and impatience of the Jews in Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio IV,” p. 111) and Theodoret (l. III c. 20). ↩
Built by Omar, the second Khalif, who died AD 644. This great mosque covers the whole consecrated ground of the Jewish temple, and constitutes almost a square of 760 toises, or one Roman mile in circumference. See d’Anville, Dissertation sur l’étendue de l’ancienne Jérusalem, p. 45. ↩
Ammianus records the consuls of the year 363, before he proceeds to mention the thoughts of Julian. Templum⁠ ⁠… instaurare sumptibus cogitabat immodicis. Warburton has a secret wish to anticipate the design; but he must have understood, from former examples, that the execution of such a work would have demanded many years. ↩
The subsequent witnesses, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Philostorgius, etc., add contradictions rather than authority. Compare the objections of Basnage (Histoire des Juifs, tom. VIII, pp. 156⁠–⁠168) with Warburton’s answers (Julian, pp. 174⁠–⁠258). The bishop has ingeniously explained the miraculous crosses which appeared on the garments of the spectators by a similar instance, and the natural effects of lightning. ↩
Ambrose, tom. II, “Epistola XL,” p. 946, edit. Benedicti. He composed this fanatic epistle (AD 388) to justify a bishop who had been condemned by the civil magistrate for burning a synagogue. ↩
Chrysostom, tom. I, p. 580, “Adversus Judaeos et Gentes”; tom. II, p. 574, “De Sancto Babylâ,” edit. Montfaucon. I have followed the common and natural supposition; but the learned Benedictine, who dates the composition of these sermons in the year 383, is confident they were never pronounced from the pulpit. ↩
Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio IV,” pp. 110⁠–⁠113. Τό δὲ ούν περιβόητον πᾶσι θαῦμα, καὶ οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀθέοις αὒτοις ἀπιστουμενον, λέξων, ἐρχόμαι. ↩
Ammianus XXIII 1. Cum itaque rei fortiter instaret Alypius, juvaretque provinciae rector, metuendi globi flammarum prope fundamenta crebris assultibus erumpentes fecere locum exustis aliquoties operantibus inaccessum; hocque modo elemento destinatius repellente, cessavit inceptum. Warburton labors (pp. 60⁠–⁠90) to extort a confession of the miracle from the mouths of Julian and Libanius, and to employ the evidence of a rabbi who lived in the fifteenth century. Such witnesses can only be received by a very favorable judge. ↩
Michaelis has given an ingenious and sufficiently probable explanation of this remarkable incident, which the positive testimony of Ammianus, a contemporary and a Pagan, will not permit us to call in question. It was suggested by a passage in Tacitus. That historian, speaking of Jerusalem, says, [I omit the first part of the quotation adduced by M. Guizot, which only by a most extraordinary mistranslation of muri introrsus sinuati by “enfoncemens” could be made to bear on the question. —⁠M.] “The Temple itself was a kind of citadel, which had its own walls, superior in their workmanship and construction to those of the city. The porticos themselves, which surrounded the temple, were an excellent fortification. There was a fountain of constantly running water; subterranean excavations under the mountain; reservoirs and cisterns to collect the rainwater.” Tacitus, Historiae V 12.

These excavations and reservoirs must have been very considerable. The latter furnished water during the whole siege of Jerusalem to 1,100,000 inhabitants, for whom the fountain of Siloe could not have sufficed, and who had no fresh rainwater, the siege having taken place from the month of April to the month of August, a period of the year during which it rarely rains in Jerusalem. As to the excavations, they served after, and even before, the return of the Jews from Babylon, to contain not only magazines of oil, wine, and corn, but also the treasures which were laid up in the Temple. Josephus has related several incidents which show their extent. When Jerusalem was on the point of being taken by Titus, the rebel chiefs, placing their last hopes in these vast subterranean cavities (ὑπονόμους, ὑπογαία, διώρθχας), formed a design of concealing themselves there, and remaining during the conflagration of the city, and until the Romans had retired to a distance. The greater part had not time to execute their design; but one of them, Simon, the son of Gioras, having provided himself with food, and tools to excavate the earth, descended into this retreat with some companions: he remained there till Titus had set out for Rome: under the pressure of famine he issued forth on a sudden in the very place where the Temple had stood, and appeared in the midst of the Roman guard. He was seized and carried to Rome for the triumph. His appearance made it be suspected that other Jews might have chosen the same asylum; search was made, and a great number discovered. Josephus, De bello Judaico, l. VII c. 2.

It is probable that the greater part of these excavations were the remains of the time of Solomon, when it was the custom to work to a great extent under ground: no other date can be assigned to them. The Jews, on their return from the captivity, were too poor to undertake such works; and, although Herod, on rebuilding the Temple, made some excavations (Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae XV 11, VII), the haste with which that building was completed will not allow us to suppose that they belonged to that period. Some were used for sewers and drains, others served to conceal the immense treasures of which Crassus, 120 years before, plundered the Jews, and which doubtless had been since replaced. The Temple was destroyed AD 70: the attempt of Julian to rebuild it, and the fact related by Ammianus, coincide with the year 363. There had then elapsed between these two epochs an interval of near 300 years, during which the excavations, choked up with ruins, must have become full of inflammable air. The workmen employed by Julian, as they were digging, arrived at the excavations of the Temple; they would take torches to explore them; sudden flames repelled those who approached; explosions were heard, and these phenomena were renewed every time that they penetrated into new subterranean passages.8946 This explanation is confirmed by the relation of an event nearly similar by Josephus. King Herod having heard that immense treasures had been concealed in the sepulchre of David, he descended into it with a few confidential persons: he found in the first subterranean chamber only jewels and precious stuffs; but, having wished to penetrate into a second chamber which had been long closed, he was repelled, when he opened it, by flames which killed those who accompanied him. (Antiquitates Judaicae XVI 7, I). As here there is no room for miracle, this fact may be considered as a new proof of the veracity of that related by Ammianus and the contemporary writers. —⁠G.

To the illustrations of the extent of the subterranean chambers adduced by Michaelis may be added, that when John of Gischala, during the siege, surprised the Temple, the party of Eleazar took refuge within them. De bello Judaico VI 3, I. The sudden sinking of the Hill of Zion, when Jerusalem was occupied by Barchocab, may have been connected with similar excavations. History of the Jews, vol. III, 122 and 186. —⁠M. ↩
Dr. Lardner, perhaps alone of the Christian critics, presumes to doubt the truth of this famous miracle (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. IV, pp. 47⁠–⁠71).8947 The silence of Jerome would lead to a suspicious that the same story which was celebrated at a distance might be despised on the spot. ↩
Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” p. 81. And this law was confirmed by the invariable practice of Julian himself. Warburton has justly observed (p. 35) that the Platonists believed in the mysterious virtue of words; and Julian’s dislike for the name of Christ might proceed from superstition, as well as from contempt. ↩
Fragmenta Julian, p. 288. He derides the μωρία Γαλιλαίων (“Epistols VII”), and so far loses sight of the principles of toleration as to wish (“Epistle XLII”) ἄκοντας ἰᾶσθαι. ↩
Οὐ γάρ μοι θέμις ἐστὶ κομιζέμεν ἤ ὲλεαίρειν
Ανερας, οῖ κε θεοῖσιν ἀπέχθωντ’ ἀθανάτοισιν.

These two lines, which Julian has changed and perverted in true spirit of a bigot (“Epistle XLIX”) are taken from the speech of Aeolus, when he refuses to grant Ulysses a fresh supply of winds (Odyssey X 73). Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. LIX, p. 286) attempts to justify this partial behavior by an apology in which persecution peeps through the mask of candor. ↩
These laws which affected the clergy may be found in the slight hints of Julian himself (“Epistle LII”), in the vague declamations of Gregory (“Oratio III,” pp. 86, 87), and in the positive assertions of Sozomen (l. V c. 5). ↩
Inclemens⁠ ⁠… perenni obruendum silentio. Ammianus XXII 10, XXV 5. ↩
The edict itself, which is still extant among the epistles of Julian (XLII), may be compared with the loose invectives of Gregory (“Oratio III,” p. 96). Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 1291⁠–⁠1294) has collected the seeming differences of ancients and moderns. They may be easily reconciled. The Christians were directly forbid to teach, they were indirectly forbid to learn; since they would not frequent the schools of the Pagans. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XIII tit. III “De Medicis et Professoribus,” leg. 5 (published the 17th of June, received, at Spoleto in Italy, the 29th of July, AD 363), with Godefroy’s Illustrations, tom. V, p. 31. ↩
Orosius celebrates their disinterested resolution, Sicut a majoribus nostris compertum habemus, omnes ubique propemodum⁠ ⁠… officium quam fidem deserere maluerunt, VII 30. Proaeresius, a Christian sophist, refused to accept the partial favor of the emperor, Hieronymus in Chronicon, p. 185, edit. Scaliger. Eunapius in De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, “Proaeresio,” p. 126. ↩
They had recourse to the expedient of composing books for their own schools. Within a few months Apollinaris produced his Christian imitations of Homer (a sacred history in twenty-four books), Pindar, Euripides, and Menander; and Sozomen is satisfied that they equalled, or excelled, the originals.8948 ↩
It was the instruction of Julian to his magistrates (“Epistle VII”), προτιμᾶσφαι μἐν τοι τοὐς θεοσεβεῖς καὶ πάνυ φημῖ δεῖν. Sozomen (l. V c. 18) and Socrates (l. III c. 13) must be reduced to the standard of Gregory (“Oratio III,” p. 95), not less prone to exaggeration, but more restrained by the actual knowledge of his contemporary readers. ↩
Ψηφῳ θεῶν καὶ δίδους καὶ μὴ δίδοῦς. Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 88, p. 814. ↩
Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” pp. 74, 91, 92. Socrates, l. III c. 14. Theodoret, l. III c. 6. Some drawback may however be allowed for the violence of their zeal, not less partial than the zeal of Julian. ↩
If we compare the gentle language of Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 60, p. 286) with the passionate exclamations of Gregory (“Oratio III,” pp. 86, 87), we may find it difficult to persuade ourselves that the two orators are really describing the same events. ↩
Restan, or Arethusa, at the equal distance of sixteen miles between Emesa (Hems) and Epiphania (Hamath), was founded, or at least named, by Seleucus Nicator. Its peculiar era dates from the year of Rome 685 according to the medals of the city. In the decline of the Seleucides, Emesa and Arethusa were usurped by the Arab Sampsiceramus, whose posterity, the vassals of Rome, were not extinguished in the reign of Vespasian. See d’Anville’s Maps and Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, p. 134. Wesseling, Intineraria, p. 188, and Noris, De epochis Syro-Macedonum, pp. 80, 481, 482. ↩
Sozomen, l. V c. 10. It is surprising that Gregory and Theodoret should suppress a circumstance which, in their eyes, must have enhanced the religious merit of the confessor. ↩
The sufferings and constancy of Mark, which Gregory has so tragically painted (“Oratio III,” pp. 88⁠–⁠91), are confirmed by the unexceptionable and reluctant evidence of Libanius. Μάρκος ἐκεῖνος κρεμάμενος, καὶ μαστιγούμενος, καὶ τοῦ πώγωνος αὐτῷ τιλλομένου, πάντα ἐνεγκὼν ἀνδρείως νῦν ἰσόθεός ἐστι ταῖς τιμαῖς, κἄν φανῇ που, περιμάχητος ευθύς. “Epistle 730,” pp. 350, 351, edit. Wolf, Amstelaedami, 1738. ↩
Περιμάχητος, Certatim eum sibi (Christiani) vindicant. It is thus that La Croze and Wolfius (ad loc.) have explained a Greek word whose true signification had been mistaken by former interpreters, and even by Leclerc (Bibliothèque ancienne et moderne, tom. III, p. 371). Yet Tillemont is strangely puzzled to understand (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, p. 1390) how Gregory and Theodoret could mistake a Semi-Arian bishop for a saint. ↩
See the probable advice of Sallust (Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” pp. 90, 91). Libanius intercedes for a similar offender, lest they should find many Marks; yet he allows that, if Orion had secreted the consecrated wealth, he deserved to suffer the punishment of Marsyas: to be flayed alive (“Epistle 730,” pp. 349⁠–⁠351). ↩
Gregory (“Oratio III,” p. 90) is satisfied that, by saving the apostate, Mark had deserved still more than he had suffered. ↩
The grove and temple of Daphne are described by Strabo (l. XVI, pp. 1089, 1090, edit. Amstelaedami, 1707), Libanius (“Naenia,” pp. 185⁠–⁠188; “Antiochus Oratio XI,” pp. 380, 381), and Sozomen (l. V c. 19). Wesseling (Intineraria, p. 581) and Casaubon (ad Historia Augusta, p. 64) illustrate this curious subject. ↩
Simulacrum in eo Olympiaci Jovis imitamenti aequiparans magnitudinem. Ammianus XXII 13. The Olympic Jupiter was sixty feet high, and his bulk was consequently equal to that of a thousand men. See a curious Mémoire of the Abbé Gedoyn (Académie des Inscriptions, tom. IX, p. 198). ↩
Hadrian read the history of his future fortunes on a leaf dipped in the Castalian stream; a trick which, according to the physician Anton van Dale (De oraculis, pp. 281, 282), might be easily performed by chemical preparations. The emperor stopped the source of such dangerous knowledge; which was again opened by the devout curiosity of Julian. ↩
It was purchased, AD 44, in the year 92 of the era of Antioch (Noris, De epochis Syro-Macedonum, pp. 139⁠–⁠174), for the term of ninety Olympiads. But the Olympic games of Antioch were not regularly celebrated till the reign of Commodus. See the curious details in the Chronicle of John Malalas (tom. I, pp. 290, 320, 372⁠–⁠381), a writer whose merit and authority are confined within the limits of his native city. ↩
Fifteen talents of gold, bequeathed by Sosibius, who died in the reign of Augustus. The theatrical merits of the Syrian cities, in the reign of Constantine, are computed in the “Expositio totius Mundi,” p. 6 (Hudson, Geographi Graeci minores, tom. III). ↩
Avidio Cassio Syriacas legiones dedi luxuriâ diffluentes et Daphnicis moribus. These are the words of the emperor Marcus Antoninus in an original letter preserved by his biographer in Historia Augusta, p. 41. Cassius dismissed or punished every soldier who was seen at Daphne. ↩
Aliquantum agrorum Daphnensibus dedit (Pompey), quo lucus ibi spatiosior fieret; delectatus amoenitate loci et aquarum abundantia. Eutropius VI 14. Sextus Rufus, De provinciis, c. 16. ↩
Julian (“Misopogon,” pp. 367, 362) discovers his own character with that naivete, that unconscious simplicity, which always constitutes genuine humor. ↩
Babylas is named by Eusebius in the succession of the bishops of Antioch (Historia ecclesiastica, l. VI c. 29, 39). His triumph over two emperors (the first fabulous, the second historical) is diffusely celebrated by Chrysostom (tom. II, pp. 536⁠–⁠579, edit. Montfaucon). Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. III part II, pp. 287⁠–⁠302, 459⁠–⁠465) becomes almost a sceptic.8949 ↩
Ecclesiastical critics, particularly those who love relics, exult in the confession of Julian (“Misopogon,” p. 361) and Libanius (“Laenia,” p. 185), that Apollo was disturbed by the vicinity of one dead man. Yet Ammianus (XXII 12) clears and purifies the whole ground, according to the rites which the Athenians formerly practiced in the isle of Delos. ↩
Julian (in “Misopogon,” p. 361) rather insinuates than affirms their guilt. Ammianus (XXII 13) treats the imputation as levissimus rumor, and relates the story with extraordinary candor. ↩
Quo tam atroci casû repente consumpto, ad id usque e imperatoris ira provexit, ut quaestiones agitare juberet solito acriores (yet Julian blames the lenity of the magistrates of Antioch), et majorem ecclesiam Antiochiae claudi. This interdiction was performed with some circumstances of indignity and profanation; and the seasonable death of the principal actor, Julian’s uncle, is related with much superstitious complacency by the Abbé de La Bléterie. Vie de Julien, pp. 362⁠–⁠369. ↩
Besides the ecclesiastical historians, who are more or less to be suspected, we may allege the passion of St. Theodore, in the Acta primorum martyrum sincera of Ruinart, p. 591. The complaint of Julian gives it an original and authentic air. ↩
Julian, “Misopogon,” p. 361. ↩
See Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio III,” p. 87). Sozomen (l. V c. 9) may be considered as an original, though not impartial, witness. He was a native of Gaza, and had conversed with the confessor Zeno, who, as bishop of Maiuma, lived to the age of a hundred (l. VII c. 28). Philostorgius (l. VII c. 4, with Godefroy’s Dissertations, p. 284) adds some tragic circumstances, of Christians who were literally sacrificed at the altars of the gods, etc. ↩
The life and death of George of Cappadocia are described by Ammianus (XXII 11), Gregory of Nazianzus (“Oratio XXI,” pp. 382, 385, 389, 390), and Epiphanius (Adversus haereses LXXVI). The invectives of the two saints might not deserve much credit, unless they were confirmed by the testimony of the cool and impartial infidel. ↩
After the massacre of George, the emperor Julian repeatedly sent orders to preserve the library for his own use, and to torture the slaves who might be suspected of secreting any books. He praises the merit of the collection, from whence he had borrowed and transcribed several manuscripts while he pursued his studies in Cappadocia. He could wish indeed that the works of the Galiaeans might perish: but he requires an exact account even of those theological volumes, lest other treatises more valuable should be confounded in their loss. Julian, Epistolae IX, XXXVI. ↩
Julian himself says that they tore him to pieces like dogs, τολμᾳ δῆμος ὡσπερ οί κυνες σπαράττειν. “Epistle X.” —⁠M. ↩
Philostorgius, with cautious malice, insinuates their guilt, και τἠν Ἀθανασίου γνώμην στρατηγησαι τῆς πράξεως, l. VII c. II. Godefroy, p. 267. ↩
Cineres projecit in mare, id metuens ut clamabat, ne, collectis supremis, aedes illis exstruerentur ut reliquis, qui deviare a religione compulsi, pertulere cruciabiles poenas, adusque gloriosam mortem intemeratâ fide progressi, et nunc Martyres appellantur. Ammianus XXII 11. Epiphanius proves to the Arians that George was not a martyr. ↩
Some Donatists (Optatus Milevitanus, pp. 60, 303, edit. Dupin; and Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, p. 713, in quarto) and Priscillianists (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, p. 517, in quarto) have in like manner usurped the honors of the Catholic saints and martyrs. ↩
The saints of Cappadocia, Basil, and the Gregories, were ignorant of their holy companion. Pope Gelasius (AD 494), the first Catholic who acknowledges St. George, places him among the martyrs, “qui Deo magis quam hominibus noti sunt.” He rejects his Acts as the composition of heretics. Some, perhaps, not the oldest, of the spurious Acts are still extant; and, through a cloud of fiction, we may yet distinguish the combat which St. George of Cappadocia sustained, in the presence of Queen Alexandria, against the magician Athanasius. ↩
This transformation is not given as absolutely certain, but as extremely probable. See the Longueruana, tom. I, p. 194.8950 ↩
A curious history of the worship of St. George, from the sixth century (when he was already revered in Palestine, in Armenia, at Rome, and at Treves in Gaul), might be extracted from Dr. Peter Heylin (The History of St. George of Cappadocia, second edition, London, 1633, in quarto, p. 429) and the Bollandists (Acta sanctorum, “Mensus Aprilis,” tom. III, pp. 100⁠–⁠163). His fame and popularity in Europe, and especially in England, proceeded from the Crusades. ↩
Julian, “Epistle XLIII.” ↩
Julian, “Epistle X.” He allowed his friends to assuage his anger. Ammianus XXII 11. ↩
See Athanasius ad Rufinus, tom. II, pp. 40, 41; and Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” pp. 395, 396, who justly states the temperate zeal of the primate as much more meritorious than his prayers, his fasts, his persecutions, etc. ↩
I have not leisure to follow the blind obstinacy of Lucifer of Cagliari. See his adventures in Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 900⁠–⁠926); and observe how the color of the narrative insensibly changes, as the confessor becomes a schismatic. ↩
Assensus est huic sententiae Occidens, et, per tam necessarium conilium, Satanae faucibus mundus ereptus. The lively and artful dialogue of Jerome against the Luciferians (tom. II, pp. 135⁠–⁠155) exhibits an original picture of the ecclesiastical policy of the times. ↩
Tillemont, who supposes that George was massacred in August, crowds the actions of Athanasius into a narrow space (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, p. 360). An original fragment, published by the Marquis Maffei, from the old Chapter library of Verona (Osservazioni letterarie, tom. III, pp. 60⁠–⁠92), affords many important dates, which are authenticated by the computation of Egyptian months. ↩
Τὸν μιαρὸν ὂς ὲτόλμησεν Ἑλληνίδας, ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ, γυναῖκας τῶν ἐπισήνων βαπτίσαι, διώκεσθαι. I have preserved the ambiguous sense of the last word, the ambiguity of a tyrant who wished to find, or to create, guilt. ↩
The three epistles of Julian which explain his intentions and conduct with regard to Athanasius should be disposed in the following chronological order, XXVI, X, VI.8951 See likewise Gregory Nazianzen, XXI, p. 393; Sozomen, l. V c. 15; Socrates, l. III c. 14; Theodoret, l. III c. 9, and Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, pp. 361⁠–⁠368, who has used some materials prepared by the Bollandists. ↩
See the fair confession of Gregory (“Oratio III,” pp. 61, 62). ↩
Hear the furious and absurd complaint of Optatus (De schismate donatistarum, l. II c. 16, 17). ↩
Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” p. 91, IV, p. 133. He praises the rioters of Caesarea, τοῦτων δὲ τῶν μεγαλοφυῶν καὶ θερμῶν εις εὐσεβείαν. See Sozomen, l. V 4, 11. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 649, 650) owns that their behavior was not dans l’ordre commun; but he is perfectly satisfied, as the great St. Basil always celebrated the festival of these blessed martyrs. ↩
Julian determined a lawsuit against the new Christian city at Maiuma, the port of Gaza; and his sentence, though it might be imputed to bigotry, was never reversed by his successors. Sozomen, l. V c. 3. Reland, Palaestina, tom. II, p. 791. ↩
Gregory (“Oratio III,” pp. 93⁠–⁠95; “Oratio IV,” p. 114) pretends to speak from the information of Julian’s confidants, whom Orosius (VII 30) could not have seen. ↩
Gregory (“Oratio III,” p. 91) charges the Apostate with secret sacrifices of boys and girls; and positively affirms that the dead bodies were thrown into the Orontes. See Theodoret, l. III c. 26, 27; and the equivocal candor of the Abbé de La Bléterie, Vie de Julien, pp. 351, 352. Yet contemporary malice could not impute to Julian the troops of martyrs, more especially in the West, which Baronius so greedily swallows, and Tillemont so faintly rejects (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 1295⁠–⁠1315). ↩
The resignation of Gregory is truly edifying (“Oratio IV,” pp. 123, 124). Yet, when an officer of Julian attempted to seize the church of Nazianzus, he would have lost his life if he had not yielded to the zeal of the bishop and people (“Oratio XIX,” p. 308). See the reflections of Chrysostom, as they are alleged by Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, p. 575). ↩
See this fable or satire, pp. 306⁠–⁠336 of the Leipsig edition of Julian’s works. The French version of the learned Ezekiel Spanheim (Paris, 1683) is coarse, languid, and incorrect; and his notes, proofs, illustrations, etc., are piled on each other till they form a mass of 557 close-printed quarto pages. The Abbé de La Bléterie (Vie de Jovien, tom. I, pp. 241⁠–⁠393) has more happily expressed the spirit, as well as the sense, of the original, which he illustrates with some concise and curious notes. ↩
Spanheim (in his preface) has most learnedly discussed the etymology, origin, resemblance, and disagreement of the Greek satyrs, a dramatic piece, which was acted after the tragedy; and the Latin satires (from satura), a miscellaneous composition, either in prose or verse. But the Caesars of Julian are of such an original cast that the critic is perplexed to which class he should ascribe them.8952 ↩
This mixed character of Silenus is finely painted in the sixth eclogue of Virgil. ↩
Every impartial reader must perceive and condemn the partiality of Julian against his uncle Constantine and the Christian religion. On this occasion, the interpreters are compelled, by a most sacred interest, to renounce their allegiance, and to desert the cause of their author. ↩
Julian was secretly inclined to prefer a Greek to a Roman. But when he seriously compared a hero with a philosopher, he was sensible that mankind had much greater obligations to Socrates than to Alexander (Orationes ad Themistius, p. 264). ↩
Inde nationibus Indicis certatim cum donis optimates mittentibus⁠ ⁠… ab usque Divis et Serendivis. Ammianus XXII 7. This island, to which the names of Taprobana, Serendib, and Ceylon have been successively applied, manifests how imperfectly the seas and lands to the east of Cape Comorin were known to the Romans.
1. Under the reign of Claudius, a freedman, who farmed the customs of the Red Sea, was accidentally driven by the winds upon this strange and undiscovered coast: he conversed six months with the natives; and the king of Ceylon, who heard for the first time of the power and justice of Rome, was persuaded to send an embassy to the emperor (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VI 24).
2. The geographers (and even Ptolemy) have magnified, above fifteen times, the real size of this new world, which they extended as far as the equator and the neighborhood of China.8953
↩
These embassies had been sent to Constantius. Ammianus, who unwarily deviates into gross flattery, must have forgotten the length of the way, and the short duration of the reign of Julian. ↩
Gothos saepe fallaces et perfidos; hostes quaerere se meliores aiebat: illis enim sufficere mercators Galatas per quos ubique sine conditionis discrimine venundantur. (Ammianus XXII 7.) Within less than fifteen years, these Gothic slaves threatened and subdued their masters. ↩
Alexander reminds his rival Caesar, who depreciated the fame and merit of an Asiatic victory, that Crassus and Antony had felt the Persian arrows; and that the Romans, in a war of three hundred years, had not yet subdued the single province of Mesopotamia or Assyria (Caesares, p. 324). ↩
The design of the Persian war is declared by Ammianus (XXII 7, 12), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 79, 80, pp. 305, 306), Zosimus (l. III, p. 158), and Socrates (l. III c. 19). ↩
The satire of Julian and the Homilies of St. Chrysostom exhibit the same picture of Antioch. The miniature which the Abbé de La Bléterie has copied from thence (Vie de Julien, p. 332), is elegant and correct. ↩
Laodicea furnished charioteers; Tyre and Berytus, comedians; Caesarea, pantomimes; Heliopolis, singers; Gaza, gladiators, Ascalon, wrestlers; and Castabala, ropedancers. See the “Expositio totius Mundi,” p. 6, in the third tome of Hudson’s Geographi Graeci minores. ↩
Χριστὸν δὲ ἀγαπῶντες, ἔχετε πολιοῦχον ἀντί τοῦ Διός. The people of Antioch ingenuously professed their attachment to the Chi (Christ), and the Kappa (Constantius). Julian in “Misopogon,” p. 357. ↩
The schism of Antioch, which lasted eighty-five years (AD 330⁠–⁠415), was inflamed, while Julian resided in that city, by the indiscreet ordination of Paulinus. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. III, p. 803 of the quarto edition (Paris, 1701, etc.), which henceforward I shall quote. ↩
Julian states three different proportions, of five, ten, or fifteen modii of wheat, for one piece of gold, according to the degrees of plenty and scarcity (in “Misopogon,” p. 369). From this fact, and from some collateral examples, I conclude that under the successors of Constantine the moderate price of wheat was about thirty-two shillings the English quarter, which is equal to the average price of the sixty-four first years of the present century. See Arbuthnot’s Tables of Coins, Weights, and Measures, pp. 88, 89; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XVIII 12; Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, pp. 718⁠–⁠721; Smith’s An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, vol. I, p. 246. This last I am proud to quote, as the work of a sage and a friend. ↩
Nunquam a proposito declinabat, Galli similis fratris, licet incruentus. Ammianus XXII 14. The ignorance of the most enlightened princes may claim some excuse: but we cannot be satisfied with Julian’s own defence (in “Misopogon,” pp. 363, 369), or the elaborate apology of Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. XCVII, p. 321). ↩
Their short and easy confinement is gently touched by Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. XCVIII, pp. 322, 323). ↩
Libanius (“Ad Antiochenos de Imperatoris Ira,” c. 17⁠–⁠19, in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VII, pp. 221⁠–⁠223), like a skilful advocate, severely censures the folly of the people, who suffered for the crime of a few obscure and drunken wretches. ↩
Libanius (ad “Ad Antiochenos de Imperatoris Ira,” c. VII, p. 213) reminds Antioch of the recent chastisement of Caesarea; and even Julian (in “Misopogon,” p. 355) insinuates how severely Tarentum had expiated the insult to the Roman ambassadors. ↩
On the subject of the “Misopogon,” see Ammianus (XXII 14), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. XCIX, p. 323), Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio IV,” p. 133) and the Chronicle of Antioch, by John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 15, 16). I have essential obligations to the translation and notes of the Abbé de La Bléterie (Vie de Jovien, tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠138). ↩
Ammianus very justly remarks, Coactus dissimulare pro tempore irâ sufflabatur interna. The elaborate irony of Julian at length bursts forth into serious and direct invective. ↩
Ipse autem Antiochiam egressurus, Heliopoliten quendam Alexandrum Syriacae jurisdictioni praefecit, turbulentum et saevum; dicebatque non illum meruisse, sed Antiochensibus avaris et contumeliosis hujusmodi judicem convenire. Ammianus XXIII 2. Libanius (“Epistle 722,” pp. 346, 347), who confesses to Julian himself that he had shared the general discontent, pretends that Alexander was a useful, though harsh, reformer of the manners and religion of Antioch. ↩
Julian, in “Misopogon,” p. 364. Ammianus XXIII 2, and Valesius, ad loc. Libanius, in a professed oration, invites him to return to his loyal and penitent city of Antioch. ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. VII, pp. 230, 231. ↩
Eunapius reports that Libanius refused the honorary rank of Praetorian prefect, as less illustrious than the title of Sophist (in De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, p. 135). The critics have observed a similar sentiment in one of the epistles (XVIII edit. Wolf) of Libanius himself. ↩
Near two thousand of his letters⁠—a mode of composition in which Libanius was thought to excel⁠—are still extant, and already published. The critics may praise their subtle and elegant brevity; yet Dr. Bentley (Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris, p. 487) might justly, though quaintly, observe that “you feel, by the emptiness and deadness of them, that you converse with some dreaming pedant, with his elbow on his desk.” ↩
His birth is assigned to the year 314. He mentions the seventy-sixth year of his age (AD 390), and seems to allude to some events of a still later date. ↩
Libanius has composed the vain, prolix, but curious narrative of his own life (tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠84, edit. Morelli), of which Eunapius (pp. 130⁠–⁠135) has left a concise and unfavorable account. Among the moderns, Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, pp. 571⁠–⁠576), Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VII, pp. 376⁠–⁠414), and Lardner (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, tom. IV, pp. 127⁠–⁠163) have illustrated the character and writings of this famous sophist. ↩
From Antioch to Litarbe, on the territory of Chalcis, the road, over hills and through morasses, was extremely bad; and the loose stones were cemented only with sand (Julian, “Epistle XXVII”). It is singular enough that the Romans should have neglected the great communication between Antioch and the Euphrates. See Wesseling, Intineraria, p. 190; Bergier, Histoire des grands chemins de l’empire Romain, tom. II, p. 100. ↩
Julian alludes to this incident (“Epistle XXVII”), which is more distinctly related by Theodoret (l. III c. 22). The intolerant spirit of the father is applauded by Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 534), and even by la Bléterie (Vie de Julien, p. 413). ↩
This name, of Syriac origin, is found in the Arabic, and means a place in a valley where waters meet. Julian says the name of the city is barbaric, the situation Greek. Βαρβαρικὸν ὄνομα τοῦτο, χωρίον ἐστὶν Ἑλληνικόν. The geographer Abulfeda (Tabula Syriae, p. 129, edit. Koehler) speaks of it in a manner to justify the praises of Julian. Saint-Martin, Notes to Le Beau, III 56. —⁠M. ↩
See the curious treatise “De Deâ Syriâ,” inserted among the works of Lucian (tom. III, pp. 451⁠–⁠490, edit. Reitz). The singular appellation of Ninus vetus (Ammianus XIV 8) might induce a suspicion that Heirapolis had been the royal seat of the Assyrians. ↩
Julian (“Epistle XXVIII”) kept a regular account of all the fortunate omens; but he suppresses the inauspicious signs, which Ammianus (XXIII 2) has carefully recorded. ↩
Julian, “Epistle XXVII,” pp. 399⁠–⁠402. ↩
Or Bambyce, now Bambouch; Manbedj, Arabia, or Maboug, Syria. It was twenty-four Roman miles from the Euphrates. —⁠M. ↩
I take the earliest opportunity of acknowledging my obligations to M. d’Anville, for his recent geography of the Euphrates and Tigris (Paris, 1780, in quarto), which particularly illustrates the expedition of Julian. ↩
There are three passages within a few miles of each other: 1. Zeugma, celebrated by the ancients; 2. Bir, frequented by the moderns; and, 3. The bridge of Menbigz, or Hierapolis, at the distance of four parasangs from the city.8954 ↩
Haran, or Carrhae, was the ancient residence of the Sabaeans and of Abraham. See the “Index Geographicus” of Albert Schultens (ad calcem Vita et res Gestae Sultani Almalichi Alnasiri Saladini), a work from which I have obtained much Oriental knowledge concerning the ancient and modern geography of Syria and the adjacent countries.8955 ↩
See Xenophon, Cyropaedia, l. III, p. 189, edit. Hutchinson. Artavasdes might have supplied Marc Antony with 16,000 horse, armed and disciplined after the Parthian manner (Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Marcus Antonio,” tom. V, p. 117). ↩
Moses of Chorene (History of Armenia, l. III c. 11, p. 242) fixes his accession (AD 354) to the 17th year of Constantius.8956 ↩
Ammianus XX 11. Athanasius (tom. I, p. 856) says, in general terms, that Constantius gave to his brother’s widow τοῖς βαρβάροις, an expression more suitable to a Roman than a Christian. ↩
Ammianus (XXIII 2) uses a word much too soft for the occasion, monuerat. Muratori (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VII, p. 86) has published an epistle from Julian to the satrap Arsaces; fierce, vulgar, and (though it might deceive Sozomen, l. VI c. 5) most probably spurious. La Bléterie (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. II, p. 339) translates and rejects it.8957 ↩
Arsaces did not abandon the Roman alliance, but gave it only feeble support. Saint-Martin III 41. —⁠M. ↩
Kirkesia, the Carchemish of the Scriptures. —⁠M. ↩
Latissimum flumen Euphraten artabat. Ammianus XXIII 3. Somewhat higher, at the fords of Thapsacus, the river is four stadia, or 800 yards, almost half an English mile broad (Xenophon, Anabasis, l. I, p. 41, edit. Hutchinson, with Foster’s Observations, p. 29, etc., in the second volume of Spelman’s translation). If the breadth of the Euphrates at Bir and Zeugma is no more than 130 yards (Voyages de Niebuhr, tom. II, p. 335), the enormous difference must chiefly arise from the depth of the channel. ↩
Munimentum tutissimum et fabre politum, cujus moenia Abora (the Orientals aspirate Chaboras or Chabour) et Euphrates ambiunt flumina, velut spatium insulare fingentes. Ammianus XXIII 5. ↩
The enterprise and armament of Julian are described by himself (“Epistle XXVII”), Ammianus Marcellinus (XXIII 3⁠–⁠5), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 108, 109, pp. 332, 333), Zosimus (l. III, pp. 160⁠–⁠162), Sozomen (l. VI c. 1), and John Malalas (tom. II, p. 17). ↩
Before he enters Persia, Ammianus copiously describes (XXIII 6, pp. 396⁠–⁠419, edit. Jacobus Gronovius in quarto) the eighteen great satrapies, or provinces (as far as the Seric, or Chinese frontiers), which were subject to the Sassanides. ↩
Ammianus (XXIV 1) and Zosimus (l. III, pp. 162, 163) have accurately expressed the order of march. ↩
The adventures of Hormisdas are related with some mixture of fable (Zosimus, l. II, pp. 100⁠–⁠102; Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 198). It is almost impossible that he should be the brother (frater germanus) of an eldest and posthumous child: nor do I recollect that Ammianus ever gives him that title.8958 ↩
See the first book of the Anabasis, pp. 45, 46. This pleasing work is original and authentic. Yet Xenophon’s memory, perhaps many years after the expedition, has sometimes betrayed him; and the distances which he marks are often larger than either a soldier or a geographer will allow. ↩
Mr. Spelman, the English translator of the Anabasis (vol. I, p. 51), confounds the antelope with the roebuck, and the wild ass with the zebra. ↩
See Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, part I l. III, p. 316, and more especially Viaggi di Pietro della Valle, tom. I lettera XVII, p. 671, etc. He was ignorant of the old name and condition of Annah. Our blind travellers seldom possess any previous knowledge of the countries which they visit. Shaw and Tournefort deserve an honorable exception. ↩
This is not a title, but the name of a great Persian family. Saint-Martin III 79. —⁠M. ↩
Famosi nominis latro, says Ammianus; a high encomium for an Arab. The tribe of Gassan had settled on the edge of Syria, and reigned some time in Damascus, under a dynasty of thirty-one kings, or emirs, from the time of Pompey to that of the Khalif Omar. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 360. Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 75⁠–⁠78. The name of Rodosaces does not appear in the list.8959 ↩
See Ammianus (XXIV 1, 2), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 110, 111, p. 334), Zosimus (l. III, pp. 164⁠–⁠168). ↩
This Syriac or Chaldaic word has relation to its position; it easily bears the signification of the division of the waters. M. Saint-Martin considers it the Massice of Pliny the Elder, V 26. Saint-Martin III 83. —⁠M. ↩
The description of Assyria is furnished by Herodotus (l. I c. 192, etc.), who sometimes writes for children, and sometimes for philosophers; by Strabo (l. XVI, pp. 1070⁠–⁠1082), and by Ammianus (l. XXIII c. 6). The most useful of the modern travellers are Tavernier (part I l. II, pp. 226⁠–⁠258), Otter (tom. II, pp. 35⁠–⁠69, and 189⁠–⁠224), and Niebuhr (tom. II, pp. 172⁠–⁠288). Yet I much regret that the Iraq Arabi of Abulfeda has not been translated. ↩
Ammianus remarks that the primitive Assyria, which comprehended Ninus (Nineveh) and Arbela, had assumed the more recent and peculiar appellation of Adiabene: and he seems to fix Teredon, Vologesia, and Apollonia as the extreme cities of the actual province of Assyria. ↩
The two rivers unite at Apamea, or Corna (one hundred miles from the Persian Gulf), into the broad stream of the Pasitigris, or Shat-ul-Arab. The Euphrates formerly reached the sea by a separate channel, which was obstructed and diverted by the citizens of Orchoe, about twenty miles to the southeast of modern Basra (d’Anville, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXX, pp. 170⁠–⁠191). ↩
We are informed by Mr. Gibbon that nature has denied to the soil and climate of Assyria some of her choicest gifts⁠—the vine, the olive, and the fig-tree. This might have been the case in the age of Ammianus Marcellinus, but it is not so at the present day; and it is a curious fact that the grape, the olive, and the fig are the most common fruits in the province, and may be seen in every garden. Macdonald Kinneir, A Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire, p. 239. —⁠M. ↩
The learned Kaempfer, as a botanist, an antiquary, and a traveller, has exhausted (Amoenitatum exoticarum, Fasciculi IV, pp. 660⁠–⁠764) the whole subject of palm trees. ↩
Assyria yielded to the Persian satrap an artaba of silver each day. The well-known proportion of weights and measures (see Bishop Hooper’s elaborate Inquiry Into the State of Ancient Weights and Measures), the specific gravity of water and silver, and the value of that metal, will afford, after a short process, the annual revenue which I have stated. Yet the Great King received no more than 1,000 Euboic, or Tyrian, talents (£252,000) from Assyria. The comparison of two passages in Herodotus (l. I c. 192, l. III c. 89⁠–⁠96) reveals an important difference between the gross, and the net, revenue of Persia; the sums paid by the province, and the gold or silver deposited in the royal treasure. The monarch might annually save three millions six hundred thousand pounds, of the seventeen or eighteen millions raised upon the people. ↩
Libanius says that it was a great city of Assyria, called after the name of the reigning king: ἧν πόλις Ἀσσυριων μεγάη τοῦ τότε βασιλευοντος ἐπώνυμος. The orator of Antioch is not mistaken. The Persians and Syrians called it Fyrouz Schapour or Fyrouz Schahbour; in Persian, the victory of Schahpour. It owed that name to Sapor the First. It was before called Anbar. Saint-Martin III 85. —⁠M. ↩
And as guilty of a double treachery, having first engaged to surrender the city, and afterwards valiantly defended it. Gibbon, perhaps, should have noticed this charge, though he may have rejected it as improbable. Compare Zosimas III 23. —⁠M. ↩
The operations of the Assyrian war are circumstantially related by Ammianus (XXIV 2⁠–⁠5), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 112⁠–⁠123, pp. 335⁠–⁠347), Zosimus (l. III, pp. 168⁠–⁠180), and Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio IV,” pp. 113, 144). The military criticisms of the saint are devoutly copied by Tillemont, his faithful slave. ↩
Libanius, “De ulciscendâ Juliani nece,” c. 13, p. 162. ↩
The famous examples of Cyrus, Alexander, and Scipio were acts of justice. Julian’s chastity was voluntary, and, in his opinion, meritorious. ↩
Sallust (apud Veterum Scholiast Juvenal, Satires I 104) observes that nihil corruptius moribus. The matrons and virgins of Babylon freely mingled with the men in licentious banquets: and, as they felt the intoxication of wine and love, they gradually, and almost completely, threw aside the encumbrance of dress; ad ultimum ima corporum velamenta projiciunt. Quintus Curtius V 1. ↩
Ex virginibus autem, quae speciosae sunt captae, et in Perside, ubi faeminarum pulchritudo excellit, nec contrectare aliquam votuit nec videre. Ammianus XXIV 4. The native race of Persians is small and ugly; but it has been improved by the perpetual mixture of Circassian blood (Herodotus, l. III c. 97; Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. III, p. 420). ↩
Obsidionalibus coronis donati. Ammianus XXIV 4. Either Julian or his historian were unskilful antiquaries. He should have given mural crowns. The obsidional were the reward of a general who had delivered a besieged city (Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae V 6). ↩
I give this speech as original and genuine. Ammianus might hear, could transcribe, and was incapable of inventing, it. I have used some slight freedoms, and conclude with the most forcible sentence. ↩
Ammianus XXIV 3. Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 122, p. 346. ↩
M. d’Anville (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, pp. 246⁠–⁠259) has ascertained the true position and distance of Babylon, Seleucia, Ctesiphon, Baghdad, etc. The Roman traveller, Pietro della Valle (tom. I lettera XVII, pp. 650⁠–⁠780), seems to be the most intelligent spectator of that famous province. He is a gentleman and a scholar, but intolerably vain and prolix. ↩
The Royal Canal (Nahar-Malcha) might be successively restored, altered, divided, etc. (Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. II, p. 453); and these changes may serve to explain the seeming contradictions of antiquity. In the time of Julian, it must have fallen into the Euphrates below Ctesiphon. ↩
Καὶ μεγέθεσιν, ἐλεφάντων, οῖς ἰσον ἔργον δία σταχύων ἐλθεῖν, καὶ φάλαγγος. Rien n’est beau que le vrai; a maxim which should be inscribed on the desk of every rhetorician. ↩
This is a mistake; each vessel (according to Zosimus two, according to Ammianus five) had eighty men. Ammianus XXIV 6, with Wagner’s note. Gibbon must have read octogenas for octogenis. The five vessels selected for this service were remarkably large and strong provision transports. The strength of the fleet remained with Julian to carry over the army. —⁠M. ↩
Libanius alludes to the most powerful of the generals. I have ventured to name Sallust. Ammianus says, of all the leaders, quod acri metû territi duces concordi precatû fieri prohibere tentarent.8960 ↩
Hinc Imperator⁠ ⁠… (says Ammianus) ipse cum levis armaturae auxiliis per prima postremaque discurrens, etc. Yet Zosimus, his friend, does not allow him to pass the river till two days after the battle. ↩
Secundum Homericam dispositionem. A similar disposition is ascribed to the wise Nestor, in the fourth book of the Iliad; and Homer was never absent from the mind of Julian. ↩
Persas terrore subito miscuerunt, versisque agminibus totius gentis, apertas Ctesiphontis portas victor miles intrâsset, ni major praedarum occasio fuisset, quam cura victoriae (Sextus Rufus, De provinciis, c. 28). Their avarice might dispose them to hear the advice of Victor. ↩
The suburbs of Ctesiphon, according to a new fragment of Eunapius, were so full of provisions that the soldiers were in danger of suffering from excess. Mai, p. 260. Eunapius in Niebuhr, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae 68. Julian exhibited warlike dances and games in his camp to recreate the soldiers. Ibid. —⁠M. ↩
The labor of the canal, the passage of the Tigris, and the victory are described by Ammianus (XXIV 5, 6), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 124⁠–⁠128, pp. 347⁠–⁠353), Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio IV,” p. 115), Zosimus (l. III, pp. 181⁠–⁠183), and Sextus Rufus (De provinciis, c. 28). ↩
The fleet and army were formed in three divisions, of which the first only had passed during the night (Ammianus XXIV 6). The πᾶση δορυφορία, whom Zosimus transports on the third day (l. III, p. 183), might consist of the protectors, among whom the historian Ammianus, and the future emperor Jovian, actually served, some schools of the domestics, and perhaps the Jovians and Herculians, who often did duty as guards. ↩
Moses of Chorene (History of Armenia, l. III c. 15, p. 246) supplies us with a national tradition, and a spurious letter. I have borrowed only the leading circumstance, which is consistent with truth, probability, and Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 131, p. 355). ↩
Civitas inexpugnabilis, facinus audax et importunum. Ammianus XXIV 7. His fellow-soldier, Eutropius, turns aside from the difficulty, Assyriamque populatus, castra apud Ctesiphontem stativa aliquandiu habuit: remeansque victor, etc., X 16. Zosimus is artful or ignorant, and Socrates inaccurate. ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 130, p. 354, c. 139, p. 361; Socrates, l. III c. 21. The ecclesiastical historian imputes the refusal of peace to the advice of Maximus. Such advice was unworthy of a philosopher; but the philosopher was likewise a magician, who flattered the hopes and passions of his master. ↩
The arts of this new Zopyrus (Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio IV,” pp. 115, 116) may derive some credit from the testimony of two abbreviators (Sextus Rufus and Victor), and the casual hints of Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 134, p. 357) and Ammianus (XXIV 7). The course of genuine history is interrupted by a most unseasonable chasm in the text of Ammianus. ↩
See Ammianus (XXIV 7), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 132, 133, pp. 356, 357), Zosimus (l. III, p. 183), Zonaras (tom. II l. XIII, p. 26), Gregory (“Oratio IV,” p. 116), and Augustine (De civitate Dei, l. IV c. 29, l. V c. 21). Of these, Libanius alone attempts a faint apology for his hero; who, according to Ammianus, pronounced his own condemnation by a tardy and ineffectual attempt to extinguish the flames. ↩
Consult Herodotus (l. I c. 194), Strabo (l. XVI, p. 1074), and Tavernier (part I l. II, p. 152). ↩
A celeritate Tigris incipit vocari, ita appellant Medi sagittam. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VI 31. ↩
One of these dikes, which produces an artificial cascade or cataract, is described by Tavernier (part I l. II, p. 226) and Thévenot (part II l. I, p. 193). The Persians, or Assyrians, labored to interrupt the navigation of the river (Strabo, l. XV, p. 1075; d’Anville, l’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 98, 99). ↩
Recollect the successful and applauded rashness of Agathocles and Cortez, who burnt their ships on the coast of Africa and Mexico. ↩
See the judicious reflections of the author of the Essai général de tactique, tom. II, pp. 287⁠–⁠353, and the learned remarks of M. Guichard, Mémoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d’antiquités militaires, tom. I, pp. 351⁠–⁠382, on the baggage and subsistence of the Roman armies. ↩
The Tigris rises to the south, the Euphrates to the north, of the Armenian mountains. The former overflows in March, the latter in July. These circumstances are well explained in the Geographical Dissertation of Foster, inserted in Spelman’s Expedition of Cyrus Into Persia, vol. II, p. 26. ↩
Ammianus (XXIV 8) describes, as he had felt, the inconveniency of the flood, the heat, and the insects. The lands of Assyria, oppressed by the Turks, and ravaged by the Curds, or Arabs, yield an increase of ten, fifteen, and twenty fold, for the seed which is cast into the ground by the wretched and unskilful husbandmen. Voyages de Niebuhr, tom. II, pp. 279, 285. ↩
Isidore of Charax (Mansiones Parthicae, pp. 5, 6, in Hudson, Geographi Graeci minores, tom. II) reckons 129 schoeni from Seleucia, and Thévenot (part I l. I, II, pp. 209⁠–⁠245) 128 hours of march from Baghdad to Ecbatana, or Hamadan. These measures cannot exceed an ordinary parasang, or three Roman miles. ↩
The march of Julian from Ctesiphon is circumstantially, but not clearly, described by Ammianus (XXIV 7, 8), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 134, p. 357), and Zosimus (l. III, p. 183). The two last seem ignorant that their conqueror was retreating; and Libanius absurdly confines him to the banks of the Tigris. ↩
Chardin, the most judicious of modern travellers, describes (tom. III, pp. 57, 58, etc., edit. in quarto) the education and dexterity of the Persian horsemen. Brissonius (De regio Persarum, pp. 650, 651, etc.), has collected the testimonies of antiquity. ↩
In Mark Antony’s retreat, an attic choenix sold for fifty drachmae, or, in other words, a pound of flour for twelve or fourteen shillings: barley bread was sold for its weight in silver. It is impossible to peruse the interesting narrative of Plutarch (tom. V, pp. 102⁠–⁠116) without perceiving that Mark Antony and Julian were pursued by the same enemies and involved in the same distress. ↩
Ammianus XXIV 8, XXV 1. Zosimus, l. III, pp. 184⁠–⁠186. Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 134, 135, pp. 357⁠–⁠359. The sophist of Antioch appears ignorant that the troops were hungry. ↩
Ammianus XXV 2. Julian had sworn in a passion, nunquam se Marti sacra facturum (XXIV 6). Such whimsical quarrels were not uncommon between the gods and their insolent votaries; and even the prudent Augustus, after his fleet had been twice shipwrecked, excluded Neptune from the honors of public processions. See Hume’s philosophical reflections. Essays, vol. II, p. 418. ↩
They still retained the monopoly of the vain, but lucrative, science which had been invented in Hetruria; and professed to derive their knowledge of signs and omens from the ancient books of Tarquitius, a Tuscan sage. ↩
Clamabant hinc inde candidati (see the note of Valesius) quos disjecerat terror, ut fugientium molem tanquam ruinam male compositi culminis declinaret. Ammianus XXV 3. ↩
Sapor himself declared to the Romans that it was his practice to comfort the families of his deceased satraps by sending them, as a present, the heads of the guards and officers who had not fallen by their master’s side. Libanius, “De ulciscenda Juliani nece,” c. XIII, p. 163. ↩
The character and situation of Julian might countenance the suspicion that he had previously composed the elaborate oration which Ammianus heard and has transcribed. The version of the Abbé de La Bléterie is faithful and elegant. I have followed him in expressing the Platonic idea of emanations, which is darkly insinuated in the original. ↩
Herodotus (l. I c. 31) has displayed that doctrine in an agreeable tale. Yet the Jupiter (in the 16th book of the Iliad) who laments with tears of blood the death of Sarpedon his son had a very imperfect notion of happiness or glory beyond the grave. ↩
The soldiers who made their verbal, or nuncupatory, testaments upon actual service (in procinctu) were exempted from the formalities of the Roman law. See Heineccius (Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, tom. I, p. 504), and Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXVII). ↩
This union of the human soul with the divine aethereal substance of the universe is the ancient doctrine of Pythagoras and Plato; but it seems to exclude any personal or conscious immortality. See Warburton’s learned and rational observations, Divine Legation of Moses, vol. II, pp. 199⁠–⁠216. ↩
The whole relation of the death of Julian is given by Ammianus (XXV 3), an intelligent spectator. Libanius, who turns with horror from the scene, has supplied some circumstances (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 136⁠–⁠140, pp. 359⁠–⁠362). The calumnies of Gregory, and the legends of more recent saints, may now be silently despised.8961 ↩
Honoratior aliquis miles; perhaps Ammianus himself. The modest and judicious historian describes the scene of the election, at which he was undoubtedly present (XXV 5). ↩
The primus or primicerius enjoyed the dignity of a senator; and, though only a tribune, he ranked with the military dukes. Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. XXIV. These privileges are perhaps more recent than the time of Jovian. ↩
The soldiers supposed that the acclamations proclaimed the name of Julian, restored, as they fondly thought, to health, not that of Jovian. Ammianus in loc. —⁠M. ↩
The ecclesiastical historians, Socrates (l. III c. 22), Sozomen (l. VI c. 3), and Theodoret (l. IV c. 1), ascribe to Jovian the merit of a confessor under the preceding reign; and piously suppose that he refused the purple till the whole army unanimously exclaimed that they were Christians. Ammianus, calmly pursuing his narrative, overthrows the legend by a single sentence. Hostiis pro Joviano extisque inspectis, pronuntiatum est, etc. (XXV 6). ↩
Ammianus (XXV 10) has drawn from the life an impartial portrait of Jovian: to which the younger Victor has added some remarkable strokes. The Abbé de La Bléterie (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠238) has composed an elaborate history of his short reign; a work remarkably distinguished by elegance of style, critical disquisition, and religious prejudice. ↩
Regius equitatus. It appears from Procopius that the Immortals, so famous under Cyrus and his successors, were revived, if we may use that improper word, by the Sassanides. Brisson, De regio Persarum, p. 268, etc. ↩
The obscure villages of the inland country are irrecoverably lost; nor can we name the field of battle where Julian fell: but M. d’Anville has demonstrated the precise situation of Sumere, Carche, and Dura, along the banks of the Tigris (Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, p. 248; L’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 95, 97). In the ninth century, Sumere, or Samara, became, with a slight change of name, the royal residence of the caliphs of the house of Abbas.8962 ↩
Dura was a fortified place in the wars of Antiochus against the rebels of Media and Persia (Polybius, l. V c. 48, 52, pp. 548, 552, edit. Casaubon, in octavo). ↩
A similar expedient was proposed to the leaders of the ten thousand, and wisely rejected. Xenophon, Anabasis, l. III, pp. 255⁠–⁠257. It appears from our modern travellers that rafts floating on bladders perform the trade and navigation of the Tigris. ↩
The first military acts of the reign of Jovian are related by Ammianus (XXV 6), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 146, p. 364), and Zosimus (l. III, pp. 189⁠–⁠191). Though we may distrust the fairness of Libanius, the ocular testimony of Eutropius (uno a Persis atque altero proelio victus, X 17) must incline us to suspect that Ammianus had been too jealous of the honor of the Roman arms. ↩
He is called Junius by John Malalas; the same, M. Saint-Martin conjectures, with a satrap of Gordyene named Jovianus, or Jovinianus; mentioned in Ammianus Marcellinus XVIII 6. —⁠M. ↩
Sextus Rufus (De provinciis, c. 29) embraces a poor subterfuge of national vanity. Tanta reverentia nominis Romani fuit, ut a Persis primus de pace sermo haberetur. ↩
The Persian historians couch the message of Shahpour in these Oriental terms: “I have reassembled my numerous army. I am resolved to revenge my subjects, who have been plundered, made captives, and slain. It is for this that I have bared my arm, and girded my loins. If you consent to pay the price of the blood which has been shed, to deliver up the booty which has been plundered, and to restore the city of Nisibis, which is in Iraq, and belongs to our empire, though now in your possession, I will sheathe the sword of war; but should you refuse these terms, the hoofs of my horse, which are hard as steel, shall efface the name of the Romans from the earth; and my glorious scimitar, that destroys like fire, shall exterminate the people of your empire.” These authorities do not mention the death of Julian. Malcolm’s History of Persia I 87. —⁠M. ↩
The Paschal Chronicle, not, as M. Saint-Martin says, supported by John Malalas, places the mission of this ambassador before the death of Julian. The king of Persia was then in Persarmenia, ignorant of the death of Julian; he only arrived at the army subsequent to that event. Saint-Martin adopts this view, and finds or extorts support for it from Libanius and Ammianus, III 158. —⁠M. ↩
It is presumptuous to controvert the opinion of Ammianus, a soldier and a spectator. Yet it is difficult to understand how the mountains of Corduene could extend over the plains of Assyria, as low as the conflux of the Tigris and the great Zab; or how an army of sixty thousand men could march one hundred miles in four days.8963 ↩
Sapor availed himself, a few years after, of the dissolution of the alliance between the Romans and the Armenians. See Saint-Martin III 163. —⁠M. ↩
The treaty of Dura is recorded with grief or indignation by Ammianus (XXV 7), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 142, p. 364), Zosimus (l. III, pp. 190, 191), Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio IV,” pp. 117, 118, who imputes the distress to Julian, the deliverance to Jovian), and Eutropius (X 17). The last-mentioned writer, who was present in military station, styles this peace necessarium quidem sed ignobilem. ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 143, pp. 364, 365. ↩
Conditionibus⁠ ⁠… dispendiosis Romanae reipublicae impositis⁠ ⁠… quibus cupidior regni quam gloriae Jovianus, imperio rudis, adquievit. Sextus Rufus, De provinciis, c. 29. La Bléterie has expressed, in a long direct oration, these specious considerations of public and private interest (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. I, p. 39, etc.). ↩
The generals were murdered on the banks of the Zabatus (Anabasis, l. II, p. 156, l. III, p. 226), or great Zab, a river of Assyria, 400 feet broad, which falls into the Tigris fourteen hours below Mosul. The error of the Greeks bestowed on the greater and lesser Zab the names of the Wolf (Lycus), and the Goat (Capros.) They created these animals to attend the Tiger of the East. ↩
The Cyropaedia is vague and languid; the Anabasis circumstantial and animated. Such is the eternal difference between fiction and truth. ↩
According to Rufinus, an immediate supply of provisions was stipulated by the treaty, and Theodoret affirms that the obligation was faithfully discharged by the Persians. Such a fact is probable, but undoubtedly false. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 702. ↩
We may recollect some lines of Lucan (Pharsalia IV 95), who describes a similar distress of Caesar’s army in Spain:⁠—

Saeva fames aderat⁠ ⁠…
Miles eget: toto censû non prodigus emit
Exiguam Cererem. Proh lucri pallida tabes!
Non deest prolato jejunus venditor auro.

See Guichard (Mémoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d’antiquités militaires, tom. I, pp. 379⁠–⁠382). His analysis of the two campaigns in Spain and Africa is the noblest monument that has ever been raised to the fame of Caesar. ↩
M. d’Anville (see his Maps, and l’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 92, 93) traces their march, and assigns the true position of Hatra, Ur, and Thilsaphata, which Ammianus has mentioned.8964 He does not complain of the Samiel, the deadly hot wind, which Thévenot (Voyages, part II l. I, p. 192) so much dreaded. ↩
The retreat of Jovian is described by Ammianus (XXV 9), Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 143, p. 365), and Zosimus (l. III, p. 194). ↩
Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 145, p. 366). Such were the natural hopes and wishes of a rhetorician. ↩
The people of Carrhae, a city devoted to Paganism, buried the inauspicious messenger under a pile of stones (Zosimus, l. III, p. 196). Libanius, when he received the fatal intelligence, cast his eye on his sword; but he recollected that Plato had condemned suicide, and that he must live to compose the panegyric of Julian (Libanius, “De Vita Suâ,” tom. II, pp. 45, 46). ↩
Ammianus and Eutropius may be admitted as fair and credible witnesses of the public language and opinions. The people of Antioch reviled an ignominious peace, which exposed them to the Persians on a naked and defenceless frontier (Excerptum Valesianum, p. 845, ex Johanne Antiocheno). ↩
The Abbé de La Bléterie (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. I, pp. 212⁠–⁠227), though a severe casuist, has pronounced that Jovian was not bound to execute his promise; since he could not dismember the empire, nor alienate, without their consent, the allegiance of his people. I have never found much delight or instruction in such political metaphysics. ↩
At Nisibis he performed a royal act. A brave officer, his namesake, who had been thought worthy of the purple, was dragged from supper, thrown into a well, and stoned to death without any form of trial or evidence of guilt. Ammianus XXV 8. ↩
See XXV 9, and Zosimus, l. III, pp. 194, 195. ↩
Chronicon Paschale, p. 300. The ecclesiastical Notitiae may be consulted. ↩
Zosimus, l. III, pp. 192, 193. Sextus Rufus, De provinciis, c. 29. Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. IV c. 29. This general position must be applied and interpreted with some caution. ↩
Ammianus XXV 9. Zosimus, l. III, p. 196. He might be edax, et vino Venerique indulgens. But I agree with la Bléterie (tom. I, pp. 148⁠–⁠154) in rejecting the foolish report of a Bacchanalian riot (apud Suidam) celebrated at Antioch, by the emperor, his wife, and a troop of concubines. ↩
The Abbé de La Bléterie (tom. I, pp. 156⁠–⁠209) handsomely exposes the brutal bigotry of Baronius, who would have thrown Julian to the dogs, ne cespititiâ quidem sepulturâ dignus. ↩
Compare the sophist and the saint (Libanius, “Monody,” tom. II, p. 251 and “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 145, p. 367, c. 156, p. 377, with Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio IV,” pp. 125⁠–⁠132). The Christian orator faintly mutters some exhortations to modesty and forgiveness: but he is well satisfied that the real sufferings of Julian will far exceed the fabulous torments of Ixion or Tantalus. ↩
Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 549) has collected these visions. Some saint or angel was observed to be absent in the night on a secret expedition, etc. ↩
Sozomen (l. VI 2) applauds the Greek doctrine of tyrannicide; but the whole passage, which a Jesuit might have translated, is prudently suppressed by the president Cousin. ↩
Immediately after the death of Julian, an uncertain rumor was scattered, telo cecidisse Romano. It was carried by some deserters to the Persian camp; and the Romans were reproached as the assassins of the emperor by Sapor and his subjects (Ammianus XXV 6; Libanius, “De ulciscenda Juliani nece,” c. XIII, pp. 162, 163). It was urged, as a decisive proof, that no Persian had appeared to claim the promised reward (Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 141, p. 363). But the flying horseman, who darted the fatal javelin, might be ignorant of its effect; or he might be slain in the same action. Ammianus neither feels nor inspires a suspicion. ↩
Οστις ἐντόλην πληρῶν τῷ σφῶν αὐτῶν ἂρχοντι. This dark and ambiguous expression may point to Athanasius, the first, without a rival, of the Christian clergy (Libanius, “De ulciscenda Juliani nece,” c. 5, p. 149; La Bléterie, Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. I, p. 179). ↩
The orator (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VII, pp. 145⁠–⁠179) scatters suspicions, demands an inquiry, and insinuates that proofs might still be obtained. He ascribes the success of the Huns to the criminal neglect of revenging Julian’s death. ↩
At the funeral of Vespasian, the comedian who personated that frugal emperor anxiously inquired, how much it cost.⁠—Fourscore thousand pounds (centies).⁠—Give me the tenth part of the sum, and throw my body into the Tiber. Suetonius, in De vita Caesarum, “Vespasian,” c. 19, with the notes of Casaubon and Jacobus Gronovius. ↩
Gregory (“Oratio IV,” pp. 119, 120) compares this supposed ignominy and ridicule to the funeral honors of Constantius, whose body was chanted over Mount Taurus by a choir of angels. ↩
Quintus Curtius, l. III c. 4. The luxuriancy of his descriptions has been often censured. Yet it was almost the duty of the historian to describe a river whose waters had nearly proved fatal to Alexander. ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. 156, p. 377. Yet he acknowledges with gratitude the liberality of the two royal brothers in decorating the tomb of Julian (“De ulciscenda Juliani nece,” c. 7, p. 152). ↩
Cujus suprema et cineres, si qui tunc juste consuleret, non Cydnus videre deberet, quamvis gratissimus amnis et liquidus: sed ad perpetuandam gloriam recte factorum praeterlambere Tiberis, intersecans urbem aeternam, divorumque veterum monumenta praestringens. Ammianus XXV 10. ↩
The medals of Jovian adorn him with victories, laurel crowns, and prostrate captives. Du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 52. Flattery is a foolish suicide; she destroys herself with her own hands. ↩
Jovian restored to the church τὸν ἂρχαιον κόσμον; a forcible and comprehensive expression (Philostorgius, l. VIII c. 5, with Godefroy’s Dissertations, p. 329; Sozomen, l. VI c. 3). The new law which condemned the rape or marriage of nuns (Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. XXV leg. 2) is exaggerated by Sozomen; who supposes that an amorous glance, the adultery of the heart, was punished with death by the evangelic legislator. ↩
Compare Socrates, l. III c. 25, and Philostorgius, l. VIII c. 6, with Godefroy’s Dissertations, p. 330. ↩
The word celestial faintly expresses the impious and extravagant flattery of the emperor to the archbishop, της πρὸς τὸν Θέον τὼν ὂλων ὁμοιώσεως. (See the original epistle in Athanasius, tom. II, p. 33.) Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio XXI,” p. 392) celebrates the friendship of Jovian and Athanasius. The primate’s journey was advised by the Egyptian monks (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, p. 221). ↩
Athanasius, at the court of Antioch, is agreeably represented by la Bléterie (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. I, pp. 121⁠–⁠148); he translates the singular and original conferences of the emperor, the primate of Egypt, and the Arian deputies. The Abbé is not satisfied with the coarse pleasantry of Jovian; but his partiality for Athanasius assumes, in his eyes, the character of justice. ↩
The true area of his death is perplexed with some difficulties (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, pp. 719⁠–⁠723). But the date (AD 373, May 2) which seems the most consistent with history and reason is ratified by his authentic life (Maffei, Osservazioni letterarie, tom. III, p. 81). ↩
See the observations of Valesius and Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 38) on the original letter of Athanasius, which is preserved by Theodoret (l. IV c. 3). In some MSS. this indiscreet promise is omitted; perhaps by the Catholics, jealous of the prophetic fame of their leader. ↩
Athanasius (apud Theodoret, l. IV c. 3) magnifies the number of the orthodox, who composed the whole world, πάρεξ ὀλίγων τῶν τὰ Ἀρειου φρονούτων. This assertion was verified in the space of thirty or forty years. ↩
Socrates, l. III c. 24. Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio IV,” p. 131) and Libanius (“Oratio Parentalis,” c. 148, p. 369) expresses the living sentiments of their respective factions. ↩
Themistius, Orationes V, pp. 63⁠–⁠71, edit. Harduin, Paris, 1684. The Abbé de La Bléterie judiciously remarks (Histoire de l’empereur Jovien, tom. I, p. 199) that Sozomen has forgot the general toleration, and Themistius the establishment of the Catholic religion. Each of them turned away from the object which he disliked, and wished to suppress the part of the edict the least honorable, in his opinion, to the emperor. ↩
Οἱ δὲ Ἀντιοχεῖς οὐχ ἡδέως διὲκειντο πρὸς αὐτὸν· ἀλλ’ ἐπισκωπτοι αὐτὸν ᾠδαὶς καὶ παρῳδίαις καὶ τοις καλουμένοις φαμώσσοις (famosis libellis). Johann Antiochensis in Excerptum Valesianum, p. 845. The libels of Antioch may be admitted on very slight evidence. ↩
Compare Ammianus (XXV 10), who omits the name of the Batavians, with Zosimus (l. III, p. 197), who removes the scene of action from Rheims to Sirmium. ↩
Quos capita scholarum ordo castrensis appellat. Ammianus XXV 10, and Valesius ad loc. ↩
Cugus vagitus, pertinaciter reluctantis, ne in curuli sellâ veheretur ex more, id quod mox accidit protendebat. Augustus and his successors respectfully solicited a dispensation of age for the sons or nephews whom they raised to the consulship. But the curule chair of the first Brutus had never been dishonored by an infant. ↩
The Itinerary of Antoninus fixes Dadastana 125 Roman miles from Nice; 117 from Ancyra (Wesseling, Vetera Romanorum itineraria, p. 142). The pilgrim of Bourdeaux, by omitting some stages, reduces the whole space from 242 to 181 miles. Wesseling, p. 574.8965 ↩
See Ammianus (XXV 10), Eutropius (X 18), who might likewise be present; Jerome (tom. I, p. 26, ad Heliodorus), Orosius (VII 31), Sozomen (l. VI c. 6), Zosimus (l. III, pp. 197, 198), and Zonaras (tom. II l. XIII, pp. 28, 29). We cannot expect a perfect agreement, and we shall not discuss minute differences. ↩
Ammianus, unmindful of his usual candor and good sense, compares the death of the harmless Jovian to that of the second Africanus, who had excited the fears and resentment of the popular faction. ↩
Chrysostom, tom. I, pp. 336, 344, edit. Montfaucon. The Christian orator attempts to comfort a widow by the examples of illustrious misfortunes; and observes that, of nine emperors (including the Caesar Gallus) who had reigned in his time, only two (Constantine and Constantius) died a natural death. Such vague consolations have never wiped away a single tear. ↩
Ten days appear scarcely sufficient for the march and election. But it may be observed: 1. That the generals might command the expeditious use of the public posts for themselves, their attendants, and messengers. 2. That the troops, for the ease of the cities, marched in many divisions; and that the head of the column might arrive at Nice, when the rear halted at Ancyra. ↩
Ammianus XXVI 1. Zosimus, l. III, p. 198. Philostorgius, l. VIII c. 8, and Godefroy’s Dissertations, p. 334. Philostorgius, who appears to have obtained some curious and authentic intelligence, ascribes the choice of Valentinian to the prefect Sallust [Secundus, not Sallust —⁠B.], the master-general Arintheus, Dagalaiphus count of the domestics, and the patrician Datianus, whose pressing recommendations from Ancyra had a weighty influence in the election. ↩
Ammianus (XXX 7, 9) and the younger Victor have furnished the portrait of Valentinian, which naturally precedes and illustrates the history of his reign.8966 ↩
According to Ammianus, he wrote elegantly, and was skilled in painting and modelling. Scribens decorè, venustèque pingens et fingens, XXX 7. —⁠M. ↩
At Antioch, where he was obliged to attend the emperor to the temple, he struck a priest, who had presumed to purify him with lustral water (Sozomen, l. VI c. 6; Theodoret, l. III c. 15). Such public defiance might become Valentinian; but it could leave no room for the unworthy delation of the philosopher Maximus, which supposes some more private offence (Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 200, 201). ↩
Socrates, l. IV. A previous exile to Melitene, or Thebais (the first might be possible), is interposed by Sozomen (l. VI c. 6) and Philostorgius (l. VII c. 7, with Godefroy’s Dissertations, p. 293). ↩
Ammianus, in a long, because unseasonable, digression (XXVI 1, and Valesius, ad loc.), rashly supposes that he understands an astronomical question of which his readers are ignorant. It is treated with more judgment and propriety by Censorinus (De die natali, c. 20) and Macrobius (Saturnalia, l. I c. 12⁠–⁠16). The appellation of Bissextile, which marks the inauspicious year (Augustine ad Januarium, “Epistle 119”), is derived from the repetition of the sixth day of the calends of March. ↩
Valentinian’s first speech is full in Ammianus (XXVI 2); concise and sententious in Philostorgius (l. VIII c. 8). ↩
Si tuos amas, Imperator optime, habes fratrem; si Rempublicam, quaere quem vestias. Ammianus XXVI 4. In the division of the empire, Valentinian retained that sincere counsellor for himself (c. 6). ↩
In suburbano, Ammianus XXVI 4. The famous Hebdomon, or field of Mars, was distant from Constantinople either seven stadia, or seven miles. See Valesius and his brother, ad loc., and du Cange, Constantinopolis, l. II, pp. 140, 141, 172, 173. ↩
Symmachus praises the liberality of Valentinian in raising his brother at once to the rank of Augustus, not training him through the slow and probationary degree of Caesar. Exigui animi vices munerum partiuntur, tua liberalitas desideriis nihil reliquit. Symmachi octo orationum fragmenta, p. 7. edit. Niebuhr, 1816, reprinted from Mai. —⁠M. ↩
Participem quidem legitimum potestatis; sed in modum apparitoris morigerum, ut progrediens aperiet textus. Ammianus XXVI 4. ↩
Notwithstanding the evidence of Zonaras, Suidas, and the Paschal Chronicle, M. de Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 671) wishes to disbelieve those stories, si avantageuses à un payen. ↩
Eunapius celebrates and exaggerates the sufferings of Maximus (pp. 82, 83); yet he allows that the sophist or magician, the guilty favorite of Julian and the personal enemy of Valentinian, was dismissed on the payment of a small fine. ↩
The loose assertions of a general disgrace (Zosimus, l. IV, p. 201), are detected and refuted by Tillemont (tom. V, p. 21). ↩
Ammianus XXVI 5. ↩
Ipse supra impacati Rheni semibarbaras ripas raptim vexilla constituens⁠ ⁠… Princeps creatus ad difficilem militiam revertisti. Symmachus, “Oratio 81.” —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus says, in general terms, subagrestis ingenii, nec bellicis nec liberalibus studiis eruditus. Ammianus XXXI 14. The orator Themistius, with the genuine impertinence of a Greek, wished for the first time to speak the Latin language, the dialect of his sovereign, τὴν διάλεκτον κρατοῦισαν. Orationes VI, p. 71. ↩
The uncertain degree of alliance, or consanguinity, is expressed by the words ἀνεψιός, cognatus, consobrinus (see Valesius ad Ammianus XXIII 3). The mother of Procopius might be a sister of Basilina and Count Julian, the mother and uncle of the apostate. Du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 49. ↩
Ammianus XXIII 3, XXVI 6. He mentions the report with much hesitation: susurravit obscurior fama; nemo enim dicti auctor exstitit verus. It serves, however, to remark that Procopius was a Pagan. Yet his religion does not appear to have promoted, or obstructed, his pretensions. ↩
One of his retreats was a country-house of Eunomius, the heretic. The master was absent, innocent, ignorant; yet he narrowly escaped a sentence of death, and was banished into the remote parts of Mauritania (Philostorgius, l. IX c. 5, 8, and Godefroy’s Dissertations, pp. 369⁠–⁠378). ↩
It may be suspected, from a fragment of Eunapius, that the heathen and philosophic party espoused the cause of Procopius. Heraclius, the Cynic, a man who had been honored by a philosophic controversy with Julian, striking the ground with his staff, incited him to courage with the line of Homer, ἂλκιμος ἒσσο⁠—ἲνα τις σε καὶ ὁψιλόνων ευ εἲπη. Eunapius, Mai, p. 267 or in Niebuhr’s edition, p. 73. —⁠M. ↩
Hormisdae maturo juveni, Hormisdae regalis illius filio, potestatem Proconsulis detulit; et civilia, more veterum, et bella, recturo. Ammianus XXVI 8. The Persian prince escaped with honor and safety, and was afterwards (AD 380) restored to the same extraordinary office of proconsul of Bithynia (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 204). I am ignorant whether the race of Sassan was propagated. I find (AD 514) a pope Hormisdas; but he was a native of Frusino, in Italy (Pagi, Breviarium Pontificum Romanum, tom. I, p. 247). ↩
The infant rebel was afterwards the wife of the emperor Gratian, but she died young and childless. See du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 48, 59. ↩
Sequimini culminis summi prosapiam was the language of Procopius, who affected to despise the obscure birth and fortuitous election of the upstart Pannonian. Ammianus XXVI 7. ↩
Symmachus describes his embarrassment. “The Germans are the common enemies of the state, Procopius the private foe of the emperor; his first care must be victory, his second revenge.” Symmachus oratios, p. 11. —⁠M. ↩
Et dedignatus hominem superare certamine despicabilem, auctoritatis et celsi fiduciâ corporis ipsis hostibus jussit, suum vincire rectorem: atque ita turmarum, antesignanus umbratilis comprensus suorum manibus. The strength and beauty of Arintheus, the new Hercules, are celebrated by St. Basil, who supposed that God had created him as an inimitable model of the human species. The painters and sculptors could not express his figure: the historians appeared fabulous when they related his exploits (Ammianus XXVI and Valesius ad loc.). ↩
The same field of battle is placed by Ammianus in Lycia, and by Zosimus at Thyatira, which are at the distance of 150 miles from each other. But Thyatira alluitur Lyco (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae V 31; Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. II, p. 79); and the transcribers might easily convert an obscure river into a well-known province.8967 ↩
The adventures, usurpation, and fall of Procopius are related, in a regular series, by Ammianus (XXVI 6⁠–⁠10), and Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 203⁠–⁠210). They often illustrate, and seldom contradict, each other. Themistius (Orationes VII, pp. 91, 92) adds some base panegyric; and Eunapius (pp. 83, 84) some malicious satire.8968 ↩
This infamous inquisition into sorcery and witchcraft has been of greater influence on human affairs than is commonly supposed. The persecutions against philosophers and their libraries was carried on with so much fury, that from this time (AD 374) the names of the Gentile philosophers became almost extinct; and the Christian philosophy and religion, particularly in the East, established their ascendency. I am surprised that Gibbon has not made this observation. Heyne, Note on Zosimus, l. IV 14, p. 637. Besides vast heaps of manuscripts publicly destroyed throughout the East, men of letters burned their whole libraries, lest some fatal volume should expose them to the malice of the informers and the extreme penalty of the law. Ammianus Marcellinus XXIX 2. —⁠M. ↩
Libanius, “De ulciscenda Juliani nece,” c. IX, pp. 158, 159. The sophist deplores the public frenzy, but he does not (after their deaths) impeach the justice of the emperors. ↩
The French and English lawyers of the present age allow the theory, and deny the practice, of witchcraft (Jean-Baptiste Denisart, Collection de décisions nouvelles et de notions relatives à la jurisprudence actuelle, au mot “Sorciers,” tom. IV, p. 553; William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. IV, p. 60). As private reason always prevents or outstrips public wisdom, the president Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XII c. 5, 6) rejects the existence of magic. ↩
See Oeuvres diverses de Bayle, tom. III, pp. 567⁠–⁠589. The sceptic of Rotterdam exhibits, according to his custom, a strange medley of loose knowledge and lively wit. ↩
The Pagans distinguished between good and bad magic, the Theurgic and the Goetic (Histoire de l’Académie, etc., tom. VII, p. 25). But they could not have defended this obscure distinction against the acute logic of Bayle. In the Jewish and Christian system all demons are infernal spirits, and all commerce with them is idolatry, apostasy, etc., which deserves death and damnation. ↩
The Canidia of Horace (Carmina, l. V Ode 5, with Dacier’s and Sanadon’s illustrations) is a vulgar witch. The Erictho of Lucan (Pharsalia VI 430⁠–⁠830) is tedious, disgusting, but sometimes sublime. She chides the delay of the Furies, and threatens, with tremendous obscurity, to pronounce their real names, to reveal the true infernal countenance of Hecate, to invoke the secret powers that lie below hell, etc. ↩
Genus hominum potentibus infidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in civitate nostrâ et vetabitur semper et retinebitur. Tacitus, Historiae I 22. See Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. VIII c. 19, and the Theodosian Code, l. IX tit. XVI, with Godefroy’s Commentary. ↩
The persecution of Antioch was occasioned by a criminal consultation. The twenty-four letters of the alphabet were arranged round a magic tripod; and a dancing ring, which had been placed in the centre, pointed to the four first letters in the name of the future emperor, Θ Ε Ο Δ. Theodorus (perhaps with many others who owned the fatal syllables) was executed. Theodosius succeeded. Lardner (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. IV, pp. 353⁠–⁠372) has copiously and fairly examined this dark transaction of the reign of Valens. ↩
Limus ut hic durescit, et haec ut cera liquescit
Uno eodemque igni⁠ ⁠…
Virgil, Bucolica VIII 80.

Devovet absentes, simulacraque cerea figit.
Ovidius in Epistulae Heroidum, “Hypsipyle ad Jason” 91.

Such vain incantations could affect the mind and increase the disease of Germanicus. Tacitus, Annales II 69. ↩
See Heineccius, Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, tom. II, p. 353, etc. Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. 7, with Godefroy’s Commentary. ↩
The cruel persecution of Rome and Antioch is described, and most probably exaggerated, by Ammianus (XXVII 1, XXIX 1, 2), and Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 216⁠–⁠218). The philosopher Maximus, with some justice, was involved in the charge of magic (Eunapius in De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, pp. 88, 89); and young Chrysostom, who had accidentally found one of the proscribed books, gave himself up for lost (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 340). ↩
Consult the six last books of Ammianus, and more particularly the portraits of the two royal brothers (XXX 8, 9, XXXI 14). Tillemont has collected (tom. V, pp. 12⁠–⁠18, pp. 127⁠–⁠133) from all antiquity their virtues and vices. ↩
The younger Victor asserts that he was valde timidus: yet he behaved, as almost every man would do, with decent resolution at the head of an army. The same historian attempts to prove that his anger was harmless. Ammianus observes with more candor and judgment, incidentia crimina ad contemptam vel laesam principis amplitudinem trahens, in sanguinem saeviebat. ↩
Cum esset ad acerbitatem naturae calore propensior⁠ ⁠… poenas per ignes augebat et gladios. Ammianus XXX 8. See XXVII 7. ↩
I have transferred the reproach of avarice from Valens to his servants. Avarice more properly belongs to ministers than to kings, in whom that passion is commonly extinguished by absolute possession. ↩
He sometimes expressed a sentence of death with a tone of pleasantry: “Abi, Comes, et muta ei caput, qui sibi mutari provinciam cupit.” A boy, who had slipped too hastily a Spartan hound; an armorer, who had made a polished cuirass that wanted some grains of the legitimate weight, etc., were the victims of his fury. ↩
The innocents of Milan were an agent and three apparitors, whom Valentinian condemned for signifying a legal summons. Ammianus (XXVII 7) strangely supposes that all who had been unjustly executed were worshipped as martyrs by the Christians. His impartial silence does not allow us to believe that the great chamberlain Rhodanus was burnt alive for an act of oppression (Chronicon Paschale, p. 302).8969 ↩
Ut bene meritam in sylvas jussit abire Innoxiam. Ammianus XXIX 3, and Valesius ad loc. ↩
See the Code of Justinian, l. VIII tit. LII leg. 2. Unusquisque sabolem suam nutriat. Quod si exponendam putaverit animadversioni quae constituta est subjacebit. For the present I shall not interfere in the dispute between Noodt and Binkershoek; how far, or how long this unnatural practice had been condemned or abolished by law, philosophy, and the more civilized state of society. ↩
These salutary institutions are explained in the Theodosian Code, l. XIII tit. III “De Medicis et Professoribus,” and l. XIV tit. IX “De Studiis liberalibus Urbis Romoe.” Besides our usual guide (Godefroy), we may consult Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. I, pp. 105⁠–⁠111), who has treated the interesting subject with the zeal and curiosity of a man of letters who studies his domestic history. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. I tit. XI with Godefroy’s Paratitlon, which diligently gleans from the rest of the code. ↩
Three lines of Ammianus (XXXI 14) countenance a whole oration of Themistius (VIII, pp. 101⁠–⁠120), full of adulation, pedantry, and commonplace morality. The eloquent M. Thomas (tom. I, pp. 366⁠–⁠396) has amused himself with celebrating the virtues and genius of Themistius, who was not unworthy of the age in which he lived. ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, p. 202. Ammianus XXX 9. His reformation of costly abuses might entitle him to the praise of: in provinciales admodum parcus, tributorum ubique molliens sarcinas. By some his frugality was styled avarice (Jerome, Chronicon, p. 186). ↩
Testes sunt leges a me in exordio Imperii mei datae; quibus unicuique quod animo imbibisset colendi libera facultas tributa est. Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. XVI leg. 9. To this declaration of Valentinian we may add the various testimonies of Ammianus (XXX 9), Zosimus (l. IV, p. 204), and Sozomen (l. VI c. 7, 21). Baronius would naturally blame such rational toleration (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 370,” Nos. 129⁠–⁠132, “AD 376,” Nos. 3, 4).8970 ↩
Eudoxus was of a mild and timid disposition. When he baptized Valens (AD 367), he must have been extremely old, since he had studied theology fifty-five years before, under Lucian, a learned and pious martyr. Philostorgius, l. II c. 14⁠–⁠16, l. IV c. 4, with Godefroy, pp. 82, 206, and Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. V, pp. 471⁠–⁠480, etc. ↩
Through the influence of his wife, say the ecclesiastical writers. —⁠M. ↩
Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio XXV,” p. 432) insults the persecuting spirit of the Arians, as an infallible symptom of error and heresy. ↩
This sketch of the ecclesiastical government of Valens is drawn from Socrates (l. IV), Sozomen (l. VI), Theodoret (l. IV), and the immense compilations of Tillemont (particularly tom. VI, VIII, and IX). ↩
Dr. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 78) has already conceived and intimated the same suspicion. ↩
This reflection is so obvious and forcible that Orosius (l. VII c. 32, 33) delays the persecution till after the death of Valentinian. Socrates, on the other hand, supposes (l. III c. 32) that it was appeased by a philosophical oration, which Themistius pronounced in the year 374 (Orationes XII, p. 154, in Latin only). Such contradictions diminish the evidence and reduce the term of the persecution of Valens. ↩
Tillemont, whom I follow and abridge, has extracted (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, pp. 153⁠–⁠167) the most authentic circumstances from the Panegyrics of the two Gregories: the brother, and the friend, of Basil. The letters of Basil himself (Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. II, pp. 155⁠–⁠180) do not present the image of a very lively persecution. ↩
Basilius Caesariensis episcopus Cappadociae clarus habetur⁠ ⁠… qui multa continentiae et ingenii bona uno superbiae malo perdidit. This irreverent passage is perfectly in the style and character of St. Jerome. It does not appear in Scaliger’s edition of his Chronicle; but Isaac Vossius found it in some old MSS. which had not been reformed by the monks. ↩
This noble and charitable foundation (almost a new city) surpassed in merit, if not in greatness, the pyramids, or the walls of Babylon. It was principally intended for the reception of lepers (Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio XX,” p. 439). ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XII tit. I leg. 63. Godefroy (tom. IV, pp. 409⁠–⁠413) performs the duty of a commentator and advocate. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, p. 808) supposes a second law to excuse his orthodox friends, who had misrepresented the edict of Valens and suppressed the liberty of choice. ↩
See d’Anville, Mémoires sur l’Egypte, p. 74. Hereafter I shall consider the monastic institutions. ↩
Socrates, l. IV c. 24, 25. Orosius, l. VII c. 33. Jerome in Chronicon, p. 189, and tom. II, p. 212. The monks of Egypt performed many miracles, which prove the truth of their faith. Right, says Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 79), but what proves the truth of those miracles? ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. II leg. 20. Godefroy (tom. VI, p. 49), after the example of Baronius, impartially collects all that the fathers have said on the subject of this important law; whose spirit was long afterwards revived by the emperor Frederic II, Edward I of England, and other Christian princes who reigned after the twelfth century. ↩
The expressions which I have used are temperate and feeble, if compared with the vehement invectives of Jerome (tom. I, pp. 13, 45, 144, etc.). In his turn, he was reproached with the guilt which he imputed to his brother monks; and the Sceleratus, the Versipellis, was publicly accused as the lover of the widow Paula (tom. II, p. 363). He undoubtedly possessed the affection both of the mother and the daughter; but he declares that he never abused his influence to any selfish or sensual purpose. ↩
Pudet dicere, sacerdotes idolorum, mimi et aurigae, et scorta, haereditates capiunt: solis clericis ac monachis hâc lege prohibetur. Et non prohibetur a persecutoribus, sed a principibus Christianis. Nec de lege queror; sed doleo cur meruerimus hanc legem. Jerome (tom. I, p. 13) discreetly insinuates the secret policy of his patron Damasus. ↩
Three words of Jerome, sanctae memoriae Damasus (tom. II, p. 109), wash away all his stains, and blind the devout eyes of Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, pp. 386⁠–⁠424). ↩
Jerome himself is forced to allow, crudelissimae interfectiones diversi sexus perpetratae (in Chronicon, p. 186). But an original libel or petition of two presbyters of the adverse party has unaccountably escaped. They affirm that the doors of the Basilica were burnt, and that the roof was untiled; that Damasus marched at the head of his own clergy, gravediggers, charioteers, and hired gladiators; that none of his party were killed, but that 160 dead bodies were found. This petition is published by the Père Sirmond, in the first volume of his Works. ↩
The Basilica of Sicininus, or Liberius, is probably the church of Sancta Maria Maggiore, on the Esquiline hill. Baronius, “AD 367,” No. 3; and Donatus, De Roma antiquâ, l. IV c. 3, p. 462. ↩
The enemies of Damasus styled him Auriscalpius Matronarum, the ladies’ ear-scratcher. ↩
Gregory Nazianzen (“Oratio XXXII,” p. 526) describes the pride and luxury of the prelates who reigned in the Imperial cities; their gilt car, fiery steeds, numerous train, etc. The crowd gave way as to a wild beast. ↩
Ammianus XXVII 3. Perpetuo Numini, verisque ejus cultoribus. The incomparable pliancy of a polytheist! ↩
Ammianus, who makes a fair report of his prefecture (XXVII 9), styles him praeclarae indolis, gravitatisque senator (XXII 7, and Valesius ad loc.). A curious inscription (Grutor MCII No. 2) records, in two columns, his religious and civil honors. In one line he was Pontiff of the Sun, and of Vesta, Augur, Quindecemvir, Hierophant, etc., etc. In the other:
1. Quaestor candidatus, more probably titular.
2. Praetor.
3. Corrector of Tuscany and Umbria.
4. Consular of Lusitania.
5. Proconsul of Achaia.
6. Prefect of Rome.
7. Praetorian prefect of Italy.
8. Of Illyricum.
9. Consul elect; but he died before the beginning of the year 385.
See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 241, 736. ↩
Facite me Romanae urbis episcopum; et ero protinus Christianus (Jerome, tom. II, p. 165). It is more than probable that Damasus would not have purchased his conversion at such a price. ↩
Ammianus XXVI 5. Valesius adds a long and good note on the master of the offices. ↩
Ammianus XXVII 1. Zosimus, l. IV, p. 208. The disgrace of the Batavians is suppressed by the contemporary soldier, from a regard for military honor, which could not affect a Greek rhetorician of the succeeding age. ↩
See d’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, p. 587. The name of the Moselle, which is not specified by Ammianus, is clearly understood by Mascou (History of the Ancient Germans VII 2). ↩
Charpeigne on the Moselle. Mannert. —⁠M. ↩
The battles are described by Ammianus (XXVII 2), and by Zosimus (l. IV, p. 209), who supposes Valentinian to have been present. ↩
Studio solicitante nostrorum, occubuit. Ammianus XXVII 10. ↩
Probably Easter. Wagner. —⁠M. ↩
Mannert is unable to fix the position of Solicinium. Johann Casimir von Haeffelin (in Historia et commentationes academiae electoralis scientiarum et elegantiorum litterarum Theodoro-Palatinae V 14) conjectures Schwetzingen, near Heidelberg. See Wagner’s note. Saint-Martin, Sultz in Wirtemberg, near the sources of the Neckar. Saint-Martin III 339. —⁠M. ↩
The expedition of Valentinian is related by Ammianus (XXVII 10); and celebrated by Ausonius (“Mosella” 421, etc.), who foolishly supposes that the Romans were ignorant of the sources of the Danube. ↩
Immanis enim natio, jam inde ab incunabulis primis varietate casuum imminuta; ita saepius adolescit, ut fuisse longis saeculis aestimetur intacta. Ammianus XXVIII 5. The Count Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VI, p. 370) ascribes the fecundity of the Alemanni to their easy adoption of strangers.8971 ↩
The course of the Neckar was likewise strongly guarded. The hyperbolical eulogy of Symmachus asserts that the Neckar first became known to the Romans by the conquests and fortifications of Valentinian. Nunc primum victoriis tuis externus fluvius publicatur. Gaudeat servitute, captivus innotuit. Symmachus oratios, p. 22. —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus XXVIII 2. Zosimus, l. IV, p. 214. The younger Victor mentions the mechanical genius of Valentinian, nova arma meditari fingere; terrâ seu limo simulacra. ↩
According to the general opinion, the Burgundians formed a Gothic or Vandalic tribe, who, from the banks of the Lower Vistula, made incursions on one side towards Transylvania, on the other towards the centre of Germany. All that remains of the Burgundian language is Gothic.⁠ ⁠… Nothing in their customs indicates a different origin. Malte-Brun, Géographie universelle, tom. I, p. 396 (edit. 1831). —⁠M. ↩
Bellicosos et pubis immensae viribus affluentes; et ideo metuendos finitimis universis. Ammianus XXVIII 5. ↩
I am always apt to suspect historians and travellers of improving extraordinary facts into general laws. Ammianus ascribes a similar custom to Egypt; and the Chinese have imputed it to the Ta-tsin, or Roman empire (De Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. II part I, p. 79). ↩
Salinarum finiumque causâ Alemannis saepe jurgabant. Ammianus XXVIII 5. Possibly they disputed the possession of the Sala, a river which produced salt, and which had been the object of ancient contention. Tacitus, Annales XIII 57, and Lipsius ad loc. ↩
Jam inde temporibus priscis sobolem se esse Romanam Burgundii sciunt: and the vague tradition gradually assumed a more regular form (Orosius, l. VII c. 32). It is annihilated by the decisive authority of Pliny the Elder, who composed the history of Drusus, and served in Germany (Pliny Secundus, Epistulae III 5) within sixty years after the death of that hero. Germanorum genera quinque; Vindili, quorum pars Burgundiones, etc. (Naturalis historiae IV 28). ↩
The wars and negotiations relative to the Burgundians and Alemanni are distinctly related by Ammianus Marcellinus (XXVIII 5, XXIX 4, XXX 3). Orosius (l. VII c. 32), and the Chronicles of Jerome and Cassiodorus fix some dates and add some circumstances. ↩
Ἐπὶ τὸν ἂυχενα τῆς Κὶμβρίκης χερρονήσου Σάξονες. At the northern extremity of the peninsula (the Cimbric promontory of Pliny the Elder IV 27), Ptolemy fixes the remnant of the Cimbri. He fills the interval between the Saxons and the Cimbri with six obscure tribes, who were united, as early as the sixth century, under the national appellation of Danes. See Cluverius, Germania antiqua, l. III c. 21⁠–⁠23. ↩
M. d’Anville (Établissement des États formés en Europe après la chute de l’empire romain en occident, pp. 19⁠–⁠26) has marked the extensive limits of the Saxony of Charlemagne. ↩
The fleet of Drusus had failed in their attempt to pass, or even to approach, the Sound (styled, from an obvious resemblance, the columns of Hercules); and the naval enterprise was never resumed (Tacitus, De moribus Germanorum, c. 34). The knowledge which the Romans acquired of the naval powers of the Baltic (c. 44, 45) was obtained by their land journeys in search of amber. ↩
Quin et Aremoricus piratam Saxona tractus
Sperabat; cui pelle salum sulcare Britannum
Ludus; et assuto glaucum mare findere lembo.
Sidonius in “Panegyricus Avitus” 369.

The genius of Caesar imitated, for a particular service, these rude, but light vessels, which were likewise used by the natives of Britain (Commentarii de bello Civili I 51, and Guichard, Mémoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d’antiquités militaires, tom. II, pp. 41, 42). The British vessels would now astonish the genius of Caesar. ↩
The best original account of the Saxon pirates may be found in Sidonius Apollinaris (l. VIII, “Epistle 6,” p. 223, edit. Sirmond), and the best commentary in the Abbé Dubos (Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I l. I c. 16, pp. 148⁠–⁠155; see likewise pp. 77, 78). ↩
Ammianus (XXVIII 5) justifies this breach of faith to pirates and robbers; and Orosius (l. VII c. 32) more clearly expresses their real guilt; virtute atque agilitate terribiles. ↩
Symmachus (l. II, “Epistle 46”) still presumes to mention the sacred name of Socrates and philosophy. Sidonius, bishop of Clermont, might condemn (l. VIII, “Epistle 6”), with less inconsistency the human sacrifices of the Saxons. ↩
In the beginning of the last century the learned Camden was obliged to undermine, with respectful scepticism, the romance of Brutus, the Trojan; who is now buried in silent oblivion with Scota, the daughter of Pharaoh, and her numerous progeny. Yet I am informed that some champions of the Milesian colony may still be found among the original natives of Ireland. A people dissatisfied with their present condition grasp at any visions of their past or future glory. ↩
Tacitus, or rather his father-in-law Agricola, might remark the German or Spanish complexion of some British tribes. But it was their sober, deliberate opinion: “In universum tamen aestimanti Gallos vicinum solum occupâsse credibile est. Eorum sacra deprehendas⁠ ⁠… sermo haud multum diversus” (in Vita Agricola, c. XI). Caesar had observed their common religion (Commentarii de bello Gallico VI 13); and in his time the emigration from the Belgic Gaul was a recent, or at least an historical event (V 10). Camden, the British Strabo, has modestly ascertained our genuine antiquities (Britannia, vol. I Introduction, p. ii⁠–⁠xxxi). ↩
In the dark and doubtful paths of Caledonian antiquity, I have chosen for my guides two learned and ingenious Highlanders, whom their birth and education had peculiarly qualified for that office. See Critical Dissertations on the Origin and Antiquities, Language, Government, Manners, Religion of the Caledonians by Dr. John Macpherson, London, 1768, in quarto; and Introduction to the History of Great Britain and Ireland, by James Macpherson, Esq., London, 1773, in quarto, third edition. Dr. Macpherson was a minister in the isle of Sky: and it is a circumstance honorable for the present age that a work replete with erudition and criticism should have been composed in the most remote of the Hebrides. ↩
The Irish descent of the Scots has been revived, in the last moments of its decay, and strenuously supported, by the Rev. Mr. Whitaker (History of Manchester, vol. I, pp. 430, 431; and Genuine History of the Britons Asserted Against Mr. Macpherson, pp. 154⁠–⁠293). Yet he acknowledges:
1. That the Scots of Ammianus Marcellinus (AD 340) were already settled in Caledonia; and that the Roman authors do not afford any hints of their emigration from another country.
2. That all the accounts of such emigrations, which have been asserted, or received, by Irish bards, Scotch historians, or English antiquaries (Buchanan, Camden, Usher, Stillingfleet, etc.), are totally fabulous.
3. That three of the Irish tribes which are mentioned by Ptolemy (AD 150), were of Caledonian extraction.
4. That a younger branch of Caledonian princes, of the house of Fingal, acquired and possessed the monarchy of Ireland.
After these concessions, the remaining difference between Mr. Whitaker and his adversaries is minute and obscure. The genuine history which he produces of a Fergus, the cousin of Ossian, who was transplanted (AD 320) from Ireland to Caledonia, is built on a conjectural supplement to the Erse poetry, and the feeble evidence of Richard of Cirencester, a monk of the fourteenth century. The lively spirit of the learned and ingenious antiquarian has tempted him to forget the nature of a question, which he so vehemently debates, and so absolutely decides.8972 ↩
Hyeme tumentes ac saevientes undas calcâstis Oceani sub remis vestris;⁠ ⁠… insperatam imperatoris faciem Britannus expavit. Julius Fermicus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum, p. 464, edit. Jacobus Gronovius ad calcem Minucius Felix. See Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 336). ↩
Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis,” c. XXXIX, p. 264. This curious passage has escaped the diligence of our British antiquaries. ↩
The Caledonians praised and coveted the gold, the steeds, the lights, etc., of the stranger. See Dr. Hugh Blair’s Dissertation on the Poems of Ossian, vol. II, p. 343; and Mr. Macpherson’s Introduction, pp. 242⁠–⁠286. ↩
Lord Lyttleton has circumstantially related (History of Henry II, vol. I, p. 182), and Sir David Dalrymple has slightly mentioned (Annals of Scotland, vol. I, p. 69), a barbarous inroad of the Scots, at a time (AD 1137) when law, religion, and society must have softened their primitive manners. ↩
Attacotti bellicosa hominum natio. Ammianus XXVII 8. Camden (Introduction, p. CLII) has restored their true name in the text of Jerome. The bands of Attacotti, which Jerome had seen in Gaul, were afterwards stationed in Italy and Illyricum (Notitia dignitatum, S. VIII, XXXIX, XL). ↩
Cum ipse adolescentulus in Galliâ viderim Attacottos (or Scotos) gentem Britannicam humanis vesci carnibus; et cum per silvas porcorum greges, et armentorum percudumque reperiant, pastorum nates et feminarum papillas solere abscindere; et has solas ciborum delicias arbitrari. Such is the evidence of Jerome (tom. II, p. 75), whose veracity I find no reason to question.8973 ↩
Ammianus has concisely represented (XX 1, XXVI 4, XXVII 8, XXVIII 3) the whole series of the British war. ↩
Horrescit⁠ ⁠… ratibus⁠ ⁠… impervia Thule.
Ille⁠ ⁠… nec falso nomine Pictos
Edomuit. Scotumque vago mucrone secutus,
Fregit Hyperboreas remis audacibus undas.
Claudian, in “III Consulatu Honorii Augusti” ver. 53, etc.

… Madurunt Saxone fuso
Orcades: incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule,
Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne.
In “IV Consulatu Honorii Augusti” ver. 31, etc.

See likewise Pacatus (in Panegyrici veteres XII 5). But it is not easy to appreciate the intrinsic value of flattery and metaphor. Compare the British victories of Bolanus (Statius, Silvae V 2) with his real character (Tacitus in Vita Agricola, c. 16). ↩
Ammianus frequently mentions their concilium annuum, legitimum, etc. Leptis and Sabrata are long since ruined; but the city of Oea, the native country of Apuleius, still flourishes under the provincial denomination of Tripoli. See Cellarius (Geographia antiqua, tom. II part II, p. 81), d’Anville (Géographie Ancienne, tom. III, pp. 71, 72), and Luis del Marmol Carvajal (L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. II, p. 562). ↩
Ammianus XVIII 6. Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 25, 676) has discussed the chronological difficulties of the history of Count Romanus. ↩
The chronology of Ammianus is loose and obscure; and Orosius (l. VII c. 33, p. 551, edit. Havercamp) seems to place the revolt of Firmus after the deaths of Valentinian and Valens. [Not so; Gibbon has misread Orosius. —⁠B.] Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 691) endeavors to pick his way. The patient and sure-foot mule of the Alps may be trusted in the most slippery paths. ↩
The war was longer protracted than this sentence would lead us to suppose; it was not till defeated more than once that Igmazen yielded. Ammianus XXIX 5. —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus XXIX 5. The text of this long chapter (fifteen quarto pages) is broken and corrupted, and the narrative is perplexed by the want of chronological and geographical landmarks. ↩
Ammianus XXVIII 4. Orosius, l. VII c. 33, pp. 551, 552. Jerome in Chronicon, p. 187. ↩
Leo Africanus (in the Delle navigationi e Viaggi di Ramusio, tom. I folio 78⁠–⁠83) has traced a curious picture of the people and the country, which are more minutely described in the L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. III, pp. 1⁠–⁠54. ↩
This uninhabitable zone was gradually reduced, by the improvements of ancient geography, from forty-five to twenty-four, or even sixteen degrees of latitude. See a learned and judicious note of Dr. Robertson, History of America, vol. I, p. 426. ↩
Intra, si credere libet, vix jam homines et magis semiferi⁠ ⁠… Blemmyes, Satyri, etc. Pomponius Mela I 4, p. 26, edit. Vossius in octavo. Pliny the Elder philosophically explains (VI 35) the irregularities of nature, which he had credulously admitted (V 8). ↩
If the satyr was the orangutan, the great human ape (Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. XIV, p. 43, etc.), one of that species might actually be shown alive at Alexandria in the reign of Constantine. Yet some difficulty will still remain about the conversation which St. Anthony held with one of these pious savages in the desert of Thebais (Jerome in Vita Sancti Pauli Eremitae, tom. I, p. 238). ↩
St. Anthony likewise met one of these monsters, whose existence was seriously asserted by the emperor Claudius. The public laughed; but his prefect of Egypt had the address to send an artful preparation, the embalmed corpse of a Hippocentaur, which was preserved almost a century afterwards in the Imperial palace. See Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae VII 3), and the judicious observations of Fréret (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. VII, p. 321, etc.). ↩
The fable of the pygmies is as old as Homer (Iliad III 6). The pygmies of India and Aethiopia were (trispithami) twenty-seven inches high. Every spring their cavalry (mounted on rams and goats) marched in battle array to destroy the cranes’ eggs, aliter (says Pliny the Elder) futuris gregibus non resisti. Their houses were built of mud, feathers, and eggshells. See Pliny the Elder (VI 35, VII 2), and Strabo (l. II, p. 121). ↩
The third and fourth volumes of the valuable Histoire des voyages describe the present state of the Negroes. The nations of the seacoast have been polished by European commerce; and those of the inland country have been improved by Moorish colonies.8974 ↩
Histoire philosophique et politique, etc., tom. IV, p. 192. ↩
The evidence of Ammianus is original and decisive (XXVII 12). Moses of Chorene (l. III c. 17, p. 249, and c. 34, p. 269) and Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 5, p. 17, edit. Louvre) have been consulted; but those historians who confound distinct facts, repeat the same events, and introduce strange stories, must be used with diffidence and caution.8975 ↩
According to M. Saint-Martin, Sapor, though supported by the two apostate Armenian princes, Meroujan the Ardzronnian and Vahan the Mamigonian, was gallantly resisted by Arsaces, and his brave though impious wife Pharandsem. His troops were defeated by Vasag, the high constable of the kingdom. But after four years’ courageous defence of his kingdom, Arsaces was abandoned by his nobles, and obliged to accept the perfidious hospitality of Sapor. He was blinded and imprisoned in the “Castle of Oblivion”; his brave general Vasag was flayed alive; his skin stuffed and placed near the king in his lonely prison. It was not till many years after (AD 371) that he stabbed himself, according to the romantic story (Saint-Martin III 387, 389), in a paroxysm of excitement at his restoration to royal honors. Saint-Martin, Additions to Le Beau, III 283, 296. —⁠M. ↩
Perhaps Artagera, or Ardis; under whose walls Caius, the grandson of Augustus, was wounded. This fortress was situate above Amida, near one of the sources of the Tigris. See d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, p. 106.8976 ↩
Artaxata, Vagharschabad, or Edchmiadzin, Erovantaschad, and many other cities, in all of which there was a considerable Jewish population, were taken and destroyed. —⁠M. ↩
Pharandsem, not Olympias, refusing the orders of her captive husband to surrender herself to Sapor, threw herself into Artogerassa. Saint-Martin III 293, 302. She defended herself for fourteen months, till famine and disease had left few survivors out of 11,000 soldiers and 6,000 women who had taken refuge in the fortress. She then threw open the gates with her own hand. M. Saint-Martin adds what even the horrors of Oriental warfare will scarcely permit us to credit, that she was exposed by Sapor on a public scaffold to the brutal lusts of his soldiery, and afterwards impaled, III 373, etc. —⁠M. ↩
Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 701) proves from chronology that Olympias must have been the mother of Para.8977 ↩
According to Themistius, quoted by Saint-Martin, he once advanced to the Tigris, III 436. —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus (XXVII 12, XXIX 1, XXX 1, 2) has described the events, without the dates, of the Persian war. Moses of Chorene (History of Armenia, l. III c. 28, p. 261, c. 31, p. 266, c. 35, p. 271) affords some additional facts; but it is extremely difficult to separate truth from fable. ↩
Artaxerxes was the successor and brother (the cousin-german) of the great Sapor, and the guardian of his son Sapor III (Agathias, l. IV, p. 136, edit. Louvre). See the Universal History, vol. XI, pp. 86, 161. The authors of that unequal work have compiled the Sassanian dynasty with erudition and diligence; but it is a preposterous arrangement to divide the Roman and Oriental accounts into two distinct histories.8978 ↩
Pacatus in Panegyrici veteres XII 22, and Orosius, l. VII c. 34. Ictumque tum foedus est, quo universus Oriens usque ad nunc (AD 416) tranquillissime fruitur. ↩
On the reconquest of Armenia by Para, or rather by Mouschegh, the Mamigonian, see Saint-Martin III 375, 383. —⁠M. ↩
On planks floated by bladders. —⁠M. ↩
It is curious enough that the Armenian historian, Faustus of Byzantium, represents Para as a magician. His impious mother Pharandsem had devoted him to the demons on his birth. Saint-Martin IV 23. —⁠M. ↩
See in Ammianus (XXX 1) the adventures of Para. Moses of Chorene calls him Tiridates; and tells a long and not improbable story of his son Gnelus, who afterwards made himself popular in Armenia, and provoked the jealousy of the reigning king (l. III c. 21, etc., p. 253, etc.).8979 ↩
The concise account of the reign and conquests of Hermanric seems to be one of the valuable fragments which Jornandes (c. 28) borrowed from the Gothic histories of Ablavius, or Cassiodorus. ↩
M. Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VI, pp. 311⁠–⁠329) investigates, with more industry than success, the nations subdued by the arms of Hermanric. He denies the existence of the Vasinobroncoe, on account of the immoderate length of their name. Yet the French envoy to Ratisbon, or Dresden, must have traversed the country of the Mediomatrici. ↩
The edition of Grotius (Jornandes, p. 642) exhibits the name of Aestri. But reason and the Ambrosian MS. have restored the Aestii, whose manners and situation are expressed by the pencil of Tacitus (Germania, c. 45). ↩
Ammianus (XXXI 3) observes, in general terms: Ermenrichi⁠ ⁠… nobilissimi Regis, et per multa variaque fortiter facta, vicinis gentibus formidati, etc. ↩
Valens⁠ ⁠… docetur relationibus Ducum, gentem Gothorum, eâ tempestate intactam ideoque saevissimam, conspirantem in unum, ad pervadenda parari collimitia Thraciarum. Ammianus XXI 6. ↩
M. Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VI, p. 332) has curiously ascertained the real number of these auxiliaries. The 3,000 of Ammianus, and the 10,000 of Zosimus, were only the first divisions of the Gothic army.8980 ↩
The march and subsequent negotiation are described in the Fragments of Eunapius (Excerpta legationum, p. 18, edit. Louvre). The provincials, who afterwards became familiar with the Barbarians, found that their strength was more apparent than real. They were tall of stature; but their legs were clumsy, and their shoulders were narrow. ↩
Valens enim, ut consulto placuerat fratri, cujus regebatur arbitrio, arma concussit in Gothos ratione justa permotus. Ammianus (XXVII 4) then proceeds to describe, not the country of the Goths, but the peaceful and obedient province of Thrace, which was not affected by the war. ↩
Eunapius, in Excerpta legationum, pp. 18, 19. The Greek sophist must have considered as one and the same war the whole series of Gothic history till the victories and peace of Theodosius. ↩
The Gothic war is described by Ammianus (XXVII 6), Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 211⁠–⁠214), and Themistius (Orationes X, pp. 129⁠–⁠141). The orator Themistius was sent from the senate of Constantinople to congratulate the victorious emperor; and his servile eloquence compares Valens on the Danube to Achilles in the Scamander. Jornandes forgets a war peculiar to the Visi-Goths, and inglorious to the Gothic name (Mascou’s History of the Ancient Germans VII 3). ↩
Ammianus (XXIX 6) and Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 219, 220) carefully mark the origin and progress of the Quadic and Sarmatian war. ↩
Ammianus (XXX 5), who acknowledges the merit, has censured, with becoming asperity, the oppressive administration of Petronius Probus. When Jerome translated and continued the Chronicle of Eusebius (AD 380; see Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XII, pp. 53, 626), he expressed the truth, or at least the public opinion of his country, in the following words: “Probus Praefectus Provincae Illyrici inquissimus tributorum exactionibus, ante provincias quas regebat, quam a Barbaris vastarentur, erasit” (Chronicon, edit. Scaliger, p. 187, Animadversion p. 259). The saint afterwards formed an intimate and tender friendship with the widow of Probus; and the name of Count Equitius, with less propriety, but without much injustice, has been substituted in the text. ↩
Julian (“Oratio VI,” p. 198) represents his friend Iphicles as a man of virtue and merit, who had made himself ridiculous and unhappy by adopting the extravagant dress and manners of the Cynics. ↩
Ammianus XXX 5. Jerome, who exaggerates the misfortune of Valentinian, refuses him even this last consolation of revenge. Genitali vastato solo, et inultam patriam derelinquens (tom. I, p. 26). ↩
See, on the death of Valentinian, Ammianus (XXX 6), Zosimus (l. IV, p. 221), Victor (in Epitome de Caesaribus), Socrates (l. IV c. 31), and Jerome (in Chronicon, p. 187, and tom. I, p. 26, ad Heliodorus). There is much variety of circumstances among them, and Ammianus is so eloquent that he writes nonsense. ↩
Socrates (l. IV c. 31) is the only original witness of this foolish story, so repugnant to the laws and manners of the Romans that it scarcely deserved the formal and elaborate dissertation of M. Bonamy (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXX, pp. 394⁠–⁠405). Yet I would preserve the natural circumstance of the bath, instead of following Zosimus, who represents Justina as an old woman, the widow of Magnentius. ↩
Ammianus (XXVII 6) describes the form of this military election and august investiture. Valentinian does not appear to have consulted, or even informed, the senate of Rome. ↩
Ammianus XXX 10. Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 222, 223. Tillemont has proved (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 707⁠–⁠709) that Gratian reigned in Italy, Africa, and Illyricum. I have endeavored to express his authority over his brother’s dominions, as he used it, in an ambiguous style. ↩
Such is the bad taste of Ammianus (XXVI 10) that it is not easy to distinguish his facts from his metaphors. Yet he positively affirms that he saw the rotten carcass of a ship, ad secundum lapidem, at Methone, or Modon, in Peloponnesus. ↩
The earthquakes and inundations are variously described by Libanius (Oratio “De ulciscenda Juliani nece,” c. X, in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VII, p. 158, with a learned note of Adam Olearius), Zosimus (l. IV, p. 221), Sozomen (l. VI c. 2), Cedrenus (pp. 310, 314), and Jerome (in Chronicon, p. 186, and tom. I, p. 250, in Vita Hilarionis). Epidaurus must have been overwhelmed, had not the prudent citizens placed St. Hilarion, an Egyptian monk, on the beach. He made the sign of the cross; the mountain-wave stopped, bowed, and returned. ↩
Dicaearchus the Peripatetic composed a formal treatise to prove this obvious truth, which is not the most honorable to the human species. Cicero, De officiis II 5. ↩
The original Scythians of Herodotus (l. IV c. 47⁠–⁠57, 99⁠–⁠101) were confined by the Danube and the Palus Maeotis within a square of 4,000 stadia (400 Roman miles). See d’Anville (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXXV, pp. 573⁠–⁠591). Diodorus Siculus (tom. I l. II, p. 155, edit. Wesseling) has marked the gradual progress of the name and nation. ↩
The Tatars, or Tartars, were a primitive tribe, the rivals, and at length the subjects, of the Moguls.8981 In the victorious armies of Zingis Khan, and his successors, the Tartars formed the vanguard; and the name, which first reached the ears of foreigners, was applied to the whole nation (Fréret, in the Histoire de l’Académie, tom. XVIII, p. 60). In speaking of all or any of the northern shepherds of Europe or Asia, I indifferently use the appellations of Scythians or Tartars. ↩
Imperium Asiae ter quaesivere: ipsi perpetuo ab alieno imperio, aut intacti aut invicti, mansere. Since the time of Justin (II 2), they have multiplied this account. Voltaire, in a few words (tom. X, p. 64, Essai sur l’histoire générale, c. 156), has abridged the Tartar conquests.

Oft o’er the trembling nations from afar,
Has Scythia breathed the living cloud of war.8982

↩
The fourth book of Herodotus affords a curious, though imperfect, portrait of the Scythians. Among the moderns, who describe the uniform scene, the Khan of Khowaresm, Abulghazi Bahadur, expresses his native feelings; and his Genealogical History of the Tartars has been copiously illustrated by the French and English editors. Carpin, Ascelin, and Rubruquis (in the Histoire des voyages, tom. VII) represent the Moguls of the fourteenth century. To these guides I have added Gerbillon, and the other Jesuits (Description géographique, historique chronologique, politique et physique de l’empire de la Chine et de la Tartarie chinoise par Jean-Baptiste Du Halde, tom. IV), who accurately surveyed the Chinese Tartary; and that honest and intelligent traveller, John Bell of Antermony (two volumes in quarto, Glasgow, 1763).8983 ↩
The Uzbecks are the most altered from their primitive manners; 1. By the profession of the Muhammadan religion; and 2. By the possession of the cities and harvests of the great Bucharia. ↩
Il est certain que les grands mangeurs de viande sont en général cruels et féroces plus que les autres hommes. Cette observation est de tous les lieux, et de tous les temps: la barbarie Angloise est connue, etc. Emile de Rousseau, tom. I, p. 274. Whatever we may think of the general observation, we shall not easily allow the truth of his example. The good-natured complaints of Plutarch, and the pathetic lamentations of Ovid, seduce our reason by exciting our sensibility. ↩
These Tartar emigrations have been discovered by M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I, II), a skilful and laborious interpreter of the Chinese language; who has thus laid open new and important scenes in the history of mankind. ↩
A plain in the Chinese Tartary, only eighty leagues from the Great Wall, was found by the missionaries to be three thousand geometrical paces above the level of the sea. Montesquieu, who has used, and abused, the relations of travellers, deduces the revolutions of Asia from this important circumstance that heat and cold, weakness and strength, touch each other without any temperate zone (De l’esprit des loix, l. XVII c. 3). ↩
François Pétis de la Croix (Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, l. III c. 6) represents the full glory and extent of the Mogul chase. The Jesuits Gerbillon and Verbiest followed the emperor Khamhi when he hunted in Tartary (Du Halde, Description de l’empire de la Chine, tom. IV, pp. 81, 290, etc., folio edition). His grandson, Kienlong, who unites the Tartar discipline with the laws and learning of China, describes (Éloge de la Ville de Moukden et des ses environs, pp. 273⁠–⁠285), as a poet, the pleasures which he had often enjoyed as a sportsman. ↩
See the second volume of the Genealogical History of the Tartars; and the list of the Khans at the end of the life of Genghis, or Zingis. Under the reign of Timur, or Tamerlane, one of his subjects, a descendant of Zingis, still bore the regal appellation of Khan; and the conqueror of Asia contented himself with the title of Emir, or Sultan. Abulghazi, part V c. 4. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 878. ↩
See the diets of the ancient Huns (de Guignes, tom. II, p. 26), and a curious description of those of Zingis (Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, l. I c. 6, l. IV c. 11). Such assemblies are frequently mentioned in the Persian history of Timur; though they served only to countenance the resolutions of their master. ↩
Montesquieu labors to explain a difference which has not existed between the liberty of the Arabs and the perpetual slavery of the Tartars (De l’esprit des loix, l. XVII c. 5, l. XVIII c. 19, etc.). ↩
Since the time of Gibbon our knowledge of the languages of the nomadic tribes of Asia has been enlarged, and we are now enabled to classify these nations with greater accuracy than was possible at an earlier period. As we shall have frequent occasion to speak of them in subsequent notes, it is necessary to enter somewhat in detail into this subject.

The nomadic tribes of Asia inhabit the vast area reaching from the Uralian mountains to the sea of China and Japan, and from the northern limits of Persia and India to the frozen ocean of Siberia, though a portion of the latter country is also occupied by other races. These various tribes were originally one race, as is proved by an examination of their languages, though, like the members of the Indo-European race, they are now divided into different families, speaking languages mutually unintelligible, but bearing a strong resemblance to one another in their physical and moral characters and habits of life. They are now divided into four branches, called respectively the Mongolian, Tungusian, Turkish, and Ugrian.

I. The Mongolian Race.⁠—The Mongolians are the least numerous of the four, and were confined to a comparatively small territory till the time of their national hero Zingis Khan, when they first occur in history. Even in his armies and those of his successors, most of the soldiers were Turks, while the captains were Mongolians (see ch. LXIV). With the exception of a few scattered hordes, the Mongolians are still confined to the country northward of the Great Wall of China and westward of the Mandshú country.

II. The Tungusian Race extends on the east from the Yenesei to the sea of Okhotsk, and on the north from the coast of the Icy Sea, between the Tenesei and the Lena, to the Yellow Sea on the southeast. Among the numerous tribes of the Tungusian race, some of which are very barbarous, the only one which has exercised an influence upon the history of the world is that of the Mandshús, the present rulers of China.

III. The Turkish Race, the most widely extended of the four, and one of the most considerable of the families of the world, occupies as a continuous population the vast extent of country from the neighborhood of the lake Baikal, 110° E. longitude, to the eastern boundaries of the Greek and Slavonic countries of Europe. One isolated tribe⁠—The Yakuts⁠—dwell in the remote east, upon the river Lena and the coasts of the Icy Sea. The chief divisions of the Turks are:⁠
1. The “Ouigours,” on the west of the Mongol frontier, the most anciently civilized tribe of the Turkish race.
2. “Turks of the Sandy Desert,” conterminous with Mongolia and Tibet.
3. “Turks of Khoten, Kashgar, and Yarkend,” conterminous with Tibet.
4. The “Kirghis,” in Independent Tartary.
5. The “Uzbeks,” the Turks of Bokhara.
6. The “Turkomans,” inhabiting the Persian frontier of Independent Tartary from Balk to the Caspian.
7. The “Osmanli,” or “Ottoman Turks,” the Turks of the Turkish empire.
8. The “Nogays,” dwelling north of the Caucasus, between the lower Don and the lower Volga.
9. “The Turks of the Russian Empire.”
10. “The isolated Yakuts of the Lena,” already mentioned.
IV. The Ugrian Race, also called the Finnish or Tschudish.⁠—This people left the great eastern plateau of Asia, and settled in the northwest of Asia and the north of Europe, at a period long antecedent to all historical documents. They extend as a continuous population from the Yenesei on the east to Norway on the west. The eastern branches of this race are the Voguls and the Ostiaks, between the Ural mountains and the Yenesei, inhabiting the country formerly called Ugrien, Jugrien, or Jugoria; the most important of the western branches are the Finns and Lappes. The Magyars of Hungary are also members of the Ugrian race. This people, in the ninth century of the Christian era, descended from the southern part of the Uralian mountains, and settled on the plains of the lower Danube. They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria, and this name has been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. The Magyars are the only people of the Ugrian race who have exercised any influence upon the history of the world.

Upon the ethnology and languages of the above-mentioned races the following are the most important works since the time of Gibbon:⁠—Klaproth, Tableaux Historiques de L’Asie, Paris, 1826, quarto; Rémusat, Recherches sur les langues Tartares, Paris, 1820, and several essays by the same writer in his Mélanges asiatiques, Paris, 1825⁠–⁠1826, two vols., octavo, and Nouveaux mélanges asiatiques, 1829, two vols., octavo; Abraham d’Ohsson, Histoire des Mongols, depuis Tchinguiz-Khan jusqu’a Timour Bey ou Tamerlan, La Haye et Amsterdam, 1834, four vols.; Wilhelm Schott, Versuch über die Tatarischen Sprachen; F. H. Müller, Der Ugrische Volkstamm, Berlin, 1837⁠–⁠1839, two vols., octavo; Neumann, Die Völker des südlichen Russlands, Leipzig, 1847; James Cowles Prichard, Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind, vols. III and IV; Robert Gordon Latham, The Natural History of the Varieties of Mankind. —⁠S. ↩
Abulghasi Khan, in the two first parts of his Genealogical History, relates the miserable tales and traditions of the Uzbek Tartars concerning the times which preceded the reign of Zingis.8984 ↩
In the thirteenth book of the Iliad Jupiter turns away his eyes from the bloody fields of Troy to the plains of Thrace and Scythia. He would not, by changing the prospect, behold a more peaceful or innocent scene. ↩
Thucydides, l. II c. 97. ↩
See the fourth book of Herodotus. When Darius advanced into the Moldavian desert, between the Danube and the Dniester, the king of the Scythians sent him a mouse, a frog, a bird, and five arrows; a tremendous allegory! ↩
These wars and heroes may be found under their respective titles, in the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot. They have been celebrated in an epic poem of sixty thousand rhymed couplets by Ferdowsi,8985 the Homer of Persia. See the History of Nadir Shah, pp. 145, 165. The public must lament that Mr. Jones has suspended the pursuit of Oriental learning.8986 ↩
The Caspian Sea, with its rivers and adjacent tribes, are laboriously illustrated in the Examen critique des anciens historiens d’Alexandre-le-Grand, which compares the true geography and the errors produced by the vanity or ignorance of the Greeks. ↩
The original seat of the nation appears to have been in the northwest of China, in the provinces of Chensi and Chansi. Under the two first dynasties, the principal town was still a movable camp; the villages were thinly scattered; more land was employed in pasture than in tillage; the exercise of hunting was ordained to clear the country from wild beasts; Petcheli (where Peking stands) was a desert, and the southern provinces were peopled with Indian savages. The dynasty of the Han (before Christ 206) gave the empire its actual form and extent. ↩
The era of the Chinese monarchy has been variously fixed from 2,952 to 2,132 years before Christ; and the year 2637 has been chosen for the lawful epoch by the authority of the present emperor. The difference arises from the uncertain duration of the two first dynasties; and the vacant space that lies beyond them, as far as the real, or fabulous, times of Fohi or Hoangti. Sematsien dates his authentic chronology from the year 841; the thirty-six eclipses of Confucius (thirty-one of which have been verified) were observed between the years 722 and 480 before Christ. The historical period of China does not ascend above the Greek Olympiads. ↩
After several ages of anarchy and despotism, the dynasty of the Han (before Christ 206) was the era of the revival of learning. The fragments of ancient literature were restored; the characters were improved and fixed; and the future preservation of books was secured by the useful inventions of ink, paper, and the art of printing. Ninety-seven years before Christ, Sematsien published the first history of China. His labors were illustrated and continued by a series of 180 historians. The substance of their works is still extant; and the most considerable of them are now deposited in the king of France’s library. ↩
China has been illustrated by the labors of the French; of the missionaries at Peking, and Messrs. Fréret and de Guignes at Paris. The substance of the three preceding notes is extracted from the Le Chou-king, with the preface and notes of M. de Guignes, Paris, 1770. The Tong-Kien-Kang-Mou, translated by Père Joseph-Anne-Marie de Moyriac de Mailla, under the name of Histoire générale de la Chine, tom. I, pp. XLIX⁠–⁠CC; the Mémoires sur la Chine, Paris, 1776, etc., tom. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠323, tom. II, pp. 5⁠–⁠364; the Histoire des Huns, tom. I, pp. 4⁠–⁠131, tom. V, pp. 345⁠–⁠362; and the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. X, pp. 377⁠–⁠402, tom. XV, pp. 495⁠–⁠564, tom. XVIII, pp. 178⁠–⁠295, XXXVI, pp. 164⁠–⁠238. ↩
See the Histoire générale des Voyages, tom. XVIII, and the Genealogical History, vol. II, pp. 620⁠–⁠664. ↩
There has been much controversy among modern scholars respecting the race to which the Huns belonged. The three principal theories are: 1. That they were Mongols, which is maintained by Niebuhr. 2. That they were Ugrians, which is the opinion of Humboldt and of the chief writers on the subject. 3. That they were Turks, which is maintained by Johann Kaspar Zeuss, Prichard, and Latham. The last of these theories appears to the editor to be the most probable.

1. The only argument in favor of the Mongolian origin of the Huns is derived from the description of their physical appearance, which is supposed to correspond only to the true Mongols of Mongolia. But this is a mistake; for many of the Turkish tribes of Asia, such as the Uzbeks, have the real Mongol physiognomy; and it is more natural to look for the original type of their physical conformation in the nomadic tribes of the race than in the Osmanli Turks of Europe, who have intermarried with other races, and whose habits and manner of life are widely different from those of their ancestors. Moreover, the true Mongols first appear in history in the time of Zingis Khan, as has been remarked in a previous note; they are never mentioned by the Byzantine historians, whereas the name of the Turks frequently occurs; and it is exceedingly improbable that a conquering race like the Huns should have remained quiet for so many centuries.

2. The argument in favor of the Ugrian origin of the Huns rests chiefly upon the supposition that the name of Hungary is derived from that of the Huns; and as it is an undoubted fact that the Magyars of Hungary are Ugrians, the Huns must have belonged to the same race. But instead of deriving the term Hungary from the Huns, it is more natural to connect it with that of Ugri or Ungri, the name of the race who peopled it in historical times.

3. The direct evidence in favor of the Turkish origin of the Huns is scanty; but still there is evidence, which is not the case with the Mongolian and Ugrian hypotheses. The Byzantine writers use the word Huns as the collective name of a race, of which the Khazars, Avars, Bulgarians, and other nations were subdivisions. Now the Khazars, who are first mentioned in AD 626, are expressly said by Theophanes to be Turks from the East (Τοῦρκοι ἀτὸ τῆς ἑῷας, οὒς Καζάρους ὀυνομάζουσιν, Theophanes, p. 263, edit. Paris; p. 485, edit. Bonn); and their chief ruler was Chagan, which is evidently the same as khan or khakan, the title of all the Turkish or Mongolian chiefs or emperors. In the same way the chief ruler of the Avars is called Chagan. Moreover the description of the manners of the Huns resembles that of the Turks or Mongols, and not that of the Ugrians; while the countries occupied by the Huns, which are the same as the Turkish area, render it probable that they were Turks rather than Mongols.

If the Hiong-nú of the Chinese writers are the same as the Huns of the Classics, the identity of the Huns and the Turks becomes almost certain. The Chinese writers say that the Hiong-nú are the same as the Thú-kiú, who are the Turks of the Altai mountains under a Chinese name, and who are mentioned as powerful about AD 545. It was to the Khagan or Khan of these Turks, who was named Dizabulus, that Justin sent an embassy in AD 569. —⁠S. ↩
M. de Guignes (tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠124) has given the original history of the ancient Hiong-nou, or Huns.8987 The Chinese geography of their country (tom. I part II, pp. LV⁠–⁠LXIII) seems to comprise a part of their conquests. ↩
See in Du Halde (tom. IV, pp. 18⁠–⁠65) a circumstantial description with a correct map of the country of the Mongous. ↩
The Igours, or Vigours, were divided into three branches: hunters, shepherds, and husbandmen; and the last class was despised by the two former. See Abulghazi, part II c. 7.8988 ↩
Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXV, pp. 17⁠–⁠33. The comprehensive view of M. de Guignes has compared these distant events. ↩
The fame of Sovou, or So-ou, his merit, and his singular adventurers are still celebrated in China. See the Éloge de la Ville de Moukden et des ses environs, p. 20, and notes, pp. 241⁠–⁠247; and Mémoires sur la Chine, tom. III, pp. 317⁠–⁠360. ↩
See Isbrand Ives in Harris’s Collection of Voyages and Travels, vol. II, p. 931; John Bell’s Travels from St. Petersburg in Russia to Divers Parts of Asia, vol. I, pp. 247⁠–⁠254; and Gmelin, in the Histoire générale des Voyages, tom. XVIII 283⁠–⁠329. They all remark the vulgar opinion that the holy sea grows angry and tempestuous if anyone presumes to call it a lake. This grammatical nicety often excites a dispute between the absurd superstition of the mariners and the absurd obstinacy of travellers. ↩
224 years before Christ. It was built by Chi-hoang-ti of the Dynasty Thsin. It is from twenty to twenty-five feet high. Ce monument, aussi gigantesque qu’impuissant, arrêterait bien les incursions de quelques Nomades; mais il n’a jamais empêché les invasions des Turcs, des Mongols, et des Mandchous. Abel-Rémusat, Recherches Asiatiques second ser. vol. I, p. 58. —⁠M. ↩
The construction of the wall of China is mentioned by Du Halde (tom. II, p. 45) and de Guignes (tom. II, p. 59). ↩
See the life of Lieoupang, or Kaoti, in the Histoire générale de la Chine, published at Paris, 1777, etc., tom. I, pp. 442⁠–⁠522. This voluminous work is the translation (by the Père de Mailla) of the Tong-Kien-Kang-Mou, the celebrated abridgment of the great History of Semakouang (AD 1084) and his continuators. ↩
See a free and ample memorial presented by a Mandarin to the emperor Venti (before Christ 180⁠–⁠157), in Du Halde (tom. II, pp. 412⁠–⁠426); from a collection of State papers marked with the red pencil by Kamhi himself (pp. 384⁠–⁠612). Another memorial from the minister of war (Kang-Mou, tom. II, p. 555) supplies some curious circumstances of the manners of the Huns. ↩
A supply of women is mentioned as a customary article of treaty and tribute (Histoire de la conquête de la Chine, par les tartares Mancheoux, tom. I, pp. 186, 187, with the note of the editor). ↩
De Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. II, p. 62. ↩
See the reign of the emperor Wu-ti, in the Kang-Mou, tom. III, pp. 1⁠–⁠98. His various and inconsistent character seems to be impartially drawn. ↩
This expression is used in the memorial to the emperor Venti (Du Halde, tom. II, p. 411). Without adopting the exaggerations of Marco Polo and Isaac Vossius, we may rationally allow for Peking two millions of inhabitants. The cities of the south, which contain the manufactures of China, are still more populous. ↩
See the Kang-Mou, tom. III, p. 150, and the subsequent events under the proper years. This memorable festival is celebrated in the Éloge de la Ville de Moukden et des ses environs, and explained in a note by the Père Gaubil, pp. 89, 90. ↩
This inscription was composed on the spot by Pankou, President of the Tribunal of History (Kang-Mou, tom. III, p. 392). Similar monuments have been discovered in many parts of Tartary (Histoire des Huns, tom. II, p. 122). ↩
M. de Guignes (tom. I, p. 189) has inserted a short account of the Sienpi. ↩
The era of the Huns is placed, by the Chinese, 1210 years before Christ. But the series of their kings does not commence till the year 230 (Histoire des Huns, tom. II, pp. 21, 123). ↩
The various accidents, the downfall, and the flight of the Huns are related in the Kang-Mou, tom. III, pp. 88, 91, 95, 139, etc. The small numbers of each horde may be due to their losses and divisions. ↩
M. de Guignes has skilfully traced the footsteps of the Huns through the vast deserts of Tartary (tom. II, pp. 123, 277, etc., 325, etc.). ↩
The Armenian authors often mention this people under the name of Hepthal. Saint-Martin considers that the name of Nepthalites is an error of a copyist. In Procopius they are Ἐφθαλίται. Saint-Martin IV 254. —⁠M. ↩
Mohammed, sultan of Carizme, reigned in Sogdiana when it was invaded (AD 1218) by Zingis and his Moguls. The Oriental historians (see d’Herbelot, Pétis de la Croix, etc.) celebrate the populous cities which he ruined, and the fruitful country which he desolated. In the next century, the same provinces of Chorasmia and Mawaralnahr were described by Abulfeda (Hudson, Geographi Graeci minores, tom. III). Their actual misery may be seen in the Genealogical History of the Tartars, pp. 423⁠–⁠469. ↩
Justin (XLI 6) has left a short abridgment of the Greek kings of Bactriana. To their industry I should ascribe the new and extraordinary trade which transported the merchandises of India into Europe by the Oxus, the Caspian, the Cyrus, the Phasis, and the Euxine. The other ways, both of the land and sea, were possessed by the Seleucides and the Ptolemies. (See De l’esprit des loix, l. XXI.) ↩
Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 3, p. 9. ↩
In the thirteenth century, the monk Gulielmus Rubruquis (who traversed the immense plain of Kipzak, in his journey to the court of the Great Khan) observed the remarkable name of Hungary, with the traces of a common language and origin (Histoire des voyages, tom. VII, p. 269). ↩
Bell (vol. I, pp. 29⁠–⁠34), and the editors of the Genealogical History of the Tartars (p. 539), have described the Calmucks of the Volga in the beginning of the present century. ↩
This great transmigration of 300,000 Calmucks, or Torgouts, happened in the year 1771. The original narrative of Kienlong, the reigning emperor of China, which was intended for the inscription of a column, has been translated by the missionaries of Peking (Mémoires sur la Chine, tom. I, pp. 401⁠–⁠418). The emperor affects the smooth and specious language of the Son of Heaven, and the Father of his People. ↩
The Kang-Mou (tom. III, p. 447) ascribes to their conquests a space of 14,000 lis. According to the present standard, 200 lis (or more accurately 193) are equal to one degree of latitude; and one English mile consequently exceeds three miles of China. But there are strong reasons to believe that the ancient li scarcely equalled one half of the modern. See the elaborate researches of M. d’Anville, a geographer who is not a stranger in any age, or climate of the globe. (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. II, pp. 125⁠–⁠502. Traité des mesures itinéraires, pp. 154⁠–⁠167.) ↩
See Histoire des Huns, tom. II, pp. 125⁠–⁠144. The subsequent history (pp. 145⁠–⁠277) of three or four Hunnic dynasties evidently proves that their martial spirit was not impaired by a long residence in China. ↩
Compare M. Klaproth’s curious speculations on the Alani. He supposes them to have been the people, known by the Chinese, at the time of their first expeditions to the West, under the name of Yath-sai or A-lanna, the Alanân of Persian tradition, as preserved in Ferdowsi; the same, according to Ammianus, with the Massagetae, and with the Albani. The remains of the nation still exist in the Ossetae of Mount Caucasus. Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 174. —⁠M.

Compare Paul Joseph Shafarik, Slawische alterthümer I, p. 350. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Utque hominibus quietis et placidis otium est voluptabile, ita illos pericula juvent et bella. Judicatur ibi beatus qui in proelio profuderit animam: senescentes etiam et fortuitis mortibus mundo digressos, ut degeneres et ignavos, conviciis atrocibus insectantur. [Ammianus XXXI 11. —⁠M.] We must think highly of the conquerors of such men. ↩
On the subject of the Alani, see Ammianus (XXXI 2), Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 24), M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. II, p. 279), and the Genealogical History of the Tartars (tom. II, p. 617). ↩
As we are possessed of the authentic history of the Huns, it would be impertinent to repeat, or to refute, the fables which misrepresent their origin and progress, their passage of the mud or water of the Maeotis, in pursuit of an ox or stag, les Indes qu’ils avoient découvertes, etc. Zosimus, l. IV, p. 224; Sozomen, l. VI c. 37; Procopius, Historia miscella, c. 5; Jornandes, c. 24; Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. 17. ↩
Art added to their native ugliness; in fact, it is difficult to ascribe the proper share in the features of this hideous picture to nature, to the barbarous skill with which they were self-disfigured, or to the terror and hatred of the Romans. Their noses were flattened by their nurses, their cheeks were gashed by an iron instrument, that the scars might look more fearful and prevent the growth of the beard. Jornandes and Sidonius Apollinaris:⁠—

Obtundit teneras circumdata fascia nares,
Ut galeis cedant.

Yet he adds that their forms were robust and manly, their height of a middle size, but, from the habit of riding, disproportioned.

Stant pectora vasta,
Insignes humer, succincta sub ilibus alvus.
Forma quidem pediti media est, procera sed extat
Si cernas equites, sic longi saepe putantur
Si sedeant.

—⁠M. ↩
Prodigiosae formae, et pandi; ut bipedes existimes bestias; vel quales in commarginandis pontibus, effigiati stipites dolantur incompte. Ammianus XXXI 1. Jornandes (c. 24) draws a strong caricature of a Calmuck face. Species pavendâ nigredine⁠ ⁠… quaedam deformis offa, non facies; habensque magis puncta quam lumina. See Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. III, p. 380. ↩
This execrable origin, which Jornandes (c. 24) describes with the rancor of a Goth, might be originally derived from a more pleasing fable of the Greeks (Herodotus, l. IV c. 9, etc.). ↩
The Roxolani may be the fathers of the Ῥῶς, the Russians (d’Anville, L’Empire de Russie, pp. 1⁠–⁠10), whose residence (AD 862) about Novgorod Veliki cannot be very remote from that which the geographer of Ravenna (I 12, IV 4, 46, V 28, 30) assigns to the Roxolani (AD 886).8989 ↩
The text of Ammianus seems to be imperfect or corrupt; but the nature of the ground explains, and almost defines, the Gothic rampart. Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, pp. 444⁠–⁠462. ↩
M. Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VI, p. 407) has conceived a strange idea that Alavivus was the same person as Ulphilas the Gothic bishop; and that Ulphilas, the grandson of a Cappadocian captive, became a temporal prince of the Goths. ↩
Ammianus (XXXI 3) and Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 24) describe the subversion of the Gothic empire by the Huns. ↩
The most probable opinion as to the position of this land is that of M. Malte-Brun. He thinks that Caucaland is the territory of the Cacoenses, placed by Ptolemy (l. III c. 8) towards the Carpathian mountains, on the side of the present Transylvania, and therefore the canton of Cacava, to the south of Hermanstadt, the capital of the principality. Caucaland, it is evident, is the Gothic form of these different names. Saint-Martin IV 103. —⁠M. ↩
The chronology of Ammianus is obscure and imperfect. Tillemont has labored to clear and settle the annals of Valens. ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, p. 223. Sozomen, l. VI c. 38. The Isaurians, each winter, infested the roads of Asia Minor, as far as the neighborhood of Constantinople. Basil, “Epistle CCL” apud Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 106. ↩
Sozomen and Philostorgius say that the bishop Ulphilas was one of these ambassadors. —⁠M. ↩
The passage of the Danube is exposed by Ammianus (XXXI 3, 4), Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 223, 224), Eunapius in Excerpta legationum (pp. 19, 20), and Jornandes (c. 25, 26). Ammianus declares (c. 5) that he means only ispas rerum digerere summitates. But he often takes a false measure of their importance; and his superfluous prolixity is disagreeably balanced by his unseasonable brevity. ↩
Chishull, a curious traveller, has remarked the breadth of the Danube, which he passed to the south of Bucharest, near the conflux of the Argish (p. 77). He admires the beauty and spontaneous plenty of Maesia, or Bulgaria. ↩
Quem si scire velit, Libyci velit aequoris idem
Discere quam multae Zephyro turbentur harenae.

Ammianus has inserted, in his prose, these lines of Virgil (Georgics, l. II 105), originally designed by the poet to express the impossibility of numbering the different sorts of vines. See Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. XIV. ↩
A very curious but obscure passage of Eunapius appears to me to have been misunderstood by M. Mai, to whom we owe its discovery. The substance is as follows: “The Goths transported over the river their native deities, with their priests of both sexes, but concerning their rites they maintained a deep and ‘adamantine silence.’ To the Romans they pretended to be generally Christians, and placed certain persons to represent bishops in a conspicuous manner on their wagons. There was even among them a sort of what are called monks, persons whom it was not difficult to mimic; it was enough to wear black raiment, to be wicked, and held in respect, πονηροῖς τε εἶναι καὶ πιστεύεσθαι.” (Eunapius hated the “black-robed monks,” as appears in another passage, with the cordial detestation of a heathen philosopher.) “Thus, while they faithfully but secretly adhered to their own religion, the Romans were weak enough to suppose them perfect Christians.” Mai, p. 277. Eunapius, edit. Niebuhr, p. 82. —⁠M. ↩
Eunapius and Zosimus curiously specify these articles of Gothic wealth and luxury. Yet it must be presumed that they were the manufactures of the provinces; which the Barbarians had acquired as the spoils of war, or as the gifts or merchandise of peace. ↩
Decem libras; the word silver must be understood. Jornandes betrays the passions and prejudices of a Goth. The servile Greeks, Eunapius8990 and Zosimus, disguise the Roman oppression and execrate the perfidy of the Barbarians. Ammianus, a patriot historian, slightly and reluctantly touches on the odious subject. Jerome, who wrote almost on the spot, is fair, though concise. Per avaritaim Maximi ducis, ad rebellionem fame coacti sunt (in Chronicon). ↩
Ammianus XXXI 4, 5. ↩
Vexillis de more sublatis, auditisque triste sonantibus classicis. Ammianus XXXI 5. These are the rauca cornua of Claudian (In Rufinum II 57), the large horns of the Uri, or wild bull; such as have been more recently used by the Swiss Cantons of Uri and Underwald (Simler, De republicâ Helvetiorum, l. II, p. 201, edit. Fueslino, Tigur, 1734). Their military horn is finely, though perhaps casually, introduced in an original narrative of the battle of Nancy (AD 1477). “Attendant le combat le dit cor fut corné par trois fois, tant que le vent du souffler pouvoit durer: ce qui esbahit fort Monsieur de Bourgoigne; car déjà à Morat l’avoit ouy.” (See the “Pièces Justificatives” in the quarto edition of Philippe de Comines, tom. III, p. 493.) ↩
Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 26, p. 648, edit. Grotius. These splendidi panni (they are comparatively such) are undoubtedly transcribed from the larger histories of Priscus, Ablavius, or Cassiodorus. ↩
Cum populis suis longe ante suscepti. We are ignorant of the precise date and circumstances of their transmigration. ↩
An Imperial manufacture of shields, etc., was established at Hadrianople; and the populace were headed by the Fabricenses, or workmen. (Valesius ad Ammianus XXXI 6.) ↩
Pacem sibi esse cum parietibus memorans. Ammianus XXXI 7. ↩
These mines were in the country of the Bessi, in the ridge of mountains, the Rhodope, that runs between Philippi and Philippopolis; two Macedonian cities, which derived their name and origin from the father of Alexander. From the mines of Thrace he annually received the value, not the weight, of a thousand talents (£200,000); a revenue which paid the phalanx, and corrupted the orators of Greece. See Diodorus Siculus, tom. II l. XVI, p. 88, edit. Wesseling. Godefroy’s Commentary on the Theodosian Code, tom. III, p. 496. Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. I, pp. 676, 857. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 336. ↩
As those unhappy workmen often ran away, Valens had enacted severe laws to drag them from their hiding-places. Codex Theodosianus, l. X tit. XIX leg. 5, 7. ↩
See Ammianus XXXI 5, 6. The historian of the Gothic war loses time and space by an unseasonable recapitulation of the ancient inroads of the Barbarians. ↩
The Itinerary of Antoninus (pp. 226, 227, edit. Wesseling) marks the situation of this place about sixty miles north of Tomi, Ovid’s exile; and the name of Salices (the willows) expresses the nature of the soil. ↩
This circle of wagons, the Carrago, was the usual fortification of the Barbarians (Vegetius, De re militari, l. III c. 10; Valesius ad Ammianus XXXI 7). The practice and the name were preserved by their descendants as late as the fifteenth century. The Charroy, which surrounded the Ost, is a word familiar to the readers of Froissard, or Comines. ↩
Statim ut accensi malleoli. I have used the literal sense of real torches or beacons; but I almost suspect that it is only one of those turgid metaphors, those false ornaments, that perpetually disfigure the style of Ammianus. ↩
Indicant nunc usque albentes ossibus campi. Ammianus XXXI 7. The historian might have viewed these plains either as a soldier or as a traveller. But his modesty has suppressed the adventures of his own life subsequent to the Persian wars of Constantius and Julian. We are ignorant of the time when he quitted the service and retired to Rome, where he appears to have composed his History of his own times. ↩
Ammianus XXXI 8. ↩
The Taifalae, who at this period inhabited the country which now forms the principality of Wallachia, were, in my opinion, the last remains of the great and powerful nation of the Dacians (Daci or Dahae), which has given its name to these regions over which they had ruled so long. The Taifalae passed with the Goths into the territory of the empire. A great number of them entered the Roman service, and were quartered in different provinces. They are mentioned in the Notitia dignitatum omnium, tam civilium quam militarium, imperii Romani. There was a considerable body in the country of the Pictavi, now Poithou. They long retained their manners and language, and caused the name of the Theofalgicus pagus to be given to the district they inhabited. Two places in the department of La Vendée, Tiffanges and La Tiffardière, still preserve evident traces of this denomination. Saint-Martin IV 118. —⁠M. ↩
Hanc Taifalorum gentem turpem, et obscenae vitae flagitiis ita accipimus mersam; ut apud eos nefandi concubitus foedere copulentur mares puberes, aetatis viriditatem in eorum pollutis usibus consumpturi. Porro, siqui jam adultus aprum exceperit solus, vel interemit ursum immanem, colluvione liberatur incesti. Ammianus XXXI 9. Among the Greeks likewise, more especially among the Cretans, the holy bands of friendship were confirmed, and sullied, by unnatural love. ↩
Ammianus XXXI 8, 9. Jerome (tom. I, p. 26) enumerates the nations, and marks a calamitous period of twenty years. This epistle to Heliodorus was composed in the year 397 (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XII, p. 645). ↩
The field of battle, Argentaria or Argentovaria, is accurately fixed by M. d’Anville (Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, pp. 96⁠–⁠99) at twenty-three Gallic leagues, or thirty-four and a half Roman miles, to the south of Strasburg. From its ruins the adjacent town of Colmar has arisen.8991 ↩
The full and impartial narrative of Ammianus (XXXI 10) may derive some additional light from the Epitome de Caesaribus of Victor, the Chronicle of Jerome, and the History of Orosius (l. VII c. 33, p. 552, edit. Havercamp). ↩
Moratus paucissimos dies, seditione popularium levium pulsus. Ammianus XXXI 11. Socrates (l. IV c. 38) supplies the dates and some circumstances.8992 ↩
Vivosque omnes circa Mutinam, Regiumque, et Parmam, Italica oppida, rura culturos exterminavit. Ammianus XXXI 9. Those cities and districts, about ten years after the colony of the Taifalae, appear in a very desolate state. See Muratori, Dissertazioni sopra le antichità Italiane, tom. I Dissertazion XXI, p. 354. ↩
Ammianus XXXI 11. Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 228⁠–⁠230. The latter expatiates on the desultory exploits of Sebastian, and despatches, in a few lines, the important battle of Hadrianople. According to the ecclesiastical critics, who hate Sebastian, the praise of Zosimus is disgrace (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 121). His prejudice and ignorance undoubtedly render him a very questionable judge of merit. ↩
Ammianus (XXXI 12, 13) almost alone describes the councils and actions which were terminated by the fatal battle of Hadrianople. We might censure the vices of his style, the disorder and perplexity of his narrative; but we must now take leave of this impartial historian, and reproach is silenced by our regret for such an irreparable loss. ↩
The difference of the eight miles of Ammianus, and the twelve of Idacius, can only embarrass those critics (Valesius ad loc.), who suppose a great army to be a mathematical point, without space or dimensions. ↩
Nec ulla annalibus, praeter Cannensem pugnam, ita ad internecionem res legitur gesta. Ammianus XXXI 13. According to the grave Polybius, no more than 370 horse and 3,000 foot escaped from the field of Cannae: 10,000 were made prisoners; and the number of the slain amounted to 5,630 horse and 70,000 foot (Polybius, l. III, p. 371, edit. Casaubon, octavo). Livy (XXII 49) is somewhat less bloody: he slaughters only 2,700 horse and 40,000 foot. The Roman army was supposed to consist of 87,200 effective men (XXII 36). ↩
We have gained some faint light from Jerome (tom. I, p. 26 and in Chronicon, p. 188), Victor (in Epitome de Caesaribus), Orosius (l. VII c. 33, p. 554), Jornandes (c. 27), Zosimus (l. IV, p. 230), Socrates (l. IV c. 38), Sozomen (l. VI c. 40), Idacius (in Episcopi chronicon). But their united evidence, if weighed against Ammianus alone, is light and unsubstantial. ↩
Libanius, “De ulciscenda Juliani nece,” c. 3, in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VII, pp. 146⁠–⁠148. ↩
Valens had gained, or rather purchased, the friendship of the Saracens, whose vexatious inroads were felt on the borders of Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. The Christian faith had been lately introduced among a people reserved in a future age to propagate another religion (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 104, 106, 141; Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, p. 593). ↩
Crinitus quidam, nudus omnia praeter pubem, subraucum et lugubre strepens. Ammianus XXXI 16, and Valesius ad loc. The Arabs often fought naked; a custom which may be ascribed to their sultry climate, and ostentatious bravery. The description of this unknown savage is the lively portrait of Derar, a name so dreadful to the Christians of Syria. See Ockley’s History of the Saracens, vol. I, pp. 72, 84, 87. ↩
The series of events may still be traced in the last pages of Ammianus (XXXI 15, 16). Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 227, 231), whom we are now reduced to cherish, misplaces the sally of the Arabs before the death of Valens. Eunapius (in Excerpta legationum, p. 20) praises the fertility of Thrace, Macedonia, etc. ↩
Observe with how much indifference Caesar relates, in the Commentaries of the Gallic War, that he put to death the whole senate of the Veneti, who had yielded to his mercy (III 16); that he labored to extirpate the whole nation of the Eburones (VI 31); that forty thousand persons were massacred at Bourges by the just revenge of his soldiers, who spared neither age nor sex (VII 27), etc. ↩
Such are the accounts of the sack of Magdeburgh, by the ecclesiastic and the fisherman, which Mr. Harte has transcribed (History of Gustavus Adolphus, vol. I, pp. 313⁠–⁠320), with some apprehension of violating the dignity of history. ↩
Et vastatis urbibus, hominibusque interfectis, solitudinem et raritatem bestiarum quoque fieri, et volatilium, pisciumque: testis Illyricum est, testis Thracia, testis in quo ortus sum solum (Pannonia); ubi praeter coelum et terram, et crescentes vepres, et condensa sylvarum cuncta perierunt. Tom. VII, p. 250, ad I Caput Sophonias; and tom. I, p. 26. ↩
Eunapius (in Excerpta legationum, p. 20) foolishly supposes a preternatural growth of the young Goths; that he may introduce Cadmus’s armed men, who sprang from the dragon’s teeth, etc. Such was the Greek eloquence of the times. ↩
Ammianus evidently approves this execution, efficacia velox et salutaris, which concludes his work (XXXI 16). Zosimus, who is curious and copious (l. IV, pp. 233⁠–⁠236), mistakes the date, and labors to find the reason why Julius did not consult the emperor Theodosius, who had not yet ascended the throne of the East. ↩
A life of Theodosius the Great was composed in the last century (Paris, 1679, in quarto; 1680, in duodecimo), to inflame the mind of the young Dauphin with Catholic zeal. The author, Fléchier, afterwards bishop of Nismes, was a celebrated preacher; and his history is adorned, or tainted, with pulpit eloquence; but he takes his learning from Baronius, and his principles from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. ↩
The birth, character, and elevation of Theodosius are marked in Pacatus (in Panegyrici veteres XII 10⁠–⁠12), Themistius (Orationes XIV, p. 182), Zosimus (l. IV, p. 231), Augustine (De civitate Dei V 25), Orosius (l. VII c. 34), Sozomen (l. VII c. 2), Socrates (l. V c. 2), Theodoret (l. V c. 5), Philostorgius (l. IX c. 17, with Godefroy, p. 393), the Epitome de Caesaribus of Victor, and the Chronicles of Prosper, Idacius, and Marcellinus, in the Thesaurus temporum of Scaliger.8993 ↩
Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 716, etc. ↩
Italica, founded by Scipio Africanus for his wounded veterans of Italy. The ruins still appear, about a league above Seville, but on the opposite bank of the river. See the Hispaniae illustratae of Nonius⁠—a short though valuable treatise⁠—c. XVII, pp. 64⁠–⁠67. ↩
I agree with Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 726) in suspecting the royal pedigree, which remained a secret till the promotion of Theodosius. Even after that event the silence of Pacatus outweighs the venal evidence of Themistius, Victor, and Claudian, who connect the family of Theodosius with the blood of Trajan and Hadrian. ↩
Pacatas compares, and consequently prefers, the youth of Theodosius to the military education of Alexander, Hannibal, and the second Africanus, who, like him, had served under their fathers (XII 8). ↩
Ammianus (XXIX 6) mentions this victory of Theodosius Junior: Dux Moesiae, primâ etiam tum lanugine juvenis, princeps postea perspectissimus. The same fact is attested by Themistius and Zosimus; but Theodoret (l. V c. 5), who adds some curious circumstances, strangely applies it to the time of the interregnum. ↩
Pacatus (in Panegyrici veteres XII 9) prefers the rustic life of Theodosius to that of Cincinnatus; the one was the effect of choice, the other of poverty. ↩
M. d’Anville (Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 25) has fixed the situation of Caucha, or Coca, in the old province of Gallicia, where Zosimus and Idacius have placed the birth, or patrimony, of Theodosius. ↩
Let us hear Ammianus himself. Haec, ut miles quondam et Graecus, a principatu Caesaris Nervae exorsus, adusque Valentis interitum, pro virium explicavi mensurâ: opus veritatem professum nunquam, ut arbitror, sciens, silentio ausus corrumpere vel mendacio. Scribant reliqua potiores aetate, doctrinisque florentes. Quos id, si libuerit, aggressuros, procudere linguas ad majores moneo stilos. Ammianus XXXI 16. The first thirteen books, a superficial epitome of two hundred and fifty-seven years, are now lost: the last eighteen, which contain no more than twenty-five years, still preserve the copious and authentic history of his own times. ↩
Ammianus was the last subject of Rome who composed a profane history in the Latin language. The East, in the next century, produced some rhetorical historians, Zosimus, Olympiodorus, Malchus, Candidus, etc. See Gerard Vossius, De historicis Graecis, l. II c. 18, De historicis Latinis, l. II c. 10, etc. ↩
Chrysostom, tom. I, p. 344, edit. Montfaucon. I have verified and examined this passage; but I should never, without the aid of Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 152), have detected an historical anecdote in a strange medley of moral and mystic exhortations, addressed by the preacher of Antioch to a young widow. ↩
Eunapius, in Excerpta legationum, p. 21. ↩
See Godefroy’s “Chronology of the Laws.” Codex Theodosianus, tom. I Prolegomena, p. XCIX⁠–⁠CIV. ↩
Most writers insist on the illness and long repose of Theodosius at Thessalonica: Zosimus, to diminish his glory; Jornandes, to favor the Goths; and the ecclesiastical writers, to introduce his baptism. ↩
Compare Themistius (Orationes XIV, p. 181) with Zosimus (l. IV, p. 232), Jornandes (c. XXVII, p. 649), and the prolix commentary of M. Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VI, pp. 477⁠–⁠552). The Chronicles of Idacius and Marcellinus allude, in general terms, to magna certamina, magna multaque praelia. The two epithets are not easily reconciled. ↩
Zosimus (l. IV, p. 232) styles him a Scythian, a name which the more recent Greeks seem to have appropriated to the Goths. ↩
The reader will not be displeased to see the original words of Jornandes or the author whom he transcribed. Regiam urbem ingressus est, miransque, En, inquit, cerno quod saepe incredulus audiebam, famam videlicet tantae urbis. Et huc illuc oculos volvens, nunc situm urbis, commeatumque navium, nunc moenia clara prospectans, miratur; populosque diversarum gentium, quasi fonte in uno e diversis partibus scaturiente undâ, sic quoque militem ordinatum aspiciens; Deus, inquit, sine dubio est terrenus Imperator, et quisquis adversus eum manum moverit, ipse sui sanguinis reus existit. Jornandes (c. XXVIII, p. 650) proceeds to mention his death and funeral. ↩
Jornandes, c. XXVIII, p. 650. Even Zosimus (l. IV, p. 246) is compelled to approve the generosity of Theodosius, so honorable to himself, and so beneficial to the public. ↩
The short, but authentic, hints in the Fasti of Idacius (Thesaurus temporum, complectens Eusebi pamphili chronicon Scaliger, p. 52) are stained with contemporary passion. The fourteenth oration of Themistius is a compliment to peace, and the consul Saturninus (AD 383). ↩
Ἔθνος τὸ Σκύθικον πᾶσιν ἄγνωστον. Zosimus, l. IV, p. 252. ↩
I am justified, by reason and example, in applying this Indian name to the μονόξυλα of the Barbarians, the single trees hollowed into the shape of a boat, πληθεῖ μονοξύλων ἐμβιβάσαντες. Zosimus, l. IV, p. 253.

Ausi Danubium quondam tranare Gruthungi
In lintres fregere nemus: ter mille ruebant
Per fluvium plenae cuneis immanibus alni.
Claudian, in “IV Consulatu Honorii Augusti” 623.

↩
Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 252⁠–⁠255. He too frequently betrays his poverty of judgment by disgracing the most serious narratives with trifling and incredible circumstances. ↩
… Odothaei Regis opima
Retulit⁠ ⁠…
Claudian, in “IV Consulatu Honorii Augusti” 632.

The opima were the spoils which a Roman general could only win from the king, or general, of the enemy whom he had slain with his own hands; and no more than three such examples are celebrated in the victorious ages of Rome. ↩
See Themistius, Orationes XVI, p. 211. Claudian (In Eutropium, l. II 152) mentions the Phrygian colony:⁠—

… Ostrogothis colitur mistisque Gruthungis
Phyrx ager⁠ ⁠…

and then proceeds to name the rivers of Lydia, the Pactolus and Hermus. ↩
Compare Jornandes (c. XX 27), who marks the condition and number of the Gothic Foederati, with Zosimus (l. IV, p. 258), who mentions their golden collars; and Pacatus (in Panegyrici veteres XII 37), who applauds, with false or foolish joy, their bravery and discipline. ↩
Amator pacis generisque Gothorum, is the praise bestowed by the Gothic historian (c. XXIX), who represents his nation as innocent, peaceable men, slow to anger, and patient of injuries. According to Livy, the Romans conquered the world in their own defence. ↩
Besides the partial invectives of Zosimus (always discontented with the Christian reigns), see the grave representations which Synesius addresses to the emperor Arcadius (“De Regno,” pp. 25, 26, edit. Petavius). The philosophic bishop of Cyrene was near enough to judge; and he was sufficiently removed from the temptation of fear or flattery. ↩
Themistius (Orationes XVI, pp. 211, 212) composes an elaborate and rational apology, which is not, however, exempt from the puerilities of Greek rhetoric. Orpheus could only charm the wild beasts of Thrace; but Theodosius enchanted the men and women whose predecessors in the same country had torn Orpheus in pieces, etc. ↩
Constantinople was deprived, half a day, of the public allowance of bread, to expiate the murder of a Gothic soldier: κινοῦντες τὸ Σκυθικόν was the guilt of the people. Libanius, “Oratio XII,” p. 394, edit. Morelli. ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 267⁠–⁠271. He tells a long and ridiculous story of the adventurous prince who roved the country with only five horsemen, of a spy whom they detected, whipped, and killed in an old woman’s cottage, etc. ↩
Ἐριουλφος. Eunapius. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Eunapius (in Excerpta legationum, pp. 21, 22) with Zosimus (l. IV, p. 279). The difference of circumstances and names must undoubtedly be applied to the same story. Fravitta, or Travitta, was afterwards consul (AD 401), and still continued his faithful service to the eldest son of Theodosius (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 467). ↩
Les Goths ravagèrent tout depuis le Danube jusqu’au Bosphore; exterminèrent Valens et son armée; et ne repassèrent le Danube, que pour abandonner l’affreuse solitude qu’ils avoient faite (Oeuvres complètes de Montesquieu, tom. III, p. 479; Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. XVII). The president Montesquieu seems ignorant that the Goths, after the defeat of Valens, never abandoned the Roman territory. It is now thirty years, says Claudian (De bello Getico 166, etc., AD 404).

Ex quo jam patrios gens haec oblita Triones
Atque Istrum transvecta semel, vestigia fixit
Threicio funesta solo⁠ ⁠…

The error is inexcusable; since it disguises the principal and immediate cause of the fall of the Western empire of Rome. ↩
Valentinian was less attentive to the religion of his son, since he entrusted the education of Gratian to Ausonius, a professed Pagan (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XV, pp. 125⁠–⁠138). The poetical fame of Ausonius condemns the taste of his age. ↩
Ausonius was successively promoted to the Praetorian prefecture of Italy (AD 377) and of Gaul (AD 378); and was at length invested with the consulship (AD 379). He expressed his gratitude in a servile and insipid piece of flattery (“Gratiarum Actio pro Consulatu,” pp. 699⁠–⁠736), which has survived more worthy productions. ↩
Disputare de principali judicio non oportet. Sacrilegii enim instar est dubitare, an is dignus sit, quem elegerit imperator. Codex Justinianus, l. IX tit. XXIX leg. 3. This convenient law was revived and promulgated after the death of Gratian by the feeble court of Milan. ↩
Ambrose composed, for his instruction, a theological treatise on the faith of the Trinity; and Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 158, 169) ascribes to the archbishop the merit of Gratian’s intolerant laws. ↩
Qui divinae legis sanctitatem nesciendo omittunt, aut negligendo violant, et offendunt, sacrilegium committunt. Codex Justinianus, l. IX tit. XXIX leg. 1. Theodosius indeed may claim his share in the merit of this comprehensive law. ↩
Ammianus (XXXI 10) and the younger Victor acknowledge the virtues of Gratian; and accuse, or rather lament, his degenerate taste. The odious parallel of Commodus is saved by “licet incruentus”; and perhaps Philostorgius (l. X c. 10, and Godefroy, p. 412) had guarded with some similar reserve the comparison of Nero. ↩
Zosimus (l. IV, p. 247) and the younger Victor ascribe the revolution to the favor of the Alani and the discontent of the Roman troops. Dum exercitum negligeret, et paucos ex Alanis, quos ingenti auro ad sa transtulerat, anteferret veteri ac Romano militi. ↩
Britannia fertilis provincia tyrannorum, is a memorable expression used by Jerome in the Pelagian controversy, and variously tortured in the disputes of our national antiquaries. The revolutions of the last age appeared to justify the image of the sublime Bossuet, “cette ile, plus orageuse que les mers qui l’environment.” ↩
Zosimus says of the British soldiers, τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων πλέοι αὐθαδἔιᾳ καὶ θυμῶ νικωμἐνους. ↩
Helena, the daughter of Eudda. Her chapel may still be seen at Caer-segont, now Caer-narvon (Carte’s History of England, vol. I, p. 168, from Henry Rowland’s Mona antiqua restaurata). The prudent reader may not perhaps be satisfied with such Welsh evidence. ↩
Camden (vol. I Ιntroduction, p. CI) appoints him governor of Britain; and the father of our antiquities is followed, as usual, by his blind progeny. Pacatus and Zosimus had taken some pains to prevent this error, or fable; and I shall protect myself by their decisive testimonies. Regali habitû exulem suum, illi exules orbis induerunt (in Panegyrici veteres XII 23), and the Greek historian still less equivocally αὐτὸς (Maximus) δὲ οὐδὲ εις ἀρχὴν ἔντιμον ἔτυχε προελθών (l. IV, p. 248). ↩
Sulpicius Severus, “Dialogue II” 7; Orosius, l. VII c. 34, p. 556. They both acknowledge (Sulpicius had been his subject) his innocence and merit. It is singular enough that Maximus should be less favorably treated by Zosimus, the partial adversary of his rival. ↩
Archbishop Usher (Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates, pp. 107, 108) has diligently collected the legends of the island and the continent. The whole emigration consisted of 30,000 soldiers and 100,000 plebeians, who settled in Bretagne. Their destined brides, St. Ursula with 11,000 noble and 60,000 plebeian virgins, mistook their way, landed at Cologne, and were all most cruelly murdered by the Huns. But the plebeian sisters have been defrauded of their equal honors; and what is still harder, John Trithemius presumes to mention the children of these British virgins. ↩
Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 248, 249) has transported the death of Gratian from Lugdunum in Gaul (Lyons) to Singidunum in Maesia. Some hints may be extracted from the Chronicles; some lies may be detected in Sozomen (l. VII c. 13) and Socrates (l. V c. 11). Ambrose is our most authentic evidence (tom. I Enarratio in Psalm 61, p. 961, tom. II, “Epistle XXIV,” p. 888, etc., and “De Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio” 28, p. 1182). ↩
Pacatus (XII 28) celebrates his fidelity; while his treachery is marked in Prosper’s Chronicle as the cause of the ruin of Gratian.8994 Ambrose, who has occasion to exculpate himself, only condemns the death of Vallio, a faithful servant of Gratian (tom. II epistle XXIV, p. 891, edit. Benedicti).8995 ↩
He protested, nullum ex adversariis nisi in acie occubuisse. Sulpicius Severus in Vita Sancti Martini, c. 23. The orator of Theodosius bestows reluctant, and therefore weighty, praise on his clemency. Si cui ille, pro ceteris sceleribus suis, minus crudelis fuisse videtur (Panegyrici veteres XII 28). ↩
Ambrose mentions the laws of Gratian, quas non abrogavit hostis (tom. II epistle XVII, p. 827). ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 251, 252. We may disclaim his odious suspicions; but we cannot reject the treaty of peace which the friends of Theodosius have absolutely forgotten, or slightly mentioned. ↩
Their oracle, the archbishop of Milan, assigns to his pupil Gratian a high and respectable place in heaven (tom. II, “De Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio,” p. 1193). ↩
For the baptism of Theodosius, see Sozomen (l. VII c. 4), Socrates (l. V c. 6), and Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 728). ↩
Ascolius, or Acholius, was honored by the friendship and the praises of Ambrose; who styles him, murus fidei atque sanctitatis (tom. II epistle XV, p. 820); and afterwards celebrates his speed and diligence in running to Constantinople, Italy, etc. (“Epistle XVI,” p. 822); a virtue which does not appertain either to a wall, or a bishop. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. I leg. 2, with Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. VI, pp. 5⁠–⁠9. Such an edict deserved the warmest praises of Baronius, auream sanctionem, edictum pium et salutare.⁠—Sic itur ad astra. ↩
Sozomen, l. VII c. 6. Theodoret, l. V c. 16. Tillemont is displeased (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, pp. 627, 628) with the terms of “rustic bishop,” “obscure city.” Yet I must take leave to think that both Amphilochius and Iconium were objects of inconsiderable magnitude in the Roman empire. ↩
Sozomen, l. VII c. V. Socrates, l. V c. 7. Marcellinus in Chronicon. The account of forty years must be dated from the election or intrusion of Eusebius, who wisely exchanged the bishopric of Nicomedia for the throne of Constantinople. ↩
See Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 71. The thirty-third Oration of Gregory Nazianzen affords indeed some similar ideas, even some still more ridiculous; but I have not yet found the words of this remarkable passage, which I allege on the faith of a correct and liberal scholar. ↩
See the thirty-second Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, and the account of his own life, which he has composed in 1,800 iambics. Yet every physician is prone to exaggerate the inveterate nature of the disease which he has cured. ↩
I confess myself deeply indebted to the two lives of Gregory Nazianzen, composed, with very different views, by Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IX, pp. 305⁠–⁠560, 692⁠–⁠731) and Leclerc (Bibliothèque universelle, tom. XVIII, pp. 1⁠–⁠128). ↩
Unless Gregory Nazianzen mistook thirty years in his own age; he was born, as well as his friend Basil, about the year 329. The preposterous chronology of Suidas has been graciously received, because it removes the scandal of Gregory’s father, a saint likewise, begetting children after he became a bishop (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IX, pp. 693⁠–⁠697). ↩
Gregory’s poem on his own life contains some beautiful lines (tom. II, p. 8), which burst from the heart, and speak the pangs of injured and lost friendship.

… πόνοι κοίοι λόγων,
Ὁμόστεγός τε καὶ συνέστιος βίος,
Νοῦς είς ἐν ἀμφοῖν⁠ ⁠…
Διεσκέδασται πάντα, κἀῤῥιπται χαμαὶ,
Αὖραι φέρουσαι τὰς παλαιὰς ἔλπιδας.

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

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

Shakespeare had never read the poems of Gregory Nazianzen; he was ignorant of the Greek language; but his mother tongue, the language of Nature, is the same in Cappadocia and in Britain. ↩
This unfavorable portrait of Sasima is drawn by Gregory Nazianzen (tom. II, “De Vita Suâ,” pp. 7, 8). Its precise situation, forty-nine miles from Archelais, and thirty-two from Tyana, is fixed in the Itinerary of Antoninus (p. 144, edit. Wesseling). ↩
The name of Nazianzus has been immortalized by Gregory; but his native town, under the Greek or Roman title of Diocaesarea (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IX, p. 692), is mentioned by Pliny the Elder (VI 3), Ptolemy, and Hierocles (Wesseling, Intineraria Antonini Augusti, p. 709). It appears to have been situate on the edge of Isauria. ↩
See du Cange, Constantinopolis Christiana, l. IV, pp. 141, 142. The θεία δύναμις of Sozomen (l. VII c. 5) is interpreted to mean the Virgin Mary. ↩
Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IX, p. 432, etc.) diligently collects, enlarges, and explains the oratorical and poetical hints of Gregory himself. ↩
He pronounced an oration (tom. I, “Oratio XXIII,” p. 409) in his praise; but after their quarrel the name of Maximus was changed into that of Heron (see Jerome, tom. I in Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, p. 301). I touch slightly on these obscure and personal squabbles. ↩
Under the modest emblem of a dream, Gregory (tom. II, “Carmen IX,” p. 78) describes his own success with some human complacency. Yet it should seem, from his familiar conversation with his auditor St. Jerome (tom. I, “Epistola ad Nepotian,” p. 14), that the preacher understood the true value of popular applause. ↩
Lachrymae auditorum laudes tuae sint, is the lively and judicious advice of St. Jerome. ↩
Socrates (l. V c. 7) and Sozomen (l. VII c. 5) relate the evangelical words and actions of Damophilus without a word of approbation. He considered, says Socrates, that it is difficult to resist the powerful, but it was easy, and would have been profitable, to submit. ↩
See Gregory Nazianzen, tom. II, “De Vita Suâ,” pp. 21, 22. For the sake of posterity, the bishop of Constantinople records a stupendous prodigy. In the month of November, it was a cloudy morning, but the sun broke forth when the procession entered the church. ↩
Of the three ecclesiastical historians, Theodoret alone (l. V c. 2) has mentioned this important commission of Sapor, which Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 728) judiciously removes from the reign of Gratian to that of Theodosius. ↩
I do not reckon Philostorgius, though he mentions (l. IX c. 19) the expulsion of Damophilus. The Eunomian historian has been carefully strained through an orthodox sieve. ↩
Leclerc has given a curious extract (Bibliothèque universelle, tom. XVIII, pp. 91⁠–⁠105) of the theological sermons which Gregory Nazianzen pronounced at Constantinople against the Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, etc. He tells the Macedonians, who deified the Father and the Son, without the Holy Ghost, that they might as well be styled Tritheists as Ditheists. Gregory himself was almost a Tritheist; and his monarchy of heaven resembles a well-regulated aristocracy. ↩
The first general council of Constantinople now triumphs in the Vatican; but the popes had long hesitated, and their hesitation perplexes and almost staggers the humble Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IX, pp. 499, 500). ↩
Before the death of Meletius, six or eight of his most popular ecclesiastics, among whom was Flavian, had abjured, for the sake of peace, the bishopric of Antioch (Sozomen, l. VII c. 3, 11; Socrates, l. V c. V). Tillemont thinks it his duty to disbelieve the story; but he owns that there are many circumstances in the life of Flavian which seem inconsistent with the praises of Chrysostom and the character of a saint (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. X, p. 541). ↩
Consult Gregory Nazianzen, “De Vita Suâ,” tom. II, pp. 25⁠–⁠28. His general and particular opinion of the clergy and their assemblies may be seen in verse and prose (tom. I, “Oratio I,” p. 33. “Epistle LV,” p. 814, tom. II, “Carmen X,” p. 81). Such passages are faintly marked by Tillemont, and fairly produced by Leclerc. ↩
See Gregory, tom. II, “De Vita Suâ,” pp. 28⁠–⁠31. The fourteenth, twenty-seventh, and thirty-second orations were pronounced in the several stages of this business. The peroration of the last (tom. I, p. 528), in which he takes a solemn leave of men and angels, the city and the emperor, the East and the West, etc., is pathetic, and almost sublime. ↩
The whimsical ordination of Nectarius is attested by Sozomen (l. VII c. 8); but Tillemont observes (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IX, p. 719), Après tout, ce narré de Sozomène est si honteux, pour tous ceux qu’il y mêle, et surtout pour Théodose, qu’il vaut mieux travailler à le détruire, qu’à le soutenir; an admirable canon of criticism! ↩
I can only be understood to mean that such was his natural temper when it was not hardened, or inflamed, by religious zeal. From his retirement, he exhorts Nectarius to prosecute the heretics of Constantinople. ↩
See the Theodosian Code, l. XVI tit. V leg. 6⁠–⁠23, with Godefroy’s commentary on each law, and his general summary, or Paratitlon, tom. VI, pp. 104⁠–⁠110. ↩
They always kept their Easter, like the Jewish Passover, on the fourteenth day of the first moon after the vernal equinox; and thus pertinaciously opposed the Roman Church and Nicene synod, which had fixed Easter to a Sunday. Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, l. XX c. 5, vol. II, p. 309, folio edition. ↩
Sozomen, l. VII c. 12. ↩
See the Sacred History of Sulpicius Severus (l. II, pp. 437⁠–⁠452, edit. Lugduni Batavorum 1647), a correct and original writer. Dr. Lardner (The Credibility of the Gospel History, part II vol. IX, pp. 256⁠–⁠350) has labored this article with pure learning, good sense, and moderation. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, pp. 491⁠–⁠527) has raked together all the dirt of the fathers⁠—a useful scavenger! ↩
Severus Sulpicius mentions the arch-heretic with esteem and pity. Faelix profecto, si non pravo studio corrupisset optimum ingenium; prorsus multa in eo animi et corporis bona cerneres (Historia sacra, l. II, p. 439). Even Jerome (tom. I in Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, p. 302) speaks with temper of Priscillian and Latronian. ↩
The bishopric (in Old Castile) is now worth 20,000 ducats a year (Busching’s A New System of Geography, vol. II, p. 308) and is therefore much less likely to produce the author of a new heresy. ↩
Exprobrabatur mulieri viduae nimia religio, et diligentius culta divinitas (Pacatus in Panegyrici veteres XII 29). Such was the idea of a humane, though ignorant, polytheist. ↩
One of them was sent in Sillinam insulam quae ultra Britanniam est. What must have been the ancient condition of the rocks of Scilly (Camden’s Britannia, vol. II, p. 1519)? ↩
The scandalous calumnies of Augustine, Pope Leo, etc., which Tillemont swallows like a child, and Lardner refutes like a man, may suggest some candid suspicions in favor of the older Gnostics. ↩
Ambrose, tom. II, “Epistle XXIV,” p. 891. ↩
In the Sacred History, and the Life of St. Martin, Sulpicius Severus uses some caution; but he declares himself more freely in the Dialogues (III 15). Martin was reproved, however, by his own conscience, and by an angel; nor could he afterwards perform miracles with so much ease. ↩
The Catholic presbyter (Sulpicius Severus, l. II, p. 448) and the pagan orator (Pacatus in Panegyrici veteres XII 29) reprobate, with equal indignation, the character and conduct of Ithacius. ↩
The Life of St. Martin, and the Dialogues concerning his miracles, contain facts adapted to the grossest barbarism, in a style not unworthy of the Augustan age. So natural is the alliance between good taste and good sense that I am always astonished by this contrast. ↩
The short and superficial Life of St. Ambrose by his deacon Paulinus (Appendix ad edit. Benedicti, pp. i⁠–⁠xv) has the merit of original evidence. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. X, pp. 78⁠–⁠306) and the Benedictine editors (pp. XXXI⁠—lxiii) have labored with their usual diligence. ↩
Ambrose himself (tom. II, “Epistle XXIV,” pp. 888⁠–⁠891) gives the emperor a very spirited account of his own embassy. ↩
His own representation of his principles and conduct (tom. II Epistles XX, XXI, XXII, pp. 852⁠–⁠880) is one of the curious monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity. It contains two letters to his sister Marcellina, with a petition to Valentinian and the sermon “De Basilicis non Madendis.” ↩
Cardinal de Retz had a similar message from the queen, to request that he would appease the tumult of Paris. It was no longer in his power, etc. A quoi j’ajoutai tout ce que vous pouvez vous imaginer de respect, de douleur, de regret, et de soumission, etc. (Mémoires, tom. I, p. 140.) Certainly I do not compare either the causes or the men; yet the coadjutor himself had some idea (p. 84) of imitating St. Ambrose. ↩
Sozomen alone (l. VII c. 13) throws this luminous fact into a dark and perplexed narrative. ↩
Excubabat pia plebs in ecclesiâ, mori parata cum episcopo suo.⁠ ⁠… Nos, adhuc frigidi, excitabamur tamen civitate attonitâ atque turbatâ. Augustine, Confessiones, l. IX c. 7. ↩
Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. II, pp. 78, 498. Many churches in Italy, Gaul, etc., were dedicated to these unknown martyrs, of whom St. Gervaise seems to have been more fortunate than his companion. ↩
Invenimus mirae magnitudinis viros duos, ut prisca aetas ferebat. Tom. II “Epistle XXII,” p. 875. The size of these skeletons was fortunately, or skilfully, suited to the popular prejudice of the gradual decrease of the human stature, which has prevailed in every age since the time of Homer.

Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris.

↩
Ambrose, tom. II, “Epistle XXII,” p. 875. Augustine, Confessiones, l. IX c. 7, De civitate Dei, l. XXII c. 8. Paulinus in Vita Sancti Ambrosii, c. 14, in Appendix Benedicti, p. 4. The blind man’s name was Severus; he touched the holy garment, recovered his sight, and devoted the rest of his life (at least twenty-five years) to the service of the church. I should recommend this miracle to our divines if it did not prove the worship of relics as well as the Nicene creed. ↩
Paulinus, in Vita Sancti Ambrosii, c. 5, in Appendix Benedicti, p. 5. ↩
Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. X, pp. 190, 750. He partially allow the mediation of Theodosius, and capriciously rejects that of Maximus, though it is attested by Prosper, Sozomen, and Theodoret. ↩
The modest censure of Sulpicius (“Dialogue III” 15) inflicts a much deeper wound than the feeble declamation of Pacatus (XII 25, 26). ↩
Esto tutior adversus hominem, pacis involucro tegentem, was the wise caution of Ambrose (tom. II, p. 891) after his return from his second embassy. ↩
Baronius (“AD 387,” No. 63) applies to this season of public distress some of the penitential sermons of the archbishop. ↩
The flight of Valentinian and the love of Theodosius for his sister are related by Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 263, 264). Tillemont produces some weak and ambiguous evidence to antedate the second marriage of Theodosius (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 740), and consequently to refute ces contes de Zosime, qui seroient trop contraires à la piété de Théodose. ↩
Aemonah, Laybach. Siscia, Sciszek. —⁠M. ↩
See Godefroy’s “Chronology of the Laws,” Codex Theodosianus, tom. I, p. CXIX. ↩
Besides the hints which may be gathered from chronicles and ecclesiastical history, Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 259⁠–⁠267), Orosius (l. VII c. 35), and Pacatus (in Panegyrici veteres XII 30⁠–⁠47) supply the loose and scanty materials of this civil war. Ambrose (tom. II, “Epistle XL,” pp. 952, 953) darkly alludes to the well-known events of a magazine surprised, an action at Poetovio, a Sicilian, perhaps a naval, victory, etc. Ausonius (p. 256, edit. Tollius) applauds the peculiar merit and good fortune of Aquileia. ↩
Quam promptum laudare principem, tam tutum siluisse de principe (Pacatus in Panegyrici veteres XII 2). Latinus Pacatus Drepanius, a native of Gaul, pronounced this oration at Rome (AD 388). He was afterwards proconsul of Africa; and his friend Ausonius praises him as a poet second only to Virgil. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 303. ↩
See the fair portrait of Theodosius by the younger Victor; the strokes are distinct, and the colors are mixed. The praise of Pacatus is too vague; and Claudian always seems afraid of exalting the father above the son. ↩
Ambrose, tom. II, “Epistle XL,” p. 55. Pacatus, from the want of skill, or of courage, omits this glorious circumstance. ↩
Pacatus in Panegyrici veteres XII 20. ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 271, 272. His partial evidence is marked by an air of candor and truth. He observes these vicissitudes of sloth and activity, not as a vice, but as a singularity in the character of Theodosius. ↩
This choleric temper is acknowledged and excused by Victor. Sed habes (says Ambrose, in decent and manly language, to his sovereign) naturae impetum, quem si quis lenire velit, cito vertes ad misericordiam: si quis stimulet, in magis exsuscitas, ut eum revocare vix possis (tom. II, “Epistle LI,” p. 998). Theodosius (Claudian in “IV Consulatu Honorii Augusti” 266, etc.) exhorts his son to moderate his anger. ↩
The Christians and Pagans agreed in believing that the sedition of Antioch was excited by the demons. A gigantic woman (says Sozomen, l. VII c. 23) paraded the streets with a scourge in her hand. An old man, says Libanius (“Oratio XII,” p. 396), transformed himself into a youth, then a boy, etc. ↩
Zosimus, in his short and disingenuous account (l. IV, pp. 258, 259), is certainly mistaken in sending Libanius himself to Constantinople. His own orations fix him at Antioch. ↩
Libanius (“Oratio I,” p. 6, edit. Venetiis) declares that, under such a reign, the fear of a massacre was groundless and absurd, especially in the emperor’s absence; for his presence, according to the eloquent slave, might have given a sanction to the most bloody acts. ↩
Laodicea, on the seacoast, sixty-five miles from Antioch (see Noris, De epochis Syro-Macedonum Dissertatio III, p. 230). The Antiochians were offended that the dependent city of Seleucia should presume to intercede for them. ↩
As the days of the tumult depend on the movable festival of Easter, they can only be determined by the previous determination of the year. The year 387 has been preferred, after a laborious inquiry, by Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 741⁠–⁠744) and Montfaucon (Chrysostom, tom. XIII, pp. 105⁠–⁠110). ↩
Chrysostom opposes their courage, which was not attended with much risk, to the cowardly flight of the Cynics. ↩
The sedition of Antioch is represented in a lively and almost dramatic manner by two orators who had their respective shares of interest and merit. See Libanius (Oratios XIV, XV, pp. 389⁠–⁠420, edit. Morelli; “Oratio I,” pp. 1⁠–⁠14, Venetiis, 1754) and the twenty orations of St. John Chrysostom, “De Statuis” (tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠225, edit. Montfaucon). I do not pretend to much personal acquaintance with Chrysostom; but Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 263⁠–⁠283) and Godefroy Hermant (Vie de Saint Jean Chrysostome, tom. I, pp. 137⁠–⁠224) had read him with pious curiosity and diligence. ↩
The original evidence of Ambrose (tom. II, “Epistle LI,” p. 998), Augustine (De civitate Dei V 26), and Paulinus (in Vita Sancti Ambrosii, c. 24) is delivered in vague expressions of horror and pity. It is illustrated by the subsequent and unequal testimonies of Sozomen (l. VII c. 25), Theodoret (l. V c. 17), Theophanes (Chronographia, p. 62), Cedrenus (p. 317), and Zonaras (tom. II l. XIII, p. 34). Zosimus alone, the partial enemy of Theodosius, most unaccountably passes over in silence the worst of his actions. ↩
Raeca, on the Euphrates. —⁠M. ↩
See the whole transaction in Ambrose (tom. II Epistles XL, XLI, pp. 946⁠–⁠956), and his biographer Paulinus (c. 23). Bayle and Barbeyrac (Morale des Pères, c. XVII, p. 325, etc.) have justly condemned the archbishop. ↩
His sermon is a strange allegory of Jeremiah’s rod, of an almond tree, of the woman who washed and anointed the feet of Christ. But the peroration is direct and personal. ↩
Hodie, Episcope, de me proposuisti. Ambrose modestly confessed it; but he sternly reprimanded Timasius, general of the horse and foot, who had presumed to say that the monks of Callinicum deserved punishment. ↩
Yet, five years afterwards, when Theodosius was absent from his spiritual guide, he tolerated the Jews and condemned the destruction of their synagogues. Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. VIII leg. 9, with Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. VI, p. 225. ↩
Ambrose, tom. II, “Epistle LI,” pp. 997⁠–⁠1001. His epistle is a miserable rhapsody on a noble subject. Ambrose could act better than he could write. His compositions are destitute of taste or genius; without the spirit of Tertullian, the copious elegance of Lactantius, the lively wit of Jerome, or the grave energy of Augustine. ↩
According to the discipline of St. Basil (Canon LVI), the voluntary homicide was four years a mourner; five a hearer; seven in a prostrate state; and four in a standing posture. I have the original (Beveridge, Pandectae, tom. II, pp. 47⁠–⁠151) and a translation (Chardon, Histoire des sacremens, tom. IV, pp. 219⁠–⁠277) of the Canonical Epistles of St. Basil. ↩
The penance of Theodosius is authenticated by Ambrose (tom. VI, “De Obitu Theodosii,” c. 34, p. 1207), Augustine (De civitate Dei V 26), and Paulinus (in Vita Sancti Ambrosii, c. 24). Socrates is ignorant; Sozomen (l. VII c. 25) concise; and the copious narrative of Theodoret (l. V c. 18) must be used with precaution. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. XL leg. 13. The date and circumstances of this law are perplexed with difficulties; but I feel myself inclined to favor the honest efforts of Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 721) and Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. I, p. 578). ↩
Un prince qui aime la religion, et qui la craint, est un lion qui cède à la main qui le flatte, ou à la voix qui l’appaise. De l’esprit des loix, l. XXIV c. 2. ↩
Τοῦτο περὶ τοὺς εὐεργέτας καθῆκον ἔδοξεν εἶναι, is the niggard praise of Zosimus himself (l. IV, p. 267). Augustine says, with some happiness of expression, Valentinianum⁠ ⁠… misericordissima veneratione restituit. ↩
Sozomen, l. VII c. 14. His chronology is very irregular. ↩
See Ambrose (tom. II, “De Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio,” c. 15, etc., p. 1178; c. 36, etc., p. 1184). When the young emperor gave an entertainment, he fasted himself; he refused to see a handsome actress, etc. Since he ordered his wild beasts to be killed, it is ungenerous in Philostorgius (l. XI c. 1) to reproach him with the love of that amusement. ↩
Zosimus (l. IV, p. 275) praises the enemy of Theodosius. But he is detested by Socrates (l. V c. 25) and Orosius (l. VII c. 35). ↩
Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 9, p. 165, in the second volume of the Historians of France) has preserved a curious fragment of Sulpicius Alexander, an historian far more valuable than himself. ↩
Godefroy (Dissertationes ad Philostorgius, pp. 429⁠–⁠434) has diligently collected all the circumstances of the death of Valentinian II. The variations and the ignorance of contemporary writers prove that it was secret. ↩
“De Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio,” tom. II, pp. 1173⁠–⁠1196. He is forced to speak a discreet and obscure language; yet he is much bolder than any layman, or perhaps any other ecclesiastic, would have dared to be. ↩
See c. 51, p. 1188, c. 75, p. 1193. Dom Chardon (Histoire des sacremens, tom. I, p. 86), who owns that St. Ambrose most strenuously maintains the indispensable necessity of baptism, labors to reconcile the contradiction. ↩
Quem sibi Germanus famulam delegerat exul, is the contemptuous expression of Claudian (“IV Consulatu Honorii 74). Eugenius professed Christianity; but his secret attachment to Paganism (Sozomen, l. VII c. 22; Philostorgius, l. XI c. 2) is probable in a grammarian, and would secure the friendship of Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 276, 277). ↩
Zosimus (l. IV, p. 278) mentions this embassy; but he is diverted by another story from relating the event. ↩
Συνετάραξεν ἡ τούτου γαμετὴ Γάλλα τὰ βασίλεια τὸν ἀδελφὸν ὀλοφυρομένη. Zosimus, l. IV, p. 277. He afterwards says (p. 280) that Galla died in childbed; and intimates that the affliction of her husband was extreme but short. ↩
Lycopolis is the modern Siut, or Osiot, a town of Said, about the size of St. Denys, which drives a profitable trade with the kingdom of Senaar, and has a very convenient fountain, “cujus potu signa virginitatis eripiuntur.” See d’Anville, Mémoires sur l’Egypte, p. 181. Abulfeda, Descriptio Egypti, p. 14, and the curious αnnotations, pp. 25, 92, of his editor Michaelis. ↩
The life of John of Lycopolis is described by his two friends, Rufinus (l. II c. I, p. 449) and Palladius (Historia Lausiaca, c. 43, p. 738), in Rosweyde’s great Collection of the Vitae Patrum. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. X, pp. 718, 720) has settled the chronology. ↩
Sozomen, l. VII c. 22. Claudian (In Eutropium, l. I 312) mentions the eunuch’s journey; but he most contemptuously derides the Egyptian dreams and the oracles of the Nile. ↩
Gibbon has embodied the picturesque verses of Claudian:⁠—

… Nec tantis dissona linguis
Turba, nec armorum cultu diversior unquam.
Confluxit populus: totam pater undique secum
Moverat Aurorem, mixtis hic Colchus Iberis,
Hic mitrâ velatus Arabs, hic crine decoro
Armenius, hic picta Saces, fucataque Medus,
Hic gemmata niger tentoria fixerat Indus.
—⁠De laudibus Stiliconis I 145.

—⁠M. ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, p. 280. Socrates, l. VII 10. Alaric himself (De bello Getico 524) dwells with more complacency on his early exploits against the Romans.

.⁠ ⁠… Tot Augustos Hebro qui teste fugavi.

Yet his vanity could scarcely have proved this plurality of flying emperors. ↩
Claudian (in “IV Consulatu Honorii” 77, etc.) contrasts the military plans of the two usurpers:⁠—

… Novitas audere priori
Suadebat; cautumque dabant exempla sequentem.
Hic nova moliri praeceps: hic quaerere tuta
Providus. Hic fusis; collectis viribus ille.
Hic vagus excurrens; hic intra claustra reductus
Dissimiles, sed morte pares.⁠ ⁠…

↩
The Frigidus, a small though memorable stream in the country of Goretz, now called the Vipao, falls into the Sontius, or Lisonzo, above Aquileia, some miles from the Adriatic. See d’Anville’s Ancient and Modern Maps, and the Italia antiqua of Cluverius (tom. I c. 188). ↩
Claudian’s wit is intolerable: the snow was dyed red; the cold river smoked; and the channel must have been choked with carcasses, if the current had not been swelled with blood. ↩
Theodoret affirms that St. John, and St. Philip appeared to the waking, or sleeping, emperor, on horseback, etc. This is the first instance of apostolic chivalry, which afterwards became so popular in Spain and in the Crusades. ↩
Te propter, gelidis Aquilo de monte procellis
Obruit adversas acies; revolutaque tela
Vertit in auctores, et turbine reppulit hastas
O nimium dilecte Deo, cui fundit ab antris
Aeolus armatas hyemes; cui militat Aether,
Et conjurati veniunt ad classica venti.

These famous lines of Claudian (in “III Consulatu Honorii” 93, etc., AD 396) are alleged by his contemporaries, Augustine and Orosius, who suppress the Pagan deity of Aeolus, and add some circumstances from the information of eyewitnesses. Within four months after the victory, it was compared by Ambrose to the miraculous victories of Moses and Joshua. ↩
Arbogastes and his emperor had openly espoused the Pagan party, according to Ambrose and Augustine. See Le Beau V 40. Auguste-Arthur Beugnot (Histoire de la destruction du paganisme en Occident) is more full, and perhaps somewhat fanciful, on this remarkable reaction in favor of Paganism, but compare p. 116. —⁠M. ↩
The events of this civil war are gathered from Ambrose (tom. II, “Epistle LXII,” p. 1022), Paulinus (in Vita Sancti Ambrosii, c. 26⁠–⁠34), Augustine (De civitate Dei V 26), Orosius (l. VII c. 35), Sozomen (l. VII c. 24), Theodoret (l. V c. 24), Zosimus (l. IV, pp. 281, 282), Claudian (in “III Consulatu Honorii” 63⁠–⁠105, in “IV Consulatu Honorii” 70⁠–⁠117), and the Chronicles published by Scaliger. ↩
This disease, ascribed by Socrates (l. V c. 26) to the fatigues of war, is represented by Philostorgius (l. XI c. 2) as the effect of sloth and intemperance; for which Photius calls him an impudent liar (Godefroy, Dissertations, p. 438). ↩
Zosimus supposes that the boy Honorius accompanied his father (l. IV, p. 280). Yet the quanto flagrabrant pectora voto is all that flattery would allow to a contemporary poet, who clearly describes the emperor’s refusal and the journey of Honorius, after the victory (Claudian in “III Consulatu Honorii” 78⁠–⁠125). ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, p. 244. ↩
Vegetius, De re militari, l. I c. 10. The series of calamities which he marks compel us to believe that the Hero to whom he dedicates his book is the last and most inglorious of the Valentinians. ↩
St. Ambrose (tom. II, “De Obitu Theodosii,” p. 1208) expressly praises and recommends the zeal of Josiah in the destruction of idolatry. The language of Julius Firmicus Maternus on the same subject (De errore profanarum religionum, p. 467, edit. Jacobus Gronovius) is piously inhuman. Nec filio jubet (the Mosaic Law) parci, nec fratri, et per amatam conjugem gladium vindicem ducit, etc. ↩
Bayle (tom. II, p. 406, in his Commentaire philosophique) justifies and limits these intolerant laws by the temporal reign of Jehovah over the Jews. The attempt is laudable. ↩
See the outlines of the Roman hierarchy in Cicero (De legibus II 7, 8), Livy (I 20), Dionysius Halicarnasensis (l. II, pp. 119⁠–⁠129, edit. Hudson), Beaufort (La République romaine, tom. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠90), and Moyle (vol. I, pp. 10⁠–⁠55). The last is the work of an English Whig, as well as of a Roman antiquary. ↩
These mystic and perhaps imaginary symbols have given birth to various fables and conjectures. It seems probable that the Palladium was a small statue (three cubits and a half high) of Minerva, with a lance and distaff; that it was usually enclosed in a seria, or barrel; and that a similar barrel was placed by its side to disconcert curiosity or sacrilege. See Claude-Gaspard Bachet de Mézeriac (Commentaires sur les epistres d’Ovide, tom. I, pp. 60⁠–⁠66) and Lipsius (tom. III, p. 610, De vestâ et vestalibus syntagma, c. 10). ↩
Cicero frankly (Epistulae ad atticum, l. II, “Epistola 5”) or indirectly (Epistulae ad familiares, l. XV, “Epistola 4”) confesses that the Augurate is the supreme object of his wishes. Pliny the Younger is proud to tread in the footsteps of Cicero (l. IV, “Epistola 8”), and the chain of tradition might be continued from history and marbles. ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 249, 250. I have suppressed the foolish pun about Pontifex and Maximus. ↩
This statue was transported from Tarentum to Rome, placed in the Curia Julia by Caesar, and decorated by Augustus with the spoils of Egypt. ↩
Prudentius (l. II in initio) has drawn a very awkward portrait of Victory; but the curious reader will obtain more satisfaction from Montfaucon’s Antiquities (tom. I, p. 341). ↩
See Suetonius (in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 35) and the Exordium of Pliny the Younger’s “Panegyricus.” ↩
These facts are mutually allowed by the two advocates, Symmachus and Ambrose. ↩
The Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae, more recent than Constantine, does not find one Christian church worthy to be named among the edifices of the city. Ambrose (tom. II, “Epistola XVII,” p. 825) deplores the public scandals of Rome, which continually offended the eyes, the ears, and the nostrils of the faithful. ↩
Ambrose repeatedly affirms, in contradiction to common sense (Moyle’s Works, vol. II, p. 147), that the Christians had a majority in the senate. ↩
The first (AD 382) to Gratian, who refused them audience; the second (AD 384) to Valentinian, when the field was disputed by Symmachus and Ambrose; the third (AD 388) to Theodosius; and the fourth (AD 392) to Valentinian. Lardner (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. IV, pp. 372⁠–⁠399) fairly represents the whole transaction. ↩
Symmachus, who was invested with all the civil and sacerdotal honors, represented the emperor under the two characters of Pontifex Maximus, and Princeps Senatus. See the proud inscription at the head of his works.8996 ↩
As if anyone, says Prudentius (in Symmachus I 639) should dig in the mud with an instrument of gold and ivory. Even saints, and polemic saints, treat this adversary with respect and civility. ↩
See the fifty-fourth epistle of the tenth book of Symmachus. In the form and disposition of his ten books of epistles, he imitated the younger Pliny; whose rich and florid style he was supposed by his friends to equal or excel (Macrobius, Saturnalia, l. V c. I). But the luxuriancy of Symmachus consists of barren leaves, without fruits, and even without flowers. Few facts, and few sentiments, can be extracted from his verbose correspondence. ↩
See Ambrose (tom. II Epistolae XVII, XVIII, pp. 825⁠–⁠833). The former of these epistles is a short caution; the latter is a formal reply of the petition or libel of Symmachus. The same ideas are more copiously expressed in the poetry, if it may deserve that name, of Prudentius; who composed his two books against Symmachus (AD 404) while that senator was still alive. It is whimsical enough that Montesquieu (Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. XIX tom. III, p. 487) should overlook the two professed antagonists of Symmachus, and amuse himself with descanting on the more remote and indirect confutations of Orosius, St. Augustine, and Salvian. ↩
See Prudentius (in Symmachus, l. I 545, etc.). The Christian agrees with the pagan Zosimus (l. IV, p. 283) in placing this visit of Theodosius after the second civil war, gemini bis victor caede Tyranni (l. I 410). But the time and circumstances are better suited to his first triumph. ↩
M. Beugnot (in his Histoire de la destruction du paganisme en Occident I, pp. 483⁠–⁠488) questions altogether the truth of this statement. It is very remarkable that Zosimus and Prudentius concur in asserting the fact of the question being solemnly deliberated by the senate, though with directly opposite results. Zosimus declares that the majority of the assembly adhered to the ancient religion of Rome; Gibbon has adopted the authority of Prudentius, who, as a Latin writer, though a poet, deserves more credit than the Greek historian. Both concur in placing this scene after the second triumph of Theodosius, but it has been almost demonstrated⁠—and Gibbon (see the preceding note) seems to have acknowledged this⁠—by Pagi and Tillemont, that Theodosius did not visit Rome after the defeat of Eugenius. M. Beugnot urges with much force the improbability that the Christian emperor would submit such a question to the senate, whose authority was nearly obsolete, except on one occasion, which was almost hailed as an epoch in the restoration of her ancient privileges. The silence of Ambrose and of Jerome on an event so striking, and redounding so much to the honor of Christianity, is of considerable weight. M. Beugnot would ascribe the whole scene to the poetic imagination of Prudentius; but I must observe that however Prudentius is sometimes elevated by the grandeur of his subject to vivid and eloquent language, this flight of invention would be so much bolder and more vigorous than usual with this poet that I cannot but suppose there must have been some foundation for the story, though it may have been exaggerated by the poet and misrepresented by the historian. —⁠M. ↩
Prudentius, after proving that the sense of the senate is declared by a legal majority, proceeds to say (609, etc.)⁠—

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

Zosimus ascribes to the conscript fathers a heathenish courage, which few of them are found to possess. ↩
Jerome specifies the pontiff Albinus, who was surrounded with such a believing family of children and grandchildren as would have been sufficient to convert even Jupiter himself; an extraordinary proselyte! (tom. I ad Laetam, p. 54). ↩
Exultare Patres videas, pulcherrima mundi
Lumina; Conciliumque senum gestire Catonum
Candidiore togâ niveum pietatis amictum
Sumere; et exuvias deponere pontificales.

The fancy of Prudentius is warmed and elevated by victory. ↩
Prudentius, after he has described the conversion of the senate and people, asks, with some truth and confidence,

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

↩
Jerome exults in the desolation of the Capitol and the other temples of Rome (tom. I, p. 54, tom. II, p. 95). ↩
M. Beugnot is more correct in his general estimate of the measures enforced by Theodosius for the abolition of Paganism. He seized (according to Zosimus) the funds bestowed by the public for the expense of sacrifices. The public sacrifices ceased, not because they were positively prohibited, but because the public treasury would no longer bear the expense. The public and the private sacrifices in the provinces, which were not under the same regulations with those of the capital, continued to take place. In Rome itself, many pagan ceremonies, which were without sacrifice, remained in full force. The gods, therefore, were invoked, the temples were frequented, the pontificates inscribed, according to ancient usage, among the family titles of honor; and it cannot be asserted that idolatry was completely destroyed by Theodosius. See Beugnot, p. 491. —⁠M. ↩
Libanius (Oratio “Pro Templis,” p. 10, Geneva 1634, published by James Godefroy, and now extremely scarce) accuses Valentinian and Valens of prohibiting sacrifices. Some partial order may have been issued by the Eastern emperor; but the idea of any general law is contradicted by the silence of the Code and the evidence of ecclesiastical history.8997 ↩
See his laws in the Theodosian Code, l. XVI tit. X leg. 7⁠–⁠11. ↩
Homer’s sacrifices are not accompanied with any inquisition of entrails (see Feithius, Antiquitates Homerericae, l. I c. 10, 16). The Tuscans, who produced the first Haruspices, subdued both the Greeks and the Romans (Cicero, De divinatione II 23). ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 245, 249. Theodoret, l. V c. 21. Idacius in Chronicon. Prosper Aquitanus, l. III c. 38, apud Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 389,” No. 52. Libanius (“Pro Templis,” p. 10) labors to prove that the commands of Theodosius were not direct and positive.8998 ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. X leg. 8, 18. There is room to believe that this temple of Edessa, which Theodosius wished to save for civil uses, was soon afterwards a heap of ruins (Libanius, “Pro Templis,” pp. 26, 27, and Godefroy’s notes, p. 59). ↩
See this curious oration of Libanius, “Pro Templis,” pronounced, or rather composed, about the year 390. I have consulted, with advantage, Dr. Lardner’s version and remarks (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. IV, pp. 135⁠–⁠163). ↩
See the Life of Martin by Sulpicius Severus, c. 9⁠–⁠14. The saint once mistook (as Don Quixote might have done) a harmless funeral for an idolatrous procession, and imprudently committed a miracle. ↩
Compare Sozomen (l. VII c. 15) with Theodoret (l. V c. 21). Between them, they relate the crusade and death of Marcellus. ↩
Libanius, “Pro Templis,” pp. 10⁠–⁠13. He rails at these black-garbed men, the Christian monks, who eat more than elephants. Poor elephants! they are temperate animals. ↩
Prosper Aquitanus, l. III c. 38, apud Baronius; Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 389,” No. 58, etc. The temple had been shut some time, and the access to it was overgrown with brambles. ↩
Donatus, De Roma antiquâ, l. IV c. 4, p. 468. This consecration was performed by Pope Boniface IV. I am ignorant of the favorable circumstances which had preserved the Pantheon above two hundred years after the reign of Theodosius. ↩
Sophronius composed a recent and separate history (Jerome, in Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, tom. I, p. 303), which has furnished materials to Socrates (l. V c. 16), Theodoret (l. V c. 22), and Rufinus (l. II c. 22). Yet the last, who had been at Alexandria before and after the event, may deserve the credit of an original witness. ↩
Gerard Vossius (Opera, tom. V, p. 80, and De idololatriâ, l. I c. 29) strives to support the strange notion of the Fathers; that the patriarch Joseph was adored in Egypt as the bull Apis and the god Serapis.8999 ↩
Origo dei nondum nostris celebrata. Aegyptiorum antistites sic memorant, etc. Tacitus, Historiae IV 83. The Greeks who had travelled into Egypt were alike ignorant of this new deity. ↩
Macrobius, Saturnalia, l. I c. 7. Such a living fact decisively proves his foreign extraction. ↩
At Rome, Isis and Serapis were united in the same temple. The precedency which the queen assumed may seem to betray her unequal alliance with the stranger of Pontus. But the superiority of the female sex was established in Egypt as a civil and religious institution (Diodorus Siculus, tom. I l. I, p. 31, edit. Wesseling), and the same order is observed in Plutarch’s Treatise of Isis and Osiris; whom he identifies with Serapis. ↩
Ammianus (XXII 16). The “Expositio totius Mundi” (p. 8, in Hudson’s Geographi Graeci minores, tom. III) and Rufinus (l. II c. 22) celebrate the Serapeum as one of the wonders of the world. ↩
See Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. IX, pp. 397⁠–⁠416. The old library of the Ptolemies was totally consumed in Caesar’s Alexandrian war. Marc Antony gave the whole collection of Pergamus (200,000 volumes) to Cleopatra, as the foundation of the new library of Alexandria. ↩
Libanius (“Pro Templis,” p. 21) indiscreetly provokes his Christian masters by this insulting remark. ↩
We may choose between the date of Marcellinus (AD 389) or that of Prosper (AD 391). Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 310, 756) prefers the former, and Pagi the latter. ↩
Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XI, pp. 441⁠–⁠500. The ambiguous situation of Theophilus⁠—a saint, as the friend of Jerome; a devil, as the enemy of Chrysostom⁠—produces a sort of impartiality; yet, upon the whole, the balance is justly inclined against him. ↩
No doubt a temple of Osiris. Saint-Martin IV 398. —⁠M. ↩
Lardner (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. IV, p. 411) has alleged a beautiful passage from Suidas, or rather from Damascius, which shows the devout and virtuous Olympius, not in the light of a warrior, but of a prophet. ↩
Nos vidimus armaria librorum, quibus direptis, exinanita ea a nostris hominibus, nostris temporibus memorant. Orosius, l. VI c. 15, p. 421, edit. Havercamp. Though a bigot, and a controversial writer, Orosius seems to blush. ↩
Eunapius, in the lives of Antoninus and Aedesius, execrates the sacrilegious rapine of Theophilus. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII, p. 453) quotes an epistle of Isidore of Pelusium, which reproaches the primate with the idolatrous worship of gold, the auri sacra fames. ↩
An English traveller, Mr. Wilkinson, has discovered the secret of the vocal Memnon. There was a cavity in which a person was concealed, and struck a stone, which gave a ringing sound like brass. The Arabs, who stood below when Mr. Wilkinson performed the miracle, described the sound just as the author of the epigram, ὠς χάλκοιο τῦπεντος. —⁠M. ↩
Rufinus names the priest of Saturn, who, in the character of the god, familiarly conversed with many pious ladies of quality, till he betrayed himself, in a moment of transport, when he could not disguise the tone of his voice. The authentic and impartial narrative of Aeschines (see Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, “Scamandre”) and the adventure of Mudus (Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, l. XVIII c. 3, p. 877, edit. Havercamp) may prove that such amorous frauds have been practiced with success. ↩
See the images of Serapis, in Montfaucon (tom. II, p. 297), but the description of Macrobius (Saturnalia, l. I c. 20) is much more picturesque and satisfactory. ↩
Sed fortes tremuere manus, motique verendâ
Majestate loci, si robora sacra ferirent
In sua credebant redituras membra secures.
Lucan III 429

“Is it true,” (said Augustus to a veteran of Italy, at whose house he supped) “that the man who gave the first blow to the golden statue of Anaitis was instantly deprived of his eyes, and of his life?”⁠—“I was that man” (replied the clear-sighted veteran), “and you now sup on one of the legs of the goddess.” (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXIII 24.) ↩
The history of the Reformation affords frequent examples of the sudden change from superstition to contempt. ↩
Sozomen, l. VII c. 20. I have supplied the measure. The same standard of the inundation, and consequently of the cubit, has uniformly subsisted since the time of Herodotus. See Fréret, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XVI, pp. 344⁠–⁠353. Greaves’s Miscellaneous Works, vol. I, p. 233. The Egyptian cubit is about twenty-two inches of the English measure.9000 ↩
Libanius (“Pro Templis,” pp. 15⁠–⁠17) pleads their cause with gentle and insinuating rhetoric. From the earliest age, such feasts had enlivened the country: and those of Bacchus (Georgics II 380) had produced the theatre of Athens. See Godefroy, ad loc. Libanius and Codex Theodosianus, tom. VI, p. 284. ↩
Honorius tolerated these rustic festivals (AD 399). “Absque ullo sacrificio, atque ullâ superstitione damnabili.” But nine years afterwards he found it necessary to reiterate and enforce the same proviso (Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. X leg. 17, 19). ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. X leg. 12. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 134) censures, with becoming asperity, the style and sentiments of this intolerant law. ↩
Paganism maintained its ground for a considerable time in the rural districts. Endelechius, a poet who lived at the beginning of the fifth century, speaks of the cross as⁠—

Signum quod perhibent esse crucis Dei,
Magnis qui colitur solus inurbibus.

In the middle of the same century, Maximus, bishop of Turin, writes against the heathen deities as if their worship was still in full vigor in the neighborhood of his city. Augustine complains of the encouragement of the Pagan rites by heathen landowners; and Zeno of Verona, still later, reproves the apathy of the Christian proprietors in conniving at this abuse. (Compare Neander, II, p. 169.) M. Beugnot shows that this was the case throughout the north and centre of Italy and in Sicily. But neither of these authors has adverted to one fact which must have tended greatly to retard the progress of Christianity in these quarters. It was still chiefly a slave population which cultivated the soil; and however, in the towns, the better class of Christians might be eager to communicate “the blessed liberty of the gospel” to this class of mankind; however their condition could not but be silently ameliorated by the humanizing influence of Christianity; yet, on the whole, no doubt the servile class would be the least fitted to receive the Gospel; and its general propagation among them would be embarrassed by many peculiar difficulties. The rural population was probably not entirely converted before the general establishment of the monastic institutions. Compare Quarterly Review of Beugnot, vol. LVII, p. 52. —⁠M. ↩
Such a charge should not be lightly made; but it may surely be justified by the authority of St. Augustine, who thus addresses the Donatists: “Quis nostrûm, quis vestrûm non laudat leges ab Imperatoribus datas adversus sacrificia Paganorum? Et certe longe ibi poena severior constituta est; illius quippe impietatis capitale supplicium est.” “Epistola XCIII,” No. 10, quoted by Leclerc (Bibliothèque choisie, tom. VIII, p. 277), who adds some judicious reflections on the intolerance of the victorious Christians.9001 ↩
Orosius, l. VII c. 28, p. 537. Augustine (Enarratio in Psalm 140 apud Lardner, Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. IV, p. 458) insults their cowardice. “Quis eorum comprehensus est in sacrificio (cum his legibus ista prohiberentur) et non negavit?” ↩
Libanius (“Pro Templis,” pp. 17, 18) mentions, without censure, the occasional conformity, and as it were theatrical play, of these hypocrites. ↩
Libanius concludes his apology (p. 32) by declaring to the emperor that, unless he expressly warrants the destruction of the temples, ἴσθι τοὺς τῶν ἀγρῶν δεσπότας, καὶ αὑτοῖς, καὶ τῷ νόμῳ βοηθήσοντας, the proprietors will defend themselves and the laws. ↩
Paulinus, in Vita Sancti Ambrosii, c. 26. Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. V c. 26. Theodoret, l. V c. 24. ↩
Libanius suggests the form of a persecuting edict, which Theodosius might enact (“Pro Templis,” p. 32); a rash joke and a dangerous experiment. Some princes would have taken his advice. ↩
The most remarkable instance of this, at a much later period, occurs in the person of Merobaudes, a general and a poet, who flourished in the first half of the fifth century. A statue in honor of Merobaudes was placed in the Forum of Trajan, of which the inscription is still extant. Fragments of his poems have been recovered by the industry and sagacity of Niebuhr. In one passage, Merobaudes, in the genuine heathen spirit, attributes the ruin of the empire to the abolition of Paganism, and almost renews the old accusation of Atheism against Christianity. He impersonates some deity, probably Discord, who summons Bellona to take arms for the destruction of Rome; and in a strain of fierce irony recommends to her other fatal measures, to extirpate the gods of Rome:⁠—

Roma, ipsique tremant furialia murmura reges.
Tum superos terris atque hospita numina pelle:
Romanos populare Deos, et nullus in aris
Vestoe exoratoe fotus strue palleat ignis.
His instructa dolis palatia celsa subibo;
Majorum mores, et pectora prisca fugabo
Funditus; atque simul, nullo discrimine rerum,
Spernantur fortes, nec sic reverentia justis.
Attica neglecto pereat facundia Phoebo:
Indignis contingat honos, et pondera rerum;
Non virtus sed casus agat; tristisque cupido;
Pectoribus saevi demens furor aestuet aevi;
Omniaque hoec sine mente Jovis, sine numine summo.

Merobaudes in Niebuhr’s edit. of the Byzantines, p. 14. —⁠M. ↩
Denique pro meritis terrestribus aequa rependens
Munera, sacricolis summos impertit honores.
Dux bonus, et certare sinit cum laude suorum,
Nec pago implicitos per debita culmina mundi
Ire viros prohibet.9002
Ipse magistratum tibi consulis, ipse tribunal
Contulit.
Prudentius in Symmachus I 617, etc.

↩
Libanius (“Pro Templis,” p. 32) is proud that Theodosius should thus distinguish a man who even in his presence would swear by Jupiter. Yet this presence seems to be no more than a figure of rhetoric. ↩
Zosimus, who styles himself Count and Ex-advocate of the Treasury, reviles, with partial and indecent bigotry, the Christian princes, and even the father of his sovereign. His work must have been privately circulated, since it escaped the invectives of the ecclesiastical historians prior to Evagrius (l. III c. 40⁠–⁠42), who lived towards the end of the sixth century.9003 ↩
Yet the Pagans of Africa complained that the times would not allow them to answer with freedom the City of God; nor does St. Augustine (V 26) deny the charge. ↩
The Moors of Spain, who secretly preserved the Muhammadan religion above a century, under the tyranny of the Inquisition, possessed the Koran, with the peculiar use of the Arabic tongue. See the curious and honest story of their expulsion in Geddes (Miscellaneous Tracts, vol. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠198). ↩
Paganos qui supersunt, quanquam jam nullos esse credamus, etc. Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. X leg. 22, AD 423. The younger Theodosius was afterwards satisfied that his judgment had been somewhat premature.9004 ↩
See Eunapius, in the Life of the sophist Aedesius; in that of Eustathius he foretells the ruin of Paganism, καί τι μυθῶδες, καὶ ἀειδὲς σκότος τυραννήσει τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς κάλλιστα. ↩
Caius (apud Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. II c. 25), a Roman presbyter who lived in the time of Zephyrinus (AD 202⁠–⁠219), is an early witness of this superstitious practice. ↩
Chrysostom, “Contra Iudaeos et Gentiles quod Christus sit Deus,” tom. I nov. edit. No. 9. I am indebted for this quotation to Benedict XIV’s pastoral letter on the jubilee of the year 1750. See the curious and entertaining letters of M. Chais, tom. III. ↩
Male facit ergo Romanus episcopus? qui, super mortuorum hominum, Petri et Pauli, secundum nos, ossa veneranda⁠ ⁠… offert Domino sacrificia, et tumulos eorum, Christi arbitratur altaria. Jerome, tom. II, “Adversus Vigilantius,” p. 153. ↩
Jerome (tom. II, p. 122) bears witness to these translations, which are neglected by the ecclesiastical historians. The passion of St. Andrew at Patrae is described in an epistle from the clergy of Achaia, which Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 60,” No. 34) wishes to believe and Tillemont is forced to reject. St. Andrew was adopted as the spiritual founder of Constantinople (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. I, pp. 317⁠–⁠323, 588⁠–⁠594). ↩
Jerome (tom. II, p. 122) pompously describes the translation of Samuel, which is noticed in all the chronicles of the times. ↩
The presbyter Vigilantius, the Protestant of his age, firmly, though ineffectually, withstood the superstition of monks, relics, saints, fasts, etc., for which Jerome compares him to the Hydra, Cerberus, the Centaurs, etc., and considers him only as the organ of the Demon (tom. II, pp. 120⁠–⁠126). Whoever will peruse the controversy of St. Jerome and Vigilantius, and St. Augustine’s account of the miracles of St. Stephen, may speedily gain some idea of the spirit of the Fathers. ↩
M. de Beausobre (Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. II, p. 648) has applied a worldly sense to the pious observation of the clergy of Smyrna, who carefully preserved the relics of St. Polycarp the martyr. ↩
Martin of Tours (see his Life, c. 8, by Sulpicius Severus) extorted this confession from the mouth of the dead man. The error is allowed to be natural; the discovery is supposed to be miraculous. Which of the two was likely to happen most frequently? ↩
Lucian composed in Greek his original narrative, which has been translated by Avitus, and published by Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 415,” No. 7⁠–⁠16). The Benedictine editors of St. Augustine have given (at the end of the work De civitate Dei) two several copies, with many various readings. It is the character of falsehood to be loose and inconsistent. The most incredible parts of the legend are smoothed and softened by Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. II, p. 9, etc.). ↩
A phial of St. Stephen’s blood was annually liquefied at Naples, till he was superseded by St. Januarius (Ruinart, Commentarius historicus de persecutione Vandalica, p. 529). ↩
Augustine composed the two and twenty books De civitate Dei in the space of thirteen years, AD 413⁠–⁠426 (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, p. 608, etc.). His learning is too often borrowed, and his arguments are too often his own; but the whole work claims the merit of a magnificent design, vigorously, and not unskilfully, executed. ↩
See Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. XXII c. 22, and the Appendix, which contains two books of St. Stephen’s miracles, by Evodius, bishop of Uzalis. Freculphus (apud Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, tom. VIII, p. 249) has preserved a Gallic or a Spanish proverb, “Whoever pretends to have read all the miracles of St. Stephen, he lies.” ↩
Thomas Burnet (De statu Mortuorum, pp. 56⁠–⁠84) collects the opinions of the Fathers, as far as they assert the sleep, or repose, of human souls till the day of judgment. He afterwards exposes (p. 91, etc.) the inconveniences which must arise if they possessed a more active and sensible existence. ↩
Vigilantius placed the souls of the prophets and martyrs either in the bosom of Abraham (in loco refrigerii), or else under the altar of God. Nec posse suis tumulis et ubi voluerunt adesse praesentes. But Jerome (tom. II, p. 122) sternly refutes this blasphemy. Tu Deo leges pones? Tu apostolis vincula injicies, ut usque ad diem judicii teneantur custodiâ, nec sint cum Domino suo; de quibus scriptum est, Sequuntur Agnum quocunque vadit. Si Agnus ubique, ergo, et hi, qui cum Agno sunt, ubique esse credendi sunt. Et cum diabolus et daemones toto vagentur in orbe, etc. ↩
Fleury, Discours sur l’histoire ecclésiastique III, p. 80. ↩
At Minorca, the relics of St. Stephen converted, in eight days, 540 Jews; with the help, indeed, of some wholesome severities, such as burning the synagogue, driving the obstinate infidels to starve among the rocks, etc. See the original letter of Severus, bishop of Minorca (ad calcem St. Augustine, De civitate Dei), and the judicious remarks of Basnage (tom. VIII, pp. 245⁠–⁠251). ↩
Mr. Hume (Essays, vol. II, p. 434) observes, like a philosopher, the natural flux and reflux of polytheism and theism. ↩
Agrippa d’Aubigné (see his own Mémoires, pp. 156⁠–⁠160) frankly offered, with the consent of the Huguenot ministers, to allow the first 400 years as the rule of faith. The Cardinal du Perron haggled for forty years more, which were indiscreetly given. Yet neither party would have found their account in this foolish bargain. ↩
The worship practiced and inculcated by Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius, etc., is so extremely pure and spiritual that their declamations against the Pagan, sometimes glance against the Jewish, ceremonies. ↩
Faustus the Manichaean accuses the Catholics of idolatry. Vertitis idola in martyres⁠ ⁠… quos votis similibus colitis. M. de Beausobre (Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. II, pp. 629⁠–⁠700), a Protestant, but a philosopher, has represented, with candor and learning, the introduction of Christian idolatry in the fourth and fifth centuries. ↩
The resemblance of superstition, which could not be imitated, might be traced from Japan to Mexico. Warburton has seized this idea, which he distorts by rendering it too general and absolute (Divine Legation of Moses, vol. IV, p. 126, etc.). ↩
The imitation of Paganism is the subject of Dr. Middleton’s agreeable letter from Rome. Warburton’s animadversions obliged him to connect (vol. III, pp. 120⁠–⁠132) the history of the two religions, and to prove the antiquity of the Christian copy. ↩
But there was always this important difference between Christian and heathen Polytheism. In Paganism this was the whole religion; in the darkest ages of Christianity, some, however obscure and vague, Christian notions of future retribution, of the life after death, lurked at the bottom, and operated, to a certain extent, on the thoughts and feelings, sometimes on the actions. —⁠M. ↩
Alecto, envious of the public felicity, convenes an infernal synod. Megaera recommends her pupil Rufinus, and excites him to deeds of mischief, etc. But there is as much difference between Claudian’s fury and that of Virgil, as between the characters of Turnus and Rufinus. ↩
It is evident (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 770), though de Marca is ashamed of his countryman, that Rufinus was born at Elusa, the metropolis of Novempopulania, now a small village of Gascony (d’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, p. 289). ↩
Philostorgius, l. XI c. 3, with Godefroy’s Dissertions, p. 440. ↩
A passage of Suidas is expressive of his profound dissimulation: βαθυγνώμων ἄνθρωπος καὶ κρυψίνους. ↩
Zosimus, l. IV, pp. 272, 273. ↩
Zosimus, who describes the fall of Tatian and his son (l. IV, pp. 273, 274), asserts their innocence; and even his testimony may outweigh the charges of their enemies (Codex Theodosianus, tom. IV, p. 489), who accuse them of oppressing the Curiae. The connection of Tatian with the Arians, while he was prefect of Egypt (AD 373), inclines Tillemont to believe that he was guilty of every crime (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 360; Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, p. 589). ↩
… Juvenum rorantia colla
Ante patrum vultus strictâ cecidere securi.
Ibat grandaevus nato moriente superstes
Post trabeas exsul.
In Rufinum I 248.

The facts of Zosimus explain the allusions of Claudian; but his classic interpreters were ignorant of the fourth century. The fatal cord I found, with the help of Tillemont, in a sermon of St. Asterius of Amasea. ↩
This odious law is recited and repealed by Arcadius (AD 396), in the Theodosian Code, l. IX tit. XXXVIII leg. 9. The sense, as it is explained by Claudian (In Rufinum I 234), and Godefroy (tom. III, p. 279), is perfectly clear.

… Exscindere cives
Funditus; et nomen gentis delere laborat.

The scruples of Pagi and Tillemont can arise only from their zeal for the glory of Theodosius. ↩
Ammonius⁠ ⁠… Rufinum propriis manibus suscepit sacro fonte mundatum. See Rosweyde’s Vitae Patrum, p. 947. Sozomen (l. VIII c. 17) mentions the church and monastery; and Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IX, p. 593) records this synod, in which St. Gregory of Nyssa performed a conspicuous part. ↩
Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XII c. 12) praises one of the laws of Theodosius, addressed to the prefect Rufinus (l. IX tit. IV leg. unic.), to discourage the prosecution of treasonable, or sacrilegious, words. A tyrannical statute always proves the existence of tyranny; but a laudable edict may only contain the specious professions or ineffectual wishes of the prince or his ministers. This, I am afraid, is a just, though mortifying, canon of criticism. ↩
… fluctibus auri
Expleri sitis ista nequit⁠ ⁠…
⋮
Congestae cumulantur opes; orbisque ruinas
Accipit una domus.

This character (Claudian, In Rufinum I 184⁠–⁠220) is confirmed by Jerome, a disinterested witness (dedecus insatiabilis avaritiae, tom. I ad Heliodorus, p. 26), by Zosimus (l. V, p. 286), and by Suidas, who copied the history of Eunapius. ↩
… Caetera segnis;
Ad facinus velox; penitus regione remotas
Impiger ire vias.

This allusion of Claudian (In Rufinum I 241) is again explained by the circumstantial narrative of Zosimus (l. V, pp. 288, 289). ↩
Zosimus (l. IV, p. 243) praises the valor, prudence, and integrity of Bauto the Frank. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 771. ↩
Arsenius escaped from the palace of Constantinople, and passed fifty-five years in rigid penance in the monasteries of Egypt. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, pp. 676⁠–⁠702; and Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. V, p. 1, etc., but the latter, for want of authentic materials, has given too much credit to the legend of Metaphrastes. ↩
This story (Zosimus, l. V, p. 290) proves that the hymeneal rites of antiquity were still practiced, without idolatry, by the Christians of the East; and the bride was forcibly conducted from the house of her parents to that of her husband. Our form of marriage requires, with less delicacy, the express and public consent of a virgin. ↩
Zosimus (l. V, p. 290), Orosius (l. VII c. 37), and the Chronicle of Marcellinus. Claudian (In Rufinum II 7⁠–⁠100) paints, in lively colors, the distress and guilt of the prefect. ↩
Stilicho, directly or indirectly, is the perpetual theme of Claudian. The youth and private life of the hero are vaguely expressed in the poem on his first consulship, 35⁠–⁠140. ↩
Vandalorum, imbellis, avarae, perfidae, et dolosae, gentis, genere editus. Orosius, l. VII c. 38. Jerome (tom. I ad Gerontiam, p. 93) calls him a Semi-Barbarian. ↩
Claudian, in an imperfect poem, has drawn a fair, perhaps a flattering, portrait of Serena. That favorite niece of Theodosius was born, as well as her sister Thermantia, in Spain; from whence, in their earliest youth, they were honorably conducted to the palace of Constantinople. ↩
Some doubt may be entertained whether this adoption was legal or only metaphorical (see du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 75). An old inscription gives Stilicho the singular title of “Pro-gener Divi Theodosii.” ↩
Claudian (Laus Serenae 190, 193) expresses, in poetic language, “the dilectus equorum,” and the “gemino mox idem culmine duxit agmina.” The inscription adds, “count of the domestics,” an important command, which Stilicho, in the height of his grandeur, might prudently retain. ↩
The beautiful lines of Claudian (in “I Consulatu Stilichonis” II 113) displays his genius; but the integrity of Stilicho (in the military administration) is much more firmly established by the unwilling evidence of Zosimus (l. V, p. 345). ↩
… Si bellica moles
Ingrueret, quamvis annis et jure minori,
Cedere grandaevos equitum peditumque magistros
Adspiceres.
Claudian, Laus Serenae, p. 196, etc.

A modern general would deem their submission either heroic patriotism or abject servility. ↩
Compare the poem on the first consulship (I 95⁠–⁠115) with the Laus Serenae (227⁠–⁠237, where it unfortunately breaks off). We may perceive the deep inveterate malice of Rufinus. ↩
… Quem fratribus ipse
Discedens, clypeum defensoremque dedisti.

Yet the nomination (“IV Consulatu Honorii” 432) was private (“III Consulatu Honorii” 142), cunctos discedere⁠ ⁠… jubet; and may therefore be suspected. Zosimus and Suidas apply to Stilicho and Rufinus the same equal title of Ἑπιτρόποι, guardians, or procurators. ↩
The Roman law distinguishes two sorts of minority, which expired at the age of fourteen and of twenty-five. The one was subject to the tutor, or guardian, of the person; the other, to the curator, or trustee, of the estate (Heineccius, Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, pertinent. l. I tit. XXII, XXIII, pp. 218⁠–⁠232). But these legal ideas were never accurately transferred into the constitution of an elective monarchy. ↩
See Claudian (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” I 188⁠–⁠242); but he must allow more than fifteen days for the journey and return between Milan and Leyden. ↩
“I Consulatu Stilichonis” II 88⁠–⁠94. Not only the robes and diadems of the deceased emperor, but even the helmets, sword-hilts, belts, cuirasses, etc., were enriched with pearls, emeralds, and diamonds. ↩
… Tantoque remoto
Principe, mutatas orbis non sensit habenas.

This high commendation (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” I 149) may be justified by the fears of the dying emperor (De bello Gildonico 292⁠–⁠301); and the peace and good order which were enjoyed after his death (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” I 150⁠–⁠168). ↩
Stilicho’s march, and the death of Rufinus, are described by Claudian (In Rufinum, l. II 101⁠–⁠453), Zosimus (l. V, pp. 296, 297), Sozomen (l. VIII c. 1), Socrates (l. VI c. 1), Philostorgius (l. XI c. 3, with Godefory, p. 441), and the Chronicle of Marcellinus. ↩
The dissection of Rufinus, which Claudian performs with the savage coolness of an anatomist (In Rufinum II 405⁠–⁠415), is likewise specified by Zosimus and Jerome (tom. I, p. 26). ↩
The Pagan Zosimus mentions their sanctuary and pilgrimage. The sister of Rufinus, Sylvania, who passed her life at Jerusalem, is famous in monastic history.
1. The studious virgin had diligently, and even repeatedly, perused the commentators on the Bible, Origen, Gregory, Basil, etc., to the amount of five millions of lines.
2. At the age of threescore, she could boast that she had never washed her hands, face, or any part of her whole body, except the tips of her fingers to receive the communion.
See the Vitae Patrum, pp. 779, 977. ↩
See the beautiful exordium of his invective against Rufinus, which is curiously discussed by the sceptic Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, “Rufinius,” Note E. ↩
See the Theodosian Code, l. IX tit. XLII leg. 14, 15. The new ministers attempted, with inconsistent avarice, to seize the spoils of their predecessor and to provide for their own future security. ↩
See Claudian (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. I 275, 292, 296, l. II 83) and Zosimus (l. V, p. 302). ↩
Claudian turns the consulship of the eunuch Eutropius into a national reflection (l. II 134):⁠—

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

It is curious to observe the first symptoms of jealousy and schism between old and new Rome, between the Greeks and Latins. ↩
Claudian may have exaggerated the vices of Gildo; but his Moorish extraction, his notorious actions, and the complaints of St. Augustine may justify the poet’s invectives. Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 398,” No. 35⁠–⁠56) has treated the African rebellion with skill and learning. ↩
Instat terribilis vivis, morientibus haeres,
Virginibus raptor, thalamis obscoenus adulter.
Nulla quies: oritur praedâ cessante libido,
Divitibusque dies, et nox metuenda maritis.
… Mauris clarissima quaeque
Fastidita datur.
De bello Gildonico 165, 189.

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

Claudian (De bello Gildonico 230⁠–⁠324) has touched, with political delicacy, the intrigues of the Byzantine court, which are likewise mentioned by Zosimus (l. V, p. 302). ↩
Symmachus (l. IV, “Epistola 4”) expresses the judicial forms of the senate; and Claudian (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. I 325, etc.) seems to feel the spirit of a Roman. ↩
Claudian finely displays these complaints of Symmachus in a speech of the goddess of Rome before the throne of Jupiter (De bello Gildonico 28⁠–⁠128). ↩
See Claudian (In Eutropium, l. I 401, etc.; “I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. I 306, etc.; “II Consulatu Stilichonis” 91, etc.). ↩
He was of a mature age; since he had formerly (AD 373) served against his brother Firmus (Ammianus XXIX 5). Claudian, who understood the court of Milan, dwells on the injuries, rather than the merits, of Mascezel (De bello Gildonico 389⁠–⁠414). The Moorish war was not worthy of Honorius or Stilicho, etc. ↩
Claudian, De bello Gildonico 415⁠–⁠423. The change of discipline allowed him to use indifferently the names of Legio, Cohors, Manipulus. See Notitia dignitatum omnium, tam civilium quam militarium, imperii Romani, S. 38, 40. ↩
Orosius (l. VII c. 36, p. 565) qualifies this account with an expression of doubt (ut aiunt), and it scarcely coincides with the δυνάμεις ἁδράς of Zosimus (l. V, p. 303). Yet Claudian, after some declamation about Cadmus’s soldiers, frankly owns that Stilicho sent a small army; lest the rebels should fly, ne timeare times (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. I 314, etc.). ↩
Rutilius Claudius Namatianus, “De reditu suo” I 439⁠–⁠448. He afterwards (515⁠–⁠526) mentions a religious madman on the isle of Gorgona. For such profane remarks, Rutilius and his accomplices are styled by his commentator Barthius, rabiosi canes diaboli. Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XII, p. 471) more calmly observes that the unbelieving poet praises where he means to censure. ↩
Orosius, l. VII c. 36, p. 564. Augustine commends two of these savage saints of the isle of Goats (“Epistola LXXXI” apud Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII, p. 317, and Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 398,” No. 51). ↩
Here the first book of the Gildonic war is terminated. The rest of Claudian’s poem has been lost; and we are ignorant how or where the army made good their landing in Africa. ↩
Orosius must be responsible for the account. The presumption of Gildo and his various train of Barbarians is celebrated by Claudian (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. I 345⁠–⁠355). ↩
St. Ambrose, who had been dead about a year, revealed, in a vision, the time and place of the victory. Mascezel afterwards related his dream to Paulinus, the original biographer of the saint, from whom it might easily pass to Orosius. ↩
Zosimus (l. V, p. 303) supposes an obstinate combat; but the narrative of Orosius appears to conceal a real fact under the disguise of a miracle. ↩
Tabraca lay between the two Hippos (Cellarius, tom. II part II, p. 112; d’Anville, tom. III, p. 84). Orosius has distinctly named the field of battle, but our ignorance cannot define the precise situation. ↩
The death of Gildo is expressed by Claudian (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” I 357) and his best interpreters, Zosimus and Orosius. ↩
Claudian (“II Consulatu Stilichonis” 99⁠–⁠119) describes their trial (tremuit quos Africa nuper, cernunt rostra reos) and applauds the restoration of the ancient constitution. It is here that he introduces the famous sentence, so familiar to the friends of despotism:

… Nunquam libertas gratior exstat,
Quam sub rege pio.

But the freedom which depends on royal piety scarcely deserves that appellation. ↩
See the Theodosian Code, l. IX tit. XXXIX leg. 3, tit. XL leg. 19. ↩
Stilicho, who claimed an equal share in all the victories of Theodosius and his son, particularly asserts that Africa was recovered by the wisdom of his counsels (see an inscription produced by Baronius). ↩
I have softened the narrative of Zosimus, which, in its crude simplicity, is almost incredible (l. V, p. 303). Orosius damns the victorious general (p. 538) for violating the right of sanctuary. ↩
Claudian, as the poet laureate, composed a serious and elaborate epithalamium of 340 lines; besides some gay Fescennines, which were sung in a more licentious tone on the wedding night. ↩
… Calet obvius ire
Jam princeps, tardumque cupit discedere solem.
Nobilis haud aliter sonipes.

(De nuptiis honorii et Mariae 287), and more freely in the Fescennines (112⁠–⁠126).

Dices, O quoties, hoc mihi dulcius
Quam flavos decies vincere Sarmatas.
⋮
Tum victor madido prosilias toro,
Nocturni referens vulnera proelii.

↩
See Zosimus, l. V, p. 333. ↩
Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 2. I have borrowed the general practice of Honorius, without adopting the singular and, indeed, improbable tale which is related by the Greek historian. ↩
The lessons of Theodosius, or rather Claudian (“IV Consulatu Honorii Augusti” 214⁠–⁠418), might compose a fine institution for the future prince of a great and free nation. It was far above Honorius and his degenerate subjects. ↩
The revolt of the Goths and the blockade of Constantinople are distinctly mentioned by Claudian (In Rufinum, l. II 7⁠–⁠100), Zosimus (l. V 292), and Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 29). ↩
… Alii per terga ferocis
Danubii solidata ruunt; expertaque remis
Frangunt stagna rotis.

Claudian and Ovid often amuse their fancy by interchanging the metaphors and properties of liquid water and solid ice. Much false wit has been expended in this easy exercise. ↩
Jerome, tom. I, p. 26. He endeavors to comfort his friend Heliodorus, bishop of Altinum, for the loss of his nephew Nepotian, by a curious recapitulation of all the public and private misfortunes of the times. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XII, p. 200, etc. ↩
Baltha or bold: origo mirifica, says Jornandes (c. 29). This illustrious race long continued to flourish in France, in the Gothic province of Septimania or Languedoc; under the corrupted appellation of Boax; and a branch of that family afterwards settled in the kingdom of Naples (Grotius in Prolegomena ad Historia Gothorum, p. 53). The lords of Baux, near Arles, and of seventy-nine subordinate places, were independent of the counts of Provence (Longuerue, Description de la France, tom. I, p. 357). ↩
Zosimus (l. V, pp. 293⁠–⁠295) is our best guide for the conquest of Greece; but the hints and allusion of Claudian are so many rays of historic light. ↩
Compare Herodotus (l. VII c. 176) and Livy (XXXVI 15). The narrow entrance of Greece was probably enlarged by each successive ravisher. ↩
He passed, says Eunapius (in De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, p. 93, edit. Commelin, 1596), through the straits, διὰ τῶν πυλῶν (of Thermopylae) παρῆλθεν, ὤσπερ διὰ σταδίου καὶ ἱπποκρότου πεδίου τρέχων. ↩
In obedience to Jerome and Claudian (In Rufinum, l. II 191), I have mixed some darker colors in the mild representation of Zosimus, who wished to soften the calamities of Athens.

Nec fera Cecropias traxissent vincula matres.

Synesius (“Epistola CLVI,” p. 272, edit. Petavius) observes that Athens, whose sufferings he imputes to the proconsul’s avarice, was at that time less famous for her schools of philosophy than for her trade of honey. ↩
… Vallata mari Scironia rupes,
Et duo continuo connectens aequora muro
Isthmos.
Claudian, De bello Getico 188.

The Scironian rocks are described by Pausanias (l. I c. 44, p. 107, edit. Kuhn) and our modern travellers Wheler (p. 436) and Chandler (p. 298). Hadrian made the road passable for two carriages. ↩
Claudian (In Rufinum, l. II 186, and De bello Getico 611, etc.) vaguely, though forcibly, delineates the scene of rapine and destruction. ↩
Τρὶς μάκαρες Δαναοὶ καὶ τετράκις, etc. These generous lines of Homer (Odyssey, l. V 306) were transcribed by one of the captive youths of Corinth; and the tears of Mummius may prove that the rude conqueror, though he was ignorant of the value of an original picture, possessed the purest source of good taste, a benevolent heart (Plutarch, Symposiacs, l. IX tom. II, p. 737, edit. Wechel). ↩
Homer perpetually describes the exemplary patience of those female captives, who gave their charms, and even their hearts, to the murderers of their fathers, brothers, etc. Such a passion (of Eriphile for Achilles) is touched with admirable delicacy by Racine. ↩
Plutarch (in Parallel Lives, “Pyrrho,” tom. II, p. 471, edit. Brian) gives the genuine answer in the Laconic dialect. Pyrrhus attacked Sparta with 25,000 foot, 2,000 horse, and 24 elephants, and the defence of that open town is a fine comment on the laws of Lycurgus, even in the last stage of decay. ↩
Such, perhaps, as Homer (Iliad XX 164) has so nobly painted him. ↩
Eunapius (in De vitis philosophorum et sophistarum, pp. 90⁠–⁠93) intimates that a troop of monks betrayed Greece and followed the Gothic camp.9005 ↩
For Stilicho’s Greek war, compare the honest narrative of Zosimus (l. V, pp. 295, 296) with the curious circumstantial flattery of Claudian (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. I 172⁠–⁠186, “IV Consulatu Honorii” 459⁠–⁠487). As the event was not glorious, it is artfully thrown into the shade. ↩
The troops who marched through Elis delivered up their arms. This security enriched the Eleans, who were lovers of a rural life. Riches begat pride; they disdained their privilege, and they suffered. Polybius advises them to retire once more within their magic circle. See a learned and judicious discourse on the Olympic games, which Mr. Gilbert West has prefixed to his translation of Pindar. ↩
Claudian (in “IV Consulatu Honorii” 480) alludes to the fact, without naming the river: perhaps the Alpheus (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. I 185).

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

Yet I should prefer the Peneus, a shallow stream in a wide and deep bed, which runs through Elis and falls into the sea below Cyllene. It had been joined with the Alpheus to cleanse the Augean stable (Cellarius, tom. I, p. 760; Chandler’s Travels in Greece, p. 286). ↩
Strabo, l. VIII, p. 517; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae IV 3; Wheler, p. 308; Chandler, p. 275. They measured from different points the distance between the two lands. ↩
Synesius passed three years (AD 397⁠–⁠400) at Constantinople, as deputy from Cyrene to the emperor Arcadius. He presented him with a crown of gold, and pronounced before him the instructive oration “De Regno” (pp. 1⁠–⁠32, edit. Petavius, Paris, 1612). The philosopher was made bishop of Ptolemais, AD 410, and died about 430. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XII, pp. 490, 554, 683⁠–⁠685. ↩
Synesius, “De Regno,” pp. 21⁠–⁠26. ↩
… qui foedera rumpit
Ditatur: qui servat, eget: vastator Achivae
Gentis, et Epirum nuper populatus inultam,
Praesidet Illyrico: jam, quos obsedit, amicos
Ingreditur muros; illis responsa daturus,
Quorum conjugibus potitur, natosque peremit.
Claudian, In Eutropium, l. II 212.

Alaric applauds his own policy (De bello Getico 533⁠–⁠543) in the use which he had made of this Illyrian jurisdiction. ↩
Jornandes, c. 29, p. 651. The Gothic historian adds, with unusual spirit, Cum suis deliberans suasit suo labore quaerere regna, quam alienis per otium subjacere. ↩
… Discors odiisque anceps civilibus orbis,
Non sua vis tutata diu, dum foedera fallax
Ludit, et alternae perjuria venditat aulae.
Claudian, De bello Getico 565.

↩
Alpibus Italiae ruptis penetrabis ad Urbem.

This authentic prediction was announced by Alaric, or at least by Claudian (De bello Getico 547), seven years before the event. But as it was not accomplished within the term which has been rashly fixed, the interpreters escaped through an ambiguous meaning. ↩
Our best materials are 970 verses of Claudian, in the poem on the Getic war, and the beginning of that which celebrates the sixth consulship of Honorius. Zosimus is totally silent; and we are reduced to such scraps, or rather crumbs, as we can pick from Orosius and the Chronicles. ↩
Notwithstanding the gross errors of Jornandes, who confounds the Italian wars of Alaric (c. 29), his date of the consulship of Stilicho and Aurelian (AD 400) is firm and respectable. It is certain from Claudian (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 804) that the battle of Polentia was fought AD 403; but we cannot easily fill the interval. ↩
Tantum Romanae urbis judicium fugis, ut magis obsidionem barbaricam, quam pacatoe urbis judicium velis sustinere. Jerome, tom. II, p. 239. Rufinus understood his own danger; the peaceful city was inflamed by the beldam Marcella and the rest of Jerome’s faction. ↩
Jovinian, the enemy of fasts and of celibacy, who was persecuted and insulted by the furious Jerome (Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 104, etc.). See the original edict of banishment in the Theodosian Code, l. XVI tit. V leg. 43. ↩
This epigram (“De Sene Veronensi qui suburbium nusquam egres sus est”) is one of the earliest and most pleasing compositions of Claudian. Cowley’s imitation (Hurd’s edition, vol. II, p. 241) has some natural and happy strokes: but it is much inferior to the original portrait, which is evidently drawn from the life. ↩
Ingentem meminit parvo qui germine quercum
Aequaevumque videt consenuisse nemus.
A neighboring wood born with himself he sees,
And loves his old contemporary trees.

In this passage, Cowley is perhaps superior to his original; and the English poet, who was a good botanist, has concealed the oaks under a more general expression. ↩
Claudian, De bello Getico 199⁠–⁠266. He may seem prolix: but fear and superstition occupied as large a space in the minds of the Italians. ↩
From the passages of Paulinus, which Baronius has produced (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 403,” No. 51), it is manifest that the general alarm had pervaded all Italy, as far as Nola in Campania, where that famous penitent had fixed his abode. ↩
Solus erat Stilicho, etc., is the exclusive commendation which Claudian bestows (De bello Getico 267) without condescending to except the emperor. How insignificant must Honorius have appeared in his own court! ↩
The face of the country, and the hardiness of Stilicho, are finely described (De bello Getico 340⁠–⁠363). ↩
Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis,
Quae Scoto dat frena truci.
De bello Getico 416.

Yet the most rapid march from Edinburgh, or Newcastle, to Milan must have required a longer space of time than Claudian seems willing to allow for the duration of the Gothic war. ↩
Every traveller must recollect the face of Lombardy (see Fontenelle, tom. V, p. 279), which is often tormented by the capricious and irregular abundance of waters. The Austrians, before Genoa, were encamped in the dry bed of the Polcevera. “Ne sarebbe” (says Muratori) “mai passato per mente a que’ buoni Alemanni, che quel picciolo torrente potesse, per cosi dire, in un instante cangiarsi in un terribil gigante” (Annali d’Italia, tom. XVI, p. 443, Milan, 1752, octavo edition). ↩
According to Le Beau and his commentator M. Saint-Martin, Honorius did not attempt to fly. Settlements were offered to the Goths in Lombardy, and they advanced from the Po towards the Alps to take possession of them. But it was a treacherous stratagem of Stilicho, who surprised them while they were reposing on the faith of this treaty. Le Beau, p. 223. —⁠M. ↩
Claudian does not clearly answer our question, Where was Honorius himself? Yet the flight is marked by the pursuit; and my idea of the Gothic war is justified by the Italian critics, Sigonius (tom. I part II, p. 369, Historiarum de occidentali imperio, l. X) and Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. IV, p. 45). ↩
One of the roads may be traced in the Itineraries (pp. 98, 288, 294, with Wesseling’s Notes). Asta lay some miles on the right hand. ↩
Asta, or Asti, a Roman colony, is now the capital of a pleasant country, which, in the sixteenth century, devolved to the dukes of Savoy (Leandro Alberti, Descrizione d’Italia, p. 382). ↩
Nec me timor impulit ullus. He might hold this proud language the next year at Rome, five hundred miles from the scene of danger (“VI Consulatu Honorii” 449). ↩
Hanc ego vel victor regno, vel morte tenebo
Victus, humum.

The speeches (De bello Getico 479⁠–⁠549) of the Gothic Nestor and Achilles are strong, characteristic, adapted to the circumstances, and possibly not less genuine than those of Livy. ↩
Orosius (l. VII c. 37) is shocked at the impiety of the Romans who attacked, on Easter Sunday, such pious Christians. Yet, at the same time, public prayers were offered at the shrine of St. Thomas of Edessa for the destruction of the Arian robber. See Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 529), who quotes a homily which has been erroneously ascribed to St. Chrysostom. ↩
The vestiges of Pollentia are twenty-five miles to the southeast of Turin. Urbs, in the same neighborhood, was a royal chase of the kings of Lombardy, and a small river, which excused the prediction, “penetrabis ad urbem.” Cluverius, Italia antiqua, tom. I, pp. 83⁠–⁠85. ↩
Orosius wishes, in doubtful words, to insinuate the defeat of the Romans. “Pugnantes vicimus, victores victi sumus.” Prosper (in Epitoma chronicon) makes it an equal and bloody battle, but the Gothic writers, Cassiodorus (in Chronicon) and Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 29) claim a decisive victory. ↩
Demens Ausonidum gemmata monilia matrum,
Romanasque altâ famulas cervice petebat.
De bello Getico 627.

↩
Claudian (De bello Getico 580⁠–⁠647) and Prudentius (in Symmachis, l. II 694⁠–⁠719) celebrate, without ambiguity, the Roman victory of Pollentia. They are poetical and party writers; yet some credit is due to the most suspicious witnesses, who are checked by the recent notoriety of facts. ↩
Claudian’s peroration is strong and elegant; but the identity of the Cimbric and Gothic fields must be understood (like Virgil’s Philippi, Georgics I 490) according to the loose geography of a poet. Vercellae and Pollentia are sixty miles from each other; and the latitude is still greater if the Cimbri were defeated in the wide and barren plain of Verona (Maffei, Verona illustrata, part I, pp. 54⁠–⁠62). ↩
Claudian and Prudentius must be strictly examined, to reduce the figures and extort the historic sense of those poets. ↩
Et gravant en airain ses frêles avantages
De mes états conquis enchaîner les images.

The practice of exposing in triumph the images of kings and provinces was familiar to the Romans. The bust of Mithridates himself was twelve feet high, of massy gold (Freinshemius, Supplementa liviana CIII 47). ↩
The Getic war and the sixth consulship of Honorius obscurely connect the events of Alaric’s retreat and losses. ↩
Taceo de Alarico⁠ ⁠… saepe victo, saepe concluso, semperque dimisso. Orosius, l. VII c. 37, p. 567. Claudian (“VI Consulatu Honorii” 320) drops the curtain with a fine image. ↩
The remainder of Claudian’s poem on the sixth consulship of Honorius describes the journey, the triumph, and the games (330⁠–⁠660). ↩
See the inscription in Mascou’s History of the Ancient Germans VIII 12. The words are positive and indiscreet: Getarum nationem in omne aevum domitam, etc. ↩
On the curious, though horrid, subject of the gladiators, consult the two books of the Saturnalia of Lipsius, who, as an antiquarian, is inclined to excuse the practice of antiquity (tom. III, pp. 483⁠–⁠545). ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XV tit. XII leg. I. The commentary of Godefroy affords large materials (tom. V, p. 396) for the history of gladiators. ↩
See the peroration of Prudentius (in Symmachus, l. II 1121⁠–⁠1131), who had doubtless read the eloquent invective of Lactantius (Institutiones divinae, l. VI c. 20). The Christian apologists have not spared these bloody games, which were introduced in the religious festivals of Paganism. ↩
Theodoret, l. V c. 26. I wish to believe the story of St. Telemachus. Yet no church has been dedicated, no altar has been erected, to the only monk who died a martyr in the cause of humanity. ↩
Peter Erasmus Müller, in his valuable treatise, Commentatio historica de genio, moribus et luxu aevi Theodosiani, is disposed to question the effect produced by the heroic, or rather saintly, death of Telemachus. No prohibitory law of Honorius is to be found in the Theodosian Code, only the old and imperfect edict of Constantine. But Müller has produced no evidence or allusion to gladiatorial shows after this period. The combats with wild beasts certainly lasted till the fall of the Western empire; but the gladiatorial combats ceased either by common consent, or by Imperial edict. —⁠M. ↩
Crudele gladiatorum spectaculum et inhumanum nonnullis videri solet, et haud scio an ita sit, ut nunc fit. Cicero, Tusculanae quaestiones II 17. He faintly censures the abuse and warmly defends the use of these sports; oculis nulla poterat esse fortior contra dolorem et mortem disciplina. Seneca (Epistulae morales VII) shows the feelings of a man. ↩
This account of Ravenna is drawn from Strabo (l. V, p. 327), Pliny the Elder (III 20), Stephen of Byzantium (sub voce “Ράβεννα,” p. 651, edit. Berkel), Claudian (in “VI Consulatu Honorii” 494, etc.), Sidonius Apollinaris (l. I Epistolae 5, 8), Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 29), Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. I, p. 309, edit. Louvre), and Cluverius (Italia antiqua, tom. I, pp. 301⁠–⁠307). Yet I still want a local antiquarian, and a good topographical map. ↩
Martial (“Epigram III” 56, 57) plays on the trick of the knave who had sold him wine instead of water; but he seriously declares that a cistern at Ravenna is more valuable than a vineyard. Sidonius complains that the town is destitute of fountains and aqueducts, and ranks the want of fresh water among the local evils, such as the croaking of frogs, the stinging of gnats, etc. ↩
The fable of Theodore and Honoria, which Dryden has so admirably transplanted from Boccaccio (Giornata III novella VIII), was acted in the wood of Chiassi, a corrupt word from Classis, the naval station which, with the intermediate road or suburb, the Via Caesaris, constituted the triple city of Ravenna. ↩
From the year 404, the dates of the Theodosian Code become sedentary at Constantinople and Ravenna. See Godefroy’s “Chronology of the Laws,” tom. I, p. CXLVIII, etc. ↩
See M. de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. I, pp. 179⁠–⁠189, tom. II, pp. 295, 334⁠–⁠338. ↩
There is no authority which connects this inroad of the Teutonic tribes with the movements of the Huns. The Huns can hardly have reached the shores of the Baltic, and probably the greater part of the forces of Radagaisus, particularly the Vandals, had long occupied a more southern position. —⁠M. ↩
Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. III, p. 182) has observed an emigration from the Palus Maeotis to the north of Germany, which he ascribes to famine. But his views of ancient history are strangely darkened by ignorance and error. ↩
Zosimus (l. V, p. 331) uses the general description of the nations beyond the Danube and the Rhine. Their situation, and consequently their names, are manifestly shown, even in the various epithets which each ancient writer may have casually added. ↩
The name of Rhadagast was that of a local deity of the Obotrites (in Mecklenburg). A hero might naturally assume the appellation of his tutelar god; but it is not probable that the Barbarians should worship an unsuccessful hero. See Mascou, History of the Ancient Germans VIII 14.9006 ↩
Olympiodorus (apud Photius, p. 180), uses the Greek word Ὀπτιμάτοι; which does not convey any precise idea.9007 I suspect that they were the princes and nobles with their faithful companions; the knights with their squires, as they would have been styled some centuries afterwards. ↩
Tacitus, De moribus Germanorum, c. 37. ↩
… Cujus agendi
Spectator vel causa fui,
(Claudian, “VI Consulatu Honorii” 439)

is the modest language of Honorius, in speaking of the Gothic war, which he had seen somewhat nearer. ↩
Zosimus (l. V, p. 331) transports the war and the victory of Stilicho beyond the Danube. A strange error, which is awkwardly and imperfectly cured by reading Ἄρνον for Ἴστρον (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 807). In good policy, we must use the service of Zosimus, without esteeming or trusting him. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VII tit. XIII leg. 16. The date of this law (AD 406, 18th May) satisfies me, as it had done Godefroy (tom. II, p. 387), of the true year of the invasion of Radagaisus. Tillemont, Pagi, and Muratori prefer the preceding year; but they are bound, by certain obligations of civility and respect, to St. Paulinus of Nola. ↩
Soon after Rome had been taken by the Gauls, the senate, on a sudden emergency, armed ten legions, 3,000 horse, and 42,000 foot; a force which the city could not have sent forth under Augustus (Livy VII 25). This declaration may puzzle an antiquary, but it is clearly explained by Montesquieu. ↩
Machiavel has explained, at least as a philosopher, the origin of Florence, which insensibly descended, for the benefit of trade, from the rock of Faesulae to the banks of the Arno (Istorie Fiorentine, tom. I l. II, p. 36, Londra, 1747). The Triumvirs sent a colony to Florence, which, under Tiberius (Tacitus, Annales I 79), deserved the reputation and name of a flourishing city. See Cluverius, Italia antiqua, tom. I, p. 507, etc. ↩
Yet the Jupiter of Radagaisus who worshipped Thor and Woden was very different from the Olympic or Capitoline Jove. The accommodating temper of Polytheism might unite those various and remote deities, but the genuine Romans ahhorred the human sacrifices of Gaul and Germany. ↩
Gibbon has rather softened the language of Augustine as to this threatened insurrection of the Pagans, in order to restore the prohibited rites and ceremonies of Paganism, and their treasonable hopes that the success of Radagaisus would be the triumph of idolatry. Compare Beugnot II 25. —⁠M. ↩
Paulinus (in Vita Sancti Ambrosii, c. 50) relates this story, which he received from the mouth of Pansophia herself, a religious matron of Florence. Yet the archbishop soon ceased to take an active part in the business of the world, and never became a popular saint. ↩
Augustine, De civitate Dei V 23. Orosius, l. VII c. 37, pp. 567⁠–⁠571. The two friends wrote in Africa, ten or twelve years after the victory; and their authority is implicitly followed by Isidore of Seville (in Chronicon, p. 713, edit. Grotius). How many interesting facts might Orosius have inserted in the vacant space which is devoted to pious nonsense! ↩
Franguntur montes, planumque per ardua Caesar
Ducit opus: pandit fossas, turritaque summis
Disponit castella jugis, magnoque recessû
Amplexus fines, saltus, memorosaque tesqua
Et silvas, vastâque feras indagine claudit.

Yet the simplicity of truth (Caesar, Commentarii de bello Civili III 44) is far greater than the amplifications of Lucan (Pharsalia, l. VI 29⁠–⁠63). ↩
The rhetorical expressions of Orosius, “in arido et aspero montis jugo,” “in unum ac parvum verticem,” are not very suitable to the encampment of a great army. But Faesulae, only three miles from Florence, might afford space for the headquarters of Radagaisus, and would be comprehended within the circuit of the Roman lines. ↩
See Zosimus, l. V, p. 331, and the Chronicles of Prosper and Marcellinus. ↩
Olympiodorus (apud Photius, p. 180) uses an expression (προσηταιρίσατο) which would denote a strict and friendly alliance, and render Stilicho still more criminal. The paulisper detentus, deinde interfectus, of Orosius is sufficiently odious.9008 ↩
Orosius, piously inhuman, sacrifices the king and people, Agag and the Amalekites, without a symptom of compassion. The bloody actor is less detestable than the cool unfeeling historian.9009 ↩
And Claudian’s muse, was she asleep? had she been ill paid? Methinks the seventh consulship of Honorius (AD 407) would have furnished the subject of a noble poem. Before it was discovered that the state could no longer be saved, Stilicho (after Romulus, Camillus, and Marius) might have been worthily surnamed the fourth founder of Rome. ↩
A luminous passage of Prosper’s Chronicle, “In tres partes, pes diversos principes, diversus exercitus,” reduces the miracle of Florence and connects the history of Italy, Gaul, and Germany. ↩
Orosius and Jerome positively charge him with instigating the invasion. “Excitatae a Stilichone gentes,” etc. They must mean indirectly. He saved Italy at the expense of Gaul. ↩
The Count Du Buat is satisfied that the Germans who invaded Gaul were the two thirds that yet remained of the army of Radagaisus. See the Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe (tom. VII, pp. 87, 121. Paris, 1772); an elaborate work, which I had not the advantage of perusing till the year 1777. As early as 1771, I find the same idea expressed in a rough draught of the present History. I have since observed a similar intimation in Mascou (VIII 15). Such agreement, without mutual communication, may add some weight to our common sentiment. ↩
… Provincia missos
Expellet citius fasces, quam Francia reges
Quos dederis.

Claudian (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. I 235, etc.) is clear and satisfactory. These kings of France are unknown to Gregory of Tours; but the author of the Gesta Francorum mentions both Sunno and Marcomir, and names the latter as the father of Pharamond (in tom. II, p. 543). He seems to write from good materials, which he did not understand. ↩
See Zosimus (l. VI, p. 373), Orosius (l. VII c. 40, p. 576), and the Chronicles. Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 9, p. 165, in the second volume of the Historians of France) has preserved a valuable fragment of Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, whose three names denote a Christian, a Roman subject, and a Semi-barbarian. ↩
Claudian (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. I 221, etc., l. II 186) describes the peace and prosperity of the Gallic frontier. The Abbé Dubos (Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, p. 174) would read Alba (a nameless rivulet of the Ardennes) instead of Albis; and expatiates on the danger of the Gallic cattle grazing beyond the Elbe. Foolish enough! In poetical geography, the Elbe, and the Hercynian, signify any river, or any wood, in Germany. Claudian is not prepared for the strict examination of our antiquaries. ↩
… Germinasque viator
Cum videat ripas, quae sit Romana requirat.

↩
Jerome, tom. I, p. 93. See in the first vol. of the Historians of France, pp. 777, 782, the proper extracts from the Carmen de providentiâ divinâ, and Salvian. The anonymous poet was himself a captive, with his bishop and fellow-citizens. ↩
The Pelagian doctrine, which was first agitated AD 405, was condemned, in the space of ten years, at Rome and Carthage. St. Augustine fought and conquered, but the Greek church was favorable to his adversaries; and (what is singular enough) the people did not take any part in a dispute which they could not understand. ↩
See the Mémoires de Mess. Martin du Bellay, l. VI. In French, the original reproof is less obvious and more pointed, from the double sense of the word journeé, which alike signifies a day’s travel or a battle. ↩
Claudian (“I Consulatu Stilichonis” l. II 250). It is supposed that the Scots of Ireland invaded, by sea, the whole western coast of Britain; and some slight credit may be given even to Nennius and the Irish traditions (Carte’s History of England, vol. I, p. 169; Whitaker’s Genuine History of the Britons, p. 199). The sixty-six lives of St. Patrick, which were extant in the ninth century, must have contained as many thousand lies; yet we may believe that, in one of these Irish inroads, the future apostle was led away captive (Usher, Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates, p. 431, and Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XVI, p. 456, 782, etc.). ↩
The British usurpers are taken from Zosimus (l. VI, pp. 371⁠–⁠375), Orosius (l. VII c. 40, pp. 576, 577), Olympiodorus (apud Photius, pp. 180, 181), the ecclesiastical historians, and the Chronicles. The Latins are ignorant of Marcus. ↩
Cum in Constantino inconstantiam⁠ ⁠… execrarentur (Sidonius Apollinaris, l. V, “Epistola 9,” p. 139, edit. secunda Sirmond). Yet Sidonius might be tempted, by so fair a pun, to stigmatize a prince who had disgraced his grandfather. ↩
Bagaudae is the name which Zosimus applies to them; perhaps they deserved a less odious character (see Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, p. 203, and here in chapter XIII of this History). We shall hear of them again. ↩
Verinianus, Didymus, Theodosius, and Lagodius, who in modern courts would be styled princes of the blood, were not distinguished by any rank or privileges above the rest of their fellow-subjects. ↩
These Honoriani, or Honoriaci, consisted of two bands of Scots, or Attacotti, two of Moors, two of Marcomanni, the Victores, the Ascarii, and the Gallicani (Notitia dignitatum omnium, tam civilium quam militarium, imperii Romani, sect. XXXVIII edit. Labbe). They were part of the sixty-five Auxilia Palatina, and are properly styled ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ τάξεις by Zosimus (l. VI 374). ↩
… Comitatur euntem
Pallor, et atra fames; et saucia lividus ora
Luctus; et inferno stridentes agmine morbi.
Claudian in “VI Consulatu Honorii” 321, etc.

↩
These dark transactions are investigated by the Count Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VII c. III⁠–⁠VIII, pp. 69⁠–⁠206), whose laborious accuracy may sometimes fatigue a superficial reader. ↩
See Zosimus, l. V, pp. 334, 335. He interrupts his scanty narrative to relate the fable of Aemona, and of the ship Argo, which was drawn overland from that place to the Adriatic. Sozomen (l. VIII c. 25, l. IX c. 4) and Socrates (l. VII c. 10) cast a pale and doubtful light; and Orosius (l. VII c. 38, p. 571) is abominably partial. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, pp. 338, 339. He repeats the words of Lampadius as they were spoke in Latin, “Non est ista pax, sed pactio servitutis,”9010 and then translates them into Greek for the benefit of his readers. ↩
He came from the coast of the Euxine, and exercised a splendid office, λαμπρᾶς δὲ στρατείας ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις ἠζιωμενος. His actions justify his character, which Zosimus (l. V, p. 340) exposes with visible satisfaction. Augustine revered the piety of Olympius, whom he styles a true son of the church (Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 408,” No. 19, etc.; Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII, pp. 467, 468). But these praises, which the African saint so unworthily bestows, might proceed as well from ignorance as from adulation. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, pp. 338, 339. Sozomen, l. IX c. 4. Stilicho offered to undertake the journey to Constantinople, that he might divert Honorius from the vain attempt. The Eastern empire would not have obeyed, and could not have been conquered. ↩
Zosimus (l. V, pp. 336⁠–⁠345) has copiously, though not clearly, related the disgrace and death of Stilicho. Olympiodorus (apud Photius, p. 177), Orosius (l. VII c. 38, pp. 571, 572), Sozomen (l. IX c. 4), and Philostorgius (l. XI c. 3, l. XII c. 2) afford supplemental hints. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, p. 333. The marriage of a Christian with two sisters scandalizes Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 557), who expects, in vain, that Pope Innocent I should have done something in the way either of censure or of dispensation. ↩
Two of his friends are honorably mentioned (Zosimus, l. V, p. 346): Peter, chief of the school of notaries, and the great chamberlain Deuterius. Stilicho had secured the bedchamber, and it is surprising that, under a feeble prince, the bedchamber was not able to secure him. ↩
Orosius (l. VII c. 38, pp. 571, 572) seems to copy the false and furious manifestos which were dispersed through the provinces by the new administration. ↩
See the Theodosian Code, l. VII tit. XVI leg. 1, l. IX tit. XLII leg. 22. Stilicho is branded with the name of proedo publicus, who employed his wealth ad omnem ditandam, inquietandamque Barbariem. ↩
Augustine himself is satisfied with the effectual laws which Stilicho had enacted against heretics and idolaters, and which are still extant in the Code. He only applies to Olympius for their confirmation (Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 408,” No. 19). ↩
Hence, perhaps, the accusation of treachery is countenanced by Rutilius:⁠—

Quo magis est facinus diri Stilichonis iniquum
Proditor arcani quod fuit imperii.
Romano generi dum nititur esse superstes,
Crudelis summis miscuit ima furor.
Dumque timet, quicquid se fecerat ipso timeri,
Immisit Latiae barbara tela neci.
Rutilius, “De reditu suo” II 41.

—⁠M. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, p. 351. We may observe the bad taste of the age, in dressing their statues with such awkward finery. ↩
See Rutilius Numatianus (“De reditu suo” l. II 41⁠–⁠60), to whom religious enthusiasm has dictated some elegant and forcible lines. Stilicho likewise stripped the gold plates from the doors of the Capitol, and read a prophetic sentence which was engraven under them (Zosimus, l. V, p. 352). These are foolish stories: yet the charge of impiety adds weight and credit to the praise, which Zosimus reluctantly bestows, of his virtues.9011 ↩
At the nuptials of Orpheus (a modest comparison!) all the parts of animated nature contributed their various gifts, and the gods themselves enriched their favorite. Claudian had neither flocks, nor herds, nor vines, nor olives. His wealthy bride was heiress to them all. But he carried to Africa a recommendatory letter from Serena, his Juno, and was made happy (“Epistola II” ad Serenam). ↩
Claudian feels the honor like a man who deserved it (in praefatio De bello Getico). The original inscription, on marble, was found at Rome, in the fifteenth century, in the house of Pomponius Laetus. The statue of a poet, far superior to Claudian, should have been erected during his lifetime by the men of letters, his countrymen and contemporaries. It was a noble design. ↩
See Epigram XXX.

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

Hadrian was a Pharian (of Alexandria). See his public life in Godefroy, Codex Theodosianus, tom. VI, p. 364. Mallius did not always sleep. He composed some elegant dialogues on the Greek systems of natural philosophy (Claudian, in “Consulatu Manlii Theodori” 61⁠–⁠112). ↩
See Claudian’s first Epistle. Yet, in some places, an air of irony and indignation betrays his secret reluctance.9012 ↩
National vanity has made him a Florentine, or a Spaniard. But the first epistle of Claudian proves him a native of Alexandria (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina, tom. III, pp. 191⁠–⁠202, edit. Ernesti). ↩
His first Latin verses were composed during the consulship of Probinus, AD 395.

Romanos bibimus primum, te consule, fontes,
Et Latiae cessit Graia Thalia togae.

Besides some Greek epigrams, which are still extant, the Latin poet had composed, in Greek, the antiquities of Tarsus, Anazarbus, Berytus, Nice, etc. It is more easy to supply the loss of good poetry than of authentic history. ↩
Strada (Prolusion V, VI) allows him to contend with the five heroic poets, Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, and Statius. His patron is the accomplished courtier Balthazar Castiglione. His admirers are numerous and passionate. Yet the rigid critics reproach the exotic weeds, or flowers, which spring too luxuriantly in his Latian soil. ↩
The series of events from the death of Stilicho to the arrival of Alaric before Rome can only be found in Zosimus, l. V, pp. 347⁠–⁠350. ↩
The expression of Zosimus is strong and lively: καταφρόνησιν ἐμποιῆσαι τοῖς πολεμίοις ἀρκοῦντας, sufficient to excite the contempt of the enemy. ↩
Eos qui catholicae sectae sunt inimici, intra palatium militare prohibemus. Nullus nobis sit aliquâ ratione conjunctus, qui a nobis fidest religione discordat. Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. V leg. 42, and Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. VI, p. 164. This law was applied in the utmost latitude, and rigorously executed. Zosimus, l. V, p. 364. ↩
Joseph Addison (see his Works, vol. II, p. 54, edit. Baskerville) has given a very picturesque description of the road through the Apennine. The Goths were not at leisure to observe the beauties of the prospect; but they were pleased to find that the Saxa Intercisa, a narrow passage which Vespasian had cut through the rock (Cluverius, Italia antiqua, tom. I, p. 618), was totally neglected. ↩
Hinc albi, Clitumne, greges, et maxima taurus
Victima, saepe tuo perfusi flumine sacro,
Romanos ad templa Deum duxere triumphos.
Georgics II 147.

Besides Virgil, most of the Latin poets, Propertius, Lucan, Silius Italicus, Claudian, etc., whose passages may be found in Cluverius and Addison, have celebrated the triumphal victims of the Clitumnus. ↩
Some ideas of the march of Alaric are borrowed from the journey of Honorius over the same ground (See Claudian in “VI Consulatu Honorii” 494⁠–⁠522). The measured distance between Ravenna and Rome was 254 Roman miles. Wesseling, Intineraria, p. 126. ↩
The march and retreat of Hannibal are described by Livy, l. XXVI c. 7⁠–⁠11; and the reader is made a spectator of the interesting scene. ↩
These comparisons were used by Cyneas, the counsellor of Pyrrhus, after his return from his embassy, in which he had diligently studied the discipline and manners of Rome. See Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Pyrrho,” tom. II, p. 459. ↩
In the three census which were made of the Roman people about the time of the second Punic war, the numbers stand as follows (see Livy, Epitome, l. XX; History of Rome, l. XXVII 36, XXIX 37): 270,213, 137,108, 214,000. The fall of the second, and the rise of the third, appears so enormous that several critics, notwithstanding the unanimity of the MSS., have suspected some corruption of the text of Livy. (See Drakenborch ad XXVII 36, and Beaufort, La République romaine, tom. I, p. 325.) They did not consider that the second census was taken only at Rome, and that the numbers were diminished, not only by the death, but likewise by the absence, of many soldiers. In the third census, Livy expressly affirms that the legions were mustered by the care of particular commissaries. From the numbers on the list we must always deduct one twelfth above threescore and incapable of bearing arms. See Population de la France, p. 72. ↩
Compare the remarkable transaction in Jeremiah 32:6⁠–⁠44, where the prophet purchases his uncle’s estate at the approach of the Babylonian captivity, in his undoubting confidence in the future restoration of the people. In the one case it is the triumph of religious faith, in the other of national pride. —⁠M. ↩
Livy considers these two incidents as the effects only of chance and courage. I suspect that they were both managed by the admirable policy of the senate. ↩
See Jerome, tom. I, pp. 169, 170, ad Eustochium; he bestows on Paula the splendid titles of Gracchorum stirps, soboles Scipionum, Pauli haeres, cujus vocabulum trahit, Martiae Papyriae Matris Africani vera et germana propago. This particular description supposes a more solid title than the surname of Julius, which Toxotius shared with a thousand families of the western provinces. See the Index of Tacitus, of Gruter’s Inscriptions, etc. ↩
Tacitus (Annales III 55) affirms that between the battle of Actium and the reign of Vespasian the senate was gradually filled with new families from the Municipia and colonies of Italy. ↩
Nec quisquam Procerum tentet (licet aere vetusto
Floreat, et claro cingatur Roma senatu)
Se jactare parem; sed primâ sede relictâ
Aucheniis, de jure licet certare secundo.
Claudian in “Probino et Olybrio consulibus” 18.

Such a compliment paid to the obscure name of the Auchenii has amazed the critics; but they all agree that, whatever may be the true reading, the sense of Claudian can be applied only to the Anician family. ↩
The earliest date in the annals of Pighius is that of M. Anicius Gallus, Tribunus Plebis AUC 506. Another tribune, Q. Anicius, AUC 508, is distinguished by the epithet of Praenestinus. Livy (XLV 43) places the Anicii below the great families of Rome. ↩
Livy XLIV 30, 31; XLV 3, 26, 43. He fairly appreciates the merit of Anicius and justly observes that his fame was clouded by the superior lustre of the Macedonian, which preceded the Illyrian, triumph. ↩
The dates of the three consulships are, AUC 593, 818, 967; the two last under the reigns of Nero and Caracalla. The second of these consuls distinguished himself only by his infamous flattery (Tacitus, Annales XV 74), but even the evidence of crimes, if they bear the stamp of greatness and antiquity, is admitted without reluctance to prove the genealogy of a noble house. ↩
In the sixth century the nobility of the Anician name is mentioned (Cassiodorus, Variarum, l. X, Epistolae 10, 12) with singular respect by the minister of a Gothic king of Italy. ↩
… Fixus in omnes
Cognatos procedit honos; quemcumque requiras
Hâc de stirpe virum, certum est de Consule nasci.
Per fasces numerantur Avi, semperque renata
Nobilitate virent, et prolem fata sequuntur.
Claudian in Probino et Olybrio consulibus 12, etc.

The Annii, whose name seems to have merged in the Anician, mark the Fasti with many consulships, from the time of Vespasian to the fourth century. ↩
The title of first Christian senator may be justified by the authority of Prudentius (in Symmachus I 553), and the dislike of the pagans to the Anician family. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. IV, p. 183, V, p. 44. Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 312,” No. 78, “AD 322,” No. 2. ↩
Probus⁠ ⁠… claritudine generis et potentia et opum magnitudine, cognitus Orbi Romano, per quem universum poene patrimonia sparsa possedit, juste an secus non judicioli est nostri. Ammianus Marcellinus XXVII 11. His children and widow erected for him a magnificent tomb in the Vatican, which was demolished in the time of Pope Nicholas V to make room for the new church of St. Peter. Baronius, who laments the ruin of this Christian monument, has diligently preserved the inscriptions and basso-relievos. See Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 395,” No. 5⁠–⁠17. ↩
Two Persian satraps travelled to Milan and Rome to hear St. Ambrose and to see Probus (Paulinus in Vita Sancti Ambrosii). Claudian (in “Probino et Olybrio consulibus” 30⁠–⁠60) seems at a loss how to express the glory of Probus. ↩
See the poem which Claudian addressed to the two noble youths. ↩
Secundinus, the Manichaean, apud Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 390,” No. 34. ↩
See Nardini, Roma antica, pp. 89, 498, 500. ↩
Quid loquar inclusas inter laquearia sylvas;
Vernula queis vario carmine ludit avis.
Rutilius Claudius Namatianus, “De reditu suo” ver. 111.

The poet lived at the time of the Gothic invasion. A moderate palace would have covered Cincinnatus’s farm of four acres (Valerius Maximus IV 4). In laxitatem ruris excurrunt, says Seneca, Epistulae morales 114. See a judicious note of Mr. Hume, Essays, vol. I, p. 562, last octavo edition. ↩
This curious account of Rome in the reign of Honorius is found in a fragment of the historian Olympiodorus, apud Photius, p. 197. ↩
The sons of Alypius, of Symmachus, and of Maximus spent during their respective praetorships twelve or twenty or forty centenaries (or hundred weight of gold). See Olympiodorus apud Photius, p. 197. This popular estimation allows some latitude; but it is difficult to explain a law in the Theodosian Code (l. VI leg. 5) which fixes the expense of the first praetor at 25,000, of the second at 20,000, and of the third at 15,000 folles. The name of follis (see Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, p. 727) was equally applied to a purse of 125 pieces of silver, and to a small copper coin of the value of ¹⁄₂₆₂₅ part of that purse. In the former sense, the 25,000 folles would be equal to £150,000, in the latter to five or six pounds sterling. The one appears extravagant, the other is ridiculous. There must have existed some third and middle value which is here understood: but ambiguity is an excusable fault in the language of laws. ↩
Nicopolis⁠ ⁠… in Actiaco littore sita possessionis vestrae nunc pars vel maxima est. Jerome in Praefatio Commentarii ad “Epistola ad Titum,” tom. IX, p. 243. M. de Tillemont supposes, strangely enough, that it was part of Agamemnon’s inheritance. Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XII, p. 85. ↩
Seneca, Epistulae morales LXXXIX. His language is of the declamatory kind; but declamation could scarcely exaggerate the avarice and luxury of the Romans. The philosopher himself deserved some share of the reproach, if it be true that his rigorous exaction of Quadringenties, above three hundred thousand pounds which he had lent at high interest, provoked a rebellion in Britain (Dion Cassius, l. LXII, p. 1003). According to the conjecture of Gale (Antoninus’s Itinerary in Britain, p. 92), the same Faustinus possessed an estate near Bury in Suffolk, and another in the kingdom of Naples. ↩
Volusius, a wealthy senator (Tacitus, Annales III 30), always preferred tenants born on the estate. Columella, who received this maxim from him, argues very judiciously on the subject. De re rustica, l. I c. 7, p. 408, edit. Gesner, Leipsig, 1735. ↩
Valesius (ad Ammianus XIV 6) has proved from Chrysostom and Augustine that the senators were not allowed to lend money at usury. Yet it appears from the Theodosian Code (see Godefroy ad, l. II tit. XXXIII tom. I, pp. 230⁠–⁠239) that they were permitted to take six percent, or one half of the legal interest; and, what is more singular, this permission was granted to the young senators. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXIII 50. He states the silver at only 4,380 pounds, which is increased by Livy (XXX 45) to 100,023: the former seems too little for an opulent city, the latter too much for any private sideboard. ↩
The learned Arbuthnot (Tables of Ancient Coins, Weights and Measures, p. 153) has observed with humor, and I believe with truth, that Augustus had neither glass to his windows nor a shirt to his back. Under the lower empire, the use of linen and glass became somewhat more common.9013 ↩
It is incumbent on me to explain the liberties which I have taken with the text of Ammianus.
1. I have melted down into one piece the sixth chapter of the fourteenth and the fourth of the twenty-eighth book.
2. I have given order and connection to the confused mass of materials.
3. I have softened some extravagant hyperboles and pared away some superfluities of the original.
4. I have developed some observations which were insinuated rather than expressed.
With these allowances, my version will be found, not literal indeed, but faithful and exact. ↩
Claudian, who seems to have read the history of Ammianus, speaks of this great revolution in a much less courtly style:⁠—

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

↩
The minute diligence of antiquarians has not been able to verify these extraordinary names. I am of opinion that they were invented by the historian himself, who was afraid of any personal satire or application. It is certain, however, that the simple denominations of the Romans were gradually lengthened to the number of four, five, or even seven pompous surnames; as, for instance, Marcus Maecius Maemmius Furius Balburius Caecilianus Placidus. See Noris, Cenotaphia Pisanae, dissertatio IV, p. 438. ↩
The carrucae or coaches of the Romans were often of solid silver, curiously carved and engraved; and the trappings of the mules or horses were embossed with gold. This magnificence continued from the reign of Nero to that of Honorius; and the Appian way was covered with the splendid equipages of the nobles, who came out to meet St. Melania when she returned to Rome, six years before the Gothic siege (Seneca, Epistulae morales LXXXVII; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXIII 49; Paulinus Nolanus apud Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 397,” No. 5). Yet pomp is well exchanged for convenience; and a plain modern coach that is hung upon springs is much preferable to the silver or gold carts of antiquity, which rolled on the axletree and were exposed, for the most part, to the inclemency of the weather. ↩
In a homily of Asterius, bishop of Amasia, M. de Valois has discovered (ad Ammianus XIV 6) that this was a new fashion; that bears, wolves, lions and tigers, woods, hunting-matches, etc., were represented in embroidery; and that the more pious coxcombs substituted the figure or legend of some favorite saint. ↩
See Pliny the Younger’s Epistles I 6. Three large wild boars were allured and taken in the toils without interrupting the studies of the philosophic sportsman. ↩
The change from the inauspicious word Avernus, which stands in the text, is immaterial. The two lakes, Avernus and Lucrinus, communicated with each other, and were fashioned by the stupendous moles of Agrippa into the Julian port, which opened, through a narrow entrance, into the Gulf of Puteoli. Virgil, who resided on the spot, has described (Georgics II 161) this work at the moment of its execution; and his commentators, especially Catrou, have derived much light from Strabo, Suetonius, and Dion. Earthquakes and volcanoes have changed the face of the country, and turned the Lucrine lake, since the year 1538, into the Monte Nuovo. See Camillo Pellegrino, Apparato alle antichità di Capua overo discorsi della Campania felice, pp. 239, 244, etc., Antonii Sanfelicii, Campania, pp. 13, 88.9014 ↩
The regna Cumana et Puteolana; loca caetiroqui valde expetenda, interpellantium autem multitudine paene fugienda. Cicero, Epistulae ad atticum XVI 17. ↩
The proverbial expression of Cimmerian darkness was originally borrowed from the description of Homer (in the eleventh book of the Odyssey), which he applies to a remote and fabulous country on the shores of the ocean. See Erasmi, Adagia, in his Works, tom. II, p. 593, the Leyden edition. ↩
We may learn from Seneca (Epistulae morales CXXIII) three curious circumstances relative to the journeys of the Romans.
1. They were preceded by a troop of Numidian light horse, who announced, by a cloud of dust, the approach of a great man.
2. Their baggage mules transported not only the precious vases, but even the fragile vessels of crystal and murra, which last is almost proved by the learned French translator of Seneca (tom. III, pp. 402⁠–⁠422) to mean the porcelain of China and Japan.
3. The beautiful faces of the young slaves were covered with a medicated crust or ointment, which secured them against the effects of the sun and frost.
↩
Distributio solemnium sportularum. The sportuloe, or sportelloe, were small baskets, supposed to contain a quantity of hot provisions of the value of 100 quadrantes, or twelvepence halfpenny, which were ranged in order in the hall, and ostentatiously distributed to the hungry or servile crowd who waited at the door. This indelicate custom is very frequently mentioned in the epigrams of Martial and the satires of Juvenal. See likewise Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Claudius,” c. 21, in “Nero,” c. 16, in “Domitian,” c. 4, 7. These baskets of provisions were afterwards converted into large pieces of gold and silver coin or plate, which were mutually given and accepted even by persons of the highest rank (see Symmachus, Epistolae IV 55, IX 124, and Miscell., p. 256) on solemn occasions, of consulships, marriages, etc. ↩
The want of an English name obliges me to refer to the common genus of squirrels,9015 the Latin glis, the French loir; a little animal who inhabits the woods, and remains torpid in cold weather (see Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VIII 82; Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. VIII 158; Thomas Pennant’s Synopsis of Quadrupeds, p. 289). The art of rearing and fattening great numbers of glires was practiced in Roman villas as a profitable article of rural economy (Varro, De re rustica III 15). The excessive demand of them for luxurious tables was increased by the foolish prohibitions of the censors; and it is reported that they are still esteemed in modern Rome, and are frequently sent as presents by the Colonna princes (see Brotier, the last editor of Pliny the Elder, tom. II, p. 458, apud Barbou, 1779). ↩
This game, which might be translated by the more familiar names of trictrac or backgammon, was a favorite amusement of the gravest Romans; and old Mucius Scaevola, the lawyer, had the reputation of a very skilful player. It was called ludus duodecim scriptorum, from the twelve scripta, or lines, which equally divided the alvevolus or table. On these, the two armies, the white and the black, each consisting of fifteen men, or calculi, were regularly placed, and alternately moved according to the laws of the game, and the chances of the tesserae, or dice. Dr. Hyde, who diligently traces the history and varieties of the nerdiludium (a name of Persic etymology) from Ireland to Japan, pours forth on this trifling subject a copious torrent of classic and Oriental learning. See Syntagma dissertationum, tom. II, pp. 217⁠–⁠405. ↩
Marius Maximus, homo omnium verbosissimus, qui, et mythistoricis se voluminibus implicavit. Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, p. 242. He wrote the lives of the emperors, from Trajan to Alexander Severus. See Gerard Vossius, De historicis Latinis, l. II c. 3, in his Works, vol. IV, p. 57. ↩
This satire is probably exaggerated. The Saturnalia of Macrobius and the epistles of Jerome afford satisfactory proofs that Christian theology and classic literature were studiously cultivated by several Romans of both sexes and of the highest rank. ↩
Macrobius, the friend of these Roman nobles, considered the stars as the cause, or at least the signs, of future events (Commentarii de Somnium Scipionis, l. I c. 19, p. 68). ↩
The histories of Livy (see particularly VI 36) are full of the extortions of the rich and the sufferings of the poor debtors. The melancholy story of a brave old soldier (Dionysi Halicarnasensis, l. VI c. 26, p. 347, edit. Hudson, and Livy II 23) must have been frequently repeated in those primitive times, which have been so undeservedly praised. ↩
Non esse in civitate duo millia hominum qui rem haberent. Cicero, De officiis II 21, and Commentarius Pauli Manutii in edit. Graevius. This vague computation was made AUC 649, in a speech of the tribune Philippus, and it was his object, as well as that of the Gracchi (see Plutarch), to deplore, and perhaps to exaggerate, the misery of the common people. ↩
See the third Satire (60⁠–⁠125) of Juvenal, who indignantly complains,

… Quamvis quota portio faecis Achaei!
Jampridem Syrus in Tiberem defluxit Orontes;
Et linguam et mores, etc.

Seneca, when he proposes to comfort his mother (“Consolatione ad Helviam” c. 6) by the reflection that a great part of mankind were in a state of exile, reminds her how few of the inhabitants of Rome were born in the city. ↩
Almost all that is said of the bread, bacon, oil, wine, etc., may be found in the fourteenth book of the Theodosian Code; which expressly treats of the police of the great cities. See particularly the titles III, IV, XV, XVI, XVII, XXIV. The collateral testimonies are produced in Godefroy’s Commentary, and it is needless to transcribe them. According to a law of Theodosius, which appreciates in money the military allowance, a piece of gold (eleven shillings) was equivalent to eighty pounds of bacon, or to eighty pounds of oil, or to twelve modii (or pecks) of salt (Codex Theodosianus, l. VIII tit. IV leg. 17). This equation, compared with another, of seventy pounds of bacon for an amphora (Codex Theodosianus, l. XIV tit. IV leg. 4), fixes the price of wine at about sixteenpence the gallon. ↩
The anonymous author of the “Description of the World” (p. 14 in tom. III Geographi Graeci minores, edit. Hudson) observes of Lucania, in his barbarous Latin, Regio optima, et ipsa omnibus habundans, et lardum multum foras emittit. Proptor quod est in montibus, cujus aescam animalium variam, etc. ↩
See Novellae ad calcem Codex Theodosianus de Valente, l. I tit. XV. This law was published at Rome, June 29th, AD 452. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 42. The utmost debauch of the emperor himself, in his favorite wine of Rhaetia, never exceeded a sextarius (an English pint). Idem, c. 77. Torrentius ad loc. and Arbuthnot’s Tables of Ancient Coins, p. 86. ↩
His design was to plant vineyards along the seacoast of Etruria (Vopiscus, in Historia Augusta, p. 225), the dreary, unwholesome, uncultivated Maremme of modern Tuscany. ↩
Olympiodorus apud Photius, p. 197. ↩
Seneca (Epistulae morales LXXXVI) compares the baths of Scipio Africanus, at his villa of Liternum, with the magnificence (which was continually increasing) of the public baths of Rome, long before the stately Thermae of Antoninus and Diocletian were erected. The quadrans paid for admission was the quarter of the as, about one eighth of an English penny. ↩
Ammianus (l. XIV c. 6, and l. XXVIII c. 4), after describing the luxury and pride of the nobles of Rome, exposes, with equal indignation, the vices and follies of the common people. ↩
Juvenal, Satires XI 191, etc. The expressions of the historian Ammianus are not less strong and animated than those of the satirist; and both the one and the other painted from the life. The numbers which the great Circus was capable of receiving are taken from the original Notitiae of the city. The differences between them prove that they did not transcribe each other; but the sum may appear incredible, though the country on these occasions flocked to the city. ↩
Sometimes indeed they composed original pieces.

… Vestigia Graeca
Ausi deserere et celebrare domestica facta.

Horatius, Epistolae ad Pisones 285, and the learned, though perplexed, note of Dacier, who might have allowed the name of tragedies to the Brutus and the Decius of Pacuvius, or to the Cato of Maternus. The Octavia, ascribed to one of the Senecas, still remains a very unfavorable specimen of Roman tragedy. ↩
In the time of Quintilian and Pliny, a tragic poet was reduced to the imperfect method of hiring a great room, and reading his play to the company whom he invited for that purpose. (See Dialogus de oratoribus, c. 9, 11, and Pliny the Younger, Epistulae VII 17.) ↩
See the dialogue of Lucian, entitled De saltatione, tom. II, pp. 265⁠–⁠317, edit. Reitz. The pantomimes obtained the honorable name of χειρόσοφοι; and it was required that they should be conversant with almost every art and science. Burette (in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. I, p. 127, etc.) has given a short history of the art of pantomimes. ↩
Ammianus, l. XIV c. 6. He complains, with decent indignation, that the streets of Rome were filled with crowds of females, who might have given children to the state, but whose only occupation was to curl and dress their hair, and jactari volubilibus gyris, dum exprimunt innumera simulacra, quae finxere fabulae theatrales. ↩
Lipsius (tom. III, p. 423, De magnitudine Romanâ, l. III c. 3) and Isaac Vossius (Variarum observationum, pp. 26⁠–⁠34) have indulged strange dreams of four, or eight, or fourteen millions in Rome. Mr. Hume (Essays, vol. I, pp. 450⁠–⁠457), with admirable good sense and scepticism, betrays some secret disposition to extenuate the populousness of ancient times. ↩
Olympiodorus apud Photius, p. 197. See Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. IX, p. 400. ↩
In eâ autem majestate urbis, et civium infinitâ frequentiâ, innumerabiles habitationes opus fuit explicare. Ergo cum recipero non posset area plana tantam multitudinem in urbe, ad auxilium altitudinis aedificiorum res ipsa coegit devenire. Vitruvius II 8. This passage, which I owe to Vossius, is clear, strong, and comprehensive. ↩
The successive testimonies of Pliny, Aristides, Claudian, Rutilius, etc., prove the insufficiency of these restrictive edicts. See Lipsius, De magnitudine Romanâ, l. III c. 4.

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

↩
Read the whole third satire, but particularly 166, 223, etc. The description of a crowded insula or lodging-house in Petronius (c. 95, 97) perfectly tallies with the complaints of Juvenal; and we learn from legal authority that in the time of Augustus (Heineccius, Historia juris Romani, c. IV, p. 181), the ordinary rent of the several coenacula, or apartments of an insula, annually produced forty thousand sesterces, between three and four hundred pounds sterling (Pandectae, l. XIX tit. II No. 30), a sum which proves at once the large extent and high value of those common buildings. ↩
This sum total is composed of 1,780 domus, or great houses of 46,602 insulae, or plebeian habitations (see Nardini, Roma antica, l. III, p. 88); and these numbers are ascertained by the agreement of the texts of the different Notitiae. Nardini, l. VIII, pp. 498, 500. ↩
See that accurate writer M. de Messance, Recherches sur la population, pp. 175⁠–⁠187. From probable, or certain grounds, he assigns to Paris 23,565 houses, 71,114 families, and 576,630 inhabitants. ↩
This computation is not very different from that which M. Brotier, the last editor of Tacitus (tom. II, p. 380), has assumed from similar principles; though he seems to aim at a degree of precision which it is neither possible nor important to obtain. ↩
M. Dureau de La Malle (Économie politique des Romains t. I, p. 369) quotes a passage from the fifteenth chapter of Gibbon, in which he estimates the population of Rome at not less than a million, and adds (omitting any reference to this passage) that he (Gibbon) could not have seriously studied the question. M. Dureau de La Malle proceeds to argue that Rome, as contained within the walls of Servius Tullius, occupying an area only one fifth of that of Paris, could not have contained 300,000 inhabitants; within those of Aurelian not more than 560,000, inclusive of soldiers and strangers. The suburbs, he endeavors to show, both up to the time of Aurelian and after his reign, were neither so extensive nor so populous as generally supposed. M. Dureau de La Malle has but imperfectly quoted the important passage of Dionysius, that which proves that when he wrote (in the time of Augustus) the walls of Servius no longer marked the boundary of the city. In many places they were so built upon that it was impossible to trace them. There was no certain limit where the city ended and ceased to be the city; it stretched out to so boundless an extent into the country. οὐχ ἔξει βέβαιον σημεῖον οὐδὲν, ῷ διαγνώσεται, μέχρι τοῦ προβαίνουσα ἡ ρόλις ἔτι πόλις ἐστὶ, καὶ πόθεν ἄρχεται μηκέτι εἶναι πόῦις οὖτω συνύφανται τω αστει ἡ χώρα, καὶ εἰς ἂπειρον ἐκμηκυνομένης πόλεως ὐπόληψιν τοὂς θεωμένοις παρέχεται εἰ δὲ τῶ τείχει, τῷ δυσευρέτῳ μὲν ὄντι διὰ τὰς περιλαμβανοόσας αὑτὸ πολλαχήθεν οικηοέις, ἔχνη δέ τινα φηλάττοντι κατὰ πολλοὐς κόρους κῆς ἀρχαίας κστασκευῆς βουληθειη μετρειν αὐτὴν, κ. τ. λ. Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam IV 13. None of M. de La Malle’s arguments appear to me to prove, against this statement, that these irregular suburbs did not extend so far in many parts as to make it impossible to calculate accurately the inhabited area of the city. Though no doubt the city, as reconstructed by Nero, was much less closely built and with many more open spaces for palaces, temples, and other public edifices, yet many passages seem to prove that the laws respecting the height of houses were not rigidly enforced. A great part of the lower, especially of the slave, population, were very densely crowded, and lived, even more than in our modern towns, in cellars and subterranean dwellings under the public edifices.

Nor do M. de La Malle’s arguments, by which he would explain the insulae (of which the Notitia urbis give us the number) as rows of shops, with a chamber or two within the domus, or houses of the wealthy, satisfy me as to their soundness or their scholarship. Some passages which he adduces directly contradict his theory; none, as appears to me, distinctly prove it. I must adhere to the old interpretation of the word as chiefly dwellings for the middling or lower classes, or clusters of tenements, often, perhaps, under the same roof.

On this point, Zumpt, in the dissertation before quoted, entirely disagrees with M. de La Malle. Zumpt has likewise detected the mistake of M. de La Malle as to the “canon” of corn, mentioned in the life of Septimius Severus by Spartianus. On this canon the French writer calculates the inhabitants of Rome at that time. But the “canon” was not the whole supply of Rome, but that quantity which the state required for the public granaries to supply the gratuitous distributions to the people and the public officers and slaves; no doubt likewise to keep down the general price. M. Zumpt reckons the population of Rome at 2,000,000. After careful consideration, I should conceive the number in the text, 1,200,000, to be nearest the truth. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
For the events of the first siege of Rome, which are often confounded with those of the second and third, see Zosimus, l. V, pp. 350⁠–⁠354; Sozomen, l. IX c. 6; Olympiodorus apud Photius, p. 180; Philostorgius, l. XII c. 3; and Godefroy, Dissertations, pp. 467⁠–⁠475. ↩
The mother of Laeta was named Pissumena. Her father, family, and country are unknown. Du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 59. ↩
Ad nefandos cibos erupit esurientium rabies, et sua invicem membra laniarunt, dum mater non parcit lactenti infantiae; et recipit utero, quem paullo ante effuderat. Jerome ad “Principiam,” tom. I, p. 121. The same horrid circumstance is likewise told of the sieges of Jerusalem and Paris. For the latter compare the tenth book of the Henriade, and the Journal de Henri IV, tom. I, pp. 47⁠–⁠83; and observe that a plain narrative of facts is much more pathetic than the most labored descriptions of epic poetry. ↩
Zosimus (l. V, pp. 355, 356) speaks of these ceremonies like a Greek unacquainted with the national superstition of Rome and Tuscany. I suspect that they consisted of two parts, the secret and the public; the former were probably an imitation of the arts and spells by which Numa had drawn down Jupiter and his thunder on Mount Aventine.

… Quid agant laqueis, quae carmine dicant,
Quâque trahant superis sedibus arte Jovem,
Scire nefas homini.9016

The ancilia, or shields of Mars, the pignora Imperii, which were carried in solemn procession on the calends of March, derived their origin from this mysterious event (Ovid, Fastorum libri sex III 259⁠–⁠398). It was probably designed to revive this ancient festival, which had been suppressed by Theodosius. In that case, we recover a chronological date (March the 1st, AD 409) which has not hitherto been observed. ↩
Sozomen (l. IX c. 6) insinuates that the experiment was actually, though unsuccessfully, made; but he does not mention the name of Innocent: and Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. X, p. 645) is determined not to believe that a pope could be guilty of such impious condescension. ↩
Pepper was a favorite ingredient of the most expensive Roman cookery, and the best sort commonly sold for fifteen denarii, or ten shillings, the pound. See Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XII 14. It was brought from India; and the same country, the coast of Malabar, still affords the greatest plenty: but the improvement of trade and navigation has multiplied the quantity and reduced the price. See Histoire philosophique et politique, etc., tom. I, p. 457. ↩
This Gothic chieftain is called by Jornandes and Isidore, Athaulphus; by Zosimus and Orosius, Ataulphus; and by Olympiodorus, Adaoulphus. I have used the celebrated name of Adolphus, which seems to be authorized by the practice of the Swedes, the sons or brothers of the ancient Goths. ↩
The treaty between Alaric and the Romans, etc., is taken from Zosimus, l. V, pp. 354, 355, 358, 359, 362, 363. The additional circumstances are too few and trifling to require any other quotation. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, p. 367⁠–⁠369. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, pp. 360⁠–⁠362. The bishop, by remaining at Ravenna, escaped the impending calamities of the city. Orosius, l. VII c. 39, p. 573. ↩
For the adventures of Olympius, and his successors in the ministry, see Zosimus, l. V, pp. 363, 365, 366, and Olympiodorus apud Photius, pp. 180, 181. ↩
Zosimus (l. V, p. 364) relates this circumstance with visible complacency, and celebrates the character of Gennerid as the last glory of expiring Paganism. Very different were the sentiments of the council of Carthage, who deputed four bishops to the court of Ravenna to complain of the law which had been just enacted that all conversions to Christianity should be free and voluntary. See Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 409,” No. 12, “AD 410,” No. 47, 48. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, pp. 367⁠–⁠369. This custom of swearing by the head, or life, or safety, or genius of the sovereign was of the highest antiquity, both in Egypt (Genesis 42:15) and Scythia. It was soon transferred by flattery to the Caesars; and Tertullian complains that it was the only oath which the Romans of his time affected to reverence. See an elegant dissertation of the Abbé Guillaume Massieu on the “Oaths of the Ancients,” in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. I, pp. 208, 209. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, pp. 368, 369. I have softened the expressions of Alaric, who expatiates in too florid a manner on the history of Rome. ↩
See Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Claudius,” c. 20, Dion Cassius, l. LX, p. 949, edit. Reimar, and the lively description of Juvenal, Satires XII 75, etc. In the sixteenth century, when the remains of this Augustan port were still visible, the antiquarians sketched the plan (see d’Anville, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXX, p. 198) and declared with enthusiasm that all the monarchs of Europe would be unable to execute so great a work (Bergier, Histoire des grands chemins de l’empire Romain, tom. II, p. 356). ↩
The Ostia Tyberina (see Cluverius, Italia antiqua, l. III, pp. 870⁠–⁠879), in the plural number, the two mouths of the Tiber, were separated by the Holy Island, an equilateral triangle, whose sides were each of them computed at about two miles. The colony of Ostia was founded immediately beyond the left or southern, and the Port immediately beyond the right, or northern, branch of the river; and the distance between their remains measures something more than two miles on Cingolani’s map. In the time of Strabo, the sand and mud deposited by the Tiber had choked the harbor of Ostia; the progress of the same cause has added much to the size of the Holy Island, and gradually left both Ostia and the Port at a considerable distance from the shore. The dry channels (fiumi morti) and the large estuaries (stagno di Ponente, di Levante) mark the changes of the river and the efforts of the sea. Consult, for the present state of this dreary and desolate tract, the excellent map of the ecclesiastical state by the mathematicians of Benedict XIV; an actual survey of the Agro Romano, in six sheets, by Cingolani, which contains 113,819 rubbia (about 570,000 acres); and the large topographical map of Ameti in eight sheets. ↩
As early as the third (Lardner’s The Credibility of the Gospel History, part II vol. III, pp. 89⁠–⁠92), or at least the fourth, century (Carolo à Sancto Paulo, Notitia ecclesiastica, p. 47), the Port of Rome was an episcopal city, which was demolished, as it should seem in the ninth century, by Pope Gregory IV during the incursions of the Arabs. It is now reduced to an inn, a church, and the house or palace of the bishop, who ranks as one of six cardinal-bishops of the Roman church. See Francesco Eschinardi, Descrizione di Roma e dell’ agro Romano, p. 328.9017 ↩
For the elevation of Attalus, consult Zosimus, l. VI, pp. 377⁠–⁠380; Sozomen, l. IX c. 8, 9; Olympiodorus apud Photius, pp. 180, 181; Philostorgius, l. XII c. 3, and Godefroy’s Dissertations, p. 470. ↩
We may admit the evidence of Sozomen for the Arian baptism, and that of Philostorgius for the Pagan education, of Attalus. The visible joy of Zosimus, and the discontent which he imputes to the Anician family, are very unfavorable to the Christianity of the new emperor. ↩
He carried his insolence so far as to declare that he should mutilate Honorius before he sent him into exile. But this assertion of Zosimus is destroyed by the more impartial testimony of Olympiodorus, who attributes the ungenerous proposal (which was absolutely rejected by Attalus) to the baseness, and perhaps the treachery, of Jovius. ↩
Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 2. ↩
See the cause and circumstances of the fall of Attalus in Zosimus, l. VI, pp. 380⁠–⁠383; Sozomen, l. IX c. 8; Philostorgius, l. XII c. 3. The two acts of indemnity in the Theodosian Code, l. IX tit. XXXVIII leg. 11, 12, which were published the 12th of February and the 8th of August, AD 410, evidently relate to this usurper. ↩
In hoc, Alaricus, imperatore, facto, infecto, refecto, ac defecto⁠ ⁠… Mimum risit, et ludum spectavit imperii. Orosius, l. VII c. 42, p. 582. ↩
Zosimus, l. VI, p. 384; Sozomen, l. IX c. 9; Philostorgius, l. XII c. 3. In this place the text of Zosimus is mutilated, and we have lost the remainder of his sixth and last book, which ended with the sack of Rome. Credulous and partial as he is, we must take our leave of that historian with some regret. ↩
Adest Alaricus, trepidam Romam obsidet, turbat, irrumpit. Orosius, l. VII c. 39, p. 573. He despatches this great event in seven words; but he employs whole pages in celebrating the devotion of the Goths. I have extracted from an improbable story of Procopius the circumstances which had an air of probability. Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 2. He supposes that the city was surprised while the senators slept in the afternoon; but Jerome, with more authority and more reason, affirms that it was in the night, nocte Moab capta est; nocte cecidit murus ejus, tom. I, p. 121, ad “Principiam.” ↩
Orosius (l. VII c. 39, pp. 573⁠–⁠576) applauds the piety of the Christian Goths, without seeming to perceive that the greatest part of them were Arian heretics. Jornandes (c. 30, p. 653) and Isidore of Seville (Chronicon, p. 714, edit. Grotius), who were both attached to the Gothic cause, have repeated and embellished these edifying tales. According to Isidore, Alaric himself was heard to say that he waged war with the Romans and not with the apostles. Such was the style of the seventh century; two hundred years before, the fame and merit had been ascribed not to the apostles, but to Christ. ↩
See Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. I c. 1⁠–⁠6. He particularly appeals to the examples of Troy, Syracuse, and Tarentum. ↩
Jerome (tom. I, p. 121, ad “Principiam”) has applied to the sack of Rome all the strong expressions of Virgil:⁠—

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

Procopius (l. I c. 2) positively affirms that great numbers were slain by the Goths. Augustine (De civitate Dei, l. I c. 12, 13) offers Christian comfort for the death of those whose bodies (multa corpora) had remained (in tantâ strage) unburied. Baronius, from the different writings of the Fathers, has thrown some light on the sack of Rome. Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 410,” No. 16⁠–⁠34. ↩
Sozomen. l. IX c. 10. Augustine (De civitate Dei, l. I c. 17) intimates that some virgins or matrons actually killed themselves to escape violation; and though he admires their spirit, he is obliged by his theology to condemn their rash presumption. Perhaps the good bishop of Hippo was too easy in the belief, as well as too rigid in the censure, of this act of female heroism. The twenty maidens (if they ever existed) who threw themselves into the Elbe, when Magdeburgh was taken by storm, have been multiplied to the number of twelve hundred. See Harte’s History of Gustavus Adolphus, vol. I, p. 308. ↩
See Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. I c. 16, 18. He treats the subject with remarkable accuracy: and after admitting that there cannot be any crime where there is no consent, he adds, Sed quia non solum quod ad dolorem, verum etiam quod ad libidinem, pertinet, in corpore alieno pepetrari potest; quicquid tale factum fuerit, etsi retentam constantissimo animo pudicitiam non excutit, pudorem tamen incutit, ne credatur factum cum mentis etiam voluntate, quod fieri fortasse sine carnis aliquâ voluptate non potuit. In c. 18 he makes some curious distinctions between moral and physical virginity. ↩
Marcella, a Roman lady, equally respectable for her rank, her age, and her piety, was thrown on the ground, and cruelly beaten and whipped, caesam fustibus flagellisque, etc. Jerome, tom. I, p. 121, ad “Principiam.” See Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. c. 10. The modern Il sacco di Roma, p. 208, gives an idea of the various methods of torturing prisoners for gold. ↩
The historian Sallust, who usefully practiced the vices which he has so eloquently censured, employed the plunder of Numidia to adorn his palace and gardens on the Quirinal hill. The spot where the house stood is now marked by the church of St. Susanna, separated only by a street from the baths of Diocletian, and not far distant from the Salarian gate. See Nardini, Roma antica, pp. 192, 193, and the great Plan of Modern Rome, by Giambattista Nolli. ↩
The expressions of Procopius are distinct and moderate (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 2). The Chronicle of Marcellinus speaks too strongly partem urbis Romae cremavit; and the words of Philostorgius (ἐν ἐρειπίοις δὲ τῆς πόλεως κειμένης, l. XII c. 3) convey a false and exaggerated idea. Bargaeus has composed a particular dissertation (see tom. IV Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum, Graevius) to prove that the edifices of Rome were not subverted by the Goths and Vandals. ↩
Orosius, l. II c. 19, p. 143. He speaks as if he disapproved all statues; vel Deum vel hominem mentiuntur. They consisted of the kings of Alba and Rome from Aeneas, the Romans, illustrious either in arms or arts, and the deified Caesars. The expression which he uses of Forum is somewhat ambiguous, since there existed five principal Fora; but as they were all contiguous and adjacent, in the plain which is surrounded by the Capitoline, the Quirinal, the Esquiline, and the Palatine hills, they might fairly be considered as one. See the De Roma antiquâ of Donatus, pp. 162⁠–⁠201, and the Roma antica of Nardini, pp. 212⁠–⁠273. The former is more useful for the ancient descriptions, the latter for the actual topography. ↩
Orosius (l. II c. 19, p. 142) compares the cruelty of the Gauls and the clemency of the Goths. Ibi vix quemquam inventum senatorem, qui vel absens evaserit; hic vix quemquam requiri, qui forte ut latens perierit. But there is an air of rhetoric, and perhaps of falsehood, in this antithesis; and Socrates (l. VII c. 10) affirms, perhaps by an opposite exaggeration, that many senators were put to death with various and exquisite tortures. ↩
Multi⁠ ⁠… Christiani incaptivitatem ducti sunt. Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. I c. 14; and the Christians experienced no peculiar hardships. ↩
See Heineccius, Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, tom. I, p. 96. ↩
Appendix Codex Theodosianus XVI in Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. I, p. 735. This edict was published on the 11th of December, AD 408, and is more reasonable than properly belonged to the ministers of Honorius. ↩
Eminus Igilii sylvosa cacumina miror;
Quem fraudare nefas laudis honore suae.
Haec proprios nuper tutata est insula saltus;
Sive loci ingenio, seu Domini genio.
Gurgite cum modico victricibus obstitit armis,
Tanquam longinquo dissociata mari.
Haec multos lacerâ suscepit ab urbe fugates,
Hic fessis posito certa timore salus.
Plurima terreno populaverat aequora bello,
Contra naturam classe timendus eques:
Unum, mira fides, vario discrimine portum!
Tam prope Romanis, tam procul esse Getis.
Rutilius, in “De reditu suo” l. I 325

The island is now called Giglio. See Cluverius, Italia antiqua, l. II, p. 502. ↩
As the adventures of Proba and her family are connected with the life of St. Augustine, they are diligently illustrated by Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII, pp. 620⁠–⁠635. Some time after their arrival in Africa, Demetrias took the veil and made a vow of virginity; an event which was considered as of the highest importance to Rome and to the world. All the Saints wrote congratulatory letters to her; that of Jerome is still extant (tom. I, pp. 62⁠–⁠73, “Epistle ad Demetriadem de Virginitate servandâ”), and contains a mixture of absurd reasoning, spirited declamation, and curious facts, some of which relate to the siege and sack of Rome. ↩
See the pathetic complaint of Jerome (tom. V, p. 400), in his preface to the second book of his Commentaries on the prophet Ezekiel. ↩
Orosius, though with some theological partiality, states this comparison, l. II c. 19, p. 142, l. VII c. 39, p. 575. But in the history of the taking of Rome by the Gauls everything is uncertain, and perhaps fabulous. See Beaufort, Dissertation sur l’incertitude, des cinq premiers siècles de l’histoire Romaine, p. 356; and Melot, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XV, pp. 1⁠–⁠21. ↩
The reader who wishes to inform himself of the circumstances of this famous event may peruse an admirable narrative in Dr. Robertson’s History of Charles V, vol. II, p. 283; or consult the Annali d’Italia of the learned Muratori, tom. XIV, pp. 230⁠–⁠244, octavo edition. If he is desirous of examining the originals, he may have recourse to the eighteenth book of the great but unfinished history of Francesco Guicciardini. But the account which most truly deserves the name of authentic and original is a little book entitled Il sacco di Roma, composed, within less than a month after the assault of the city, by the brother of the historian Guicciardini, who appears to have been an able magistrate and a dispassionate writer. ↩
The furious spirit of Luther, the effect of temper and enthusiasm, has been forcibly attacked (Bossuet, Histoire des variations des Églises protestantes, livre I, pp. 20⁠–⁠36), and feebly defended (Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf, Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheranismo, especially l. I No. 78, p. 120, and l. III No. 122, p. 556). ↩
Marcellinus, in Chronicon, “Orosius” (l. VII c. 39, p. 575), asserts that he left Rome on the third day; but this difference is easily reconciled by the successive motions of great bodies of troops. ↩
Socrates (l. VII c. 10) pretends, without any color of truth or reason, that Alaric fled on the report that the armies of the Eastern empire were in full march to attack him. ↩
Ausonius, De claris urbibus, p. 233, edit. Tollius. The luxury of Capua had formerly surpassed that of Sybaris itself. See Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, l. XII, p. 528, edit. Casaubon. ↩
Forty-eight years before the foundation of Rome (about 800 before the Christian era), the Tuscans built Capua and Nola, at the distance of twenty-three miles from each other; but the latter of the two cities never emerged from a state of mediocrity. ↩
Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, pp. 1⁠–⁠146) has compiled, with his usual diligence, all that relates to the life and writings of Paulinus, whose retreat is celebrated by his own pen and by the praises of St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Sulpicius Severus, etc., his Christian friends and contemporaries. ↩
See the affectionate letters of Ausonius (Epistolarum XIX⁠–⁠XXV, pp. 650⁠–⁠698, edit. Tollius) to his colleague, his friend, and his disciple Paulinus. The religion of Ausonius is still a problem (see Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XV, pp. 123⁠–⁠138). I believe that it was such in his own time, and, consequently, that in his heart he was a Pagan. ↩
The humble Paulinus once presumed to say that he believed St. Felix did love him; at least, as a master loves his little dog. ↩
See Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 30, p. 653. Philostorgius, l. XII c. 3. Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. I c. 10. Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 410,” No. 45, 46. ↩
The platanus, or plane-tree, was a favorite of the ancients, by whom it was propagated, for the sake of shade, from the East to Gaul. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XII 3⁠–⁠5. He mentions several of an enormous size; one in the Imperial villa at Velitrae, which Caligula called his nest, as the branches were capable of holding a large table, the proper attendants, and the emperor himself, whom Pliny the Elder quaintly styles pars umbrae; an expression which might with equal reason be applied to Alaric. ↩
The prostrate South to the destroyer yields
Her boasted titles, and her golden fields;
With grim delight the brood of winter view
A brighter day, and skies of azure hue;
Scent the new fragrance of the opening rose,
And quaff the pendent vintage as it grows.

See Gray’s Poems, published by Mr. William Mason, p. 197. Instead of compiling tables of chronology and natural history, why did not Mr. Gray apply the powers of his genius to finish the philosophic poem of which he has left such an exquisite specimen? ↩
For the perfect description of the Straits of Messina, Scylla, Clarybdis, etc., see Cluverius (Italia antiqua, l. IV, p. 1293, and Siciliae antiquae, l. I, pp. 60⁠–⁠76), who had diligently studied the ancients and surveyed with a curious eye the actual face of the country. ↩
Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 30, p. 654. ↩
Orosius, l. VII c. 43, pp. 584, 585. He was sent by St. Augustine, in the year 415, from Africa to Palestine, to visit St. Jerome, and to consult with him on the subject of the Pelagian controversy. ↩
Jornandes supposes, without much probability, that Adolphus visited and plundered Rome a second time (more locustarum erasit). Yet he agrees with Orosius in supposing that a treaty of peace was concluded between the Gothic prince and Honorius. See Orosius, l. VII c. 43, pp. 584, 585. Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 31, pp. 654, 655. ↩
The retreat of the Goths from Italy, and their first transactions in Gaul, are dark and doubtful. I have derived much assistance from Mascou (History of the Ancient Germans, l. VIII c. 29, 35⁠–⁠37), who has illustrated and connected the broken chronicles and fragments of the times. ↩
See an account of Placidia in du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 72; and Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, pp. 260, 386, etc., tom. VI, p. 240. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, p. 350. ↩
Zosimus, l. VI, p. 383. Orosius (l. VII c. 40, p. 576) and the Chronicles of Marcellinus and Idacius seem to suppose that the Goths did not carry away Placidia till after the last siege of Rome. ↩
See the pictures of Adolphus and Placidia, and the account of their marriage, in Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 31, pp. 654, 655. With regard to the place where the nuptials were stipulated or consummated or celebrated, the MSS. of Jornandes vary between two neighboring cities, Forli and Imola (Forum Livii and Forum Cornelii). It is fair and easy to reconcile the Gothic historian with Olympiodorus (see Mascou, l. VIII c. 46), but Tillemont grows peevish, and swears that it is not worth while to try to conciliate Jornandes with any good authors. ↩
The Visigoths (the subjects of Adolphus) restrained by subsequent laws the prodigality of conjugal love. It was illegal for a husband to make any gift or settlement for the benefit of his wife during the first year of their marriage, and his liberality could not at any time exceed the tenth part of his property. The Lombards were somewhat more indulgent; they allowed the morgingcap immediately after the wedding night; and this famous gift, the reward of virginity, might equal the fourth part of the husband’s substance. Some cautious maidens, indeed, were wise enough to stipulate beforehand a present which they were too sure of not deserving. See Montesquieu, De l’esprit des loix, l. XIX c. 25. Muratori, Dissertazioni sopra le antichità Italiane, tom. I Dissertazion XX, p. 243. ↩
We owe the curious detail of this nuptial feast to the historian Olympiodorus, apud Photius, pp. 185, 188. ↩
See in the great collection of the Historians of France by Dom Bouquet, tom. II, Gregorii Turonensis, l. III c. 10, p. 191; Gesta regum Francorum, c. 23, p. 557. The anonymous writer, with an ignorance worthy of his times, supposes that these instruments of Christian worship had belonged to the temple of Solomon. If he has any meaning it must be that they were found in the sack of Rome. ↩
Consult the following original testimonies in the Historians of France, tom. II. Fredegarii scholastici chronicum, c. 73, p. 441. Fragments of Fredegarius III, p. 463. Gesta Dagobert I regis Francorum, c. 29, p. 587. The accession of Sisenand to the throne of Spain happened AD 631. The 200,000 pieces of gold were appropriated by Dagobert to the foundation of the church of St. Denys. ↩
The president Goguet (De l’origine des loix, des arts et des sciences, etc., tom. II, p. 239) is of opinion that the stupendous pieces of emerald, the statues and columns which antiquity has placed in Egypt, at Gades, at Constantinople, were in reality artificial compositions of colored glass. The famous emerald dish which is shown at Genoa is supposed to countenance the suspicion. ↩
Georgius Elmacinus, Historia saracenica, l. I, p. 85. Roderici Toletani, Historia Arabum, c. 9. Denis Dominique Cardonne, Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne sous la Domination des Arabes, tom. I, p. 83. It was called the Table of Solomon according to the custom of the Orientals, who ascribe to that prince every ancient work of knowledge or magnificence. ↩
His three laws are inserted in the Theodosian Code, l. XI tit. XXVIII leg. 7; l. XIII tit. XI leg. 12; l. XV tit. XIV leg. 14. The expressions of the last are very remarkable, since they contain not only a pardon but an apology. ↩
Olympiodorus apud Photius, p. 188. Philostorgius (l. XII c. 5) observes that, when Honorius made his triumphal entry, he encouraged the Romans with his hand and voice (χειρὶ καὶ γλώττῃ) to rebuild their city; and the Chronicle of Prosper commends Heraclian, qui in Romanae urbis reparationem strenuum exhibuerat ministerium. ↩
The date of the voyage of Claudius Rutilius Numatianus is clogged with some difficulties, but Scaliger has deduced from astronomical characters that he left Rome the 24th of September and embarked at Porto the 9th of October, AD 416. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 820. In this poetical itinerary Rutilius (l. I 115, etc.) addresses Rome in a high strain of congratulation:⁠—

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

↩
Orosius composed his history in Africa only two years after the event; yet his authority seems to be overbalanced by the improbability of the fact. The Chronicle of Marcellinus gives Heraclian 700 ships and 3,000 men: the latter of these numbers is ridiculously corrupt; but the former would please me very much. ↩
The Chronicle of Idacius affirms, without the least appearance of truth, that he advanced as far as Otriculum, in Umbria, where he was overthrown in a great battle, with the loss of 50,000 men. ↩
See Codex Theodosianus, l. XV tit. XIV leg. 13. The legal acts performed in his name, even the manumission of slaves, were declared invalid till they had been formally repeated. ↩
I have disdained to mention a very foolish, and probably a false, report (Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 2) that Honorius was alarmed by the loss of Rome, till he understood that it was not a favorite chicken of that name, but only the capital of the world, which had been lost. Yet even this story is some evidence of the public opinion. ↩
The materials for the lives of all these tyrants are taken from six contemporary historians, two Latins and four Greeks: Orosius, l. VII c. 42, pp. 581⁠–⁠583; Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, apud Gregorii Turonensis, l. II c. 9, in the Historians of France, tom. II, pp. 165, 166; Zosimus, l. VI, pp. 370, 371; Olympiodorus, apud Photius, pp. 180, 181, 184, 185; Sozomen, l. IX c. 12, 13, 14, 15; and Philostorgius, l. XII c. 5, 6, with Godefroy’s Dissertations, pp. 477⁠–⁠481; besides the four Chronicles of Prosper Tyro, Prosper of Aquitain, Idacius, and Marcellinus. ↩
The praises which Sozomen has bestowed on this act of despair appear strange and scandalous in the mouth of an ecclesiastical historian. He observes (p. 379) that the wife of Gerontius was a Christian; and that her death was worthy of her religion and of immortal fame. ↩
Εῖδος ἄξιον τυράννιδος, is the expression of Olympiodorus, which he seems to have borrowed from Aeolus, a tragedy of Euripides, of which some fragments only are now extant (Euripidis opera omnia, edit. Barnes, tom. II, p. 443, ver. 38). This allusion may prove that the ancient tragic poets were still familiar to the Greeks of the fifth century. ↩
Sidonius Apollinaris (l. V, “Epistola 9,” p. 139, and Note Sirmond, p. 58), after stigmatizing the inconstancy of Constantine, the facility of Jovinus, the perfidy of Gerontius, continues to observe that all the vices of these tyrants were united in the person of Dardanus. Yet the prefect supported a respectable character in the world, and even in the church; held a devout correspondence with St. Augustine and St. Jerome; and was complimented by the latter (tom. III, p. 66) with the epithets of Christianorum Nobilissime, and Nobilium Christianissime. ↩
The expression may be understood almost literally: Olympiodorus says μόλις σάκκοις ἐζώγρησαν. Σάκκος (or σάκος)9018 may signify a sack or a loose garment; and this method of entangling and catching an enemy, laciniis contortis, was much practiced by the Huns (Ammianus XXXI 2). Il fut pris vif avec des filets, is the translation of Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 608. ↩
Without recurring to the more ancient writers, I shall quote three respectable testimonies which belong to the fourth and seventh centuries; the “Expositio totius Mundi” (p. 16, in the third volume of Hudson’s Geographi Graeci minores), Ausonius (De claris urbibus, p. 242, edit. Tollius), and Isidore of Seville (Praefatio ad Chronicon, apud Grotius, Historia Gothorum, p. 707). Many particulars relative to the fertility and trade of Spain may be found in Nonius, Hispaniae illustratae; and in Pierre-Daniel Huet, Histoire du commerce et de la navigation des anciens, c. 40, pp. 228⁠–⁠234. ↩
The date is accurately fixed in the Fasti and the Chronicle of Idacius. Orosius (l. VII c. 40, p. 578) imputes the loss of Spain to the treachery of the Honorians, while Sozomen (l. IX c. 12) accuses only their negligence. ↩
Idacius wishes to apply the prophecies of Daniel to these national calamities; and is therefore obliged to accommodate the circumstances of the event to the terms of the prediction. ↩
Mariana, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, l. V c. 1, tom. I, p. 148, Hagae-Comitum 1733. He had read, in Orosius (l. VII c. 41, p. 579), that the Barbarians had turned their swords into ploughshares; and that many of the Provincials had preferred inter Barbaros pauperem libertatem, quam inter Romanos tributariam solicitudinem, sustinere. ↩
This mixture of force and persuasion may be fairly inferred from comparing Orosius and Jornandes, the Roman and the Gothic historian. ↩
According to the system of Jornandes (c. 33, p. 659), the true hereditary right to the Gothic sceptre was vested in the Amali; but those princes, who were the vassals of the Huns, commanded the tribes of the Ostrogoths in some distant parts of Germany or Scythia. ↩
The murder is related by Olympiodorus; but the number of the children is taken from an epitaph of suspected authority. ↩
The death of Adolphus was celebrated at Constantinople with illuminations and Circensian games (See Chronicum Alexandrinum). It may seem doubtful whether the Greeks were actuated on this occasion by their hatred of the Barbarians or of the Latins. ↩
Quod Tartessiacis avus hujus Vallia terris
Vandalicas turmas, et juncti Martis Alanos
Stravit, et occiduam texêre cadavera Calpen.
Sidonius Apollinaris in “Panegyricus Anthemius” 363, p. 300, edit. Sirmond.

↩
This supply was very acceptable: the Goths were insulted by the Vandals of Spain with the epithet of Truli, because in their extreme distress, they had given a piece of gold for a trula, or about half a pound of flour. Olympiodorus apud Photius, p. 189. ↩
Orosius inserts a copy of these pretended letters. Tu cum omnibus pacem habe, omniumque obsides accipe; nos nobis confligimus nobis perimus, tibi vincimus; immortalis vero quaestus erit Reipublicae tuae, si utrique pereamus. The idea is just; but I cannot persuade myself that it was entertained or expressed by the Barbarians. ↩
Romam triumphans ingreditur, is the formal expression of Prosper’s Chronicle. The facts which relate to the death of Adolphus, and the exploits of Wallia, are related from Olympiodorus (apud Photius, p. 188), Orosius (l. VII c. 43, pp. 584⁠–⁠587), Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, pp. 31, 32), and the Chronicles of Idacius and Isidore. ↩
Ausonius (De claris urbibus, pp. 257⁠–⁠262) celebrates Bourdeaux with the partial affection of a native. See in Salvian (De gubernatione Dei, p. 228, Paris, 1608) a florid description of the provinces of Aquitain and Novempopulania. ↩
Orosius (l. VII c. 32, p. 550) commends the mildness and modesty of these Burgundians who treated their subjects of Gaul as their Christian brethren. Mascou has illustrated the origin of their kingdom in the four first annotations at the end of his laborious History of the Ancient Germans, vol. II, pp. 555⁠–⁠572, of the English translation. ↩
See Mascou, l. VIII c. 43⁠–⁠45. Except in a short and suspicious line of the Chronicle of Prosper (in tom. I, p. 638), the name of Pharamond is never mentioned before the seventh century. The author of the Gesta Francorum (in tom. II, p. 543) suggests, probably enough, that the choice of Pharamond, or at least of a king, was recommended to the Franks by his father Marcomir, who was an exile in Tuscany.9019 ↩
O Lycida, vivi pervenimus: advena nostri
(Quod nunquam veriti sumus) ut possessor agelli
Diceret: Haec mea sunt; veteres migrate coloni.
Nunc victi tristes, etc.

See the whole of the ninth Eclogue, with the useful commentary of Servius. Fifteen miles of the Mantuan territory were assigned to the veterans, with a reservation in favor of the inhabitants of three miles round the city. Even in this favor they were cheated by Alfenus Varus, a famous lawyer and one of the commissioners, who measured eight hundred paces of water and morass. ↩
See the remarkable passage of the Eucharisticon of Paulinus, 575, apud Mascou, l. VIII c. 42. ↩
This important truth is established by the accuracy of Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 641), and by the ingenuity of the Abbé Dubos (Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie françoise dans les Gaules, tom. I, p. 259). ↩
Zosimus (l. VI 376, 383) relates in a few words the revolt of Britain and Armorica. Our antiquarians, even the great Camden himself, have been betrayed into many gross errors by their imperfect knowledge of the history of the continent. ↩
The limits of Armorica are defined by two national geographers, Messieurs de Valois and d’Anville, in their Notitias of Ancient Gaul. The word had been used in a more extensive, and was afterwards contracted to a much narrower, signification. ↩
Gens inter geminos notissima clauditur amnes,
Armoricana prius veteri cognomine dicta.
Torva, ferox, ventosa, procax, incauta, rebellis;
Inconstans, disparque sibi novitatis amore;
Prodiga verborum, sed non et prodiga facti.

Erricus Monachus in Vita Sancti Germani, l. V apud Valesius. Notitia Galliarum, p. 43. Valesius alleges several testimonies to confirm this character; to which I shall add the evidence of the presbyter Constantine (AD 488), who, in the life of St. Germain, calls the Armorican rebels mobilem et indisciplinatum populum. See the Historians of France, tom. I, p. 643. ↩
I thought it necessary to enter my protest against this part of the system of the Abbé Dubos, which Montesquieu has so vigorously opposed. See De l’esprit des loix, l. XXX c. 24.9020 ↩
Βρεταννίαν μέντοι Ῥωμαῖοι ἀνας ώσασθαι οὐκέτι ἔσχον are the words of Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 2, p. 181, Louvre edition) in a very important passage which has been too much neglected. Even Bede (Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, l. I c. 12, p. 50, edit. Smith) acknowledges that the Romans finally left Britain in the reign of Honorius. Yet our modern historians and antiquaries extend the term of their dominion; and there are some who allow only the interval of a few months between their departure and the arrival of the Saxons. ↩
Bede has not forgotten the occasional aid of the legions against the Scots and Picts; and more authentic proof will hereafter be produced that the independent Britons raised 12,000 men for the service of the emperor Anthemius in Gaul. ↩
I owe it to myself, and to historic truth, to declare that some circumstances in this paragraph are founded only on conjecture and analogy. The stubbornness of our language has sometimes forced me to deviate from the conditional into the indicative mood. ↩
Πρὸς τὰς ἐν Βρεταννία πόλεις. Zosimus, l. VI, p. 383. ↩
Two cities of Britain were municipia, nine colonies, ten Latii jure donatoe, twelve stipendiariae of eminent note. This detail is taken from Richard of Cirencester, De situ Britanniae, p. 36; and though it may not seem probable that he wrote from the MSS. of a Roman general, he shows a genuine knowledge of antiquity, very extraordinary for a monk of the fourteenth century.9021 [The treatise is a forgery of the 18th century, by one Charles Bertram. —⁠B.] ↩
See Maffei, Verona illustrata, part I l. V, pp. 83⁠–⁠106. ↩
Leges restituit, libertatemque reducit,
Et servos famulis non sinit esse suis.
“De reditu suo” Rutilius, l. I 215.

↩
An inscription (apud Sirmond, Note ad Sidonius Apollinaris, p. 59) describes a castle, cum muris et portis, tutioni omnium, erected by Dardanus on his own estate near Sisteron, in the second Narbonnese, and named by him Theopolis. ↩
The establishment of their power would have been easy indeed if we could adopt the impracticable scheme of a lively and learned antiquarian, who supposes that the British monarchs of the several tribes continued to reign, though with subordinate jurisdiction, from the time of Claudius to that of Honorius. See Whitaker’s History of Manchester, vol. I, pp. 247⁠–⁠257. ↩
Ἀλλ’ οὖσα ὑπὸ τυράννοις ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἔμενε. Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 2, p. 181. Britannia fertilis provincia tyrannorum, was the expression of Jerome, in the year 415 (tom. II, p. 255, ad Ctesiphon. By the pilgrims, who resorted every year to the Holy Land, the monk of Bethlehem received the earliest and most accurate intelligence. ↩
See Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. I l. IX c. 6, p. 394. ↩
It is reported of three British bishops who assisted at the council of Rimini, AD 359, tam pauperes fuisse ut nihil haberent. Sulpicius Severus, Historia sacra, l. II, p. 420. Some of their brethren, however, were in better circumstances. ↩
Consult Usher, Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates, c. 8⁠–⁠12. ↩
See the correct text of this edict, as published by Sirmond (Note ad Sidonius Apollinaris, p. 147). Hincmar of Rheims, who assigns a place to the bishops, had probably seen (in the ninth century) a more perfect copy. Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, pp. 241⁠–⁠255. ↩
It is evident from the Notitia that the seven provinces were the Viennensis, the maritime Alps, the first and second Narbonnese, Novempopulania, and the first and second Aquitain. In the room of the first Aquitain, the Abbé Dubos, on the authority of Hincmar, desires to introduce the first Lugdunensis, or Lyonnese. ↩
Father Montfaucon, who, by the command of his Benedictine superiors, was compelled (see Longueruana, tom. I, p. 205) to execute the laborious edition of St. Chrysostom, in thirteen volumes in folio (Paris, 1738), amused himself with extracting from that immense collection of morals some curious antiquities, which illustrate the manners of the Theodosian age (see Chrysostom, Opera omnia quae exstant, tom. XIII, pp. 192⁠–⁠196, and his French Dissertation, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XIII, pp. 474⁠–⁠490). ↩
According to the loose reckoning that a ship could sail, with a fair wind, 1,000 stadia, or 125 miles, in the revolution of a day and night, Diodorus Siculus computes ten days from the Palus Maeotis to Rhodes, and four days from Rhodes to Alexandria. The navigation of the Nile, from Alexandria to Syene, under the Tropic of Cancer, required, as it was against the stream, ten days more. Diodorus Siculus, tom. I l. III, p. 200, edit. Wesseling. He might, without much impropriety, measure the extreme heat from the verge of the torrid zone; but he speaks of the Maeotis in the 47th degree of northern latitude, as if it lay within the polar circle. ↩
Barthius, who adored his author with the blind superstition of a commentator, gives the preference to the two books which Claudian composed against Eutropius, above all his other productions (Adrien Baillet, Jugemens des savans sur les principaux ouvrages des auteurs, tom. IV, p. 227). They are indeed a very elegant and spirited satire; and would be more valuable in an historical light, if the invective were less vague and more temperate. ↩
After lamenting the progress of the eunuchs in the Roman palace, and defining their proper functions, Claudian adds,

… A fronte recedant
Imperii.
In Eutropium I 422.

Yet it does not appear that the eunuch had assumed any of the efficient offices of the empire, and he is styled only Praepositun sacri cubiculi, in the edict of his banishment. See Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. XL leg. 17. ↩
Jamque oblita sui, nec sobria divitiis mens
In miseras leges hominumque negotia ludit.
Judicat eunuchus⁠ ⁠…
Arma etiam violare parat⁠ ⁠…

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

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

↩
The poet’s lively description of his deformity (I 110⁠–⁠125) is confirmed by the authentic testimony of Chrysostom (tom. III, p. 384, edit Montfaucon); who observes that, when the paint was washed away, the face of Eutropius appeared more ugly and wrinkled than that of an old woman. Claudian remarks (I 469), and the remark must have been founded on experience, that there was scarcely an interval between the youth and the decrepit age of a eunuch. ↩
Eutropius appears to have been a native of Armenia or Assyria. His three services, which Claudian more particularly describes, were these:
1. He spent many years as the catamite of Ptolemy, a groom or soldier of the Imperial stables.
2. Ptolemy gave him to the old general Arintheus, for whom he very skilfully exercised the profession of a pimp.
3. He was given, on her marriage, to the daughter of Arintheus; and the future consul was employed to comb her hair, to present the silver ewer, to wash and to fan his mistress in hot weather.
See l. I 31⁠–⁠137. ↩
Claudian (l. I, In Eutropium 1⁠–⁠22), after enumerating the various prodigies of monstrous births, speaking animals, showers of blood or stones, double suns, etc., adds, with some exaggeration,

Omnia cesserunt eunucho consule monstra.

The first book concludes with a noble speech of the goddess of Rome to her favorite Honorius, deprecating the new ignominy to which she was exposed. ↩
Flavius Mallius Theodorus, whose civil honors and philosophical works have been celebrated by Claudian in a very elegant panegyric. ↩
Μεθύων δὲ ἤδη τῷ πλούτῳ, drunk with riches, is the forcible expression of Zosimus (l. V, p. 301); and the avarice of Eutropius is equally execrated in the Lexicon of Suidas and the Chronicle of Marcellinus. Chrysostom had often admonished the favorite, of the vanity and danger of immoderate wealth, tom. III, p. 381. ↩
… certantum saepe duorum
Diversum suspendit onus: cum pondere judex
Vergit, et in geminas nutat provincia lances.

Claudian (I 192⁠–⁠209) so curiously distinguishes the circumstances of the sale that they all seem to allude to particular anecdotes. ↩
Claudian (I 154⁠–⁠170) mentions the guilt and exile of Abundantius, nor could he fail to quote the example of the artist who made the first trial of the brazen bull which he presented to Phalaris. See Zosimus, l. V, p. 302. Jerome, tom. I, p. 26. The difference of place is easily reconciled; but the decisive authority of Asterius of Amasia (“Oratio IV,” p. 76, apud Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 435) must turn the scale in favor of Pityus. ↩
Suidas (most probably from the history of Eunapius) has given a very unfavorable picture of Timasius. The account of his accuser, the judges, trial, etc., is perfectly agreeable to the practice of ancient and modern courts. (See Zosimus, l. V, pp. 298⁠–⁠300.) I am almost tempted to quote the romance of a great master (Fielding’s Works, vol. IV, p. 49, etc., octavo edition), which may be considered as the history of human nature. ↩
The great Oasis was one of the spots in the sands of Libya watered with springs, and capable of producing wheat, barley, and palm trees. It was about three days’ journey from north to south, about half a day in breadth, and at the distance of about five days’ march to the west of Abydus on the Nile. See d’Anville, Mémoires sur l’Egypte, pp. 186⁠–⁠188. The barren desert which encompasses Oasis (Zosimus, l. V, p. 300) has suggested the idea of comparative fertility, and even the epithet of the happy island (Herodotus, l. III c. 26). ↩
The line of Claudian, In Eutropium, l. I 180,

Marmaricus claris violatur caedibus Hammon,9022

evidently alludes to his persuasion of the death of Timasius. ↩
Sozomen, l. VIII c. 7. He speaks from report ὦς τινος ἐπυθόμην. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, p. 300. Yet he seems to suspect that this rumor was spread by the friends of Eutropius. ↩
See the Theodosian Code, l. IX tit. 14, ad legem “Corneliam de Sicariis,” leg. 3, and the Code of Justinian, l. IX tit. VIII ad legem “Juliam de Majestate,” leg. 5. The alteration of the title, from murder to treason, was an improvement of the subtle Tribonian. Godefroy, in a formal dissertation which he has inserted in his Commentary, illustrates this law of Arcadius, and explains all the difficult passages which had been perverted by the jurisconsults of the darker ages. See tom. III, pp. 88⁠–⁠111. ↩
Bartolus understands a simple and naked consciousness, without any sign of approbation or concurrence. For this opinion, says Baldus, he is now roasting in hell. For my own part, continues the discreet Heineccius (Elementa juris civilis, l. IV, p. 411), I must approve the theory of Bartolus; but in practice I should incline to the sentiments of Baldus. Yet Bartolus was gravely quoted by the lawyers of Cardinal Richelieu; and Eutropius was indirectly guilty of the murder of the virtuous de Thou. ↩
Godefroy, tom. III, p. 89. It is, however, suspected that this law, so repugnant to the maxims of Germanic freedom, has been surreptitiously added to the golden bull. ↩
A copious and circumstantial narrative (which he might have reserved for more important events) is bestowed by Zosimus (l. V, pp. 304⁠–⁠312) on the revolt of Tribigild and Gainas. See likewise Socrates, l. VI c. 6, and Sozomen, l. VIII c. 4. The second book of Claudian against Eutropius is a fine, though imperfect, piece of history. ↩
Claudian (In Eutropium, l. II 237⁠–⁠250) very accurately observes that the ancient name and nation of the Phrygians extended very far on every side, till their limits were contracted by the colonies of the Bithynians of Thrace, of the Greeks, and at last of the Gauls. His description (II 257⁠–⁠272) of the fertility of Phrygia, and of the four rivers that produced gold, is just and picturesque. ↩
Xenophon, Anabasis, l. I, pp. 11, 12, edit. Hutchinson; Strabo, l. XII, p. 865, edit. Amstelaedami; Quintus Curtius, l. III c. 1. Claudian compares the junction of the Marsyas and Maeander to that of the Saône and the Rhône; with this difference, however, that the smaller of the Phrygian rivers is not accelerated, but retarded, by the larger. ↩
Selgae, a colony of the Lacedaemonians, had formerly numbered twenty thousand citizens; but in the age of Zosimus it was reduced to a πολίχνη, or small town. See Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. II, p. 117. ↩
The council of Eutropius, in Claudian, may be compared to that of Domitian in the fourth satire of Juvenal. The principal members of the former were: juvenes protervi lascivique senes; one of them had been a cook, a second a woolcomber. The language of their original profession exposes their assumed dignity; and their trifling conversation about tragedies, dancers, etc., is made still more ridiculous by the importance of the debate. ↩
Claudian (l. II 376⁠–⁠461) has branded him with infamy; and Zosimus, in more temperate language, confirms his reproaches. L. V, p. 305. ↩
The conspiracy of Gainas and Tribigild, which is attested by the Greek historian, had not reached the ears of Claudian, who attributes the revolt of the Ostrogoth to his own martial spirit and the advice of his wife. ↩
This anecdote, which Philostorgius alone has preserved (l. XI c. 6, and Gothofredus Dissertations, pp. 451⁠–⁠456) is curious and important; since it connects the revolt of the Goths with the secret intrigues of the palace. ↩
See the Homily of Chrysostom, tom. III, pp. 381⁠–⁠386, which the exordium is particularly beautiful. Socrates, l. VI c. 5; Sozomen, l. VIII c. 7. Montfaucon (in his Life of Chrysostom, tom. XIII, p. 135) too hastily supposes that Tribigild was actually in Constantinople; and that he commanded the soldiers who were ordered to seize Eutropius. Even Claudian, a Pagan poet (praefatio ad l. II, In Eutropium 27), has mentioned the flight of the eunuch to the sanctuary.

Suppliciterque pias humilis prostratus ad aras,
Mitigat iratas voce tremente nurus.

↩
Chrysostom, in another homily (tom. III, p. 386), affects to declare that Eutropius would not have been taken, had he not deserted the church. Zosimus (l. V, p. 313), on the contrary, pretends that his enemies forced him ἐξαρπάσαντες αὐτόν from the sanctuary. Yet the promise is an evidence of some treaty; and the strong assurance of Claudian (Praefatio ad l. II 46),

Sed tamen exemplo non feriere tuo,

may be considered as an evidence of some promise. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. XI leg. 14. The date of that law (Jan. 17, AD 399) is erroneous and corrupt, since the fall of Eutropius could not happen till the autumn of the same year. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 780. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, p. 313. Philostorgius, l. XI c. 6. ↩
Zosimus (l. V, pp. 313⁠–⁠323), Socrates (l. VI c. 4), Sozomen (l. VIII c. 4), and Theodoret (l. V c. 32, 33), represent, though with some various circumstances, the conspiracy, defeat, and death of Gainas. ↩
Ὁσίας Εὐφημίας μαρτύριον, is the expression of Zosimus himself (l. V, p. 314), who inadvertently uses the fashionable language of the Christians. Evagrius describes (l. II c. 3) the situation, architecture, relics, and miracles of that celebrated church, in which the general council of Chalcedon was afterwards held. ↩
The pious remonstrances of Chrysostom, which do not appear in his own writings, are strongly urged by Theodoret; but his insinuation that they were successful is disproved by facts. Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 383) has discovered that the emperor, to satisfy the rapacious demands of Gainas, was obliged to melt the plate of the church of the Apostles. ↩
The ecclesiastical historians, who sometimes guide and sometimes follow the public opinion, most confidently assert that the palace of Constantinople was guarded by legions of angels. ↩
Zosmius (l. V, p. 319) mentions these galleys by the name of Liburnians, and observes that they were as swift (without explaining the difference between them) as the vessels with fifty oars; but that they were far inferior in speed to the triremes, which had been long disused. Yet he reasonably concludes, from the testimony of Polybius, that galleys of a still larger size had been constructed in the Punic wars. Since the establishment of the Roman empire over the Mediterranean, the useless art of building large ships of war had probably been neglected and at length forgotten. ↩
Edmund Chishull (Travels in Turkey and Back to England, pp. 61⁠–⁠63, 72⁠–⁠76) proceeded from Gallipoli, through Hadrianople, to the Danube, in about fifteen days. He was in the train of an English ambassador, whose baggage consisted of seventy-one wagons. That learned traveller has the merit of tracing a curious and unfrequented route. ↩
Fravitta, according to Zosimus, though a Pagan, received the honors of the consulate. Zosimas V c. 20. On Fravitta, see a very imperfect fragment of Eunapius, Mai II 290, in Niebuhr, 92. —⁠M. ↩
The narrative of Zosimus, who actually leads Gainas beyond the Danube, must be corrected by the testimony of Socrates and Sozomen, that he was killed in Thrace; and by the precise and authentic dates of the Alexandrian, or Paschal, Chronicle, p. 307. The naval victory of the Hellespont is fixed to the month Apellaeus, the tenth of the calends of January (December 23); the head of Gainas was brought to Constantinople the third of the nones of January (January 3), in the month Audynaeus. ↩
Eusebius Scholasticus acquired much fame by his poem on the Gothic war, in which he had served. Near forty years afterwards, Ammonius recited another poem on the same subject, in the presence of the emperor Theodosius. See Socrates, l. VI c. 6. ↩
The sixth book of Socrates, the eighth of Sozomen, and the fifth of Theodoret afford curious and authentic materials for the life of John Chrysostom. Besides those general historians, I have taken for my guides the four principal biographers of the saint.
1. The author of a partial and passionate Vindication of the archbishop of Constantinople, composed in the form of a dialogue, and under the name of his zealous partisan Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XI, pp. 500⁠–⁠533). It is inserted among the works of Chrysostom, tom. XIII, pp. 1⁠–⁠90, edit. Montfaucon.
2. The moderate Erasmus (tom. III, “Epistola MCL,” pp. 1331⁠–⁠1347, edit. Lugduni Batavorum). His vivacity and good sense were his own; his errors, in the uncultivated state of ecclesiastical antiquity, were almost inevitable.
3. The learned Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XI, pp. 1⁠–⁠405, 547⁠–⁠626, etc., etc.), who compiles the lives of the saints with incredible patience and religious accuracy. He has minutely searched the voluminous works of Chrysostom himself.
4. Father Montfaucon, who has perused those works with the curious diligence of an editor, discovered several new homilies, and again reviewed and composed the life of Chrysostom (Opera Chrysostom, tom. XIII, pp. 91⁠–⁠177).
↩
As I am almost a stranger to the voluminous sermons of Chrysostom, I have given my confidence to the two most judicious and moderate of the ecclesiastical critics, Erasmus (tom. III, p. 1344) and Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. III, p. 38); yet the good taste of the former is sometimes vitiated by an excessive love of antiquity; and the good sense of the latter is always restrained by prudential considerations. ↩
The females of Constantinople distinguished themselves by their enmity or their attachment to Chrysostom. Three noble and opulent widows, Marsa, Castricia, and Eugraphia, were the leaders of the persecution (Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of Chrysostom, tom. XIII, p. 14). It was impossible that they should forgive a preacher who reproached their affectation to conceal, by the ornaments of dress, their age and ugliness (Palladius, p. 27). Olympias, by equal zeal, displayed in a more pious cause, has obtained the title of saint. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XI, pp. 416⁠–⁠440. ↩
Sozomen, and more especially Socrates, have defined the real character of Chrysostom with a temperate and impartial freedom, very offensive to his blind admirers. Those historians lived in the next generation, when party violence was abated, and had conversed with many persons intimately acquainted with the virtues and imperfections of the saint. ↩
Palladius (tom. XIII, p. 40, etc.) very seriously defends the archbishop:
1. He never tasted wine.
2. The weakness of his stomach required a peculiar diet.
3. Business, or study, or devotion, often kept him fasting till sunset.
4. He detested the noise and levity of great dinners.
5. He saved the expense for the use of the poor.
6. He was apprehensive, in a capital like Constantinople, of the envy and reproach of partial invitations.
↩
Chrysostom declares his free opinion (tom. IX hom. III in Acts of the Apostles, p. 29) that the number of bishops who might be saved bore a very small proportion to those who would be damned. ↩
See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XI, pp. 441⁠–⁠500. ↩
I have purposely omitted the controversy which arose among the monks of Egypt concerning Origenism and Anthropomorphism; the dissimulation and violence of Theophilus; his artful management of the simplicity of Epiphanius; the persecution and flight of the long, or tall, brothers; the ambiguous support which they received at Constantinople from Chrysostom, etc., etc. ↩
Photius (pp. 53⁠–⁠60) has preserved the original acts of the synod of the Oak, which destroy the false assertion that Chrysostom was condemned by no more than thirty-six bishops, of whom twenty-nine were Egyptians. Forty-five bishops subscribed his sentence. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XI, p. 595.9023 ↩
Palladius owns (p. 30) that if the people of Constantinople had found Theophilus, they would certainly have thrown him into the sea. Socrates mentions (l. VI c. 17) a battle between the mob and the sailors of Alexandria, in which many wounds were given and some lives were lost. The massacre of the monks is observed only by the Pagan Zosimus (l. V, p. 324), who acknowledges that Chrysostom had a singular talent to lead the illiterate multitude, ἦν γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἄλογον ὄχλον ὑπαγαγέσθαι δεινός. ↩
See Socrates, l. VI c. 18. Sozomen, l. VIII c. 20. Zosimus (l. V, pp. 324, 327) mentions, in general terms, his invectives against Eudoxia. The homily, which begins with those famous words, is rejected as spurious. Montfaucon, tom. XIII, p. 151. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XI, p. 603. ↩
We might naturally expect such a charge from Zosimus (l. V, p. 327), but it is remarkable enough that it should be confirmed by Socrates (l. VI c. 18) and the Paschal Chronicle (p. 307). ↩
He displays those specious motives (“Post Reditum in Senatu,” c. 13, 14) in the language of an orator and a politician. ↩
Two hundred and forty-two of the epistles of Chrysostom are still extant (Opera omnia quae exstant, tom. III, pp. 528⁠–⁠736). They are addressed to a great variety of persons and show a firmness of mind much superior to that of Cicero in his exile. The fourteenth epistle contains a curious narrative of the dangers of his journey. ↩
After the exile of Chrysostom, Theophilus published an enormous and horrible volume against him, in which he perpetually repeats the polite expressions of hostem humanitatis, sacrilegorum principem, immundum daemonem; he affirms that John Chrysostom had delivered his soul to be adulterated by the devil; and wishes that some further punishment, adequate (if possible) to the magnitude of his crimes, may be inflicted on him. St. Jerome, at the request of his friend Theophilus, translated this edifying performance from Greek into Latin. See Facundus of Hermiana, Pro defensione trium capitulorum, l. VI c. 5, published by Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. II, pp. 595⁠–⁠597. ↩
His name was inserted by his successor Atticus in the Dyptics of the church of Constantinople, AD 418. Ten years afterwards he was revered as a saint. Cyril, who inherited the place and the passions of his uncle Theophilus, yielded with much reluctance. See Facundus of Hermiana, l. 4, c. 1. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, pp. 277⁠–⁠283. ↩
Socrates, l. VII c. 45. Theodoret, l. V c. 36. This event reconciled the Joannites, who had hitherto refused to acknowledge his successors. During his lifetime the Joannites were respected by the Catholics as the true and orthodox communion of Constantinople. Their obstinacy gradually drove them to the brink of schism. ↩
According to some accounts (Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 438,” No. 9, 10), the emperor was forced to send a letter of invitation and excuses before the body of the ceremonious saint could be moved from Comana. ↩
Zosimus, l. V, p. 315. The chastity of an empress should not be impeached without producing a witness; but it is astonishing that the witness should write and live under a prince whose legitimacy he dared to attack. We must suppose that his history was a party libel, privately read and circulated by the Pagans. Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. V, p. 782) is not averse to brand the reputation of Eudoxia. ↩
Porphyry of Gaza. His zeal was transported by the order which he had obtained for the destruction of eight Pagan temples of that city. See the curious details of his life (Baronius, “AD 401,” No. 17⁠–⁠51), originally written in Greek, or perhaps in Syriac, by a monk, one of his favorite deacons. ↩
Philostorgius, l. XI c. 8, and Godefroy, Dissertations, p. 457. ↩
Jerome (tom. VI, pp. 73, 76) describes in lively colors the regular and destructive march of the locusts, which spread a dark cloud between heaven and earth over the land of Palestine. Seasonable winds scattered them, partly into the Dead Sea and partly into the Mediterranean. ↩
Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 2, p. 8, edit. Louvre. ↩
Agathias, l. IV, pp. 136, 137. Although he confesses the prevalence of the tradition, he asserts that Procopius was the first who had committed it to writing. Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, p. 597) argues very sensibly on the merits of this fable. His criticism was not warped by any ecclesiastical authority: both Procopius and Agathias are half Pagans.9024 ↩
Socrates, l. VII c. l. Anthemius was the grandson of Philip, one of the ministers of Constantius, and the grandfather of the emperor Anthemius. After his return from the Persian embassy, he was appointed consul and Praetorian prefect of the East, in the year 405; and held the prefecture about ten years. See his honors and praises in Godefroy, Codex Theodosianus, tom. VI, p. 350. Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, p. 1, etc. ↩
Sozomen, l. IX c. 5. He saw some Scyrri at work near Mount Olympus, in Bithynia, and cherished the vain hope that those captives were the last of the nation. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. VII tit. XV, l. XV tit. I leg. 49. ↩
Sozomen has filled three chapters with a magnificent panegyric of Pulcheria (l. IX c. 1⁠–⁠3); and Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XV, pp. 171⁠–⁠184) has dedicated a separate article to the honor of St. Pulcheria, virgin and empress.9025 ↩
Suidas (Excerpta legationum, p. 68, in Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae) pretends, on the credit of the Nestorians, that Pulcheria was exasperated against their founder, because he censured her connection with the beautiful Paulinus and her incest with her brother Theodosius. ↩
See du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 70. Flaccilla, the eldest daughter, either died before Arcadius, or, if she lived till the year 431 (Marcellinus, Chronicon), some defect of mind or body must have excluded her from the honors of her rank. ↩
She was admonished, by repeated dreams, of the place where the relics of the forty martyrs had been buried. The ground had successively belonged to the house and garden of a woman of Constantinople, to a monastery of Macedonian monks, and to a church of St. Thyrsus, erected by Caesarius, who was consul AD 397; and the memory of the relics was almost obliterated. Notwithstanding the charitable wishes of Dr. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, tom. IV, p. 234), it is not easy to acquit Pulcheria of some share in the pious fraud, which must have been transacted when she was more than five and thirty years of age. ↩
There is a remarkable difference between the two ecclesiastical historians, who in general bear so close a resemblance. Sozomen (l. IX c. 1) ascribes to Pulcheria the government of the empire and the education of her brother, whom he scarcely condescends to praise. Socrates, though he affectedly disclaims all hopes of favor or fame, composes an elaborate panegyric on the emperor, and cautiously suppresses the merits of his sister (l. VII c. 22, 42). Philostorgius (l. XII c. 7) expresses the influence of Pulcheria in gentle and courtly language, τὰς βασιλικὰς σημειώσεις ὑπηρετουμένη καὶ διευθύνοθσα. Suidas (Excerpta legationum, p. 53) gives a true character of Theodosius; and I have followed the example of Tillemont (tom. VI, p. 25) in borrowing some strokes from the modern Greeks. ↩
Theodoret, l. V c. 37. The bishop of Cyrrhus, one of the first men of his age for his learning and piety, applauds the obedience of Theodosius to the divine laws. ↩
Socrates (l. VII c. 21) mentions her name (Athenais, the daughter of Leontius, an Athenian sophist), her baptism, marriage, and poetical genius. The most ancient account of her history is in John Malalas (part II, pp. 20, 21, edit. Venetiis, 1743) and in the Paschal Chronicle (pp. 311, 312). Those authors had probably seen original pictures of the empress Eudocia. The modern Greeks, Zonaras, Cedrenus, etc., have displayed the love, rather than the talent, of fiction. From Nicephorus, indeed, I have ventured to assume her age. The writer of a romance would not have imagined that Athenais was near twenty eight years old when she inflamed the heart of a young emperor. ↩
Socrates, l. VII c. 21; Photius, pp. 413⁠–⁠420. The Homeric cento is still extant, and has been repeatedly printed, but the claim of Eudocia to that insipid performance is disputed by the critics. See Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. I, p. 357. The Ionia, a miscellaneous dictionary of history and fable, was compiled by another empress of the name of Eudocia, who lived in the eleventh century; and the work is still extant in manuscript. ↩
Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 438, 439”) is copious and florid, but he is accused of placing the lies of different ages on the same level of authenticity. ↩
In this short view of the disgrace of Eudocia, I have imitated the caution of Evagrius (l. I c. 21) and Count Marcellinus (in Chronicon, AD 440 and 444). The two authentic dates assigned by the latter overturn a great part of the Greek fictions; and the celebrated story of the apple, etc., is fit only for the Arabian Nights, where something not very unlike it may be found. ↩
Priscus (in Excerpta legationum, p. 69), a contemporary, and a courtier, dryly mentions her Pagan and Christian names, without adding any title of honor or respect. ↩
For the two pilgrimages of Eudocia, and her long residence at Jerusalem, her devotion, alms, etc., see Socrates (l. VII c. 47) and Evagrius (l. I c. 20⁠–⁠22). The Paschal Chronicle may sometimes deserve regard; and, in the domestic history of Antioch, John Malalas becomes a writer of good authority. The Abbé Guenée, in a memoir on the fertility of Palestine, of which I have only seen an extract, calculates the gifts of Eudocia at 20,488 pounds of gold, above 800,000 pounds sterling. ↩
Theodoret, l. V c. 39. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XII 356⁠–⁠364. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, p. 396, tom. IV, p. 61. Theodoret blames the rashness of Abdas, but extols the constancy of his martyrdom. Yet I do not clearly understand the casuistry which prohibits our repairing the damage which we have unlawfully committed. ↩
Socrates (l. VII c. 18⁠–⁠21) is the best author for the Persian war. We may likewise consult the three Chronicles, the Paschal and those of Marcellinus and Malalas. ↩
This account of the ruin and division of the kingdom of Armenia is taken from the third book of the Armenian history of Moses of Chorene. Deficient as he is in every qualification of a good historian, his local information, his passions, and his prejudices are strongly expressive of a native and contemporary. Procopius (De aedificiis, l. III c. 1, 5) relates the same facts in a very different manner; but I have extracted the circumstances the most probable in themselves and the least inconsistent with Moses of Chorene. ↩
The western Armenians used the Greek language and characters in their religious offices; but the use of that hostile tongue was prohibited by the Persians in the eastern provinces, which were obliged to use the Syriac, till the invention of the Armenian letters by Mesrobes in the beginning of the fifth century and the subsequent version of the Bible into the Armenian language, an event which relaxed the connection of the church and nation with Constantinople. ↩
The division of Armenia, according to M. Saint-Martin, took place much earlier, AD 390. The Eastern or Persian division was four times as large as the Western or Roman. This partition took place during the reigns of Theodosius the First, and Varanes (Bahram) the Fourth. Saint-Martin, Supplement to Le Beau, IV 429. This partition was but imperfectly accomplished, as both parts were afterwards reunited under Khosrow, who paid tribute both to the Roman emperor and to the Persian king. V 439. —⁠M. ↩
Moses Chorenensis, l. III c. 59, p. 309, and p. 358. Procopius, De aedificiis, l. III c. 5. Theodosiopolis stands, or rather stood, about thirty-five miles to the east of Arzeroum, the modern capital of Turkish Armenia. See d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, pp. 99, 100. ↩
Khosrow, according to Procopius (who calls him Arsaces, the common name of the Armenian kings) and the Armenian writers, bequeathed to his two sons, to Tigranes the Persian, to Arsaces the Roman, division of Armenia, AD 416. With the assistance of the discontented nobles the Persian king placed his son Sapor on the throne of the Eastern division; the Western at the same time was united to the Roman empire, and called the Greater Armenia. It was then that Theodosiopolis was built. Sapor abandoned the throne of Armenia to assert his rights to that of Persia; he perished in the struggle, and after a period of anarchy, Bahram V, who had ascended the throne of Persia, placed the last native prince, Ardaschir, son of Bahram Schahpour, on the throne of the Persian division of Armenia. Saint-Martin V 506. This Ardaschir was the Artasires of Gibbon. The archbishop Isaac is called by the Armenians the Patriarch Sahag. Saint-Martin VI 29. —⁠M. ↩
Moses Chorenensis, l. III c. 63, p. 316. According to the institution of St. Gregory, the apostle of Armenia, the archbishop was always of the royal family; a circumstance which, in some degree, corrected the influence of the sacerdotal character, and united the mitre with the crown. ↩
A branch of the royal house of Arsaces still subsisted with the rank and possessions (as it should seem) of Armenian satraps. See Moses Chorenensis, l. III c. 65, p. 321. ↩
Valarsaces was appointed king of Armenia by his brother, the Parthian monarch, immediately after the defeat of Antiochus Sidetes (Moses Chorenensis, l. II c. 2, p. 85), 130 years before Christ.9026 Without depending on the various and contradictory periods of the reigns of the last kings, we may be assured that the ruin of the Armenian kingdom happened after the council of Chalcedon, AD 431 (l. III c. 61, p. 312), and under Varamus, or Bahram, king of Persia (l. III c. 64, p. 317), who reigned from AD 420 to 440. See Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, p. 396.9027 ↩
Artasires or Ardaschir was probably sent to the castle of Oblivion. Saint-Martin VI 31. —⁠M. ↩
The duration of the Armenian kingdom, according to M. Saint-Martin, was 580 years. —⁠M. ↩
See here in chapter XXXI. ↩
Τὰ συνεχῆ κατὰ στόμα φιλήματα, is the expression of Olympiodorus (apud Photius, p. 197), who means, perhaps, to describe the same caresses which Muhammad bestowed on his daughter Phatemah. Quando (says the prophet himself), quando subit mihi desiderium Paradisi, osculor eam, et ingero linguam meam in os ejus. But this sensual indulgence was justified by miracle and mystery; and the anecdote has been communicated to the public by the Reverend Father Ludovico Maracci in his version and confutation of the Koran, tom. I, p. 32. ↩
For these revolutions of the Western empire, consult Olympiodorus, apud Photius, pp. 192, 193, 196, 197, 200; Sozomen, l. IX c. 16; Socrates, l. VII 23, 24; Philostorgius, l. XII c. 10, 11, and Godefroy, Dissertations, p. 486; Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 3, pp. 182, 183; Theophanes, in Chronographia, pp. 72, 73, and the Chronicles. ↩
See Grotius, De jure belli et pacis, l. II c. 7. He has laboriously, but vainly, attempted to form a reasonable system of jurisprudence from the various and discordant modes of royal succession, which have been introduced by fraud or force, by time or accident. ↩
The original writers are not agreed (see Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. IV, p. 139) whether Valentinian received the Imperial diadem at Rome or Ravenna. In this uncertainty, I am willing to believe that some respect was shown to the senate. ↩
The Count Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VII, pp. 292⁠–⁠300) has established the reality, explained the motives, and traced the consequences of this remarkable cession. ↩
See the first Novel of Theodosius, by which he ratifies and communicates (AD 438) the Theodosian Code. About forty years before that time, the unity of legislation had been proved by an exception. The Jews, who were numerous in the cities of Apulia and Calabria, produced a law of the East to justify their exemption from municipal offices (Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. VIII leg. 13); and the Western emperor was obliged to invalidate, by a special edict, the law, quam constat meis partibus esse damnosam. Codex Theodosianus, l. XI tit. I leg. 158. ↩
Cassiodorus (Variarum, l. XI, “Epistola 1,” p. 238) has compared the regencies of Placidia and Amalasuntha. He arraigns the weakness of the mother of Valentinian, and praises the virtues of his royal mistress. On this occasion, flattery seems to have spoken the language of truth. ↩
Philostorgius, l. XII c. 12, and Godefroy’s Dissertations, p. 493, etc.; and Renatus Frigeridus, apud Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 8, in tom. II, p. 163. The father of Aetius was Gaudentius, an illustrious citizen of the province of Scythia, and master-general of the cavalry; his mother was a rich and noble Italian. From his earliest youth, Aetius, as a soldier and a hostage, had conversed with the Barbarians. ↩
For the character of Boniface, see Olympiodorus, apud Photius, p. 196; and St. Augustine, apud Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII, pp. 712⁠–⁠715, 886. The bishop of Hippo at length deplored the fall of his friend, who, after a solemn vow of chastity, had married a second wife of the Arian sect, and who was suspected of keeping several concubines in his house. ↩
Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 3, 4, pp. 182⁠–⁠186) relates the fraud of Aetius, the revolt of Boniface, and the loss of Africa. This anecdote, which is supported by some collateral testimony (see Ruinart, Commentarius historicus de persecutione Vandalica, pp. 420, 421), seems agreeable to the practice of ancient and modern courts, and would be naturally revealed by the repentance of Boniface. ↩
See the Chronicles of Prosper and Idacius. Salvian (De gubernatione Dei, l. VII, p. 246, Paris, 1608) ascribes the victory of the Vandals to their superior piety. They fasted, they prayed, they carried a Bible in the front of the Host, with the design, perhaps, of reproaching the perfidy and sacrilege of their enemies. ↩
Gizericus (his name is variously expressed) staturâ mediocris et equi casu claudicans, animo profundus, sermone rarus, luxuriae contemptor, irâ turbidus, habendi cupidus, ad solicitandas gentes providentissimus, semina contentionum jacere, odia miscere paratus. Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 33, p. 657. This portrait, which is drawn with some skill, and a strong likeness, must have been copied from the Gothic history of Cassiodorus. ↩
See the Chronicle of Idacius. That bishop, a Spaniard and a contemporary, places the passage of the Vandals in the month of May, of the year of Abraham (which commences in October), 2444. This date, which coincides with AD 429, is confirmed by Isidore, another Spanish bishop, and is justly preferred to the opinion of those writers who have marked for that event one of the two preceding years. See Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 205, etc. ↩
Compare Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 5, p. 190) and Victor Vitensis (De persecutione Vandalica, l. I c. 1, p. 3, edit. Ruinart). We are assured by Idacius that Genseric evacuated Spain, cum Vandalis omnibus eorumque familiis; and Possidius (in Vita Augustini, c. 28, apud Ruinart, p. 427) describes his army as manus ingens immanium gentium Vandalorum et Alanorum, commixtam secum habens Gothorum gentem, aliarumque diversarum personas. ↩
For the manners of the Moors, see Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. II c. 6, p. 249); for their figure and complexion, M. de Buffon (Histoire naturelle, tom. III, p. 430). Procopius says in general that the Moors had joined the Vandals before the death of Valentinian (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 5, p. 190), and it is probable that the independent tribes did not embrace any uniform system of policy. ↩
See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII, pp. 516⁠–⁠558; and the whole series of the persecution in the original monuments, published by Dupin at the end of Optatus, pp. 323⁠–⁠515. ↩
The Donatist Bishops, at the conference of Carthage, amounted to 279; and they asserted that their whole number was not less than 400. The Catholics had 286 present, 120 absent, besides 64 vacant bishoprics. ↩
The fifth title of the sixteenth book of the Theodosian Code exhibits a series of the Imperial laws against the Donatists, from the year 400 to the year 428. Of these the 54th law, promulgated by Honorius, AD 414, is the most severe and effectual. ↩
St. Augustine altered his opinion with regard to the proper treatment of heretics. His pathetic declaration of pity and indulgence for the Manichaeans has been inserted by Mr. Locke (vol. III, p. 469) among the choice specimens of his commonplace book. Another philosopher, the celebrated Bayle (tom. II, pp. 445⁠–⁠496), has refuted, with superfluous diligence and ingenuity, the arguments by which the bishop of Hippo justified, in his old age, the persecution of the Donatists. ↩
See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII, pp. 586⁠–⁠592, 806. The Donatists boasted of thousands of these voluntary martyrs. Augustine asserts, and probably with truth, that these numbers were much exaggerated; but he sternly maintains that it was better that some should burn themselves in this world than that all should burn in hell flames. ↩
According to St. Augustine and Theodoret the Donatists were inclined to the principles, or at least to the party, of the Arians, which Genseric supported. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, p. 68. ↩
See Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 428,” No. 7, “AD 439,” No. 35. The cardinal, though more inclined to seek the cause of great events in heaven than on the earth, has observed the apparent connection of the Vandals and the Donatists. Under the reign of the Barbarians, the schismatics of Africa enjoyed an obscure peace of one hundred years; at the end of which we may again trace them by the fight of the Imperial persecutions. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, p. 192, etc. ↩
In a confidential letter to Count Boniface, St. Augustine, without examining the grounds of the quarrel, piously exhorts him to discharge the duties of a Christian and a subject; to extricate himself without delay from his dangerous and guilty situation; and even, if he could obtain the consent of his wife, to embrace a life of celibacy and penance (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII, p. 890). The bishop was intimately connected with Darius, the minister of peace (idem, tom. XIII, p. 928). ↩
The original complaints of the desolation of Africa are contained:
1. In a letter from Capreolus, bishop of Carthage, to excuse his absence from the council of Ephesus (apud Ruinart, p. 427).
2. In the Life of St. Augustine, by his friend and colleague Possidius (apud Ruinart, p. 427).
3. In the History of the Vandalic Persecution, by Victor Vitensis (l. I c. 1⁠–⁠3, edit. Ruinart).
The last picture, which was drawn sixty years after the event, is more expressive of the author’s passions than of the truth of facts. ↩
See Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. II part II, p. 112; Leo Africanus in Ramusio, tom. I folio 70; L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. II, pp. 434, 437; Shaw’s Travels, pp. 46, 47. The old Hippo Regius was finally destroyed by the Arabs in the seventh century; but a new town, at the distance of two miles, was built with the materials, and it contained, in the sixteenth century, about three hundred families of industrious, but turbulent, manufacturers. The adjacent territory is renowned for a pure air, a fertile soil, and plenty of exquisite fruits. ↩
The life of St. Augustine, by Tillemont, fills a quarto volume (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII) of more than one thousand pages; and the diligence of that learned Jansenist was excited on this occasion by factious and devout zeal for the founder of his sect. ↩
Such at least is the account of Victor Vitensis (De persecutione Vandalica, l. I c. 3); though Gennadius seems to doubt whether any person had read, or even collected, all the works of St. Augustine (see Hieronymus, Opera omnia, tom. I, p. 319, in Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum). They have been repeatedly printed; and Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. III, pp. 158⁠–⁠257) has given a large and satisfactory abstract of them, as they stand in the last edition of the Benedictines. My personal acquaintance with the bishop of Hippo does not extend beyond the Confessions and the City of God. ↩
In his early youth (Confessiones I 14) St. Augustine disliked and neglected the study of Greek; and he frankly owns that he read the Platonists in a Latin version (Confessiones VII 9). Some modern critics have thought that his ignorance of Greek disqualified him from expounding the Scriptures; and Cicero or Quintilian would have required the knowledge of that language in a professor of rhetoric. ↩
These questions were seldom agitated from the time of St. Paul to that of St. Augustine. I am informed that the Greek fathers maintain the natural sentiments of the Semi-Pelagians; and that the orthodoxy of St. Augustine was derived from the Manichaean school. ↩
The church of Rome has canonized Augustine, and reprobated Calvin. Yet as the real difference between them is invisible even to a theological microscope, the Molinists are oppressed by the authority of the saint, and the Jansenists are disgraced by their resemblance to the heretic. In the meanwhile, the Protestant Arminians stand aloof, and deride the mutual perplexity of the disputants (see a curious review of the controversy, by Leclerc, Bibliothèque universelle, tom. XIV, pp. 144⁠–⁠398). Perhaps a reasoner still more independent may smile in his turn, when he peruses an Arminian commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ↩
Du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 67. On one side, the head of Valentinian; on the reverse, Boniface, with a scourge in one hand and a palm in the other, standing in a triumphal car, which is drawn by four horses, or, in another medal, by four stags; an unlucky emblem! I should doubt whether another example can be found of the head of a subject on the reverse of an Imperial medal.9028 See La Science des médailles, by the Père Jobert, tom. I, pp. 132⁠–⁠150, edit. of 1739, by the Baron de la Bastie. [Eckhel, vol. VIII, p. 293, explains these as private medals issued in honor of a charioteer named Bonifatius. —⁠B.] ↩
Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 3, p. 185) continues the history of Boniface no further than his return to Italy. His death is mentioned by Prosper and Marcellinus; the expression of the latter, that Aetius, the day before, had provided himself with a longer spear, implies something like a regular duel. ↩
See Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 4, p. 186. Valentinian published several humane laws, to relieve the distress of his Numidian and Mauritanian subjects; he discharged them, in a great measure, from the payment of their debts, reduced their tribute to one eighth, and gave them a right of appeal from their provincial magistrates to the prefect of Rome. Codex Theodosianus, tom. VI Novellae, pp. 11, 12. ↩
Victor Vitensis, De persecutione Vandalica, l. II c. 5, p. 26. The cruelties of Genseric towards his subjects are strongly expressed in Prosper’s Chronicle, AD 442. ↩
Possidius, in Vita Augustini, c. 28, apud Ruinart, p. 428. ↩
See the Chronicles of Idacius, Isidore, Prosper, and Marcellinus. They mark the same year, but different days, for the surprisal of Carthage. ↩
The picture of Carthage, as it flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries, is taken from the “Expositio totius Mundi,” pp. 17, 18, in the third volume of Hudson’s Geographi Graeci minores; from Ausonius, De claris urbibus, pp. 228, 229; and principally from Salvian, De gubernatione Dei, l. VII, pp. 257, 258. I am surprised that the Notitia should not place either a mint or an arsenal at Carthage, but only a gynaeceum or female manufacturer. ↩
The anonymous author of the “Expositio totius Mundi” compares, in his barbarous Latin, the country and the inhabitants; and, after stigmatizing their want of faith, he coolly concludes, Difficile autem inter eos invenitur bonus, tamen in multis pauci boni esse possunt. P. 18. ↩
He declares that the peculiar vices of each country were collected in the sink of Carthage (l. VII, p. 257). In the indulgence of vice the Africans applauded their manly virtue. Et illi se magis virilis fortitudinis esse crederent, qui maxime vires foeminei usus probositate fregissent (p. 268). The streets of Carthage were polluted by effeminate wretches, who publicly assumed the countenance, the dress, and the character of women (p. 264). If a monk appeared in the city, the holy man was pursued with impious scorn and ridicule; detestantibus ridentium cachinnis (p. 289). ↩
Compare Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 5, pp. 189, 190, and Victor Vitensis, De persecutione Vandalica, l. I c. 4. ↩
Ruinart (pp. 441⁠–⁠457) has collected from Theodoret and other authors the misfortunes, real and fabulous, of the inhabitants of Carthage. ↩
The choice of fabulous circumstances is of small importance; yet I have confined myself to the narrative which was translated from the Syriac by the care of Gregory of Tours (Turonici de gloriâ martyrûm, l. I c. 95, in Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum, tom. XI, p. 856), to the Greek acts of their martyrdom (apud Photius, pp. 1400, 1401), and to the Annals of the patriarch Eutychius (tom. I, pp. 391, 531, 532, 535, vers. Pococke). ↩
Two Syriac writers, as they are quoted by Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. I, pp. 336, 338), place the resurrection of the Seven Sleepers in the year 736 (AD 425) or 748 (AD 437) of the era of the Seleucides. Their Greek acts, which Photius had read, assign the date of the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Theodosius, which may coincide either with AD 439, or 446. The period which had elapsed since the persecution of Decius is easily ascertained; and nothing less than the ignorance of Muhammad, or the legendaries, could suppose an interval of three or four hundred years. ↩
James, one of the orthodox fathers of the Syrian church, was born AD 452; he began to compose his sermons AD 474; he was made bishop of Batnae, in the district of Sarug, and province of Mesopotamia, AD 519, and died AD 521 (Assemani, tom. I, pp. 288, 289). For the homily “De Pueris Ephesinis,” see pp. 335⁠–⁠339: though I could wish that Assemani had translated the text of James of Sarug, instead of answering the objections of Baronius. ↩
See the Acta sanctorum of the Bollandists, “Mensis Julii,” tom. VI, pp. 375⁠–⁠397. This immense calendar of saints, in one hundred and twenty-six years (1644⁠–⁠1770), and in fifty volumes in folio, has advanced no further than the 7th day of October. The suppression of the Jesuits has most probably checked an undertaking, which, through the medium of fable and superstition, communicates much historical and philosophical instruction. ↩
See Maracci, Alcorani sura XVIII tom. II, pp. 420⁠–⁠427, and tom. I part IV, p. 103. With such an ample privilege, Muhammad has not shown much taste or ingenuity. He has invented the dog (Al Rakim) of the Seven Sleepers; the respect of the sun, who altered his course twice a day that he might not shine into the cavern; and the care of God himself, who preserved their bodies from putrefaction, by turning them to the right and left. ↩
See d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 139; and Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 39, 40. ↩
Paul, the deacon of Aquileia (De gestis Langobardorum, l. I c. 4, pp. 745, 746, edit. Grotius), who lived towards the end of the eight century, has placed in a cavern, under a rock, on the shore of the ocean, the Seven Sleepers of the North, whose long repose was respected by the Barbarians. Their dress declared them to be Romans; and the deacon conjectures that they were reserved by Providence as the future apostles of those unbelieving countries. ↩
The authentic materials for the history of Attila may be found in Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 34⁠–⁠50, pp. 660⁠–⁠688, edit. Grotius) and Priscus (Excerpta legationum, pp. 33⁠–⁠76, Paris, 1648). I have not seen the lives of Attila, composed by Juvencus Caelius Calanus Dalmatinus, in the twelfth century; or by Nicholas Olahus, archbishop of Gran, in the sixteenth. See Mascou’s History of the Ancient Germans IX 23, and Maffei, Osservazioni letterarie, tom. I, pp. 88, 89. Whatever the modern Hungarians have added must be fabulous; and they do not seem to have excelled in the art of fiction. They suppose that when Attila invaded Gaul and Italy, married innumerable wives, etc., he was 120 years of age. Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum, part I c. 22, in Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, tom. I, p. 76. ↩
Hungary has been successively occupied by three Scythian colonies: 1. The Huns of Attila; 2. The Abares, in the sixth century; and, 3. The Turks or Magiars, AD 889: the immediate and genuine ancestors of the modern Hungarians, whose connection with the two former is extremely faint and remote. The Prodromus ad refutationem Alcoran and Notitia of Matthew Belius appear to contain a rich fund of information concerning ancient and modern Hungary. I have seen the extracts in Bibliothèque ancienne et moderne, tom. XXII, pp. 1⁠–⁠51, and Bibliothèque Raisonnée, tom. XVI, pp. 127⁠–⁠175.9029 ↩
Socrates, l. VII c. 43. Theodoret, l. V c. 36. Tillemont, who always depends on the faith of his ecclesiastical authors, strenuously contends (Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, pp. 136, 607) that the wars and personages were not the same. ↩
See Priscus, pp. 47, 48, and Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VII c. XII⁠–⁠XV. ↩
Priscus, p. 39. The modern Hungarians have deduced his genealogy, which ascends, in the thirty-fifth degree, to Ham, the son of Noah; yet they are ignorant of his father’s real name (de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. II, p. 297). ↩
Compare Jornandes (c. 35, p. 661) with Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. III, p. 380. The former had a right to observe, originis suae signa restituens. The character and portrait of Attila are probably transcribed from Cassiodorus. ↩
Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, vers. Pococke, p. 281. Genealogical History of the Tartars, by Abulghazi Bahader Khan, part III c. 15, part IV c. 3. Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, par Pétis de la Croix, l. 1, c. 1, 6. The relations of the missionaries who visited Tartary in the thirteenth century (see the seventh volume of the Histoire des voyages) express the popular language and opinions; Zingis is styled the son of God, etc., etc. ↩
Nec templum apud eos visitur, aut delubrum, ne tugurium quidem culmo tectum cerni usquam potest; sed gladius Barbarico ritu humi figitur nudus, eumque ut Martem regionum quas circumcircant praesulem verecundius colunt. Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI 2, and the learned notes of Lindenbrogius and Valesius. ↩
Priscus relates this remarkable story, both in his own text (p. 65) and in the quotation made by Jornandes (c. 35, p. 662). He might have explained the tradition, or fable, which characterized this famous sword, and the name as well as attributes of the Scythian deity, whom he has translated into the Mars of the Greeks and Romans. ↩
Herodotus, l. IV c. 62. For the sake of economy, I have calculated by the smallest stadium. In the human sacrifices, they cut off the shoulder and arm of the victim, which they threw up into the air, and drew omens and presages from the manner of their falling on the pile. ↩
Priscus, p. 55. A more civilized hero, Augustus himself, was pleased if the person on whom he fixed his eyes seemed unable to support their divine lustre, Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 79. ↩
The Count Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VII, pp. 428, 429) attempts to clear Attila from the murder of his brother; and is almost inclined to reject the concurrent testimony of Jornandes and the contemporary Chronicles. ↩
Fortissimarum gentium dominus, qui inauditâ ante se potentiâ, solus Scythica et Germanica regna possedit. Jornandes, c. 49, p. 684. Priscus, pp. 64, 65. M. de Guignes, by his knowledge of the Chinese, has acquired (tom. II, pp. 295⁠–⁠301) an adequate idea of the empire of Attila. ↩
See Histoire des Huns, tom. II, p. 296. The Geougen believed that the Huns could excite at pleasure storms of wind and rain. This phenomenon was produced by the stone Gezi; to whose magic power the loss of a battle was ascribed by the Muhammadan Tartars of the fourteenth century. See Cherefeddin Ali, Histoire de Timur-Bec, tom. I, pp. 82, 83. ↩
Jornandes, c. 35, p. 661, c. 37, p. 667. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, pp. 129, 138. Corneille has represented the pride of Attila to his subject kings, and his tragedy opens with these two ridiculous lines:⁠—

Ils ne sont pas venus, nos deux rois! qu’on leur die
Qu’ils se font trop attendre, et qu’Attila s’ennuie.

The two kings of the Gepidae and the Ostrogoths are profound politicians and sentimental lovers, and the whole piece exhibits the defects, without the genius, of the poet. ↩
… alii per Caspia claustra
Armeniasque nives, inopino tramite ducti
Invadunt Orientis opes: jam pascua fumant
Cappadocum, volucrumque parens Argaeus equorum.
Jam rubet altus Halys, nec se defendit iniquo
Monte Cilix; Syriae tractus vastantur amoeni
Assuetumque choris, et laetâ plebe canorum,
Proterit imbellem sonipes hostilis Orontem.
Claudian, In Rufinum, l. II 28⁠–⁠35.

See likewise, In Eutropium, l. I 243⁠–⁠251, and the strong description of Jerome, who wrote from his feelings, tom. I, p. 26, ad Heliodorus, p. 200, ad Ocean. Philostorgius (l. IX c. 8) mentions this irruption. ↩
Gibbon has made a curious mistake; Basic and Cursic were the names of the commanders of the Huns. Ηαρεληλυθέναι δὲ ἐς τὴν Μήδων τὸν τε Βασὶχ καὶ Κουρσιχ⁠ ⁠… ἄνδρας τῶν Βασιλείων Σκυθῶν καὶ πολλοῦ πλήθους ἄρχοντας. Priscus, edit. Bonn, p. 200. —⁠M. ↩
See the original conversation in Priscus, pp. 64, 65. ↩
Priscus, p. 331. His history contained a copious and elegant account of the war (Evagrius, l. I c. 17), but the extracts which relate to the embassies are the only parts that have reached our times. The original work was accessible, however, to the writers from whom we borrow our imperfect knowledge: Jornandes, Theophanes, Count Marcellinus, Prosper-Tyro, and the author of the Alexandrian, or Paschal, Chronicle. M. Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VII c. XV) has examined the cause, the circumstances, and the duration of this war; and will not allow it to extend beyond the year 444. ↩
Procopius, De aedificiis, l. IV c. 5. These fortresses were afterwards restored, strengthened, and enlarged by the emperor Justinian, but they were soon destroyed by the Abares, who succeeded to the power and possessions of the Huns. ↩
Septuaginta civitates (says Prosper-Tyro) depredatione vastatae. The language of Count Marcellinus is still more forcible. Pene totam Europam, invasis excisisque civitatibus atque castellis, conrasit. ↩
Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, pp. 106, 107) has paid great attention to this memorable earthquake; which was felt as far from Constantinople as Antioch and Alexandria, and is celebrated by all the ecclesiastical writers. In the hands of a popular preacher, an earthquake is an engine of admirable effect. ↩
He represented to the emperor of the Moguls that the four provinces (Petcheli, Chantong, Chansi, and Leaotong) which he already possessed might annually produce, under a mild administration, 500,000 ounces of silver, 400,000 measures of rice, and 800,000 pieces of silk. Antoine Gaubil, Histoire de Gentchiscan et de toute la dynastie des Mongous, pp. 58, 59. Yelutchousay (such was the name of the mandarin) was a wise and virtuous minister, who saved his country and civilized the conquerors.9030 ↩
Particular instances would be endless; but the curious reader may consult the Life of Genghizcan, by Pétis de la Croix, the Histoire des Mongous, and the fifteenth book of the History of the Huns. ↩
At Maru, 1,300,000; at Herat, 1,600,000; at Neisabour, 1,747,000. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 380, 381. I use the orthography of d’Anville’s maps. It must, however, be allowed that the Persians were disposed to exaggerate their losses, and the Moguls to magnify their exploits. ↩
Cherefeddin Ali, his servile panegyrist, would afford us many horrid examples. In his camp before Delhi, Timour massacred 100,000 Indian prisoners, who had smiled when the army of their countrymen appeared in sight (Histoire de Timur-Bec, tom. III, p. 90). The people of Ispahan supplied 70,000 human skulls for the structure of several lofty towers (idem, tom. I, p. 434). A similar tax was levied on the revolt of Baghdad (tom. III, p. 370); and the exact account, which Cherefeddin was not able to procure from the proper officers, is stated by another historian (Ahmed Arabsiada, tom. II, p. 175, vers. Manger) at 90,000 heads. ↩
The ancients, Jornandes, Priscus, etc., are ignorant of this epithet. The modern Hungarians have imagined that it was applied, by a hermit of Gaul, to Attila, who was pleased to insert it among the titles of his royal dignity. Mascou IX 23, and Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, p. 143. ↩
The missionaries of St. Chrysostom had converted great numbers of the Scythians, who dwelt beyond the Danube in tents and wagons. Theodoret, l. V c. 31. Photius, p. 1517. The Muhammadans, the Nestorians, and the Latin Christians thought themselves secure of gaining the sons and grandsons of Zingis, who treated the rival missionaries with impartial favor. ↩
The Germans, who exterminated Varus and his legions, had been particularly offended with the Roman laws and lawyers. One of the barbarians, after the effectual precautions of cutting out the tongue of an advocate and sewing up his mouth, observed with much satisfaction that the viper could no longer hiss. Florus IV 12. ↩
Priscus, p. 59. It should seem that the Huns preferred the Gothic and Latin languages to their own; which was probably a harsh and barren idiom. ↩
Philip de Comines, in his admirable picture of the last moments of Lewis XI (Mémoires, l. VI c. 12), represents the insolence of his physician, who, in five months, extorted 54,000 crowns and a rich bishopric from the stern avaricious tyrant. ↩
Priscus (p. 61) extols the equity of the Roman laws, which protected the life of a slave. Occidere solent (says Tacitus of the Germans) non disciplinâ et severitate, sed impetu et irâ, ut inimicum, nisi quod impune. De moribus Germanorum, c. 25. The Heruli, who were the subjects of Attila, claimed and exercised the power of life and death over their slaves. See a remarkable instance in the second book of Agathias. ↩
See the whole conversation in Priscus, pp. 59⁠–⁠62. ↩
Nova iterum Orienti assurgit ruina⁠ ⁠… quum nulla ab Occidentalibus ferrentur auxilia. Prosper-Tyro composed his Chronicle in the West; and his observation implies a censure. ↩
Five in the last edition of Priscus. Niebuhr, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, p. 147. —⁠M. ↩
According to the description, or rather invective, of Chrysostom, an auction of Byzantine luxury must have been very productive. Every wealthy house possessed a semicircular table of massy silver, such as two men could scarcely lift; a vase of solid gold of the weight of forty pounds, cups, dishes of the same metal, etc. ↩
The articles of the treaty, expressed without much order or precision, may be found in Priscus (pp. 34⁠–⁠37, 53, etc.). Count Marcellinus dispenses some comfort by observing, first, that Attila himself solicited the peace and presents which he had formerly refused; and, secondly, that, about the same time, the ambassadors of India presented a fine large tame tiger to the emperor Theodosius. ↩
Priscus, pp. 35, 36. Among the 182 forts, or castles, of Thrace, enumerated by Procopius (De aedificiis, l. IV c. XI tom. II, p. 92, edit. Paris), there is one of the name of Esimontou, whose position is doubtfully marked, in the neighborhood of Anchialus and the Euxine Sea. The name and walls of Azimuntium might subsist till the reign of Justinian; but the race of its brave defenders had been carefully extirpated by the jealousy of the Roman princes. [But the town appears again in the reign of Maurice, and there⁠—this note⁠—Gibbon corrects his statement here. —⁠B.] ↩
The peevish dispute of St. Jerome and St. Augustine, who labored, by different expedients, to reconcile the seeming quarrel of the two apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, depends on the solution of an important question (Middleton’s Works, vol. II, pp. 5⁠–⁠10), which has been frequently agitated by Catholic and Protestant divines, and even by lawyers and philosophers of every age. ↩
Montesquieu (Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. XIX) has delineated, with a bold and easy pencil, some of the most striking circumstances of the pride of Attila and the disgrace of the Romans. He deserves the praise of having read the Fragments of Priscus, which have been too much disregarded. ↩
See Priscus, pp. 69, 71, 72, etc. I would fain believe that this adventurer was afterwards crucified by the order of Attila, on a suspicion of treasonable practices; but Priscus (p. 57) has too plainly distinguished two persons of the name of Constantius, who, from the similar events of their lives, might have been easily confounded. ↩
In the Persian treaty, concluded in the year 422, the wise and eloquent Maximin had been the assessor of Ardaburius (Socrates, l. VII c. 20). When Marcian ascended the throne, the office of Great Chamberlain was bestowed on Maximin, who is ranked, in the public edict, among the four principal ministers of state (Novellae ad calcem Codex Theodosianus, p. 31). He executed a civil and military commission in the Eastern provinces; and his death was lamented by the savages of Aethiopia, whose incursions he had repressed. See Priscus, pp. 40, 41. ↩
Priscus was a native of Panium in Thrace, and deserved, by his eloquence, an honorable place among the sophists of the age. His Byzantine history, which related to his own times, was comprised in seven books. See Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, pp. 235, 236. Notwithstanding the charitable judgment of the critics, I suspect that Priscus was a Pagan.9031 ↩
70 stadia. Priscus, p. 173. —⁠M. ↩
He was forbidden to pitch his tents on an eminence because Attila’s were below on the plain. Priscus, p. 173. —⁠M. ↩
The Huns themselves still continued to despise the labors of agriculture; they abused the privilege of a victorious nation; and the Goths, their industrious subjects who cultivated the earth, dreaded their neighborhood, like that of so many ravenous wolves (Priscus, p. 45). In the same manner the Sarts and Tadgics provide for their own subsistence, and for that of the Usbec Tartars, their lazy and rapacious sovereigns. See Genealogical History of the Tartars, pp. 423, 455, etc. ↩
It is evident that Priscus passed the Danube and the Theiss, and that he did not reach the foot of the Carpathian hills. Agria, Tokay, and Jazberin are situated in the plains circumscribed by this definition. M. Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VII, p. 461) has chosen Tokay; Otrokosci (p. 180, apud Mascou, IX 23), a learned Hungarian, has preferred Jazberin, a place about thirty-six miles westward of Buda and the Danube.9032 ↩
The royal village of Attila may be compared to the city of Karacorum, the residence of the successors of Zingis; which, though it appears to have been a more stable habitation, did not equal the size or splendor of the town and abbey of St. Denys, in the 13th century (see Rubruquis, in the Histoire générale des Voyages, tom. VII, p. 286). The camp of Aurengzebe, as it is so agreeably described by Bernier (tom. II, pp. 217⁠–⁠235), blended the manners of Scythia with the magnificence and luxury of Hindostan. ↩
The name of this queen occurs three times in Priscus, and always in a different form⁠—Cerca, Creca, and Rheca. The Scandinavian poets have preserved her memory under the name of Herkia. Saint-Martin VI 192. —⁠M. ↩
When the Moguls displayed the spoils of Asia in the diet of Toncat, the throne of Zingis was still covered with the original black felt carpet on which he had been seated when he was raised to the command of his warlike countrymen. See Histoire du Grand Genghizcan V c. 9. ↩
Escam⁠—ἐν ἤ γαμεῖν θυγατέρα Ἐσκὰμ ἐβούλετο, πλείστας μὲν ἔχων γαμετὰς, ἀγόμενος δὲ καί ταύτην κατὰ νομον τὸν Σκυθικόν. Was this his own daughter, or the daughter of a person named Escam? (Gibbon has written incorrectly Eslam, an unknown name. The officer of Attila, called Eslas, is spelled Ησλας.) In either case the construction is imperfect: a good Greek writer would have introduced an article to determine the sense, either τὴν αὐτοῦ θυγάτερα, or τὴν τοῦ Ἐσκὰμ θυγάτερα. Nor is it quite clear whether Scythian usage is adduced to excuse the polygamy, or a marriage, which would be considered incestuous in other countries. The Latin version has carefully preserved the ambiguity, filiam Escam uxorem. I am not inclined to construe it “his own daughter,” though I have too little confidence in the uniformity of the grammatical idioms of the Byzantines (though Priscus is one of the best) to express myself without hesitation. —⁠M. ↩
This passage is remarkable from the connection of the name of Attila with that extraordinary cycle of poetry which is found in different forms in almost all the Teutonic languages. A Latin poem, De primâ expeditione Attilae regis Hunnorum in Gallias, was published in the year 1780, by Friderico Fischer at Leipzig. It contains, with the continuation, 1,452 lines. It abounds in metrical faults, but is occasionally not without some rude spirit and some copiousness of fancy in the variation of the circumstances in the different combats of the hero Walther, prince of Aquitania. It contains little which can be supposed historical, and still less which is characteristic concerning Attila. It relates to a first expedition of Attila into Gaul, which cannot be traced in history, during which the kings of the Franks, of the Burgundians, and of Aquitaine submit themselves and give hostages to Attila: the king of the Franks, a personage who seems the same with the Hagen of Teutonic romance; the king of Burgundy, his daughter Heldgund; the king of Aquitaine, his son Walther. The main subject of the poem is the escape of Walther and Heldgund from the camp of Attila, and the combat between Walther and Gunthar, king of the Franks, with his twelve peers, among whom is Hagen. Walther had been betrayed while he passed through Worms, the city of the Frankish king, by paying for his ferry over the Rhine with some strange fish which he had caught during his flight, and which were unknown in the waters of the Rhine. Gunthar was desirous of plundering him of the treasure, which Walther had carried off from the camp of Attila. The author of this poem is unknown, nor can I, on the vague and rather doubtful allusion to Thule as Iceland, venture to assign its date. It was, evidently, recited in a monastery, as appears by the first line; and no doubt composed there. The faults of metre would point out a late date; and it may have been formed upon some local tradition, as Walther, the hero, seems to have turned monk.

This poem, however, in its character and its incidents, bears no relation to the Teutonic cycle, of which the Nibelungenlied is the most complete form. In this, in the Heldenbuch, in some of the Danish Sagas, in countless lays and ballads in all the dialects of Scandinavia, appears King Etzel (Attila) in strife with the Burgundians and the Franks. With these appears, by a poetic anachronism, Dietrich of Berne (Theodoric of Verona), the celebrated Ostrogothic king; and many other very singular coincidences of historic names, which appear in the poems. (See Lachman Kritik der Sage in his volume of various readings to the Nibelungen; Berlin, 1836, p. 336.)

I must acknowledge myself unable to form any satisfactory theory as to the connection of these poems with the history of the time, or the period, from which they may date their origin; notwithstanding the laborious investigations and critical sagacity of the Schlegels, the Grimms, of P. E. Müller and Lachman, and a whole host of German critics and antiquaries; not to omit our own countryman, Mr. William Herbert, whose theory concerning Attila is certainly neither deficient in boldness nor originality. I conceive the only way to obtain anything like a clear conception on this point would be what Lachman has begun (see above), patiently to collect and compare the various forms which the traditions have assumed, without any preconceived, either mythical or poetical, theory, and, if possible, to discover the original basis of the whole rich and fantastic legend. One point, which to me is strongly in favor of the antiquity of this poetic cycle, is that the manners are so clearly anterior to chivalry, and to the influence exercised on the poetic literature of Europe by the chivalrous poems and romances. I think I find some traces of that influence in the Latin poem, though strained through the imagination of a monk.

The English reader will find an amusing account of the German Nibelungen and Heldenbuch, and of some of the Scandinavian Sagas, in the volume of Northern Antiquities published by Henry William Weber, the friend of Sir Walter Scott. Scott himself contributed a considerable, no doubt far the most valuable, part to the work. See also the various German editions of the Nibelungen, to which Lachman, with true German perseverance, has compiled a thick volume of various readings; the Heldenbuch, the old Danish poems by Grimm, the Eddas, etc. Herbert’s Attila, King of the Huns, p. 510, et seq. —⁠M. ↩
If we may believe Plutarch (in Parallel Lives, “Demetrio,” tom. V, p. 24), it was the custom of the Scythians, when they indulged in the pleasures of the table, to awaken their languid courage by the martial harmony of twanging their bowstrings. ↩
The Scythian was an idiot or lunatic; the Moor a regular buffoon. —⁠M. ↩
The curious narrative of this embassy, which required few observations, and was not susceptible of any collateral evidence, may be found in Priscus, pp. 49⁠–⁠70. But I have not confined myself to the same order; and I had previously extracted the historical circumstances, which were less intimately connected with the journey and business of the Roman ambassadors. ↩
M. de Tillemont has very properly given the succession of chamberlains, who reigned in the name of Theodosius. Chrysaphius was the last, and, according to the unanimous evidence of history, the worst of these favorites (see Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, pp. 117⁠–⁠119; Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XV, p. 438). His partiality for his godfather, the heresiarch Eutyches, engaged him to persecute the orthodox party. ↩
This secret conspiracy and its important consequences may be traced in the fragments of Priscus, pp. 37⁠–⁠39, 54, 70⁠–⁠72. The chronology of that historian is not fixed by any precise date; but the series of negotiations between Attila and the Eastern empire must be included within the three or four years which are terminated, AD 450, by the death of Theodosius. ↩
Theodorus the Reader (see Valesius, Historia ecclesiastica, tom. III, p. 563) and the Paschal Chronicle mention the fall, without specifying the injury; but the consequence was so likely to happen, and so unlikely to be invented, that we may safely give credit to Nicephorus Callistus, a Greek of the fourteenth century. ↩
Pulcheriae nutu (says Count Marcellinus) suâ cum avaritiâ interemptus est. She abandoned the eunuch to the pious revenge of a son whose father had suffered at his instigation.9033 ↩
Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 4. Evagrius, l. II c. 1. Theophanes, pp. 90, 91. Novellae ad calcem Codex Theodosianus, tom. VI, p. 30. The praises which St. Leo and the Catholics have bestowed on Marcian are diligently transcribed by Baronius, as an encouragement for future princes. ↩
See Priscus, pp. 39, 72. ↩
The Alexandrian or Paschal Chronicle, which introduces this haughty message during the lifetime of Theodosius, may have anticipated the date; but the dull annalist was incapable of inventing the original and genuine style of Attila. ↩
The second book of the Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie françoise dans les Gaules, tom. I, pp. 189⁠–⁠424, throws great light on the state of Gaul when it was invaded by Attila; but the ingenious author, the Abbé Dubos, too often bewilders himself in system and conjecture. ↩
Victor Vitensis (De persecutione Vandalica, l. I c. 6, p. 8, edit. Ruinart) calls him, acer consilio et strenuus in bello; but his courage, when he became unfortunate, was censured as desperate rashness; and Sebastian deserved, or obtained, the epithet of proeceps (Sidonius Apollinaris, “Carmen IX” 181). His adventures in Constantinople, in Sicily, Gaul, Spain, and Africa are faintly marked in the chronicles of Marcellinus and Idacius. In his distress he was always followed by a numerous train; since he could ravage the Hellespont and Propontis and seize the city of Barcelona. ↩
Reipublicae Romanae singulariter natus, qui superbiam Suevorum, Francorumque barbariem immensis caedibus servire Imperio Romano coegisset. Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 34, p. 660. ↩
Some valuable fragments of a poetical panegyric on Aetius by Merobaudes, a Spaniard, have been recovered from a palimpsest MS. by the sagacity and industry of Niebuhr. They have been reprinted in the new edition of the Byzantine Historians. The poet speaks in glowing terms of the long (annosa) peace enjoyed under the administration of Aetius. The verses are very spirited. The poet was rewarded by a statue publicly dedicated to his honor in Rome.

Danuvii cum pace redit, Tanaimque furore
Exuit, et nigro candentes aethere terras
Marte suo caruisse jubet. Dedit otia ferro
Caucasus, et saevi condemnant praelia reges.
Addidit hiberni famulantia foedera Rhenus
Orbis⁠ ⁠…
⋮
Lustrat Aremoricos jam mitior incola saltus;
Perdidit et mores tellus, adsuetaque saevo
Crimine quaesitas silvis celare rapinas,
Discit inexpertis Cererem committere campis;
Caesareoque diu manus obluctata labori
Sustinet acceptas nostro sub consule leges;
Et quamvis Geticis sulcum confundat aratris,
Barbara vicinae refugit consortia gentis.
Merobaudes, p. 11.

—⁠M. ↩
… cum Scythicis succumberet ensibus orbis,
Telaque Tarpeias premerent Arctoa secures,
Hostilem fregit rabiem, pignusque superbi
Foederis et mundi pretium fuit. Hinc modo voti
Rata fides, validis quod dux premat impiger armis
Edomuit quos pace puer; bellumque repressit
Ignarus quid bella forent. Stupuere feroces
In tenero jam membra Getae. Rex ipse, verendum
Miratus pueri decus et prodentia fatum
Lumina, primaevas dederat gestare faretras,
Laudabatque manus librantem et tela gerentem
Oblitus quod noster erat. Pro nescia regis
Corda, feris quanto populis discrimine constet
Quod Latium docet arma ducem.
Merobaudes, Panegyric, p. 15.

—⁠M. ↩
This portrait is drawn by Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, a contemporary historian, known only by some extracts which are preserved by Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 8, in tom. II, p. 163). It was probably the duty, or at least the interest, of Renatus to magnify the virtues of Aetius; but he would have shown more dexterity if he had not insisted on his patient, forgiving disposition. ↩
Insessor Libyes, quamvis, fatalibus armis
Ausus Elisaei solium rescindere regni,
Milibus Arctois Tyrias compleverat arces,
Nunc hostem exutus pactis proprioribus arsit
Romanam vincire fidem, Latiosque parentes
Adnumerare sib, sociamque intexere prolem.
Merobaudes, p. 12.

—⁠M. ↩
The embassy consisted of Count Romulus; of Promotus, president of Noricum; and of Romanus, the military duke. They were accompanied by Tatullus, an illustrious citizen of Petovio, in the same province, and father of Orestes, who had married the daughter of Count Romulus. See Priscus, pp. 57, 65. Cassiodorus (Variarum I 4) mentions another embassy, which was executed by his father and Carpilio, the son of Aetius; and, as Attila was no more, he could safely boast of their manly intrepid behavior in his presence. ↩
Deserta Valentinae urbis rura Alanis partienda traduntur. Prosperi Tyronis, Chronicon in Historiens de France, tom. I, p. 639. A few lines afterwards, Prosper observes that lands in the ulterior Gaul were assigned to the Alani. Without admitting the correction of Dubos (tom. I, p. 300), the reasonable supposition of two colonies or garrisons of Alani will confirm his arguments and remove his objections. ↩
See Prosper Tyro, p. 639. Sidonius (“Panegyricus Avitus” 246) complains, in the name of Auvergne, his native country,

Litorius Scythicos equites tunc forte subacto
Celsus Aremorico, Geticum rapiebat in agmen
Per terras, Averne, tuas, qui proxima quaedue
Discursu, flammis, ferro, feritate, rapinis,
Delebant; pacis fallentes nomen inane.

Another poet, Paulinus of Perigord, confirms the complaint:⁠—

Nam socium vix ferre queas, qui durior hoste.

See Dubos, tom. I, p. 330. ↩
Theodoric II, the son of Theodoric I, declares to Avitus his resolution of repairing or expiating the faults which his grandfather had committed⁠—

Quae noster peccavit avus, quem fuscat id unum,
Quod te, Roma, capit.
Sidonius, “Panegyricus Avitus” 505.

This character, applicable only to the great Alaric, establishes the genealogy of the Gothic kings, which has hitherto been unnoticed. ↩
The name of Sapaudia, the origin of Savoy, is first mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus; and two military posts are ascertained by the Notitia within the limits of that province; a cohort was stationed at Grenoble in Dauphiné; and Ebredunum, or Iverdun, sheltered a fleet of small vessels which commanded the Lake of Neufchâtel. See Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, p. 503. D’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, pp. 284, 579. ↩
Salvian has attempted to explain the moral government of the Deity; a task which may be readily performed by supposing that the calamities of the wicked are judgments, and those of the righteous, trials. ↩
… Capto terrarum damna patebant
Litorio, in Rhodanum proprios producere fines,
Thendoridae fixum; nec erat pugnare necesse,
Sed migrare Getis; rabidam trux asperat iram
Victor; quod sensit Scythicum sub moenibus hostem
Imputat, et nihil est gravius, si forsitan unquam
Vincere contingat, trepido.
“Panegyricus Avitus” 300, etc.

Sitionius then proceeds, according to the duty of a panegyrist, to transfer the whole merit from Aetius to his minister Avitus. ↩
Theodoric II revered, in the person of Avitus, the character of his preceptor.

… Mihi Romula dudum
Per te jura placent; parvumque ediscere jussit
Ad tua verba pater, docili quo prisca Maronis
Carmine molliret Scythicos mihi pagina mores.
Sidonius, “Panegyricus Avitus” 495, etc.

↩
Our authorities for the reign of Theodoric I are: Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 34, 36, and the Chronicles of Idacius and the two Prospers, inserted in the Historians of France, tom. I, pp. 612⁠–⁠640. To these we may add Salvian, De gubernatione Dei, l. VII, pp. 243⁠–⁠245, and the panegyric of Avitus, by Sidonius. ↩
Reges Crinitos se creavisse de primâ, et ut ita dicam nobiliori suorum familiâ (Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 9, p. 166, of the second volume of the Historians of France). Gregory himself does not mention the Merovingian name, which may be traced, however, to the beginning of the seventh century as the distinctive appellation of the royal family, and even of the French monarchy. An ingenious critic has deduced the Merovingians from the great Maroboduus; and he has clearly proved that the prince who gave his name to the first race was more ancient than the father of Childeric. See Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XX, pp. 52⁠–⁠90, tom. XXX, pp. 557⁠–⁠587. ↩
This German custom, which may be traced from Tacitus to Gregory of Tours, was at length adopted by the emperors of Constantinople. From a MS. of the tenth century Montfaucon has delineated the representation of a similar ceremony, which the ignorance of the age had applied to King David. See Les monumens de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, Discours Preliminaire. ↩
Caesaries prolixa⁠ ⁠… crinium flagellis per terga dimissis, etc. See the Preface to the third volume of the Historians of France, and the Abbé Le Boeuf (Dissertatio tom. III, pp. 47⁠–⁠79). This peculiar fashion of the Merovingians has been remarked by natives and strangers; by Priscus (tom. I, p. 608), by Agathias (tom. II, p. 49), and by Gregory of Tours (l. III 18, VI 24, VIII 10, tom. II, pp. 196, 278, 316). ↩
See an original picture of the figure, dress, arms, and temper of the ancient Franks in Sidonius Apollinaris (“Panegyricus Majorianus” 238⁠–⁠254); and such pictures, though coarsely drawn, have a real and intrinsic value. Father Gabriel Daniel (Histoire de la milice françoise, tom. I, pp. 2⁠–⁠7) has illustrated the description. ↩
Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, pp. 271, 272. Some geographers have placed Dispargum on the German side of the Rhine. See a note of the Benedictine Editors to the Historians of France, tom. II, p. 166. ↩
The Carbonarian wood was that part of the great forest of the Ardennes which lay between the Escaut, or Scheldt, and the Meuse. Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, p. 126. ↩
Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 9, in tom. II, pp. 166, 167. Fredegar, Epitome, c. 9, p. 395. Gesta regum Francorum, c. 5, in tom. II, p. 544. Vita Sancti Remigii ab Hincmar, in tom. III, p. 373. ↩
… Francus qua Cloio patentes
Atrebatum terras pervaserat.
“Panegyricus Majorianus” 213

The precise spot was a town or village called Vicus Helena; and both the name and place are discovered by modern geographers at Lens. See Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, p. 246. Longuerue, Description de la France, tom. II, p. 88. ↩
See a vague account of the action in Sidonius, “Panegyricus Majorianus” 212⁠–⁠230. The French critics, impatient to establish their monarchy in Gaul, have drawn a strong argument from the silence of Sidonius, who dares not insinuate that the vanquished Franks were compelled to repass the Rhine. Dubos, tom. I, p. 322. ↩
Salvian (De gubernatione Dei, l. VI) has expressed, in vague and declamatory language, the misfortunes of these three cities, which are distinctly ascertained by the learned Mascou, History of the Ancient Germans IX 21. ↩
Priscus, in relating the contest, does not name the two brothers; the second of whom he had seen at Rome, a beardless youth, with long, flowing hair (Historians of France, tom. I, pp. 607, 608). The Benedictine Editors are inclined to believe that they were the sons of some unknown king of the Franks who reigned on the banks of the Neckar; but the arguments of M. Étienne de Foncemagne (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. VIII, p. 464) seem to prove that the succession of Clodion was disputed by his two sons, and that the younger was Meroveus, the father of Childeric.9034 ↩
Under the Merovingian race the throne was hereditary; but all the sons of the deceased monarch were equally entitled to their share of his treasures and territories. See the dissertations of M. de Foncemagne in the sixth and eighth volumes of the Mémoires de l’Académie. ↩
A medal is still extant which exhibits the pleasing countenance of Honoria, with the title of Augusta; and on the reverse the improper legend of Salus Reipublicoe round the monogram of Christ. See du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 67, 73. ↩
See Priscus, pp. 39, 40. It might be fairly alleged that, if females could succeed to the throne, Valentinian himself, who had married the daughter and heiress of the younger Theodosius, would have asserted her right to the Eastern empire. ↩
The adventures of Honoria are imperfectly related by Jornandes, De regnorum ac temporum successione, c. 97, and De rebus Geticis, c. 42, p. 674; and in the Chronicles of Prosper and Marcellinus; but they cannot be made consistent, or probable, unless we separate, by an interval of time and place, her intrigue with Eugenius, and her invitation of Attila. ↩
Exegeras mihi, ut promitterem tibi, Attilae bellum stylo me posteris intimaturum⁠ ⁠… coeperam scribere, sed operis arrepti fasce perspecto, taeduit inchoasse. Sidonius Apollinaris, l. VIII, “Epistola 15,” p. 246. ↩
… Subito cum rupta tumultu
Barbaries totas in te transfuderat Arctos,
Gallia. Pugnacem Rugum comitante Gelono,
Gepida trux sequitur; Scyrum Burgundio cogit:
Chunus, Bellonotus, Neurus, Basterna, Toringus,
Bructerus, ulvosâ vel quem Nicer abluit undâ
Prorumpit Francus. Cecidit cito secta bipenni
Hercynia in lintres, et Rhenum texuit alno.
Et jam terrificis diffuderat Attila turmis
In campos se, Belga, tuos.
“Panegyricus Avitus” 319, etc.

↩
The most authentic and circumstantial account of this war is contained in Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 36⁠–⁠41, pp. 662⁠–⁠672), who has sometimes abridged, and sometimes transcribed, the larger history of Cassiodorus. Jornandes, a quotation which it would be superfluous to repeat, may be corrected and illustrated by Gregory of Tours, l. II c. 5⁠–⁠7, and the Chronicles of Idacius, Isidore, and the two Prospers. All the ancient testimonies are collected and inserted in the Historians of France; but the reader should be cautioned against a supposed extract from the Chronicle of Idacius (among the fragments of Fredegarius, tom. II, p. 462), which often contradicts the genuine text of the Gallician bishop. ↩
The ancient legendaries deserve some regard, as they are obliged to connect their fables with the real history of their own times. See the lives of St. Lupus, St. Anianus, the bishops of Metz, St. Genevieve, etc., in the Historians of France, tom. I, pp. 644, 645, 649, tom. III, p. 369. ↩
The scepticism of the Count Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VII, pp. 539, 540) cannot be reconciled with any principles of reason or criticism. Is not Gregory of Tours precise and positive in his account of the destruction of Metz? At the distance of no more than a hundred years, could he be ignorant, could the people be ignorant, of the fate of a city, the actual residence of his sovereigns, the kings of Austrasia? The learned count, who seems to have undertaken the apology of Attila and the Barbarians, appeals to the false Idacius, parcens Germaniae et Galliae, and forgets that the true Idacius had explicitly affirmed, plurimae civitates effractae, among which he enumerates Metz. ↩
… Vix liquerat Alpes
Aetius, tenue, et rarum sine milite ducens
Robur, in auxiliis Geticum male credulus agmen
Incassum propriis praesumens adfore castris.
“Panegyricus Avitus” 328, etc.

↩
The policy of Attila, of Aetius, and of the Visigoths is imperfectly described in the Panegyric of Avitus and the thirty-sixth chapter of Jornandes. The poet and the historian were both biased by personal or national prejudices. The former exalts the merit and importance of Avitus; orbis, Avite, salus, etc.! The latter is anxious to show the Goths in the most favorable light. Yet their agreement, when they are fairly interpreted, is a proof of their veracity. ↩
The review of the army of Aetius is made by Jornandes, c. 36, p. 664, edit. Grotius, tom. II, p. 23, of the Historians of France, with the notes of the Benedictine editor. The Laeti were a promiscuous race of Barbarians, born or naturalized in Gaul; and the Riparii, or Ripuarii, derived their name from their post on the three rivers, the Rhine, the Meuse, and the Moselle; the Armoricans possessed the independent cities between the Seine and the Loire. A colony of Saxons had been planted in the diocese of Bayeux; the Burgundians were settled in Savoy; and the Breones were a warlike tribe of Rhaetians, to the east of the lake of Constance. ↩
Aurelianensis urbis obsidio, oppugnatio, irruptio, nec direptio, Sidonius Apollinaris, l. VIII, “Epistola 15,” p. 246. The preservation of Orleans might easily be turned into a miracle, obtained and foretold by the holy bishop. ↩
The common editions read XCM but there is some authority of manuscripts (and almost any authority is sufficient) for the more reasonable number of XVM. ↩
Châlons or Duro-Catalaunum, afterwards Catalauni, had formerly made a part of the territory of Rheims from whence it is distant only twenty-seven miles. See Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, p. 136. D’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, pp. 212, 279. ↩
The name of Campania, or Champagne, is frequently mentioned by Gregory of Tours; and that great province, of which Rheims was the capital, obeyed the command of a duke. Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, pp. 120⁠–⁠123. ↩
I am sensible that these military orations are usually composed by the historian; yet the old Ostrogoths, who had served under Attila, might repeat his discourse to Cassiodorus; the ideas, and even the expressions, have an original Scythian cast; and I doubt whether an Italian of the sixth century would have thought of the hujus certaminis gaudia. ↩
The expressions of Jornandes, or rather of Cassiodorus, are extremely strong. Bellum atrox, multiplex, immane, pertinax, cui simile nulla usquam narrat antiquitas: ubi talia gesta referuntur, ut nihil esset quod in vitâ suâ conspicere potuisset egregius, qui hujus miraculi privaretur aspectu. Dubos (Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, pp. 392, 393) attempts to reconcile the 162,000 of Jornandes with the 300,000 of Idacius and Isidore, by supposing that the larger number included the total destruction of the war, the effects of disease, the slaughter of the unarmed people, etc. ↩
The Count Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VII, pp. 554⁠–⁠573), still depending on the false, and again rejecting the true, Idacius, has divided the defeat of Attila into two great battles: the former near Orleans, the latter in Champagne: in the one, Theodoric was slain; in the other, he was revenged. ↩
Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 41, p. 671. The policy of Aetius and the behavior of Torismond are extremely natural; and the patrician, according to Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 7, p. 163), dismissed the prince of the Franks by suggesting to him a similar apprehension. The false Idacius ridiculously pretends that Aetius paid a clandestine nocturnal visit to the kings of the Huns and of the Visigoths; from each of whom he obtained a bribe of ten thousand pieces of gold as the price of an undisturbed retreat. ↩
These cruelties, which are passionately deplored by Theodoric, the son of Clovis (Gregory of Tours, l. III c. 10, p. 190), suit the time and circumstances of the invasion of Attila. His residence in Thuringia was long attested by popular tradition; and he is supposed to have assembled a couroultai, or diet, in the territory of Eisenach. See Mascou IX 30, who settles with nice accuracy the extent of ancient Thuringia, and derives its name from the Gothic tribe of the Thevingi. ↩
Machinis constructis, omnibusque tormentorum generibus adhibitis. Jornandes, c. 42, p. 673. In the thirteenth century, the Moguls battered the cities of China with large engines constructed by the Muhammadans or Christians in their service, which threw stones from 150 to 300 pounds weight. In the defence of their country, the Chinese used gunpowder, and even bombs, above a hundred years before they were known in Europe; yet even those celestial, or infernal, arms were insufficient to protect a pusillanimous nation. See Gaubil, Histoire des Mongous, pp. 70, 71, 155, 157, etc. ↩
The same story is told by Jornandes, and by Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 4, pp. 187, 188); nor is it easy to decide which is the original. But the Greek historian is guilty of an inexcusable mistake in placing the siege of Aquileia after the death of Aetius. ↩
Jornandes, about a hundred years afterwards, affirms that Aquileia was so completely ruined, ita ut vix ejus vestigia, ut appareant, reliquerint. See Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 42, p. 673. Paulus Diaconus, l. II c. 14, p. 785. Liutprand, Historia Ottonis, l. III c. 2. The name of Aquileia was sometimes applied to Forum Julii (Cividad del Friuli), the more recent capital of the Venetian province.9035 ↩
In describing this war of Attila, a war so famous but so imperfectly known, I have taken for my guides two learned Italians who considered the subject with some peculiar advantages: Sigonius, Historiarum de occidentali imperio, l. XIII in his Works, tom. I, pp. 495⁠–⁠502; and Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. IV, pp. 229⁠–⁠236, octavo edition. ↩
This anecdote may be found under two different articles (“μεδιόλανον” and “κόρυκος”) of the miscellaneous compilation of Suidas. ↩
Leo respondit, humanâ, hoc pictum manu:
Videres hominem dejectum, si pingere
Leones scirent.
Appendix ad Phaedrus, Fable XXV.

The lion in Phaedrus very foolishly appeals from pictures to the amphitheatre; and I am glad to observe that the native taste of La Fontaine (l. III, Fable X) has omitted this most lame and impotent conclusion. ↩
Paul the Deacon (De gestis Langobardorum, l. II c. 14, p. 784) describes the provinces of Italy about the end of the eighth century. Venetia non solum in paucis insulis quas nunc Venetias dicimus, constat; sed ejus terminus a Pannoniae finibus usque Adduam fluvium protelatur. The history of that province till the age of Charlemagne forms the first and most interesting part of the Verona illustrata (pp. 1⁠–⁠388), in which the Marquis Scipio Maffei has shown himself equally capable of enlarged views and minute disquisitions. ↩
This emigration is not attested by any contemporary evidence: but the fact is proved by the event, and the circumstances might be preserved by tradition. The citizens of Aquileia retired to the isle of Gradus, those of Padua to Rivus Altus, or Rialto, where the city of Venice was afterwards built, etc. ↩
The topography and antiquities of the Venetian islands, from Gradus to Clodia, or Chioggia, are accurately stated in the De Italia Medii Aevi dissertatio chorographica, pp. 151⁠–⁠155. ↩
Cassiodorus, Variarum, l. XII, “Epistola 24.” Maffei (Verona illustrata, part I, pp. 240⁠–⁠254) has translated and explained this curious letter, in the spirit of a learned antiquarian and a faithful subject, who considered Venice as the only legitimate offspring of the Roman republic. He fixes the date of the epistle, and consequently the prefecture, of Cassiodorus, AD 523; and the marquis’s authority has the more weight, as he prepared an edition of his works and actually published a dissertation on the true orthography of his name. See Osservazioni letterarie, tom. II, pp. 290⁠–⁠339. ↩
The learned Count Jacopo Filiasi has proved in his memoirs upon the Veneti (Memorie storiche de’ Veneti primi e secondi del conte Giacomo Filiasi, t. VI, Venezia, 1796) that, from the most remote period, this nation, which occupied the country which has since been called the Venetian States or Terra Firma, likewise inhabited the islands scattered upon the coast, and that from thence arose the names of Venetia prima and secunda, of which the first applied to the mainland and the second to the islands and lagoons. From the time of the Pelasgi and of the Etrurians, the first Veneti, inhabiting a fertile and pleasant country, devoted themselves to agriculture: the second, placed in the midst of canals at the mouth of several rivers, conveniently situated with regard to the islands of Greece, as well as the fertile plains of Italy, applied themselves to navigation and commerce. Both submitted to the Romans a short time before the second Punic war; yet it was not till after the victory of Marius over the Cimbri that their country was reduced to a Roman province. Under the emperors, Venetia Prima obtained more than once, by its calamities, a place in history.⁠ ⁠… But the maritime province was occupied in salt works, fisheries, and commerce. The Romans have considered the inhabitants of this part as beneath the dignity of history, and have left them in obscurity.⁠ ⁠… They dwelt there until the period when their islands afforded a retreat to their ruined and fugitive compatriots. Sismondi, Histoire des républiques italiennes du moyen-âge, vol. I, p. 313. —⁠G.

Compare, on the origin of Venice, Daru, Histoire de la république de Venise, vol. I c. 1. —⁠M. ↩
See, in the second volume of Amelot de la Houssaye, Histoire du gouvernement de Venise, a translation of the famous Squittinio. This book, which has been exalted far above its merits, is stained in every line with the disingenuous malevolence of party; but the principal evidence, genuine and apocryphal, is brought together, and the reader will easily choose the fair medium. ↩
Sirmond (Note ad Sidonius Apollinaris, p. 19) has published a curious passage from the Chronicle of Prosper. Attila, redintegratis viribus, quas in Galliâ amiserat, Italiam ingredi per Pannonias intendit; nihil duce nostro Aetio secundum prioris belli opera prospiciente, etc. He reproaches Aetius with neglecting to guard the Alps, and with a design to abandon Italy; but this rash censure may at least be counterbalanced by the favorable testimonies of Idacius and Isidore. ↩
See the original portraits of Avienus and his rival Basilius, delineated and contrasted in the epistles (I 9, p. 22) of Sidonius. He had studied the characters of the two chiefs of the senate; but he attached himself to Basilius, as the more solid and disinterested friend. ↩
The character and principles of Leo may be traced in 141 original epistles, which illustrate the ecclesiastical history of his long and busy pontificate, from AD 440 to 461. See Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. III part II, pp. 120⁠–⁠165. ↩
… tardis ingens ubi flexibus errat
Mincius, et tenerâ praetexit arundine ripas
⋮
Anne lacus tantos, te Lari maxime, teque
Fluctibus, et fremitu assurgens Benace marino.

↩
The marquis Maffei (Verona illustrata, part I, pp. 95, 129, 221, part II, pp. 2, 6) has illustrated with taste and learning this interesting topography. He places the interview of Attila and St. Leo near Ariolica, or Ardelica, now Peschiera, at the conflux of the lake and river; ascertains the villa of Catullus, in the delightful peninsula of Sirmio, and discovers the Andes of Virgil, in the village of Bandes, precisely situate, quâ se subducere colles incipiunt, where the Veronese hills imperceptibly slope down into the plain of Mantua.9036 ↩
Si statim infesto agmine urbem petiissent, grande discrimen esset: sed in Venetiâ quo fere tractu Italia mollissima est, ipsâ soli caelique clementiâ robur elanquit. Ad hoc panis usu carnisque coctae, et dulcedine vini mitigatos, etc. This passage of Florus (III 3) is still more applicable to the Huns than to the Cimbri, and it may serve as a commentary on the celestial plague with which Idacius and Isidore have afflicted the troops of Attila. ↩
The historian Priscus had positively mentioned the effect which this example produced on the mind of Attila. Jornandes, c. 42, p. 673. ↩
The picture of Raphael is in the Vatican; the basso (or perhaps the alto) relievo of Algardi, on one of the altars of St. Peter (see Dubos, Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, tom. I, pp. 519, 520). Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 452,” No. 57, 58) bravely sustains the truth of the apparition; which is rejected, however, by the most learned and pious Catholics. ↩
Attila, ut Priscus historicus refert, extinctionis suae tempore, puellam Ildico nomine, decoram, valde, sibi matrimonium post innumerabiles uxores⁠ ⁠… socians. Jornandes, c. 49, pp. 683, 684. He afterwards adds (c. 50, p. 686): Filii Attilae, quorum per licentiam libidinis poene populus fuit. Polygamy has been established among the Tartars of every age. The rank of plebeian wives is regulated only by their personal charms; and the faded matron prepares, without a murmur, the bed which is destined for her blooming rival. But in royal families the daughters of Khans communicate to their sons a prior right of inheritance. See Genealogical History of the Tartars, pp. 406⁠–⁠408. ↩
The report of her guilt reached Constantinople, where it obtained a very different name; and Marcellinus observes that the tyrant of Europe was slain in the night by the hand and the knife of a woman. Corneille, who has adapted the genuine account to his tragedy, describes the irruption of blood in forty bombast lines, and Attila exclaims with ridiculous fury,

… S’il ne veut s’arrêter (his blood),
(Dit-il) on me payera ce qui m’en va coûter.

↩
The curious circumstances of the death and funeral of Attila are related by Jornandes (c. 49, pp. 683⁠–⁠685), and were probably transcribed from Priscus. ↩
See Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 50, pp. 685⁠–⁠688. His distinction of the national arms is curious and important. Nam ibi admirandum reor fuisse spectaculum, ubi cernere erat cunctis, pugnantem Gothum ense furentem, Gepidam in vulnere suorum cuncta tela frangentem, Suevum pede, Hunnum sagittâ praesumere, Alanum gravi, Herulum levi, armaturâ, aciem instruere. I am not precisely informed of the situation of the river Netad. ↩
Two modern historians have thrown much new light on the ruin and division of the empire of Attila: M. Du Buat, by his laborious and minute diligence (tom. VIII, pp. 3⁠–⁠31, 68⁠–⁠94), and M. de Guignes, by his extraordinary knowledge of the Chinese language and writers. See Histoire des Huns, tom. II, pp. 315⁠–⁠319. ↩
The praises awarded by Gibbon to the character of Aetius have been animadverted upon with great severity (see Mr. Herbert’s Attila, King of the Huns, p. 321). I am not aware that Gibbon has dissembled or palliated any of the crimes or treasons of Aetius; but his position at the time of his murder was certainly that of the preserver of the empire, the conqueror of the most dangerous of the barbarians: it is by no means clear that he was not “innocent” of any treasonable designs against Valentinian. If the early acts of his life, the introduction of the Huns into Italy, and of the Vandals into Africa, were among the proximate causes of the ruin of the empire, his murder was the signal for its almost immediate downfall. —⁠M. ↩
Placidia died at Rome, November 27, AD 450. She was buried at Ravenna, where her sepulchre, and even her corpse, seated in a chair of cypress wood, were preserved for ages. The empress received many compliments from the orthodox clergy; and St. Peter Chrysologus assured her that her zeal for the Trinity had been recompensed by an august trinity of children. See Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, p. 240. ↩
Aetium Placidus mactavit semivir amens, is the expression of Sidonius (“Panegyricus Avitus” 359). The poet knew the world, and was not inclined to flatter a minister who had injured or disgraced Avitus and Majorian, the successive heroes of his song. ↩
With regard to the cause and circumstances of the deaths of Aetius and Valentinian, our information is dark and imperfect. Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 4, pp. 186⁠–⁠188) is a fabulous writer for the events which precede his own memory. His narrative must therefore be supplied and corrected by five or six Chronicles, none of which were composed in Rome or Italy; and which can only express, in broken sentences, the popular rumors as they were conveyed to Gaul, Spain, Africa, Constantinople, or Alexandria. ↩
This interpretation of Vettius, a celebrated augur, was quoted by Varro in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities. Censorinus, De die natali, c. 17, pp. 90, 91, edit. Havercamp. ↩
According to Varro, the twelfth century would expire AD 447, but the uncertainty of the true era of Rome might allow some latitude of anticipation or delay. The poets of the age, Claudian (De bello Getico 265) and Sidonius (in “Panegyricus Avitus” 357), may be admitted as fair witnesses of the popular opinion.

Jam reputant annos, interceptoque volatû
Vulturis, incidunt properatis saecula metis.
⋮
Jam prope fata tui bissenas Vulturis alas
Implebant; seis namque tuos, scis, Roma, labores.

See Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, pp. 340⁠–⁠346. ↩
The fifth book of Salvian is filled with pathetic lamentations and vehement invectives. His immoderate freedom serves to prove the weakness, as well as the corruption, of the Roman government. His book was published after the loss of Africa (AD 439), and before Attila’s war (AD 451). ↩
The Bagaudae of Spain, who fought pitched battles with the Roman troops, are repeatedly mentioned in the Chronicle of Idacius. Salvian has described their distress and rebellion in very forcible language. Itaque nomen civium Romanorum⁠ ⁠… nunc ultro repudiatur ac fugitur, nec vile tamen sed etiam abominabile poene habetur⁠ ⁠… Et hinc est ut etiam hi quid ad Barbaros non confugiunt, Barbari tamen esse coguntur, scilicet ut est pars magna Hispanorum, et non minima Gallorum.⁠ ⁠… De Bagaudis nunc mihi sermo est, qui per malos judices et cruentos spoliati, afflicti, necati postquam jus Romanae libertatis amiserant, etiam honorem Romani nominis perdiderunt.⁠ ⁠… Vocamus rebelles, vocamus perditos quos esse compulimus criminosos. De gubernatione Dei, l. V, pp. 158, 159. ↩
Sidonius Apollinaris composed the thirteenth epistle of the second book to refute the paradox of his friend Serranus, who entertained a singular, though generous, enthusiasm for the deceased emperor. This epistle, with some indulgence, may claim the praise of an elegant composition; and it throws much light on the character of Maximus. ↩
Clientum, praevia, pedisequa, circumfusa, populositas, is the train which Sidonius himself (l. I, “Epistola 9”) assigns to another senator of rank. ↩
Districtus ensis cui super impiâ
Cervice pendet, non Siculoe dapes
Dulcem elaborabunt saporem:
Non avium citharaeque cantus
Somnum reducent.
Horatius, Carmina III 1.

Sidonius concludes his letter with the story of Damocles, which Cicero (Tusculanae quaestiones V 20, 21) had so inimitably told. ↩
Notwithstanding the evidence of Procopius, Evagrius, Idacius, Marcellinus, etc., the learned Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. IV, p. 249) doubts the reality of this invitation, and observes, with great truth, “Non si può dir quanto sia facile il popolo a sognare e spacciar voci false.” But his argument, from the interval of time and place, is extremely feeble. The figs which grew near Carthage were produced to the senate of Rome on the third day. ↩
… Infidoque tibi Burgundio ductu
Extorquet trepidas mactandi principis iras.
Sidonius in “Panegyricus Avitus” 442.

A remarkable line, which insinuates that Rome and Maximus were betrayed by their Burgundian mercenaries. ↩
The apparent success of Pope Leo may be justified by Prosper and the Historia miscella; but the improbable notion of Baronius (“AD 455,” No. 13) that Genseric spared the three apostolical churches is not countenanced even by the doubtful testimony of the Liber pontificalis. ↩
The profusion of Catulus, the first who gilt the roof of the Capitol, was not universally approved (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXIII 18); but it was far exceeded by the emperor’s, and the external gilding of the temple cost Domitian 12,000 talents (£2,400,000). The expressions of Claudian and Rutilius (luce metalli oemula⁠ ⁠… fastigia astris, and confunduntque vagos delubra micantia visus) manifestly prove that this splendid covering was not removed either by the Christians or the Goths (see Donatus, De Roma antiquâ, l. II c. 6, p. 125). It should seem that the roof of the Capitol was decorated with gilt statues and chariots drawn by four horses. ↩
The curious reader may consult the learned and accurate treatise of Hadrian Reland, De spoliis templi Hierosolymitani in arcu Titiano Romae conspicuis, in duodecimo, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1716. ↩
The vessel which transported the relics of the Capitol was the only one of the whole fleet that suffered shipwreck. If a bigoted sophist, a Pagan bigot, had mentioned the accident, he might have rejoiced that this cargo of sacrilege was lost in the sea. ↩
See Victor Vitensis, De persecutione Vandalica, l. I c. 8, pp. 11, 12, edit. Ruinart. Deogratius governed the church of Carthage only three years. If he had not been privately buried, his corpse would have been torn piecemeal by the mad devotion of the people. ↩
The general evidence for the death of Maximus and the sack of Rome by the Vandals is comprised in Sidonius (“Panegyricus Avitus” 441⁠–⁠450), Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 4, 5, pp. 188, 189, and l. II c. 9, p. 255), Evagrius (l. II c. 7), Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 45, p. 677), and the Chronicles of Idacius, Prosper, Marcellinus, and Theophanes under the proper year. ↩
The private life and elevation of Avitus must be deduced, with becoming suspicion, from the panegyric pronounced by Sidonius Apollinaris, his subject and his son-in-law. ↩
After the example of the younger Pliny, Sidonius (l. II c. 2) has labored the florid, prolix, and obscure description of his villa, which bore the name (Avitacum), and had been the property of Avitus. The precise situation is not ascertained. Consult, however, the notes of Savaron and Sirmond. ↩
Sidonius (l. II, “Epistola 9”) has described the country life of the Gallic nobles, in a visit which he made to his friends, whose estates were in the neighborhood of Nismes. The morning hours were spent in the sphaeristerium, or tennis-court; or in the library, which was furnished with Latin authors, profane and religious; the former for the men, the latter for the ladies. The table was twice served, at dinner and supper, with hot meat (boiled and roast) and wine. During the intermediate time, the company slept, took the air on horseback, and used the warm bath. ↩
Seventy lines of panegyric (505⁠–⁠575) which describe the importunity of Theodoric and of Gaul, struggling to overcome the modest reluctance of Avitus, are blown away by three words of an honest historian: Romanum ambisset Imperium (Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 11, in tom. II, p. 168). ↩
Isidore, archbishop of Seville, who was himself of the blood royal of the Goths, acknowledges and almost justifies (Historia Gotthorum, Vandalorum, & Lanbogardorum, p. 718) the crime which their slave Jornandes had basely dissembled (c. 43, p. 673). ↩
This elaborate description (l. I, “Epistola II,” pp. 2⁠–⁠7) was dictated by some political motive. It was designed for the public eye, and had been shown by the friends of Sidonius before it was inserted in the collection of his epistles. The first book was published separately. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XVI, p. 264. ↩
I have suppressed in this portrait of Theodoric several minute circumstances and technical phrases, which could be tolerable, or indeed intelligible, to those only who, like the contemporaries of Sidonius, had frequented the markets where naked slaves were exposed to sale (Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, p. 404). ↩
Videas ibi elegantiam Graecam, abundantiam Gallicanam; celeritatem Italam; publicam pompam, privatam diligentiam, regiam disciplinam. ↩
Tunc etiam ego aliquid obsecraturus feliciter vincor, et mihi tabula perit ut causa salvetur. Sidonius of Auvergne was not a subject of Theodoric; but he might be compelled to solicit either justice or favor at the court of Toulouse. ↩
Theodoric himself had given a solemn and voluntary promise of fidelity, which was understood both in Gaul and Spain.

… Romae sum, te duce, Amicus,
Principe te, Miles.
Sidonius, “Panegyrus Avitus” 511.

↩
Quaeque sinu pelagi jactat se Bracara dives.
Ausonius, De claris urbibus, p. 245.

From the design of the king of the Suevi, it is evident that the navigation from the ports of Gallicia to the Mediterranean was known and practiced. The ships of Bracara, or Braga, cautiously steered along the coast, without daring to lose themselves in the Atlantic. ↩
This Suevic war is the most authentic part of the Chronicle of Idacius, who, as bishop of Iria Flavia, was himself a spectator and a sufferer. Jornandes (c. 44, pp. 675⁠–⁠677) has expatiated with pleasure on the Gothic victory. ↩
In one of the porticos or galleries belonging to Trajan’s library, among the statues of famous writers and orators. Sidonius Apollinaris, l. IX, “Epistola 16,” p. 284. “Carmen VIII,” p. 350. ↩
Luxuriose agere volens a senatoribus projectus est, is the concise expression of Gregory of Tours (l. II c. XI in tom. II, p. 168). An old Chronicle (in tom. II, p. 649) mentions an indecent jest of Avitus, which seems more applicable to Rome than to Treves. ↩
Sidonius (“Panegyricus Anthemius” 302, etc.) praises the royal birth of Ricimer, the lawful heir, as he chooses to insinuate, both of the Gothic and Suevic kingdoms. ↩
See the Chronicle of Idacius. Jornandes (c. 44, p. 676) styles him, with some truth, virum egregium, et pene tune in Italiâ ad exercitum singularem. ↩
Parcens innocentiae Aviti is the compassionate but contemptuous language of Victor Tunnunensis (in Chronicon, apud Scaliger Eusebii). In another place, he calls him vir totius simplicitatis. This commendation is more humble, but it is more solid and sincere, than the praises of Sidonius. ↩
He suffered, as it is supposed, in the persecution of Diocletian (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. V, pp. 279, 696). Gregory of Tours, his peculiar votary, has dedicated to the glory of Julian the Martyr an entire book (Turonici de gloriâ martyrûm, l. II in Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum, tom. XI, pp. 861⁠–⁠871), in which he relates about fifty foolish miracles performed by his relics. ↩
Gregory of Tours (l. II c. XI, p. 168) is concise, but correct, in the reign of his countryman. The words of Idacius, “cadet imperio, caret et vitâ,” seem to imply that the death of Avitus was violent; but it must have been secret, since Evagrius (l. II c. 7) could suppose that he died of the plaque. ↩
After a modest appeal to the examples of his brethren, Virgil and Horace, Sidonius honestly confesses the debt, and promises payment.

Sic mihi diverso nuper sub Marte cadenti
Jussisti placido Victor ut essem animo.
Serviat ergo tibi servati lingua poetae,
Atque meae vitae laus tua sit pretium.
Sidonius Apollinaris, “Carmen IV,” p. 308

See Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, p. 448, etc. ↩
The words of Procopius deserve to be transcribed: οὖτος γὰρ ὁ Μαιορῖνος ξύμπαντας τοὺς πώποτε Ῥωμαίων βεβασιλευκότας ὑπεραίρων ἀρετῇ πάσῃ; and afterwards, ἀνὴρ τὰ μὲν εἰς τοὺς ὑπηκόους μέτριος γεγονὼς, φοβερὸς δὲ τὰ ἐς τοὺς πολεμίους (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 7, p. 194): a concise but comprehensive definition of royal virtue. ↩
The panegyric was pronounced at Lyons before the end of the year 458, while the emperor was still consul. It has more art than genius and more labor than art. The ornaments are false or trivial, the expression is feeble and prolix; and Sidonius wants the skill to exhibit the principal figure in a strong and distinct light. The private life of Majorian occupies about two hundred lines, 107⁠–⁠305. ↩
She pressed his immediate death, and was scarcely satisfied with his disgrace. It should seem that Aetius, like Belisarius and Marlborough, was governed by his wife; whose fervent piety, though it might work miracles (Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 7, p. 162), was not incompatible with base and sanguinary counsels. ↩
The Alemanni had passed the Rhaetian Alps, and were defeated in the Campi Canini, or Valley of Bellinzone, through which the Tesin flows, in its descent from Mount Adula to the Lago Maggiore (Cluverius, Italia antiqua, tom. I, pp. 100, 101). This boasted victory over nine hundred Barbarians (“Panegyricus Majorianus” 373, etc.) betrays the extreme weakness of Italy. ↩
Imperatorem me factum, P.C. electionis vestrae arbitrio, et fortissimi exercitus ordinatione agnoscite (Novella Majorianus, tit. III, p. 34, ad calcem Codex Theodosianus). Sidonius proclaims the unanimous voice of the empire:⁠—

… Postquam ordine vobis
Ordo omnis regnum dederat; plebs, curia, miles,
Et collega simul.
386.

This language is ancient and constitutional; and we may observe that the clergy were not yet considered as a distinct order of the state. ↩
Either dilationes, or delationes would afford a tolerable reading; but there is much more sense and spirit in the latter, to which I have therefore given the preference. ↩
Ab externo hoste et a domesticâ clade liberavimus; by the latter, Majorian must understand the tyranny of Avitus; whose death he consequently avowed as a meritorious act. On this occasion, Sidonius is fearful and obscure; he describes the twelve Caesars, the nations of Africa, etc., that he may escape the dangerous name of Avitus (305⁠–⁠369). ↩
See the whole edict or epistle of Majorian to the senate (Novellae, tit. IV, p. 34). Yet the expression, regnum nostrum, bears some taint of the age, and does not mix kindly with the word respublica, which he frequently repeats. ↩
See the laws of Majorian (they are only nine in number, but very long and various) at the end of the Theodosian Code, Novellae, l. IV, pp. 32⁠–⁠37. Godefroy has not given any commentary on these additional pieces. ↩
Fessas provincialium variâ atque multiplici tributorum exactione fortunas, et extraordinariis fiscalium solutionum oneribus attritas, etc. Novella Majorianus, tit. IV, p. 34. ↩
The learned Greaves (vol. I, pp. 329⁠–⁠331) has found, by a diligent inquiry, that aurei of the Antonines weighed one hundred and eighteen, and those of the fifth century only sixty-eight, English grains. Majorian gives currency to all gold coin, excepting only the Gallic solidus, from its deficiency, not in the weight, but in the standard. ↩
The whole edict (Novella Majorianus, tit. VI, p. 35) is curious. “Antiquarum aedium dissipatur speciosa constructio; et ut aliquid reparetur, magna diruuntur. Hinc jam occasio nascitur, ut etiam unusquisque privatum aedificium construens, per gratiam judicum⁠ ⁠… praesumere de publicis locis necessaria, et transferre non dubitet,” etc. With equal zeal, but with less power, Petrarch, in the fourteenth century, repeated the same complaints. (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, pp. 326, 327). If I prosecute this History, I shall not be unmindful of the decline and fall of the city of Rome⁠—an interesting object, to which my plan was originally confined. ↩
The emperor chides the lenity of Rogatian, consular of Tuscany, in a style of acrimonious reproof, which sounds almost like personal resentment (Novella Majorianus, tit. IX, p. 47). The law of Majorian, which punished obstinate widows, was soon afterwards repealed by his successor Severus (Novella Severus, tit. I, p. 37). ↩
Sidonius, “Panegyricus Majorianus” 385⁠–⁠440. ↩
The review of the army, and passage of the Alps, contain the most tolerable passages of the Panegyric (470⁠–⁠552). M. Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VIII, pp. 49⁠–⁠55) is a more satisfactory commentator than either Savaron or Sirmond. ↩
Τὰ μὲν ὄπλοις, τὰ δὲ λόγοις, is the just and forcible distinction of Priscus (Excerpta legationum, p. 42) in a short fragment, which throws much light on the history of Majorian. Jornandes has suppressed the defeat and alliance of the Visigoths, which were solemnly proclaimed in Gallicia, and are marked in the Chronicle of Idacius. ↩
Florus, l. II c. 2. He amuses himself with the poetical fancy that the trees had been transformed into ships; and indeed the whole transaction, as it is related in the first book of Polybius, deviates too much from the probable course of human events. ↩
Interea duplici texis dum littore classem
Inferno superoque mari, cadit omnis in aequor
Sylva tibi, etc.
Sidonius, “Panegyricus Majorianus” 441⁠–⁠461.

The number of ships which Priscus fixed at 300 is magnified by an indefinite comparison with the fleets of Agamemnon, Xerxes, and Augustus. ↩
Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 8, p. 194. When Genseric conducted his unknown guest into the arsenal of Carthage, the arms clashed of their own accord. Majorian had tinged his yellow locks with a black color. ↩
Spoliisque potitus
Immensis, robux luxû jam perdidit omne,
Quo valuit dum pauper erat.
“Panegyricus Majorianus” 330.

He afterwards applies to Genseric, unjustly as it should seem, the vices of his subjects. ↩
He burnt the villages, and poisoned the springs (Priscus, p. 42). Dubos (Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, p. 475) observes that the magazines which the Moors buried in the earth might escape his destructive search. Two or three hundred pits are sometimes dug in the same place, and each pit contains at least four hundred bushels of corn. Shaw’s Travels, p. 139. ↩
Idacius, who was safe in Gallicia from the power of Recimer, boldly and honestly declares, Vandali per proditeres admoniti, etc.; he dissembles, however, the name of the traitor. ↩
Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 8, p. 194. The testimony of Idacius is fair and impartial: “Majorianum de Galliis Romam redeuntem, et Romano imperio vel nomini res necessarias ordinantem; Richimer livore percitus, et invidorum consilio fultus, fraude interficit circumventum.” Some read Suevorum, and I am unwilling to efface either of the words, as they express the different accomplices who united in the conspiracy against Majorian. ↩
See the Epigrams of Ennodius, No. CXXXV inter Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. I, p. 1903. It is flat and obscure; but Ennodius was made bishop of Pavia fifty years after the death of Majorian, and his praise deserves credit and regard. ↩
Sidonius gives a tedious account (l. I, “Epistola XI,” pp. 25⁠–⁠31) of a supper at Arles, to which he was invited by Majorian, a short time before his death. He had no intention of praising a deceased emperor, but a casual disinterested remark, “Subrisit Augustus; ut erat, auctoritate servatia, cum se communioni dedisset, joci plenus,” outweighs the six hundred lines of his venal panegyric. ↩
Sidonius (“Panegyricus Anthemius” 317) dismisses him to heaven:⁠—

Auxerat Augustus naturae lege Severus
Divorum numerum.

And an old list of the emperors, composed about the time of Justinian, praises his piety, and fixes his residence at Rome (Sirmondus Note ad Sidonius, pp. 111, 112). ↩
Tillemont, who is always scandalized by the virtues of infidels, attributes this advantageous portrait of Marcellinus (which Suidas has preserved) to the partial zeal of some Pagan historian (Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, p. 330). ↩
Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 6, p. 191. In various circumstances of the life of Marcellinus, it is not easy to reconcile the Greek historian with the Latin Chronicles of the times. ↩
I must apply to Aegidius the praises which Sidonius (“Panegyricus Majorianus” 553) bestows on a nameless master-general, who commanded the rearguard of Majorian. Idacius, from public report, commends his Christian piety; and Priscus mentions (p. 42) his military virtues. ↩
Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 12, in tom. II, p. 168. The Père Daniel, whose ideas were superficial and modern, has started some objections against the story of Childeric (Historiens de France, tom. I Préface Historique, p. LXXVII, etc.); but they have been fairly satisfied by Dubos (Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, pp. 460⁠–⁠510) and by two authors who disputed the prize of the Academy of Soissons (pp. 131⁠–⁠177, 310⁠–⁠339). With regard to the term of Childeric’s exile, it is necessary either to prolong the life of Aegidius beyond the date assigned by the Chronicle of Idacius, or to correct the text of Gregory, by reading quarto anno, instead of octavo. ↩
The naval war of Genseric is described by Priscus (Excerpta legationum, p. 42), Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 5, pp. 189, 190, and c. 22, p. 228), Victor Vitensis (De persecutione Vandalica, l. I c. 17, and Ruinart, pp. 467⁠–⁠481), and in three panegyrics of Sidonius, whose chronological order is absurdly transposed in the editions both of Savaron and Sirmond. (“Avitus Carmen VII” 441⁠–⁠451. “Majorianus Carmen V” 327⁠–⁠350, 385⁠–⁠440. “Anthemius Carmen II” 348⁠–⁠386) In one passage the poet seems inspired by his subject, and expresses a strong idea by a lively image:⁠—

… Hinc Vandalus hostis
Urget; et in nostrum numerosâ classe quotannis
Militat excidium; conversoque ordine Fati
Torrida Caucaseos infert mihi Byrsa furores.

↩
The poet himself is compelled to acknowledge the distress of Ricimer:⁠—

Praeterea invictus Ricimer, quem publica fata
Respiciunt, proprio solas vix Marte repellit
Piratam per rura vagum.

Italy addresses her complaint to the Tiber, and Rome, at the solicitation of the river god, transports herself to Constantinople, renounces her ancient claims, and implores the friendship of Aurora, the goddess of the East. This fabulous machinery, which the genius of Claudian had used and abused, is the constant and miserable resource of the muse of Sidonius. ↩
Volume three of the quarto edition ended with the fall of the Western Empire, i.e. chapter 38. —⁠B. ↩
The original authors of the reigns of Marcian, Leo, and Zeno are reduced to some imperfect fragments, whose deficiencies must be supplied from the more recent compilations of Theophanes, Zonaras, and Cedrenus. ↩
St. Pulcheria died AD 453, four years before her nominal husband; and her festival is celebrated on the 10th of September by the modern Greeks; she bequeathed an immense patrimony to pious, or at least to ecclesiastical, uses. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XV, pp. 181⁠–⁠184. ↩
See Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 4, p. 185. ↩
From this disability of Aspar to ascend the throne, it may be inferred that the stain of Heresy was perpetual and indelible, while that of Barbarism disappeared in the second generation. ↩
Theophanes, p. 95. This appears to be the first origin of a ceremony which all the Christian princes of the world have since adopted, and from which the clergy have deduced the most formidable consequences. ↩
Cedrenus (pp. 345, 346), who was conversant with the writers of better days, has preserved the remarkable words of Aspar, βασιλεῦ, τὸν ταύτην τὴν ἁλουρλίδα περιβεβλημένον οὐ χρὴ διαψεύδεσθαι. ↩
The power of the Isaurians agitated the Eastern empire in the two succeeding reigns of Zeno and Anastasius; but it ended in the destruction of those Barbarians, who maintained their fierce independences about two hundred and thirty years. ↩
… Tali tu civis ab urbe
Procopio genitore micas; cui prisca propago
Augustis venit a proavis.

The poet (Sidonius, “Panegyricus Anthemius” 67⁠–⁠306) then proceeds to relate the private life and fortunes of the future emperor, with which he must have been imperfectly acquainted. ↩
Sidonius discovers, with tolerable ingenuity, that this disappointment added new lustre to the virtues of Anthemius (210, etc.), who declined one sceptre and reluctantly accepted another (22, etc.). ↩
The poet again celebrates the unanimity of all orders of the state (15⁠–⁠22); and the Chronicle of Idacius mentions the forces which attended his march. ↩
Interveni autem nuptiis Patricii Ricimeris, cui filia perennis Augusti in spem publicae securitatis copulabator. The journey of Sidonius from Lyons, and the festival of Rome, are described with some spirit, l. I, “Epistola 5,” pp. 9⁠–⁠13, “Epistola 9,” p. 21. ↩
Sidonius (l. I, “Epistola 9,” pp. 23, 24) very fairly states his motive, his labor, and his reward. “Hic ipse Panegyricus, si non judicium, certa eventum, boni operis, accepit.” He was made bishop of Clermont, AD 471. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XVI, p. 750. ↩
The palace of Anthemius stood on the banks of the Propontis. In the ninth century, Alexius, the son-in-law of the emperor Theophilus, obtained permission to purchase the ground; and ended his days in a monastery which he founded on that delightful spot. Du Cange, Constantinopolis Christiana, pp. 117, 152. ↩
Papa Hilarius⁠ ⁠… apud beatum Petrum Apostolum, palam ne id fieret, clarâ voce constrinxit, in tantum ut non ea facienda cum interpositione juramenti idem promitteret Imperator. Gelasius, “Epistola ad Andronicum,” apud Baronius, “AD 467,” No. 3. The cardinal observes, with some complacency, that it was much easier to plant heresies at Constantinople than at Rome. ↩
Damascius, in the life of the philosopher Isidore, apud Photius, p. 1049. Damascius, who lived under Justinian, composed another work, consisting of 570 preternatural stories of souls, demons, apparitions, the dotage of Platonic Paganism. ↩
In the poetical works of Sidonius, which he afterwards condemned (l. IX, “Epistola 16,” p. 285), the fabulous deities are the principal actors. If Jerome was scourged by the angels for only reading Virgil, the bishop of Clermont, for such a vile imitation, deserved an additional whipping from the Muses. ↩
Ovid (Fastorum libri sex, l. II 267⁠–⁠452) has given an amusing description of the follies of antiquity, which still inspired so much respect that a grave magistrate, running naked through the streets, was not an object of astonishment or laughter. ↩
See Dionysi Halicarnasensis, l. I, pp. 25, 65, edit. Hudson. The Roman antiquaries, Donatus (l. II c. 18, pp. 173, 174) and Nardini (pp. 386, 387), have labored to ascertain the true situation of the Lupercal. ↩
Baronius published, from the MSS. of the Vatican, this epistle of Pope Gelasius (“AD 496,” No. 28⁠–⁠45), which is entitled “Adversus Andromachum Senatorem, caeterosque Romanos, qui Lupercalia secundum morem pristinum colenda constituebant.” Gelasius always supposes that his adversaries are nominal Christians, and, that he may not yield to them in absurd prejudice, he imputes to this harmless festival all the calamities of the age. ↩
Itaque nos quibus totius mundi regimen commisit superna provisio.⁠ ⁠… Pius et triumphator semper Augustus filius noster Anthemius, licet Divina Majestas et nostra creatio pietati ejus plenam Imperii commiserit potestatem, etc.⁠ ⁠… Such is the dignified style of Leo, whom Anthemius respectfully names Dominus et Pater meus Princeps sacratissimus Leo. See Novella Anthemius, tit. II, III, p. 38, ad calcem Codex Theodosianus. ↩
The expedition of Heraclius is clouded with difficulties (Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, p. 640), and it requires some dexterity to use the circumstances afforded by Theophanes without injury to the more respectable evidence of Procopius. ↩
The march of Cato from Berenice, in the province of Cyrene, was much longer than that of Heraclius from Tripoli. He passed the deep sandy desert in thirty days, and it was found necessary to provide, besides the ordinary supplies, a great number of skins filled with water, and several Psylli, who were supposed to possess the art of sucking the wounds which had been made by the serpents of their native country. See Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Cato Uticensis,” tom. IV, p. 275. Strabonis geographica, l. XVII, p. 1193. ↩
The principal sum is clearly expressed by Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 6, p. 191); the smaller constituent parts, which Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, p. 396) has laboriously collected from the Byzantine writers, are less certain, and less important. The historian Malchus laments the public misery (Excerpta ex Suida in Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, p. 58); but he is surely unjust when he charges Leo with hoarding the treasures which he extorted from the people.9037 ↩
This promontory is forty miles from Carthage (Procopius, l. I c. 6, p. 192), and twenty leagues from Sicily (Shaw’s Travels, p. 89). Scipio landed farther in the bay, at the fair promontory; see the animated description of Livy XXIX 26, 27. ↩
Theophanes (p. 100) affirms that many ships of the Vandals were sunk. The assertion of Jornandes (De regnorum ac temporum successione) that Basiliscus attacked Carthage must be understood in a very qualified sense. ↩
Damascius in Vita Isidori, apud Photius, p. 1048. It will appear, by comparing the three short chronicles of the times, that Marcellinus had fought near Carthage and was killed in Sicily. ↩
According to Lydus, Leo, distracted by this and the other calamities of his reign, particularly a dreadful fire at Constantinople, abandoned the palace, like another Orestes, and was preparing to quit Constantinople forever, l. III c. 44, p. 230. —⁠M. ↩
For the African war, see Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 6, pp. 191⁠–⁠193), Theophanes (pp. 99⁠–⁠101), Cedrenus (pp. 349, 350), and Zonaras (tom. II l. XIV, pp. 50, 51). Montesquieu (Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. XX tom. III, p. 497) has made a judicious observation on the failure of these great naval armaments. ↩
Jornandes is our best guide through the reigns of Theodoric II and Euric (De rebus Geticis, c. 44⁠–⁠47, pp. 675⁠–⁠681). Idacius ends too soon, and Isidore is too sparing of the information which he might have given on the affairs of Spain. The events that relate to Gaul are laboriously illustrated in the third book of the Abbé Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, pp. 424⁠–⁠620. ↩
See Mariana, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, tom. I l. V c. 5, p. 162. ↩
An imperfect, but original, picture of Gaul, more especially of Auvergne, is shown by Sidonius; who, as a senator and afterwards as a bishop, was deeply interested in the fate of his country. See l. V, Epistolae 1, 5, 9, etc. ↩
Sidonius, l. III, “Epistola 3,” pp. 65⁠–⁠68. Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 24, in tom. II, p. 174. Jornandes, c. 45, p. 675. Perhaps Ecdicius was only the son-in-law of Avitus, his wife’s son by another husband. ↩
Si nullae a republicâ vires, nulla praesidia; si nullae, quantum rumor est, Anthemii principis opes; statuit, te auctore, nobilitas, seu patriam dimittere seu capillos (Sidonius, l. II, “Epistola 1,” p. 33). The last words (Sirmond, Note, p. 25) may likewise denote the clerical tonsure, which was indeed the choice of Sidonius himself. ↩
The history of these Britons may be traced in Jornandes (c. 45, p. 678), Sidonius (l. III, “Epistola 9,” pp. 73, 74), and Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 18, in tom. II, p. 170). Sidonius (who styles these mercenary troops argutos, armatos, tumultuosos, virtute numero, contubernio contumaces) addresses their general in a tone of friendship and familiarity. ↩
See Sidonius, l. I, “Epistola 7,” pp. 15⁠–⁠20, with Sirmond’s notes. This letter does honor to his heart, as well as to his understanding. The prose of Sidonius, however vitiated by a false and affected taste, is much superior to his insipid verses. ↩
When the Capitol ceased to be a temple, it was appropriated to the use of the civil magistrate; and it is still the residence of the Roman senator. The jewellers, etc., might be allowed to expose their precious wares in the porticos. ↩
Haec ad regem Gothorum, charta videbatur emitti, pacem cum Graeco Imperatore dissuadens, Britannos super Ligerim sitos impugnari oportere, demonstrans, cum Burgundionibus jure gentium Gallias dividi debere confirmans. ↩
Senatusconsultum Tiberianum (Sirmond Note, p. 17); but that law allowed only ten days between the sentence and execution; the remaining twenty were added in the reign of Theodosius. ↩
Catilina seculi nostri. Sidonius, l. II, “Epistola 1,” p. 33; l. V, “Epistola 13,” p. 143; l. VII, “Epistola 7,” p. 185. He execrates the crimes and applauds the punishment of Seronatus, perhaps with the indignation of a virtuous citizen, perhaps with the resentment of a personal enemy. ↩
Ricimer, under the reign of Anthemius, defeated and slew in battle Beorgor, king of the Alani (Jornandes, c. 45, p. 678). His sister had married the king of the Burgundians, and he maintained an intimate connection with the Suevic colony established in Pannonia and Noricum. ↩
Galatam concitatum. Sirmond (in his notes to Ennodius) applies this appellation to Anthemius himself. The emperor was probably born in the province of Galatia, whose inhabitants, the Gallo-Grecians, were supposed to unite the vices of a savage and a corrupted people. ↩
Epiphanius was thirty years bishop of Pavia (AD 467⁠–⁠497; see Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XVI, p. 788). His name and actions would have been unknown to posterity if Ennodius, one of his successors, had not written his life (Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. I, pp. 1647⁠–⁠1692), in which he represents him as one of the greatest characters of the age. ↩
Ennodius (pp. 1659⁠–⁠1664) has related this embassy of Epiphanius; and his narrative, verbose and turgid as it must appear, illustrates some curious passages in the fall of the Western empire. ↩
Priscus, Excerpta legationum, p. 74. Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 6, p. 191. Eudoxia and her daughter were restored after the death of Majorian. Perhaps the consulship of Olybrius (AD 464) was bestowed as a nuptial present. ↩
The hostile appearance of Olybrius is fixed (notwithstanding the opinion of Pagi) by the duration of his reign. The secret connivance of Leo is acknowledged by Theophanes and the Paschal Chronicle. We are ignorant of his motives; but in this obscure period, our ignorance extends to the most public and important facts. ↩
Of the fourteen regions, or quarters, into which Rome was divided by Augustus, only one, the Janiculum, lay on the Tuscan side of the Tiber. But, in the fifth century, the Vatican suburb formed a considerable city; and in the ecclesiastical distribution, which had been recently made by Simplicius, the reigning pope, two of the seven regions, or parishes, of Rome depended on the church of St. Peter. See Nardini, Roma antica, p. 67. It would require a tedious dissertation to mark the circumstances in which I am inclined to depart from the topography of that learned Roman. ↩
Nuper Anthemii et Ricimeris civili furore subversa est. Gelasius (in Epistola ad “Adversus Andromachum Senatorem” apud Baronius, “AD 496,” No. 42), Sigonius (tom. I l. XIV Historiarum de occidentali imperio, pp. 542, 543), and Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. IV, pp. 308, 309), with the aid of a less imperfect MS. of the Historia miscella, have illustrated this dark and bloody transaction. ↩
Such had been the saeva ac deformis urbe totâ facies, when Rome was assaulted and stormed by the troops of Vespasian (see Tacitus, Historiae III 82, 83); and every cause of mischief had since acquired much additional energy. The revolution of ages may bring round the same calamities; but ages may revolve without producing a Tacitus to describe them. ↩
See du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 74, 75. Areobindus, who appears to have married the niece of the emperor Justinian, was the eighth descendant of the elder Theodosius. ↩
The last revolutions of the Western empire are faintly marked in Theophanes (p. 102), Jornandes (c. 45, p. 679), the Chronicle of Marcellinus, and the fragments of an anonymous writer, published by Valesius at the end of Ammianus (pp. 716, 717). If Photius had not been so wretchedly concise, we should derive much information from the contemporary histories of Malchus and Candidus. See his Extracts, pp. 172⁠–⁠179. ↩
See Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 28, in tom. II, p. 175. Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, p. 613. By the murder or death of his two brothers, Gundobald acquired the sole possession of the kingdom of Burgundy, whose ruin was hastened by their discord. ↩
Julius Nepos armis pariter summus Augustus ac moribus. Sidonius, l. V, “Epistola 16,” p. 146. Nepos had given to Ecdicius the title of Patrician, which Anthemius had promised, decessoris Anthemii fidem absolvit. See l. VIII, “Epistola 7,” p. 224. ↩
Epiphanius was sent ambassador from Nepos to the Visigoths for the purpose of ascertaining the fines Imperii Italici (Ennodius in Sirmond, tom. I, pp. 1665⁠–⁠1669). His pathetic discourse concealed the disgraceful secret, which soon excited the just and bitter complaints of the bishop of Clermont. ↩
Malchus, apud Photius, p. 172. Ennodius, Epigram LXXXII in Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. I, p. 1879. Some doubt may however be raised on the identity of the emperor and the archbishop. ↩
Our knowledge of these mercenaries, who subverted the Western empire, is derived from Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. I, p. 308). The popular opinion and the recent historians represent Odoacer in the false light of a stranger and a king, who invaded Italy with an army of foreigners, his native subjects. ↩
Orestes, qui eo tempore quando Attila ad Italiam venit, se illi junxit, et ejus notarius factus fuerat. Anonymus Valesianus, p. 716. He is mistaken in the date; but we may credit his assertion that the secretary of Attila was the father of Augustulus. ↩
See Ennodius (in Vita Sancti Epiphanii, Sirmond, tom. I, pp. 1669, 1670). He adds weight to the narrative of Procopius, though we may doubt whether the devil actually contrived the siege of Pavia to distress the bishop and his flock. ↩
Manso observes that the evidence which identifies Edecon, the father of Odoacer, with the colleague of Orestes, is not conclusive. Geschichte des ost-gothischen Reiches, p. 32. But Saint-Martin inclines to agree with Gibbon, note, VI 75. —⁠M. ↩
Jornandes, c. 53, 54, pp. 692⁠–⁠695. M. Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VIII, pp. 221⁠–⁠228) has clearly explained the origin and adventures of Odoacer. I am almost inclined to believe that he was the same who pillaged Angers and commanded a fleet of Saxon pirates on the ocean. Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 18, in tom. II, p. 170.9038 ↩
Vade ad Italiam, vade vilissimis nunc pellibus coopertis; sed multis cito plurima largiturus. Anonymus Valesianus, p. 717. He quotes the life of St. Severinus, which is extant, and contains much unknown and valuable history; it was composed by his disciple Eugippius (AD 511) thirty years after his death. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XVI, pp. 168⁠–⁠181. ↩
Theophanes, who calls him a Goth, affirms that he was educated, nursed (πραφέντος) in Italy (p. 102); and as this strong expression will not bear a literal interpretation, it must be explained by long service in the Imperial guards. ↩
Nomen regis Odoacer assumpsit, cum tamen neque purpurâ nec regalibus uteretur insignibus. Cassiodorus in Chronicon, AD 476. He seems to have assumed the abstract title of a king, without applying it to any particular nation or country.9039 ↩
Malchus, whose loss excites our regret, has preserved (in Excerpta legationum, p. 93) this extraordinary embassy from the senate to Zeno. The anonymous fragment (p. 717), and the extract from Candidus (apud Photius, p. 176), are likewise of some use. ↩
The precise year in which the Western empire was extinguished is not positively ascertained. The vulgar era of AD 476 appears to have the sanction of authentic chronicles. But the two dates assigned by Jornandes (c. 46, p. 680) would delay that great event to the year 479; and though M. Du Buat has overlooked his evidence, he produces (tom. VIII, pp. 261⁠–⁠288) many collateral circumstances in support of the same opinion. ↩
See his medals in du Cange (Familiae Byzantinae, p. 81), Priscus (Excerpta legationum, p. 56), Maffei (Osservazioni letterarie, tom. II, p. 314). We may allege a famous and similar case. The meanest subjects of the Roman empire assumed the illustrious name of Patricius, which, by the conversion of Ireland, has been communicated to a whole nation. ↩
Ingrediens autem Ravennam deposuit Augustulum de regno, cujus infantiam misertus concessit ei sanguinem; et quia pulcher erat, tamen donavit ei reditum sex millia solidos, et misit eum intra Campaniam cum parentibus suis libere vivere. Anonymus Valesianus, p. 716. Jornandes says (c. 46, p. 680) in Lucullano Campaniae castello exilii poena damnavit. ↩
See the eloquent Declamation of Seneca (Epistulae morales LXXXVI). The philosopher might have recollected that all luxury is relative; and that the elder Scipio, whose manners were polished by study and conversation, was himself accused of that vice by his ruder contemporaries (Livy XXIX 19). ↩
Sylla, in the language of a soldier, praised his peritia castrametandi (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XVIII 7). Phaedrus, who makes its shady walks (loeta viridia) the scene of an insipid fable (II 5), has thus described the situation:⁠—

Caesar Tiberius quum petens Neapolim,
In Misenensem villam venissit suam;
Quae monte summo posita Luculli manu
Prospectat Siculum et prospicit Tuscum mare.

↩
From seven myriads and a half to two hundred and fifty myriads of drachmae. Yet even in the possession of Marius, it was a luxurious retirement. The Romans derided his indolence; they soon bewailed his activity. See Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Mario,” tom. II, p. 524. ↩
Lucullus had other villas of equal, though various, magnificence, at Baiae, Naples, Tusculum, etc., He boasted that he changed his climate with the storks and cranes. Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Lucullus,” tom. III, p. 193. ↩
Severinus died in Noricum, AD 482. Six years afterwards, his body, which scattered miracles as it passed, was transported by his disciples into Italy. The devotion of a Neapolitan lady invited the saint to the Lucullan villa, in the place of Augustulus, who was probably no more. See Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 496,” No. 50, 51) and Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XVI, pp. 178⁠–⁠181), from the original life by Eugippius. The narrative of the last migration of Severinus to Naples is likewise an authentic piece. ↩
The consular Fasti may be found in Pagi or Muratori. The consuls named by Odoacer, or perhaps by the Roman senate, appear to have been acknowledged in the Eastern empire. ↩
Sidonius Apollinaris (l. I, “Epistola 9,” p. 22, edit. Sirmond) has compared the two leading senators of his time (AD 468), Gennadius Avienus and Caecina Basilius. To the former he assigns the specious, to the latter the solid, virtues of public and private life. A Basilius junior, possibly his son, was consul in the year 480. ↩
Epiphanius interceded for the people of Pavia; and the king first granted an indulgence of five years, and afterwards relieved them from the oppression of Pelagius, the Praetorian prefect (Ennodius in Vita Sancti Epiphanii, in Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. I, pp. 1670⁠–⁠1672). ↩
See Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 483,” No. 10⁠–⁠15. Sixteen years afterwards the irregular proceedings of Basilius were condemned by Pope Symmachus in a Roman synod. ↩
The wars of Odoacer are concisely mentioned by Paul the Deacon (De gestis Langobardorum, l. I c. 19, p. 757, edit. Grotius), and in the two Chronicles of Cassiodorus and Cuspinian. The life of St. Severinus by Eugippius, which the Count Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. VIII c. 1, 4, 8, 9) has diligently studied, illustrates the ruin of Noricum and the Bavarian antiquities ↩
Tacitus, Annales III 53. The Recherches historiques et critiques sur l’administration des terres chez les romains (pp. 351⁠–⁠361) clearly state the progress of internal decay. ↩
A famine which afflicted Italy at the time of the irruption of Odoacer, king of the Heruli, is eloquently described in prose and verse by a French poet (Les Mois, tom. II, pp. 174, 205, edit. in duodecimo). I am ignorant from whence he derives his information; but I am well assured that he relates some facts incompatible with the truth of history. ↩
See the thirty-ninth epistle of St. Ambrose, as it is quoted by Muratori, Dissertazioni sopra le antichità Italiane, tom. I Dissertazion XXI, p. 354. ↩
Aemilia, Tuscia, ceteraeque provinciae in quibus hominum prope nullus exsistit. Gelasius, “Epistola ad Andromachum,” apud Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 496,” No. 36. ↩
Denina supposes that the Barbarians were compelled by necessity to turn their attention to agriculture. Italy, either imperfectly cultivated or not at all, by the indolent or ruined proprietors, not only could not furnish the imposts on which the pay of the soldiery depended, but not even a certain supply of the necessaries of life. The neighboring countries were now occupied by warlike nations; the supplies of corn from Africa were cut off; foreign commerce nearly destroyed; they could not look for supplies beyond the limits of Italy, throughout which the agriculture had been long in a state of progressive but rapid depression. (Denina, Révolutions d’Italia, l. V c. 1). —⁠M. ↩
Verumque confitentibus, latifundia perdidere Italiam. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XVIII 7. ↩
Such are the topics of consolation, or rather of patience, which Cicero (Epistulae ad familiares, l. IX, “Epistola 17”) suggests to his friend Papirius Paetus, under the military despotism of Caesar. The argument, however, of “vivere pulcherrimum duxi,” is more forcibly addressed to a Roman philosopher, who possessed the free alternative of life or death. ↩
Compare, on the desolation and change of property in Italy, Manso, Geschichte des ost-gothischen Reiches, Part II, p. 73, et seq. —⁠M. ↩
The origin of the monastic institution has been laboriously discussed by Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. I, pp. 1119⁠–⁠1426) and Hippolyte Hélyot (L’Histoire des ordres monastiques, tom. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠66). These authors are very learned, and tolerably honest, and their difference of opinion shows the subject in its full extent. Yet the cautious Protestant, who distrusts any Popish guides, may consult the seventh book of Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church. ↩
See Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica (l. I, pp. 20, 21, edit. Graecé, Roberti Stephani, Paris, 1545). In his Ecclesiastical History, published twelve years after the Demonstration, Eusebius (l. II c. 17) asserts the Christianity of the Therapeutae; but he appears ignorant that a similar institution was actually revived in Egypt. ↩
John Cassian (Collationes patrum in scetica eremo XVIII 5) claims this origin for the institution of the Coenobites, which gradually decayed till it was restored by Antony and his disciples. ↩
It has before been shown that the first Christian community was not strictly coenobitic. See here in chapter xv. —⁠M. ↩
Ὠφελιμώτατον γάρ τι χρῆμα εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐλθοῦσα θεοῦ ἡ τοιαύτη φιλοσοφία. These are the expressive words of Sozomen, who copiously and agreeably describes (l. I c. 12⁠–⁠14) the origin and progress of this monkish philosophy (see Johann Kaspar Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, tom. II, p. 1441). Some modern writers, Lipsius (tom. IV, p. 448, Manuductionis ad stoicam philosophiam III 13), and François de La Mothe Le Vayer (tom. IX De la vertu des payens, pp. 228⁠–⁠262), have compared the Carmelites to the Pythagoreans, and the Cynics to the Capucins. ↩
The Carmelites derive their pedigree, in regular succession, from the prophet Elijah (see the Theses of Beziers, AD 1682, in Bayle’s Nouvelles de la République des lettres, Oeuvres diverses, tom. I, p. 82, etc., and the prolix irony of the Ordres monastiques, an anonymous work, tom. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠433, Berlin, 1751). Rome and the inquisition of Spain silenced the profane criticism of the Jesuits of Flanders (Hélyot, L’Histoire des ordres monastiques, tom. I, pp. 282⁠–⁠300), and the statue of Elijah, the Carmelite, has been erected in the church of St. Peter (Voyages du P. Labat de l’ordre des FF. Prescheurs, en Espagne et en Italie, tom. III, p. 87). ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae V 15. Gens sola, et in toto orbe praeter ceteras mira, sine ullâ feminâ, omni venere abdicatâ, sine pecuniâ, socia palmarum. Ita per seculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens aeterna est in quâ nemo nascitur. Tam foecunda illis aliorum vitae poenitentia est. He places them just beyond the noxious influence of the lake, and names Engaddi and Masada as the nearest towns. The laura and monastery of St. Sabas could not be far distant from this place. See Reland, Palaestina, tom. I, p. 295, tom. II, pp. 763, 874, 880, 890. ↩
See Athanasius, Opera, tom. II, pp. 450⁠–⁠505, and the Vitae Patrum, pp. 26⁠–⁠74, with Rosweyde’s Annotations. The former is the Greek original, the latter a very ancient Latin version by Evagrius, the friend of St. Jerome. ↩
Γράμματα μὲν μαθεῖν οὐκ ἠνέσχετο, Athanasius, tom. II in Vita S. Antoni, p. 452; and the assertion of his total ignorance has been received by many of the ancients and moderns. But Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, p. 666) shows, by some probable arguments, that Antony could read and write in the Coptic, his native tongue, and that he was only a stranger to the Greek letters. The philosopher Synesius (p. 51) acknowledges that the natural genius of Antony did not require the aid of learning. ↩
Arurae autem erant ei trecentae uberes, et valde optimae (Vitae Patrum, l. I, p. 36). If the Arura be a square measure of a hundred Egyptian cubits (Rosweyde, Onomasticon ad Vitae Patrum, pp. 1014, 1015), and the Egyptian cubit of all ages be equal to twenty-two English inches (Greaves, vol. I, p. 233), the arura will consist of about three quarters of an English acre. ↩
The description of the monastery is given by Jerome (tom. I, pp. 248, 249, in Vita Hilarionis) and the Père Claude Sicard (Mémoires des missions de la Compagnie de Jesus dans le Levant, tom. V, pp. 122⁠–⁠200). Their accounts cannot always be reconciled: the father painted from his fancy, and the Jesuit from his experience. ↩
Jerome, tom. I, p. 146, ad Eustochium. Historia Lausiaca, c. 7, in Vitae Patrum, p. 712. The Père Sicard (Missions du Levant, tom. II, pp. 29⁠–⁠79) visited and has described this desert, which now contains four monasteries and twenty or thirty monks. See d’Anville, Mémoires sur l’Egypte, p. 74. ↩
Tabenne is a small island in the Nile, in the diocese of Tentyra or Dendera, between the modern town of Girge and the ruins of ancient Thebes (d’Anville, p. 194). M. de Tillemont doubts whether it was an isle; but I may conclude, from his own facts, that the primitive name was afterwards transferred to the great monastery of Bau or Pabau (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 678, 688). ↩
See in the Codex regularum (published by Lucas Holstenius, Rome, 1661) a preface of St. Jerome to his Latin version of the Rule of Pachomius, tom. I, p. 61. ↩
Rufinus, c. 5, in Vitae Patrum, p. 459. He calls it civitas ampla valde et populosa, and reckons twelve churches. Strabo (l. XVII, p. 1166) and Ammianus (XXII 16) have made honorable mention of Oxyrinchus, whose inhabitants adored a small fish in a magnificent temple. ↩
Quanti populi habentur in urbibus, tantae paene habentur in desertis multitudines monachorum. Rufinus, c. 7, in Vitae Patrum, p. 461. He congratulates the fortunate change. ↩
The introduction of the monastic life into Rome and Italy is occasionally mentioned by Jerome, tom. I, pp. 119, 120, 199. ↩
See the Life of Hilarion, by St. Jerome (tom. I, pp. 241, 252). The stories of Paul, Hilarion, and Malchus, by the same author, are admirably told; and the only defect of these pleasing compositions is the want of truth and common sense. ↩
His original retreat was in a small village on the banks of the Iris, not far from Neo-Caesarea. The ten or twelve years of his monastic life were disturbed by long and frequent avocations. Some critics have disputed the authenticity of his Ascetic rules; but the external evidence is weighty, and they can only prove that it is the work of a real or affected enthusiast. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. IX, pp. 636⁠–⁠644. Hélyot, L’Histoire des ordres monastiques, tom. I, pp. 175⁠–⁠181. ↩
See his Life, and the three Dialogues by Sulpicius Severus, who asserts (“Dialogue I” 16) that the booksellers of Rome were delighted with the quick and ready sale of his popular work. ↩
When Hilarion sailed from Paraetonium to Cape Pachynus, he offered to pay his passage with a book of the Gospels. Posthumian, a Gallic monk, who had visited Egypt, found a merchant ship bound from Alexandria to Marseilles, and performed the voyage in thirty days (Sulpicius Severus, “Dialogue I” 1). Athanasius, who addressed his Life of St. Antony to the foreign monks, was obliged to hasten the composition that it might be ready for the sailing of the fleets (tom. II, p. 451). ↩
See Jerome (tom. I, p. 126), Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, p. 92, pp. 857⁠–⁠919, and Geddes, Church History of Aethiopia, pp. 29⁠–⁠31. The Abyssinian monks adhere very strictly to the primitive institution. ↩
Camden’s Britannia, vol. I, pp. 666, 667. ↩
All that learning can extract from the rubbish of the Dark Ages is copiously stated by Archbishop Usher in his Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates, cap. XVI, pp. 425⁠–⁠503. ↩
This small though not barren spot, Iona, Hy, or Columbkill, only two miles in length, aud one mile in breadth, has been distinguished:
1. By the monastery of St. Columba, founded AD 566; whose abbot exercised an extraordinary jurisdiction over the bishops of Caledonia;
2. By a classic library, which afforded some hopes of an entire Livy; and,
3. By the tombs of sixty kings, Scots, Irish, and Norwegians, who reposed in holy ground.
See Usher (pp. 311, 360⁠–⁠370) and Buchanan (Rerum Scoticarum historia, l. II, p. 15, edit. Ruddiman). ↩
Chrysostom (in the first tome of the Benedictine edition) has consecrated three books to the praise and defence of the monastic life. He is encouraged, by the example of the ark, to presume that none but the elect (the monks) can possibly be saved (l. I, pp. 55, 56). Elsewhere indeed he becomes more merciful (l. III, pp. 83, 84), and allows different degrees of glory, like the sun, moon, and stars. In his lively comparison of a king and a monk (l. III, pp. 116⁠–⁠121) he supposes (what is hardly fair) that the king will be more sparingly rewarded and more rigorously punished. ↩
Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. I, pp. 1426⁠–⁠1469) and Mabillon (Ouvrages posthumes, tom. II, pp. 115⁠–⁠158). The monks were gradually adopted as a part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. ↩
Dr. Middleton (vol. I, p. 110) liberally censures the conduct and writings of Chrysostom, one of the most eloquent and successful advocates for the monastic life. ↩
Jerome’s devout ladies form a very considerable portion of his works: the particular treatise which he styles the “Epitaph of Paula” (tom. I, pp. 169⁠–⁠192), is an elaborate and extravagant panegyric. The exordium is ridiculously turgid: “If all the members of my body were changed into tongues, and if all my limbs resounded with a human voice, yet should I be incapable,” etc. ↩
Socrus Dei esse coepisti (Jerome, tom. I, p. 140, ad Eustochium). Rufinus (in Hieronymus, Opera omnia, tom. IV, p. 223), who was justly scandalized, asks his adversary, From what Pagan poet he had stolen an expression so impious and absurd? ↩
Nunc autem veniunt plerumque ad hanc professionem servitutis Dei, et ex conditione servili, vel etiam liberati, vel propter hoc a Dominis liberati sive liberandi; et ex vitâ rusticanâ et ex opificum exercitatione, et plebeio labore. Augustine, “De Opere Monachorum,” c. 22, apud Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. III, p. 1094. The Egyptian who blamed Arsenius owned that he led a more comfortable life as a monk than as a shepherd. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, p. 679. ↩
A Dominican friar (Voyages du P. Labat, tom. I, p. 10) who lodged at Cadiz in a convent of his brethren soon understood that their repose was never interrupted by nocturnal devotion; “quoiqu’on ne laisse pas de sonner pour l’édification du peuple.” ↩
See a very sensible preface of Lucas Holstenius to the Codex regularum. The emperors attempted to support the obligation of public and private duties; but the feeble dikes were swept away by the torrent of superstition; and Justinian surpassed the most sanguine wishes of the monks (Thomassin, tom. I, pp. 1782⁠–⁠1799, and Bingham, l. VII c. III, p. 253).9040 ↩
The monastic institutions, particularly those of Egypt, about the year 400, are described by four curious and devout travellers: Rufinus (Vitae Patrum, l. II, III, pp. 424⁠–⁠536), Posthumian (Sulpicius Severus, “Dialogue I”), Palladius (Historia Lausiaca in Vitae Patrum, pp. 709⁠–⁠863), and Cassian (see in tom. VII Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum, his four first books of Institutes, and the twenty-four Collations or Conferences). ↩
The example of Malchus (Jerome, tom. I, p. 256) and the design of Cassian and his friend (Collationes XXIV 1), are incontestable proofs of their freedom; which is elegantly described by Erasmus in his Life of St. Jerome. See Chardon, Histoire des sacremens, tom. VI, pp. 279⁠–⁠300. ↩
See the laws of Justinian (Novella CXXIII, No. 42), and of Lewis the Pious (in the Historians of France, tom. VI, p. 427), and the actual jurisprudence of France, in Jean-Baptiste Denisart (Collection de décisions nouvelles et de notions relatives à la jurisprudence actuelle, tom. IV, p. 855, etc.). ↩
The ancient Codex regularum, collected by Benedict Anianinus, the reformer of the monks in the beginning of the ninth century, and published in the seventeenth by Lucas Holstenius, contains thirty different rules for men and women. Of these, seven were composed in Egypt, one in the East, one in Cappadocia, one in Italy, one in Africa, four in Spain, eight in Gaul, or France, and one in England. ↩
The rule of Columbanus, so prevalent in the West, inflicts one hundred lashes for very slight offences (Codex regularum, part II, p. 174). Before the time of Charlemagne, the abbots indulged themselves in mutilating their monks, or putting out their eyes; a punishment much less cruel than the tremendous vade in pace (the subterraneous dungeon, or sepulchre) which was afterwards invented. See an admirable discourse of the learned Mabillon (Ouvrages posthumes, tom. II, pp. 321⁠–⁠336), who, on this occasion, seems to be inspired by the genius of humanity. For such an effort, I can forgive his defence of the holy tear of Vendôme (pp. 361⁠–⁠399). ↩
Sulpicius Severus, “Dialogue I” 12, 13, p. 532, etc. Cassianus, De institutis coenobiorum, l. IV c. 26, 27. “Praecipua ibi virtus et prima est obedientia.” Among the Verba seniorum (in Vitae Patrum, l. V, p. 617), the fourteenth libel or discourse is on the subject of obedience; and the Jesuit Rosweyde, who published that huge volume for the use of convents, has collected all the scattered passages in his two copious indexes. ↩
Dr. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 161) has observed the scandalous valor of the Cappadocian monks, which was exemplified in the banishment of Chrysostom. ↩
Cassian has simply, though copiously, described the monastic habit of Egypt (De institutis coenobiorum, l. I), to which Sozomen (l. III c. 14) attributes such allegorical meaning and virtue. ↩
“Regula Benedicti No. 55,” in Codex regularum, part II, p. 51. ↩
See the rule of Ferreolus, bishop of Usez (No. 31, in Codex regularum, part II, p. 136), and of Isidore, bishop of Seville (No. 13, in Codex regularum, part II, p. 214). ↩
Some partial indulgences were granted for the hands and feet. “Totum autem corpus nemo unguet nisi causâ infirmitatis, nec lavabitur aquâ nudo corpore, nisi languor perspicuus sit.” (“Regula Pachomius XCII” part I, p. 78.) ↩
Athanasius (Vita S. Antoni, c. 47) boasts of Antony’s holy horror of clear water, by which his feet were uncontaminated, except under dire necessity. —⁠M. ↩
St. Jerome, in strong but indiscreet language, expresses the most important use of fasting and abstinence: “Non quod Deus universitatis Creator et Dominus, intestinorum nostrorum rugitû, et inanitate ventris, pulmonisque ardore delectetur, sed quod aliter pudicitia tuta esse non possit.” (Opera omnia, tom. I, p. 137, ad Eustochium.) See the twelfth and twenty-second Collations of Cassian, “De Castitate” and “De Illusionibus Nocturnis.” ↩
Edacitas in Graecis gula est, in Gallis natura (“Dialogue I” c. 4, p. 521). Cassian fairly owns that the perfect model of abstinence cannot be imitated in Gaul, on account of the aerum temperies, and the qualitas nostrae fragilitatis (De institutis coenobiorum IV 11). Among the Western rules, that of Columbanus is the most austere; he had been educated amidst the poverty of Ireland, as rigid perhaps, and inflexible, as the abstemious virtue of Egypt. The rule of Isidore of Seville is the mildest; on holidays he allows the use of flesh. ↩
“Those who drink only water and have no nutritious liquor ought, at least, to have a pound and a half (twenty-four ounces) of bread every day.” The State of the Prisons in England and Wales, p. 40, by Mr. John Howard. ↩
See Cassianus, Collationes sanctorum patrum, l. II 19⁠–⁠21. The small loaves, or biscuit, of six ounces each, had obtained the name of Paximacia (Rosweyde, Onomasticon ad Vitae Patrum, p. 1045). Pachomius, however, allowed his monks some latitude in the quantity of their food; but he made them work in proportion as they ate (Palladius in Historia Lausiaca, c. 38, 39, in Vitae Patrum, l. VIII, pp. 736, 737). ↩
See the banquet to which Cassian (“Collation VIII” 1) was invited by Serenus, an Egyptian abbot. ↩
See the Rule of St. Benedict, No. 39, 40 (in Codex regularum, part II, pp. 41, 42). Licet legamus vinum omnino monachorum non esse, sed quia nostris temporibus id monachis persuaderi non potest; he allows them a Roman hemina, a measure which may be ascertained from Arbuthnot’s Tables of Ancient Coins. ↩
Such expressions as my book, my cloak, my shoes (Cassian, De institutis coenobiorum, l. IV c. 13) were not less severely prohibited among the Western monks (Codex regularum, part II, pp. 174, 235, 288), and the Rule of Columbanus punished them with six lashes. The ironical author of the Ordres monastiques, who laughs at the foolish nicety of modern convents, seems ignorant that the ancients were equally absurd. ↩
Two great masters of ecclesiastical science, the Père Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. III, pp. 1090⁠–⁠1139), and the Père Mabillon (Traité des études monastiques, tom. I, pp. 116⁠–⁠155), have seriously examined the manual labor of the monks, which the former considers as a merit, and the latter as a duty. ↩
Mabillon (Traité des études monastiques, tom. I, pp. 47⁠–⁠55) has collected many curious facts to justify the literary labors of his predecessors, both in the East and West. Books were copied in the ancient monasteries of Egypt (Cassianus, De institutis coenobiorum, l. IV c. 12), and by the disciples of Saint-Martin (Sulpicius Severus in Vita Sancti Martini, c. 7, p. 473). Cassiodorus has allowed an ample scope for the studies of the monks; and we shall not be scandalized if their pens sometimes wandered from Chrysostom and Augustine to Homer and Virgil. ↩
Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. III, pp. 118, 145, 146, 171⁠–⁠179) has examined the revolution of the civil, canon, and common law. Modern France confirms the death which monks have inflicted on themselves, and justly deprives them of all right of inheritance. ↩
See Jerome (tom. I, pp. 176, 183). The monk Pambo made a sublime answer to Melania, who wished to specify the value of her gift: “Do you offer it to me, or to God? If to God, He who suspends the mountain in a balance need not be informed of the weight of your plate.” (Palladius, Historia Lausiaca, c. 10, in the Vitae Patrum, l. VIII, p. 715.) ↩
Τὸ πολὺ μέρος τῆς γῆς ῷκειώσαντο, προφάσει τοῦ μεταδιδόναι πάντων πτωχοῖς, πάντας (ὡς εἰπεῖν) πτωχοὺς καταστήσαντες. Zosimus, l. V, p. 325. Yet the wealth of the Eastern monks was far surpassed by the princely greatness of the Benedictines. ↩
The sixth general council (the Quinisext in Trullo, Canon XLVII in Beveridge, tom. I, p. 213) restrains women from passing the night in a male, or men in a female, monastery. The seventh general council (the second Nicene, Canon XX in Beveridge, tom. I, p. 325) prohibits the erection of double or promiscuous monasteries of both sexes; but it appears from Balsamon that the prohibition was not effectual. On the irregular pleasures and expenses of the clergy and monks, see Thomassin, tom. III, pp. 1334⁠–⁠1368. ↩
I have somewhere heard or read the frank confession of a Benedictine abbot: “My vow of poverty has given me a hundred thousand crowns a year; my vow of obedience has raised me to the rank of a sovereign prince.”⁠—I forget the consequences of his vow of chastity. ↩
Pior, an Egyptian monk, allowed his sister to see him; but he shut his eyes during the whole visit. See Vitae Patrum, l. III, p. 504. Many such examples might be added. ↩
The 7th, 8th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 34th, 57th, 60th, 86th, and 95th articles of the Rule of Pachomius impose most intolerable laws of silence and mortification. ↩
The diurnal and nocturnal prayers of the monks are copiously discussed by Cassian in the third and fourth books of his Institutions; and he constantly prefers the liturgy, which an angel had dictated to the monasteries of Tebennoe. ↩
Cassian, from his own experience, describes the acedia, or listlessness of mind and body, to which a monk was exposed when he sighed to find himself alone. Saepiusque egreditur et ingreditur cellam, et Solem velut ad occasum tardius properantem crebrius intuetur (De institutis coenobiorum, l. X c. 1). ↩
The temptations and sufferings of Stagirius were communicated by that unfortunate youth to his friend St. Chrysostom. See Middleton’s Works, vol. I, pp. 107⁠–⁠110. Something similar introduces the life of every saint; and the famous Inigo, or Ignatius, the founder of the Jesuits (Vide d’Inigo de Guiposcoa, tom. I, pp. 29⁠–⁠38), may serve as a memorable example. ↩
Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. VII, p. 46. I have read somewhere, in the Vitae Patrum, but I cannot recover the place, that several, I believe many, of the monks, who did not reveal their temptations to the abbot, became guilty of suicide. ↩
See the seventh and eighth Collations of Cassian, who gravely examines why the demons were grown less active and numerous since the time of St. Antony. Rosweyde’s copious index to the Vitae Patrum will point out a variety of infernal scenes. The devils were most formidable in a female shape. ↩
For the distinction of the Coenobites and the Hermits, especially in Egypt, see Jerome (tom. I, p. 45, “Ad Rusticum”), the first dialogue of Sulpicius Severus, Rufinus (c. 22, in Vitae Patrum, l. II, p. 478), Palladius (c. 7, 69, in Vitae Patrum, l. VIII, pp. 712, 758), and, above all, the eighteenth and nineteenth Collations of Cassian. These writers, who compare the common and solitary life, reveal the abuse and danger of the latter. ↩
Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, tom. II, pp. 205, 218. Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. I, pp. 1501, 1502) gives a good account of these cells. When Gerasimus founded his monastery in the wilderness of Jordan, it was accompanied by a laura of seventy cells. ↩
Theodoret, in a large volume (the Philotheus in Vitae Patrum, l. IX, pp. 793⁠–⁠863), has collected the lives and miracles of thirty Anachorets. Evagrius (l. I c. 12) more briefly celebrates the monks and hermits of Palestine. ↩
Sozomen, l. VI c. 33. The great St. Ephrem composed a panegyric on these βόσκοι, or grazing monks (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, p. 292). ↩
The Père Sicard (Missions du Levant, tom. II, pp. 217⁠–⁠233) examined the caverns of the Lower Thebais with wonder and devotion. The inscriptions are in the old Syriac character, which was used by the Christians of Abyssinia. ↩
See Theodoret (in Vitae Patrum, l. IX, pp. 848⁠–⁠854), Antony (in Vitae Patrum, l. I, pp. 170⁠–⁠177), Cosmas (in Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. I, pp. 239⁠–⁠253), Evagrius (l. I c. 13, 14), and Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XV, pp. 347⁠–⁠392). ↩
The narrow circumference of two cubits, or three feet, which Evagrius assigns for the summit of the column, is inconsistent with reason, with facts, and with the rules of architecture. The people who saw it from below might be easily deceived. ↩
I must not conceal a piece of ancient scandal concerning the origin of this ulcer. It has been reported that the Devil, assuming an angelic form, invited him to ascend, like Elijah, into a fiery chariot. The saint too hastily raised his foot, and Satan seized the moment of inflicting this chastisement on his vanity. ↩
I know not how to select or specify the miracles contained in the Vitae Patrum of Rosweyde, as the number very much exceeds the thousand pages of that voluminous work. An elegant specimen may be found in the Dialogues of Sulpicius Severus, and his Life of St. Martin. He reveres the monks of Egypt; yet he insults them with the remark that they never raised the dead; whereas the bishop of Tours had restored three dead men to life. ↩
On the subject of Ulphilas and the conversion of the Goths, see Sozomen, l. VI c. 37. Socrates, l. IV c. 33. Theodoret, l. IV c. 37. Philostorgius, l. II c. 5. The heresy of Philostorgius appears to have given him superior means of information. ↩
This is the Moeso-Gothic alphabet of which many of the letters are evidently formed from the Greek and Roman. M. Saint-Martin, however, contends that it is impossible but that some written alphabet must have been known long before among the Goths. He supposes that their former letters were those inscribed on the runes, which, being inseparably connected with the old idolatrous superstitions, were proscribed by the Christian missionaries. Everywhere the runes, so common among all the German tribes, disappear after the propagation of Christianity. Saint-Martin, IV, pp. 97, 98. —⁠M. ↩
A mutilated copy of the four Gospels, in the Gothic version, was published AD 1665, and is esteemed the most ancient monument of the Teutonic language, though Wetstein attempts, by some frivolous conjectures, to deprive Ulphilas of the honor of the work. Two of the four additional letters express the W, and our own Th. See Richard Simon, Histoire critique du text du Nouveau Testament, tom. II, pp. 219⁠–⁠223. Mill, Prolegomena ad Novum Testamentum Graecum, p. 151, edit. Kuster. Wetstein, Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci, tom. I, p. 114.9041 ↩
Philostorgius erroneously places this passage under the reign of Constantine; but I am much inclined to believe that it preceded the great emigration. ↩
We are obliged to Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 51, p. 688) for a short and lively picture of these lesser Goths. Gothi minores, populus immensus, cum suo Pontifice ipsoque primate Wulfila. The last words, if they are not mere tautology, imply some temporal jurisdiction. ↩
At non ita Gothi non ita Vandali; malis licet doctoribus instituti, meliores tamen etiam in hâc parte quam nostri. Salvian, De gubernatione Dei, l. VII, p. 243. ↩
Mosheim has slightly sketched the progress of Christianity in the North, from the fourth to the fourteenth century. The subject would afford materials for an ecclesiastical, and even philosophical, history. ↩
To such a cause has Socrates (l. VII c. 30) ascribed the conversion of the Burgundians, whose Christian piety is celebrated by Orosius (l. VII c. 19). ↩
See an original and curious epistle from Daniel, the first bishop of Winchester (Beda, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, l. V c. 18, p. 203, edit. Smith), to St. Boniface, who preached the Gospel among the savages of Hesse and Thuringia. “Epistola Bonifacii,” LXVII in the Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum, tom. XIII, p. 93. ↩
The sword of Charlemagne added weight to the argument; but when Daniel wrote this epistle (AD 723), the Muhammadans, who reigned from India to Spain, might have retorted it against the Christians. ↩
The opinions of Ulphilas and the Goths inclined to Semi-Arianism, since they would not say that the Son was a creature, though they held communion with those who maintained that heresy. Their apostle represented the whole controversy as a question of trifling moment, which had been raised by the passions of the clergy. Theodoret, l. IV c. 37. ↩
The Arianism of the Goths has been imputed to the emperor Valens: “Itaque justo Dei judicio ipsi eum vivum incenderunt, qui propter eum etiam mortui, vitio erroris arsuri sunt.” Orosius, l. VII c. 33, p. 554. This cruel sentence is confirmed by Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, pp. 604⁠–⁠610), who coolly observes, “un seul homme entraîna dans l’enfer un nombre infini de Septentrionaux, etc.” Salvian (De gubernatione Dei, l. V, pp. 150, 151) pities and excuses their involuntary error. ↩
Orosius affirms, in the year 416 (l. VII c. 41, p. 580), that the churches of Christ (of the Catholics) were filled with Huns, Suevi, Vandals, Burgundians. ↩
Radbod, king of the Frisons, was so much scandalized by this rash declaration of a missionary that he drew back his foot after he had entered the baptismal font. See Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. IX, p. 167. ↩
The epistles of Sidonius, bishop of Clermont, under the Visigotha, and of Avitus, bishop of Vienna, under the Burgundians, explain, sometimes in dark hints, the general dispositions of the Catholics. The history of Clovis and Theodoric will suggest some particular facts. ↩
Genseric confessed the resemblance by the severity with which he punished such indiscreet allusions. Victor Vitensis, l. I c. 7, p. 10. ↩
Such are the contemporary complaints of Sidonius, bishop of Clermont (l. VII c. 6, p. 182, etc., edit. Sirmond). Gregory of Tours, who quotes this Epistle (l. II c. 25, in tom. II, p. 174), extorts an unwarrantable assertion that, of the nine vacancies in Aquitain, some had been produced by episcopal martyrdoms. ↩
The original monuments of the Vandal persecution are preserved in the five books of the history of Victor Vitensis (De persecutione Vandalica), a bishop who was exiled by Hunneric; in the life of St. Fulgentius, who was distinguished in the persecution of Thrasimund (in Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum, tom. IX, pp. 4⁠–⁠16); and in the first book of the Vandalic War, by the impartial Procopius (c. 7, 8, pp. 196⁠–⁠199). Dom Ruinart, the last editor of Victor, has illustrated the whole subject with a copious and learned apparatus of notes and supplement (Paris, 1694). ↩
Victor IV 2, p. 65. Hunneric refuses the name of Catholics to the Homoousians. He describes, as the veri Divinae Majestatis cultores, his own party, who professed the faith, confirmed by more than a thousand bishops, in the synods of Rimini and Seleucia. ↩
Victor II 1, pp. 21, 22, Laudabilior⁠ ⁠… videbatur. In the MSS. which omit this word, the passage is unintelligible. See Ruinart, Note, p. 164. ↩
Victor II 2, pp. 22, 23. The clergy of Carthage called these conditions periculosoe; and they seem, indeed, to have been proposed as a snare to entrap the Catholic bishops. ↩
See the narrative of this conference and the treatment of the bishops in Victor II 13⁠–⁠18, pp. 35⁠–⁠42, and the whole fourth book, pp. 63⁠–⁠171. The third book, pp. 42⁠–⁠62, is entirely filled by their apology, or confession of faith. ↩
See the list of the African bishops, in Victor, pp. 117⁠–⁠140, and Ruinart’s notes, pp. 215⁠–⁠397. The schismatic name of Donatus frequently occurs, and they appear to have adopted (like our fanatics of the last age) the pious appellations of Deodatus, Deogratias, Quidvultdeus, Habetdeum, etc.9042 ↩
Vita Fulgentii, c. 16⁠–⁠29. Thrasimund affected the praise of moderation and learning; and Fulgentius addressed three books of controversy to the Arian tyrant, whom he styles piissime Rex Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum, tom. IX, p. 41). Only 60 bishops are mentioned as exiles in the life of Fulgentius; they are increased to 120 by Victor Tunnunensis and Isidore; but the number of 220 is specified in the Historia miscella and a short authentic chronicle of the times. See Ruinart, pp. 570, 571. ↩
See the base and insipid epigrams of the Stoic, who could not support exile with more fortitude than Ovid. Corsica might not produce corn, wine, or oil; but it could not be destitute of grass, water, and even fire. ↩
Si ob gravitatem coeli interissent vile damnum. Tacitus, Annales II 85. In this application, Thrasimund would have adopted the reading of some critics, utile damnum. ↩
See these preludes of a general persecution, in Victor II 3, 4, 7 and the two edicts of Hunneric, l. II, p. 35, l. IV, p. 64. ↩
See Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 7, pp. 197, 198. A Moorish prince endeavored to propitiate the God of the Christians by his diligence to erase the marks of the Vandal sacrilege. ↩
See this story in Victor II 8⁠–⁠12, pp. 30⁠–⁠34. Victor describes the distress of these confessors as an eyewitness. ↩
See the fifth book of Victor. His passionate complaints are confirmed by the sober testimony of Procopius and the public declaration of the emperor Justinian (Codex, l. I tit. XXVII). ↩
Victor II 18, p. 41. ↩
Victor V 4, pp. 74, 75. His name was Victorianus, and he was a wealthy citizen of Adrumetum, who enjoyed the confidence of the king; by whose favor he had obtained the office, or at least the title, of proconsul of Africa. ↩
Victor I 6, pp. 8, 9. After relating the firm resistance and dexterous reply of Count Sebastian, he adds, quare alio generis argumento postea bellicosum virum occidit. ↩
Victor V 12, 13. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VI, p. 609. ↩
Primate was more properly the title of the bishop of Carthage; but the name of patriarch was given by the sects and nations to their principal ecclesiastic. See Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. I, pp. 155, 158. ↩
The patriarch Cyrila himself publicly declared that he did not understand Latin (Victor II 18, p. 42): Nescio Latine; and he might converse with tolerable ease, without being capable of disputing or preaching in that language. His Vandal clergy were still more ignorant; and small confidence could be placed in the Africans who had conformed. ↩
Victor II 1, 2, p. 22. ↩
Victor V 7, p. 77. He appeals to the ambassador himself, whose name was Uranius. ↩
Astutiores, Victor IV 4, p. 70. He plainly intimates that their quotation of the gospel “Non jurabitis in toto,” was only meant to elude the obligation of an inconvenient oath. The forty-six bishops who refused were banished to Corsica; the three hundred and two who swore were distributed through the provinces of Africa. ↩
Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspae, in the Byzacene province, was of a senatorial family, and had received a liberal education. He could repeat all Homer and Menander before he was allowed to study Latin, his native tongue (Vita Fulgentii, c. 1). Many African bishops might understand Greek, and many Greek theologians were translated into Latin. ↩
Compare the two prefaces to the Dialogue of Vigilius of Thapsus (pp. 118, 119, edit. Chiflet). He might amuse his learned reader with an innocent fiction; but the subject was too grave, and the Africans were too ignorant. ↩
The Père Quesnel started this opinion, which has been favorably received. But the three following truths, however surprising they may seem, are now universally acknowledged (Gerard Vossius, tom. VI, pp. 516⁠–⁠522; Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VIII, pp. 667⁠–⁠671).
1. St. Athanasius is not the author of the creed which is so frequently read in our churches.
2. It does not appear to have existed within a century after his death.
3. It was originally composed in the Latin tongue, and, consequently in the Western provinces.
Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, was so much amazed by this extraordinary composition that he frankly pronounced it to be the work of a drunken man. Petavius, Dogmata theologica, tom. II l. VII c. 8, p. 687. ↩
1 John 5:7. See Simon, Histoire critique du text du Nouveau Testament, part I c. XVIII, pp. 203⁠–⁠218, and part II c. IX, pp. 99⁠–⁠121, and the elaborate Prolegomena and Annotations of Dr. Mill and Wetstein to their editions of the Greek Testament. In 1689, the papist Simon strove to be free; in 1707, the Protestant Mill wished to be a slave; in 1751, the Armenian Wetstein used the liberty of his times and of his sect.9043 ↩
Of all the MSS. now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old (Wetstein ad loc.). The orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens, are become invisible; and the two MSS. of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception. See Emlyn’s Works, vol. II, pp. 227⁠–⁠255, 269⁠–⁠299; and M. de Missy’s four ingenious letters, in tom. VIII and IX of the Journal Britannique. ↩
Or, more properly, by the four bishops who composed and published the profession of faith in the name of their brethren. They styled this text, luce clarius (Victor Vitensis, De persecutione Vandalica, l. III c. 11, p. 54). It is quoted soon afterwards by the African polemics, Vigilius and Fulgentius. ↩
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum orthodoxam fidem (Wetstein, Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci, pp. 84, 85). Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin MSS. (Wetstein ad loc.), the oldest and the fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts. ↩
The art which the Germans had invented was applied in Italy to the profane writers of Rome and Greece. The original Greek of the New Testament was published about the same time (AD 1514, 1516, 1520) by the industry of Erasmus and the munificence of Cardinal Ximenes. The Complutensian Polyglot cost the cardinal 50,000 ducats. See Michel Mattaire, Annales typographici, tom. II, pp. 2⁠–⁠8, 125⁠–⁠133; and Wetstein, Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci, pp. 116⁠–⁠127. ↩
The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing a crotchet; and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae V 1. Wesseling, Intineraria, p. 15. Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. II part II, p. 127. This Tipasa (which must not be confounded with another in Numidia) was a town of some note, since Vespasian endowed it with the right of Latium. ↩
Optatus Milevitanus, De schismate donatistarum, l. II, p. 38. ↩
Victor Vitensis V 6, p. 76. Ruinart, pp. 483⁠–⁠487. ↩
Aeneas Gazaeus in “Theophrasto,” in Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum, tom. VIII, pp. 664, 665. He was a Christian, and composed this Dialogue (the Theophrastus) on the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body; besides twenty-five Epistles, still extant. See Cave (Historia literaria, p. 297), and Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. I, p. 422). ↩
Codex Justinianus, l. I tit. XXVII. Marcellinus in Chronicon, p. 45, in Thesaurus temporum, Scaliger. Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 7, p. 196. Gregorius Magnus, Dialogues III 32. None of these witnesses have specified the number of the confessors, which is fixed at sixty in an old menology (apud Ruinart, p. 486). Two of them lost their speech by fornication; but the miracle is enhanced by the singular instance of a boy who had never spoken before his tongue was cut out. ↩
See the two general historians of Spain, Mariana (Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, tom. I l. V c. 12⁠–⁠15, pp. 182⁠–⁠194) and Ferreras (French translation, tom. II, pp. 206⁠–⁠247). Mariana almost forgets that he is a Jesuit, to assume the style and spirit of a Roman classic. Ferreras, an industrious compiler, reviews his facts and rectifies his chronology. ↩
Goisvintha successively married two kings of the Visigoths: Athanigild, to whom she bore Brunechild, the mother of Ingundis; and Leovigild, whose two sons, Hermenegild and Recared, were the issue of a former marriage. ↩
Iracundiae furore succensa, adprehensam per comam capitis puellam in terram conlidit, et diu calcibus verberatam, ac sanguins cruentatam, jussit exspoliari, et piscinae immergi. Gregorii Turonici, l. V c. 39, in tom. II, p. 255. Gregory is one of our best originals for this portion of history. ↩
The Catholics who admitted the baptism of heretics repeated the rite, or, as it was afterwards styled, the sacrament, of confirmation, to which they ascribed many mystic and marvellous prerogatives, both visible and invisible. See Chardon, Histoire des sacremens, tom. I, pp. 405⁠–⁠552. ↩
Osset, or Julia Constantia, was opposite to Seville, on the northern side of the Baetis (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae III 3): and the authentic reference of Gregory of Tours (Historia Francorum, l. VI c. 43, p. 288) deserves more credit than the name of Lusitania (Turonici de gloriâ martyrûm, c. 24), which has been eagerly embraced by the vain and superstitious Portuguese (Ferreras, Histoire générale d’Espagne, tom. II, p. 166). ↩
This miracle was skilfully performed. An Arian king sealed the doors, and dug a deep trench round the church, without being able to intercept the Easter supply of baptismal water. ↩
Ferreras (tom. II, pp. 168⁠–⁠175, AD 550) has illustrated the difficulties which regard the time and circumstances of the conversion of the Suevi. They had been recently united by Leovigild to the Gothic monarchy of Spain. ↩
This addition to the Nicene, or rather the Constantinopolitan creed, was first made in the eighth council of Toledo, AD 653; but it was expressive of the popular doctrine (Gerard Vossius, tom. VI, p. 527, De tribus symbolis). ↩
See Gregorius Magnus, l. VII, “Epistola 126,” apud Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 559,” No. 25, 26. ↩
Paul Warnefrid (De gestis Langobardorum, l. IV c. 44, p. 853, edit. Grotius) allows that Arianism still prevailed under the reign of Rotharis (AD 636⁠–⁠652). The pious deacon does not attempt to mark the precise era of the national conversion, which was accomplished, however, before the end of the seventh century. ↩
Quorum fidei et conversioni ita congratulatus esse rex perhibetur, ut nullum tamen cogeret ad Christianismum.⁠ ⁠… Didiceret enim a doctoribus auctoribusque suae salutis, servitium Christi voluntarium non coactitium esse debere. Bedae, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, l. I c. 26, p. 62, edit. Smith. ↩
See the Historians of France, tom. IV, p. 114; and David Wilkins, Leges Anglo-Saxonicae, pp. 11, 31. Siquis sacrificium immolaverit praeter Deo soli morte moriatur. ↩
The Jews pretend that they were introduced into Spain by the fleets of Solomon and the arms of Nebuchadnezzar; that Hadrian transported forty thousand families of the tribe of Judah, and ten thousand of the tribe of Benjamin, etc. Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, tom. VII c. 9, pp. 240⁠–⁠256. ↩
Isidore, at that time archbishop of Seville, mentions, disapproves and congratulates the zeal of Sisebut (Chronica Gothorum, p. 728). Baronius (“AD 614,” No. 41) assigns the number on the evidence of Aimoin (l. IV c. 22); but the evidence is weak, and I have not been able to verify the quotation (Historians of France, tom. III, p. 127). ↩
Basnage (tom. VIII c. 13, pp. 388⁠–⁠400) faithfully represents the state of the Jews; but he might have added from the canons of the Spanish councils and the laws of the Visigoths many curious circumstances, essential to his subject, though they are foreign to mine.9044 ↩
In this chapter I shall draw my quotations from the Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, Paris, 1738⁠–⁠1767, in eleven volumes in folio. By the labor of Dom Bouquet and the other Benedictines, all the original testimonies, as far as AD 1060, are disposed in chronological order and illustrated with learned notes. Such a national work, which will be continued to the year 1500, might provoke our emulation. ↩
Tacitus, Historiae IV 73, 74, in tom. I, p. 445. To abridge Tacitus would indeed be presumptuous; but I may select the general ideas which he applies to the present state and future revolutions of Gaul. ↩
Eadem semper causa Germanis transcendendi in Gallias libido atque avaritiae et mutandae sedis amor; ut relictis paludibus et solitudinibus suis, fecundissimum hoc solum vosque ipsos possiderent.⁠ ⁠… Nam pulsis Romanis quid aliud quam bella omnium inter se gentium exsistent? ↩
Sidonius Apollinaris ridicules, with affected wit and pleasantry, the hardships of his situation (“Carmen XII” in tom. I, p. 811). ↩
See Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 12, in tom. II, p. 31. The character of Grotius inclines me to believe that he has not substituted the Rhine for the Rhône (Historia Gothorum, p. 175) without the authority of some MS. ↩
Sidonius, l. VIII Epistolae 3, 9, in tom. I, p. 800. Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 47, p. 680) justifies, in some measure, this portrait of the Gothic hero. ↩
I use the familiar appellation of Clovis, from the Latin Chlodovechus, or Chlodovoeus. But the Ch expresses only the German aspiration, and the true name is not different from Luduin, or Lewis (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XX, p. 68). ↩
Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 12, in tom. I, p. 168. Basina speaks the language of nature; the Franks, who had seen her in their youth, might converse with Gregory in their old age; and the bishop of Tours could not wish to defame the mother of the first Christian king. ↩
The Abbé Dubos (Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie françoise dans les Gaules, tom. I, pp. 630⁠–⁠650) has the merit of defining the primitive kingdom of Clovis, and of ascertaining the genuine number of his subjects. ↩
Ecclesiam incultam ac negligentiâ civium Paganorum praetermissam, veprium densitate oppletam, etc. Vita S. Vedasti, in tom. III, p. 372. This description supposes that Arras was possessed by the Pagans many years before the baptism of Clovis. ↩
Gregory of Tours (l V c. I, in tom. II, p. 232) contrasts the poverty of Clovis with the wealth of his grandsons. Yet Remigius (in tom. IV, p. 52) mentions his paternas opes, as sufficient for the redemption of captives. ↩
See Gregory (l. II c. 27, 37, in tom. II, pp. 175, 181, 182). The famous story of the vase of Soissons explains both the power and the character of Clovis. As a point of controversy, it has been strangely tortured by Boulainvilliers, Dubos, and the other political antiquarians. ↩
The Duke of Nivernois, a noble statesman, who has managed weighty and delicate negotiations, ingeniously illustrates (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XX, pp. 147⁠–⁠184) the political system of Clovis. ↩
M. Biet (in a dissertation which deserved the prize of the Academy of Soissons, pp. 178⁠–⁠226), has accurately defined the nature and extent of the kingdom of Syagrius, and his father; but he too readily allows the slight evidence of Dubos (tom. II, pp. 54⁠–⁠57) to deprive him of Beauvais and Amiens. ↩
I may observe that Fredegarius, in his epitome of Gregory of Tours (tom. II, p. 398), has prudently substituted the name of Patricius for the incredible title of Rex Romanorum. ↩
Sidonius (l. V, “Epistola 5,” in tom. I, p. 794), who styles him the Solon, the Amphion, of the Barbarians, addresses this imaginary king in the tone of friendship and equality. From such offices of arbitration, the crafty Dejoces had raised himself to the throne of the Medes (Herodotus, l. I c. 96⁠–⁠100). ↩
Campum sibi praeparari jussit. M. Biet (pp. 226⁠–⁠251) has diligently ascertained this field of battle, at Nogent, a Benedictine abbey, about ten miles to the north of Soissons. The ground was marked by a circle of Pagan sepulchres; and Clovis bestowed the adjacent lands of Leully and Coucy on the church of Rheims. ↩
See Caesar, Commentarii de bello Gallico II 4, in tom. I, p. 220, and the Notitiae, tom. I, p. 126. The three Fabricae of Soissons were, Seutaria, Balistaria, and Clinabaria. The last supplied the complete armor of the heavy cuirassiers. ↩
The epithet must be confined to the circumstances; and history cannot justify the French prejudice of Gregory (l. II c. 27, in tom. II, p. 175), ut Gothorum pavere mos est. ↩
Dubos has satisfied me (tom. I, pp. 277⁠–⁠286) that Gregory of Tours, his transcribers, or his readers, have repeatedly confounded the German kingdom of Thuringia, beyond the Rhine, and the Gallic city of Tongria on the Meuse, which was more anciently the country of the Eburones and more recently the diocese of Liège. ↩
Populi habitantes juxta Lemannum lacum, Alemanni dicuntur. Servius, ad Virgil, Georgics IV 278. Don Bouquet (tom. I, p. 817) has only alleged the more recent and corrupt text of Isidore of Seville. ↩
Gregory of Tours sends St. Lupicinus inter illa Jurensis deserti secreta, quae, inter Burgundiam Alamanniamque sita, Aventicae adjacent civitati, in tom. I, p. 648. M. de Watteville (Histoire de la confédération Helvétique, tom. I, pp. 9, 10) has accurately defined the Helvetian limits of the Duchy of Alemannia and the Transjurane Burgundy. They were commensurate with the dioceses of Constance and Avenche, or Lausanne, and are still discriminated, in modern Switzerland, by the use of the German or French language. ↩
See François Guilliman, De rebus Helvetiorum, l. I c. 3, pp. 11, 12. Within the ancient walls of Vindonissa, the castle of Hapsburgh, the abbey of Konigsfield, and the town of Bruck have successively risen. The philosophic traveller may compare the monuments of Roman conquest, of feudal or Austrian tyranny, of monkish superstition, and of industrious freedom. If he be truly a philosopher he will applaud the merit and happiness of his own times. ↩
Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 30, 37, in tom. II, pp. 176, 177, 182), the Gesta Francorum (in tom. II, p. 551), and the epistle of Theodoric (Cassiodorus, Variarum, l. II c. 41, in tom. IV, p. 4), represent the defeat of the Alemanni. Some of their tribes settled in Rhaetia, under the protection of Theodoric; whose successors ceded the colony and their country to the grandson of Clovis. The state of the Alemanni under the Merovingian kings may be seen in Mascou (History of the Ancient Germans XI 8, etc., Annotation XXXVI) and Guilliman (De rebus Helvetiorum, l. II c. 10⁠–⁠12, pp. 72⁠–⁠80). ↩
Clotilda, or rather Gregory, supposes that Clovis worshipped the gods of Greece and Rome. The fact is incredible, and the mistake only shows how completely, in less than a century, the national religion of the Franks had been abolished and even forgotten. ↩
Gregory of Tours relates the marriage and conversion of Clovis (l. II c. 28⁠–⁠31, in tom. II, pp. 175⁠–⁠178). Even Fredegarius, or the nameless Epitomizer (in tom. II, pp. 398⁠–⁠400), the author of the Gesta Francorum (in tom. II, pp. 548⁠–⁠552), and Aimoin himself (l. I c. 13, in tom. III, pp. 37⁠–⁠40), may be heard without disdain. Tradition might long preserve some curious circumstances of these important transactions. ↩
A traveller who returned from Rheims to Auvergne had stolen a copy of his declamations from the secretary or bookseller of the modest archbishop (Sidonius Apollinaris, l. IX, “Epistola 7”). Four epistles of Remigius, which are still extant (in tom. IV, pp. 51⁠–⁠53), do not correspond with the splendid praise of Sidonius. ↩
Hincmar, one of the successors of Remigius (AD 845⁠–⁠882), had composed his life (in tom. III, pp. 373⁠–⁠380). The authority of ancient MSS. of the church of Rheims might inspire some confidence, which is destroyed, however, by the selfish and audacious fictions of Hincmar. It is remarkable enough that Remigius, who was consecrated at the age of twenty-two (AD 457), filled the episcopal chair seventy-four years (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. II, pp. 384, 572). ↩
A phial (the Sainte Ampoulle) of holy, or rather celestial, oil was brought down by a white dove, for the baptism of Clovis, and it is still used and renewed in the coronation of the kings of France. Hincmar (he aspired to the primacy of Gaul) is the first author of this fable (in tom. III, p. 377), whose slight foundations the Abbé de Vertot (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. II, pp. 619⁠–⁠633) has undermined, with profound respect and consummate dexterity. ↩
Mitis depone colla, Sicamber: adora quod incendisti, incende quod adorasti. Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 31, in tom. II, p. 177. ↩
Si ego ibidem cum Francis meis fuissem, injurias ejus vindicassem. This rash expression, which Gregory has prudently concealed, is celebrated by Fredegarius (Epitome, c. 21, in tom. II, p. 400), Aimoin (l. I c. 16, in tom. III, p. 40), and the Chroniques de France ou St. Denis (l. I c. 20, in tom. III, p. 171) as an admirable effusion of Christian zeal. ↩
Gregory (l. II c. 40⁠–⁠43, in tom. II, pp. 183⁠–⁠185), after coolly relating the repeated crimes and affected remorse of Clovis, concludes, perhaps undesignedly, with a lesson which ambition will never hear: “His ita transactis⁠ ⁠… obiit.” ↩
After the Gothic victory, Clovis made rich offerings to St. Martin of Tours. He wished to redeem his warhorse by the gift of one hundred pieces of gold; but the enchanted steed could not remove from the stable till the price of his redemption had been doubled. This miracle provoked the king to exclaim, Vere B. Martinus est bonus in auxilio, sed carus in negotio. (Gesta Francorum, in tom. II, pp. 554, 555.) ↩
See the epistle from Pope Anastasius to the royal convert (in tom. IV, pp. 50, 51). Avitus, bishop of Vienna, addressed Clovis on the same subject (p. 49), and many of the Latin bishops would assure him of their joy and attachment. ↩
Instead of the Ἀρβόρυχοι, an unknown people, who now appear on the text of Procopious, Hadrian de Valois has restored the proper name of the Ἀρμόρυχοι; and this easy correction has been almost universally approved. Yet an unprejudiced reader would naturally suppose that Procopius means to describe a tribe of Germans in the alliance of Rome; and not a confederacy of Gallic cities which had revolted from the empire.9045 ↩
This important digression of Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 12, in tom. II, pp. 29⁠–⁠36) illustrates the origin of the French monarchy. Yet I must observe, 1. That the Greek historian betrays an inexcusable ignorance of the geography of the West. 2. That these treaties and privileges, which should leave some lasting traces, are totally invisible in Gregory of Tours, the Salic laws, etc. ↩
Regnum circa Rhodanum aut Ararim cum provinciâ Massiliensi retinebant. Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 32, in tom. II, p. 178. The province of Marseilles, as far as the Durance, was afterwards ceded to the Ostrogoths; and the signatures of twenty-five bishops are supposed to represent the kingdom of Burgundy, AD 519. (Concilium epaonense, in tom. IV, pp. 104, 105.) Yet I would except Vindonissa. The bishop who lived under the Pagan Alemanni would naturally resort to the synods of the next Christian kingdom. Mascou (in his four first annotations) has explained many circumstances relative to the Burgundian monarchy. ↩
Mascou (History of the Ancient Germans XI 10), who very reasonably distracts the testimony of Gregory of Tours, has produced a passage from Avitus (“Epistola V”) to prove that Gundobald affected to deplore the tragic event which his subjects affected to applaud. ↩
See the original conference (in tom. IV, pp. 99⁠–⁠102). Avitus, the principal actor, and probably the secretary of the meeting, was bishop of Vienna. A short account of his person and works may be fouud in Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. V, pp. 5⁠–⁠10). ↩
Gregory of Tours (l. III c. 19, in tom. II, p. 197) indulges his genius, or rather describes some more eloquent writer, in the description of Dijon⁠—a castle, which already deserved the title of a city. It depended on the bishops of Langres till the twelfth century, and afterwards became the capital of the dukes of Burgundy. Longuerue, Description de la France, part I, p. 280. ↩
The Epitomizer of Gregory of Tours (in tom. II, p. 401) has supplied this number of Franks; but he rashly supposes that they were cut in pieces by Gundobald. The prudent Burgundian spared the soldiers of Clovis, and sent these captives to the king of the Visigoths, who settled them in the territory of Toulouse. ↩
In this Burgundian war I have followed Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 32, 33, in tom. II, pp. 178, 179), whose narrative appears so incompatible with that of Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 12, in tom. II, pp. 31, 32), that some critics have supposed two different wars. The Abbé Dubos (Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. II, pp. 126⁠–⁠162) has distinctly represented the causes and the events. ↩
See his life or legend (in tom. III, p. 402). A martyr! how strangely has that word been distorted from its original sense of a common witness. St. Sigismond was remarkable for the cure of fevers. ↩
Before the end of the fifth century, the church of St. Maurice, and his Thebaean legion, had rendered Agaunum a place of devout pilgrimage. A promiscuous community of both sexes had introduced some deeds of darkness, which were abolished (AD 515) by the regular monastery of Sigismond. Within fifty years, his angels of light made a nocturnal sally to murder their bishop and his clergy. See in the Bibliothèque Raisonnée (tom. XXXVI, pp. 435⁠–⁠438) the curious remarks of a learned librarian of Geneva. ↩
Marius, bishop of Avenche (Chronicon in tom. II, p. 15), has marked the authentic dates, and Gregory of Tours (l. III c. 5, 6, in tom. II, pp. 188, 189) has expressed the principal facts, of the life of Sigismond and the conquest of Burgundy. Procopius (in tom. II, p. 34) and Agathias (in tom. II, p. 49) show their remote and imperfect knowledge. ↩
Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 37, in tom. II, p. 181) inserts the short but persuasive speech of Clovis. Valde moleste fero, quod hi Ariani partem teneant Galliarum (the author of the Gesta Francorum, in tom. II, p. 553, adds the precious epithet of optimam) camus cum Dei adjutorio, et, superatis eis, redigamus terram in ditionem nostram. ↩
Tunc rex projecit a se in directum Bipennem suam quod est Francisca, etc. (Gesta Francorum in tom. II, p. 554.) The form and use of this weapon are clearly described by Procopius (in tom. II, p. 37). Examples of its national appellation in Latin and French may be found in the Glossary of du Cange, and the large Dictionnaire de Trévoux. ↩
It is singular enough that some important and authentic facts should be found in a Life of Quintianus, composed in rhyme in the old patois of Rouergue (Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, etc., tom. II, p. 179). ↩
Quamvis fortitudini vestrae confidentiam tribuat parentum vestrorum innumerabilis multitudo; quamvis Attilam potentem reminiscamini Visigotharum viribus inclinatum; tamen quia populorum ferocia corda longâ pace mollescunt, cavete subito in alean aleam mittere, quos constat tantis temporibus exercitia non habere. Such was the salutary, but fruitless, advice of peace, of reason, and of Theodoric (Cassiodorus, l. III, “Epistola 2”). ↩
Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XV c. 14) mentions and approves the law of the Visigoths (l. IX tit. 2, in tom. IV, p. 425), which obliged all masters to arm and send or lead into the field a tenth of their slaves. ↩
This mode of divination, by accepting as an omen the first sacred words, which in particular circumstances should be presented to the eye or ear, was derived from the Pagans; and the Psalter, or Bible, was substituted to the poems of Homer and Virgil. From the fourth to the fourteenth century, these sortes sanctorum, as they are styled, were repeatedly condemned by the decrees of councils, and repeatedly practiced by kings, bishops, and saints. See a curious dissertation of the Abbé du Resnel, in the Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XIX, pp. 287⁠–⁠310. ↩
After correcting the text, or excusing the mistake, of Procopius, who places the defeat of Alaric near Carcassone, we may conclude, from the evidence of Gregory, Fortunatus, and the author of the Gesta Francorum, that the battle was fought in campo Vocladensi, on the banks of the Clain, about ten miles to the south of Poitiers. Clovis overtook and attacked the Visigoths near Vivonne, and the victory was decided near a village still named Champágne St. Hilaire. See the Dissertations sur l’histoire civile et ecclésiastique de Paris of the Abbé Lebeuf, tom. I, pp. 304⁠–⁠331. ↩
Angoulême is in the road from Poitiers to Bordeaux; and although Gregory delays the siege, I can more readily believe that he confounded the order of history than that Clovis neglected the rules of war. ↩
Pyrenaeos montes usque Perpinianum subjecit, is the expression of Rorico, which betrays his recent date; since Perpignan did not exist before the tenth century (Marca Hispanica, p. 458). This florid and fabulous writer (perhaps a monk of Amiens⁠—see the Abbé Lebeuf, Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XVII, pp. 228⁠–⁠245) relates, in the allegorical character of a shepherd, the general history of his countrymen the Franks, but his narrative ends with the death of Clovis. ↩
The author of the Gesta Francorum positively affirms that Clovis fixed a body of Franks in the Saintonge and Bourdelois: and he is not injudiciously followed by Rorico, electos milites, atque fortissimos, cum parvulis, atque mulieribus. Yet it should seem that they soon mingled with the Romans of Aquitain, till Charlemagne introduced a more numerous and powerful colony (Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. II, p. 215). ↩
In the composition of the Gothic war, I have used the following materials, with due regard to their unequal value. Four epistles from Theodoric, king of Italy (Cassiodorus, l. III Epistolae 1⁠–⁠4, in tom. IV, pp. 3⁠–⁠5); Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 12, in tom. II, pp. 32, 33); Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 35⁠–⁠37, in tom. II, pp. 181⁠–⁠183); Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 58, in tom. II, p. 28); Fortunatas (in Vita S. Hilarii, in tom. III, p. 380); Isidore (in Chronica Gothorum in tom. II, p. 702); the Epitome of Gregory of Tours (in tom. II, p. 401); the author of the Gesta Francorum (in tom. II, pp. 553⁠–⁠555); the Fragments of Fredegarius (in tom. II, p. 463); Aimoin (l. I c. 20, in tom. III, pp. 41, 42), and Rorico (l. IV in tom. III, pp. 14⁠–⁠19). ↩
The Fasti of Italy would naturally reject a consul, the enemy of their sovereign; but any ingenious hypothesis that might explain the silence of Constantinople and Egypt (the Chronicle of Marcellinus, and the Paschal Chronicle), is overturned by the similar silence of Marius, bishop of Avenche, who composed his Fasti in the kingdom of Burgundy. If the evidence of Gregory of Tours were less weighty and positive (l. II c. 38, in tom. II, p. 183), I could believe that Clovis, like Odoacer, received the lasting title and honors of Patrician (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. II, pp. 474, 492). ↩
Under the Merovingian kings, Marseilles still imported from the East paper, wine, oil, linen, silk, precious stones, spices, etc. The Gauls, or Franks, traded to Syria, and the Syrians were established in Gaul. See M. de Guignes, Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXXVII, pp. 471⁠–⁠475. ↩
Οὐ γάρ ποτε ῷοντο Γαλλίας ξὺν τῷ ἀσφαλεῖ κεκτῆσθαι Φράγγοι, μὴ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος τὸ ἔργον ἐπισφραγίσαντος τοῦτο γε. This strong declaration of Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. III cap. 33, in tom. II, p. 41) would almost suffice to justify the Abbé Dubos. ↩
The Franks, who probably used the mints of Treves, Lyons, and Arles, imitated the coinage of the Roman emperors of seventy-two solidi, or pieces, to the pound of gold. But as the Franks established only a decuple proportion of gold and silver, ten shillings will be a sufficient valuation of their solidus of gold. It was the common standard of the Barbaric fines, and contained forty denarii, or silver threepences. Twelve of these denarii made a solidus, or shilling, the twentieth part of the ponderal and numeral livre, or pound of silver, which has been so strangely reduced in modern France. See François Le Blanc, Traité historique des monnoyes de France, pp. 36⁠–⁠43, etc. ↩
Agathias, in tom. II, p. 47. Gregory of Tours exhibits a very different picture. Perhaps it would not be easy, within the same historical space, to find more vice and less virtue. We are continually shocked by the union of savage and corrupt manners. ↩
M. de Foncemagne has traced, in a correct and elegant dissertation (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. VIII, pp. 505⁠–⁠528), the extent and limits of the French monarchy. ↩
The Abbé Dubos (Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, pp. 29⁠–⁠36) has truly and agreeably represented the slow progress of these studies; and he observes that Gregory of Tours was only once printed before the year 1560. According to the complaint of Heineccius (Opera omnia, tom. III, Sylloge III, p. 248, etc.), Germany received with indifference and contempt the codes of Barbaric laws, which were published by Heroldus, Lindenbrogius, etc. At present those laws (as far as they relate to Gaul), the history of Gregory of Tours, and all the monuments of the Merovingian race, appear in a pure and perfect state, in the first four volumes of the Historians of France. ↩
In the space of [about —⁠M.] thirty years (1728⁠–⁠1765) this interesting subject has been agitated by the free spirit of the Comte de Boulainvilliers (Mémoires historiques sur l’état de la France, particularly tom. I, pp. 15⁠–⁠49); the learned ingenuity of the Abbé Dubos (Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie françoise dans les Gaules, three vols. in quarto); the comprehensive genius of the president de Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, particularly l. XXVIII, XXX, XXXI); and the good sense and diligence of the Abbé de Mably (Observations sur l’histoire de France, three vols. duodecimo). ↩
I have derived much instruction from two learned works of Heineccius, the History, and the Elements, of the Germanic law. In a judicious preface to the Elements, he considers, and tries to excuse the defects of that barbarous jurisprudence. ↩
Latin appears to have been the original language of the Salic law. It was probably composed in the beginning of the fifth century, before the era (AD 421) of the real or fabulous Pharamond. The preface mentions the four cantons which produced the four legislators; and many provinces, Franconia, Saxony, Hanover, Brabant, etc., have claimed them as their own. See an excellent dissertation of Heineccius, “De Lege Salicâ,” tom. III Sylloge III, pp. 247⁠–⁠267.9046 ↩
Eginhard, in Vita Karoli Magni, c. 29, in tom. V, p. 100. By these two laws, most critics understand the Salic and the Ripuarian. The former extended from the Carbonarian forest to the Loire (tom. IV, p. 151), and the latter might be obeyed from the same forest to the Rhine (tom. IV, p. 222). ↩
Consult the ancient and modern prefaces of the several codes, in the fourth volume of the Historians of France. The original prologue to the Salic law expresses (though in a foreign dialect) the genuine spirit of the Franks more forcibly than the ten books of Gregory of Tours. ↩
The most complete collection of these codes is in the Barbarorum leges antiquae by Paolo Canciani, five vols. folio, Venice, 1781⁠–⁠9. —⁠M. ↩
The Ripuarian law declares and defines this indulgence in favor of the plaintiff (tit. XXXI in tom. IV, p. 240); and the same toleration is understood, or expressed, in all the codes, except that of the Visigoths of Spain. Tanta diversitas legum (says Agobard in the ninth century) quanta non solum in regionibus, aut civitatibus, sed etiam in multis domibus habetur. Nam plerumque contingit ut simul eant aut sedeant quinque homines, et nullus eorum communem legem cum altero habeat (in tom. VI, p. 356). He foolishly proposes to introduce a uniformity of law, as well as of faith.9047 ↩
Inter Romanos negotia causarum Romanis legibus praecipimus terminari. Such are the words of a general constitution promulgated by Clotaire, the son of Clovis, the sole monarch of the Franks (in tom. IV, p. 116) about the year 560. ↩
This liberty of choice9048 has been aptly deduced (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXVIII 2) from the constitution of Lothaire I9049 (Legis Langobardorum, l. II tit. LVII in Codex Legum antiquarum ex Bibliotheca Lindenbrogius, p. 664); though the example is too recent and partial. From a various reading in the Salic law (tit. XLIV note XLV) the Abbé de Mably (tom. I, pp. 290⁠–⁠293) has conjectured that, at first a Barbarian only, and afterwards any man (consequently a Roman), might live according to the law of the Franks. I am sorry to offend this ingenious conjecture by observing that the stricter sense (Barbarum) is expressed in the reformed copy of Charlemagne, which is confirmed by the Royal and Wolfenbuttle MSS. The looser interpretation (hominem) is authorized only by the MS. of Fulda from whence Heroldus published his edition. See the four original texts of the Salic law, in tom. IV, pp. 147, 173, 196, 220. ↩
In the heroic times of Greece, the guilt of murder was expiated by a pecuniary satisfaction to the family of the deceased (Feithius, Antiquitates Homerericae, l. II c. 8). Heineccius, in his preface to the Elements of Germanic Law, favorably suggests that at Rome and Athens homicide was only punished with exile. It is true: but exile was a capital punishment for a citizen of Rome or Athens. ↩
This proportion is fixed by the Salic (tit. XLIV in tom. IV, p. 147) and the Ripuarian (tit. VII, XI, XXXVI in tom. IV, pp. 237, 241) laws; but the latter does not distinguish any difference of Romans. Yet the orders of the clergy are placed above the Franks themselves, and the Burgundians and Alemanni between the Franks and the Romans. ↩
The Antrustiones, qui in truste Dominicâ sunt, leudi, fideles, undoubtedly represent the first order of Franks; but it is a question whether their rank was personal or hereditary. The Abbé de Mably (tom. I, pp. 334⁠–⁠347) is not displeased to mortify the pride of birth (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXX c. 25) by dating the origin of the French nobility from the reign of Clotaire II (AD 615). ↩
See the Burgundian laws (tit. II in tom. IV, p. 257), the code of the Visigoths (l. VI tit. V in tom. IV, p. 384), and the constitution of Childebert, not of Paris, but most evidently of Austrasia (in tom. IV, p. 112). Their premature severity was sometimes rash, and excessive. Childebert condemned not only murderers but robbers; quomodo sine lege involavit, sine lege moriatur; and even the negligent judge was involved in the same sentence. The Visigoths abandoned an unsuccessful surgeon to the family of his deceased patient, ut quod de eo facere voluerint habeant potestatem (l. XI tit. I in tom. IV, p. 435). ↩
See, in the sixth volume of the works of Heineccius, the Elementa juris Germanici, l. II, p. 2, No. 261, 262, 280⁠–⁠283. Yet some vestiges of these pecuniary compositions for murder have been traced in Germany as late as the sixteenth century. ↩
The whole subject of the Germanic judges and their jurisdiction is copiously treated by Heineccius (Elementa juris Germanici, l. III. No. 1⁠–⁠72). I cannot find any proof that, under the Merovingian race, the scabini, or assessors, were chosen by the people.9050 ↩
Gregorii Turonici, l. VIII c. 9, in tom. II, p. 316. Montesquieu observes (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXVIII c. 13), that the Salic law did not admit these negative proofs so universally established in the Barbaric codes. Yet this obscure concubine (Fredegundis) who became the wife of the grandson of Clovis must have followed the Salic law. ↩
Muratori, in the Antiquities of Italy, has given two dissertations (XXXVII, XXXIX) on the judgments of God. It was expected that fire would not burn the innocent; and that the pure element of water would not allow the guilty to sink into its bosom. ↩
Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXVIII c. 17) has condescended to explain and excuse “la manière de penser de nos pères,” on the subject of judicial combats. He follows this strange institution from the age of Gundobald to that of St. Lewis; and the philosopher is sometimes lost in the legal antiquarian. ↩
In a memorable duel at Aix-la-Chapelle (AD 820), before the emperor Lewis the Pious, his biographer observes, secundum legem propriam, utpote quia uterque Gothus erat, equestri pugnâ congressus est (Vita Ludovici Pii, c. 33, in tom. VI, p. 103). Ermoldus Nigellus (l. III 543⁠–⁠628, in tom. VI, pp. 48⁠–⁠50), who describes the duel, admires the ars nova of fighting on horseback, which was unknown to the Franks. ↩
In his original edict, published at Lyons (AD 501), Gundobald establishes and justifies the use of judicial combat (Leges Burgundionum, tit. XLV in tom. II, pp. 267, 268). Three hundred years afterwards, Agobard, bishop of Lyons, solicited Lewis the Pious to abolish the law of an Arian tyrant (in tom. VI, pp. 356⁠–⁠358). He relates the conversation of Gundobald and Avitus. ↩
“Accidit,” (says Agobard), “ut non solum valentes viribus, sed etiam infirmi et senes lacessantur ad pugnam, etiam pro vilissimis rebus. Quibus foralibus certaminibus contingunt homicidia injusta; et crudeles ac perversi eventus judiciorum.” Like a prudent rhetorician, he suppresses the legal privilege of hiring champions. ↩
Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix XXVIII c. 14), who understands why the judicial combat was admitted by the Burgundians, Ripuarians, Alemanni, Bavarians, Lombards, Thuringians, Frisons, and Saxons, is satisfied (and Agobard seems to countenance the assertion) that it was not allowed by the Salic law. Yet the same custom, at least in case of treason, is mentioned by Ermoldus Nigellus (l. III 543, in tom. VI, p. 48), and the anonymous biographer of Lewis the Pious (c. 46, in tom. VI, p. 112), as the “mos antiquus Francorum, more Francis solito,” etc., expressions too general to exclude the noblest of their tribes. ↩
Caesar, De bello Gallico, l. I c. 31, in tom. I, p. 213. ↩
The obscure hints of a division of lands occasionally scattered in the laws of the Burgundians (tit. LIV No. 1, 2, in tom. IV, pp. 271, 272) and Visigoths (l. X tit. I. No. 8, 9, 16, in tom. IV, pp. 428⁠–⁠430), are skilfully explained by the president Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXX c. 7⁠–⁠9). I shall only add that, among the Goths, the division seems to have been ascertained by the judgment of the neighborhood; that the Barbarians frequently usurped the remaining third; and that the Romans might recover their right unless they were barred by a prescription of fifty years. ↩
Sismondi (Histoire des Français, vol. I, p. 197) observes that the Franks were not a conquering people, who had emigrated with their families, like the Goths or Burgundians. The women, the children, the old, had not followed Clovis: they remained in their ancient possessions on the Waal and the Rhine. The adventurers alone had formed the invading force, and they always considered themselves as an army, not as a colony. Hence their laws retained no traces of the partition of the Roman properties. It is curious to observe the recoil from the national vanity of the French historians of the last century. M. Sismondi compares the position of the Franks with regard to the conquered people with that of the Dey of Algiers and his corsair troops to the peaceful inhabitants of that province; M. Thierry (Lettres sur l’Histoire de France, p. 117) with that of the Turks towards the Raias or Phanariotes, the mass of the Greeks. —⁠M. ↩
It is singular enough that the president de Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXX c. 7) and the Abbé de Mably (Observations sur l’histoire de France, tom. I, pp. 21, 22) agree in this strange supposition of arbitrary and private rapine. The Count de Boulainvilliers (État de la France, tom. I, pp. 22, 23) shows a strong understanding through a cloud of ignorance and prejudice.9051 ↩
See the rustic edict, or rather code, of Charlemagne, which contains seventy distinct and minute regulations of that great monarch (in tom. V, pp. 652⁠–⁠657). He requires an account of the horns and skins of the goats, allows his fish to be sold, and carefully directs that the larger villas (Capitaneoe) shall maintain one hundred hens and thirty geese; and the smaller (Mansionales) fifty hens and twelve geese. Mabillon (De re diplomaticâ) has investigated the names, the number, and the situation of the Merovingian villas. ↩
The resumption of benefices at the pleasure of the sovereign (the general theory down to his time) is ably contested by Mr. Hallam: “for this resumption some delinquency must be imputed to the vassal.” Europe During the Middle Ages, vol. I, p. 162. The reader will be interested by the singular analogies with the beneficial and feudal system of Europe in a remote part of the world, indicated by Col. James Tod in his splendid work on Rajast’han, vol. I c. I, p. 129, etc. —⁠M. ↩
From a passage of the Burgundian law (tit. I No. 4, in tom. IV, p. 257) it is evident that a deserving son might expect to hold the lands which his father had received from the royal bounty of Gundobald. The Burgundians would firmly maintain their privilege, and their example might encourage the beneficiaries of France. ↩
The revolutions of the benefices and fiefs are clearly fixed by the Abbé de Mably. His accurate distinction of times gives him a merit to which even Montesquieu is a stranger. ↩
See the Salic law (tit. LXII in tom. IV, p. 156). The origin and nature of these Salic lands, which in times of ignorance were perfectly understood, now perplex our most learned and sagacious critics.9052 ↩
Many of the 206 miracles of St. Martin (Greg Turonici in Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum, tom. XI, pp. 896⁠–⁠932) were repeatedly performed to punish sacrilege. Audite haec omnes (exclaims the bishop of Tours) protestatem habentes, after relating how some horses ran mad that had been turned into a sacred meadow. ↩
Heineccius, Elementa juris Germanici, l. II, p. 1, No. 8. ↩
Jonas, bishop of Orleans (AD 821⁠–⁠826. Cave, Historia literaria, p. 443), censures the legal tyranny of the nobles. Pro feris, quas cura hominum non aluit, sed Deus in commune mortalibus ad utendum concessit, pauperes a potentioribus spoliantur, flagellantur, ergastulis detruduntur, et multa alia patiuntur. Hoc enim qui faciunt, lege mundi se facere juste posse contendant. De institutione laicorum, l. II c. 23, apud Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. III, p. 1348. ↩
On a mere suspicion, Chundo, a chamberlain of Gontram, king of Burgundy, was stoned to death (Gregorii Turonici, l. X c. 10, in tom. II, p. 369). John of Salisbury (Policraticus, l. I c. 4) asserts the rights of nature, and exposes the cruel practice of the twelfth century. See Heineccius, Elementa juris Germanici, l. II, p. 1, No. 51⁠–⁠57. ↩
The custom of enslaving prisoners of war was totally extinguished in the thirteenth century by the prevailing influence of Christianity; but it might be proved, from frequent passages of Gregory of Tours, etc., that it was practiced without censure under the Merovingian race; and even Grotius himself (De jure belli et pacis, l. III c. 7), as well as his commentator Barbeyrac, have labored to reconcile it with the laws of nature and reason. ↩
The state, professions, etc., of the German, Italian, and Gallic slaves, during the Middle Ages, are explained by Heineccius (Elementa juris Germanici, l. I No. 28⁠–⁠47), Muratori (Dissertazion XIV, XV), Du Cange (Glossarium Latinitatis, sub voce “Servi”), and the Abbé de Mably (Observations sur l’histoire de France, tom. II, p. 3, etc., p. 237, etc.).9053 ↩
Gregory of Tours (l. VI c. 45, in tom. II, p. 289) relates a memorable example, in which Chilperic only abused the private rights of a master. Many families, which belonged to his domus fiscales in the neighborhood of Paris, were forcibly sent away into Spain. ↩
Licentiam habeatis mihi qualemcunque volueritis disciplinam ponere; vel venumdare, aut quod vobis placuerit de me facere. Marculfus formulae, l. II 28, in tom. IV, p. 497. The Formula of Lindenbrogius (p. 559), and that of Anjou (p. 565), are to the same effect. Gregory of Tours (l. VII c. 45, in tom. II, p. 311) speaks of many persons who sold themselves for bread in a great famine. ↩
When Caesar saw it, he laughed (Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Julius Caesar,” in tom. I, p. 409); yet he relates his unsuccessful siege of Gergovia with less frankness than we might expect from a great man to whom victory was familiar. He acknowledges, however, that in one attack he lost forty-six centurions and seven hundred men (De bello Gallico, l. VI c. 44⁠–⁠53, in tom. I, pp. 270⁠–⁠272). ↩
Audebant se quondam fatres Latio dicere, et sanguine ab Iliaco populos computare (Sidonius Apollinaris, l. VII, “Epistola 7,” in tom. I, p. 799). I am not informed of the degrees and circumstances of this fabulous pedigree. ↩
Either the first or second partition among the sons of Clovis had given Berry to Childebert (Gregorii Turonici, l. III c. 12, in tom. II, p. 192). Velim (said he) Arvernam Lemanem, quae tantâ jocunditatis gratiâ refulgere dicitur, oculis cernere (l. III c. 9, p. 191). The face of the country was concealed by a thick fog when the king of Paris made his entry into Clermont. ↩
For the description of Auvergne, see Sidonius (l. IV, “Epistola 21,” in tom. I, p. 793), with the notes of Savaron and Sirmond (p. 279 and 51 of their respective editions), Boulainvilliers (État de la France, tom. II, pp. 242⁠–⁠268), and the Abbé de la Longuerue (Description de la France, part I, pp. 132⁠–⁠139). ↩
Furorem gentium, quae de ulteriore Rheni amnis parte venerant, superare non poterat (Gregorii Turonici, l. IV c. 50, in tom. II, p. 229), was the excuse of another king of Austrasia (AD 574) for the ravages which his troops committed in the neighborhood of Paris. ↩
From the name and situation, the Benedictine editors of Gregory of Tours (in tom. II, p. 192) have fixed this fortress at a place named Castel Merliac, two miles from Mauriac, in the Upper Auvergne. In this description, I translate infra as if I read intra; the two prepositions are perpetually confounded by Gregory or his transcribers, and the sense must always decide. ↩
See these revolutions and wars of Auvergne in Gregory of Tours (l. II c. 37, in tom. II, p. 183, and l. III c. 9, 12, 13, pp. 191, 192, De miraculis S. Juliani, c. 13, in tom. II, p. 466). He frequently betrays his extraordinary attention to his native country. ↩
The story of Attalus is related by Gregory of Tours (l. III c. 16, in tom. II, pp. 193⁠–⁠195). His editor, the Père Ruinart, confounds this Attalus, who was a youth (puer) in the year 532, with a friend of Sidonius of the same name, who was count of Autun, fifty or sixty years before. Such an error, which cannot be imputed to ignorance, is excused, in some degree, by its own magnitude. ↩
This Gregory, the great grandfather of Gregory of Tours (in tom. II, pp. 197, 490), lived ninety-two years; of which he passed forty as count of Autun, and thirty-two as bishop of Langres. According to the poet Fortunatus, he displayed equal merit in these different stations.

Nobilis antiqua decurrens prole parentum,
Nobilior gestis, nunc super astra manet.
Arbiter ante ferox, dein pius ipse sacerdos,
Quos domuit judex, fovit amore patris.

↩
As M. de Valois and the Père Ruinart are determined to change the Mosella of the text into Mosa, it becomes me to acquiesce in the alteration. Yet, after some examination of the topography. I could defend the common reading. ↩
The parents of Gregory (Gregorius Florentius Georgius) were of noble extraction (natalibus⁠ ⁠… illustres), and they possessed large estates (latifundia) both in Auvergne and Burgundy. He was born in the year 539, was consecrated bishop of Tours in 573, and died in 593 or 595, soon after he had terminated his history. See his Life by Odo, abbot of Clugny (in tom. II, pp. 129⁠–⁠135), and a new Life in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVI, pp. 598⁠–⁠637. ↩
Decedente atque immo potius pereunte ab urbibus Gallicanis liberalium culturâ literarum, etc. (in praefatio in tom. II, p. 137), is the complaint of Gregory himself, which he fully verifies by his own work. His style is equally devoid of elegance and simplicity. In a conspicuous station, he still remained a stranger to his own age and country; and in a prolific work (the five last books contain ten years) he has omitted almost everything that posterity desires to learn. I have tediously acquired, by a painful perusal, the right of pronouncing this unfavorable sentence. ↩
The Abbé de Mably (tom. I, p. 247⁠–⁠267) has diligently confirmed this opinion of the President de Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXX c. 13). ↩
See Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. II l. VI c. 9, 10. The French antiquarians establish as a principle that the Romans and Barbarians may be distinguished by their names. Their names undoubtedly form a reasonable presumption; yet in reading Gregory of Tours, I have observed Gondulphus, of Senatorian, or Roman extraction (l. VI c. 11, in tom. II, p. 273), and Claudius, a Barbarian (l. VII c. 29, p. 303). ↩
Eunius Mummolus is repeatedly mentioned by Gregory of Tours, from the fourth (c. 42, p. 224) to the seventh (c. 40, p. 310) book. The computation by talents is singular enough; but if Gregory attached any meaning to that obsolete word, the treasures of Mummolus must have exceeded £100,000 sterling. ↩
See Fleury, Discours sur l’histoire ecclésiastique III. ↩
The bishop of Tours himself has recorded the complaint of Chilperic, the grandson of Clovis. Ecce pauper remansit Fiscus noster; ecce divitiae nostrae ad ecclesias sunt translatae; nulli penitus nisi soli Episcopi regnant (l. VI c. 46, in tom. II, p. 291). ↩
See the Ripuarian Code (tit. XXXVI in tom. IV, p. 241). The Salic law does not provide for the safety of the clergy; and we might suppose, on the behalf of the more civilized tribe, that they had not foreseen such an impious act as the murder of a priest. Yet Praetextatus, archbishop of Rouen, was assassinated by the order of Queen Fredegundis, before the altar (Gregorii Turonici, l. VIII c. 31, in tom. II, p. 326). ↩
M. Bonamy (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXIV, pp. 582⁠–⁠670) has ascertained the Lingua Romana Rustica, which, through the medium of the Romance, has gradually been polished into the actual form of the French language. Under the Carlovingian race, the kings and nobles of France still understood the dialect of their German ancestors. ↩
Ce beau système a été trouvé dans les bois. Montesquieu, De l’esprit des loix, l. XI c. 6. ↩
See the Abbé de Mably, Observations sur l’histoire de France, tom. I, pp. 34⁠–⁠56. It should seem that the institution of national assemblies, which are coeval with the French nation, has never been congenial to its temper. ↩
Gregory of Tours (l. VIII c. 30, in tom. II, pp. 325, 326) relates, with much indifference, the crimes, the reproof, and the apology. Nullus Regem metuit, nullus Ducem, nullus Comitem reveretur; et si fortassis alicui ista displicent, et ea, pro longaevitate vitae vestrae, emendare conatur, statim seditio in populo, statim tumultus exoritur, et in tantum unusquisque contra seniorem saevâ intentione grassatur, ut vix se credat evadere, si tandem silere nequiverit. ↩
This remarkable passage was published in 1779. —⁠M. ↩
Spain, in these Dark Ages, has been peculiarly unfortunate. The Franks had a Gregory of Tours; the Saxons, or Angles, a Bede; the Lombards, a Paul Warnefrid, etc. But the history of the Visigoths is contained in the short and imperfect Chronicles of Isidore of Seville and John of Biclar. ↩
Such are the complaints of St. Boniface, the apostle of Germany, and the reformer of Gaul (in tom. IV, p. 94). The fourscore years, which he deplores, of license and corruption would seem to insinuate that the Barbarians were admitted into the clergy about the year 660. ↩
The acts of the councils of Toledo are still the most authentic records of the church and constitution of Spain. The following passages are particularly important (III 17, 18; IV 75; V 2⁠–⁠5, 8; VI 11⁠–⁠14, 17, 18; VII 1; XIII 2, 3, 6). I have found Mascou (History of the Ancient Germans XV 29, and Annotations XXVI and XXXIII) and Ferreras (Histoire générale d’Espagne, tom. II) very useful and accurate guides. ↩
The Code of the Visigoths, regularly divided into twelve books, has been correctly published by Dom Bouquet (in tom. IV, pp. 273⁠–⁠460). It has been treated by the President de Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXVIII c. 1) with excessive severity. I dislike the style; I detest the superstition; but I shall presume to think that the civil jurisprudence displays a more civilized and enlightened state of society than that of the Burgundians or even of the Lombards. ↩
See St. Gildas, De excidio et conquestu Britanniae, c. 11⁠–⁠25, pp. 4⁠–⁠9, edit. Gale; Nennius, Historia Brittonum, c. 28, 35⁠–⁠65, pp. 105⁠–⁠115, edit. Gale; Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum I c. 12⁠–⁠16, pp. 49⁠–⁠53, c. 22, p. 58, edit. Smith; Chronicon Saxonicum, pp. 11⁠–⁠23, etc., edit. Gibson. The Anglo-Saxon laws were published by Wilkins, London, 1731, in folio; and the Leges Wallicae, by Wotton and Clarke, London, 1730, in folio. ↩
The laborious Mr. Carte and the ingenious Mr. Whitaker are the two modern writers to whom I am principally indebted. The particular historian of Manchester embraces, under that obscure title, a subject almost as extensive as the general history of England.9054 ↩
This invitation, which may derive some countenance from the loose expressions of Gildas and Bede, is framed into a regular story by Widukind of Corvey, a Saxon monk of the tenth century (see Louis Cousin, Histoire de l’empire d’Occident, tom. II, p. 356). Rapin, and even Hume, have too freely used this suspicious evidence, without regarding the precise and probable testimony of Nennius: Iterea venerunt tres Chiulae a Germaniâ in exilio pulsae, in quibus erant Hors et Hengist. ↩
Nennius imputes to the Saxons the murder of three hundred British chiefs; a crime not unsuitable to their savage manners. But we are not obliged to believe (see Jeffrey of Monmouth, l. VIII c. 9⁠–⁠12) that Stonehenge is their monument, which the giants had formerly transported from Africa to Ireland, and which was removed to Britain by the order of Ambrosius and the art of Merlin.9055 ↩
All these tribes are expressly enumerated by Bede (l. I c. 15, p. 52, l. V c. 9, p. 190), and though I have considered Mr. Whitaker’s remarks (History of Manchester, vol. II, pp. 538⁠–⁠543), I do not perceive the absurdity of supposing that the Frisians, etc. were mingled with the Anglo-Saxons. ↩
This term (the Heptarchy) must be rejected because an idea is conveyed thereby which is substantially wrong. At no one period were there ever seven kingdoms independent of each other. Palgrave, vol. I, p. 46. Mr. Sharon Turner has the merit of having first confuted the popular notion on this subject. The History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. I, p. 302. —⁠M. ↩
Bede has enumerated seven kings⁠—two Saxons, a Jute, and four Angles⁠—who successively acquired in the heptarchy an indefinite supremacy of power and renown. But their reign was the effect, not of law, but of conquest; and he observes, in similar terms, that one of them subdued the isles of Man and Anglesey; and that another imposed a tribute on the Scots and Picts (Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, l. II c. 5, p. 83). ↩
See Gildas, De excidio et conquestu Britanniae, c. I, p. 1, edit. Gale. ↩
Mr. Whitaker (History of Manchester, vol. II, pp. 503, 516) has smartly exposed this glaring absurdity, which had passed unnoticed by the general historians, as they were hastening to more interesting and important events. ↩
At Beran-birig, or Barbury-castle, near Marlborough. The Saxon chronicle assigns the name and date. Camden (Britannia, vol. I, p. 128) ascertains the place; and Henry of Huntingdon (Rerum anglicarum scriptores post Bedam praecipui, p. 314) relates the circumstances of this battle. They are probable and characteristic; and the historians of the twelfth century might consult some materials that no longer exist. ↩
Cornwall was finally subdued by Athelstan (AD 927⁠–⁠941), who planted an English colony at Exeter, and confined the Britons beyond the River Tamar. See William of Malmesbury, l. II, in the Rerum anglicarum scriptores post Bedam praecipui, p. 50. The spirit of the Cornish knights was degraded by servitude; and it should seem, from the romance of “Sir Tristrem,” that their cowardice was almost proverbial. ↩
The establishment of the Britons in Gaul is proved in the sixth century by Procopius, Gregory of Tours, the second council of Tours (AD 567), and the least suspicious of their chronicles and lives of saints. The subscription of a bishop of the Britons to the first council of Tours (AD 461, or rather 481), the army of Riothamus, and the loose declamation of Gildas (alii transmarinas petebant regiones, c. 25, p. 8) may countenance an emigration as early as the middle of the fifth century. Beyond that era, the Britons of Armorica can be found only in romance; and I am surprised that Mr. Whitaker (Genuine History of the Britons, pp. 214⁠–⁠221) should so faithfully transcribe the gross ignorance of Carte, whose venial errors he has so rigorously chastised. ↩
The antiquities of Bretagne, which have been the subject even of political controversy, are illustrated by Hadrian Valesius (Notitia Galliarum, sub voce “Britannia Cismarina,” pp. 98⁠–⁠100), M. d’Anville (Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, Corisopiti, Curiosolites, Osismii, Vorganium, pp. 248, 258, 508, 720, and États Formés en Europe, pp. 76⁠–⁠80), Longuerue (Description de la France, tom. I, pp. 84⁠–⁠94), and the Abbé de Vertot (Histoire critique de l’établissement des Bretons dans les Gaules, two vols. in duodecimo, Paris, 1720). I may assume the merit of examining the original evidence which they have produced.9056 ↩
Bede, who in his chronicle (p. 28) places Ambrosius under the reign of Zeno (AD 474⁠–⁠491), observes that his parents had been “purpurâ induti!” which he explains, in his ecclesiastical history, by “regium nomen et insigne ferentibus” (l. I c. 16, p. 53). The expression of Nennius (c. 44, p. 110, edit. Gale) is still more singular, “Unus de consulibus gentis Romanicae est pater meus.” ↩
By the unanimous, though doubtful, conjecture of our antiquarians, Ambrosius is confounded with Natanleod, who (AD 508) lost his own life and five thousand of his subjects in a battle against Cerdic, the West Saxon (Chronicon Saxonicum, pp. 17, 18). ↩
As I am a stranger to the Welsh bards Myrdhin, Llomarch,9057 and Taliessin, my faith in the existence and exploits of Arthur principally rests on the simple and circumstantial testimony of Nennius (Historia Brittonum, c. 62, 63, p. 114). Mr. Whitaker (History of Manchester, vol. II, pp. 31⁠–⁠71) had framed an interesting, and even probable, narrative of the wars of Arthur; though it is impossible to allow the reality of the round table. ↩
The progress of romance and the state of learning in the Middle Ages are illustrated by Mr. Thomas Warton, with the taste of a poet and the minute diligence of an antiquarian. I have derived much instruction from the two learned dissertations prefixed to the first volume of his History of English Poetry.9058 ↩
Hoc anno (490) Aella et Cissa obsederunt Andredes-Ceaster; et interfecerunt omnes qui id incoluerunt; adeo ut ne unus Brito ibi superstes fuerit (Chronicon Saxonicum, p. 15), an expression more dreadful in its simplicity than all the vague and tedious lamentations of the British Jeremiah. ↩
Andredes-Ceaster, or Anderida, is placed by Camden (Britannia, vol. I, p. 258) at Newenden, in the marshy grounds of Kent, which might be formerly covered by the sea, and on the edge of the great forest (Anderida) which overspread so large a portion of Hampshire and Sussex. ↩
Dr. Johnson affirms that few English words are of British extraction. Mr. Whitaker, who understands the British language, has discovered more than three thousand, and actually produces a long and various catalogue (vol. II, pp. 235⁠–⁠329). It is possible, indeed, that many of these words may have been imported from the Latin or Saxon into the native idiom of Britain.9059 ↩
In the beginning of the seventh century, the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons mutually understood each other’s language, which was derived from the same Teutonic root (Bede, l. I c. 25, p. 60). ↩
After the first generation of Italian, or Scottish, missionaries, the dignities of the church were filled with Saxon proselytes. ↩
Carte’s History of England, vol. I, p. 195. He quotes the British historians; but I much fear that Jeffrey of Monmouth (l. VI c. 15) is his only witness. ↩
Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, l. I c. 15, p. 52. The fact is probable and well attested; yet such was the loose intermixture of the German tribes that we find, in a subsequent period, the law of the Angli and Warini of Germany (Lindenbrogius Codex, pp. 479⁠–⁠486). ↩
See Dr. Robert Henry’s useful and laborious History of Great Britain, vol. II, p. 388. ↩
Quicquid (says John of Tinemouth) inter Tynam et Tesam fluvios extitit, sola eremi vastitudo tunc temporis fuit, et idcirco nullius ditioni servivit, eo quod sola indomitorum et sylvestrium animalium spelunca et habitatio fuit (apud Carte, vol. I, p. 195). From Bishop Nicholson (English Historical Library, pp. 65, 98) I understand that fair copies of John of Tinemouth’s ample collections are preserved in the libraries of Oxford, Lambeth, etc. ↩
See the mission of Wilfrid, etc., in Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, l. IV c. 13, 16, pp. 155, 156, 159. ↩
From the concurrent testimony of Bede (l. II c. 1, p. 78) and William of Malmesbury (l. III, p. 102), it appears that the Anglo-Saxons, from the first to the last age, persisted in this unnatural practice. Their youths were publicly sold in the market of Rome. ↩
According to the laws of Ina, they could not be lawfully sold beyond the seas. ↩
The life of a Wallus, or Cambricus, homo, who possessed a hyde of land, is fixed at 120 shillings, by the same laws (of Ina, tit. XXXII in Leges Anglo-Saxonicae, p. 20) which allowed 200 shillings for a free Saxon, 1,200 for a Thane (see likewise Leges Anglo-Saxonicae, p. 71). We may observe that these legislators, the West Saxons and Mercians, continued their British conquests after they became Christians. The laws of the four kings of Kent do not condescend to notice the existence of any subject Britons. ↩
See Carte’s History of England, vol. I, p. 278. ↩
At the conclusion of his history (AD 731), Bede describes the ecclesiastical state of the island, and censures the implacable, though impotent, hatred of the Britons against the English nation and the Catholic church (l. V c. 23, p. 219). ↩
Mr. Pennant’s A Tour in Wales (pp. 426⁠–⁠449) has furnished me with a curious and interesting account of the Welsh bards. In the year 1568, a session was held at Caerwys by the special command of Queen Elizabeth, and regular degrees in vocal and instrumental music were conferred on fifty-five minstrels. The prize (a silver harp) was adjudged by the Mostyn family. ↩
Regio longe lateque diffusa, milite, magis quam credibile sit, referta. Partibus equidem in illis miles unus quinquaginta generat, sortitus more barbaro denas aut amplius uxores. This reproach of William of Poitiers (in the Historians of France, tom. XI, p. 88) is disclaimed by the Benedictine editors. ↩
Giraldus Cambrensis confines this gift of bold and ready eloquence to the Romans, the French, and the Britons. The malicious Welshman insinuates that the English taciturnity might possibly be the effect of their servitude under the Normans. ↩
The picture of Welsh and Armorican manners is drawn from Giraldus (Descriptio Cambriae, c. 6⁠–⁠15, inter Scriptores Camdeni, pp. 886⁠–⁠891), and the authors quoted by the Abbé de Vertot (Histoire critique, tom. II, pp. 259⁠–⁠266). ↩
See Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 20, pp. 620⁠–⁠625. The Greek historian is himself so confounded by the wonders which he relates that he weakly attempts to distinguish the islands of Britia and Britain, which he has identified by so many inseparable circumstances. ↩
Theodebert, grandson of Clovis, and king of Austrasia, was the most powerful and warlike prince of the age; and this remarkable adventure may be placed between the years 534 and 547, the extreme terms of his reign. His sister Theudechildis retired to Sens, where she founded monasteries and distributed alms (see the notes of the Benedictine editors, in tom. II, p. 216). If we may credit the praises of Fortunatus (l. VI, “Carmen 5,” in tom. II, p. 507), Radiger was deprived of a most valuable wife. ↩
Perhaps she was the sister of one of the princes or chiefs of the Angles, who landed in 527 and the following years between the Humber and the Thames, and gradually founded the kingdoms of East Anglia and Mercia. The English writers are ignorant of her name and existence; but Procopius may have suggested to Mr. Rowe the character and situation of Rodogune in the tragedy of the Royal Convert. ↩
In the copious history of Gregory of Tours, we cannot find any traces of hostile or friendly intercourse between France and England, except in the marriage of the daughter of Caribert, king of Paris, quam regis cujusdam in Cantiâ filius matrimonio copulavit (l. IX c. 26, in tom. II, p. 348). The bishop of Tours ended his history and his life almost immediately before the conversion of Kent. ↩
Such are the figurative expressions of Plutarch (Opera, tom. II, p. 318, edit. Wechel), to whom, on the faith of his son Lamprias (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. III, p. 341), I shall boldly impute the malicious declamation, περὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων τύχης. The same opinions had prevailed among the Greeks two hundred and fifty years before Plutarch; and to confute them is the professed intention of Polybius (Historiae, l. I, p. 90, edit. Jacobus Gronovius, Amstelaedami, 1670). ↩
See the inestimable remains of the sixth book of Polybius, and many other parts of his general history, particularly a digression in the seventeenth book, in which he compares the phalanx and the legion. ↩
Sallust, De bello Catilinario et Jugurthino, c. 4. Such were the generous professions of P. Scipio and Q. Maximus. The Latin historian had read, and most probably transcribes, Polybius, their contemporary and friend. ↩
While Carthage was in flames, Scipio repeated two lines of the Iliad, which express the destruction of Troy, acknowledging to Polybius, his friend and preceptor (Polybius in Excerpt. De virtutibus et vitiis, tom. II, pp. 1455⁠–⁠1465), that while he recollected the vicissitudes of human affairs, he inwardly applied them to the future calamities of Rome (Appian in Libycis, p. 136, edit. Tollius). ↩
See Daniel 2:31⁠–⁠40. “And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things.” The remainder of the prophecy (the mixture of iron and clay) was accomplished, according to St. Jerome, in his own time. Sicut enim in principio nihil Romano Imperio fortius et durius, ita in fine rerum nihil imbecillius; quum et in bellis civilibus et adversus diversas nationes, aliarum gentium barbararum auxilio indigemus (Opera, tom. V, p. 572). ↩
It might be a curious speculation, how far the purer morals of the genuine and more active Christians may have compensated, in the population of the Roman empire, for the secession of such numbers into inactive and unproductive celibacy. —⁠M. ↩
The French and English editors of the Genealogical History of the Tartars have subjoined a curious, though imperfect, description of their present state. We might question the independence of the Calmucks, or Eluths, since they have been recently vanquished by the Chinese, who, in the year 1759, subdued the lesser Bucharia, and advanced into the country of Badakshan, near the source of the Oxus (Mémoires sur les Chinois, tom. I, pp. 325⁠–⁠400). But these conquests are precarious, nor will I venture to insure the safety of the Chinese empire. ↩
The prudent reader will determine how far this general proposition is weakened by the revolt of the Isaurians, the independence of Britain and Armorica, the Moorish tribes, or the Bagaudae of Gaul and Spain (here in chapter X, here in chapter XXXI, here in chapter XXXIII, here in chapter XXXV). ↩
America now contains about six millions of European blood and descent; and their numbers, at least in the North, are continually increasing. Whatever may be the changes of their political situation, they must preserve the manners of Europe; and we may reflect with some pleasure that the English language will probably be diffused over an immense and populous continent. ↩
On avoit fait venir (for the siege of Turin) 140 pieces de canon; et il est à remarquer que chaque gros canon monté revient à environ 2,000 écus: il y avoit 100,000 boulets; 106,000 cartouches d’une façon, et 300,000 d’une autre; 21,000 bombes; 27,700 grenades, 15,000 sacs à terre, 30,000 instruments pour la pionnage; 1,200,000 livres de poudre. Ajoutez à ces munitions, le plomb, le fer, et le fer-blanc, les cordages, tout ce qui sert aux mineurs, le souphre, le salpêtre, les outils de toute espèce. Il est certain que les frais de tous ces préparatifs de destruction suffiroient pour fonder et pour faire fleurir la plus nombreuse colonie. Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XIV, c. XX in his Works, tom. XI, p. 391. ↩
It would be an easy though tedious task to produce the authorities of poets, philosophers, and historians. I shall therefore content myself with appealing to the decisive and authentic testimony of Diodorus Siculus (tom. I l. I, pp. 11, 12, l. III, p. 184, etc., edit. Wesseling). The Icthyophagi, who in his time wandered along the shores of the Red Sea, can only be compared to the natives of New Holland (Dampier’s Voyages, vol. I, pp. 464⁠–⁠469). Fancy or perhaps reason may still suppose an extreme and absolute state of nature far below the level of these savages, who had acquired some arts and instruments. ↩
See the learned and rational work of the president Goguet, De l’origine des loix, des arts et des sciences. He traces from facts or conjectures (tom. I, pp. 147⁠–⁠337, edit. duodecimo), the first and most difficult steps of human invention. ↩
It is certain, however strange, that many nations have been ignorant of the use of fire. Even the ingenious natives of Otaheite, who are destitute of metals, have not invented any earthen vessels capable of sustaining the action of fire and of communicating the heat to the liquids which they contain. ↩
Plutarch, “Quaestiones Romanae” in tom. II, p. 275. Macrobius, Saturnalia, l. I c. 8, p. 152, edit. London. The arrival of Saturn (of his religious worship) in a ship may indicate that the savage coast of Latium was first discovered and civilized by the Phoenicians. ↩
In the ninth and tenth books of the Odyssey, Homer has embellished the tales of fearful and credulous sailors who transformed the cannibals of Italy and Sicily into monstrous giants. ↩
The merit of discovery has too often been stained with avarice, cruelty, and fanaticism; and the intercourse of nations has produced the communication of disease and prejudice. A singular exception is due to the virtue of our own times and country. The five great voyages successively undertaken by the command of his present Majesty were inspired by the pure and generous love of science and of mankind. The same prince, adapting his benefactions to the different stages of society, has founded his school of painting in his capital, and has introduced into the islands of the South Sea the vegetables and animals most useful to human life. ↩
Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 13, 14, pp. 629, 630, edit. Grotius) has drawn the pedigree of Theodoric from Gapt, one of the Anses or Demigods who lived about the time of Domitian. Cassiodorus, the first who celebrates the royal race of the Amali (Variarum VIII 5, IX 25, X 2, XI 1), reckons the grandson of Theodoric as the seventeenth in descent. Peringskiöld (the Swedish commentator of Cochlaeus, Vita Theodorici, p. 271, etc., Stockholm, 1699) labors to connect this genealogy with the legends or traditions of his native country.9060 ↩
More correctly, on the banks of the Lake Pelso (Nieusiedler-see), near Carnuntum, almost on the same spot where Marcus Antoninus composed his meditations (Jornandes, c. 52, p. 659; Severini, Pannonia veterum monumentis illustrata, p. 22; Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. I, p. 350). ↩
The date of Theodoric’s birth is not accurately determined. We can hardly err, observes Manso, in placing it between the years 453 and 456. Manso, Geschichte des ost-gothischen Reiches, p. 14. —⁠M. ↩
The four first letters of his name (ΦΕΟΔ) were inscribed on a gold plate, and, when it was fixed on the paper, the king drew his pen through the intervals (Anonymus Valesianus ad calcem Ammianus Marcellinus, p. 722). This authentic fact, with the testimony of Procopius, or at least of the contemporary Goths (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 2, p. 311), far outweighs the vague praises of Ennodius (Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. I, p. 1596) and Theophanes (Chronographia, p. 112).9061 ↩
Statura est quae resignet proceritate regnantem (Ennodius, p. 1614). The bishop of Pavia (I mean the ecclesiastic who wished to be a bishop) then proceeds to celebrate the complexion, eyes, hands, etc., of his sovereign. ↩
The state of the Ostrogoths and the first years of Theodoric are found in Jornandes (c. 52⁠–⁠56, pp. 689⁠–⁠696) and Malchus (Excerpta legationum, pp. 78⁠–⁠80), who erroneously styles him the son of Walamir. ↩
Theophanes (p. 111) inserts a copy of her sacred letters to the provinces: ἴστε ὄτι βασίλειον ἡμἐτερόν ἐστι⁠ ⁠… καὶ ὄτι προεχειρησάμεθα βασιλέα Τρασκαλλισαῖον, etc. Such female pretensions would have astonished the slaves of the first Caesars. ↩
Here and following in chapter XXXVI. ↩
Suidas, tom. I, pp. 332, 333, edit. Kuster. ↩
Joannes Lydus accuses Zeno of timidity, or, rather, of cowardice; he purchased an ignominious peace from the enemies of the empire, whom he dared not meet in battle; and employed his whole time at home in confiscations and executions. Lydus, De magistratibus III 45, p. 230. —⁠M. ↩
Named Illus. —⁠M. ↩
The contemporary histories of Malchus and Candidus are lost; but some extracts or fragments have been saved by Photius (LXXVIII⁠–⁠LXXIX, pp. 100⁠–⁠102), Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Excerpta legationum, pp. 78⁠–⁠97), and in various articles of the Lexicon of Suidas. The Chronicle of Marcellinus (Imago Historiae) are originals for the reigns of Zeno and Anastasius; and I must acknowledge, almost for the last time, my obligations to the large and accurate collections of Tillemont (Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, pp. 472⁠–⁠652). ↩
The Panegyric of Procopius of Gaza (edited by Jean-Baptiste-Gaspard d’Ansse de Villoison in his Anecdota Graeca, and reprinted in the new edition of the Byzantine historians by Niebuhr, in the same vol. with Dexippus and Eunapius, VIII, pp. 488, 516) was unknown to Gibbon. It is vague and pedantic, and contains few facts. The same criticism will apply to the poetical panegyric of Priscian, edited from the MS. of Bobbio by Angelo Mai. Priscian, the grammarian, Niebuhr argues from this work, must have been born in the African, not in either of the Asiatic Caesareas. Praefatio, p. xi. —⁠M. ↩
In ipsis congressionis tuae foribus cessit invasor, cum profugo per te sceptra redderentur de salute dubitanti. Ennodius then proceeds (pp. 1596, 1597, tom. I Sirmond) to transport his hero (on a flying dragon?) into Aethiopia, beyond the Tropic of Cancer. The evidence of the Valesian Fragment (p. 717), Liberatus (Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, c. 25, p. 118), and Theophanes (p. 112), is more sober and rational. ↩
This cruel practice is specially imputed to the Triarian Goths, less barbarous, as it should seem, than the Walamirs; but the son of Theodemir is charged with the ruin of many Roman cities (Malchus, Excerpta legationum, p. 95). ↩
Jornandes (c. 56, 57, p. 696) displays the services of Theodoric, confesses his rewards, but dissembles his revolt, of which such curious details have been preserved by Malchus (Excerpta legationum, pp. 78⁠–⁠97). Marcellinus, a domestic of Justinian, under whose fourth consulship (AD 534) he composed his Chronicle (Scaliger, Thesaurus temporum, pars II, pp. 34⁠–⁠57), betrays his prejudice and passion: in Graeciam debacchantem⁠ ⁠… Zenonis munificentiâ pene pacatus⁠ ⁠… beneficiis nunquam satiatus, etc. ↩
Gibbon has omitted much of the complicated intrigues of the Byzantine court with the two Theodorics. The weak emperor attempted to play them one against the other, and was himself in turn insulted, and the empire ravaged, by both. The details of the successive alliance and revolt, of hostility and of union, between the two Gothic chieftains, to dictate terms to the emperor, may be found in Malchus. —⁠M. ↩
As he was riding in his own camp, an unruly horse threw him against the point of a spear which hung before a tent, or was fixed on a wagon (Marcellinus in Chronicon, “Evagrius,” l. III c. 25). ↩
See Malchus (p. 91) and Evagrius (l. III c. 35). ↩
Malchus, p. 85. In a single action, which was decided by the skill and discipline of Sabinian, Theodoric could lose 5,000 men. ↩
Jornandes (c. 57, pp. 696, 697) has abridged the great history of Cassiodorus. See, compare, and reconcile Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. I), the Valesian Fragment (p. 718), Theophanes (p. 113) and Marcellinus (in Chronicon). ↩
Theodoric’s march is supplied and illustrated by Ennodius (pp. 1598⁠–⁠1602), when the bombast of the oration is translated into the language of common sense. ↩
Tot reges, etc. (Ennodius, p. 1602). We must recollect how much the royal title was multiplied and degraded, and that the mercenaries of Italy were the fragments of many tribes and nations. ↩
See Ennodius, pp. 1603, 1604. Since the orator, in the king’s presence, could mention and praise his mother, we may conclude that the magnanimity of Theodoric was not hurt by the vulgar reproaches of concubine and bastard.9062 ↩
This anecdote is related on the modern but respectable authority of Sigonius (Opera omnia, tom. I, p. 580; Historiarum de occidentali imperio, l. XV): his words are curious: “Would you return?” etc. She presented and almost displayed the original recess.9063 ↩
Historia miscella, l. XV, a Roman history from Janus to the ninth century, an Epitome of Eutropius, Paulus Diaconus, and Theophanes, which Muratori has published from a MS. in the Ambrosian library (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I, p. 100). ↩
Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. I) approves himself an impartial sceptic: φασι⁠ ⁠… δολερῷ τρόπῳ ἔκτεινε. Cassiodorus (in Chronicon) and Ennodius (p. 1604) are loyal and credulous, and the testimony of the Valesian Fragment (p. 718) may justify their belief. Marcellinus spits the venom of a Greek subject⁠—perjuriis illectus, interfectusque est (in Chronicon). ↩
The sonorous and servile oration of Ennodius was pronounced at Milan or Ravenna in the years 507 or 508 (Sirmond, tom. I, p. 1615). Two or three years afterwards, the orator was rewarded with the bishopric of Pavia, which he held till his death in the year 521 (Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. V, pp. 11⁠–⁠14; see Christopheri Saxii, Onomasticon literarium, tom. II, p. 12). ↩
Our best materials are occasional hints from Procopius and the Valesian Fragment, which was discovered by Sirmond, and is published at the end of Ammianus Marcellinus. The author’s name is unknown, and his style is barbarous; but in his various facts he exhibits the knowledge, without the passions, of a contemporary. The president Montesquieu had formed the plan of a history of Theodoric, which at a distance might appear a rich and interesting subject. ↩
The best edition of the Variarum libri XII is that of Johann Garretius (Rotomagi, 1679, in Opera omnia Cassiodorus, two vols. in folio); but they deserved and required such an editor as the Marquis Scipio Maffei, who thought of publishing them at Verona. The Barbara Eleganza (as it is ingeniously named by Tiraboschi) is never simple, and seldom perspicuous. ↩
Compare here in chapter 36⁠—Manso observes that this division was conducted not in a violent and irregular, but in a legal and orderly, manner. The Barbarian, who could not show a title of grant from the officers of Theodoric appointed for the purpose, or a prescriptive right of thirty years, in case he had obtained the property before the Ostrogothic conquest, was ejected from the estate. He conceives that estates too small to bear division paid a third of their produce.⁠—Geschichte des ost-gothischen Reiches, p. 82. —⁠M. ↩
Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. I, Variarum II. Maffei (Verona illustrata, part I, p. 228) exaggerates the injustice of the Goths, whom he hated as an Italian noble. The plebeian Muratori crouches under their oppression. ↩
Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. III c. 4, 21. Ennodius describes (pp. 1612, 1613) the military arts and increasing numbers of the Goths. ↩
When Theodoric gave his sister to the king of the Vandals, she sailed for Africa with a guard of 1,000 noble Goths, each of whom was attended by five armed followers (Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 8). The Gothic nobility must have been as numerous as brave. ↩
Manso (p. 100) quotes two passages from Cassiodorus to show that the Goths were not exempt from the fiscal claims.⁠—Cassiodorus I 19, IV 14. —⁠M. ↩
See the acknowledgment of Gothic liberty, Variarum V 30. ↩
Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 2. The Roman boys learnt the language (Variarum VIII 21) of the Goths. Their general ignorance is not destroyed by the exceptions of Amalasuntha, a female, who might study without shame, or of Theodatus, whose learning provoked the indignation and contempt of his countrymen. ↩
A saying of Theodoric was founded on experience: “Romanus miser imitatur Gothum; ut utilis (dives) Gothus imitatur Romanum.” (See the Fragment and Notes of Valesius, p. 719.) ↩
The view of the military establishment of the Goths in Italy is collected from the epistles of Cassiodorus (Variarum I 24, 40; III 3, 24, 48; IV 13, 14; V 26, 27; VIII 3, 4, 25). They are illustrated by the learned Mascou (History of the Ancient Germans, l. XI 40⁠–⁠44, Annotation XIV).9064 ↩
See the clearness and vigor of his negotiations in Ennodius (p. 1607), and Cassiodorus (Variarum III 1⁠–⁠4; IV 13; V 43, 44), who gives the different styles of friendship, counsel, expostulation, etc. ↩
Even of his table (Variarum VI 9) and palace (VII 5). The admiration of strangers is represented as the most rational motive to justify these vain expenses, and to stimulate the diligence of the officers to whom these provinces were entrusted. ↩
See the public and private alliances of the Gothic monarch, with the Burgundians (Variarum I 45, 46), with the Franks (II 40), with the Thuringians (IV 1), and with the Vandals (V 1); each of these epistles affords some curious knowledge of the policy and manners of the Barbarians. ↩
His political system may be observed in Cassiodorus (Variarum IV 1, IX 1), Jornandes (c. 58, pp. 698, 699), and the Valesian Fragment (pp. 720, 721). Peace, honorable peace, was the constant aim of Theodoric. ↩
The curious reader may contemplate the Heruli of Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 14), and the patient reader may plunge into the dark and minute researches of M. Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. IX, pp. 348⁠–⁠396.9065 ↩
Variarum IV 2. The spirit and forms of this martial institution are noticed by Cassiodorus; but he seems to have only translated the sentiments of the Gothic king into the language of Roman eloquence. ↩
Cassiodorus, who quotes Tacitus to the Aestians, the unlettered savages of the Baltic (Variarum V 2), describes the amber for which their shores have ever been famous, as the gum of a tree, hardened by the sun, and purified and wafted by the waves. When that singular substance is analyzed by the chemists, it yields a vegetable oil and a mineral acid. ↩
Scanzia, or Thule, is described by Jornandes (c. 3, pp. 610⁠–⁠613) and Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 15). Neither the Goth nor the Greek had visited the country; both had conversed with the natives in their exile at Ravenna or Constantinople. ↩
Sapherinas pelles. In the time of Jornandes they inhabited Suethans, the proper Sweden; but that beautiful race of animals has gradually been driven into the eastern parts of Siberia. See Buffon (Histoire naturelle, tom. XIII, pp. 309⁠–⁠313, quarto edition); Pennant (Synopsis of Quadrupeds, vol. I, pp. 322⁠–⁠328); Gmelin (Histoire générale des Voyages, tom. XVIII, pp. 257, 258); and Pierre-Charles Levesque (Histoire de Russie, tom. V, pp. 165, 166, 514, 515). ↩
In the system or romance of M. Bailly (Lettres sur les sciences et Lettres sur l’Atlantide de Platon, tom. I, pp. 249⁠–⁠256, tom. II, pp. 114⁠–⁠139), the phoenix of the Edda, and the annual death and revival of Adonis and Osiris, are the allegorical symbols of the absence and return of the sun in the Arctic regions. This ingenious writer is a worthy disciple of the great Buffon; nor is it easy for the coldest reason to withstand the magic of their philosophy. ↩
Αὔτη τε Θουλίταις ἡ μεγίστη τῶν ἑορτῶν ἔστι, says Procopius. At present a rude Manicheism (generous enough) prevails among the Samoyedes in Greenland and in Lapland (Histoire des voyages, tom. XVIII, pp. 508, 509, tom. XIX, pp. 105, 106, 527, 528); yet, according to Grotius, Samojutae cαelum atque astra adorant, numina haud aliis iniquiora (Annales et historiae de rebus Belgicis, l. IV, p. 338, folio edition): a sentence which Tacitus would not have disowned. ↩
See the Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. IX, pp. 255⁠–⁠273, 396⁠–⁠501. The Count Du Buat was French minister at the court of Bavaria: a liberal curiosity prompted his inquiries into the antiquities of the country, and that curiosity was the germ of twelve respectable volumes. ↩
See the Gothic transactions on the Danube and the Illyricum, in Jornandes (c. 58, p. 699); Ennodius (pp. 1607⁠–⁠1610); Marcellmus (in Chronicon, pp. 44, 47, 48); and Cassiodorus (in Chronicon and Variarum III 23, 50; IV 13; VII 4, 24; VIII 9⁠–⁠11, 21; IX 8, 9). ↩
I cannot forbear transcribing the liberal and classic style of Count Marcellinus: Romanus comes domesticorum, et Rusticus comes scholariorum cum centum armatis navibus, totidemque dromonibus, octo millia militum armatorum secum ferentibus, ad devastanda Italiae littora processerunt, ut usque ad Tarentum antiquissimam civitatem aggressi sunt; remensoque mari inhonestam victoriam quam piratico ausu Romani ex Romanis rapuerunt, Anastasio Caesari reportarunt (in Chronicon, p. 48). See Variarum I 16, II 38. ↩
See the royal orders and instructions (Variarum IV 15, V 16⁠–⁠20). These armed boats should be still smaller than the thousand vessels of Agamemnon at the siege of Troy. [Manso, p. 121.—⁠M.] ↩
See here and following in chapter XXXVIII. ↩
Ennodius (p. 1610) and Cassiodorus, in the royal name (Variarum II 41), record his salutary protection of the Alemanni. ↩
The Gothic transactions in Gaul and Spain are represented with some perplexity in Cassiodorus (Variarum III 32, 38, 41, 43, 44; V 39), Jornandes (c. 58, pp. 698, 699), and Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 12). I will neither hear nor reconcile the long and contradictory arguments of the Abbé Dubos and the Count Du Buat about the wars of Burgundy. ↩
Theophanes, p. 113. ↩
Procopius affirms that no laws whatsoever were promulgated by Theodoric and the succeeding kings of Italy (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 6). He must mean in the Gothic language. A Latin edict of Theodoric is still extant, in 154 articles.9066 ↩
The image of Theodoric is engraved on his coins: his modest successors were satisfied with adding their own name to the head of the reigning emperor (Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. II Dissertazion XXVII, pp. 577⁠–⁠579; Giannone, Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. I, p. 166). ↩
The alliance of the emperor and the king of Italy are represented by Cassiodorus (Variarum I 1, II 1⁠–⁠3, VI 1) and Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 6, l. III c. 21), who celebrate the friendship of Anastasius and Theodoric; but the figurative style of compliment was interpreted in a very different sense at Constantinople and Ravenna. ↩
All causes between Roman and Roman were judged by the old Roman courts. The comes Gothorum judged between Goth and Goth; between Goths and Romans (without considering which was the plaintiff), the comes Gothorum, with a Roman jurist as his assessor, making a kind of mixed jurisdiction, but with a natural predominance to the side of the Goth. Savigny, vol. I, p. 290. —⁠M. ↩
To the seventeen provinces of the Notitia, Paul Warnefrid the deacon (De gestis Langobardorum, l. II c. 14⁠–⁠22) has subjoined an eighteenth, the Apennine (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I, pp. 431⁠–⁠443). But of these Sardinia and Corsica were possessed by the Vandals, and the two Rhaetias, as well as the Cottian Alps, seem to have been abandoned to a military government. The state of the four provinces that now form the kingdom of Naples is labored by Giannone (tom. I, pp. 172, 178) with patriotic diligence. ↩
Manso enumerates and develops at some length the following sources of the royal revenue of Theodoric:
1. A domain, either by succession to that of Odoacer, or a part of the third of the lands, was reserved for the royal patrimony.
2. Regalia, including mines, unclaimed estates, treasure-trove, and confiscations.
3. Land tax.
4. Aurarium, like the Chrysargyrum, a tax on certain branches of trade.
5. Grant of Monopolies.
6. Siliquaticum, a small tax on the sale of all kinds of commodities.
7. Portoria, customs.
Manso, 96, 111. Savigny (I 285) supposes that in many cases the property remained in the original owner, who paid his tertia, a third of the produce, to the crown, vol. I, p. 285. —⁠M. ↩
See the Gothic History of Procopius (l. I c. 1, l. II c. 6), the Epistles of Cassiodorus (passim, but especially the fifth and sixth books, which contain the formulae, or patents of offices), and the Civil History of Giannone (tom. I l. II, III). The Gothic counts, which he places in every Italian city, are annihilated, however, by Maffei (Verona illustrata, part I l. VIII, p. 227); for those of Syracuse and Naples (Variarum VI 22, 23) were special and temporary commissions. ↩
Two Italians of the name of Cassiodorus, the father (Variarum I 24, 40) and the son (IX 24, 25), were successively employed in the administration of Theodoric. The son was born in the year 479: his various epistles as quaestor, master of the offices, and Praetorian prefect extend from 509 to 539, and he lived as a monk about thirty years (Tiraboschi, Storia della letteratura Italiana, tom. III, pp. 7⁠–⁠24; Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. I, pp. 357, 358, edit. Mansi). ↩
Cassiodorus was of an ancient and honorable family; his grandfather had distinguished himself in the defence of Sicily against the ravages of Genseric; his father held a high rank at the court of Valentinian III, enjoyed the friendship of Aetius, and was one of the ambassadors sent to arrest the progress of Attila. Cassiodorus himself was first the treasurer of the private expenditure to Odoacer, afterwards “count of the sacred largesses.” Yielding with the rest of the Romans to the dominion of Theodoric, he was instrumental in the peaceable submission of Sicily; was successively governor of his native provinces of Bruttium and Lucania, quaestor, magister palatii, Praetorian prefect, patrician, consul, and private secretary, and, in fact, first minister of the king. He was five times Praetorian prefect under different sovereigns, the last time in the reign of Vitiges. This is the theory of Manso, which is not unencumbered with difficulties. M. Buat had supposed that it was the father of Cassiodorus who held the office first named. Compare Manso, p. 85, etc., and Beylage VII. It certainly appears improbable that Cassiodorus should have been count of the sacred largesses at twenty years old. —⁠M. ↩
See his regard for the senate in Cochlaeus (Vita Theodorici VIII, pp. 72⁠–⁠80). ↩
No more than 120,000 modii, or four thousand quarters (Anonymus Valesianus, p. 721, and Variarum I 35; VI 18; XI 5, 39). ↩
See his regard and indulgence for the spectacles of the circus, the amphitheatre, and the theatre, in the chronicle and epistles of Cassiodorus (Variarum I 20, 27, 30⁠–⁠32, III 51, IV 51, illustrated by the fourteenth Annotation of Mascou’s History), who has contrived to sprinkle the subject with ostentatious though agreeable learning. ↩
Anonymus Valesianus, p. 721. Marius Aventicensis in Chronicon. In the scale of public and personal merit, the Gothic conqueror is at least as much above Valentinian, as he may seem inferior to Trajan. ↩
Vita Fulgentii in Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 500,” No. 10. ↩
Cassiodorus describes in his pompous style the forum of Trajan (Variarum VII 6), the theatre of Marcellus (IV 51), and the amphitheatre of Titus (V 42); and his descriptions are not unworthy of the reader’s perusal. According to the modern prices, the Abbé Barthélemy computes that the brick work and masonry of the Coliseum would now cost twenty millions of French livres (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, pp. 585, 586). How small a part of that stupendous fabric! ↩
For the aqueducts and cloacae, see Strabo (l. V, p. 360), Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae XXXVI 24, Cassiodorus, Variarum III 30, 31; VI 6), Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 19), and Nardini (Roma antica, pp. 514⁠–⁠522). How such works could be executed by a king of Rome is yet a problem.9067 ↩
For the Gothic care of the buildings and statues, see Cassiodorus (Variarum I 21, 25; II 34; IV 30; VII 6, 13, 15) and the Valesian Fragment (p. 721). ↩
Variarum VII 15. These horses of Monte Cavallo had been transported from Alexandria to the baths of Constantine (Nardini, p. 188). Their sculpture is disdained by the Abbé Dubos (Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, tom. I section 39), and admired by Johann Joachim Winckelmann (Histoire de l’art l’antiquité, tom. II, p. 159). ↩
Variarum X 10. They were probably a fragment of some triumphal car (Cuper, De elephantis II 10). ↩
Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 21) relates a foolish story of Myron’s cow, which is celebrated by the false wit of thirty-six Greek epigrams (Anthologia Graeca, l. IV, pp. 302⁠–⁠306, edit. Henricus Stephanus; Ausonius, Epigramata XIII⁠–⁠LXVIII). ↩
See an epigram of Ennodius (II 3, pp. 1893, 1894) on this garden and the royal gardener. ↩
His affection for that city is proved by the epithet of “Verona tua,” and the legend of the hero; under the barbarous name of Dietrich of Bern (Peringskiöld ad Cochlaeum, p. 240), Maffei traces him with knowledge and pleasure in his native country (l. IX, pp. 230⁠–⁠236). ↩
See Maffei (Verona illustrata, part I, pp. 231, 232, 308, etc.). He imputes Gothic architecture, like the corruption of language, writing, etc., not to the Barbarians, but to the Italians themselves. Compare his sentiments with those of Tiraboschi (tom. III, p. 61).9068 ↩
The villas, climate, and landscape of Baiae (Variarum IX 6; see Cluverius, Italia antiqua, l. IV c. 2, p. 1119, etc.), Istria (Variarum XII 22, 26), and Comum (Variarum XI 14, compare with Pliny the Younger’s two villas, IX 7), are agreeably painted in the epistles of Cassiodorus. ↩
In Liguria numerosa agricolarum progenies (Ennodius, pp. 1678⁠–⁠1680). St. Epiphanius of Pavia redeemed by prayer or ransom 6,000 captives from the Burgundians of Lyons and Savoy. Such deeds are the best of miracles. ↩
The political economy of Theodoric (see Anonymus Valesianus, p. 721, and Cassiodorus, in Chronicon) may be distinctly traced under the following heads: iron mine (Variarum III 23); gold mine (IX 3); Pomptine marshes (II 32, 33); Spoleto (II 21); corn (I 34; X 27, 28; XI 11, 12); trade (VI 7, VII 9, 23); fair of Leucothoe or St. Cyprian in Lucania (VIII 33); plenty (XII 4); the cursus, or public post (I 29; II 31; IV 47; V 5; VI 6; VII 33); the Flaminian way (XII 18).9069 ↩
LX modii tritici in solidum ipsius tempore fuerunt, et vinum XXX amphoras in solidum (Fragment Valesius). Corn was distributed from the granaries at XV or XXV modii for a piece of gold, and the price was still moderate. ↩
See the life of St. Caesarius in Baronius (“AD 508,” No. 12⁠–⁠14). The king presented him with 300 gold solidi, and a discus of silver of the weight of sixty pounds. ↩
Ennodius in Vita S. Epiphanii, in Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. I, pp. 1672⁠–⁠1690. Theodoric bestowed some important favors on this bishop, whom he used as a counsellor in peace and war. ↩
Devotissimus ac si Catholicus (Anonymus Valesianus, p. 720); yet his offering was no more than two silver candlesticks (cerostrata) of the weight of seventy pounds, far inferior to the gold and gems of Constantinople and France (Anastasius Bibliothecarius in De vitis Romanorum pontificum in “Hormisda,” p. 34, edit. Paris). ↩
The tolerating system of his reign (Ennodius, p. 1612; Anonymus Valesianus, p. 719; Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 1; l. II c. 6) may be studied in the epistles of Cassiodorus, under the following heads: “bishops” (Variarum I 9; VIII 15, 24; XI 23); “immunities” (I 26; II 29, 30); “church lands” (IV 17, 20); “sanctuaries” (II 11; III 47); “church plate” (XII 20); “discipline” (IV 44); which prove at the same time that he was the head of the church as well as of the state.9070 ↩
We may reject a foolish tale of his beheading a Catholic deacon who turned Arian (Theodorus Lector No. 17). Why is Theodoric surnamed Afer? From Vafer? (Valesius ad loc.) A light conjecture. ↩
Ennodius, pp. 1621, 1622, 1636, 1638. His libel was approved and registered (synodaliter) by a Roman council (Baronius, “AD 503,” No. 6; Franciscus Pagi in Breviarium Pontificum Romanum, tom. I, p. 242). ↩
See Cassiodorus (Variarum VIII 15; IX 15, 16), Anastasius (in “Symmacho,” p. 31), and the seventeenth Annotation of Mascou. Baronius, Pagi, and most of the Catholic doctors confess, with an angry growl, this Gothic usurpation. ↩
He disabled them⁠—a licentia testandi; and all Italy mourned⁠—lamentabili justitio. I wish to believe that these penalties were enacted against the rebels who had violated their oath of allegiance; but the testimony of Ennodius (pp. 1675⁠–⁠1678) is the more weighty, as he lived and died under the reign of Theodoric. ↩
Ennodius, in Vita S. Epiphanii, pp. 1589, 1690. Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae, l. I Prosa IV, pp. 45⁠–⁠47. Respect, but weigh the passions of the saint and the senator; and fortify or alleviate their complaints by the various hints of Cassiodorus (II 8; IV 36; VIII 5). ↩
Immanium expensarum pondus⁠ ⁠… pro ipsorum salute, etc.; yet these are no more than words. ↩
The Jews were settled at Naples (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 8), at Genoa (Variarum II 28; IV 33), Milan (V 37), Rome (IV 43). See likewise Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, tom. VIII c. 7, p. 254. ↩
See History of the Jews, vol. III, p. 217. —⁠M. ↩
Rex avidus communis exitii, etc. (Boethius, l. I, p. 59): rex dolum Romanis tendebat (Anonymus Valesianus, p. 723). These are hard words: they speak the passions of the Italians, and those (I fear) of Theodoric himself. ↩
Gibbon should not have omitted the golden words of Theodoric in a letter which he addressed to Justin: That to pretend to a dominion over the conscience is to usurp the prerogative of God; that by the nature of things the power of sovereigns is confined to external government; that they have no right of punishment but over those who disturb the public peace, of which they are the guardians; that the most dangerous heresy is that of a sovereign who separates from himself a part of his subjects because they believe not according to his belief. Compare Le Beau, vol. VIII, p. 68. —⁠M. ↩
I have labored to extract a rational narrative from the dark, concise, and various hints of the Valesian Fragment (pp. 722⁠–⁠724), Theophanes (p. 145), Anastasius (in Johanne, p. 35), and the Historia miscella (p. 103, edit. Muratori). A gentle pressure and paraphrase of their words is no violence. Consult likewise Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. IV, pp. 471⁠–⁠478), with the Annals and Breviary (tom. I, pp. 259⁠–⁠263) of the two Pagis, the uncle and the nephew. ↩
Leclerc has composed a critical and philosophical life of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (Bibliothèque choisie, tom. XVI, pp. 168⁠–⁠275); and both Tiraboschi (tom. III) and Fabricius (Bibliotheca Latina) may be usefully consulted. The date of his birth may be placed about the year 470, and his death in 524, in a premature old age (De consolatione philosophiae I, p. 5). ↩
For the age and value of this MS., now in the Medicean library at Florence, see the Cenotaphia Pisanae (pp. 430⁠–⁠447) of Cardinal Noris. ↩
The Athenian studies of Boethius are doubtful (Baronius, “AD 510,” No. 3, from a spurious tract, “De Disciplina Scholarum”), and the term of eighteen years is doubtless too long; but the simple fact of a visit to Athens is justified by much internal evidence (Brucker, Historia critica philosophiae, tom. III, pp. 524⁠–⁠527), and by an expression (though vague and ambiguous) of his friend Cassiodorus (Variarum I 45), “longe positas Athenas intrioisti.” ↩
Bibliothecae comptos ebore ac vitro9071 parietes, etc. (De consolatione philosophiae, l. I Prosa V, p. 74). The epistles of Ennodius (VI 6; VII 13; VIII 1, 31, 37, 40) and Cassiodorus (Variarum I 39; IV 6; IX 21) afford many proofs of the high reputation which he enjoyed in his own times. It is true that the bishop of Pavia wanted to purchase of him an old house at Milan, and praise might be tendered and accepted in part of payment. ↩
Pagi, Muratori, etc. are agreed that Boethius himself was consul in the year 510, his two sons in 522, and in 487, perhaps, his father. A desire of ascribing the last of these consulships to the philosopher had perplexed the chronology of his life. In his honors, alliances, children, he celebrates his own felicity⁠—his past felicity (p. 109, 110). ↩
Si ego scissem tu nescisses. Boethius adopts this answer (l. I Prosa 4, p. 53) of Julius Canus, whose philosophic death is described by Seneca (“De Tranquillitate Animi,” c. 14). ↩
The characters of his two delators, Basilius (Variarum II 10, 11; IV 22) and Opilio (V 41; VIII 16), are illustrated, not much to their honor, in the epistles of Cassiodorus, which likewise mention Decoratus (V 31), the worthless colleague of Boethius (l. III Prosa 4, p. 193). ↩
A severe inquiry was instituted into the crime of magic (Variarum IV 22, 23; IX 18); and it was believed that many necromancers had escaped by making their jailers mad: for mad I should read drunk. ↩
Boethius had composed his own Apology (p. 53), perhaps more interesting than his Consolation. We must be content with the general view of his honors, principles, persecution, etc. (l. I Prosa 4, pp. 42⁠–⁠62), which may be compared with the short and weighty words of the Valesian Fragment (p. 723). An anonymous writer (Jean-Rodolphe Sinner, Catalogus codicum MSS. bibliothecae Bernensis, tom. I, p. 287) charges him home with honorable and patriotic treason. ↩
He was executed in Agro Calventiano (Calvenzano, between Marignano and Pavia), Anonymus Valesianus, p. 723, by order of Eusebius, count of Ticinum or Pavia. This place of confinement is styled the baptistery, an edifice and name peculiar to cathedrals. It is claimed by the perpetual tradition of the church of Pavia. The tower of Boethius subsisted till the year 1584, and the draught is yet preserved (Tiraboschi, tom. III, pp. 47, 48). ↩
See the Biographia Britannica, “Alfred,” tom. I, pp. 80, second edition. The work is still more honorable if performed under the learned eye of Alfred by his foreign and domestic doctors. For the reputation of Boethius in the Middle Ages, consult Brucker (Historia critica philosophiae, tom. III, pp. 565, 566). ↩
The inscription on his new tomb was composed by the preceptor of Otto III, the learned Pope Silvester II, who, like Boethius himself, was styled a magician by the ignorance of the times. The Catholic martyr had carried his head in his hands a considerable way (Baronius, “AD 526,” No. 17, 18); yet on a similar tale, a lady of my acquaintance once observed, “La distance n’y fait rien; il n’y a que lo remier pas qui coute.”9072 ↩
Boethius applauds the virtues of his father-in-law (l. I Prosa 4, p. 59; l. II Prosa 4, p. 118). Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. I), the Valesian Fragment (p. 724), and the Historia miscella (l. XV, p. 105), agree in praising the superior innocence or sanctity of Symmachus; and in the estimation of the legend, the guilt of his murder is equal to the imprisonment of a pope. ↩
In the fanciful eloquence of Cassiodorus, the variety of sea and river fish are an evidence of extensive dominion; and those of the Rhine, of Sicily, and of the Danube were served on the table of Theodoric (Variarum XII 14). The monstrous turbot of Domitian (Juvenal, Satires III 39) had been caught on the shores of the Adriatic. ↩
Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 1. But he might have informed us whether he had received this curious anecdote from common report or from the mouth of the royal physician. ↩
Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 1, 2, 12, 13. This partition had been directed by Theodoric, though it was not executed till after his death, Regni hereditatem superstes reliquit (Isidorus, Chronicon, p. 721, edit. Grotius). ↩
Berimund, the third in descent from Hermanric, king of the Ostrogoths, had retired into Spain, where he lived and died in obscurity (Jornandes, c. 33, p. 202, edit. Muratori). See the discovery, nuptials, and death of his grandson Eutharic (c. 58, p. 220). His Roman games might render him popular (Cassiodorus in Chronicon), but Eutharic was asper in religione (Anonymus Valesianus, pp. 722, 723). ↩
See the counsels of Theodoric, and the professions of his successor, in Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 1, 2), Jornandes (c. 59, pp. 220, 221), and Cassiodorus (Variarum VIII 1⁠–⁠7). These epistles are the triumph of his ministerial eloquence. ↩
Anonymus Valesianus, p. 724. Agnellus, Vitae Pontificum Ravenennatum in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 67. Alberti, Descrizione d’Italia, p. 311.9073 ↩
This legend is related by Gregory I (Dialogues IV 30), and approved by Baronius (“AD 526,” No. 28); and both the pope and cardinal are grave doctors, sufficient to establish a probable opinion. ↩
Theodoric himself, or rather Cassiodorus, had described in tragic strains the volcanos of Lipari (Cluverius, Siciliae antiquae, pp. 406⁠–⁠410) and Vesuvius (IV 50). ↩
There is some difficulty in the date of his birth (Joannis Petri de Ludewig in Vita Justiniani, p. 125); none in the place⁠—the district Bederiana⁠—the village Tauresium, which he afterwards decorated with his name and splendor (d’Anville, Histoire de l’Académie, tom. XXXI, pp. 287⁠–⁠292). ↩
The names of these Dardanian peasants are Gothic, and almost English: Justinian is a translation of uprauda (upright); his father Sabatius (in Graeco-barbarous language stipes) was styled in his village Istock (Stock); his mother Bigleniza was softened into Vigilantia. ↩
Ludewig (pp. 127⁠–⁠135) attempts to justify the Anician name of Justinian and Theodora, and to connect them with a family from which the house of Austria has been derived. ↩
See the anecdotes of Procopius (c. 6), with the notes of Nicholas Alemannus. The satirist would not have sunk, in the vague and decent appellation of γεωργός, the βούκολος and συφορβός of Zonaras. Yet why are those names disgraceful?⁠—and what German baron would not be proud to descend from the Eumaeus of the Odyssey!9074 ↩
Saint-Martin questions the fact in both cases. The ignorance of Justin rests on the secret history of Procopius. Saint-Martin’s notes on Le Beau, vol. VIII, p. 8. —⁠M. ↩
His virtues are praised by Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 11). The quaestor Proclus was the friend of Justinian, and the enemy of every other adoption. ↩
Manichaean signifies Eutychian. Hear the furious acclamations of Constantinople and Tyre, the former no more than six days after the decease of Anastasius. They produced, the latter applauded, the eunuch’s death (Baronius, “AD 518,” P. II No. 15. Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. VII, pp. 200, 205, from the Councils, tom. V, pp. 182, 207). ↩
His power, character, and intentions are perfectly explained by the Count Du Buat (tom. IX, pp. 54⁠–⁠81). He was great-grandson of Aspar, hereditary prince in the Lesser Scythia, and count of the Gothic foederati of Thrace. The Bessi, whom he could influence, are the minor Goths of Jornandes (c. 51). ↩
Justiniani patricii factione dicitur interfectus fuisse (Victor Tunnunensis, Chronicon in Thesaurus temporum, Scaliger, pars II, p. 7). Procopius (Anecdota, c. 7) styles him a tyrant, but acknowledges the ἀδελφοπιστία, which is well explained by Alemannus. ↩
In his earliest youth (plane adolescens) he had passed some time as a hostage with Theodoric. For this curious fact, Alemannus (ad Procopius, Anecdota, c. 9, p. 34, of the first edition) quotes a MS. history of Justinian, by his preceptor Theophilus. Ludewig (p. 143) wishes to make him a soldier. ↩
The ecclesiastical history of Justinian will be shown hereafter. See Baronius, “AD 518⁠–⁠521,” and the copious article “Justinianas” in the index to the seventh volume of his Annals. ↩
The reign of the elder Justin may be found in the three chronicles of Marcellinus, Victor, and John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 130⁠–⁠150), the last of whom (in spite of Hody, Prolegomena No. 14, 39, edit. Oxoniae) lived soon after Justinian (Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 383): in the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius (l. IV c. 1⁠–⁠3, 9), and the Excerpta of Theodorus Lector (No. 37), and in Cedrenus (pp. 362⁠–⁠366), and Zonaras (l. XIV, pp. 58⁠–⁠61), who may pass for an original.9075 ↩
See the characters of Procopius and Agathias in La Mothe Le Vayer (tom. VIII, pp. 144⁠–⁠174), Vossius (De historicis Graecis, l. II c. 22), and Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, l. V c. 5, tom. VI, pp. 248⁠–⁠278). Their religion, an honorable problem, betrays occasional conformity, with a secret attachment to Paganism and Philosophy. ↩
In the seven first books, two Persic, two Vandalic, and three Gothic, Procopius has borrowed from Appian the division of provinces and wars: the eighth book, though it bears the name of Gothic, is a miscellaneous and general supplement down to the spring of the year 553, from whence it is continued by Agathias till 559 (Pagi, Critica Baronii, “AD 579,” No. 5). ↩
The literary fate of Procopius has been somewhat unlucky.
1. His book De bello Gothico were stolen by Leonard Aretin, and published (Fulginii, 1470, Venetiis, 1471, apud Janson; Mattaire, Annales typographici, tom. I edit. posterior, pp. 290, 304, 279, 299) in his own name (see Vossius, De historicis Latinis, l. III c. 5, and the feeble defence of the Venice Giornale de Letterati, tom. XIX, p. 207).
2. His works were mutilated by the first Latin translators, Christopher Persona (Giornale, tom. XIX, pp. 340⁠–⁠348), and Raphael de Volaterra (Huet, De claris interpretibus, p. 166), who did not even consult the MS. of the Vatican library, of which they were prefects (Alemannus in Praefatio Anecdota).
3. The Greek text was not printed till 1607, by Hoeschelius of Augsburg (Dictionnaire de Bayle, tom. II, p. 782).
4. The Paris edition was imperfectly executed by Claude Maltret, a Jesuit of Toulouse (in 1663), far distant from the Louvre press and the Vatican MS., from which, however, he obtained some supplements. His promised commentaries, etc., have never appeared. The Agathias of Leyden (1594) has been wisely reprinted by the Paris editor, with the Latin version of Bonaventura Vulcanius, a learned interpreter (Huet, p. 176).9076
↩
Agathias in Praefatio, pp. 7, 8, l. IV, p. 137. Evagrius, l. IV c. 12. See likewise Photius, codex LXIII, p. 65. ↩
Κύρου παιδεία (says he, Praefatio ad loc. De aedificiis, περὶ κτισμάτων) is no more than Κύρου παιδιά a pun! In these five books, Procopius affects a Christian as well as a courtly style. ↩
Procopius discloses himself (Praefatio ad Anecdota, c. 1, 2, 5), and the anecdotes are reckoned as the ninth book by Suidas (tom. III, p. 186, edit. Kuster). The silence of Evagrius is a poor objection. Baronius (“AD 548,” No. 24) regrets the loss of this secret history: it was then in the Vatican library, in his own custody, and was first published sixteen years after his death, with the learned but partial notes of Nicholas Alemannus (Lugduni Batavorum, 1623). ↩
Justinian an ass⁠—the perfect likeness of Domitian (Anecdota, c. 8)⁠—Theodora’s lovers driven from her bed by rival demons⁠—her marriage foretold with a great demon⁠—a monk saw the prince of the demons, instead of Justinian, on the throne⁠—the servants who watched beheld a face without features, a body walking without a head, etc., etc. Procopius declares his own and his friends’ belief in these diabolical stories (c. 12). ↩
Montesquieu (Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. XX) gives credit to these anecdotes, as connected, 1. with the weakness of the empire, and, 2. with the instability of Justinian’s laws. ↩
The Anecdota of Procopius, compared with the former works of the same author, appear to me the basest and most disgraceful work in literature. The wars which he has described in the former volumes as glorious or necessary are become unprofitable and wanton massacres; the buildings which he celebrated, as raised to the immortal honor of the great emperor and his admirable queen, either as magnificent embellishments of the city, or useful fortifications for the defence of the frontier, are become works of vain prodigality and useless ostentation. I doubt whether Gibbon has made sufficient allowance for the “malignity” of the Anecdota; at all events, the extreme and disgusting profligacy of Theodora’s early life rests entirely on this virulent libel. —⁠M. ↩
For the life and manners of the empress Theodora see the Anecdotes; more especially c. 1⁠–⁠5, 9, 10⁠–⁠17, with the learned notes of Alemannus⁠—a reference which is always implied. ↩
Comito was afterwards married to Sittas duke of Armenia, the father perhaps, at least she might be the mother, of the empress Sophia. Two nephews of Theodora may be the sons of Anastasia (Alemannus, pp. 30, 31). ↩
Her statute was raised at Constantinople, on a porphyry column. See Procopius (De aedificiis, l. I c. 11), who gives her portrait in the Anecdotes (c. 10). Alemannus (p. 47) produces one from a Mosaic at Ravenna, loaded with pearls and jewels, and yet handsome. ↩
A fragment of the Anecdotes (c. 9), somewhat too naked, was suppressed by Alemannus, though extant in the Vatican MS.; nor has the defect been supplied in the Paris or Venice editions. La Mothe Le Vayer (tom. VIII, p. 155) gave the first hint of this curious and genuine passage (Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 366), which he had received from Rome, and it has been since published in the Menagiana (tom. III, pp. 254⁠–⁠259), with a Latin version. ↩
After the mention of a narrow girdle (as none could appear stark naked in the theatre), Procopius thus proceeds: ἀναπεπτωκυῖά τε ἐν τῷ ἐδάφει ὑπτία ἔκειτο. Θῆτες δἐ τινες⁠ ⁠… κριθὰς αὐτῇ ὔπερθεν τῶν αἰδοῖων ἔρριπτον ἃς δὴ οἱ χἧνες, οἳ ἐς τοῦτο παρεσκευασμένοι ἐτύγχανον, τοῖς στόμασιν ἐνθένδε κατὰ μίαν ἀνελόμενοι ἤσθιον. I have heard that a learned prelate, now deceased, was fond of quoting this passage in conversation. ↩
Theodora surpassed the Crispa of Ausonius (Epigramata LXXI), who imitated the capitalis luxus of the females of Nola. See Quintilian, De institutione oratoria VIII 6, and Torrentius ad Horatius, Sermones, l. I sat. 2, v. 101. At a memorable supper, thirty slaves waited round the table; ten young men feasted with Theodora. Her charity was universal.

Et lassata viris, necdum satiata, recessit.

↩
Ἤ δὲ κἀκ τῶν τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκὰλει τῆ φύσει, δυσφορούμενη ὄτι δὴ μῆ καὶ τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπῷη, ὂπως δυνατὴ εἴη καὶ ἐκείνῃ ἐργὰζεσθαι. She wished for a fourth altar, on which she might pour libations to the god of love. ↩
Gibbon should have remembered the axiom which he quotes in another piece, scelera ostendi oportet dum puniantur abscondi flagitia. —⁠M. ↩
Anonymous de Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, l. III 132 in Banduri, Imperium orientale, tom. I, p. 48. Ludewig (p. 154) argues sensibly that Theodora would not have immortalized a brothel; but I apply this fact to her second and chaster residence at Constantinople. ↩
See the old law in Justinian’s Code (l. V tit. V leg. 7, tit. XXVII leg. 1) under the years 336 and 454. The new edict (about the year 521 or 522, Alemannus, pp. 38, 96) very awkwardly repeals no more than the clause of mulieres scenicae, libertinae, tabernariae. See the novels 89 and 117, and a Greek rescript from Justinian to the bishops (Alemannus, p. 41). ↩
I swear by the Father, etc., by the Virgin Mary, by the four Gospels, quae in manibus teneo, and by the holy Archangels Michael and Gabriel, puram conscientiam germanumque servitium me servaturum, sacratissimis DDNN [Dominis Nostris]. Justiniano et Theodorae conjugi ejus (Novella VIII, tit. 3). Would the oath have been binding in favor of the widow? Communes tituli et triumphi, etc. (Alemannus, pp. 47, 48). ↩
“Let greatness own her, and she’s mean no more,” etc.

Without Warburton’s critical telescope, I should never have seen, in this general picture of triumphant vice, any personal allusion to Theodora. ↩
Her prisons, a labyrinth, a Tartarus (Anecdota, c. 4), were under the palace. Darkness is propitious to cruelty, but it is likewise favorable to calumny and fiction. ↩
A more jocular whipping was inflicted on Saturninus, for presuming to say that his wife, a favorite of the empress, had not been found ἄτρητος (Anecdota, c. 17). ↩
Per viventem in saecula excoriari te faciam. Anastasius, De vitis Romanorum pontificum in “Vigilio,” p. 40. ↩
Ludewig, pp. 161⁠–⁠166. I give him credit for the charitable attempt, although he hath not much charity in his temper. ↩
Compare the Anecdotes (c. 17) with the Edifices (l. I c. 9)⁠—how differently may the same fact be stated! John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 174, 175) observes that on this or a similar occasion she released and clothed the girls whom she had purchased from the stews at five aurei apiece. ↩
Novella VIII 1. An allusion to Theodora. Her enemies read the name Daemonodora (Alemannus, p. 66). ↩
St. Sabas refused to pray for a son of Theodora, lest he should prove a heretic worse than Anastasius himself (Cyril in Vita Sabae, apud Alemannus, pp. 70, 109). ↩
See John Malalas, tom. II, p. 174. Theophanes, p. 158. Procopius, De aedificiis, l. V c. 3. ↩
Theodora Chalcedonensis synodi inimica canceris plagâ toto corpore perfusa vitam prodigiose finivit (Victor Tunnunensis in Chronicon). On such occasions, an orthodox mind is steeled against pity. Alemannus (pp. 12, 13) understands the εὐσέβως ἐκοιμήθη of Theophanes as civil language, which does not imply either piety or repentance; yet two years after her death St. Theodora is celebrated by Paul Silentiarius (in Proem V 58⁠–⁠62). ↩
As she persecuted the popes, and rejected a council, Baronius exhausts the names of Eve, Dalila, Herodias, etc.; after which he has recourse to his infernal dictionary: civis inferni⁠—alumna daemonum⁠—satanico agitata spiritu-oestro percita diabolico, etc., etc. (“AD 548,” No. 24). ↩
Read and feel the twenty-second book of the Iliad, a living picture of manners, passions, and the whole form and spirit of the chariot race. Gilbert West’s Dissertation on the Olympic Games (sect. XII⁠–⁠XVII) affords much curious and authentic information. ↩
The four colors, albati, russati, prasini, veneti, represent the four seasons, according to Cassiodorus (Variarum III 51), who lavishes much wit and eloquence on this theatrical mystery. Of these colors, the three first may be fairly translated white, red, and green. Venetus is explained by caeruleus, a word various and vague: it is properly the sky reflected in the sea; but custom and convenience may allow blue as an equivalent (Roberti Stephani sub voce Joseph Spence’s Polymetis, p. 228). ↩
See Onuphrius Panvinius, De ludis circensibus, l. I c. 10, 11; the seventeenth annotation on Mascou’s History of the Ancient Germans; and Alemannus ad c. VII. ↩
Marcellinus in Chronicon, p. 47. Instead of the vulgar word venata he uses the more exquisite terms of caerulea and caerealis. Baronius (“AD 501,” No. 4⁠–⁠6) is satisfied that the blues were orthodox; but Tillemont is angry at the supposition, and will not allow any martyrs in a playhouse (Histoire des empereurs, tom. VI, p. 554). ↩
See Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 24). In describing the vices of the factions and of the government, the public is not more favorable than the secret historian. Alemannus (p. 26) has quoted a fine passage from Gregory Nazianzen, which proves the inveteracy of the evil. ↩
The partiality of Justinian for the blues (Anecdota, c. 7) is attested by Evagrius (Historia ecclesiastica, l. IV c. 32); John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 138, 139), especially for Antioch; and Theophanes (p. 142). ↩
A wife (says Procopius), who was seized and almost ravished by a bluecoat, threw herself into the Bosphorus. The bishops of the second Syria (Alemannus, p. 26) deplore a similar suicide, the guilt or glory of female chastity, and name the heroine. ↩
The doubtful credit of Procopius (Anecdota, c. 17) is supported by the less partial Evagrius, who confirms the fact and specifies the names. The tragic fate of the prefect of Constantinople is related by John Malalas (tom. II, p. 139). ↩
See John Malalas (tom. II, p. 147); yet he owns that Justinian was attached to the blues. The seeming discord of the emperor and Theodora is perhaps viewed with too much jealousy and refinement by Procopius (Anecdota, c. 10). See Alemannus, Praefatio, p. 6. ↩
This dialogue, which Theophanes has preserved, exhibits the popular language, as well as the manners, of Constantinople in the sixth century. Their Greek is mingled with many strange and barbarous words, for which du Cange cannot always find a meaning or etymology. ↩
See this church and monastery in du Cange, Constantanopolis Christiana, l. IV, p. 182. ↩
The history of the Nika sedition is extracted from Marcellinus (in Chronicon), Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 26), John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 213⁠–⁠218), Chronicon Paschale (pp. 336⁠–⁠340), Theophanes (Chronographia, pp. 154⁠–⁠158) and Zonaras (l. XIV, pp. 61⁠–⁠63). ↩
Marcellinus says in general terms, innumeris populis in circo trucidatis. Procopius numbers 30,000 victims; and the 35,000 of Theophanes are swelled to 40,000 by the more recent Zonaras. Such is the usual progress of exaggeration. ↩
Hierocles, a contemporary of Justinian, composed his Συνδέχμος (Vetera Romanorum itineraria, p. 631), or review of the Eastern provinces and cities, before the year 535 (Wesseling, in Praefatio and Not. ad p. 623, etc.). ↩
See the book of Genesis (12:10) and the administration of Joseph. The annals of the Greeks and Hebrews agree in the early arts and plenty of Egypt: but this antiquity supposes a long series of improvement; and Warburton, who is almost stifled by the Hebrew, calls aloud for the Samaritan chronology (Divine Legation of Moses, vol. III, p. 29, etc.).9077 ↩
Eight millions of Roman modii, besides a contribution of 80,000 aurei for the expenses of water-carriage, from which the subject was graciously excused. See the 13th Edict of Justinian; the numbers are checked and verified by the agreement of the Greek and Latin texts. ↩
Homer’s Iliad VI 289. These veils, πέπλοι παμποίκιλοι, were the work of the Sidonian women. But this passage is more honorable to the manufactures than to the navigation of Phoenicia, from whence they had been imported to Troy in Phrygian bottoms. ↩
See in Ovid (De arte Amandi III 269, etc.) a poetical list of twelve colors borrowed from flowers, the elements, etc. But it is almost impossible to discriminate by words all the nice and various shades both of art and nature. ↩
By the discovery of cochineal, etc., we far surpass the colors of antiquity. Their royal purple had a strong smell, and a dark cast as deep as bull’s blood⁠—obscuritas rubens (says Cassiodorus, Variarum 1, 2), nigredo saguinea. The president Goguet (De l’origine des loix, des arts et des sciences, part II l. II c. 2, pp. 184⁠–⁠215) will amuse and satisfy the reader. I doubt whether his book, especially in England, is as well known as it deserves to be. ↩
Historical proofs of this jealousy have been occasionally introduced, and many more might have been added; but the arbitrary acts of despotism were justified by the sober and general declarations of law (Codex Theodosianus, l. X tit. 21, leg. 3; Codex Justinianus, l. XI tit. 8, leg. 5). An inglorious permission, and necessary restriction, was applied to the mimae, the female dancers (Codex Theodosianus, l. XV tit. 7, leg. 11). ↩
In the history of insects (far more wonderful than Ovid’s Metamorphoses) the silkworm holds a conspicuous place. The bombyx of the isle of Ceos, as described by Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae XI 26, 27, with the notes of the two learned Jesuits, Hardouin and Brotier), may be illustrated by a similar species in China (Mémoires sur les Chinois, tom. II, pp. 575⁠–⁠598); but our silkworm, as well as the white mulberry-tree, were unknown to Theophrastus and Pliny the Elder. ↩
The first ancient writer who gives any information respecting the use of silk is Aristotle (Historia animalium V c. 19), whose account has been adopted with various modifications by Pliny the Elder, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Basil. Gibbon has fallen into one or two mistakes: he has confounded the island of Ceos, near the coast of Attica, with the island of Cos, off the western coast of Asia Minor, the latter, and not Ceos, being celebrated for its transparent garments; and he has without authority supposed that a species of silkworm was bred in this island. But Aristotle, after describing the silkworm of the East, only says, “Pamphile, daughter of Plates, is reported to have first woven in Cos.” It is therefore probable that the raw silk from the interior of Asia was brought to Cos, and there manufactured, in the same way, as we learn from Procopius, that it was brought some centuries later to be woven in the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Berytus. See James Yates, Textrinum antiquorum, p. 162, et seq. —⁠S. ↩
Georgics II 121. Serica quando venerint in usum planissime non scio: suspicor tamen in Julii Caesaris aevo, nam ante non invenio, says Justus Lipsius (Excursus I ad Tacitus, Annales II 32). See Dion Cassius (l. XLIII, p. 358, edit. Reimar), and Pausanius (l. VI, p. 519), the first who describes, however strangely, the Seric insect. ↩
Tam longinquo orbe petitur, ut in publico matrona transluceat⁠ ⁠… ut denudet foeminas vestis (Pliny the Elder VI 20, XI 21). Varro and Publius Syrus had already played on the Toga vitrea, ventus texilis, and nebula linen (Horatius, Sermones I 2, 101, with the notes of Torrentius and Dacier). ↩
Gibbon must have written transparent draperies and naked matrons. Though sometimes affected, he is never inaccurate. —⁠M. ↩
On the texture, colors, names, and use of the silk, half silk, and linen garments of antiquity, see the profound, diffuse, and obscure researches of the great Salmasius (in Historia Augusta, pp. 127, 309, 310, 339, 341, 342, 344, 388⁠–⁠391, 395, 513), who was ignorant of the most common trades of Dijon or Leyden. ↩
Flavius Vopiscus in “Aurelian,” c. 45, in Historia Augusta, p. 224. See Salmasius ad Historia Augusta, p. 392, and Plinianae exercitationes in Solinus, pp. 694, 695. The Anecdotes of Procopius (c. 25) state a partial and imperfect rate of the price of silk in the time of Justinian. ↩
Procopius, De aedificiis, l. III c. 1. These pinnes de mer are found near Smyrna, Sicily, Corsica, and Minorca; and a pair of gloves of their silk was presented to Pope Benedict XIV. ↩
Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 20; l. II c. 25. De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 17. Menander in Excerpta legationum, p. 107. Of the Parthian or Persian empire, Isidore of Charax (in Stathmis Parthicis, pp. 7, 8, in Hudson, Geographi Graeci minores, tom. II) has marked the roads, and Ammianus Marcellinus (l. XXIII c. 6, p. 400) has enumerated the provinces.9078 ↩
The blind admiration of the Jesuits confounds the different periods of the Chinese history. They are more critically distinguished by M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I part I in the Tables, part II in the Geography; Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXXII, XXXVI, XLII, XLIII), who discovers the gradual progress of the truth of the annals, and the extent of the monarchy, till the Christian era. He has searched, with a curious eye, the connections of the Chinese with the nations of the West; but these connections are slight, casual, and obscure; nor did the Romans entertain a suspicion that the Seres or Sinae possessed an empire not inferior to their own.9079 ↩
The roads from China to Persia and Hindostan may be investigated in the relations of Hackluyt and Thévenot, the ambassadors of Sharokh, Anthony Jenkinson, the Père Greuber, etc. See likewise Jonas Hanway’s Travels, vol. I, pp. 345⁠–⁠357. A communication through Tibet has been lately explored by the English sovereigns of Bengal. ↩
For the Chinese navigation to Malacca and Achin, perhaps to Ceylon, see Renaudot (Ancient Accounts of India and China, by Two Muhammadan Travellers, pp. 8⁠–⁠11, 13⁠–⁠17, 141⁠–⁠157); Dampier (vol. II, p. 136); the Histoire philosophique des deux Indes (tom. I, p. 98), and Histoire générale des Voyages (tom. VI, p. 201). ↩
The knowledge, or rather ignorance, of Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy, Arrian, Marcian, etc., of the countries eastward of Cape Comorin is finely illustrated by d’Anville (Antiquité Géographique de l’Inde, especially pp. 161⁠–⁠198). Our geography of India is improved by commerce and conquest; and has been illustrated by the excellent maps and memoirs of Major Rennell. If he extends the sphere of his inquiries with the same critical knowledge and sagacity, he will succeed, and may surpass, the first of modern geographers. ↩
The Taprobane of Pliny the Elder (VI 24), Solinus (c. 53), and Salmasius (Plinianae exercitationes, pp. 781, 782), and most of the ancients, who often confound the islands of Ceylon and Sumatra, is more clearly described by Cosmas Indicopleustes; yet even the Christian topographer has exaggerated its dimensions. His information on the Indian and Chinese trade is rare and curious (l. II, p. 138; l. XI, pp. 337, 338, edit. Montfaucon). ↩
See Procopius, De bello Persico (l. II c. 20). Cosmas affords some interesting knowledge of the port and inscription of Adulis (Topographia christiana, l. II, pp. 138, 140⁠–⁠143), and of the trade of the Axumites along the African coast of Barbaria or Zingi (pp. 138, 139), and as far as Taprobane (l. XI, p. 339). ↩
Mr. Salt obtained information of considerable ruins of an ancient town near Zulla, called Azoole, which answers to the position of Adulis. Mr. Salt was prevented by illness, Mr. Stuart, whom he sent, by the jealousy of the natives, from investigating these ruins: of their existence there seems no doubt. Salt’s Second Journey, p. 452. —⁠M. ↩
See the Christian missions in India, in Cosmas (l. III, pp. 178, 179; l. XI, p. 337), and consult Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis (tom. IV, pp. 413⁠–⁠548). ↩
The invention, manufacture, and general use of silk in China may be seen in Du Halde (Description de l’empire de la Chine, tom. II, pp. 165, 205⁠–⁠223). The province of Chekian is the most renowned both for quantity and quality. ↩
Procopius (l. VIII, De bello Gothico IV c. 17); Theophanes of Byzantium apud Photius, codex LXXXIV, p. 38; Zonaras, tom. II l. XIV, p. 69. Pagi (tom. II, p. 602) assigns to the year 552 this memorable importation. Menander (in Excerpta legationum, p. 107) mentions the admiration of the Sogdoites; and Theophylact Simocatta (l. VII c. 9) darkly represents the two rival kingdoms in (China) the country of silk. ↩
Cosmas, surnamed Indicopleustes, or the Indian navigator, performed his voyage about the year 522, and composed at Alexandria, between 535 and 547, Christian Topography (Montfaucon, Praefatio c. I), in which he refutes the impious opinion that the earth is a globe; and Photius had read this work (Codex XXXVI, pp. 9, 10), which displays the prejudices of a monk, with the knowledge of a merchant; the most valuable part has been given in French and in Greek by Melchisédech Thévenot (Relations de divers voyages curieux, part I), and the whole is since published in a splendid edition by Père Montfaucon (Collectio nova patrum, Paris, 1707, two vols. in folio, tom. II, pp. 113⁠–⁠346). But the editor, a theologian, might blush at not discovering the Nestorian heresy of Cosmas, which has been detected by Maturin Veyssière La Croze (Histoire du christianisme des Indes, tom. I, pp. 40⁠–⁠56). ↩
See the character of Anastasius in Joannes Lydus, De magistratibus, l. III c. 45, 46, pp. 230⁠–⁠232. His economy is there said to have degenerated into parsimony. He is accused of having taken away the levying of taxes and payment of the troops from the municipal authorities (the decurionate) in the Eastern cities, and entrusted it to an extortionate officer named Mannus. But he admits that the imperial revenue was enormously increased by this measure. A statue of iron had been erected to Anastasius in the Hippodrome, on which appeared one morning this pasquinade:⁠—

Εικόνα σοι, βασιλεῦ κοσμοφθόρε, τήνδε σιδήρου
Στήσαμεν, ὡς χαλκἠς (οὔσαν), ἀτιμοτέραν (πολλόν, Anth.)
Ἀντὶ φόνου, πενίης τ’ ὀλοῆς, λιμοῦ τε καὶ ὀργῆς
Ἠ (Οἴς, Anth.) πάντα φθείρει σὴ φιλοχρημοσύνη.
Γεἰτονα δή Σκύλλης ὁλοὴν ἀνέθεντο Χάρυβδιν,
Ἄγριον ὠμηστὴν τοῦτον Ἀναστάσιον.
Δείσιθι καὶ οὐ, Σκύλλα, τεαἲς φρεσὶ, μή σε καὶ αῦτον
Βρώξη, χαλκείηυ δαίμονα κερματίσας.

This epigram is also found in the Anthology Palitina, Jacobs, vol. IV, p. 114, with some better readings.

This iron statue meetly do we place
To thee, world-wasting king, than brass more base;
For all the death, the penury, famine, woe,
That from thy wide-destroying avarice flow,
This fell Charybdis, Scylla, near to thee,
This fierce devouring Anastasius, see;
And tremble, Scylla! on thee, too, his greed,
Coining thy brazen deity, may feed.

But Lydus, with no uncommon inconsistency in such writers, proceeds to paint the character of Anastasius as endowed with almost every virtue, not excepting the utmost liberality. He was only prevented by death from relieving his subjects altogether from the capitation tax, which he greatly diminished. —⁠M. ↩
Evagrius (l. III c. 39, 40) is minute and grateful, but angry with Zosimus for calumniating the great Constantine. In collecting all the bonds and records of the tax, the humanity of Anastasius was diligent and artful; fathers were sometimes compelled to prostitute their daughters (Zosimus, Historia nova, l. II c. 38, pp. 165, 166, Lipsiae, 1784). Timotheus of Gaza chose such an event for the subject of a tragedy (Suidas, tom. III, p. 475), which contributed to the abolition of the tax (Cedrenus, p. 35)⁠—a happy instance (if it be true) of the use of the theatre. ↩
See Josua Stylites, in the Bibliotheca orientalis of Assemani (tom. I, p. 268). This capitation tax is slightly mentioned in the Chronicle of Edessa. ↩
Procopius (Anecdota, c. 19) fixes this sum from the report of the treasurers themselves. Tiberias had vicies ter millies; but far different was his empire from that of Anastasius. ↩
Evagrius (l. IV c. 30), in the next generation, was moderate and well informed; and Zonaras (l. XIV c. 61), in the twelth century, had read with care, and thought without prejudice; yet their colors are almost as black as those of the Anecdotes. ↩
Procopius (Anecdota, c. 30) relates the idle conjectures of the times. The death of Justinian, says the secret historian, will expose his wealth or poverty. ↩
See Corippus, De laudibus Justini Augusti, l. II 260, etc., 384, etc.

“Plurima sunt vivo nimium neglecta parenti,
Unde tot exhaustus contraxit debita fiscus.”

Centenaries of gold were brought by strong men into the Hippodrome:

“Debita persolvit, genitoris cauta recepit.”

↩
The Anecdotes (c. 11⁠–⁠14, 18, 20⁠–⁠30) supply many facts and more complaints.9080 ↩
One to Scythopolis, capital of the second Palestine, and twelve for the rest of the province. Alemannus (p. 59) honestly produces this fact from a MS. life of St. Sabas, by his disciple Cyril, in the Vatican Library, and since published by Cotelerius. ↩
John Malalas (tom. II, p. 232) mentions the want of bread, and Zonaras (l. XIV, p. 63) the leaden pipes, which Justinian, or his servants, stole from the aqueducts. ↩
Karl Dietrich Hüllmann (Geschichte des Byzantinischen Handels, p. 15) shows that the despotism of the government was aggravated by the unchecked rapacity of the officers. This state monopoly, even of corn, wine, and oil, was in force at the time of the first crusade. —⁠M. ↩
For an aureus, one sixth of an ounce of gold, instead of 210, he gave no more than 180 folles, or ounces of copper. A disproportion of the mint, below the market price, must have soon produced a scarcity of small money. In England twelve pence in copper would sell for no more than seven pence (Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, vol. I, p. 49). For Justinian’s gold coin, see Evagrius (l. IV c. 30). ↩
The oath is conceived in the most formidable words (Novella VIII, tit. 3). The defaulters imprecate on themselves, quicquid habent telorum armamentaria caeli: the part of Judas, the leprosy of Gieza, the tremor of Cain, etc., besides all temporal pains. ↩
A similar or more generous act of friendship is related by Lucian of Eudamidas of Corinth (in “Toxaris,” c. 22, 23, tom. II, p. 530), and the story has produced an ingenious, though feeble, comedy of Fontenelle. ↩
John Malalas, tom. II, pp. 101⁠–⁠103. ↩
One of these, Anatolius, perished in an earthquake⁠—doubtless a judgment! The complaints and clamors of the people in Agathias (l. V, pp. 146, 147) are almost an echo of the anecdote. The aliena pecunia reddenda of Corippus (l. II 381, etc.) is not very honorable to Justinian’s memory. ↩
See the history and character of John of Cappadocia in Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 24, 25; l. II c. 30. De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 13. Anecdota, c. 2, 17, 22). The agreement of the history and Anecdotes is a mortal wound to the reputation of the prefect. ↩
This view, particularly of the cruelty of John of Cappadocia, is confirmed by the testimony of Joannes Lydus, who was in the office of the prefect, and eyewitness of the tortures inflicted by his command on the miserable debtors, or supposed debtors, of the state. He mentions one horrible instance of a respectable old man, with whom he was personally acquainted, who, being suspected of possessing money, was hung up by the hands till he was dead. Lydus, De magistratibus, lib. III c. 57, p. 254. —⁠M. ↩
Οὐ γὰρ ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἐς γραμματιστοῦ φοιτῶν ἔμαθεν ὄτι μὴ γράμματα, καὶ ταῦτα κακὰ κακῶς γράψαι⁠—a forcible expression. ↩
Joannes Lydus is diffuse on this subject, lib. III c. 65, p. 268. But the indignant virtue of Lydus seems greatly stimulated by the loss of his official fees, which he ascribes to the innovations of the minister. —⁠M. ↩
According to Lydus, Theodora disclosed the crimes and unpopularity of the minister to Justinian, but the emperor had not the courage to remove, and was unable to replace, a servant under whom his finances seemed to prosper. He attributes the sedition and conflagration called the νίκα (see earlier in this chapter) to the popular resentment against the tyranny of John, lib. III c. 70, p. 278. Unfortunately there is a large gap in his work just at this period. —⁠M. ↩
The chronology of Procopius is loose and obscure; but with the aid of Pagi I can discern that John was appointed Praetorian prefect of the East in the year 530; that he was removed in January, 532⁠—restored before June, 533⁠—banished in 541⁠—and recalled between June, 548 and April 1, 549. Alemannus (pp. 96, 97) gives the list of his ten successors⁠—a rapid series in a part of a single reign.9081 ↩
This conflagration is hinted by Lucian (in “Hippias,” c. 2) and Galen (l. III De temperamentis, tom. I, p. 81, edit. Basileae) in the second century. A thousand years afterwards, it is positively affirmed by Zonaras (l. IX, p. 424) on the faith of Dion Cassius, by John Tzetzes (Chiliades II 119, etc.), Eustathius (ad Iliad V, p. 338), and the scholiast of Lucian. See Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, l. III c. 22, tom. II, pp. 551, 552), to whom I am more or less indebted for several of these quotations. ↩
Zonaras (l. XIV, p. 55) affirms the fact, without quoting any evidence. ↩
Tzetzes describes the artifice of these burning-glasses, which he had read, perhaps with no learned eyes, in a mathematical treatise of Anthemius. That treatise, “περὶ παραδόξων μηχανημάτων,” has been lately published, translated, and illustrated, by M. Dupuys, a scholar and a mathematician (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XLII, pp. 392⁠–⁠451). ↩
In the siege of Syracuse, by the silence of Polybius, Plutarch, Livy; in the siege of Constantinople, by that of Marcellinus and all the contemporaries of the sixth century. ↩
Without any previous knowledge of Tzetzes or Anthemius, the immortal Buffon imagined and executed a set of burning-glasses, with which he could inflame planks at the distance of 200 feet (Supplément à l’Histoire naturelle, tom. I 399⁠–⁠483, quarto edition). What miracles would not his genius have performed for the public service, with royal expense, and in the strong sun of Constantinople or Syracuse? ↩
John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 120⁠–⁠124) relates the fact; but he seems to confound the names or persons of Proclus and Marinus. ↩
Agathias, l. V, pp. 149⁠–⁠152. The merit of Anthemius as an architect is loudly praised by Procopius (De aedificiis, l. I c. 1) and Paulus Silentiarius (part I 134, etc.). ↩
See Procopius (De aedificiis, l. I c. 1, 2; l. II c. 3). He relates a coincidence of dreams which supposes some fraud in Justinian or his architect. They both saw, in a vision, the same plan for stopping an inundation at Dara. A stone quarry near Jerusalem was revealed to the emperor (l. V c. 6); an angel was tricked into the perpetual custody of St. Sophia (Anonymous de Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, l. IV, p. 70). ↩
Among the crowd of ancients and moderns who have celebrated the edifice of St. Sophia, I shall distinguish and follow:
1. Four original spectators and historians: Procopius (De aedificiis, l. I c. 1), Agathias (l. V, pp. 152, 153), Paul Silentiarius (in a poem of 1026 hexameters, ad calcem Anna Comnena, Alexias), and Evagrius (l. IV c. 31).
2. Two legendary Greeks of a later period: George Codinus (Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, pp. 64⁠–⁠74), and the anonymous writer of Banduri (Imperium orientale, tom. I l. IV, pp. 65⁠–⁠80).
3. The great Byzantine antiquarian du Cange (Comment. ad Paul Silentiarius, pp. 525⁠–⁠598, and Constantinopolis Christiana, l. III, pp. 5⁠–⁠78).
4. Two French travellers⁠—the one, Petrus Gyllius (De topographia Constantinopoleos, l. II c. 3, 4), in the sixteenth; the other, Guillaume-Joseph Grelot (Relation nouvelle d’un voyage de Constantinople, pp. 95⁠–⁠164, Paris, 1680, in quarto): he has given plans, prospects and inside views of St. Sophia; and his plans, though on a smaller scale, appear more correct than those of du Cange. I have adopted and reduced the measures of Grelot: but as no Christian can now ascend the dome, the height is borrowed from Evagrius, compared with Gyllius, Greaves, and the Oriental geographer.
↩
Solomon’s temple was surrounded with courts, porticos, etc.; but the proper structure of the house of God was no more (if we take the Egyptian or Hebrew cubic at 22 inches) than 55 feet in height, 36⅔ in breadth, and 110 in length⁠—a small parish church, says Prideaux (The Old and New Testament Connected, vol. I, p. 144, folio); but few sanctuaries could be valued at four or five millions sterling!9082 ↩
Paul Silentiarius, in dark and poetic language, describes the various stones and marbles that were employed in the edifice of St. Sophia (pars II, pp. 129, 133, etc., etc.):
1. The Carystian⁠—pale, with iron veins.
2. The Phrygian⁠—of two sorts, both of a rosy hue; the one with a white shade, the other purple, with silver flowers.
3. The Porphyry of Egypt⁠—with small stars.
4. The green marble of Laconia.
5. The Carian⁠—from Mount Iassis, with oblique veins, white and red.
6. The Lydian⁠—pale, with a red flower.
7. The African, or Mauritanian⁠—of a gold or saffron hue.
8. The Celtic⁠—black, with white veins.
9. The Bosphoric⁠—white, with black edges.
Besides the Proconnesian which formed the pavement; the Thessalian, Molossian, etc., which are less distinctly painted. ↩
The six books of the Edifices of Procopius are thus distributed: the first is confined to Constantinople; the second includes Mesopotamia and Syria; the third, Armenia and the Euxine; the fourth, Europe; the fifth, Asia Minor and Palestine; the sixth, Egypt and Africa. Italy is forgot by the emperor or the historian, who published this work of adulation before the date (AD 555) of its final conquest. ↩
Justinian once gave forty-five centenaries of gold (£180,000) for the repairs of Antioch after the earthquake (John Malalas, tom. II, pp. 146⁠–⁠149). ↩
For the Heraeum, the palace of Theodora, see Gyllius (De Bosphoro Thracio, l. III c. XI), Alemannus (Note ad Anecdota, pp. 80, 81, who quotes several epigrams of the Anthology), and du Cange (Constantanopolis Christiana, l. IV c. 13, pp. 175, 176). ↩
Compare, in the Edifices (l. I c. 11) and in the Anecdotes (c. 8, 15), the different styles of adulation and malevolence: stripped of the paint, or cleansed from the dirt, the object appears to be the same. ↩
Procopius, l. VIII 29; most probably a stranger and wanderer, as the Mediterranean does not breed whales. Balaenae quoque in nostra maria penetrant (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae IX 2). Between the polar circle and the tropic, the cetaceous animals of the ocean grow to the length of 50, 80, or 100 feet (Histoire des voyages, tom. XV, p. 289; Pennant’s British Zoology, vol. III, p. 35). ↩
Montesquieu observes (Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, tom. III c. XX, p. 503), that Justinian’s empire was like France in the time of the Norman inroads⁠—never so weak as when every village was fortified. ↩
Procopius affirms (l. IV c. 6) that the Danube was stopped by the ruins of the bridge. Had Apollodorus the architect left a description of his own work, the fabulous wonders of Dion Cassius (l. LXVIII, p. 1129) would have been corrected by the genuine picture. Trajan’s bridge consisted of twenty or twenty-two stone piles with wooden arches; the river is shallow, the current gentle, and the whole interval no more than 443 (Reimer ad Dion, from Marsigli) or 517 toises (d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 305). ↩
Of the two Dacias, Mediterranea and Ripensis, Dardania, Pravalitana, the second Maesia, and the second Macedonia. See Justinian (Novella XI), who speaks of his castles beyond the Danube, and of homines semper bellicis sudoribus inhaerentes. ↩
See d’Anville (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXXI, pp. 289, 290), Paul Rycaut (The Present State of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 97, 316), Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli (Stato militare dell’ imperio Ottomano, p. 130). The sanjak of Giustendil is one of the twenty under the beglerbeg of Rurselis, and his district maintains 48 zaims and 588 timariots. ↩
These fortifications may be compared to the castles in Mingrelia (Chardin, Voyages en Perse, tom. I, pp. 60, 131)⁠—a natural picture. ↩
The valley of Tempe is situate along the river Peneus, between the hills of Ossa and Olympus: it is only five miles long, and in some places no more than 120 feet in breadth. Its verdant beauties are elegantly described by Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae, l. IV 15), and more diffusely by Aelian (Varia historia, l. III c. I). ↩
Xenophon, Hellenica, l. III c. 2. After a long and tedious conversation with the Byzantine declaimers, how refreshing is the truth, the simplicity, the elegance of an Attic writer! ↩
See the long wall in Evagrius (l. IV c. 38). This whole article is drawn from the fourth book of the Edifices, except Anchialus (l. III c. 7). ↩
Turn back to here in chapter X. In the course of this history, I have sometimes mentioned, and much oftener slighted, the hasty inroads of the Isaurians, which were not attended with any consequences. ↩
Trebellius Pollio in Historia Augusta, p. 107, who lived under Diocletian, or Constantine. See likewise Pancirolus ad Notitia Imperium Orientale, c. 115, 141. See Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. 35, leg. 37, with a copious collective annotation of Godefroy, tom. III, pp. 256, 257. ↩
See the full and wide extent of their inroads in Philostorgius (Historia ecclesiastica, l. XI c. 8), with Godefroy’s learned dissertations. ↩
Codex Justinianus, l. IX tit. 12, leg. 10. The punishments are severe⁠—a fine of a hundred pounds of gold, degradation, and even death. The public peace might afford a pretence, but Zeno was desirous of monopolizing the valor and service of the Isaurians. ↩
The Isaurian war and the triumph of Anastasius are briefly and darkly represented by John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 106, 107), Evagrius (l. III c. 35), Theophanes (pp. 118⁠–⁠120), and the Chronicle of Marcellinus. ↩
Fortes ea regio (says Justinian) viros habet, nec in ullo differt ab Isauriâ, though Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 18) marks an essential difference between their military character; yet in former times the Lycaonians and Pisidians had defended their liberty against the great king (Xenophon, Anabasis, l. III c. 2). Justinian introduces some false and ridiculous erudition of the ancient empire of the Pisidians, and of Lycaon, who, after visiting Rome (long before Aeneas), gave a name and people to Lycaonia (Novellae 24, 25, 27, 30). ↩
See Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 19. The altar of national concord, of annual sacrifice and oaths, which Diocletian had created in the isle of Elephantine, was demolished by Justinian with less policy than zeal. ↩
Procopius, De aedificiis, l. III c. 7. Historia, l. VIII c. 3, 4. These unambitious Goths had refused to follow the standard of Theodoric. As late as the fifteenth and sixteenth century, the name and nation might be discovered between Caffa and the Straits of Azoph (d’Anville, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXX, p. 240). They well deserved the curiosity of Busbequius (pp. 321⁠–⁠326), but seem to have vanished in the more recent account of the Missions du Levant (tom. I), Tott, Peysonnel, etc. ↩
For the geography and architecture of this Armenian border, see the Persian Wars and Edifices (l. II c. 4⁠–⁠7; l. III c. 2⁠–⁠7) of Procopius. ↩
The country is described by Tournefort (Voyage au Levant, tom. III lettre XVII, XVIII). That skilful botanist soon discovered the plant that infects the honey (Pliny the Elder XXI 44, 45); he observes that the soldiers of Lucullus might indeed be astonished at the cold, since, even in the plain of Erzerum, snow sometimes falls in June and the harvest is seldom finished before September. The hills of Armenia are below the fortieth degree of latitude; but in the mountainous country which I inhabit, it is well known that an ascent of some hours carries the traveller from the climate of Languedoc to that of Norway, and a general theory has been introduced that under the line an elevation of 2,400 toises is equivalent to the cold of the polar circle (Louis Ramond de Carbonnières, Observations faites dans les Pyrénées pour servir de suite à des observations sur les Alpes, tom. II, p. 104). ↩
The identity or proximity of the Chalybians, or Chaldaeans may be investigated in Strabo (l. XII, pp. 825, 826), Cellarius (Geographia antiqua, tom. II, pp. 202⁠–⁠204), and Fréret (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. IV, p. 594). Xenophon supposes, in his romance (Cyropaedia, l. III), the same Barbarians against whom he had fought in his retreat (Anabasis, l. IV). ↩
Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 15. De aedificiis, l. III c. 6. ↩
Ni Taurus obstet in nostra maria venturus (Pomponius Mela III 8). Pliny the Elder, a poet as well as a naturalist (V 20), personifies the river and mountain, and describes their combat. See the course of the Tigris and Euphrates in the excellent treatise of d’Anville. ↩
Procopius (De bello Persico, l. II c. 12) tells the story with a tone half sceptical, half superstitious, of Herodotus. The promise was not in the primitive lie of Eusebius, but dates at least from the year 400; and a third lie, the Veronica, was soon raised on the two former (Evagrius, l. IV c. 27). As Edessa has been taken, Tillemont must disclaim the promise (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. I, pp. 362, 383, 617). ↩
Firouz the Conqueror⁠—unfortunately so named. See Saint-Martin, vol. VI, p. 439. —⁠M. ↩
Rather Hepthalites. —⁠M. ↩
They were purchased from the merchants of Adulis who traded to India (Cosmas, Topographia christiana, l. XI, p. 339); yet, in the estimate of precious stones, the Scythian emerald was the first, the Bactrian the second, the Aethiopian only the third (Hill’s Theophrastus, p. 61, etc., 92). The production, mines, etc., of emeralds are involved in darkness; and it is doubtful whether we possess any of the twelve sorts known to the ancients (Goguet, De l’origine des loix, des arts et des sciences, etc., part II l. II c. 2, art. 3). In this war the Huns got, or at least Perozes lost, the finest pearl in the world, of which Procopius relates a ridiculous fable. ↩
The Indo-Scythae continued to reign from the time of Augustus (Dionysius Periegetes 1088, with the commentary of Eustathius, in Hudson, Geographi Graeci minores, tom. IV) to that of the elder Justin (Cosmas, Topographia christiana, l. XI, pp. 338, 339). On their origin and conquests, see d’Anville (Éclaircissemens géographiques sur l’Inde, pp. 18, 45, etc., 69, 85, 89). In the second century they were masters of Larice or Guzerat. ↩
According to the Persian historians he was misled by guides who used the old stratagem of Zopyrus. Malcolm, vol. I, p. 101. —⁠M. ↩
In the MS. Chronicle of Tabary, it is said that the Moubedan Mobed, or Grand Pontiff, opposed with all his influence the violation of the treaty. Saint-Martin, vol. VII, p. 254. —⁠M. ↩
See the fate of Phirouz or Perozes, and its consequences, in Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 3⁠–⁠6), who may be compared with the fragments of Oriental history (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 351, and Pedro Teixeira, History of Persia, translated or abridged by Stephens, l. I c. 32, pp. 132⁠–⁠138). The chronology is ably ascertained by Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, pp. 396⁠–⁠427.) ↩
When Firoze advanced, Khoosh-Nuaz (the king of the Huns) presented on the point of a lance the treaty to which he had sworn, and exhorted him yet to desist before he destroyed his fame forever. Malcolm, vol. I, p. 103. —⁠M. ↩
The Persian war, under the reigns of Anastasius and Justin, may be collected from Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 7⁠–⁠9), Theophanes (in Chronographia, pp. 124⁠–⁠127), Evagrius (l. III c. 37), Marcellinus (in Chronicon, p. 47), and Josua Stylites (apud Assemani, tom. I, pp. 272⁠–⁠281). ↩
Gibbon should have written “some prostitutes.” Procopius, De bello Persico, vol. 1 c. 7. —⁠M. ↩
The description of Dara is amply and correctly given by Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 10; l. II c. 13. De aedificiis, l. II c. 1⁠–⁠3; l. III c. 5). See the situation in d’Anville (l’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 53⁠–⁠55), though he seems to double the interval between Dara and Nisibis. ↩
The situation (of Dara) does not appear to give it strength, as it must have been commanded on three sides by the mountains, but opening on the south towards the plains of Mesopotamia. The foundation of the walls and towers, built of large hewn stone, may be traced across the valley and over a number of low rocky hills which branch out from the foot of Mount Masius. The circumference I conceive to be nearly two miles and a half; and a small stream, which flows through the middle of the place, has induced several Koordish and Armenian families to fix their residence within the ruins. Besides the walls and towers, the remains of many other buildings attest the former grandeur of Dara; a considerable part of the space within the walls is arched and vaulted underneath, and in one place we perceived a large cavern, supported by four ponderous columns, somewhat resembling the great cistern of Constantinople. In the centre of the village are the ruins of a palace (probably that mentioned by Procopius) or church, one hundred paces in length and sixty in breadth. The foundations, which are quite entire, consist of a prodigious number of subterraneous vaulted chambers, entered by a narrow passage forty paces in length. The gate is still standing; a considerable part of the wall has bid defiance to time, etc. John MacDonald Kinneir’s Journey Through Asia Minor, Armenia, and Koordistan, p. 438. —⁠M. ↩
For the city and pass of Derbend, see d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 157, 291, 807), Pétis de la Croix (Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, l. IV c. 9), Histoire généalogique des Tatars (tom. I, p. 120), Adam Olearius (Relation du voyage d’Adam Olearius en Moscovie, Tartarie, et Perse, pp. 1039⁠–⁠1041), and Corneille le Bruyn (Voyages, tom. I, pp. 146, 147): his view may be compared with the plan of Olearius, who judges the wall to be of shells and gravel hardened by time. ↩
Procopius, though with some confusion, always denominates them Caspian (De bello Persico, l. I c. 10). The pass is now styled Tatar-topa, the Tartar-gates (d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, pp. 119, 120). ↩
Malte-Brun, tom. VIII, p. 12, makes three passes:
1. The central, which leads from Mosdok to Teflis, the πύλαι καυκάσιαι.
2. The Albanian, more inland than the Derbend Pass.
3. The Derbend⁠—the Caspian Gates.
But the narrative of Col. Monteith, in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, vol. III, p. I, p. 39, clearly shows that there are but two passes between the Black Sea and the Caspian; the central, the Caucasian, or, as Col. Monteith calls it, the Caspian Gates, and the pass of Derbend, though it is practicable to turn this position (of Derbend) by a road a few miles distant through the mountains, p. 40. —⁠M. ↩
The imaginary rampart of Gog and Magog, which was seriously explored and believed by a caliph of the ninth century, appears to be derived from the gates of Mount Caucasus, and a vague report of the wall of China (Geographia nubiensis, pp. 267⁠–⁠270; Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXXI, pp. 210⁠–⁠219). ↩
See a learned dissertation of Baier, “De muro Caucaseo,” in Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae, anno 1726, tom. I, pp. 425⁠–⁠463; but it is destitute of a map or plan. When the czar Peter I became master of Derbend in the year 1722, the measure of the wall was found to be 3,285 Russian orgyioe, or fathom, each of seven feet English; in the whole somewhat more than four miles in length. ↩
See the fortifications and treaties of Khosrow, or Nushirwan, in Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 16, 22, l. II) and d’Herbelot (p. 682). ↩
The life of Isocrates extends from Olympiad LXXXVI 1 to CX 3 (ante Christ 436⁠–⁠338). See Dionysi Halicarnasensis, tom. II, pp. 149, 150, edit. Hudson. Plutarch (sive anonymus) in Vita X Oratorum, pp. 1538⁠–⁠1543, edit. Henricus Stephanus. Photius, codex CCLIX, p. 1453. ↩
The schools of Athens are copiously though concisely represented in the De fortunâ atticâ of Meursius (c. VIII, pp. 59⁠–⁠73, in tom. I Opera). For the state and arts of the city, see the first book of Pausanias, and a small tract of Dicaearchus (in the second volume of Hudson’s Geographers), who wrote about Olympiad CXVII (Dodwell’s Dissertationes Cyprianicae, sect. 4.) ↩
Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, l. V segm. 37, p. 289. ↩
See the Testament of Epicurus in Diogenes Laertius, l. X segm. 16⁠–⁠20, pp. 611, 612. A single epistle (Epistulae ad familiares XIII 1) displays the injustice of the Areopagus, the fidelity of the Epicureans, the dexterous politeness of Cicero, and the mixture of contempt and esteem with which the Roman senators considered the philosophy and philosophers of Greece. ↩
Damascius, in Vita Isidori, apud Photius, codex CCXLII, p. 1054. ↩
See Lucian (in “Eunuchus,” tom. II, pp. 350⁠–⁠359, edit. Reitz), Philostratus (in Vita Sophistarum, l. II c. 2), and Dion Cassius, or Xiphilin (l. LXXI, p. 1195), with their editors Moïse du Soul, Olearius, and Reimar, and, above all, Salmasius (ad Historia Augusta, p. 72). A judicious philosopher (Smith’s Wealth of Nations, vol. II, pp. 340⁠–⁠374) prefers the free contributions of the students to a fixed stipend for the professor. ↩
Brucker, Historia critica philosophiae, tom. II, p. 310, etc. ↩
The birth of Epicurus is fixed to the year 342 before Christ (Bayle), Olympiad CIX 3; and he opened his school at Athens, Olympiad CXVIII 3, 306 years before the same era. This intolerant law (Athenaeus, l. XIII, p. 610; Diogenes Laertius, l. V segm. 38, p. 290; Julius Pollux IX 5) was enacted in the same or the succeeding year (Sigonius, Opera omnia, tom. V, p. 62; Menagius ad Diogenes Laertius, p. 204; Corsini, Fasti Attici, tom. IV, pp. 67, 68). Theophrastus, chief of the Peripatetics, and disciple of Aristotle, was involved in the same exile. ↩
This is no fanciful era: the Pagans reckoned their calamities from the reign of their hero. Proclus, whose nativity is marked by his horoscope (AD 412, February 8, at Constantinople), died 124 years ἀπὸ Ἰουλίανοῦ βασιλείας, AD 485 (Marinus in Vita Procli, c. 36). ↩
The life of Proclus, by Marinus, was published by Fabricius (Hamburg, 1700, et ad calcem Bibliotheca Latina, London 1703). See Suidas (tom. III, pp. 185, 186), Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, l. V c. 26, pp. 449⁠–⁠552), and Brucker (Historia critica philosophiae, tom. II, pp. 319⁠–⁠326). ↩
The life of Isidore was composed by Damascius (apud Photius, codex CCXLII, pp. 1028⁠–⁠1076). See the last age of the Pagan philosophers in Brucker (tom. II, pp. 341⁠–⁠351). ↩
The suppression of the schools of Athens is recorded by John Malalas (tom. II, p. 187, sub Decio Cos. Sol.), and an anonymous Chronicle in the Vatican library (apud Alemannus, p. 106). ↩
Agathias (l. II, pp. 69⁠–⁠71) relates this curious story. Khosrow ascended the throne in the year 531, and made his first peace with the Romans in the beginning of 533⁠—a date most compatible with his young fame and the old age of Isidore (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, p. 404; Pagi, tom. II, pp. 543, 550). ↩
Cassiodorus, Variarum, “Epistola VI” 1. Jornandes, c. 57, p. 696, edit. Grotius. Quod summum bonum primumque in mundo decus edicitur. ↩
See the regulations of Justinian (Novella CV), dated at Constantinople, July 5, and addressed to Strategius, treasurer of the empire. ↩
Procopius, in Anecdota, c. 26. Alemannus, p. 106. In the eighteenth year after the consulship of Basilius, according to the reckoning of Marcellinus, Victor, Marius, etc., the secret history was composed, and, in the eyes of Procopius, the consulship was finally abolished. ↩
By Leo the philosopher (Novella XCIV, AD 886⁠–⁠911). See Pagi (Dissertatio hypatica, pp. 325⁠–⁠362) and du Cange (Glossarium Graecitatis, pp. 1635, 1636). Even the title was vilified; consulatus codicilli⁠ ⁠… vilescunt, says the emperor himself. ↩
According to Julius Africanus, etc., the world was created the first of September, 5508 years, three months, and twenty-five days before the birth of Christ (see Paul-Yves Pezron, L’Antiquité des tems rétablie et défendue, pp. 20⁠–⁠28); and this era has been used by the Greeks, the Oriental Christians, and even by the Russians, till the reign of Peter I. The period, however arbitrary, is clear and convenient. Of the 7,296 years which are supposed to elapse since the creation, we shall find 3,000 of ignorance and darkness; 2,000 either fabulous or doubtful; 1,000 of ancient history, commencing with the Persian empire, and the republics of Rome and Athens; 1,000 from the fall of the Roman empire in the West to the discovery of America; and the remaining 296 will almost complete three centuries of the modern state of Europe and mankind. I regret this chronology, so far preferable to our double and perplexed method of counting backwards and forwards the years before and after the Christian era. ↩
The era of the world has prevailed in the East since the sixth general council (AD 681). In the West the Christian era was first invented in the sixth century; it was propagated in the eighth by the authority and writings of venerable Bede; but it was not till the tenth that the use became legal and popular. See L’Art de vérifier les dates, Discours Préliminaire, p. III⁠–⁠XII. Dictionnaire diplomatique, tom. I, pp. 329⁠–⁠337: the works of a laborious society of Benedictine monks. ↩
The complete series of the Vandal war is related by Procopius in a regular and elegant narrative (l. I c. 9⁠–⁠25; l. II c. 1⁠–⁠13); and happy would be my lot, could I always tread in the footsteps of such a guide. From the entire and diligent perusal of the Greek text, I have a right to pronounce that the Latin and French versions of Grotius and Cousin may not be implicitly trusted; yet the president Cousin has been often praised, and Hugo Grotius was the first scholar of a learned age. ↩
See Ruinart, Commentarius historicus de persecutione Vandalica, c. XII, p. 589. His best evidence is drawn from the life of St. Fulgentius, composed by one of his disciples, transcribed in a great measure in the annals of Baronius, and printed in several great collections (Catalogus bibliothecae Bunavianae, tom. I vol. II, p. 1258). ↩
For what quality of the mind or body? For speed, or beauty, or valor?⁠—In what language did the Vandals read Homer?⁠—Did he speak German?⁠—The Latins had four versions (Fabricius, tom. I l. II c. 3, p. 297): yet, in spite of the praises of Seneca (“Consolation,” c. 26), they appear to have been more successful in imitating than in translating the Greek poets. But the name of Achilles might be famous and popular, even among the illiterate Barbarians. ↩
A year⁠—absurd exaggeration! The conquest of Africa may be dated AD 533, September 14; it is celebrated by Justinian in the preface to his Institutes, which were published November 21 of the same year. Including the voyage and return, such a computation might be truly applied to our Indian empire. ↩
Ωρμητο δὲ ὁ Βελισάριος ἐκ Γερμανίας, ἣ Θρᾳκων τε καὶ Ἰλλυρίων μεταξὺ κεῖται (Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 11). Alemannus (Not. ad Anecdota, p. 5), an Italian, could easily reject the German vanity of Giphanius and Velserus, who wished to claim the hero; but his Germania, a metropolis of Thrace, I cannot find in any civil or ecclesiastical lists of the provinces and cities.9083 ↩
The two first Persian campaigns of Belisarius are fairly and copiously related by his secretary (De bello Persico, l. I c. 12⁠–⁠18). ↩
The battle was fought on Easter Sunday, April 19, not at the end of the summer. The date is supplied from John Malalas by Lord Mahon, p. 47. —⁠M. ↩
See the birth and character of Antonina, in the Anecdotes, c. 1, and the notes of Alemannus, p. 3. ↩
See the preface of Procopius. The enemies of archery might quote the reproaches of Diomede (Iliad XI 385, etc.) and the permittere vulnera ventis of Lucan (VIII 384); yet the Romans could not despise the arrows of the Parthians; and in the siege of Troy, Pandarus, Paris, and Teucer pierced those haughty warriors who insulted them as women or children. ↩
Νευρὴν μὲν μαζῷ πέλασεν, τόξῳ δὲ σίδηρον (Iliad IV 123). How concise⁠—how just⁠—how beautiful is the whole picture! I see the attitudes of the archer⁠—I hear the twanging of the bow.

Λίγξε βιὸς, νευρὴ δὲ μέγ’ἴαχεν, ἆλτο δ’ὀϊστός.

↩
The text appears to allow for the largest vessels 50,000 medimni, or 3,000 tons (since the medimnus weighed 160 Roman, or 120 avoirdupois, pounds). I have given a more rational interpretation, by supposing that the Attic style of Procopius conceals the legal and popular modius, a sixth part of the medimnus (Hooper’s Ancient Weights and Measures, p. 152, etc.). A contrary, and indeed a stranger, mistake has crept into an oration of Dinarchus (“Contra Demosthenem,” in Reiske, Oratores Graeci, tom. IV pars II, p. 34). By reducing the number of ships from 500 to 50, and translating μεδιμνοι by mines, or pounds, Cousin has generously allowed 500 tons for the whole of the Imperial fleet! Did he never think? ↩
I have read of a Greek legislator who inflicted a double penalty on the crimes committed in a state of intoxication; but it seems agreed that this was rather a political than a moral law. ↩
Or even in three days, since they anchored the first evening in the neighboring isle of Tenedos; the second day they sailed to Lesbos, the third to the promontory of Euboea, and on the fourth they reached Argos (Homer, Odyssey IV 130⁠–⁠183; Wood’s Essay on Homer, pp. 40⁠–⁠46). A pirate sailed from the Hellespont to the seaport of Sparta in three days (Xenophon, Hellenica, l. II c. 1). ↩
Caucana, near Camarina, is at least 50 miles (350 or 400 stadia) from Syracuse (Cluverius, Siciliae antiquae, p. 191).9084 ↩
Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 3. Tibi tollit hinnitum apta quadrigis equa, in the Sicilian pastures of Grosphus (Horatius, Carmina II 16). Acragas⁠ ⁠… magnanimûm quondam generator equorum (Virgil, Aeneid III 704). Thero’s horses, whose victories are immortalized by Pindar, were bred in this country. ↩
The Caput Vada of Procopius (where Justinian afterwards founded a city⁠—De aedificiis, l. VI c. 6) is the promontory of Ammon in Strabo, the Brachodes of Ptolemy, the Capaudia of the moderns, a long narrow slip that runs into the sea (Shaw’s Travels, p. 111). ↩
A centurion of Mark Antony expressed, though in a more manly strain, the same dislike to the sea and to naval combats (Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Antonio,” p. 1730, edit. Henricus Stephanus). ↩
Rather into the present Lake of Tunis. Lord Mahon, p. 92. —⁠M. ↩
Sullecte is perhaps the Turris Hannibalis, an old building, now as large as the Tower of London. The march of Belisarius to Leptis, Adrumetum, etc., is illustrated by the campaign of Caesar (Hirtius, De bello Africo, with the analysis of Guichard), and Shaw’s Travels (pp. 105⁠–⁠113) in the same country. ↩
Παράδεισος κάλλιστος ἁπάντων ὦν ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν. The paradises, a name and fashion adopted from Persia, may be represented by the royal garden of Ispahan (Relation du voyage d’Adam Olearius, p. 774). See, in the Greek romances, their most perfect model (Longus, Pastoralia, l. IV, pp. 99⁠–⁠101; Achilles Tatius, l. I, pp. 22, 23). ↩
80,000⁠—μυρίαδες ὀκτώ. Historia arcana, c. 18. Gibbon has been misled by the translation. See Lord Mahon, p. 99. —⁠M. ↩
The neighborhood of Carthage, the sea, the land, and the rivers are changed almost as much as the works of man. The isthmus, or neck, of the city is now confounded with the continent: the harbor is a dry plain; and the lake, or stagnum, no more than a morass, with six or seven feet water in the mid-channel. See d’Anville (Géographie Ancienne, tom. III, p. 82), Shaw (Travels, pp. 77⁠–⁠84), Marmol (L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. II, p. 465), and Thuanus (LVIII 12, tom. III, p. 334). ↩
From Delphi, the name of Delphicum was given, both in Greek and Latin, to a tripod; and, by an easy analogy, the same appellation was extended at Rome, Constantinople, and Carthage, to the royal banquetting room (Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 21; du Cange, Glossarium Graecitatis, p. 277, “Δελοικόν,” ad Alexias, p. 412). ↩
And a few others (ὀλίγα ἄττα), Procopius states in his work De aedificiis, l. VI vol. I, p. 5. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon had forgotten that the bearer of the “victorious letters of his brother” had sailed into the port of Carthage; and that the letters had fallen into the hands of the Romans. Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 23. —⁠M. ↩
These orations always express the sense of the times, and sometimes of the actors. I have condensed that sense, and thrown away declamation. ↩
The relics of St. Augustine were carried by the African bishops to their Sardinian exile (AD 500); and it was believed in the eighth century that Liutprand, king of the Lombards, transported them (AD 721) from Sardinia to Pavia. In the year 1695, the Augustan friars of that city found a brick arch, marble coffin, silver case, silk wrapper, bones, blood, etc.; and perhaps an inscription of Agostino in Gothic letters. But this useful discovery has been disputed by reason and jealousy (Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 725,” No. 2⁠–⁠9; Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIII, p. 944; Montfaucon, Diarium Italicum, pp. 26⁠–⁠30; Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. V dissert. LVIII, p. 9, who had composed a separate treatise before the decree of the bishop of Pavia, and Pope Benedict XIII). ↩
Τὰ τῆς πολιτείας προοίμια is the expression of Procopius (De aedificiis, l. VI c. 7). Ceuta, which has been defaced by the Portuguese, flourished in nobles and palaces, in agriculture and manufactures, under the more prosperous reign of the Arabs (L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. II, p. 236). ↩
See the second and third preambles to the Digest, or Pandects, promulgated AD 533, December 16. To the titles of Vandalicus and Africanus, Justinian, or rather Belisarius, had acquired a just claim; Gothicus was premature, and Francicus false and offensive to a great nation. ↩
See the original acts in Baronius (“AD 535,” No. 21⁠–⁠54). The emperor applauds his own clemency to the heretics, cum sufficiat eis vivere. ↩
Dupin (Geographia sacra Africana, p. LIX ad Optatus Milevitanus) observes and bewails this episcopal decay. In the more prosperous age of the church, he had noticed 690 bishoprics; but however minute were the dioceses, it is not probable that they all existed at the same time. ↩
The African laws of Justinian are illustrated by his German biographer (Codex Justinianus, l. I tit. 27; Novellae 36, 37, 131; Vita Justiniani, pp. 349⁠–⁠377). ↩
Mount Papua is placed by d’Anville (tom. III, p. 92, and Tabula Imperium Romanum Occidentale) near Hippo Regius and the sea; yet this situation ill agrees with the long pursuit beyond Hippo and the words of Procopius (l. II c. 4), ἐν τοῖς Νουμιδίας ἐσχάτοις.9085 ↩
Shaw (Travels, p. 220) most accurately represents the manners of the Bedouins and Kabyles, the last of whom, by their language, are the remnant of the Moors; yet how changed⁠—how civilized are these modern savages!⁠—provisions are plenty among them, and bread is common. ↩
By Procopius it is styled a lyre; perhaps harp would have been more national. The instruments of music are thus distinguished by Venantius Fortunatus:⁠—

Romanusque lyrâ tibi plaudat, Barbarus harpâ.

↩
Herodotus elegantly describes the strange effects of grief in another royal captive, Psammetichus of Egypt, who wept at the lesser and was silent at the greatest of his calamities (l. III c. 14). In the interview of Paulus Aemilius and Perses, Belisarius might study his part; but it is probable that he never read either Livy or Plutarch; and it is certain that his generosity did not need a tutor. ↩
After the title of imperator had lost the old military sense, and the Roman auspices were abolished by Christianity (see la Bléterie, Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXI, pp. 302⁠–⁠332), a triumph might be given with less inconsistency to a private general. ↩
If the Ecclesiastes be truly a work of Solomon, and not, like Prior’s poem, a pious and moral composition of more recent times, in his name, and on the subject of his repentance. The latter is the opinion of the learned and free-spirited Grotius (Opera omnia theologica, tom. I, p. 258); and indeed the Ecclesiastes and Proverbs display a larger compass of thought and experience than seem to belong either to a Jew or a king.9086 ↩
In the Bélisaire of Marmontel, the king and the conqueror of Africa meet, sup, and converse, without recollecting each other. It is surely a fault of that romance, that not only the hero, but all to whom he had been so conspiciously known, appear to have lost their eyes or their memory. ↩
Shaw, p. 59. Yet since Procopius (l. II c. 13) speaks of a people of Mount Atlas, as already distinguished by white bodies and yellow hair, the phenomenon (which is likewise visible in the Andes of Peru, Buffon, tom. III, p. 504) may naturally be ascribed to the elevation of the ground and the temperature of the air. ↩
The geographer of Ravenna (l. III c. XI, pp. 129⁠–⁠131, Paris, 1688) describes the Mauritania Gaditana (opposite to Cadiz) ubi gens Vandalorum, a Belisario devicta in Africâ, fugit, et nunquam comparuit. ↩
A single voice had protested, and Genseric dismissed, without a formal answer, the Vandals of Germany; but those of Africa derided his prudence and affected to despise the poverty of their forests (Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 22). ↩
From the mouth of the great elector (in 1687), Tollius describes the secret royalty and rebellious spirit of the Vandals of Brandenburgh, who could muster five or six thousand soldiers who had procured some cannon, etc. (Itineraria Hungaricum, p. 42, apud Dubos, Histoire critique de la monarchie françoise, tom. I, pp. 182, 183). The veracity, not of the elector, but of Tollius himself, may justly be suspected.9087 ↩
Procopius (l. I c. 22) was in total darkness⁠—οὐδὲ μνήμη τις οὐδὲ ὄκομα ἐς ἐμὲ αῷζεται. Under the reign of Dagobert (AD 630) the Sclavonian tribes of the Sorbi and Venedi already bordered on Thuringia (Mascou, History of the Ancient Germans XV 3⁠–⁠5). ↩
Sallust represents the Moors as a remnant of the army of Heracles (De bello Catilinario et Jugurthino, c. 21) and Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. II c. 10) as the posterity of the Cananaeans who fled from the robber Joshua (ληστὴς). He quotes two columns, with a Phoenician inscription. I believe in the columns⁠—I doubt the inscription⁠—and I reject the pedigree.9088 ↩
Virgil (Georgics III 339) and Pomponius Mela (I 8) describe the wandering life of the African shepherds, similar to that of the Arabs and Tartars; and Shaw (p. 222) is the best commentator on the poet and the geographer. ↩
The customary gifts were a sceptre, a crown or cap, a white cloak, a figured tunic and shoes, all adorned with gold and silver; nor were these precious metals less acceptable in the shape of coin (Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 25). ↩
See the African government and warfare of Solomon, in Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. II c. 10⁠–⁠13, 19, 20). He was recalled, and again restored; and his last victory dates in the thirteenth year of Justinian (AD 539). An accident in his childhood had rendered him a eunuch (l. I c. 11); the other Roman generals were amply furnished with beards, πὼγωνος ἐμπιπλάμενοι (l. II c. 8). ↩
The natural antipathy of the horse for the camel is affirmed by the ancients (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, l. VI, p. 438; l. VII, pp. 483, 492, edit. Hutchinson. Polyaenus, Strategemata VII 6. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VIII 26. Aelian, De natura animalium, l. III c. 7); but it is disproved by daily experience, and derided by the best judges, the Orientals (Relation du voyage d’Adam Olearius, p. 553). ↩
Procopius is the first who described Mount Aurasius (De bello Vandalico, l. II c. 13; De aedificiis, l. VI c. 7). He may be compared with Leo Africanus (Della descrittione dell’Africa, parte V, in Ramusio, tom. I folio 77, recto), Marmol (tom. II, p. 430), and Shaw (pp. 56⁠–⁠59). ↩
Isidore, Chronicon, p. 722, edit. Grotius. Mariana, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, l. V c. 8, p. 173. Yet, according to Isidore, the siege of Centa and the death of Theudes happened, A.Æ.H. [Anno Æra Historia] 586⁠—AD 548; and the place was defended, not by the Vandals, but by the Romans. ↩
Procopius, De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 24. ↩
See the original Chronicle of Isidore, and the fifth and sixth books of the History of Spain by Mariana. The Romans were finally expelled by Suintila king of the Visigoths (AD 621⁠–⁠626), after their reunion to the Catholic church. ↩
See the marriage and fate of Amalafrida in Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. I c. 8, 9), and in Cassiodorus (Variarum IX 1) the expostulation of her royal brother. Compare likewise the Chronicle of Victor Tunnunensis. ↩
Lilybaeum was built by the Carthaginians, Olympiad XCV 4; and in the first Punic war a strong situation and excellent harbor rendered that place an important object to both nations. ↩
Compare the different passages of Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. II c. 5, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 3). ↩
For the reign and character of Amalasontha, see Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 2⁠–⁠4, and Anecdota, c. 16, with the Notes of Alemannus), Cassiodorus (Variarum VIII, IX, X, and XI 1), and Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 59, and De regnorum ac temporum successione in Muratori, tom. I, p. 24). ↩
The marriage of Theodoric with Audefleda, the sister of Clovis, may be placed in the year 495, soon after the conquest of Italy (Du Buat, Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. IX, p. 213). The nuptials of Eutharic and Amalasontha were celebrated in 515 (Cassiodorus in Chronicon, p. 453). ↩
At the death of Theodoric, his grandson Athalaric is described by Procopius as a boy about eight years old⁠—ὀκτὼ γεγονὼς ἔτη. Cassiodorus, with authority and reason, adds two years to his age⁠—infantulum adhue vix decennem. ↩
The lake, from the neighboring towns of Etruria, was styled either Vulsiniensis (now of Bolsena) or Tarquiniensis. It is surrounded with white rocks, and stored with fish and wildfowl. The younger Pliny (Epistulae II 96) celebrates two woody islands that floated on its waters: if a fable, how credulous the ancients! if a fact, how careless the moderns! Yet, since Pliny, the island may have been fixed by new and gradual accessions. ↩
Amalasontha was not alive when this new ambassador, Peter of Thessalonica, arrived in Italy; he could not then secretly contribute to her death. “But” (says M. de Sainte-Croix) “it is not beyond probability that Theodora had entered into some criminal intrigue with Gundelina, for that wife of Theodatus wrote to implore her protection, reminding her of the confidence which she and her husband had always placed in her former promises.” See on Amalasontha and the authors of her death an excellent dissertation of M. de Sainte-Croix in the Archives Littéraires de l’Europe published by M. Charles Vandenbourg, No. 50, t. XVII, p. 216. —⁠G. ↩
Yet Procopius discredits his own evidence (Anecdota, c. 16) by confessing that in his public history he had not spoken the truth. See the epistles from Queen Gundelina to the Empress Theodora (Variarum X 20, 21, 23, and observe a supicious word, de illâ personâ, etc.) with the elaborate commentary of Buat (tom. X, pp. 177⁠–⁠185). ↩
For the conquest of Sicily, compare the narrative of Procopius with the complaints of Totila (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 5; l. III c. 16). The Gothic queen had lately relieved that thankless island (Variarum IX 10, 11). ↩
The ancient magnitude and splendor of the five quarters of Syracuse are delineated by Cicero (In verrem actio II l. IV c. 52, 53), Strabo (l. VI, p. 415), and Jackques Philippe d’Orville (Sicula, tom. II, pp. 174⁠–⁠202). The new city, restored by Augustus, shrunk towards the island. ↩
A hundred (there was no room on board for more). Gibbon has again been misled by Cousin’s translation. Lord Mahon, p. 157. —⁠M. ↩
Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. II c. 14, 15) so clearly relates the return of Belisarius into Sicily (p. 146, edit. Hoeschilii) that I am astonished at the strange misapprehension and reproaches of a learned critic (Oeuvres de la Mothe Le Vayer, tom. VIII, pp. 162, 163). ↩
The ancient Alba was ruined in the first age of Rome. On the same spot, or at least in the neighborhood, successively arose: 1. The villa of Pompey, etc.; 2. A camp of the Praetorian cohorts; 3. The modern episcopal city of Albanum or Albano (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. II c. 4. Cluverius, Italia antiqua, tom. II, p. 914). ↩
A Sibylline oracle was ready to pronounce⁠—Africâ captâ mundus cum nato peribit; a sentence of portentous ambiguity (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 7), which has been published in unknown characters by Opsopaeus, an editor of the oracles. The Père Maltret has promised a commentary; but all his promises have been vain and fruitless. ↩
In his chronology, imitated in some degree from Thucydides, Procopius begins each spring the years of Justinian and of the Gothic war; and his first era coincides with the first of April, 535, and not 536, according to the Annals of Baronius (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 555, who is followed by Muratori and the editors of Sigonius). Yet, in some passages, we are at a loss to reconcile the dates of Procopius with himself and with the Chronicle of Marcellinus. ↩
The series of the first Gothic war is represented by Procopius (l. I c. 5⁠–⁠29; l. II c. 1⁠–⁠30; l. III c. 1) till the captivity of Vitiges. With the aid of Sigonius (Opera omnia, tom. I Historiarum de occidentali imperio, l. XVII, XVIII) and Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. V), I have gleaned some few additional facts. ↩
Jornandes, De rebus Geticis, c. 60, p. 702, edit. Grotius, and tom. I, p. 221. Muratori, De regnorum ac temporum successione, p. 241. ↩
Nero (says Tacitus, Annales XV 35) Neapolim quasi Graecam urbem delegit. One hundred and fifty years afterwards, in the time of Septimius Severus, the Hellenism of the Neapolitans is praised by Philostratus: γένος Ἔλληνες καὶ ἀστυκοὶ, δθεν καὶ τὰς σπουδὰς τῶν λόγων Ἑλληνικοί εἰσι (Icones, l. I, p. 763, edit. Olearius.) ↩
The otium of Naples is praised by the Roman poets, by Virgil, Horace, Silius Italicus, and Statius (Cluverius, Italia antiqua, l. IV, pp. 1149, 1150). In an elegant epistle (Silvae, l. III 5, pp. 94⁠–⁠98, edit. Markland), Statius undertakes the difficult task of drawing his wife from the pleasures of Rome to that calm retreat. ↩
This measure was taken by Roger I after the conquest of Naples (AD 1139), which he made the capital of his new kingdom (Giannone, Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. II, p. 169). That city, the third in Christian Europe, is now at least twelve miles in circumference (Julii Caesaris Capaccii, Historiae Neapolitanae, l. I, p. 47), and contains more inhabitants (350,000) in a given space than any other spot in the known world. ↩
Not geometrical, but common, paces or steps of 22 French inches (d’Anville, Traité des mesures itinéraires, pp. 7, 8). The 2,363 do not make an English mile. ↩
Belisarius was reproved by Pope Silverius for the massacre. He repeopled Naples, and imported colonies of African captives into Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia (Historia miscella, l. XVI in Muratori, tom. I, pp. 106, 107). ↩
Beneventum was built by Diomede, the nephew of Meleager (Cluverius, tom. II, pp. 1195, 1196.) The Calydonian hunt is a picture of savage life (Ovid, Metamorphoses, l. VIII). Thirty or forty heroes were leagued against a hog; the brutes (not the hog) quarrelled with a lady for the head. ↩
The Decennovium is strangely confounded by Cluverius (tom. II, p. 1007) with the river Ufens. It was in truth a canal of nineteen miles, from Forum Appii to Terracina, on which Horace embarked in the night. The Decennovium, which is mentioned by Lucan, Dion Cassius, and Cassiodorus, has been sufficiently ruined, restored, and obliterated (d’Anville, Analyse geographique de l’Italie, p. 185, etc.). ↩
A Jew gratified his contempt and hatred for all the Christians, by enclosing three bands, each of ten hogs, and discriminated by the names of Goths, Greeks, and Romans. Of the first, almost all were found dead⁠—almost all the second were alive⁠—of the third, half died, and the rest lost their bristles. No unsuitable emblem of the event. ↩
Bergier (Histoire des grands chemins de l’empire Romain, tom. I, pp. 221⁠–⁠228, 440⁠–⁠444) examines the structure and materials, while d’Anville (Analyse geographique de l’Italie, pp. 200⁠–⁠213) defines the geographical line. ↩
Of the first recovery of Rome, the year (536) is certain from the series of events, rather than from the corrupt, or interpolated, text of Procopius. The month (December) is ascertained by Evagrius (l. IV c. 19); and the day (the tenth) may be admitted on the slight evidence of Nicephorus Callistus (l. XVII c. 13). For this accurate chronology, we are indebted to the diligence and judgment of Pagi (tom. II, pp. 559, 560).9089 ↩
A horse of a bay or red color was styled φάλιος by the Greeks, balan by the Barbarians, and spadix by the Romans. Honesti spadices, says Virgil (Georgics, l. III 72, with the Observations of Martin and Heyne). Σπάδιξ or βάιον signifies a branch of the palm tree, whose name, φοίνιξ, is synonymous to red (Aulus Gellius II 26). ↩
I interpret βανδαλάριος, not as a proper name, but an office, standard-bearer, from bandum (vexillum), a Barbaric word adopted by the Greeks and Romans (Paul Diaconus, l. I c. 20, p. 760; Grotius, Nomina appellativa et verba Gothica, p. 575; du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. I, pp. 539, 540). ↩
M. d’Anville has given, in the Mémoirs of the Academy for the year 1756 (tom. XXX, pp. 198⁠–⁠236), a plan of Rome on a smaller scale, but far more accurate than that which he had delineated in 1738 for Rollin’s history. Experience had improved his knowledge; and instead of Rossi’s topography, he used the new and excellent map of Nolli. Pliny’s old measure of thirteen must be reduced to eight miles. It is easier to alter a text than to remove hills or buildings.9090 ch. LXXI. “It is quite clear,” observes Sir John Hobhouse, “that all these measurements differ (in the first and second it is 21, in the next 12 and 345 paces, in the last 10), yet it is equally clear that the historian avers that they are all the same.” The present extent 12¾, nearly agrees with the second statement of Gibbon. Sir J. Hobhouse also observes that the walls were enlarged by Constantine; but there can be no doubt that the circuit has been much changed. Historical Illustrations of the Fourth Canto of “Childe Harold”, p. 180. —⁠M. ↩
In the year 1709, Labat (Voyages en Espagne et en Italie, tom. III, p. 218) reckoned 138,568 Christian souls, besides 8,000 or 10,000 Jews⁠—without souls? In the year 1763, the numbers exceeded 160,000. ↩
The accurate eye of Nardini (Roma antica, l. I c. VIII, p. 31) could distinguish the tumultuarie opere di Belisario. ↩
The fissure and leaning in the upper part of the wall, which Procopius observed (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 13), is visible to the present hour (Donatus, Roma vetus ac recens, l. I c. 17, pp. 53, 54). ↩
Lipsius (Opera omnia, tom. III; Poliorceticωn sive de machinis, tormentis, telis, l. III) was ignorant of this clear and conspicuous passage of Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 21). The engine was named ὄναγρος, the wild ass, a calcitrando (Henricus Stephanus, Thesaurus Graecae linguae, tom. II, pp. 1340, 1341, tom. III, p. 877). I have seen an ingenious model, contrived and executed by General Melville, which imitates or surpasses the art of antiquity. ↩
The description of this mausoleum, or mole, in Procopius (l. I c. 25) is the first and best. The height above the walls σχεδὸν ἐς λίθου βολήν. On Nolli’s great plan, the sides measure 260 English feet.9091 ↩
Praxiteles excelled in Fauns, and that of Athens was his own masterpiece. Rome now contains about thirty of the same character. When the ditch of St. Angelo was cleansed under Urban VIII the workmen found the sleeping Faun of the Barberini palace; but a leg, a thigh, and the right arm had been broken from that beautiful statue (Winckelmanm, Histoire de l’art l’antiquité, tom. II, pp. 52, 53; tom. III, p. 265). ↩
Procopius has given the best description of the temple of Janus, a national deity of Latium (Heyne, Excursus V ad l. VII Aeneid). It was once a gate in the primitive city of Romulus and Numa (Nardini, pp. 13, 256, 329). Virgil has described the ancient rite like a poet and an antiquarian. ↩
Vivarium was an angle in the new wall enclosed for wild beasts (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 23). The spot is still visible in Nardini (l IV c. 2, pp. 159, 160), and Nolli’s great plan of Rome. ↩
For the Roman trumpet and its various notes, consult Lipsius, De militiâ Romanâ (Opera omnia, tom. III l. IV, Dialog. X, pp. 125⁠–⁠129). A mode of distinguishing the charge by the horse-trumpet of solid brass, and the retreat by the foot-trumpet of leather and light wood, was recommended by Procopius, and adopted by Belisarius. ↩
Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 3) has forgot to name these aqueducts; nor can such a double intersection, at such a distance from Rome, be clearly ascertained from the writings of Frontinus, Fabretti, and Eschinard, De aquis e de agro Romano, or from the local maps of Lameti and Cingolani. Seven or eight miles from the city (50 stadia), on the road to Albano, between the Latin and Appian ways, I discern the remains of an aqueduct (probably the Septimian), a series (630 paces) of arches twenty-five feet high (ὑψηλὼ ἐς ἄγαν). ↩
They made sausages, ἀλλᾶντας, of mule’s flesh: unwholesome, if the animals had died of the plague. Otherwise the famous Bologna sausages are said to be made of ass flesh (Voyages en Espagne et en Italie de Labat, tom. II, p. 218). ↩
The name of the palace, the hill, and the adjoining gate were all derived from the senator Pincius. Some recent vestiges of temples and churches are now smoothed in the garden of the Minims of the Trinità del Monte (Nardini, l. IV c. 7, p. 196, Eschinard, pp. 209, 210, the old plan of Buffalino, and the great plan of Nolli). Belisarius had fixed his station between the Pincian and Salarian gates (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 15). ↩
From the mention of the primum et secundum velum, it should seem that Belisarius, even in a siege, represented the emperor, and maintained the proud ceremonial of the Byzantine palace. ↩
Le Beau, as a good Catholic, makes the pope the victim of a dark intrigue. Lord Mahon (p. 225), with whom I concur, sums up against him. —⁠M. ↩
Of this act of sacrilege, Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 25) is a dry and reluctant witness. The narratives of Liberatus (Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 22) and Anastasius (De vitis Romanorum pontificum, p. 39) are characteristic, but passionate. Hear the execrations of Cardinal Baronius (“AD 536,” No. 123; “AD 538,” No. 4⁠–⁠20): portentum, facinus omni execratione dignum. ↩
The old Capena was removed by Aurelian to, or near, the modern gate of St. Sebastian (see Nolli’s plan). That memorable spot has been consecrated by the Egerian grove, the memory of Numa, triumphal arches, the sepulchres of the Scipios, Metelli, etc. ↩
The expression of Procopius has an invidious cast⁠—τὐχην ἐκ τοῦ ἀσφαλοῦς τὴν σφίσι ξυμβησομένην καραδοκεῖν (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 4). Yet he is speaking of a woman. ↩
Anastasius (p. 40) has preserved this epithet of Sanguinarius, which might do honor to a tiger. ↩
This transaction is related in the public history (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 8) with candor or caution, in the Anecdotes (c. 7) with malevolence or freedom; but Marcellinus, or rather his continuator (in Chronicon), casts a shade of premeditated assassination over the death of Constantine. He had performed good service at Rome and Spoleto (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. I c. 7, 14); but Alemannus confounds him with a Constantianus comes stabuli. ↩
They refused to serve after his departure; sold their captives and cattle to the Goths; and swore never to fight against them. Procopius introduces a curious digression on the manners and adventures of this wandering nation, a part of whom finally emigrated to Thule or Scandinavia. (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 14, 15). ↩
This national reproach of perfidy (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. II c. 25) offends the ear of La Mothe Le Vayer (tom. VIII, pp. 163⁠–⁠165), who criticizes, as if he had not read, the Greek historian. ↩
Baronius applauds his treason, and justifies the Catholic bishops⁠—qui ne sub heretico principe degant omnem lapidem movent⁠—a useful caution. The more rational Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. V, p. 54) hints at the guilt of perjury and blames at least the imprudence of Datius. ↩
St. Datius was more successful against devils than against Barbarians. He travelled with a numerous retinue, and occupied at Corinth a large house (Baronius, “AD 538,” No. 89; “AD 539,” No. 20). ↩
Μυριάδες τριάκοντα (Compare Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. II c. 7, 21). Yet such population is incredible; and the second or third city of Italy9092 need not repine if we only decimate the numbers of the present text. Both Milan and Genoa revived in less than thirty years (Paul Diaconus, De gestis Langobardorum, l. II c. 38). ↩
Besides Procopius, perhaps too Roman, see the Chronicles of Marius and Marcellinus, Jornandes (in De regnorum ac temporum successione in Muratori, tom. I, p. 241), and Gregory of Tours (l. III c. 32, in tom. II of the Historians of France). Gregory supposes a defeat of Belisarius, who, in Aimoin (De gestis Francorum, l. II c. 23, in tom. III, p. 59), is slain by the Franks. ↩
Agathias, l. I, pp. 14, 15. Could he have seduced or subdued the Gepidae or Lombards of Pannonia, the Greek historian is confident that he must have been destroyed in Thrace. ↩
The king pointed his spear⁠—the bull overturned a tree on his head⁠—he expired the same day. Such is the story of Agathias; but the original Historians of France (tom. II, pp. 202, 403, 558, 667) impute his death to a fever. ↩
Without losing myself in a labyrinth of species and names⁠—the aurochs, urus, bisons, bubalus, bonasus, buffalo, etc. (Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. XI, and Supplément, tom. III, VI), it is certain that in the sixth century a large wild species of horned cattle was hunted in the great forests of the Vosges in Lorraine, and the Ardennes (Gregorii Turonici, tom. II l. X c. 10, p. 369). ↩
Auximum, p. 175. —⁠M. ↩
In the siege of Auximum, he first labored to demolish an old aqueduct, and then cast into the stream, 1. dead bodies; 2. mischievous herbs; and 3. quicklime, which is named (says Procopius, l. II c. 27) τίτανος by the ancients, by the moderns ἄσβεστος. Yet both words are used as synonymous in Galen, Dioscorides, and Lucian (Henricus Stephanus, Thesaurus Graecae linguae, tom. III, p. 748). ↩
The Goths suspected Mathasuintha as an accomplice in the mischief, which perhaps was occasioned by accidental lightning. ↩
In strict philosophy, a limitation of the rights of war seems to imply nonsense and contradiction. Grotius himself is lost in an idle distinction between the jus naturae and the jus gentium, between poison and infection. He balances in one scale the passages of Homer (Odyssey I 259, etc.) and Florus (l. II c. 20, No. 7 ult.); and in the other the examples of Solon (Pausanias, l. X c. 37) and Belisarius. See his great work De jure belli et pacis (l. III c. 4, s. 15⁠–⁠17, and in Barbeyrac’s version, tom. II, p. 257, etc.). Yet I can understand the benefit and validity of an agreement, tacit or express, mutually to abstain from certain modes of hostility. See the Amphictyonic oath in Aeschines, “De falsâ Legatione.” ↩
Ravenna was taken, not in the year 540, but in the latter end of 539; and Pagi (tom. II, p. 569) is rectified by Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. V, p. 62), who proves from an original act on papyrus (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. II dissert. XXXII, pp. 999⁠–⁠1007; Maffei, Istoria Diplomatica, pp. 155⁠–⁠160), that before the third of January, 540, peace and free correspondence were restored between Ravenna and Faenza. ↩
He was seized by John the Sanguinary, but an oath or sacrament was pledged for his safety in the Basilica Julii (Historia miscella, l. XVII in Muratori, tom. I, p. 107). Anastasius (in De vitis Romanorum pontificum, p. 40) gives a dark but probable account. Montfaucon is quoted by Mascou (History of the Ancient Germans XII 21) for a votive shield representing the captivity of Vitiges, and now in the collection of Signor Landi at Rome. ↩
Vitiges lived two years at Constantinople, and imperatoris in affectû convictus (or conjuctus) rebus excessit humanis. His widow, Mathasuenta, the wife and mother of the patricians, the elder and younger Germanus, united the streams of Anician and Amali blood (Jornandes, c. 60, p. 221 in Muratori, tom. I). ↩
Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. III c. 1. Aimoin, a French monk of the eleventh century, who had obtained, and has disfigured, some authentic information of Belisarius, mentions, in his name, 12,000, pueri or slaves⁠—quos propriis alimus stipendiis⁠—besides 18,000 soldiers (Historians of France, tom. III; De gestis Francorum, l. II c. 6, p. 48). ↩
The diligence of Alemannus could add but little to the four first and most curious chapters of the Anecdotes. Of these strange Anecdotes, a part may be true, because probable⁠—and a part true, because improbable. Procopius must have known the former, and the latter he could scarcely invent.9093 ↩
Procopius intimates (Anecdota, c. 4) that, when Belisarius returned to Italy (AD 543), Antonina was sixty years of age. A forced but more polite construction, which refers that date to the moment when he was writing (AD 559), would be compatible with the manhood of Photius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 10) in 536. ↩
Compare the Vandalic War (l. I c. 12) with the Anecdotes (c. I) and Alemannus (pp. 2, 3). This mode of baptismal adoption was revived by Leo the philosopher. ↩
In November, 537, Photius arrested the pope (Liberatus, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 22; Pagi, tom. II, p. 562). About the end of 539, Belisarius sent Theodosius⁠—τὸν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τῇ αὐτοῦ ἐφεστῶτα⁠—on an important and lucrative commission to Ravenna (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 18). ↩
Theophanes (Chronographia, p. 204) styles him Photinus, the son-in-law of Belisarius; and he is copied by the Historia miscella and Anastasius. ↩
This and much of the private scandal in the Anecdota is liable to serious doubt. Who reported all these private conversations, and how did they reach the ears of Procopius? —⁠M. ↩
This is a strange misrepresentation⁠—he died of a dysentery; nor does it appear that it was immediately after this scene. Antonina proposed to raise him to the generalship of the army⁠—ἀλλά τις προτερήσασα δίκη νόσῳ ἁλόντα δυσειτερίας ἐξ ἀνθρώπων αὐτὸν ἀφανιζει. Procopius, Anecdota, p. 14. The sudden change from the abstemious diet of a monk to the luxury of the court is a much more probable cause of his death. —⁠M. ↩
The expression of Procopius does not appear to me to mean this kind of torture⁠—Φώτιον δὲ αικισμοῖς τε ἄλλοις ἀνδραποδώδεσι περιβαλ οῦσα, και ξάγασε δατά τε τῶς νόμων και τοῦ νωτου πολλάς. Anecdota, p. 14. —⁠M. ↩
The continuator of the Chronicle of Marcellinus gives, in a few decent words, the substance of the Anecdotes: Belisarius de Oriente evocatus, in offensam periculumque incurrens grave, et invidiae subeacens rursus remittitur in Italiam (p. 54). ↩
It will be a pleasure, not a task, to read Herodotus (l. VII c. 104, 134, pp. 550, 615). The conversation of Xerxes and Demaratus at Thermopylae is one of the most interesting and moral scenes in history. It was the torture of the royal Spartan to behold, with anguish and remorse, the virtue of his country. ↩
See this proud inscription in Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae VII 27). Few men have more exquisitely tasted of glory and disgrace; nor could Juvenal (Satires X) produce a more striking example of the vicissitudes of fortune and the vanity of human wishes. ↩
Γραικοὺς⁠ ⁠… ἐξ ὦν τὰ πρότερα οὐδένα ἐς Ιταλίαν ἤκοντα εἶδον, ὅτι μὴ τραγωδοὺς, καὶ ναὺτας λωποδύτας. This last epithet of Procopius is too nobly translated by “pirates”; “naval thieves” is the proper word; strippers of garments, either for injury or insult (“Demosthenes contra Conon” in Reiske, Oratores Graeci, tom. II, p. 1264). ↩
See the third and fourth books of the Gothic War: the writer of the Anecdotes cannot aggravate these abuses. ↩
Agathias, l. V, pp. 157, 158. He confines this weakness of the emperor and the empire to the old age of Justinian; but alas! he was never young. ↩
This mischievous policy, which Procopius (Anecdota, c. 19) imputes to the emperor, is revealed in his epistle to a Scythian prince, who was capable of understanding it. Ἄγαν προμηθῆ καὶ ἀγχινούστατον, says Agathias (l. V, pp. 170, 171). ↩
Gens Germanâ feritate ferocior, says Velleius Paterculus of the Lombards (II 106). Langobardos paucitas nobilitat. Plurimis ac valentissimis nationibus cincti non per obsequium, sed praeliis et perilitando, tuti sunt (Tacitus, De moribus Germanorum, c. 40). See likewise Strabo (l. VII, p. 446). The best geographers place them beyond the Elbe, in the bishopric of Magdeburgh and the middle march of Brandenburgh; and their situation will agree with the patriotic remark of the Count de Hertzberg, that most of the Barbarian conquerors issued from the same countries which still produce the armies of Prussia.9094 ↩
The Scandinavian origin of the Goths and Lombards, as stated by Paul Warnefrid, surnamed the Deacon, is attacked by Cluverius (Germania antiqua, l. III c. 26, p. 102, etc.), a native of Prussia, and defended by Grotius (Prolegomena ad Historia Gothorum, p. 28, etc.), the Swedish ambassador. ↩
Two facts in the narrative of Paul Diaconus (l. I c. 20) are expressive of national manners: 1. Dum ad tabulam luderet⁠—while he played at draughts. 2. Camporum viridantia lina. The cultivation of flax supposes property, commerce, agriculture, and manufactures. ↩
I have used, without undertaking to reconcile, the facts in Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 14, l. III c. 33, 34, l. IV c. 18, 25), Paul Diaconus (De gestis Langobardorum, l. I c. 1⁠–⁠23, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I, pp. 405⁠–⁠419), and Jornandes (De regnorum ac temporum successione, p. 242). The patient reader may draw some light from Mascou (History of the Ancient Germans, and Annotation XXIII) and Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. IX, X, XI). ↩
I adopt the appellation of Bulgarians from Ennodius (in “Panegyricus Theodorici,” Opera varia Sirmond, tom. I, pp. 1598, 1599), Jornandes (De rebus Geticis, c. 5, p. 194, et De regnorum ac temporum successione, p. 242), Theophanes (p. 185), and the Chronicles of Cassiodorus and Marcellinus. The name of Huns is too vague; the tribes of the Cutturgurians and Utturgurians are too minute and too harsh.9095 ↩
Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 19). His verbal message (he owns himself an illiterate Barbarian) is delivered as an epistle. The style is savage, figurative, and original. ↩
This sum is the result of a particular list, in a curious MS. fragment of the year 550, found in the library of Milan. The obscure geography of the times provokes and exercises the patience of the Count Du Buat (tom. XI, pp. 69⁠–⁠189). The French minister often loses himself in a wilderness which requires a Saxon and Polish guide. ↩
Panicum, milium. See Columella, l. II c. 9, p. 430, edit. Gesner. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XVIII 24, 25. The Sarmatians made a pap of millet, mingled with mare’s milk or blood. In the wealth of modern husbandry, our millet feeds poultry, and not heroes. See the dictionaries of Jacques-Christophe Valmont-Bomare and Philip Miller. ↩
For the name and nation, the situation and manners of the Sclavonians, see the original evidence of the sixth century, in Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. II c. 26; l. III c. 14), and the emperor Mauritius or Maurice (Strategikon, l. II c. 5, apud Mascou Annotation XXXI). The stratagems of Maurice have been printed only, as I understand, at the end of Scheffer’s edition of Arrian’s Tactics, at Upsal, 1664 (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, l. IV c. 8, tom. III, p. 278), a scarce, and hitherto, to me, an inaccessible book. ↩
Antes eorum fortissimi⁠ ⁠… Taysis qui rapidus et vorticosus in Histri fluenta furens devolvitur (Jornandes, c. 5, p. 194, edit. Muratori; Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. III c. 14, et De aedificiis, l. IV c. 7). Yet the same Procopius mentions the Goths and Huns as neighbors, γειτονοῦντα, to the Danube (De aedificiis, l. IV c. 1). ↩
The national title of “Anticus,” in the laws and inscriptions of Justinian, was adopted by his successors, and is justified by the pious Ludewig (in Vita Justiniani, p. 515). It had strangely puzzled the civilians of the Middle Age. ↩
Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 25. ↩
An inroad of the Huns is connected, by Procopius, with a comet; perhaps that of 531 (De bello Persico, l. II c. 4). Agathias (l. V, pp. 154, 155) borrows from his predecessors some early facts. ↩
The cruelties of the Sclavonians are related or magnified by Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. III c. 29, 38). For their mild and liberal behavior to their prisoners, we may appeal to the authority, somewhat more recent, of the emperor Maurice (Strategikon, l. II c. 5). ↩
Topirus was situate near Philippi in Thrace, or Macedonia, opposite to the isle of Thasos, twelve days’ journey from Constantinople (Cellarius, tom. I, pp. 676, 840.) ↩
According to the malevolent testimony of the Anecdotes (c. 18), these inroads had reduced the provinces south of the Danube to the state of a Scythian wilderness. ↩
It must be remembered that the name of Turks is extended to a whole family of the Asiatic races, and not confined to the Assena, or Turks of the Altai. —⁠M. ↩
Assena (the wolf) was the name of this chief. Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 114. —⁠M. ↩
From Caf to Caf; which a more rational geography would interpret, from Imaus, perhaps, to Mount Atlas. According to the religious philosophy of the Muhammadans, the basis of Mount Caf is an emerald, whose reflection produces the azure of the sky. The mountain is endowed with a sensitive action in its roots or nerves; and their vibration, at the command of God, is the cause of earthquakes (d’Herbelot, pp. 230, 231). ↩
Altai, i.e. Altun Tagh, the Golden Mountain. Von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol. I, p. 2. —⁠M. ↩
The Siberian iron is the best and most plentiful in the world; and in the southern parts, above sixty mines are now worked by the industry of the Russians (Philip Johan von Strahlenberg, History of Siberia, pp. 342, 387. Voyage en Sibérie, par l’Abbé Chappe d’Auteroche, pp. 603⁠–⁠608, edit. in duodecimo, Amsterdam, 1770). The Turks offered iron for sale; yet the Roman ambassadors, with strange obstinacy, persisted in believing that it was all a trick, and that their country produced none (Menander in Excerpta legationum, p. 152). ↩
Of Irgana-kon (Abulghazi Khan, Histoire généalogique des Tatars, partie II c. 5, pp. 71⁠–⁠77; c. 15, p. 155). The tradition of the Moguls, of the 450 years which they passed in the mountains, agrees with the Chinese periods of the history of the Huns and Turks (de Guignes, tom. I part II, p. 376), and the twenty generations, from their restoration to Zingis. ↩
The Mongol Temugin is also, though erroneously, explained by Rubruquis, a smith. Schmidt, p. 876. —⁠M. ↩
There appears the same confusion here. Bertezena (Bertè-Scheno) is claimed as the founder of the Mongol race. The name means the gray (bläuliche) wolf. In fact, the same tradition of the origin from a wolf seems common to the Mongols and the Turks. The Mongol Bertè-Scheno, of the very curious Mongol History, published and translated by M. Isaac Jacob Schmidt of Petersburg, is brought from Tibet. M. Schmidt considers this tradition of the Tibetane descent of the royal race of the Mongols to be much earlier than their conversion to Lamaism, yet it seems very suspicious. See Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 159. The Turkish Bertezena is called Thou-men by Klaproth, p. 115. In 552, Thou-men took the title of Kha-Khan, and was called Il Khan. —⁠M. ↩
Great Bucharia is called Turkistan: see Hammer, 2. It includes all the vast steppes at the foot of the Altai. The name is the same with that of the Turan of Persian poetic legend. —⁠M. ↩
The country of the Turks, now of the Calmucks, is well described in the Genealogical History of the Tartars, pp. 521⁠–⁠562. The curious notes of the French translator are enlarged and digested in the second volume of the English version. ↩
Visdelou, pp. 141, 151. The fact, though it strictly belongs to a subordinate and successive tribe, may be introduced here. ↩
Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 12; l. II c. 3. Peyssonnel (Observations sur les peuples barbares, pp. 99, 100) defines the distance between Caffa and the old Bosphorus at XVI long Tartar leagues. ↩
See, in a Memoire of M. de Boze (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. VI, pp. 549⁠–⁠565), the ancient kings and medals of the Cimmerian Bosphorus; and the gratitude of Athens, in the oration of Demosthenes against Leptines (in Reiske, Oratores Graeci, tom. I, pp. 466, 467). ↩
For the origin and revolutions of the first Turkish empire, the Chinese details are borrowed from de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I partie II, pp. 367⁠–⁠462) and Visdelou (Supplément à la Bibliothèque Orientale, d’Herbelot, pp. 82⁠–⁠114). The Greek or Roman hints are gathered in Menander (pp. 108⁠–⁠164) and Theophylact Simocatta (l. VII c. 7, 8). ↩
The Ogors or Varchonites, from Var, a river (obviously connected with the name Avar), must not be confounded with the Uigours, the eastern Turks (von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol. I, p. 3), who speak a language the parent of the more modern Turkish dialects. Compare Klaproth, page 121. They are the ancestors of the Usbeck Turks. These Ogors were of the same Finnish race with the Huns; and the 20,000 families which fled towards the west, after the Turkish invasion, were of the same race with those which remained to the east of the Volga, the true Avars of Theophylact. —⁠M. ↩
The River Til, or Tula, according to the geography of de Guignes (tom. I part II, p. LVIII and 352), is a small though grateful stream of the desert, that falls into the Orhon, Selinga, etc. See Bell, Travels from St. Petersburg (vol. II, p. 124); yet his own description of the Keat, down which he sailed into the Oby, represents the name and attributes of the black river (p. 139).9096 ↩
Theophylact, l. VII c. 7, 8. And yet his true Avars are invisible even to the eyes of M. de Guignes; and what can be more illustrious than the false? The right of the fugitive Ogors to that national appellation is confessed by the Turks themselves (Menander, p. 108). ↩
The Alani are still found in the Genealogical History of the Tartars (p. 617), and in d’Anville’s maps. They opposed the march of the generals of Zingis round the Caspian Sea, and were overthrown in a great battle (Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, l. IV c. 9, p. 447). ↩
The embassies and first conquests of the Avars may be read in Menander (Excerpta legationum, pp. 99⁠–⁠101, 154, 155), Theophanes (p. 196), the Historia miscella (l. XVI, p. 109), and Gregory of Tours (in the Historians of France, tom. II l. IV c. 23, 29, pp. 214, 217). ↩
Theophanes (Chronographia, p. 204), and the Historia miscella (l. XVI, p. 110), as understood by de Guignes (tom. I part II, p. 354), appear to speak of a Turkish embassy to Justinian himself; but that of Maniach, in the fourth year of his successor Justin, is positively the first that reached Constantinople (Menander, p. 108). ↩
The Russians have found characters, rude hieroglyphics, on the Irtish and Yenisei, on medals, tombs, idols, rocks, obelisks, etc. (Strahlenberg, History of Siberia, pp. 324, 346, 406, 429); Dr. Hyde (Historia religionis veterum Persarum, p. 521, etc.) has given two alphabets of Tibet and of the Eygours. I have long harbored a suspicion that all the Scythian, and some, perhaps much, of the Indian science was derived from the Greeks of Bactriana.9097 ↩
This rite is so curious, that I have subjoined the description of it:⁠—

When these (the exorcisers, the Shamans) approached Zemarchus, they took all our baggage and placed it in the centre. Then, kindling a fire with branches of frankincense, lowly murmuring certain barbarous words in the Scythian language, beating on a kind of bell (a gong) and a drum, they passed over the baggage the leaves of the frankincense, crackling with the fire, and at the same time themselves becoming frantic, and violently leaping about, seemed to exorcise the evil spirits. Having thus as they thought, averted all evil, they led Zemarchus himself through the fire.
Menander, in Niebuhr’s Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, p. 381.

Compare Carpini’s Travels. The princes of the race of Zingis Khan condescended to receive the ambassadors of the king of France, at the end of the 13th century, without their submitting to this humiliating rite. See correspondence published by Abel-Rémusat, Nouveau Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, vol. VII. On the embassy of Zemarchus, compare Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 116. —⁠M. ↩
All the details of these Turkish and Roman embassies, so curious in the history of human manners, are drawn from the extracts of Menander (pp. 106⁠–⁠110, 151⁠–⁠154, 161⁠–⁠164), in which we often regret the want of order and connection. ↩
See d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 568, 929); Hyde (Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 21, pp. 290, 291); Edward Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 70, 71); Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, p. 176); Texeira (in Stevens, History of Persia, l. I c. 34).9098 ↩
The fame of the new law for the community of women was soon propagated in Syria (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, p. 402) and Greece (Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 5). ↩
He offered his own wife and sister to the prophet; but the prayers of Nushirvan saved his mother, and the indignant monarch never forgave the humiliation to which his filial piety had stooped: pedes tuos deosculatus (said he to Mazdak), cujus foetor adhuc nares occupat (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 71). ↩
Saint-Martin questions this adoption: he argues its improbability; and supposes that Procopius, perverting some popular traditions, or the remembrance of some fruitless negotiations which took place at that time, has mistaken, for a treaty of adoption, some treaty of guaranty or protection for the purpose of insuring the crown, after the death of Kobad, to his favorite son Khosrow, vol. VIII, p. 32. Yet the Greek historians seem unanimous as to the proposal: the Persians might be expected to maintain silence on such a subject. —⁠M. ↩
Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 11. Was not Proclus over-wise? Was not the danger imaginary?⁠—The excuse, at least, was injurious to a nation not ignorant of letters: οὐ γράμμασι οἱ βάρβαροι τοῦς παῖδας ποιοῦνται ἀλλ’ ὄπλων σκεηῇ. Whether any mode of adoption was practiced in Persia, I much doubt. ↩
From Procopius and Agathias, Pagi (tom. II, pp. 543, 626) has proved that Khosrow Nushirvan ascended the throne in the fifth year of Justinian (AD 531, April 1⁠—AD 532, April 1). But the true chronology, which harmonizes with the Greeks and Orientals, is ascertained by John Malalas (tom. II 211). Cabades, or Kobad, after a reign of forty-three years and two months, sickened the 8th, and died the 13th of September, AD 531, aged eighty-two years. According to the annals of Eutychius, Nushirvan reigned forty seven years and six months; and his death must consequently be placed in March, AD 579. ↩
Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 23. Brisson, De regio Persarum, p. 494. The gate of the palace of Ispahan is, or was, the fatal scene of disgrace or death (Chardin, Voyages en Perse, tom. IV, pp. 312, 313). ↩
This is a strange term. Nushirvan employed a stratagem similar to that of Jehu, 2 Kings 10:18⁠–⁠28, to separate the followers of Mazdak from the rest of his subjects, and with a body of his troops cut them all in pieces. The Greek writers concur with the Persian in this representation of Nushirvan’s temperate conduct. Theophanes, p. 146. Mirkhond, p. 362. Eutychius, Annales, vol. II, p. 179. Abulfeda, in an unedited part, consulted by Saint-Martin as well as in a passage formerly cited. Le Beau vol. VIII, p. 38. Malcolm vol. I, p. 109. —⁠M. ↩
In Persia, the prince of the waters is an officer of state. The number of wells and subterraneous channels is much diminished, and with it the fertility of the soil: 400 wells have been recently lost near Tauris, and 42,000 were once reckoned in the province of Khorasan (Chardin, tom. III, pp. 99, 100; Tavernier, tom. I, p. 416). ↩
The character and government of Nushirvan is represented sometimes in the words of d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 680, etc., from Khondemir), Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, pp. 179, 180⁠—very rich), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum VII, pp. 94, 95⁠—very poor), Schikard (Tarich, pp. 144⁠–⁠150), Texeira (in Stevens, l. I c. 35), Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, pp. 404⁠–⁠410), and the Abbé Fourmont (Histoire de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. VII, pp. 325⁠–⁠334), who has translated a spurious or genuine testament of Nushirvan. ↩
A thousand years before his birth, the judges of Persia had given a solemn opinion τῷ βασιλεύοντι Περσέων ἐξεῖναι ποιέειν το ἂν βούληται (Herodotus, l. III c. 31, p. 210, edit. Wesseling). Nor had this constitutional maxim been neglected as a useless and barren theory. ↩
On the literary state of Persia, the Greek versions, philosophers, sophists, the learning or ignorance of Khosrow, Agathias (l. II c. 66⁠–⁠71) displays much information and strong prejudices. ↩
Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, p. DCCXLV, VI, VII. ↩
The Shah Nameh, or Book of Kings, is perhaps the original record of history which was translated into Greek by the interpreter Sergius (Agathias, l. V, p. 141), preserved after the Muhammadan conquest, and versified in the year 994, by the national poet Ferdowsi. See d’Anquetil (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXXI, p. 379) and Sir William Jones (The History of the Life of Nadir Shah, p. 161). ↩
In the fifth century, the name of Restom, or Rostam, a hero who equalled the strength of twelve elephants, was familiar to the Armenians (Moses Chorenensis, History of Armenia, l. II c. 7, p. 96, edit. Whiston). In the beginning of the seventh, the Persian romance of Rostam and Isfendiar was applauded at Mecca (George Sale’s Koran, c. XXXI, p. 335). Yet this exposition of ludicrum novae historiae is not given by Maracci (Refutatio Alcorani, pp. 544⁠–⁠548). ↩
Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 10). Kobad had a favorite Greek physician, Stephen of Edessa (De bello Persico, l. II c. 26). The practice was ancient; and Herodotus relates the adventures of Democedes of Crotona (l. III, pp. 125⁠–⁠137). ↩
See Pagi, tom. II, p. 626. In one of the treaties an honorable article was inserted for the toleration and burial of the Catholics (Menander, in Excerpta legationum, p. 142). Nushizad, a son of Nushirvan, was a Christian, a rebel, and⁠—a martyr? (D’Herbelot, p. 681.) ↩
On the Persian language, and its three dialects, consult d’Anquetil (pp. 339⁠–⁠343) and Jones (pp. 153⁠–⁠185): ἀγρίᾳ τινί γλώττῆ καὶ ἀμουσοτάτῆ, is the character which Agathias (l. II, p. 66) ascribes to an idiom renowned in the East for poetical softness. ↩
Agathias specifies the Gorgias, Phaedon, Parmenides, and Timaeus. Renaudot (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. XII, pp. 246⁠–⁠261) does not mention this Barbaric version of Aristotle. ↩
Of these fables, I have seen three copies in three different languages:
1. In Greek, translated by Simeon Seth (AD 1100) from the Arabic, and published by Starck at Berlin in 1697, in duodecimo.
2. In Latin, a version from the Greek, Sapientia indorum, inserted by Père Poussin at the end of his edition of Pachymer (pp. 547⁠–⁠620, edit. Roman).
3. In French, from the Turkish, dedicated, in 1540, to Sultan Soliman: Contes et fables indiennes de Bidpai et de Lokman, par Mm. Galland et Cardonne, Paris, 1778, two vols. in duodecimo.
Mr. Warton (History of English Poetry, vol. I, pp. 129⁠–⁠131) takes a larger scope.9099 ↩
See the Historia shahiludii of Dr. Hyde (Syntagma dissertationum, tom. II, pp. 61⁠–⁠69). ↩
The endless peace (Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 21) was concluded or ratified in the sixth year and third consulship of Justinian (AD 533, between January 1 and April 1, Pagi, tom. II, p. 550). Marcellinus, in his Chronicle, uses the style of Medes and Persians. ↩
Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 26. ↩
Almondar, king of Hira, was deposed by Kobad, and restored by Nushirvan. His mother, from her beauty, was surnamed Celestial Water, an appellation which became hereditary, and was extended for a more noble cause (liberality in famine) to the Arab princes of Syria (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 69, 70). ↩
Procopius, De bello Persico, l. II c. 1. We are ignorant of the origin and object of this strata, a paved road of ten days’ journey from Auranitis to Babylonia. (See a Latin note in Guillaume Delisle’s Map Imperial Oriental.) Wesseling and d’Anville are silent. ↩
I have blended, in a short speech, the two orations of the Arsacides of Armenia and the Gothic ambassadors. Procopius, in his public history, feels, and makes us feel, that Justinian was the true author of the war (De bello Persico, l. II c. 2, 3). ↩
The invasion of Syria, the ruin of Antioch, etc., are related in a full and regular series by Procopius (De bello Persico, l. II c. 5⁠–⁠14). Small collateral aid can be drawn from the Orientals: yet not they, but d’Herbelot himself (p. 680), should blush when he blames them for making Justinian and Nushirvan contemporaries. On the geography of the seat of war, d’Anville (l’Euphrate et le Tigre) is sufficient and satisfactory. ↩
It is Sura in Procopius. Is it a misprint in Gibbon? —⁠M. ↩
Joannes Lydus attributes the easy capture of Antioch to the want of fortifications which had not been restored since the earthquake, l. III c. 54, p. 246. —⁠M. ↩
Lydus asserts that he carried away all the statues, pictures, and marbles which adorned the city, l. III c. 54, p. 246. —⁠M. ↩
In the public history of Procopius (De bello Persico, l. II c. 16, 18⁠–⁠21, 24⁠–⁠28); and, with some slight exceptions, we may reasonably shut our ears against the malevolent whisper of the Anecdotes (c. 2, 3, with the Notes, as usual, of Alemannus). ↩
The Lazic war, the contest of Rome and Persia on the Phasis, is tediously spun through many a page of Procopius (De bello Persico, l. II c. 15, 17, 28⁠–⁠30; De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 7⁠–⁠16) and Agathias (l. II, III and IV, pp. 55⁠–⁠132, 141). ↩
The Periplus, or circumnavigation of the Euxine Sea, was described in Latin by Sallust, and in Greek by Arrian:
1. The former work, which no longer exists, has been restored by the singular diligence of M. de Brosses, first president of the parliament of Dijon (Histoire de la république romaine, tom. II l. III, pp. 199⁠–⁠298), who ventures to assume the character of the Roman historian. His description of the Euxine is ingeniously formed of all the fragments of the original, and of all the Greeks and Latins whom Sallust might copy, or by whom he might be copied; and the merit of the execution atones for the whimsical design.
2. The Periplus of Arrian is addressed to the emperor Hadrian (in Hudson’s Geographi Graeci minores, tom. I), and contains whatever the governor of Pontus had seen from Trebizond to Dioscurias; whatever he had heard from Dioscurias to the Danube; and whatever he knew from the Danube to Trebizond.
↩
Besides the many occasional hints from the poets, historians, etc., of antiquity, we may consult the geographical descriptions of Colchos, by Strabo (l. XI, pp. 760⁠–⁠765) and Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae VI 5, 19, etc.). ↩
I shall quote, and have used, three modern descriptions of Mingrelia and the adjacent countries.
1. Of the Père Archangeli Lamberti (Relations de Thévenot, part I, pp. 31⁠–⁠52, with a map), who has all the knowledge and prejudices of a missionary.
2. Of Chardin (Voyages en Perse, tom. I, pp. 54, 68⁠–⁠168). His observations are judicious; and his own adventures in the country are still more instructive than his observations.
3. Of Peyssonnel (Observations sur les peuples barbares, pp. 49⁠–⁠51, 58, 62, 64, 65, 71, etc., and a more recent treatise, Traité sur le commerce de la Mer Noire, tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠53). He had long resided at Caffa, as consul of France; and his erudition is less valuable than his experience.
↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. XXXIII 15. The gold and silver mines of Colchos attracted the Argonauts (Strabonis geographica, l. I, p. 77). The sagacious Chardin could find no gold in mines, rivers, or elsewhere. Yet a Mingrelian lost his hand and foot for showing some specimens at Constantinople of native gold. ↩
Herodotus, l. II c. 104, 105, pp. 150, 151. Diodorus Siculus, l. I, p. 33, edit. Wesseling. Dionysius Periegetes 689, and Eustathius ad loc. Scholiast ad Apollonius, Argonautica, l. IV 282⁠–⁠291. ↩
Montesquieu, De l’esprit des loix, l. XXI c. 6. L’Isthme⁠ ⁠… couvert de villes et nations qui ne sont plus. ↩
Bougainville, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVI, p. 33, on the African voyage of Hanno and the commerce of antiquity. ↩
A Greek historian, Timosthenes, had affirmed, in eam CCC nationes dissimilibus linguis descendere; and the modest Pliny the Elder is content to add, et postea a nostris CXXX interpretibus negotia ibi gesta (VI 5). But the words nunc deserta cover a multitude of past fictions. ↩
Buffon (Histoire naturelle, tom. III, pp. 433⁠–⁠437) collects the unanimous suffrage of naturalists and travellers. If, in the time of Herodotus, they were in truth μελάγχροες and οὐλότριχες (and he had observed them with care), this precious fact is an example of the influence of climate on a foreign colony. ↩
The Mingrelian ambassador arrived at Constantinople with two hundred persons; but he ate (sold) them day by day, till his retinue was diminished to a secretary and two valets (Tavernier, tom. I, p. 365). To purchase his mistress, a Mingrelian gentleman sold twelve priests and his wife to the Turks (Chardin, tom. I, p. 66). ↩
Strabo, l. XI, p. 765. Lamberti, Relation de la Colchide, ou Mingrellie. Yet we must avoid the contrary extreme of Chardin, who allows no more than 20,000 inhabitants to supply an annual exportation of 12,000 slaves: an absurdity unworthy of that judicious traveller. ↩
Herodotus, l. III c. 97. See, in l. VII c. 79, their arms and service in the expedition of Xerxes against Greece. ↩
Xenophon, who had encountered the Colchians in his retreat (Anabasis, l. IV, pp. 320, 343, 348, edit. Hutchinson; and Foster’s Dissertation, p. liii⁠–⁠lviii, in Spelman’s English version, vol. II), styles them αὐτόνομοι. Before the conquest of Mithridates, they are named by Appian ἔθνος ἀρείμανες (De bello Mithridatico, c. 15, tom. I, p. 661, of the last and best edition, by John Schweighäuser, Lipsiae, 1785, three vols. large octavo). ↩
The conquest of Colchos by Mithridates and Pompey is marked by Appian (De bello Mithridatico) and Plutarch (in Parallel Lives, “Vita Pompey”). ↩
We may trace the rise and fall of the family of Polemo, in Strabo (l. XI, p. 755; l. XII, p. 867), Dion Cassius or Xiphilin (pp. 588, 593, 601, 719, 754, 915, 946, edit. Reimar), Suetonius (in De vita Caesarum, “Nero,” c. 18, “Vespasian,” c. 8), Eutropius (VII 14), Josephus (Antiquitates Judaicae, l. XX c. 7, p. 970, edit. Havercamp), and Eusebius (Chronicon with Scaliger, Animadversion p. 196). ↩
In the time of Procopius, there were no Roman forts on the Phasis. Pityus and Sebastopolis were evacuated on the rumor of the Persians (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 4); but the latter was afterwards restored by Justinian (De aedificiis, l. IV c. 7). ↩
In the time of Pliny the Elder, Arrian, and Ptolemy, the Lazi were a particular tribe on the northern skirts of Colchos (Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. II, p. 222). In the age of Justinian, they spread, or at least reigned, over the whole country. At present, they have migrated along the coast towards Trebizond, and compose a rude seafaring people, with a peculiar language (Chardin, p. 149; Peyssonnel, p. 64). ↩
John Malalas, Chronographia, tom. II, pp. 134⁠–⁠137. Theophanes, p. 144. Historia miscella, l. XV, p. 103. The fact is authentic, but the date seems too recent. In speaking of their Persian alliance, the Lazi contemporaries of Justinian employ the most obsolete words, ἐν γράμμασι μνημειῖα, πρόγονοι, etc. Could they belong to a connection which had not been dissolved above twenty years? ↩
The sole vestige of Petra subsists in the writings of Procopius and Agathias. Most of the towns and castles of Lazica may be found by comparing their names and position with the map of Mingrelia, in Lamberti. ↩
See the amusing letters of Pietro della Valle, the Roman traveler (Viaggi, tom. II 207, 209, 213, 215, 266, 286, 300; tom. III, pp. 54, 127). In the years 1618, 1619, and 1620, he conversed with Shah Abbas, and strongly encouraged a design which might have united Persia and Europe against their common enemy the Turk. ↩
See Herodotus (l. I c. 140, p. 69), who speaks with diffidence, Larcher (tom. I, pp. 399⁠–⁠401, Notes sur Hérodote), Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 11), and Agathias (l. II, pp. 61, 62). This practice, agreeable to the Zendavesta (Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 34, pp. 414⁠–⁠421), demonstrates that the burial of the Persian kings (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, l. VIII, p. 658), τί γὰρ τούτου μακαριώτερον τοῦ τῇ γῇ μιχθῆναι, is a Greek fiction, and that their tombs could be no more than cenotaphs. ↩
These seem the same people called Suanians, see earlier in this chapter. —⁠M. ↩
The punishment of flaying alive could not be introduced into Persia by Sapor (Brisson, De regio Persarum, l. II, p. 578), nor could it be copied from the foolish tale of Marsyas the Phrygian piper, most foolishly quoted as a precedent by Agathias (l. IV, pp. 132, 133). ↩
According to Agathias, the death of Gubazes preceded the defeat of Nacoragan. The trial took place after the battle. —⁠M. ↩
In the palace of Constantinople there were thirty silentiaries, who were styled hastati, ante fores cubiculi, τῆς σιγῆς, ἐπιστάται, an honorable title which conferred the rank, without imposing the duties, of a senator (Codex Theodosianus, l. VI tit. 23; Gothofredus Comment. tom. II, p. 129). ↩
On these judicial orations, Agathias (l. III, pp. 81⁠–⁠89; l. IV, pp. 108⁠–⁠119) lavishes eighteen or twenty pages of false and florid rhetoric. His ignorance or carelessness overlooks the strongest argument against the king of Lazica⁠—his former revolt.9100 ↩
Procopius represents the practice of the Gothic court of Ravenna (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 7); and foreign ambassadors have been treated with the same jealousy and rigor in Turkey (Busbequius, “Epistola III,” pp. 149, 242, etc.), Russia (Relation du voyage d’Adam Olearius), and China (Narrative of M. de Lange, in Bell’s Travels from St. Petersburg, vol. II, pp. 189⁠–⁠311). ↩
The negotiations and treaties between Justinian and Khosrow are copiously explained by Procopius (De bello Persico, l. II c. 10, 13, 26⁠–⁠28; De bello Gothico, l. II c. 11, 15), Agathias (l. IV, pp. 141, 142), and Menander (in Excerpta legationum, pp. 132⁠–⁠147). Consult Barbeyrac, Histoire des anciens traites, tom. II, pp. 154, 181⁠–⁠184, 193⁠–⁠200. ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 680, 681, 294, 295. ↩
See Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. III, p. 449. This Arab cast of features and complexion, which has continued 3,400 years (Hobus Ludolphus, Historia aethiopica et Commentarius, l. I c. 4) in the colony of Abyssinia, will justify the suspicion that race, as well as climate, must have contributed to form the Negroes of the adjacent and similar regions.9101 ↩
The Portuguese missionaries, Francisco Alvarez (Ramusio, tom. I folio 204 recto, 274 verso), John de Bermúdez (Samuel Purchas’s Purchas His Pilgrimage, vol. II l. V c. 7, pp. 1149⁠–⁠1188), Jerome Lobo (Voyage historique d’Abissinie par M. le Grand, with XV Dissertations, Paris, 1728), and Baltazar Tellez (Relations de divers voyages curieux de Thévenot, part IV) could only relate of modern Abyssinia what they had seen or invented. The erudition of Ludolphus (Historia aethiopica, Francofurti ad Maenum, 1681, Commentarius, 1691, Appendix, 1694), in twenty-five languages, could add little concerning its ancient history. Yet the fame of Caled, or Ellisthaeus, the conqueror of Yemen, is celebrated in national songs and legends. ↩
The negotiations of Justinian with the Axumites, or Aethiopians, are recorded by Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 19, 20) and John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 163⁠–⁠165, 193⁠–⁠196). The historian of Antioch quotes the original narrative of the ambassador Nonnosus, of which Photius (Bibliotheca codex III) has preserved a curious extract. ↩
The trade of the Axumites to the coast of India and Africa and the isle of Ceylon is curiously represented by Cosmas Indicopleustes (Topographia christiana, l. II, pp. 132, 138⁠–⁠140; l. XI, pp. 338, 339). ↩
It appears by the important inscription discovered by Mr. Salt at Axoum, and from a law of Constantius (16th Jan. 356, inserted in the Theodosian Code, l. 12, c. 12), that in the middle of the fourth century of our era the princes of the Axumites joined to their titles that of king of the Homerites. The conquests which they made over the Arabs in the sixth century were only a restoration of the ancient order of things. Saint-Martin vol. VIII, p. 46. —⁠M. ↩
Ludolphus, Historia aethiopica et Commentarius, l. II c. 3. ↩
The city of Negra, or Nag’ran, in Yemen, is surrounded with palm trees, and stands in the high road between Saana the capital and Mecca, from the former ten, from the latter twenty days’ journey of a caravan of camels (Abulfeda, Descriptio Arabiae, p. 52). ↩
The martyrdom of St. Arethas, prince of Negra, and his 340 companions,9102 is embellished in the legends of Metaphrastes and Nicephorus Callistus, copied by Baronius (“AD 522,” No. 22⁠–⁠66, “AD 523,” No. 16⁠–⁠29), and refuted with obscure diligence, by Basnage (Histoire des Juifs, tom. XII l. VIII c. II, pp. 333⁠–⁠348), who investigates the state of the Jews in Arabia and Aethiopia. ↩
Alvarez (in Ramusio, tom. I folio 219 verso, 221 verso) saw the flourishing state of Axume in the year 1520⁠—luogo molto buono e grande. It was ruined in the same century by the Turkish invasion. No more than 100 houses remain; but the memory of its past greatness is preserved by the regal coronation (Ludolphus, Historia aethiopica et Commentarius, l. II c. 11).9103 ↩
The Negus is differently called Elesbaan, Elesboas, Elisthaeus, probably the same name, or rather appellation. See Saint-Martin, vol. VIII, p. 49. —⁠M. ↩
According to the Arabian authorities (Johannsen, Historia Yemanae, p. 94, Bonn, 1828), Abrahah was an Abyssinian, the rival of Ariathus, the brother of the Abyssinian king: he surprised and slew Ariathus, and by his craft appeased the resentment of Nadjash, the Abyssinian king. Abrahah was a Christian; he built a magnificent church at Sana, and dissuaded his subjects from their accustomed pilgrimages to Mecca. The church was defiled, it was supposed, by the Koreishites, and Abrahah took up arms to revenge himself on the temple at Mecca. He was repelled by miracle: his elephant would not advance, but knelt down before the sacred place; Abrahah fled, discomfited and mortally wounded, to Sana. —⁠M. ↩
The revolutions of Yemen in the sixth century must be collected from Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 19, 20), Theophanes of Byzantium (apud Photius codex LXIII, p. 80), St. Theophanes (in Chronographia, pp. 144, 145, 188, 189, 206, 207, who is full of strange blunders), Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 62, 65), d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 12, 477), and Sale’s Preliminary Discourse and Koran (c. 105). The revolt of Abrahah is mentioned by Procopius; and his fall, though clouded with miracles, is an historical fact.9104 ↩
A period of sixty-seven years is assigned by most of the Arabian authorities to the Abyssinian kingdom in Homeritis. —⁠M. ↩
For the troubles of Africa, I neither have nor desire another guide than Procopius, whose eye contemplated the image, and whose ear collected the reports, of the memorable events of his own times. In the second book of the Vandalic War he relates the revolt of Stoza (c. 14⁠–⁠24), the return of Belisarius (c. 15), the victory of Germanus (c. 16⁠–⁠18), the second administration of Solomon (c. 19⁠–⁠21), the government of Sergius (c. 22, 23), of Areobindus (c. 24), the tyranny and death of Gontharis (c. 25⁠–⁠28); nor can I discern any symptoms of flattery or malevolence in his various portraits. ↩
Corippus gives a different account of the death of Stoza; he was transfixed by an arrow from the hand of John (not the hero of his poem), who broke desperately through the victorious troops of the enemy. Stoza repented, says the poet, of his treasonous rebellion, and anticipated⁠—another Cataline⁠—eternal torments as his punishment.

Reddam, improba, poenas
Quas merui. Furiis socius Catilina cruentis
Exagitatus adest. Video jam Tartara, fundo
Flammarumque globos, et clara incendia volvi.
Johannidos, book IV line 211.

All the other authorities confirm Gibbon’s account of the death of John by the hand of Stoza. This poem of Corippus, unknown to Gibbon, was first published by Mazzuchelli during the present century, and is reprinted in the new edition of the Byzantine writers. —⁠M. ↩
Magister militum. The title exarch is not used yet. The order in which Gibbon relates the events in Africa renders the succession of governors a little confusing. Solomon (AD 534⁠–⁠6) was succeeded by Germanus (AD 537⁠–⁠9), whom he again succeeded (AD 539⁠–⁠54). Solomon’s nephew Sergius (who had previously been governor of the Tripolitane province) took his place (AD 544), but Areobindus was sent out (utinam non ille Penates Poenorum vidisset iners!⁠—cries Corippus, l. IV 85) and divided the command with him (AD 545); Sergius defending Numidia, and Areobindus Byzacena. On the defeat of Thacea, for which he was blamed, Sergius was recalled, and Areobindus remained sole governor (AD 546, January?). Artaban succeeded him, but was superseded by John, the hero of the poem of Corippus, before the end of the same year. See Partsch, Prooemium to Corippus, p. xxiv. —⁠B. ↩
This murder was prompted to the Armenian (according to Corippus) by the good Athanasius (then prefect of Africa).

Hunc placidus canâ gravitate coegit
Immitem mactare virum.
Corippus, vol. IV, p. 237.

—⁠M. ↩
Yet I must not refuse him the merit of painting, in lively colors, the murder of Gontharis. One of the assassins uttered a sentiment not unworthy of a Roman patriot: “If I fail,” said Artasires, “in the first stroke, kill me on the spot lest the rack should extort a discovery of my accomplices.” ↩
The Moorish wars are occasionally introduced into the narrative of Procopius (De bello Vandalico, l. II c. 19⁠–⁠23, 25, 27, 28; De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 17); and Theophanes adds some prosperous and adverse events in the last years of Justinian. ↩
Now Tibesh, in the kingdom of Algiers. It is watered by a river, the Sujerass, which falls into the Mejerda (Bagradas). Tibesh is still remarkable for its walls of large stones (like the Coliseum of Rome), a fountain, and a grove of walnut-trees: the country is fruitful, and the neighboring Bereberes are warlike. It appears from an inscription that, under the reign of Hadrian, the road from Carthage to Tebeste was constructed by the third legion (Marmol, L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. II, pp. 442, 443; Shaw’s Travels, pp. 64⁠–⁠66). ↩
Corippus (Johannidos, lib. III 417⁠–⁠441) describes the defeat and death of Solomon. —⁠M. ↩
Procopius, Anecdota, c. 18. The series of the African history attests this melancholy truth. ↩
In the second (c. 30) and third books (c. 1⁠–⁠40), Procopius continues the history of the Gothic war from the fifth to the fifteenth year of Justinian. As the events are less interesting than in the former period, he allots only half the space to double the time. Jornandes, and the Chronicle of Marcellinus, afford some collateral hints. Sigonius, Pagi, Muratori, Mascou, and Du Buat are useful, and have been used. ↩
His real name, as appears by medals, was Baduilla, or Badiula. Totila signifies immortal: tod (in German) is death. Todilas, deathless. Compare Saint-Martin, vol. IX, p. 37. —⁠M. ↩
This is not quite correct: he had crossed the Po before the battle of Faenza. —⁠M. ↩
The events are so compressed in the text that they are hardly intelligible. The Roman army, numbering (not 20,000 as the author states, but) 12,000 (δισχιλίους τε καὶ μυρίους), advanced within five miles of Verona, and on the failure of the attempt of Artabazes retreated beyond the Po to Faventia, which is about twenty miles southwest of Ravenna. Totila then, taking the offensive, follows them from Venetia, crosses the Po, and the battle of Faenza is fought, in which the Imperialists are routed and Artabazes slain in single combat with Viliaris. The Romans, having suffered a severe loss, retreat to Ravenna, and Totila advances into Tuscany, besieges Florence (which is held by Justin), and defeats, in the valley of Mugello (a day’s journey from Florence), the army of relief which has come from Ravenna under John and Bessas. The Battle of Mugello gave central and southern Italy to the Goths. It was fought towards the end of 542. Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. III c. 3⁠–⁠5. —⁠B. ↩
Silverius, bishop of Rome, was first transported to Patara, in Lycia, and at length starved (sub eorum custodiâ inediâ confectus) in the isle of Palmaria, AD 538, June 20 (Liberatus in Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 22; Anastasius, in “Sylverio”; Baronius, “AD 540,” No. 2, 3; Pagi, in Vitis pontificum, tom. I, pp. 285, 286). Procopius (Anecdota, c. 1) accuses only the empress and Antonina. ↩
Palmaria, a small island, opposite to Terracina and the coast of the Volsci (Cluverius, Italia antiqua, l. III c. 7, p. 1014). ↩
As the Logothete Alexander and most of his civil and military colleagues were either disgraced or despised, the ink of the Anecdotes (c. 4, 5, 18) is scarcely blacker than that of the Gothic History (l. III c. 1, 3, 4, 9, 20, 21, etc.). ↩
Procopius (l. III c. 2, 8, etc.) does ample and willing justice to the merit of Totila. The Roman historians, from Sallust and Tacitus, were happy to forget the vices of their countrymen in the contemplation of Barbaric virtue. ↩
Procopius, l. III c. 12. The soul of a hero is deeply impressed on the letter; nor can we confound such genuine and original acts with the elaborate and often empty speeches of the Byzantine historians. ↩
The avarice of Bessas is not dissembled by Procopius (l. III c. 17, 20). He expiated the loss of Rome by the glorious conquest of Petraea (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 12); but the same vices followed him from the Tiber to the Phasis (c. 13); and the historian is equally true to the merits and defects of his character. The chastisement which the author of the romance of Bélisaire has inflicted on the oppressor of Rome is more agreeable to justice than to history. ↩
During the long exile, and after the death of Vigilius, the Roman church was governed, at first by the archdeacon, and at length (AD 655) by the pope, Pelagius, who was not thought guiltless of the sufferings of his predecessor. See the original lives of the popes under the name of Anastasius (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, pp. 130, 131), who relates several curious incidents of the sieges of Rome and the wars of Italy. ↩
Mount Garganus (now Monte St. Angelo), in the kingdom of Naples, runs three hundred stadia into the Adriatic Sea (Strabonis geographica VI, p. 436), and in the darker ages was illustrated by the apparition, miracles, and church of St. Michael the archangel. Horace, a native of Apulia or Lucania, had seen the elms and oaks of Garganus laboring and bellowing with the north wind that blew on that lofty coast (Carmina II 9; Epistularum II, I 201). ↩
I cannot ascertain this particular camp of Hannibal; but the Punic quarters were long and often in the neighborhood of Arpi (Titus Livius XXII 9, 12; XXIV 3, etc.). ↩
Totila⁠ ⁠… Romam ingreditur⁠ ⁠… ac evertit muros, domos aliquantas igni comburens, ac omnes Romanorum res in praedam accepit, hos ipsos Romanos in Campaniam captivos abduxit. Post quam devastationem, XL aut amplius dies, Roma fuit ita desolata, ut nemo ibi hominum, nisi (nullae?) bestiae morarentur (Marcellinus in Chronicon, p. 54). ↩
The tribuli are small engines with four spikes, one fixed in the ground, the three others erect or adverse (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. III c. 24; Justus Lipsius, Poliorceticωn, l. V c. 3). [Rather the opposite; three fixed in the ground, one always erect, however thrown. The description of Procopius is quite clear. —B.] The metaphor was borrowed from the tribuli (land-caltrops), an herb with a prickly fruit common in Italy (Martin, ad Virgil, Georgics I 153, vol. II, p. 33). ↩
Ruscia, the navale Thuriorum, was transferred to the distance of sixty stadia to Ruscianum, Rossano, an archbishopric without suffragans. The republic of Sybaris is now the estate of the duke of Corigliano (Johann Hermann von Riedesel, Travels Into Sicily and Magna Graecia, pp. 166⁠–⁠171). ↩
This conspiracy is related by Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. III c. 31, 32) with such freedom and candor that the liberty of the Anecdotes gives him nothing to add. ↩
The honors of Belisarius are gladly commemorated by his secretary (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. III c. 35; l. IV c. 21). This title of Στρατηγός is ill translated, at least in this instance, by prefectus praetorio; and to a military character magister militum is more proper and applicable (du Cange, Glossarium Graecitatis, pp. 1458, 1459). ↩
Alemannus (ad Historia arcana, p. 68), du Cange (Familiae Byzantinae, p. 98), and Heineccius (Elementa juris civilis, p. 434), all three represent Anastasius as the son of the daughter of Theodora; and their opinion firmly reposes on the unambiguous testimony of Procopius (Anecdota, c. 4, 5⁠—θυγατριδῷ, twice repeated). And yet I will remark,
1. That in the year 547, Theodora could sarcely have a grandson of the age of puberty;
2. That we are totally ignorant of this daughter and her husband; and,
3. That Theodora concealed her bastards, and that her grandson by Justinian would have been heir apparent of the empire.
↩
The ἁμαρτήματα, or sins, of the hero in Italy and after his return, are manifested ἀπαρακαλὐπτως, and most probably swelled, by the author of the Anecdotes (c. 4, 5). The designs of Antonina were favored by the fluctuating jurisprudence of Justinian. On the law of marriage and divorce that emperor was trocho versatilior (Heineccius, Elementa juris civilis, secundum ordinem pandectarum, pars IV No. 233). ↩
The Romans were still attached to the monuments of their ancestors, and according to Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 22), the gallery of Aeneas, of a single rank of oars, 25 feet in breadth, 120 in length, was preserved entire in the navalia, near Monte Testaceo, at the foot of the Aventine (Nardini, Roma antica, l. VII c. 9, p. 466; Donatus, De Roma antiquâ, l. IV c. 13, p. 334). But all antiquity is ignorant of this relic. ↩
In these seas, Procopius searched without success for the isle of Calypso. He was shown, at Phaeacia or Cocyra, the petrified ship of Ulysses (Odyssey XIII 163); but he found it a recent fabric of many stones, dedicated by a merchant to Jupiter Casius (l. IV c. 22). Eustathius had supposed it to be the fanciful likeness of a rock. ↩
M. d’Anville (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXXII, pp. 513⁠–⁠528) illustrates the Gulf of Ambracia; but he cannot ascertain the situation of Dodona. A country in sight of Italy is less known than the wilds of America.9105 ↩
This is the reading in the quarto edition, but it has been altered by most modern editors (among others by Dean Milman) into “his youth and want of experience,” on the supposition that Gibbon could never have intended such a phrase as “his want of youth and experience.” Lord Mahon in consequence (Life of Belisarius, p. 391) supposes Gibbon has made a mistake, since Procopius (De bello Gothico III c. 39) speaks of Liberius as extremely old (ἐσχατογέρων). But I have little doubt that the expression in the quarto was the one intended by Gibbon, as it is quite in accordance with his enigmatic style⁠—the intention being to sneer at the inconsistency of the proceeding. —⁠S. ↩
See the acts of Germanus in the public (De bello Vandalico, l. II, c. 16⁠–⁠18; De bello Gothico, l. III c. 31, 32) and private history (Anecdota, c. 5), and those of his son Justin, in Agathias (l. IV, pp. 130, 131). Notwithstanding an ambiguous expression of Jornandes, fratri suo, Alemannus has proved that he was the son of the emperor’s brother. ↩
Conjuncta Aniciorum gens cum Amalâ stirpe spem adhuc utriusque generis promittit (Jornandes, c. 60, p. 703). He wrote at Ravenna before the death of Totila. ↩
See this note. —⁠M. ↩
The third book of Procopius is terminated by the death of Germanus (Add. l. IV c. 23⁠–⁠26). ↩
Procopius relates the whole series of this second Gothic war and the victory of Narses (l. IV c. 21, 26⁠–⁠35). A splendid scene! Among the six subjects of epic poetry which Tasso revolved in his mind, he hesitated between the conquests of Italy by Belisarius and by Narses (William Hayley’s Works, vol. IV, p. 70). ↩
The country of Narses is unknown, since he must not be confounded with the Persarmenian.9106 Procopius styles him (see De bello Gothico, l. II c. 13) βασιλικῶν χρημάτων ταμίας; Paul Warnefrid (l. II c. 3, p. 776), Chartularius: Marcellinus adds the name of Cubicularius. In an inscription on the Salarian bridge he is entitled Ex-consul, Ex-praepositus, Cubiculi Patricius (Mascou, History of the Ancient Germans, l. XIII c. 25). The law of Theodosius against ennuchs was obsolete or abolished (Annotation XX), but the foolish prophecy of the Romans subsisted in full vigor (Procopius, l. IV c. 21). ↩
Paul Warnefrid, the Lombard, records with complacency the succor, service, and honorable dismission of his countrymen⁠—reipublicae Romanae adversus aemulos adjutores fuerant (l. II c. 1, p. 774, edit. Grotius). I am surprised that Alboin, their martial king, did not lead his subjects in person.9107 ↩
Gibbon has blindly followed the translation of Maltretus: Bis mille ducentos⁠—while the original Greek says expressly πεντακοσίους τε καὶ δισχιλιους, 2,500 (De bello Gothico, lib. IV c. 26). In like manner (p. 266), he draws volunteers from Germany, on the authority of Cousin, who, in one place, has mistaken Germanus for Germania. Yet only a few pages further (this note) we find Gibbon loudly condemning the French and Latin readers of Procopius. Lord Mahon, p. 403. The first of these errors remains uncorrected in the new edition of the Byzantines. —⁠M. ↩
He was, if not an impostor, the son of the blind Zames, saved by compassion, and educated in the Byzantine court by the various motives of policy, pride, and generosity (Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 23). ↩
In the time of Augustus, and in the Middle Ages, the whole waste from Aquileia to Ravenna was covered with woods, lakes, and morasses. Man has subdued nature, and the land has been cultivated, since the waters are confined and embanked. See the learned researches of Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. I Dissertazion XXI, pp. 253, 254), from Vitruvius, Strabo, Herodian, old charters, and local knowledge. ↩
The Flaminian way, as it is corrected from the Itineraries, and the best modern maps, by d’Anville (Analyse geographique de l’Italie, pp. 147⁠–⁠162), may be thus stated: Rome to Narni, 51 Roman miles; Terni, 57; Spoleto, 75; Foligno, 88; Nocera, 103; Cagli, 142; Intercisa, 157; Fossombrone, 160; Fano, 176; Pesaro, 184; Rimini, 208⁠—about 189 English miles. He takes no notice of the death of Totila; but Wesselling (Vetera Romanorum itineraria, p. 614) exchanges for the field of Taginas the unknown appellation of Ptanias, eight miles from Nocera. ↩
Taginae, or rather Tadinae, is mentioned by Pliny the Elder; but the bishopric of that obscure town, a mile from Gualdo, in the plain, was united, in the year 1007, with that of Nocera. The signs of antiquity are preserved in the local appellations, Fossato, the camp; Capraia, Caprea; Bastia, Busta Gallorum. See Cluverius (Italia antiqua, l. II c. 6, pp. 615⁠–⁠617), Lucas Holstenius (Annotationes ad Cluverius, pp. 85, 86), Lorenzo Guazzesi (Tutte le opere, “Dissertazione IV,” pp. 177⁠–⁠217, a professed inquiry), and the maps of the ecclesiastical state and the march of Ancona, by Jacob Le Maire and Giovanni Magini. ↩
The battle was fought in the year of Rome 458; and the consul Decius, by devoting his own life, assured the triumph of his country and his colleague Fabius (Titus Livius X 28, 29). Procopius ascribes to Camillus the victory of the Busta Gallorum; and his error is branded by Cluverius with the national reproach of Graecorum nugamenta. ↩
Narses, with John, commanded not the right, but the left wing. Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 31 ad init. —⁠B. ↩
“Dog, wilt thou strike thy Lord?” was the more characteristic exclamation of the Gothic youth. Procopius, l. IV c. 32. —⁠M. ↩
Eleven or twelve miles: 84 stadia (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 32). —⁠B. ↩
Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 193. Historia miscella, l. XVI, p. 108. ↩
Evagrius, l. IV c. 24. The inspiration of the Virgin revealed to Narses the day, and the word, of battle (Paul Diaconus, l. II c. 3, p. 776). ↩
Ἐπι τούτου βασιλεύοντος τὸ πέμπτον ἐάλω. [Procopius, De bello Gothico, lib. IV, p. 33. —⁠M.] In the year 536 by Belisarius, in 546 by Totila, in 547 by Belisarius, in 549 by Totila, and in 552 by Narses. Maltretus had inadvertently translated sextum; a mistake which he afterwards retracts; but the mischief was done; and Cousin, with a train of French and Latin readers, have fallen into the snare. ↩
Compare two passages of Procopius (l. III c. 26; l. IV c. 24), which, with some collateral hints from Marcellinus and Jornandes, illustrate the state of the expiring senate. ↩
See, in the example of Prusias, as it is delivered in the fragments of Polybius (Excerpta legationum XCVII, pp. 927, 928), a curious picture of a royal slave. ↩
The Δράκων of Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 35) is evidently the Sarnus. The text is accused or altered by the rash violence of Cluverius (l. IV c. 3, p. 1156): but Camillo Pellegrini of Naples (Discorsi della Campania felice, pp. 330, 331) has proved from old records that as early as the year 822 that river was called the Dracontio, or Draconcello. ↩
Galen (De medendi methodo, l. V apud Cluverius, l. IV c. 3, pp. 1159, 1160) describes the lofty site, pure air, and rich milk of Mount Lactarius, whose medicinal benefits were equally known and sought in the time of Symmachus (l. VI, “Epistola 18”) and Cassiodorus (Variarum XI 10). Nothing is now left except the name of the town of Lettere. ↩
Buat (tom. XI, p. 2, etc.) conveys to his favorite Bavaria this remnant of Goths, who by others are buried in the mountains of Uri, or restored to their native isle of Gothland (Mascou, Annotation XXI). ↩
I leave Scaliger (Animadversion in Eusebius, p. 59) and Salmasius (Plinianae exercitationes, pp. 51, 52) to quarrel about the origin of Cumae, the oldest of the Greek colonies in Italy (Strabonis geographica, l. V, p. 372; Velleius Paterculus, l. I c. 4), already vacant in Juvenal’s time (Satires III), and now in ruins. ↩
Agathias (l. I, p. 21) settles the Sibyl’s cave under the wall of Cumae; he agrees with Servius (ad l. VI Aeneid); nor can I perceive why their opinion should be rejected by Heyne, the excellent editor of Virgil (tom. II, pp. 650, 651). In urbe mediâ secreta religio! But Cumae was not yet built; and the lines (l. VI 96, 97) would become ridiculous, if Aeneas were actually in a Greek city. ↩
There is some difficulty in connecting the 35th chapter of the fourth book of the Gothic war of Procopius with the first book of the history of Agathias. We must now relinquish the statesman and soldier, to attend the footsteps of a poet and rhetorician (l. I, p. 11; l. II, p. 51, edit. Louvre). ↩
Among the fabulous exploits of Buccelin, he discomfited and slew Belisarius, subdued Italy and Sicily, etc. See in the Historians of France, Gregory of Tours (tom. II l. III c. 32, p. 203), and Aimoin (De gestis Francorum, tom. III l. II c. 23, p. 59). ↩
… τὴν γλῶτταν Ναρσοῦ μεμφομένην μοι τῆς ἀβουλίας. Agathius. —⁠M. ↩
Aligern, after the surrender of Cumae, had been sent to Cesena? by Narses. Agathias. —⁠M. ↩
Agathias notices their superstition in a philosophic tone (l. I, p. 18). At Zug, in Switzerland, idolatry still prevailed in the year 613: St. Columban and St. Gaul were the apostles of that rude country; and the latter founded a hermitage, which has swelled into an ecclesiastical principality and a populous city, the seat of freedom and commerce. ↩
A body of Lothaire’s troops was defeated near Fano, some were driven down precipices into the sea, others fled to the camp; many prisoners seized the opportunity of making their escape; and the Barbarians lost most of their booty in their precipitate retreat. Agathias. —⁠M. ↩
See the death of Lothaire in Agathias (l. II, p. 38) and Paul Warnefrid, surnamed Diaconus (l. II c. 3, 775). The Greek makes him rave and tear his flesh. He had plundered churches. ↩
Père Daniel (Histoire de la milice françoise, tom. I, pp. 17⁠–⁠21) has exhibited a fanciful representation of this battle, somewhat in the manner of the Chevalier Folard, the once famous editor of Polybius, who fashioned to his own habits and opinions all the military operations of antiquity. ↩
Agathias (l. II, p. 47) has produced a Greek epigram of six lines on this victory of Narses, which is favorably compared to the battles of Marathon and Plataea.9108 The chief difference is indeed in their consequences⁠—so trivial in the former instance⁠—so permanent and glorious in the latter. ↩
The Beroia and Brincas of Theophanes or his transcriber (p. 201) must be read or understood Verona and Brixia. ↩
The title of Narses was merely Patricius. Smaragdus was (so far as our evidence shows) the first governor who bore the name exarch. —⁠B. ↩
Ἐλείμετο γὰρ οἶμαι, αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ ἀβελταρίας τὰς ἀσπίδας τυχὸν καὶ τὰ κράνη ἀμφορέως οἴνου ῆ καὶ βαρβίτου ἀποδόσθαι (Agathias, l. II, p. 48). In the first scene of Richard III our English poet has beautifully enlarged on this idea, for which, however, he was not indebted to the Byzantine historian. ↩
Maffei has proved (Verona illustrata, pars I l. X, pp. 257, 289), against the common opinion, that the dukes of Italy were instituted before the conquest of the Lombards by Narses himself. In the Pragmatic Sanction (No. 23), Justinian restrains the judices militares. ↩
See Paulus Diaconus LIII c. 2, p. 776. Menander in (Excerpta legationum, p. 133) mentions some risings in Italy by the Franks, and Theophanes (p. 201) hints at some Gothic rebellions. ↩
The Pragmatic Sanction of Justinian, which restores and regulates the civil state of Italy, consists of XXVII articles: it is dated August 15, AD 554; is addressed to Narses, V.J. Praepositus Sacri Cubiculi, and to Antiochus, Praefectus Praetorio Italiae; and has been preserved by Julian Antecessor, and in the Corpus juris civilis, after the novels and edicts of Justinian, Justin, and Tiberius. ↩
A still greater number was consumed by famine in the southern provinces ἐκτὸς the Ionian Gulf. Acorns were used in the place of bread. Procopius had seen a deserted orphan suckled by a she-goat. Seventeen passengers were lodged, murdered, and eaten by two women, who were detected and slain by the eighteenth, etc.9109 ↩
Quinta regio Piceni est; quondam uberrimae multitudinis, CCCLX millia Picentium in fidem populo Romano venere (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae III 18). In the time of Vespasian, this ancient population was already diminished. ↩
Perhaps fifteen or sixteen millions. Procopius (Anecdota, c. 18) computes that Africa lost five millions, that Italy was thrice as extensive, and that the depopulation was in a larger proportion. But his reckoning is inflamed by passion, and clouded with uncertainty. ↩
Zabergan was king of the Cutrigours, a tribe of Huns who were neither Bulgarians nor Sclavonians. Saint-Martin, vol. IX, pp. 408⁠–⁠420. —⁠M. ↩
In the decay of these military schools, the satire of Procopius (Anecdota, c. 24, Alemannus, pp. 102, 103) is confirmed and illustrated by Agathias (l. V, p. 159), who cannot be rejected as a hostile witness. ↩
The distance from Constantinople to Melanthias, Villa Caesariana (Ammianus Marcellinus XXX 11), is variously fixed at 102 or 140 stadia (Suidas, tom. II, pp. 522, 523; Agathias, l. V, p. 158), or eighteen or nineteen miles (Vetera Romanorum itineraria, pp. 138, 230, 323, 332, and Wesseling’s Observations). The first twelve miles, as far as Rhegium, were paved by Justinian, who built a bridge over a morass or gullet between a lake and the sea (Procopius, De aedificiis, l. IV c. 8). ↩
The Atyras (Pomponius Mela, l. II c. 2, p. 169, edit. Vossian). At the river’s mouth, a town or castle of the same name was fortified by Justinian (Procopius, De aedificiis, l. IV c. 2; Vetera Romanorum itineraria, p. 570, and Wesseling). ↩
The Bulgarian war and the last victory of Belisarius are imperfectly represented in the prolix declamation of Agathias (l. 5, pp. 154⁠–⁠174), and the dry Chronicle of Theophanes (p. 197, 198). ↩
Ἰνδούς. They could scarcely be real Indians; and the Aethiopians, sometimes known by that name, were never used by the ancients as guards or followers: they were the trifling, though costly objects of female and royal luxury (Terentius, Eunuchus Act I Scene II; Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 83, with a good note of Casaubon, in Caligulâ, c. 57). ↩
The9110 Sergius (De bello Vandalico, l. II c. 21, 22; Anecdota, c. 5) and Marcellus (De bello Gothico, l. III c. 32) are mentioned by Procopius. See Theophanes, pp. 197, 201. ↩
Alemannus (p. 3) quotes an old Byzantian MS., which has been printed in the Imperium orientale of Banduri. ↩
Of the disgrace and restoration of Belisarius, the genuine original record is preserved in the fragment of John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 234⁠–⁠243) and the exact Chronicle of Theophanes (pp. 194⁠–⁠204). Cedrenus (Historiarum compendium, pp. 387, 388) and Zonaras (tom. II l. XIV, p. 69) seem to hesitate between the obsolete truth and the growing falsehood. ↩
Le Beau, following Allemannus, conceives that Belisarius was confounded with John of Cappadocia, who was thus reduced to beggary (vol. IX, pp. 58, 449). Lord Mahon has, with considerable learning, and on the authority of a yet unquoted writer of the eleventh century, endeavored to reestablish the old tradition. I cannot acknowledge that I have been convinced, and am inclined to subscribe to the theory of Le Beau. —⁠M. ↩
The source of this idle fable may be derived from a miscellaneous work of the twelth century, the Chiliades of John Tzetzes, a monk9111 (Basileae 1546, ad calcem Lycophron, Coloniae Allobrogum, 1614 in Poetae Graeci veteres). He relates the blindness and beggary of Belisarius in ten vulgar or political verses (Chiliad III No. 88, 339⁠–⁠348, in Poetae Graeci veteres, tom. II, p. 311).

Ἔκπωμα ξύλινον κρατῶν ἐβόα τῷ μιλιῳ
βελισαρίῳ ὀβολὸν δότε τῷ στρατηλάτῃ
Ὂν τύχη μὲν ἐδόξασεν, ἀποτυφλοῖ δ’ ὁ φθόνος.

This moral or romantic tale was imported into Italy with the language and manuscripts of Greece; repeated before the end of the fifteenth century by Crinitus, Pontanus, and Volaterranus; attacked by Alciat, for the honor of the law; and defended by Baronius (“AD 561,” No. 2, etc.), for the honor of the church. Yet Tzetzes himself had read in other chronicles that Belisarius did not lose his sight and that he recovered his fame and fortunes. ↩
The statue in the Villa Borghese at Rome, in a sitting posture, with an open hand, which is vulgarly given to Belisarius, may be ascribed with more dignity to Augustus in the act of propitiating Nemesis (Winckelmann, Histoire de l’art l’antiquité, tom. III, p. 266). Ex nocturno visu etiam stipem, quotannis, die certo, emendicabat a populo, cavana manum asses porrigentibus praebens (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 91, with an excellent note of Casaubon).9112 ↩
The rubor of Domitian is stigmatized, quaintly enough, by the pen of Tacitus (in Vita Agricola, c. 45); and has been likewise noticed by the younger Pliny (“Panegyricus,” c. 48), and Suetonius (in De vita Caesarum, “Domitian,” c. 18, and Casaubon ad loc.). Procopius (Anecdota, c. 8) foolishly believes that only one bust of Domitian had reached the sixth century. ↩
The studies and science of Justinian are attested by the confession (Anecdota, c. 8, 13), still more than by the praises (De bello Gothico, l. III c. 31; De aedificiis, l. I, Proem c. 7) of Procopius. Consult the copious index of Alemannus, and read the Life of Justinian by Ludewig (pp. 135⁠–⁠142). ↩
See in the Constantinopolis Christiana of du Cange (l. I c. 24, No. 1) a chain of original testimonies, from Procopius in the sixth, to Gyllius in the sixteenth century. ↩
The first comet is mentioned by John Malalas (tom. II, pp. 190, 219) and Theophanes (p. 154); the second by Procopius (De bello Persico, l. II c. 4). Yet I strongly suspect their identity. The paleness of the sun (De bello Vandalico, l. II c. 14) is applied by Theophanes (p. 158) to a different year.9113 ↩
Seneca’s seventh book of Natural Questions displays, in the theory of comets, a philosophic mind. Yet should we not too candidly confound a vague prediction, a venient tempus, etc., with the merit of real discoveries. ↩
Astronomers may study Newton and Halley. I draw my humble science from the article “Comète,” in the French Encyclopédie, by M. d’Alembert. ↩
William Whiston, the honest, pious, visionary Whiston, had fancied for the era of Noah’s flood (2,242 years before Christ) a prior apparition of the same comet which drowned the earth with its tail. ↩
A dissertation of Fréret (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. X, pp. 357⁠–⁠377) affords a happy union of philosophy and erudition. The phenomenon in the time of Ogyges was preserved by Varro (apud Augustine, De civitate Dei XXI 8), who quotes Castor, Dion of Naples, and Adastrus of Cyzicus⁠—nobiles mathematici. The two subsequent periods are preserved by the Greek mythologists and the spurious books of Sibylline verses. ↩
Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae II 23) has transcribed the original memorial of Augustus. Mairan, in his most ingenious letters to the Père Parennin, missionary in China, removes the games and the comet of September from the year 44 to the year 43 before the Christian era; but I am not totally subdued by the criticism of the astronomer (Opuscules, p. 275⁠–⁠351). ↩
This last comet was visible in the month of December, 1680. Bayle, who began his Pensées diverses, écrites à un docteur de Sorbonne, a l’occasion de la comète in January, 1681 (Oeuvres diverses, tom. III), was forced to argue that a supernatural comet would have confirmed the ancients in their idolatry. Bernoulli (see his “Eloge,” in Fontenelle, tom. V, p. 99) was forced to allow that the tail, though not the head, was a sign of the wrath of God. ↩
Paradise Lost was published in the year 1667; and the famous lines (l. II 708, etc.), which startled the licenser, may allude to the recent comet of 1664, observed by Cassini at Rome in the presence of Queen Christina (Fontenelle, in his “Eloge,” tom. V, p. 338). Had Charles II betrayed any symptoms of curiosity or fear? ↩
Compare Alexandre Guy Pingré, Traité historique et théorique des comètes. —⁠M. ↩
For the cause of earthquakes, see Buffon (tom. I, pp. 502⁠–⁠536; Supplément à l’Histoire naturelle, tom. V, pp. 382⁠–⁠390, edition in quarto), Valmont de Bomare, (Dictionnaire raisonné universel d’histoire naturelle, “Tremblemens de Terre,” “Pyrites”), Richard Watson (Chemical Essays, tom. I, pp. 181⁠–⁠209). ↩
The earthquakes that shook the Roman world in the reign of Justinian are described or mentioned by Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 25, Anecdota, c. 18), Agathias (l. II, pp. 52⁠–⁠54; l. V, pp. 145⁠–⁠152), John Malalas (Chronographia, tom. II, pp. 140⁠–⁠146, 176, 177, 183, 193, 220, 229, 231, 233, 234), and Theophanes (pp. 151, 183, 189, 191⁠–⁠196).9114 ↩
An abrupt height, a perpendicular cape between Aradus and Botrys, named by the Greeks θεῶν πρόσωπον and εὐρόσωπον or λιθοπρόσωπον by the scrupulous Christians (Polybius, l. V, p. 411; Pomponius Mela, l. I c. 12, p. 87, cum Isaaci Vossii, Observationes; Henry Maundrell, A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, pp. 32, 33; Richard Pococke’s Description of the East, vol. II, p. 99). ↩
Botrys was founded (anno ante Christ 935⁠–⁠903) by Ithobal, king of Tyre (Marsham, Canon chronicus, pp. 387, 388). Its poor representative, the village of Patrone, is now destitute of a harbor. ↩
The university, splendor, and ruin of Berytus are celebrated by Heineccius (pp. 351⁠–⁠356) as an essential part of the history of the Roman law. It was overthrown in the twenty-fifth year of Justinian, AD 551, July 9 (Theophanes, p. 192); but Agathias (l. II, pp. 51, 52) suspends the earthquake till he has achieved the Italian war. ↩
I have read with pleasure Richard Mead’s short but elegant treatise concerning pestilential disorders, the eighth edition, London, 1722. ↩
The great plague which raged in 542 and the following years (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 518) must be traced in Procopius (De bello Persico, l. II c. 22, 23), Agathias (l. V, pp. 153, 154), Evagrius (l. IV c. 29), Paul Diaconus (l. II c. IV, pp. 776, 777), Gregory of Tours (tom. II l. IV c. 5, p. 205), who styles it Lues Inguinaria, and the Chronicles of Victor Tunnunensis (p. 9, in Thesaurus temporum), of Marcellinus (p. 54), and of Theophanes (p. 153). ↩
Dr. John Freind (History of Physic in Opera omnia medica, pp. 416⁠–⁠420, London 1733) is satisfied that Procopius must have studied physic, from his knowledge and use of the technical words. Yet many words that are now scientific were common and popular in the Greek idiom. ↩
See Thucydides, l. II c. 47⁠–⁠54, pp. 127⁠–⁠133, edit. Duker, and the poetical description of the same plague by Lucretius (l. VI 1136⁠–⁠1284). I was indebted to Dr. Hunter for an elaborate commentary on this part of Thucydides, a quarto of 600 pages (Venetiis 1603, apud Juntas), which was pronounced in St. Mark’s Library by Fabius Paulinus Utinensis, a physician and philosopher. ↩
Thucydides (c. 51) affirms that the infection could only be once taken; but Evagrius, who had family experience of the plague, observes that some persons who had escaped the first, sunk under the second attack; and this repetition is confirmed by Fabius Paulinus (p. 588). I observe that on this head physicians are divided; and the nature and operation of the disease may not always be similar. ↩
It was thus that Socrates had been saved by his temperance, in the plague of Athens (Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae II 1). Dr. Mead accounts for the peculiar salubrity of religious houses, by the two advantages of seclusion and abstinence (pp. 18, 19). ↩
Mead proves that the plague is contagious, from Thucydides, Lacretius, Aristotle, Galen, and common experience (pp. 10⁠–⁠20); and he refutes (Preface, pp. ii⁠–⁠xiii) the contrary opinion of the French physicians who visited Marseilles in the year 1720. Yet these were the recent and enlightened spectators of a plague which, in a few months, swept away 50,000 inhabitants (Sur la peste de Marseille, en 1720, Paris, 1786) of a city that, in the present hour of prosperity and trade, contains no more then 90,000 souls (Necker, Sur les finances, tom. I, p. 231). ↩
The strong assertions of Procopius⁠—οὔτε γὰρ ἰατρῷ οὔτε ἰδιώτῃ⁠—are overthrown by the subsequent experience of Evagrius. ↩
After some figures of rhetoric, the sands of the sea, etc., Procopius (Anecdota, c. 18) attempts a more definite account: that μυριάδας μυριάδων μυρίας had been exterminated under the reign of the Imperial demon. The expression is obscure in grammar and arithmetic, and a literal interpretation would produce several millions of millions. Alemannus (p. 80) and Cousin (tom. III, p. 178) translate this passage, “two hundred millions”; but I am ignorant of their motives. If we drop the μθριάδας the remaining μυριάδων μυρίας, a myriad of myriads, would furnish one hundred millions, a number not wholly inadmissible. ↩
In the notes to this important chapter, which is received as the textbook on Civil Law in some of the foreign universities, I have consulted:

I. The newly-discovered Institutes of Gaius, (Gaii institutiones, edit. Goeschen, Berlin, 1824), with some other fragments of the Roman law (Codicis Theodosiani fragmenta inedita, ab Amadeo Peyron, Turin, 1824).

II. The History of the Roman Law, by Professor Gustav Hugo, in the French translation of M. Jourdan, Paris, 1825.

III. Savigny, Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter, six bände, Heidelberg, 1815.

IV. Walther, Geschichte des römischen Rechts, Bonn, 1834.

But I am particularly indebted to an edition of the French translation of this chapter, with additional notes, by one of the most learned civilians of Europe, Professor Warnkönig, published at Liège, 1821. I have inserted almost the whole of these notes, which are distinguished by the letter W. —⁠M. ↩
The civilians of the darker ages have established an absurd and incomprehensible mode of quotation, which is supported by authority and custom. In their references to the Code, the Pandects, and the Institutes, they mention the number, not of the book, but only of the law; and content themselves with reciting the first words of the title to which it belongs; and of these titles there are more than a thousand. Ludewig (Vita Justiniani, p. 268) wishes to shake off this pendantic yoke; and I have dared to adopt the simple and rational method of numbering the book, the title, and the law.9115 ↩
Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, and Scotland have received them as common law or reason; in France, Italy, etc., they possess a direct or indirect influence; and they were respected in England from Stephen to Edward I, our national Justinian (Arthur Duck, De usu et auctoritate juris civilis Romanorum, l. II c. 1, 8⁠–⁠15; Heineccius, Elementa juris Germanici, c. 3, 4, No. 55⁠–⁠124, and the legal historians of each country).9116 ↩
Francis Hottoman, a learned and acute lawyer of the sixteenth century, wished to mortify Cujacius and to please the Chancellor de l’Hopital. His Anti-Tribonianus (which I have never been able to procure) was published in French in 1609; and his sect was propagated in Germany (Heineccius, Opera omnia, tom. III sylloge III, pp. 171⁠–⁠183).9117 ↩
At the head of these guides I shall respectfully place the learned and perspicuous Heineccius, a German professor, who died at Halle in the year 1741 (see his eloge in the Nouvelle bibliothèque Germanique, tom. II, pp. 51⁠–⁠64). His ample works have been collected in eight volumes in quarto, Geneva, 1743⁠–⁠1748. The treatises which I have separately used are,
1. Historia juris Romani ac Germanici, Lugduni Batavorum, 1740, in octavo.
2. Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam illustrantium syntagma, two vols. in octavo, Trajecti ad Rhenum.
3. Elementa juris civilis, secundum ordinem institutionum, Lugduni Batavorum, 1751, in octavo.
4. Elementa juris civilis, secundum ordinem pandectarum, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1772, in octavo, two vols.9118
↩
Our original text is a fragment de Origine Juris (Pandectae, l. I tit. II) of Pomponius, a Roman lawyer, who lived under the Antonines (Heineccius, tom. III syl. III, pp. 66⁠–⁠126). It has been abridged, and probably corrupted, by Tribonian, and since restored by Cornelius van Bynkershoek (Opera omnia, tom. I, pp. 279⁠–⁠304). ↩
The constitutional history of the kings of Rome may be studied in the first book of Livy, and more copiously in Dionysi Halicarnasensis (l. II, pp. 80⁠–⁠96, 119⁠–⁠130; l. IV, pp. 198⁠–⁠220), who sometimes betrays the character of a rhetorician and a Greek.9119 ↩
This threefold division of the law was applied to the three Roman kings by Justus Lipsius (Opera omnia, tom. IV, p. 279); is adopted by Gravina (Origines juris civilis, p. 28, edit. Lipsiae, 1737); and is reluctantly admitted by Mascou, his German editor.9120 ↩
The most ancient Code or Digest was styled Jus papirianum, from the first compiler, Papirius, who flourished somewhat before or after the Regifugium (Pandectae, l. I tit. II). The best judicial critics, even Bynkershoek (tom. I, pp. 284, 285) and Heineccius (Historia juris civilis Romani, l. I c. 16, 17, and Opera omnia, tom. III sylloge IV, pp. 1⁠–⁠8), give credit to this tale of Pomponius, without sufficiently adverting to the value and rarity of such a monument of the third century of the illiterate city. I much suspect that the Caius Papirius, the Pontifex Maximus, who revived the laws of Numa (Dionysi Halicarnasensis, l. III, p. 171) left only an oral tradition; and that the Jus papirianum of Granius Flaccus (Pandectae, l. 1 tit. XVI leg. 144) was not a commentary, but an original work, compiled in the time of Caesar (Censorinus, De die natali, l. III, p. 13; Carl Andreas Duker, Opuscula varia de Latinitate veterum jurisconsultorum, p. 157).9121 ↩
A pompous, though feeble, attempt to restore the original is made in the Histoire de la jurisprudence romaine of Antoine Terrasson, pp. 22⁠–⁠72, Paris, 1750, in folio: a work of more promise than performance. ↩
In the year 1444, seven or eight tables of brass were dug up between Cortona and Gubio. A part of these (for the rest is Etruscan) represents the primitive state of the Pelasgic letters and language, which are ascribed by Herodotus to that district of Italy (l. I c. 56⁠–⁠58); though this difficult passage may be explained of a Crestona in Thrace (Notes de Larcher, tom. I, pp. 256⁠–⁠261). The savage dialect of the Eugubine tables has exercised, and may still elude, the divination of criticism; but the root is undoubtedly Latin, of the same age and character as the Saliare Carmen, which, in the time of Horace, none could understand. The Roman idiom, by an infusion of Doric and Aeolic Greek, was gradually ripened into the style of the XII tables, of the Duillian column, of Ennius, of Terence, and of Cicero (Gruter, Inscriptions, tom. I, p. CXLII; Scipion Maffei, Istoria Diplomatica, pp. 241⁠–⁠258; Bibliothèque Italique, tom. III, pp. 30⁠–⁠41, 174⁠–⁠205, tom. XIV, pp. 1⁠–⁠52).9122 ↩
Compare Livy (l. III c. 31⁠–⁠59) with Dionysi Halicarnasensis (l. X, p. 644⁠—XI, p. 691). How concise and animated is the Roman⁠—how prolix and lifeless the Greek! Yet he has admirably judged the masters, and defined the rules, of historical composition. ↩
From the historians, Heineccius (Historia juris Romani, l. I No. 26) maintains that the twelve tables were of brass⁠—aereas: in the text of Pomponius we read eboreas; for which Scaliger has substituted roboreas (Bynkershoek, p. 286). Wood, brass, and ivory might be successively employed.9123 ↩
Compare Niebuhr, vol. II, p. 349, etc. —⁠M. ↩
His exile is mentioned by Cicero (Tusculanae quaestiones V 36); his statue by Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae XXXIV 11). The letter, dream, and prophecy of Heraclitus are alike spurious (Epistolae Graecae diversorum, p. 337).9124 ↩
This intricate subject of the Sicilian and Roman money is ably discussed by Dr. Bentley (Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris, pp. 427⁠–⁠479), whose powers in this controversy were called forth by honor and resentment. ↩
The Romans, or their allies, sailed as far as the fair promontory of Africa (Polybius, l. III, p. 177, edit. Casaubon, in folio). Their voyages to Cumae, etc., are noticed by Livy and Dionysius. ↩
This circumstance would alone prove the antiquity of Charondas, the legislator of Rhegium and Catana, who, by a strange error of Diodorus Siculus (tom. I l. XII, pp. 485⁠–⁠492) is celebrated long afterwards as the author of the policy of Thurium. ↩
Zaleucus, whose existence has been rashly attacked, had the merit and glory of converting a band of outlaws (the Locrians) into the most virtuous and orderly of the Greek republics (see two Mémoires of the Baron de Sainte-Croix, sur la Législation de la Grande Grèce, Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XLII, pp. 276⁠–⁠333). But the laws of Zaleucus and Charondas, which imposed on Diodorus and Stobaeus, are the spurious composition of a Pythagorean sophist, whose fraud has been detected by the critical sagacity of Bentley, pp. 335⁠–⁠377. ↩
I seize the opportunity of tracing the progress of this national intercourse:
1. Herodotus and Thucydides (AUC 300⁠–⁠350) appear ignorant of the name and existence of Rome (Josephus, “Contra Appion,” tom. II l. I c. 12, p. 444, edit. Havercamp).
2. Theopompus (AUC 400, Pliny the Elder III 9) mentions the invasion of the Gauls, which is noticed in looser terms by Heraclides Ponticus (Plutarch in Parallel Lives, “Camillo,” p. 292, edit. Henricus Stephanus).
3. The real or fabulous embassy of the Romans to Alexander (AUC 430) is attested by Clitarchus (Pliny the Elder III 9), by Aristus and Asclepiades (Arrian, l. VII, pp. 294, 295), and by Memnon of Heraclea (apud Photius, codex CCXXIV, p. 725), though tacitly denied by Livy.
4. Theophrastus (AUC 440) primus externorum aliqua de Romanis diligentius scripsit (Pliny the Elder III 9).
5. Lycophron (AUC 480⁠–⁠500) scattered the first seed of a Trojan colony and the fable of the Aeneid (Cassandra, 1226⁠–⁠1280).
  
  Γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης σκῆπτρα καὶ μοναρχίαν
  Λαβόντες.
A bold prediction before the end of the first Punic war!9125 ↩
The tenth table, de modo sepulturae, was borrowed from Solon (Cicero, De legibus II 23⁠–⁠26): the furtem per lancem et licium conceptum, is derived by Heineccius from the manners of Athens (Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, tom. II, pp. 167⁠–⁠175). The right of killing a nocturnal thief was declared by Moses, Solon, and the Decemvirs (Exodus 22:3; Demosthenes contra Timocratem, tom. I, p. 736, edit. Reiske; Macrobius, Saturnalia, l. I c. 4; Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, tit. VII No. I, p. 218, edit. Cannegieter).9126 ↩
Βραχέως καὶ ἀπερίττως is the praise of Diodorus (tom. I l. XII, p. 494), which may be fairly translated by the eleganti atque absolutâ brevitate verborum of Aulus Gellius (Noctes atticae XXI 1). ↩
Listen to Cicero (De legibus II 23) and his representative Crassus (De oratore I 43, 44). ↩
See Heineccius (Historia juris Romani, No. 29⁠–⁠33). I have followed the restoration of the XII tables by Gravina (Origines juris civilis, pp. 280⁠–⁠307) and Terrasson (Histoire de la jurisprudence romaine, pp. 94⁠–⁠205).9127 ↩
Finis aequi juris (Tacitus, Annales III 27).9128 Fons omnis publici et privati juris (Titus Livius III 34). ↩
De principiis juris, et quibus modis ad hanc multitudinem infinitam ac varietatem legum perventum sit altius disseram (Tacitus, Annales III 25). This deep disquisition fills only two pages, but they are the pages of Tacitus. With equal sense, but with less energy, Livy (III 34) had complained in hoc immenso aliarum super alias acervatarum legum cumulo, etc. ↩
Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Vespasiano,” c. 8. ↩
Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares VIII 8. ↩
Dionysius, with Arbuthnot, and most of the moderns (except Johann Casper Eisenschmidt, De ponderibus et mensuris veterum Romanorum, pp. 137⁠–⁠140), represent the 100,000 asses by 10,000 Attic drachmae, or somewhat more than 300 pounds sterling. But their calculation can apply only to the latter times, when the as was diminished to ¹/₂₄th of its ancient weight, nor can I believe that in the first ages, however destitute of the precious metals, a single ounce of silver could have been exchanged for seventy pounds of copper or brass. A more simple and rational method is to value the copper itself according to the present rate, and, after comparing the mint and the market price, the Roman and avoirdupois weight, the primitive as or Roman pound of copper may be appreciated at one English shilling, and the 100,000 asses of the first class amounted to 5,000 pounds sterling. It will appear from the same reckoning that an ox was sold at Rome for five pounds, a sheep for ten shillings, and a quarter of wheat for one pound ten shillings (Festus, p. 330, edit. Dacier; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XVIII 4): nor do I see any reason to reject these consequences, which moderate our ideas of the poverty of the first Romans.9129 ↩
Consult the common writers on the Roman Comitia, especially Sigonius and Beaufort. Spanheim (Dissertationes de praestantia et usu numismatum antiquorum, tom. II dissert. X, pp. 192, 193) shows, on a curious medal, the Cista, Pontes, Septa, Diribitor, etc. ↩
Cicero (De legibus III 16⁠–⁠18) debates this constitutional question, and assigns to his brother Quintus the most unpopular side. ↩
Prae tumultu recusantium perferre non potuit (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 34). See Propertius, l. II eleg. 6. Heineccius in a separate history has exhausted the whole subject of the Julian and Papian-Poppaean laws (Opera omnia, tom. VII pars I, pp. 1⁠–⁠479). ↩
Tacitus, Annales I 15. Lipsius, Excursus E in Tacitum.9130 ↩
Non ambigitur senatum jus facere posse, is the decision of Ulpian (l. XVI ad Edict. in Pandectae, l. I tit. III leg. 9). Pomponius taxes the comitia of the people as a turba hominum (Pandectae, l. I tit. II leg. 9).9131 ↩
There is a curious passage from Aurelius, a writer on law, on the Praetorian prefect, quoted in Lydus, De magistratibus, p. 32, edit. Hase. The Praetorian prefect was to the emperor what the master of the horse was to the dictator under the Republic. He was the delegate, therefore, of the full imperial authority; and no appeal could be made or exception taken against his edicts. I had not observed this passage when the third volume, where it would have been more appropriately placed, passed through the press. —⁠M. ↩
The jus honorarium of the praetors and other magistrates is strictly defined in the Latin text of the Institutes (l. I tit. II No. 7), and more loosely explained in the Greek paraphrase of Theophilus (pp. 33⁠–⁠38, edit. Reitz), who drops the important word honorarium.9132 ↩
Compare throughout the brief but admirable sketch of the progress and growth of the Roman jurisprudence, the necessary operation of the jus gentium, when Rome became the sovereign of nations, upon the jus civile of the citizens of Rome, in the first chapter of Savigny. Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter. —⁠M. ↩
Dion Cassius (tom. I l. XXXVI, p. 100) fixes the perpetual edicts in the year of Rome 686. Their institution, however, is ascribed to the year 585 in the Acta Diurna, which have been published from the papers of Ludovicus Vives. Their authenticity is supported or allowed by Stephanus Pighius (Annales Romanorum, tom. II, pp. 377, 378), Graevius (ad Suetonius, p. 778), Dodwell (Praelectiones Cambdeniana, p. 665), and Heineccius: but a single word, scutum Cimbricum, detects the forgery (Moyle’s Works, vol. I, p. 303). ↩
The history of edicts is composed, and the text of the perpetual edict is restored, by the master-hand of Heineccius (Opera omnia, tom. VII pars II, pp. 1⁠–⁠564);9133 in whose researches I might safely acquiesce. In the Academy of Inscriptions, M. Bouchaud has given a series of memoirs to this interesting subject of law and literature.9134 ↩
It is an important question in what manner the emperors were invested with this legislative power. The newly discovered Gaius distinctly states that it was in virtue of a law⁠—Nec unquam dubitatum est, quin id legis vicem obtineat, cum ipse imperator per legem imperium accipiat. But it is still uncertain whether this was a general law, passed on the transition of the government from a republican to a monarchical form, or a law passed on the accession of each emperor. Compare Hugo, Histoire du droit romain (French translation), vol. II, p. 8. —⁠M. ↩
His laws are the first in the code. See Dodwell (Praelectiones Cambdeniana, pp. 319⁠–⁠340), who wanders from the subject in confused reading and feeble paradox.9135 ↩
Totam illam veterem et squalentem sylvam legum novis principalium rescriptorum et edictorum securibus truncatis et caeditis (Apologeticus, c. 4, p. 50, edit. Havercamp). He proceeds to praise the recent firmness of Severus, who repealed the useless or pernicious laws without any regard to their age or authority. ↩
The constitutional style of Legibus solutus is misinterpreted by the art or ignorance of Dion Cassius (tom. I l. LIII, p. 713). On this occasion his editor, Reimer, joins the universal censure which freedom and criticism have pronounced against that slavish historian. ↩
The word (Lex Regia) was still more recent than the thing. The slaves of Commodus or Caracalla would have started at the name of royalty.9136 ↩
See Gravina (Opera, seu originum juris civilis, pp. 501⁠–⁠512) and Beaufort (La République romaine, tom. I, pp. 255⁠–⁠274). He has made a proper use of two dissertations by Johann Freidrich Gronovius and Gerard Noodt, both translated with valuable notes, by Barbeyrac, two vols. in duodecimo, 1731. ↩
Gaii institutiones, l. I tit. II No. 6. Pandectae, l. I tit. IV leg. 1. Codex Justinianus, l. I tit. XVII leg. 1, No. 7. In his Antiquities and Elements, Heineccius has amply treated de constitutionibus principum, which are illustrated by Godefroy (Comment. ad Codex Theodosianus, l. I tit. I, II, III) and Gravina (pp. 87⁠–⁠90).9137 ↩
Theophilus, in Paraphrasis Graeca institutionum Caesarearum, pp. 33, 34, edit. Reitz. For his person, time, writings, see the Theophilus of J. H. Mylius, Excursus III, pp. 1034⁠–⁠1073. ↩
There is more envy than reason in the complaint of Macrinus (“Julius Capitolinus,” c. 13): Nefas esse leges videri Commodi et Caracallae at hominum imperitorum voluntates. Commodus was made a Divus by Severus (Dodwell, Praelectiones Cambdeniana VIII, pp. 324, 325). Yet he occurs only twice in the Pandects. ↩
Of Antoninus Caracalla alone 200 constitutions are extant in the Code, and with his father 160. These two princes are quoted fifty times in the Pandects, and eight in the Institutes (Terasson, p. 265). ↩
Pliny Secundus, “Epistola X” 66. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Domitian,” c. 23. ↩
It was a maxim of Constantine, contra jus rescripta non valeant (Codex Theodosianus, l. I tit. II leg. 1). The emperors reluctantly allow some scrutiny into the law and the fact, some delay, petition, etc.; but these insufficient remedies are too much in the discretion and at the peril of the judge. ↩
A compound of vermilion and cinnabar, which marks the Imperial diplomas from Leo I (AD 470) to the fall of the Greek empire (Bibliothèque Raisonnée de la Diplomatique, tom. I, pp. 504⁠–⁠515; Giovanni Lami, De eruditione apostolorum, tom. II, pp. 720⁠–⁠726). ↩
Savigny states the following as the authorities for the Roman law at the commencement of the fifth century:⁠—
1. The writings of the jurists according to the regulations of the Constitution of Valentinian III, first promulgated in the West, but by its admission into the Theodosian Code established likewise in the East. (This Constitution established the authority of the five great jurists, Papinian, Paulus, Caius, Ulpian, and Modestinus, as interpreters of the ancient law.⁠ ⁠… In case of difference of opinion among these five, a majority decided the case; where they were equal, the opinion of Papinian, where he was silent, the judge; but see p. 40, and Hugo, vol. II, p. 89.)
2. The Gregorian and Hermogenian Collection of the Imperial Rescripts.
3. The Code of Theodosius II.
4. The particular Novellae, as additions and supplements to this Code. Savigny, vol. I, p. 10.
—⁠M. ↩
Anton Schulting, Jurisprudentia vetus Ante-Justinianea, pp. 681⁠–⁠718. Cujacius assigned to Gregory the reigns from Hadrian to Gallienus, and the continuation to his fellow-laborer Hermogenes. This general division may be just, but they often trespassed on each other’s ground. ↩
Scaevola, most probably Q. Cervidius Scaevola the master of Papinian, considers this acceptance of fire and water as the essence of marriage. (Pandectae, l. XXIV tit. 1, leg. 66. See Heineccius, Historia juris Romani, No. 317.) ↩
Cicero (De officiis III 19) may state an ideal case, but St. Ambrose (De officiis III 2) appeals to the practice of his own times, which he understood as a lawyer and a magistrate (Schulting ad Ulpian, Fragmenta, tit. XXII No. 28, pp. 643, 644).9138 ↩
The furtum lance licioque conceptum was no longer understood in the time of the Antonines (Aulus Gellius XVI 10). The Attic derivation of Heineccius (Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, l. IV tit. I No. 13⁠–⁠21) is supported by the evidence of Aristophanes, his scholiast, and Pollux.9139 ↩
In his “Oration for Murena” (c. 9⁠–⁠13), Cicero turns into ridicule the forms and mysteries of the civilians, which are represented with more candor by Aulus Gellius (Noctes atticae XX 10), Gravina (Opera, seu originum juris civilis, pp. 265⁠–⁠267), and Heineccius (Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, l. IV tit. VI).9140 ↩
Compare, on the responsa prudentum, Warnkönig, Histoire externe du droit romain, Bruxelles, 1836, p. 122. —⁠M. ↩
The series of the civil lawyers is deduced by Pomponius (“De Origine Juris” Pandectae, l. I tit. II). The moderns have discussed, with learning and criticism, this branch of literary history; and among these I have chiefly been guided by Gravina (pp. 41⁠–⁠79) and Heineccius (Historia juris Romani, No. 113⁠–⁠351). Cicero, more especially in his books De oratore, De claris oratoribus, De legibus, and the Clavis Ciceroniana of Ernesti (under the names of “Mucius,” etc.) afford much genuine and pleasing information. Horace often alludes to the morning labors of the civilians (Sermones I i 10, Epistularum II, I 103, etc.).

Agricolam laudat juris legumque peritus
Sub galli cantum, consultor ubi ostia pulsat.
⋮
Romae dulce diu fuit et solemne, reclusâ
Mane domo vigilare, clienti promere jura.9141

↩
M. Hugo thinks that the ingenious system of the Institutes adopted by a great number of the ancient lawyers, and by Justinian himself, dates from Severus Sulpicius. Histoire du droit romain, vol. II, p. 119. —⁠W. ↩
Crassus, or rather Cicero himself, proposes (De oratore I 41, 42) an idea of the art or science of jurisprudence, which the eloquent but illiterate Antonius (I 58) affects to deride. It was partly executed by Servius Sulpicius (in “Bruto,” c. 41), whose praises are elegantly varied in the classic Latinity of the Roman Gravina (p. 60). ↩
Perturbatricem autem omnium harum rerum academiam, hanc ab Arcesila et Carneade recentem, exoremus ut sileat, nam si invaserit in haec, quae satis scite instructa et composita videantur, nimis edet ruinas, quam quidem ego placare cupio, submovere non audeo (De legibus I 13). From this passage alone Bentley (Remarks on a Late Discourse of Freethinking, p. 250) might have learned how firmly Cicero believed in the specious doctrines which he has adorned. ↩
The stoic philosophy was first taught at Rome by Panaetius, the friend of the younger Scipio (see his life in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. X, pp. 75⁠–⁠89). ↩
As he is quoted by Ulpian (leg. 40, ad Sabinum in Pandectae, l. XLVII tit. II leg. 21). Yet Trebatius, after he was a leading civilian, qui familiam duxit, became an epicurean (Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares VII 5). Perhaps he was not constant or sincere in his new sect.9142 ↩
See Gravina (pp. 45⁠–⁠51) and the ineffectual cavils of Mascou. Heineccius (Historia juris Romani, No. 125) quotes and approves a dissertation of Everard Otto, De stoicâ veterum jurisconsultorum philosophiâ. ↩
We have heard of the Catonian rule, the Aquilian stipulation, and the Manilian forms, of 211 maxims, and of 247 definitions (Pandectae, l. I tit. XVI, XVII). ↩
Read Cicero, l. I De oratore, Topica, “pro Murenâ.” ↩
See Pomponius (“De Origine Juris,” Pandectae, l. I tit. II leg. 2, No. 47), Heineccius (ad Institutionum, l. I tit. II No. 8, l. II tit. XXV in Elementa et Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam), and Gravina (pp. 41⁠–⁠45). Yet the monopoly of Augustus, a harsh measure, would appear with some softening in contemporary evidence; and it was probably veiled by a decree of the senate. ↩
The author here follows the then generally received opinion of Heineccius. The proofs which appear to confirm it are Digests, l. I tit. 2 § 47, and Institutionem, l. I tit. 2 § 8. The first of these passages speaks expressly of a privilege granted to certain lawyers, until the time of Hadrian, publice respondendi jus ante Augusti tempora non dabatur. Primus Divus ut major juris auctoritas haberetur, constituit, ut ex auctoritate ejus responderent. The passage of the Institutes speaks of the different opinions of those, quibus est permissum jura condere. It is true that the first of these passages does not say that the opinion of these privileged lawyers had the force of a law for the judges. For this reason M. Hugo altogether rejects the opinion adopted by Heineccius, by Bach, and in general by all the writers who preceded him. He conceives that the § 8 of the Institutes referred to the constitution of Valentinian III, which regulated the respective authority to be ascribed to the different writings of the great civilians.

But we have now the following passage in the Institutes of Gaius: Responsa prudentum sunt sententiae et opiniones eorum, quibus permissum est jura condere; quorum omnium si in unum sententiae concurrunt, id quod ita sentiunt, legis vicem obtinet, si vero dissentiunt, judici licet, quam velit sententiam sequi, idque rescripto Divi Hadrian signiticatur. I do not know how, in opposition to this passage, the opinion of M. Hugo can be maintained. We must add to this the passage quoted from Pomponius; and from such strong proofs, it seems incontestable that the emperors had granted some kind of privilege to certain civilians, quibus permissum erat jura condere. Their opinion had sometimes the force of law, legis vicem. M. Hugo, endeavoring to reconcile this phrase with his system, gives it a forced interpretation, which quite alters the sense; he supposes that the passage contains no more than what is evident of itself, that the authority of the civilians was to be respected, thus making a privilege of that which was free to all the world. It appears to me almost indisputable that the emperors had sanctioned certain provisions relative to the authority of these civilians, consulted by the judges. But how far was their advice to be respected? This is a question which it is impossible to answer precisely, from the want of historic evidence.

Is it not possible that the emperors established an authority to be consulted by the judges? and in this case this authority must have emanated from certain civilians named for this purpose by the emperors. See Hugo. Moreover, may not the passage of Suetonius, in the “Life of Caligula,” where he says that the emperor would no longer permit the civilians to give their advice, mean that Caligula entertained the design of suppressing this institution? See on this passage the Themis, vol. XI, pp. 17, 36. Our author, not being acquainted with the opinions opposed to Heineccius, has not gone to the bottom of the subject. —⁠W. ↩
I have perused the diatribe of Gotfridus Mascovius, the learned Mascou, De sectis et philosophia jurisconsultorum (Lipsiae, 1728, in duodecimo, p. 276), a learned treatise on a narrow and barren ground. ↩
See the character of Antistius Labeo in Tacitus (Annales III 75), and in an epistle of Ateius Capito (Aulus Gellius XIII 12), who accuses his rival of libertas nimia et vecors. Yet Horace would not have lashed a virtuous and respectable senator; and I must adopt the emendation of Bentley, who reads Labieno insanior (Sermones I III 82). See Mascou, De sectis et philosophia jurisconsultorum (c. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠24). ↩
Justinian (Institutiones Justiniani, l. III tit. 23, and Theophilus, Paraphrasis Graeca institutionum Caesarearum, pp. 677, 680) has commemorated this weighty dispute, and the verses of Homer that were alleged on either side as legal authorities. It was decided by Paul (leg. 33, ad Edict. in Pandectae, l. XVIII tit. I leg. 1), since, in a simple exchange, the buyer could not be discriminated from the seller. ↩
This controversy was likewise given for the Proculians, to supersede the indecency of a search, and to comply with the aphorism of Hippocrates, who was attached to the septenary number of two weeks of years, or 700 of days (Institutiones, l. I tit. XXII) Plutarch and the Stoics (De placita philosophorum, l. V c. 24) assign a more natural reason. Fourteen years is the age⁠—περὶ ἢν ὁ σπερματικὸς κρίωεται ὀῤῥός. See the vestigia of the sects in Mascou, c. IX, pp. 145⁠–⁠276. ↩
The series and conclusion of the sects are described by Mascou (c. II⁠–⁠VII, pp. 24⁠–⁠120), and it would be almost ridiculous to praise his equal justice to these obsolete sects.9143 ↩
At the first summons he flies to the turbot-council; yet Juvenal (Satires IV 75⁠–⁠81) styles the prefect or bailiff of Rome sanctissimus legum interpres. From his science, says the old scholiast, he was called, not a man, but a book. He derived the singular name of Pegasus from the galley which his father commanded. ↩
Tacitus, Annales XVI 7. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Nero,” c. XXXVII. ↩
Mascou, De sectis et philosophia jurisconsultorum, c. VIII, pp. 120⁠–⁠144; de Herciscundis, a legal term which was applied to these eclectic lawyers: herciscere is synonymous to dividere.9144 ↩
See the Theodosian Code, l. I tit. IV with Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. I, pp. 30⁠–⁠35.9145 This decree might give occasion to Jesuitical disputes like those in the Lettres provinciales, whether a judge was obliged to follow the opinion of Papinian, or of a majority, against his judgment, against his conscience, etc. Yet a legislator might give that opinion, however false, the validity, not of truth, but of law.9146 ↩
For the legal labors of Justinian, I have studied the preface to the Institutes; the first, second, and third prefaces to the Pandects; the first and second preface to the Code; and the Code itself (l. I tit. XVII “De Veteri Jure Enucleando”). After these original testimonies, I have consulted, among the moderns, Heineccius (Historia juris Romani, No. 383⁠–⁠404), Terasson (Histoire de la jurisprudence romaine, pp. 295⁠–⁠356), Gravina (Opera, seu originum juris civilis, pp. 93⁠–⁠100), and Ludewig, in his Life of Justinian (p.19⁠–⁠123, 318⁠–⁠321; for the Code and Novels, pp. 209⁠–⁠261; for the Digest or Pandects, pp. 262⁠–⁠317). ↩
For the character of Tribonian, see the testimonies of Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 23, 24; Anecdota, c. 13, 20), and Suidas (tom. III, p. 501, edit. Kuster). Ludewig (in Vita Justiniani, pp. 175⁠–⁠209) works hard, very hard, to whitewash⁠—the blackamoor. ↩
I apply the two passages of Suidas to the same man; every circumstance so exactly tallies. Yet the lawyers appear ignorant; and Fabricius is inclined to separate the two characters (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. I, p. 341; II, p. 518; III, p. 418; XII, pp. 346, 353, 474). ↩
This story is related by Hesychius of Miletus (De viris illustribus), Procopius (Anecdota, c. 13), and Suidas (tom. III, p. 501). Such flattery is incredible!

… Nihil est quod credere de se
Non possit, cum laudatur Diis aequa potestas.

Fontenelle (tom. I, pp. 32⁠–⁠39) has ridiculed the impudence of the modest Virgil. But the same Fontenelle places his king above the divine Augustus; and the sage Boileau has not blushed to say, “Le destin à ses yeux n’oseroit balancer.” Yet neither Augustus nor Louis XIV were fools. ↩
Πάνδεκται (general receivers) was a common title of the Greek miscellanies (Pliny the Elder, Praefatio ad Naturalis historiae). The Digesta of Scaevola, Marcellinus, Celsus, were already familiar to the civilians: but Justinian was in the wrong when he used the two appellations as synonymous. Is the word Pandects Greek or Latin⁠—masculine or feminine? The diligent Henrik Brenkman will not presume to decide these momentous controversies (Historia pandectarum Florentinorum, pp. 300⁠–⁠304).9147 ↩
Angelus Politianus (l. V Epistola ultra) reckons thirty-seven (pp. 192⁠–⁠200) civilians quoted in the Pandects⁠—a learned and, for his times, an extraordinary list. The Greek index to the Pandects enumerates thirty-nine, and forty are produced by the indefatigable Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. III, pp. 488⁠–⁠502). Antoninus Augustus (De nominibus propriis Pandectarum, apud Ludewig, p. 283) is said to have added fifty-four names; but they must be vague or secondhand references. ↩
The Στιχοί of the ancient MSS. may be strictly defined as sentences or periods of a complete sense, which, on the breadth of the parchment rolls or volumes, composed as many lines of unequal length. The number of Στιχοί in each book served as a check on the errors of the scribes (Ludewig, pp. 211⁠–⁠215; and his original author Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, tom. I, pp. 1021⁠–⁠1036). ↩
An ingenious and learned oration of Antonius Schultingius (Jurisprudentia Vetus Ante-Justinianea, pp. 883⁠–⁠907) justifies the choice of Tribonian, against the passionate charges of Francis Hottoman and his sectaries. ↩
Strip away the crust of Tribonian, and allow for the use of technical words, and the Latin of the Pandects will be found not unworthy of the silver age. It has been vehemently attacked by Laurentius Valla,9148 a fastidious grammarian of the fifteenth century, and by his apologist Floridus Sabinus. It has been defended by Alciat and a nameless advocate (most probably James Capellus). Their various treatises are collected by Duker (Opuscula varia de Latinitate veterum jurisconsultorum, Lugduni Batavorum, 1721, in duodecimo). ↩
Nomina quidem veteribus servavimus, legum autem veritatem nostram fecimus. Itaque siquid erat in illis seditiosum, multa autem talia erant ibi reposita, hoc decisum est et definitum, et in perspicuum finem deducta est quaeque lex (Codex Justinianus, l. I tit. XVII leg. 3, No 10). A frank confession!9149 ↩
The number of these emblemata (a polite name for forgeries) is much reduced by Bynkershoek (in the four last books of his Observations), who poorly maintains the right of Justinian and the duty of Tribonian. ↩
The antinomies, or opposite laws of the Code and Pandects, are sometimes the cause, and often the excuse, of the glorious uncertainty of the civil law, which so often affords what Montaigne calls “Questions pour l’Ami.” See a fine passage of Franciscus Balduinus in Justinian (l. II, p. 259, etc., apud Ludewig, pp. 305, 306). ↩
When Faust, or Faustus, sold at Paris his first printed Bibles as manuscripts, the price of a parchment copy was reduced from four or five hundred to sixty, fifty, and forty crowns. The public was at first pleased with the cheapness, and at length provoked by the discovery of the fraud (Mattaire, Annales typographici, tom. I, p. 12; first edition). ↩
Among the works which have been recovered, by the persevering and successful endeavors of M. Mai and his followers to trace the imperfectly erased characters of the ancient writers on these Palimpsests, Gibbon at this period of his labors would have hailed with delight the recovery of the Institutes of Gaius, and the fragments of the Theodosian Code, published by M. Peyron of Turin. —⁠M. ↩
This execrable practice prevailed from the eighth, and more especially from the twelth, century, when it became almost universal (Montfaucon, in the Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. VI, p. 606, etc.; Bibliothèque Raisonnée de la Diplomatique, tom. I, p. 176). ↩
Pomponius (Pandectae, l. I tit. II leg. 2) observes that of the three founders of the civil law, Mucius, Brutus, and Manilius, extant volumina, scripta Manilii monumenta; that of some old republican lawyers, haec versantur eorum scripta inter manus hominum. Eight of the Augustan sages were reduced to a compendium: of Cascellius, scripta non extant sed unus liber, etc.; of Trebatius, minus frequentatur; of Tubero, libri parum grati sunt. Many quotations in the Pandects are derived from books which Tribonian never saw; and in the long period from the seventh to the thirteenth century of Rome, the apparent reading of the moderns successively depends on the knowledge and veracity of their predecessors. ↩
All, in several instances, repeat the errors of the scribe and the transpositions of some leaves in the Florentine Pandects. This fact, if it be true, is decisive. Yet the Pandects are quoted by Ivo of Chartres (who died in 1117), by Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, and by Vacarius, our first professor, in the year 1140 (John Selden, Ad fletam dissertatio, c. 7, tom. II, pp. 1080⁠–⁠1085). Have our British MSS. of the Pandects been collated? ↩
See the description of this original in Brenkman (Historia pandectarum Florentinorum, l. I c. 2, 3, pp. 4⁠–⁠17, and l. II). Politian, an enthusiast, revered it as the authentic standard of Justinian himself (pp. 407, 408); but this paradox is refuted by the abbreviations of the Florentine MSS. (l. II c. 3, pp. 117⁠–⁠130). It is composed of two quarto volumes with large margins, on a thin parchment, and the Latin characters betray the hand of a Greek scribe. ↩
Brenkman, at the end of his history, has inserted two dissertations, on the republic of Amalphi, and the Pisan war in the year 1135, etc. ↩
The discovery of the Pandects at Amalfi (AD 1137) is first noticed (in 1501) by Ludovicus Bologninus (Brenkman, l. I c. 11, pp. 73, 74; l. IV c. 2, pp. 417⁠–⁠425), on the faith of a Pisan chronicle (pp. 409, 410), without a name or a date. The whole story,9150 though unknown to the twelth century, embellished by ignorant ages and suspected by rigid criticism, is not, however, destitute of much internal probability (l. I c. 4⁠–⁠8, pp. 17⁠–⁠50). The Liber pandectarum of Pisa was undoubtedly consulted in the fourteenth century by the great Bartolus (pp. 406, 407; see l. I c. 9, pp. 50⁠–⁠62). ↩
Pisa was taken by the Florentines in the year 1406; and in 1411 the Pandects were transported to the capital. These events are authentic and famous. ↩
They were new bound in purple, deposited in a rich casket, and shown to curious travellers by the monks and magistrates bareheaded, and with lighted tapers (Brenkman, l. I c. 10⁠–⁠12, pp. 62⁠–⁠93). ↩
After the collations of Politian, Bologninus, and Antoninus Augustinus, and the splendid edition of the Pandects by Taurellus (in 1551), Henrik Brenkman, a Dutchman, undertook a pilgrimage to Florence, where he employed several years in the study of a single manuscript. His Historia pandectarum Florentinorum (Utrecht, 1722, in quarto), though a monument of industry, is a small portion of his original design. ↩
Χρύσεα χαλκείων, ἑκατόμβοι’ἐννεαβοίων, apud Homerum patrem omnis virtutis (first Praefatio ad Pandectae). A line of Milton or Tasso would surprise us in an act of Parliament. Quae omnia obtinere sancimus in omne aevum. Of the first Code, he says (second Praefatio), in aeternum valiturum. Man and forever! ↩
Novellae is a classic adjective, but a barbarous substantive (Ludewig, p. 245). Justinian never collected them himself; the nine collations, the legal standard of modern tribunals, consist of ninety-eight Novels; but the number was increased by the diligence of Julian, Haloander, and Contius (Ludewig, pp. 249, 258; Alemannus, Not. in Anecdota, p. 98). ↩
Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, tom. III c. 20, p. 501, in quarto. On this occasion he throws aside the gown and cap of a President à Mortier. ↩
Procopius, Anecdota, c. 28. A similar privilege was granted to the church of Rome (Novella IX). For the general repeal of these mischievous indulgences, see Novella CXI and Edict. V. ↩
Lactantius, in his Institutes of Christianity, an elegant and specious work, proposes to imitate the title and method of the civilians. Quidam prudentes et arbitri aequitatis Institutiones Civilis Juris compositas ediderunt (Institutiones divinae, l. I c. 1). Such as Ulpian, Paul, Florentinus, Marcian. ↩
The emperor Justinian calls him suum, though he died before the end of the second century. His Institutes are quoted by Servius, Boethius, Priscian, etc., and the epitome by Arrian is still extant. (See the Prolegomena and notes to the edition of Schulting, in the Jurisprudentia vetus Ante-Justinianea, Lugduni Batavorum, 1717. Heineccius, Historia juris Romani, No. 313. Ludewig, in Vita Justiniani, p. 199.) ↩
Gibbon, dividing the Institutes into four parts, considers the appendix of the criminal law in the last title as a fourth part. —⁠W. ↩
See the Annales politiques de l’Abbé de St. Pierre, tom. I, p. 25, who dates in the year 1735. The most ancient families claim the immemorial possession of arms and fiefs. Since the Crusades, some, the most truly respectable, have been created by the king, for merit and services. The recent and vulgar crowd is derived from the multitude of venal offices without trust or dignity, which continually ennoble the wealthy plebeians. ↩
Since the time of Gibbon, the House of Peers has been more than doubled; it is above 400, exclusive of the spiritual peers⁠—a wise policy, to increase the patrician order in proportion to the general increase of the nation. —⁠M. ↩
If the option of a slave was bequeathed to several legatees, they drew lots, and the losers were entitled to their share of his value: ten pieces of gold for a common servant or maid under ten years: if above that age, twenty; if they knew a trade, thirty; notaries or writers, fifty; midwives or physicians, sixty; eunuchs under ten years, thirty pieces; above, fifty; if tradesmen, seventy (Codex, l. VI tit. XLIII leg. 3). These legal prices are generally below those of the market. ↩
For the state of slaves and freedmen, see Institutes, l. I tit. III⁠–⁠VIII; l. II tit. IX; l. III tit. VIII, IX. Pandects or Digest, l. I tit. V, VI; l. XXXVIII tit. I⁠–⁠IV, and the whole of the fortieth book. Code, l. VI tit. IV, V; l. VII tit. I⁠–⁠XXIII. Be it henceforward understood that, with the original text of the Institutes and Pandects, the correspondent articles in the Antiquities and Elements of Heineccius are implicitly quoted; and with the XXVII first books of the Pandects, the learned and rational Commentaries of Gerhard Noodt (Opera omnia, tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠590, the end, Lugduni Batavorum, 1724). ↩
See the patria potestas in the Institutes (l. I tit. IX), the Pandects (l. I tit. VI, VII), and the Code (l. VIII tit. XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX). Jus potestatis quod in liberos habemus proprium est civium Romanorum. Nulli enim alii sunt homines, qui talem in liberos habeant potestatem qualem nos habemus.9151 ↩
Dionysius Halicarnassus, l. II, pp. 94, 95. Gravina (Opera, seu originum juris civilis, p. 286) produces the words of the XII tables. Papinian (in Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, tit. IV, p. 204) styles this patria potestas, lex regia; Ulpian (ad Sabinus, l. XXVI in Pandectae, l. I tit. VI leg. 8) says, jus potestatis moribus receptum; and furiosus filium in potestate habebit. How sacred⁠—or rather, how absurd!9152 ↩
This parental power was strictly confined to the Roman citizen. The foreigner, or he who had only jus Latii, did not possess it. If a Roman citizen unknowingly married a Latin or a foreign wife, he did not possess this power over his son, because the son, following the legal condition of the mother, was not a Roman citizen. A man, however, alleging sufficient cause for his ignorance, might raise both mother and child to the rights of citizenship. Gaius, p. 30. —⁠M. ↩
Pandectae, l. XLVII tit. II leg. 14, No. 13; leg. 38, No. 1. Such was the decision of Ulpian and Paul. ↩
The trina mancipatio is most clearly defined by Ulpian (Fragmenta X, pp. 591, 592, edit. Schulting); and best illustrated in the Antiquities of Heineccius.9153 ↩
By Justinian, the old law, the jus necis of the Roman father (Institutiones Justiniani, l. IV tit. IX No. 7) is reported and reprobated. Some legal vestiges are left in the Pandects (l. XLIII tit. XXIX leg. 3, No. 4) and the Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum (tit. II No. 3, p. 189). ↩
Except on public occasions, and in the actual exercise of his office. In publicis locis atque muneribus, atque actionibus patrum, jura cum filiorum qui in magistratu sunt potestatibus collata interquiescere paullulum et connivere, etc. (Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae II 2). The lessons of the philosopher Taurus were justified by the old and memorable example of Fabius; and we may contemplate the same story in the style of Livy (XXIV 44) and the homely idiom of Claudius Quadrigarius the annalist. ↩
See the gradual enlargement and security of the filial peculium in the Institutes (l. II tit. IX), the Pandects (l. XV tit. I; l. XLI tit. I), and the Code (l. IV tit. XXVI, XXVII). ↩
The examples of Erixo and Arius are related by Seneca (De Clementia I 14, 15), the former with horror, the latter with applause. ↩
Quod latronis magis quam patris jure eum interfecit, nam patria potestas in pietate debet non in atrocitate consistere (Marcian, Institutiones, l. XIX in Pandectae, l. XLVIII tit. IX leg. 5). ↩
The Pompeian and Cornelian laws de sicariis and parricidis are repeated, or rather abridged, with the last supplements of Alexander Severus, Constantine, and Valentinian, in the Pandects (l. XLVIII tit. VIII, IX), and Code (l. IX tit. XVI, XVII). See likewise the Theodosian Code (l. IX tit. XIV, XV), with Godefroy’s Commentary (tom. III, pp. 84⁠–⁠113), who pours a flood of ancient and modern learning over these penal laws. ↩
When the Chremes of Terence reproaches his wife for not obeying his orders and exposing their infant, he speaks like a father and a master, and silences the scruples of a foolish woman. See Apuleius (Metamorphoses, l. X, p. 337, edit. Delphin). ↩
The opinion of the lawyers and the discretion of the magistrates had introduced in the time of Tacitus some legal restraints, which might support his contrast of the boni mores of the Germans to the bonae leges alibi⁠—that is to say, at Rome (De moribus Germanorum, c. 19). Tertullian (Libri duo ad nationes, l. I c. 15) refutes his own charges, and those of his brethren, against the heathen jurisprudence. ↩
The wise and humane sentence of the civilian Paul (l. II Sententiarum in Pandectae, l. XXV tit. III leg. 4) is represented as a mere moral precept by Gerhard Noodt (Opera omnia, tom. I in “Julius Paulus,” pp. 567⁠–⁠558, and “Amica Responsio,” pp. 591⁠–⁠606), who maintains the opinion of Justus Lipsius (Opera omnia, tom. II, p. 409, ad Belgas, cent. I “Epistola 85”), and as a positive binding law by Bynkershoek (De jure occidendi et exponendi liberos, Opera omnia, tom. I, pp. 318⁠–⁠340; Curae secundae, pp. 391⁠–⁠427). In a learned but angry controversy the two friends deviated into the opposite extremes. ↩
Dionysi Halicarnasensis, l. II, pp. 92, 93; Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Numa,” pp. 140⁠–⁠141. Τὸ σῶμα καὶ το ἧθος καθαρὸν καὶ ἄθικτον ἐπὶ τῷ γαμοῦντι γενεσθαι. ↩
Among the winter frumenta, the triticum, or bearded wheat; the siligo, or the unbearded; the far, adorea, oryza, whose description perfectly tallies with the rice of Spain and Italy. I adopt this identity on the credit of M. Alexis-Jean-Pierre Paucton in his useful and laborious Métrologie (pp. 517⁠–⁠529). ↩
Aulus Gellius (Noctes atticae XVIII 6) gives a ridiculous definition of Aelius Melissus, Matrona, quae semel materfamilias quae saepius peperit, as porcetra and scropha in the sow kind. He then adds the genuine meaning, quae in matrimonium vel in manum convenerat. ↩
It was enough to have tasted wine, or to have stolen the key of the cellar (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XIV 14). ↩
Solon requires three payments per month. By the Misna, a daily debt was imposed on an idle, vigorous, young husband; twice a week on a citizen; once on a peasant; once in thirty days on a camel-driver; once in six months on a seaman. But the student or doctor was free from tribute; and no wife, if she received a weekly sustenance, could sue for a divorce; for one week a vow of abstinence was allowed. Polygamy divided, without multiplying, the duties of the husband (Selden, Uxor Ebraica, l. III c. 6, in his Works, vol. II, pp. 717⁠–⁠720). ↩
On the Oppian law we may hear the mitigating speech of Valerius Flaccus and the severe censorial oration of the elder Cato (Livy XXXIV 1⁠–⁠8). But we shall rather hear the polished historian of the eighth, than the rough orators of the sixth, century of Rome. The principles, and even the style, of Cato are more accurately preserved by Aulus Gellius (X 23). ↩
For the system of Jewish and Catholic matrimony, see Selden (Uxor Ebraica, Opera omnia, vol. II, pp. 529⁠–⁠860), Bingham (Antiquities of the Christian Church, l. XXII), and Chardon (Histoire des sacremens, tom. VI). ↩
The civil laws of marriage are exposed in the Institutes (l. I tit. X), the Pandects (l. XXIII, XXIV, XXV), and the Code (l. V); but, as the title de ritu nuptiarum is yet imperfect, we are obliged to explore the fragments of Ulpian (tit. IX, pp. 590, 591), and the Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum (tit. XVI, pp. 790, 791), with the notes of Pithaeus and Schulting. They find, in the commentary of Servius (on the first Georgic and the fourth Aeneid), two curious passages. ↩
According to Plutarch (p. 57), Romulus allowed only three grounds of a divorce⁠—drunkenness [Plutarch mentions poisoning (her children), not drunkenness⁠—ἰπι φαρμακεία. —⁠S.], adultery, and false keys. Otherwise, the husband who abused his supremacy forfeited half his goods to the wife, and half to the goddess Ceres, and offered a sacrifice (with the remainder?) to the terrestrial deities. This strange law was either imaginary or transient. ↩
Montesquieu relates and explains this fact in a different manner. De l’esprit des loix, l. XVI c. 16. —⁠G. ↩
In the year of Rome 523, Spurius Carvilius Ruga repudiated a fair, a good, but a barren wife (Dionysius Halicarnassus, l. II, p. 93; Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Numa,” p. 141; Valerius Maximus, l. II c. 1; Aulus Gellius IV 3). He was questioned by the censors, and hated by the people; but his divorce stood unimpeached in law. ↩
… Sic fiunt octo mariti
Quinque per autumnos.
Juvenal, Satires VI 20.

A rapid succession, which may yet be credible, as well as the non consulum numero, sed maritorum annos suos computant, of Seneca (De beneficiis III 16). Jerome saw at Rome a triumphant husband bury his twenty-first wife, who had interred twenty-two of his less sturdy predecessors (Opera omnia, tom. I, p. 90, ad Gerontiam). But the ten husbands in a month of the poet Martial is an extravagant hyperbole (l. VI, “Epigram 7”). ↩
Sacellum Viriplacae (Valerius Maximus, l. II c. 1), in the Palatine region appears in the time of Theodosius, in the description of Rome by Publius Victor. ↩
Valerius Maximus, l. II c. 9. With some propriety he judges divorce more criminal than celibacy: illo namque conjugalia sacre spreta tantum, hoc etiam injuriose tractata. ↩
See the laws of Augustus and his successors, in Heineccius, Ad legem Juliam et Papiam Poppaeam, c. 19, in Opera omnia, tom. VI pars I, pp. 323⁠–⁠333. ↩
Aliae sunt leges Caesarum, aliae Christi; aliud Papinianus, aliud Paulus noster praecipit (Jerome, tom. I, p. 198; Selden, Uxor Ebraica, l. III c. 31, pp. 847⁠–⁠853). ↩
The Institutes are silent; but we may consult the Codes of Theodosius (l. III tit. XVI, with Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. I, pp. 310⁠–⁠315) and Justinian (l. V tit. XVII), the Pandects (l. XXIV tit. II) and the Novels (XXII, CXVII, CXXVII, CXXXIV, CXL). Justinian fluctuated to the last between civil and ecclesiastical law. ↩
In pure Greek, πορνεία it is not a common word; nor can the proper meaning, fornication, be strictly applied to matrimonial sin. In a figurative sense, how far, and to what offences, may it be extended? Did Christ speak the Rabbinical or Syriac tongue? Of what original word is πορνεία the translation? How variously is that Greek word translated in the versions ancient and modern! There are two (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18) to one (Matthew 19:9) that such ground of divorce was not accepted by Jesus. Some critics have presumed to think, by an evasive answer, he avoided the giving offence either to the school of Sammai or to that of Hillel (Selden, Uxor Ebraica, l. III c. 18⁠–⁠22, 28, 31).9154 ↩
The principles of the Roman jurisprudence are exposed by Justinian (Institutiones Justiniani, l. I tit. X); and the laws and manners of the different nations of antiquity concerning forbidden degrees, etc., are copiously explained by Dr. Taylor in his Elements of Civil Law (pp. 108, 314⁠–⁠339), a work of amusing, though various reading; but which cannot be praised for philosophical precision. ↩
According to the earlier law (Gaii institutiones, p. 27), a man might marry his niece on the brother’s, not on the sister’s, side. The emperor Claudius set the example of the former. In the Institutes, this distinction was abolished and both declared illegal. —⁠M. ↩
When her father Agrippa died (AD 44), Berenice was sixteen years of age (Josephus, tom. I Antiquitates Judaicae, l. XIX c. 9, p. 952, edit. Havercamp). She was therefore above fifty years old when Titus (AD 79) invitus invitam invisit. This date would not have adorned the tragedy or pastoral of the tender Racine. ↩
The Aegyptia conjux of Virgil (Aeneid VIII 688) seems to be numbered among the monsters who warred with Mark Antony against Augustus, the senate, and the gods of Italy. ↩
The edict of Constantine first conferred this right; for Augustus had prohibited the taking as a concubine a woman who might be taken as a wife; and if marriage took place afterwards, this marriage made no change in the rights of the children born before it; recourse was then had to adoption, properly called arrogation. —⁠G. ↩
The humble but legal rights of concubines and natural children are stated in the Institutes (l. I tit. X), the Pandects (l. I tit. VII), the Code (l. V tit. XXV), and the Novels (LXXIV, LXXXIX). The researches of Heineccius and Giannone (Ad legem Juliam et Papiam Poppaeam, c. IV, pp. 164⁠–⁠175; Opere posthume, pp. 108⁠–⁠158) illustrate this interesting and domestic subject. ↩
See, however, the two fragments of laws in the newly discovered extracts from the Theodosian Code, published by M. Amedeus Peyron, at Turin. By the first law of Constantine, the legitimate offspring could alone inherit; where there were no near legitimate relatives, the inheritance went to the fiscus. The son of a certain Licinianus, who had inherited his father’s property under the supposition that he was legitimate, and had been promoted to a place of dignity, was to be degraded, his property confiscated, himself punished with stripes and imprisonment. By the second, all persons, even of the highest rank, senators, perfectissimi, decemvirs, were to be declared infamous, and out of the protection of the Roman law, if born ex ancillâ, vel ancillae filiâ, vel libertâ, vel libertae filiâ, sive Romanâ factâ, seu Latinâ, vel scaenicae filiâ, vel ex tabernariâ, vel ex tabernariae filiâ, vel humili vel abjectâ, vel lenonis, aut arenarii filiâ, vel quae mercimoniis publicis praefuit. Whatever a fond father had conferred on such children was revoked, and either restored to the legitimate children or confiscated to the state; the mothers, who were guilty of thus poisoning the minds of the fathers were to be put to the torture (tormentis subjici jubemus.) The unfortunate son of Licinianus, it appears from this second law, having fled, had been taken, and was ordered to be kept in chains to work in the Gynaeceum at Carthage. Codex Theodosianus ab Amadeus Peyron, 87⁠–⁠90. —⁠M. ↩
See the article of guardians and wards in the Institutes (l. I tit. XIII⁠–⁠XXVI), the Pandects (l. XXVI, XXVII), and the Code (l. V tit. XXVIII⁠–⁠LXX). ↩
Gibbon’s theory of pupillage does not seem correct. The tutor certainly did not represent the pupillus. His office is always described as “augere auctoritatem, interponere, auctor fieri,” i.e. to fill out or complete the defective legal personality of the ward. All formal words essential to a legal transaction had to be pronounced by the ward himself, and then the tutor, by his assent, added the animus, the intention, of which the child was not capable. Hence it is additionally inaccurate to describe the tutor as representing the ward “till he could speak.” The infant, the child incapable of speech, could do nothing with or without the tutor. —⁠S. ↩
Gibbon accuses the civilians of having “rashly fixed the age of puberty at twelve or fourteen years.” It was not so; before Justinian, no law existed on this subject. Ulpian relates the discussions which took place on this point among the different sects of civilians. See the Institutes, l. I tit. 22, and the fragments of Ulpian. Nor was the curatorship obligatory for all minors. —⁠W. ↩
Institutiones, l. II tit. I, II. Compare the pure and precise reasoning of Caius and Heineccius (l. II tit. I, pp. 69⁠–⁠91) with the loose prolixity of Theophilus (pp. 207⁠–⁠265). The opinions of Ulpian are preserved in the Pandects (l. I tit. VIII leg. 41, No. 1). ↩
The heredium of the first Romans is defined by Varro (De re rustica, l. I c. II, p. 141, c. X, pp. 160, 161, edit. Gesner), and clouded by Pliny the Elder’s declamation (Naturalis historiae XVIII 2). A just and learned comment is given in the Administration des terres chez les Romains (pp. 12⁠–⁠66).9155 ↩
Since the time of Gibbon it has been proved incontestably that the agrarian laws of Rome related only to the Ager Publicus, or dominions of the state, and that the laws of Licinius and Gracchus limited a Roman citizen to the possession of 500 jugera of such land, but that he might become the proprietor of any amount of private land. —⁠S. ↩
The res mancipi is explained from faint and remote lights by Ulpian (Fragmenta, tit. XVIII, pp. 618, 619) and Bynkershoek (Opera omnia, tom. I, pp. 306⁠–⁠315). The definition is somewhat arbitrary; and as none except myself have assigned a reason, I am diffident of my own. ↩
From this short prescription, Hume (Essays, vol. I, p. 423) infers that there could not then be more order and settlement in Italy than now amongst the Tartars. By the civilian of his adversary Wallace, he is reproached, and not without reason, for overlooking the conditions (Institutiones, l. II tit. VI).9156 ↩
See the Institutes (l. I tit. IV, V) and the Pandects (l. VII). Noodt has composed a learned and distinct treatise De usufructu (Opera omnia, tom. I, pp. 387⁠–⁠478). ↩
The questions de Servitutibus are discussed in the Institutes (l. II tit. III) and Pandects (l. VIII). Cicero (“Pro Murenâ,” c. 9) and Lactantius (Institutiones divinae, l. I c. I) affect to laugh at the insignificant doctrine, de aquâ de pluviâ arcendâ, etc. Yet it might be of frequent use among litigious neighbors, both in town and country. ↩
Among the patriarchs, the firstborn enjoyed a mystic and spiritual primogeniture (Genesis 25:31). In the land of Canaan he was entitled to a double portion of inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17, with Leclerc’s judicious commentary). ↩
At Athens the sons were equal, but the poor daughters were endowed at the discretion of their brothers. See the κληπικοί pleadings of Isaeus (in the seventh volume of the Greek Orators), illustrated by the version and comment of Sir William Jones, a scholar, a lawyer, and a man of genius. ↩
In England, the eldest son also inherits all the land: a law, says the orthodox Judge Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. II, p. 215), unjust only in the opinion of younger brothers. It may be of some political use in sharpening their industry. ↩
Blackstone’s Tables (vol. II, p. 202) represent and compare the decrees of the civil with those of the canon and common law. A separate tract of Julius Paulus, De gradibus et affinibus, is inserted or abridged in the Pandects (l. XXXVIII tit. X). In the seventh degrees he computes (No. 18) 1,024 persons. ↩
The Voconian law was enacted in the year of Rome 584. The younger Scipio, who was then 17 years of age (Freinshemius, Supplementa liviana XLVI 40), found an occasion of exercising his generosity to his mother, sisters, etc. (Polybius, tom. II l. XXXI, pp. 1453⁠–⁠1464, edit. Jacobus Gronovius, a domestic witness). ↩
Legem Voconiam (Ernesti, Clavis Ciceroniana) magnâ voce bonis lateribus (at LXV years of age) suasissem, says old Cato (“De Senectute,” c. 5). Aulus Gellius (VII 13, XVII 6) has saved some passages. ↩
See the law of succession in the Institutes of Gaius (l. II tit. VIII, pp. 130⁠–⁠144), and Justinian (l. III tit. I⁠–⁠VI, with the Greek version of Theophilus, pp. 515⁠–⁠575, 588⁠–⁠600), the Pandects (l. XXXVIII tit. VI⁠–⁠XVII), the Code (l. VI tit. LV⁠–⁠LX), and the Novels (CXVIII). ↩
That succession was the rule, testament the exception, is proved by Taylor (Elements of Civil Law, pp. 519⁠–⁠527), a learned, rambling, spirited writer. In the second and third books the method of the Institutes is doubtless preposterous; and the Chancellor Henri François Daguesseau (Oeuvres, tom. I, p. 275) wishes his countryman Domat in the place of Tribonian. Yet covenants before successions is not surely the natural order of civil laws. ↩
Prior examples of testaments are perhaps fabulous. At Athens a childless father only could make a will (Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Solone,” tom. I, p. 164; see Isaeus and Jones). ↩
The testament of Augustus is specified by Suetonius (in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 101, “Nero,” c. 4), who may be studied as a code of Roman antiquities. Plutarch (Opuscula varia, tom. II, p. 976) is surprised ὄταν δὲ διαθήκας γράφωσιν ἑτέρους μὲν ἀπολείπουσι κληρονόμους, ἔτεροι δὲ πωλοῦσι τὰς οὐσίας. The language of Ulpian (Fragmenta, tit. XX, p. 627, edit. Schulting) is almost too exclusive⁠—solum in usu est. ↩
Justinian (Novella CXV, No. 3, 4) enumerates only the public and private crimes, for which a son might likewise disinherit his father.9157 ↩
The substitutions fidei-commissaires of the modern civil law is a feudal idea grafted on the Roman jurisprudence, and bears scarcely any resemblance to the ancient fidei-commissa (Institutions du droit François, tom. I, pp. 347⁠–⁠383; Denisart, Collections de décisions de jurisprudence, tom. IV, pp. 577⁠–⁠604). They were stretched to the fourth degree by an abuse of the 159th Novel; a partial, perplexed, declamatory law. ↩
Dion Cassius (tom. II l. LVI, p. 814, with Reimar’s notes) specifies in Greek money the sum of 25,000 drachms. ↩
The revolutions of the Roman laws of inheritance are finely, though sometimes fancifully, deduced by Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXVII) ↩
Of the civil jurisprudence of successions, testaments, codicils, legacies, and trusts, the principles are ascertained in the Institutes of Caius (l. II tit. II⁠–⁠IX, pp. 91⁠–⁠144), Justinian (l. II tit. X⁠–⁠XXV), and Theophilus (pp. 328⁠–⁠514); and the immense detail occupies twelve books (XXVIII⁠–⁠XXXIX) of the Pandects. ↩
The Institutes of Caius (l. II tit. IX, X, pp. 144⁠–⁠214), of Justinian (l. III tit. XIV⁠–⁠XXX; l. IV tit. I⁠–⁠VI), and of Theophilus (pp. 616⁠–⁠837), distinguish four sorts of obligations⁠—aut re, aut verbis, aut literis, aut consensu; but I confess myself partial to my own division.9158 ↩
How much is the cool, rational evidence of Polybius (l. VI, p. 693, l. XXXI, pp. 1459, 1460) superior to vague, indiscriminate applause⁠—omnium maxime et praecipue fidem coluit (Aulus Gellius XX 1). ↩
The Jus praetorium de pactis et transactionibus is a separate and satisfactory treatise of Gerhard Noodt (Opera omnia, tom. I, pp. 483⁠–⁠564). And I will here observe that the universities of Holland and Brandenburg, in the beginning of the present century, appear to have studied the civil law on the most just and liberal principles.9159 ↩
The nice and various subject of contracts by consent is spread over four books (XVII⁠–⁠XX) of the Pandects, and is one of the parts best deserving of the attention of an English student.9160 ↩
The covenants of rent are defined in the Pandects (l. XIX) and the Code (l. IV tit. LXV). The quinquennium, or term of five years, appears to have been a custom rather than a law; but in France all leases of land were determined in nine years. This limitation was removed only in the year 1775 (Encyclopédie méthodique de la jurisprudence, tom. I, pp. 668, 669); and I am sorry to observe that it yet prevails in the beauteous and happy country where I am permitted to reside. ↩
I might implicitly acquiesce in the sense and learning of the three books of Gerhard Noodt, De foenore et usuris. (Opera omnia, tom. I, pp. 175⁠–⁠268.) The interpretation of the asses or centesimoe usuroe at twelve, the unciarioe at one percent, is maintained by the best critics and civilians: Noodt (l. II c. 2, p. 207), Gravina (Opera, seu originum juris civilis, p. 205, etc., 210), Heineccius (Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam, l. III tit. XV), Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXII c. 22, tom. II, p. 36; Défense de l’esprit des loix, tom. III, p. 478, etc.), and above all, Johann Friedrich Gronovius (De sestertiis seu subsecivorum pecuniae veteris Graecae et Romanae, l. III c. 13, pp. 213⁠–⁠227, and his three Antexegeses, pp. 455⁠–⁠655), the founder, or at least the champion, of this probable opinion; which is, however, perplexed with some difficulties. ↩
Primo XII Tabulis sancitum est ne quis unciario foenore amplius exerceret (Tacitus, Annales VI 16). Pour peu (says Montesquieu, De l’esprit des loix, l. XXII c. 22) qu’on soit versé dans l’histoire de Rome, on verra qu’une pareille loi ne devoit pas être l’ouvrage des décemvirs. Was Tacitus ignorant⁠—or stupid? But the wiser and more virtuous patricians might sacrifice their avarice to their ambition, and might attempt to check the odious practice by such interest as no lender would accept, and such penalties as no debtor would incur.9161 ↩
Justinian has not condescended to give usury a place in his Institutes; but the necessary rules and restrictions are inserted in the Pandects (l. XXII tit. I, II), and the Code (l. IV tit. XXXII, XXXIII). ↩
The Fathers are unanimous (Barbeyrac, Morale des Pères, p. 144, etc.): Cyprian, Lactantius, Basil, Chrysostom (see his frivolous arguments in Noodt, l. I c. 7, p. 188), Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and a host of councils and casuists. ↩
Cato, Seneca, Plutarch, have loudly condemned the practice or abuse of usury. According to the etymology of foenus and τόκος, the principal is supposed to generate the interest: a breed of barren metal, exclaims Shakespeare⁠—and the stage is the echo of the public voice. ↩
Sir William Jones has given an ingenious and rational Essay on the Law of Bailments (London, 1781, p. 127, in octavo). He is perhaps the only lawyer equally conversant with the yearbooks of Westminster, the commentaries of Ulpian, the Attic pleadings of Isaeus, and the sentences of Arabian and Persian cadhis. ↩
Noodt (Opera omnia, tom. I, pp. 137⁠–⁠172) has composed a separate treatise, Ad legem aquilian (Pandectae, l. IX tit. II). ↩
Aulus Gellius (Noctes atticae XX 1) borrowed this story from the commentaries of Q. Labeo on the XII tables. ↩
The narrative of Livy (I 28) is weighty and solemn. At tu, Albane, maneres, is a harsh reflection, unworthy of Virgil’s humanity (Aeneid VIII 643). Heyne, with his usual good taste, observes that the subject was too horrid for the shield of Aeneas (tom. III, p. 229). ↩
The age of Draco (Olympiad XXXIX 1) is fixed by Sir John Marsham (Canon chronicus, pp. 593⁠–⁠596) and Corsini (Fasti Attici, tom. III, p. 62). For his laws, see the writers on the government of Athens, Sigonius, Meursius, Potter, etc. ↩
The seventh, “De delictis,” of the XII tables is delineated by Gravina (Opera, seu originum juris civilis, pp. 292, 293, with a commentary, pp. 214⁠–⁠230). Aulus Gellius (XX 1) and the Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum afford much original information. ↩
Livy mentions two remarkable and flagitious eras, of 3,000 persons accused, and of 190 noble matrons convicted, of the crime of poisoning (XL 43, VIII 18). Mr. Hume discriminates the ages of private and public virtue (Essays, vol. I, pp. 22, 23). I would rather say that such ebullitions of mischief (as in France in the year 1680) are accidents and prodigies which leave no marks on the manners of a nation. ↩
The XII Tables and Cicero (“Pro Roscio Amerino,” c. 25, 26) are content with the sack; Seneca (Excerpta controversiae V 4) adorns it with serpents; Juvenal pities the guiltless monkey (innoxia simia⁠—Satires XIII 156). Hadrian (apud Dositheus Magister, l. III c., pp. 874⁠–⁠876, with Schulting’s note), Modestinus (Pandectae XLVIII tit. IX leg. 9), Constantine (Codex, l. IX tit. XVII), and Justinian (Institutiones, l. IV tit. XVIII) enumerate all the companions of the parricide. But this fanciful execution was simplified in practice. Hodie tamen vivi exuruntur vel ad bestias dantur (Julius Paulus, Sententiae receptae, l. V tit. XXIV, p. 512, edit. Schulting). ↩
The first parricide at Rome was L. Ostius, after the second Punic war (Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Romulo,” tom. I, p. 54). During the Cimbric, P. Malleolus was guilty of the first matricide (Livy, Epitome, l. LXVIII). ↩
Horace talks of the formidine fustis (l. II, “Epistola II” 154), but Cicero (De re publica, l. IV apud Augustine, De civitate Dei IX 6, in Fragment. Philosoph., tom. III, p. 393, edit. d’Olivet) affirms that the decemvirs made libels a capital offence: cum perpaucas res capite sanxissent⁠—perpaucus! ↩
Bynkershoek (Observationes juris Romani, l. I c. 1, in Opera omnia, tom. I, pp. 9⁠–⁠11) labors to prove that the creditors divided not the body, but the price, of the insolvent debtor. Yet his interpretation is one perpetual harsh metaphor; nor can he surmount the Roman authorities of Quintilian, Caecilius, Favonius, and Tertullian. See Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae XX 1. ↩
Hugo (Histoire du droit romain, tom. I, p. 234) concurs with Gibbon. See Niebuhr, vol. II, p. 313. —⁠M. ↩
The first speech of Lysias (Reiske, Oratores Graeci, tom. V, pp. 2⁠–⁠48) is in defence of a husband who had killed the adulterer. The rights of husbands and fathers at Rome and Athens are discussed with much learning by Dr. Taylor (Lectiones Lysiacae, c. XI in Reiske, tom. VI, pp. 301⁠–⁠308). ↩
See Casaubon ad Athenaeus, l. I c. 5, p. 19. Percurrent raphanique mugilesque (Catullus, pp. 41, 42, edit. Vossian). Hunc mugilis intrat (Juvenal, Satires X 317). Hunc perminxere calones (Horatius, l. I Satires II 44). Familiae stuprandum dedit⁠ ⁠… fraudi non fuit (Valerius Maximus, l. VI c. 1, No. 13). ↩
This law is noticed by Livy (II 8) and Plutarch (in Parallel Lives, “Publicolâ,” tom. I, p. 187); and it fully justifies the public opinion on the death of Caesar, which Suetonius could publish under the Imperial government. Jure caesus existimatur (in “Julio,” c. 76). Read the letters that passed between Cicero and Matius a few months after the ides of March (Epistulae ad familiares XI 27, 28). ↩
Πρῶτοι δὲ’ Αθηναῖοι τόν τε δίδηρον κατέθεντο. Thucydides, l. I c. 6 The historian who considers this circumstance as the test of civilization would disdain the barbarism of a European court. ↩
He first rated at millies (£800,000) the damages of Sicily (“Divinatio in Caecilium,” c. 5), which he afterwards reduced to quadringenties (£320,000⁠—1 Actio In verrem, c. 18), and was finally content with tricies (£24,000). Plutarch (in Parallel Lives, “Cicero,” tom. III, p. 1584) has not dissembled the popular suspicion and report. ↩
Verres lived near thirty years after his trial, till the second triumvirate, when he was proscribed by the taste of Mark Antony for the sake of his Corinthian plate (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXIV 3). ↩
Such is the number assigned by Valerius Maximus (l. IX c. 2, No. 1). Florus (IV 21) distinguishes 2,000 senators and knights. Appian (De bello Civili. l. I c. 95, tom. II, p. 133, edit. Schweighäuser) more accurately computes forty victims of the senatorian rank, and 1,600 of the equestrian census or order. ↩
For the penal laws (Leges Corneliae, Pompeiae, Julae, of Sylla, Pompey, and the Caesars) see the sentences of Paulus (l. IV tit. XVIII⁠–⁠XXX, pp. 497⁠–⁠528, edit. Schulting), the Gregorian Code (Fragmenta, l. XIX, pp. 705, 706, in Schulting), the Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum (tit. I⁠–⁠XV), the Theodosian Code (l. IX), the Code of Justinian (l. IX), the Pandects (XLVIII), the Institutes (l. IV tit. XVIII), and the Greek version of Theophilus (pp. 917⁠–⁠926). ↩
It was a guardian who had poisoned his ward. The crime was atrocious: yet the punishment is reckoned by Suetonius (c. 9) among the acts in which Galba showed himself acer, vehemens, et in delictis coercendis immodicus. ↩
The abactores or abigeatores, who drove one horse, or two mares or oxen, or five hogs, or ten goats, were subject to capital punishment (Paul, Sententiae receptae, l. IV tit. XVIII, pp. 497, 498). Hadrian (ad Concilium Baeticae), most severe where the offence was most frequent, condemns the criminals, ad gladium, ludi damnationem (Ulpian, De officio proconsulis, l. VIII in Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, tit. XI, p. 235). ↩
Till the publication of the Julius Paulus of Schulting (l. II tit. XXVI, pp. 317⁠–⁠323), it was affirmed and believed that the Julian laws punished adultery with death; and the mistake arose from the fraud or error of Tribonian. Yet Lipsius had suspected the truth from the narratives of Tacitus (Annales II 50, III 24, IV 42), and even from the practice of Augustus, who distinguished the treasonable frailties of his female kindred. ↩
In cases of adultery, Severus confined to the husband the right of public accusation (Codex Justinianus, l. IX tit. IX leg. 1). Nor is this privilege unjust⁠—so different are the effects of male or female infidelity. ↩
Timon (l. I) and Theopompus (l. XLIII apud Athenaeus, l. XII, p. 517) describe the luxury and lust of the Etruscans: πολὺ μέντοι γε χαίρουσι συνόντες τοῖς παισὶ καὶ τοῖς μειρακίοις. About the same period (AUC 445) the Roman youth studied in Etruria (Livy IX 36). ↩
The Persians had been corrupted in the same school: ἀπ’ Ἑλλήνων μαθόντες παισὶ μίσγονται (Herodotus, l. I c. 135). A curious dissertation might be formed on the introduction of paederasty after the time of Homer, its progress among the Greeks of Asia and Europe, the vehemence of their passions, and the thin device of virtue and friendship which amused the philosophers of Athens. But scelera ostendi oportet dum puniuntur, abscondi flagitia. ↩
The name, the date, and the provisions of this law are equally doubtful (Gravina, Opera, seu originum juris civilis, pp. 432, 433. Heineccius, Historia juris Romani, No. 108. Ernesti, Clavis Ciceroniana in Indice Legum). But I will observe that the nefanda Venus of the honest German is styled aversa by the more polite Italian. ↩
See the oration of Aeschines against the catamite Timarchus (in Reiske, Oratores Graeci, tom. III, pp. 21⁠–⁠184). ↩
A crowd of disgraceful passages will force themselves on the memory of the classic reader: I will only remind him of the cool declaration of Ovid:⁠—

Odi concubitus qui non utrumque resolvant.
Hoc est quod puerum tangar amore minus.

↩
Aelius Lampridius, in “Vita Heliogabalus” in Historia Augusta, p. 112. Aurelius Victor, in “Philippo,” Codex Theodosianus, l. IX tit. VII leg. 7, and Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. III, p. 63. Theodosius abolished the subterraneous brothels of Rome, in which the prostitution of both sexes was acted with impunity. ↩
See the laws of Constantine and his successors against adultery, sodomy, etc., in the Theodosian (l. IX tit. VII leg. 7; l. XI tit. XXXVI leg. 1, 4) and Justinian Codes (l. IX tit. IX leg. 30, 31). These princes speak the language of passion as well as of justice, and fraudulently ascribe their own severity to the first Caesars. ↩
Justinian, Novellae LXXVII, CXXXIV, CXLI. Procopius in Anecdota, c. 11, 16, with the notes of Alemannus. Theophanes, p. 151. Cedrenus, p. 688. Zonaras, l. XIV, p. 64. ↩
Montesquieu, De l’esprit des loix, l. XII c. 6. That eloquent philosopher conciliates the rights of liberty and of nature, which should never be placed in opposition to each other. ↩
For the corruption of Palestine, 2,000 years before the Christian era, see the history and laws of Moses. Ancient Gaul is stigmatized by Diodorus Siculus (tom. I l. V, p. 356), China by the Muhammadan and Christian travellers (Ancient Accounts of India and China, p. 34, translated by Renaudot, and his bitter critic the Père Prémare, Lettres édifiantes et curieuses de Chine, tom. XIX, p. 435), and native America by the Spanish historians (Garcilasso de la Vega, l. III c. 13, Rycaut’s translation; and Dictionnaire de Bayle, tom. III, p. 88). I believe, and hope, that the Negroes, in their own country, were exempt from this moral pestilence. ↩
The important subject of the public questions and judgments at Rome is explained with much learning, and in a classic style, by Charles Sigonius (l. III De Romanae jurisprudentiae judiciis, in Opera omnia, tom. III, pp. 679⁠–⁠864); and a good abridgment may be found in the La République romaine of Beaufort (tom. II l. V, pp. 1⁠–⁠121). Those who wish for more abstruse law may study Noodt (De jurisdictione et imperio libri duo, tom. I, pp. 93⁠–⁠134), Heineccius (ad Pandectae, l. I et II ad Institutionum, l. IV tit. XVII, Elementa ad Antiquitatum Romanarum jurisprudentiam) and Gravina (Opera, seu originum juris civilis 230⁠–⁠251). ↩
The office, both at Rome and in England, must be considered as an occasional duty, and not a magistracy or profession. But the obligation of a unanimous verdict is peculiar to our laws, which condemn the jurymen to undergo the torture from whence they have exempted the criminal. ↩
We are indebted for this interesting fact to a fragment of Asconius Pedianus, who flourished under the reign of Tiberius. The loss of his commentaries on the orations of Cicero has deprived us of a valuable fund of historical and legal knowledge. ↩
Polybius, l. VI, p. 643. The extension of the empire and city of Rome obliged the exile to seek a more distant place of retirement. ↩
Qui de se statuebant, humabanta corpora, manebant testamenta; pretium festinandi. Tacitus, Annales VI 25, with the notes of Lipsius. ↩
Julius Paulus (Sententiae receptae, l. V tit. XII, p. 476), the Pandects (l. XLVIII tit. XXI), the Code (l. IX tit. L), Bynkershoek (tom. I, p. 59, Observationes juris Romani IV 4), and Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXIX c. IX) define the civil limitations of the liberty and privileges of suicide. The criminal penalties are the production of a later and darker age. ↩
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXVI 24. When he fatigued his subjects in building the Capitol, many of the laborers were provoked to despatch themselves; he nailed their dead bodies to crosses. ↩
The sole resemblance of a violent and premature death has engaged Virgil (Aeneid VI 434⁠–⁠439) to confound suicides with infants, lovers, and persons unjustly condemned. Heyne, the best of his editors, is at a loss to deduce the idea, or ascertain the jurisprudence, of the Roman poet. ↩
See the family of Justin and Justinian in the Familiae Byzantinae of du Cange, pp. 89⁠–⁠101. The devout civilians, Ludewig (in Vita Justiniani, p. 131) and Heineccius (Historia juris civilis Romani, p. 374) have since illustrated the genealogy of their favorite prince. ↩
In the story of Justin’s elevation I have translated into simple and concise prose the eight hundred verses of the two first books of Corippus, De laudibus Justini Augusti, Appendix Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, pp. 401⁠–⁠416, Rome, 1777. ↩
It is surprising how Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 639) could be tempted by any chronicles to contradict the plain and decisive text of Corippus (“vicina dona,” l. II 354, “vicina dies,” l. IV 1), and to postpone, till AD 567, the consulship of Justin. ↩
Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 205. Whenever Cedrenus or Zonaras are mere transcribers, it is superfluous to allege their testimony. ↩
Corippus, l. III 390. The unquestionable sense relates to the Turks, the conquerors of the Avars; but the word scultor has no apparent meaning, and the sole MS. of Corippus, from whence the first edition (1581, apud Plantin) was printed, is no longer visible. The last editor, Pietro Francisco Foggini of Rome, has inserted the conjectural emendation of “sultan”; but the proofs of du Cange (Dissertations ou réflexions sur l’histoire de S. Louis, par le Sire de Joinville, Dissert. XVI, pp. 238⁠–⁠240), for the early use of this title among the Turks and Persians are weak or ambiguous. And I must incline to the authority of d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 825), who ascribes the word to the Arabic and Chaldaean tongues, and the date to the beginning of the eleventh century, when it was bestowed by the caliph of Baghdad on Mahmud, prince of Gazna and conqueror of India. ↩
For these characteristic speeches, compare the verse of Corippus (l. III 251⁠–⁠401) with the prose of Menander (Excerpta legationum, pp. 102, 103). Their diversity proves that they did not copy each other; their resemblance that they drew from a common original. ↩
For the Austrasian war, see Menander (Excerpta legationum, p. 110), Gregory of Tours (Historians of France, l. IV c. 29), and Paul the Deacon (De gestis Langobardorum, l. II c. 10). ↩
Paul Warnefrid, the deacon of Friuli, De gestis Langobardorum, l. I c. 23, 24. His pictures of national manners, though rudely sketched, are more lively and faithful than those of Bede or Gregory of Tours. ↩
The story is told by an impostor (Theophylact Simocatta, l. VI c. 10); but he had art enough to build his fictions on public and notorious facts. ↩
It appears from Strabo, Pliny the Elder, and Ammianus Marcellinus that the same practice was common among the Scythian tribes (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I, p. 424). The scalps of North America are likewise trophies of valor. The skull of Cunimund was preserved above two hundred years among the Lombards; and Paul himself was one of the guests to whom Duke Ratchis exhibited this cup on a high festival (l. II c. 28). ↩
Paul, l. I c. 27. Menander, in Excerpta legationum, pp. 110, 111. ↩
Ut hactenus etiam tam apud Bajoariorum gentem, quam et Saxonum, sed et alios ejusdem linguae homines⁠ ⁠… in eorum carminibus celebretur. Paul, l. I c. 27. He died AD 799 (Muratori, in Praefatio tom. I, p. 397). These German songs, some of which might be as old as Tacitus (De moribus Germanorum, c. 2), were compiled and transcribed by Charlemagne. Barbara et antiquissima carmina, quibus veterum regum actus et bella canebantur scripsit memoriaeque mandavit (Eginard, in Vita Karoli Magni, c. 29, pp. 130, 131). The poems, which Melchior Goldast commends (Animadversion ad Eginard, p. 207), appear to be recent and contemptible romances. ↩
The other nations are rehearsed by Paul (l. II c. 6, 26). Muratori (Antichità Italiane, tom. I dissert. I, p. 4) has discovered the village of the Bavarians, three miles from Modena. ↩
Gregory the Roman (Dialogues, l. III c. 27, 28, apud Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 579,” No. 10) supposes that they likewise adored this she-goat. I know but of one religion in which the god and the victim are the same. ↩
The charge of the deacon against Narses (l. II c. 5) may be groundless; but the weak apology of the cardinal (Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 567,” No. 8⁠–⁠12) is rejected by the best critics⁠—Pagi (tom. II, pp. 639, 640), Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. V, pp. 160⁠–⁠163), and the last editors, Horatius Blancus (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I, pp. 427, 428) and Philippus Argelatus (Sigonius, Opera omnia, tom. II, pp. 11, 12). The Narses who assisted at the coronation of Justin (Corippus, l. III 221) is clearly understood to be a different person. ↩
The death of Narses is mentioned by Paul, l. II c. 11; Anastasius in Vita Johanne III, p. 43; Agnellus, Vitae Pontificum Ravenennatum in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II part I, pp. 114, 124. Yet I cannot believe with Agnellus that Narses was ninety-five years of age. Is it probable that all his exploits were performed at fourscore? ↩
The designs of Narses and of the Lombards for the invasion of Italy are exposed in the last chapter of the first book, and the seven first chapters of the second book, of Paul the deacon. ↩
Which from this translation was called New Aquileia (Chronicon Venetum, p. 3). The patriarch of Grado soon became the first citizen of the republic (p. 9, etc.), but his seat was not removed to Venice till the year 1450. He is now decorated with titles and honors; but the genius of the church has bowed to that of the state, and the government of a Catholic city is strictly Presbyterian. Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. I, pp. 156, 157, 161⁠–⁠165. Amelot de la Houssaye, Histoire du gouvernement de Venise, tom. I, pp. 256⁠–⁠261. ↩
Paul has given a description of Italy, as it was then divided into eighteen regions (l. II c. 14⁠–⁠24). The De Italia medii aevi dissertatio chorographica, by Father Giovanni Beretti, a Benedictine monk, and regius professor at Pavia, has been usefully consulted. ↩
For the conquest of Italy, see the original materials of Paul (l. II, pp. 7⁠–⁠10, 12, 14, 25⁠–⁠27), the eloquent narrative of Sigonius (De regno Italiae, tom. ii l. I, pp. 13⁠–⁠19), and the correct and critical review of Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. V, pp. 164⁠–⁠180). ↩
The classical reader will recollect the wife and murder of Candaules, so agreeably told in the first book of Herodotus. The choice of Gyges, αιρέεται αὐτὸς περιεῖναι, may serve as the excuse of Peredeus; and this soft insinuation of an odious idea has been imitated by the best writers of antiquity (Graevius, ad Ciceronis, Oratio “Pro Milone,” c. 10). ↩
He killed a lion. His eyes were put out by the timid Justin. Peredeus requesting an interview, Justin substituted two patricians, whom the blinded Barbarian stabbed to the heart with two concealed daggers. See Le Beau, vol. X, p. 99. —⁠M. ↩
See the history of Paul, l. II c. 28⁠–⁠32. I have borrowed some interesting circumstances from the Liber pontificalis of Agnellus, in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II, p. 124. Of all chronological guides Muratori is the safest. ↩
The original authors for the reign of Justin the younger are Evagrius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. V c. 1⁠–⁠12; Theophanes, in Chonographia, pp. 204⁠–⁠210; Zonaras, tom. II l. XIV, pp. 70⁠–⁠72; Cedrenus, in Historiarum compendium, pp. 388⁠–⁠392. ↩
Dispositorque novus sacrae Baduarius aulae.
Successor soceri mox factus Cura palati.
—⁠Corippus.

Baduarius is enumerated among the descendants and allies of the house of Justinian. A family of noble Venetians (Casa Badoero) built churches and gave dukes to the republic as early as the ninth century; and, if their descent be admitted, no kings in Europe can produce a pedigree so ancient and illustrious. Du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 99. Amelot de la Houssaye, Histoire du gouvernement de Venise, tom. II, p. 555. ↩
The praise bestowed on princes before their elevation is the purest and most weighty. Corippus has celebrated Tiberius at the time of the accession of Justin (l. I 212⁠–⁠222). Yet even a captain of the guards might attract the flattery of an African exile. ↩
Evagrius (l. V c. 13) has added the reproach to his ministers. He applies this speech to the ceremony when Tiberius was invested with the rank of Caesar. The loose expression, rather than the positive error, of Theophanes, etc., has delayed it to his Augustan investiture immediately before the death of Justin. ↩
Theophylact Simocatta (l. III c. 11) declares that he shall give to posterity the speech of Justin as it was pronounced, without attempting to correct the imperfections of language or rhetoric. Perhaps the vain sophist would have been incapable of producing such sentiments. ↩
For the character and reign of Tiberius, see Evagrius, l. V c. 13; Theophylact, l. III c. 12, etc.; Theophanes, in Chronographia, p. 210⁠–⁠213; Zonaras, tom. II l. XIV, p. 72; Cedrenus, p. 392; Paul Warnefrid, De gestis Langobardorum, l. III c. 11, 12. The deacon of Forum Julii appears to have possessed some curious and authentic facts. ↩
It is therefore singular enough that Paul (l. III c. 15) should distinguish him as the first Greek emperor⁠—primus ex Graecorum genere in Imperio constitutus. His immediate predecessors had indeed been born in the Latin provinces of Europe; and a various reading, in Graecorum Imperio, would apply the expression to the empire rather than the prince. ↩
Consult, for the character and reign of Maurice, the fifth and sixth books of Evagrius, particularly l. VI c. 1; the eight books of his prolix and florid history by Theophylact Simocatta; Theophanes, p. 213, etc.; Zonaras, tom. II l. XIV, p. 73; Cedrenus, p. 394. ↩
Αὐτοκράτωρ ὄντως γενόμενος τὴν μὲν ὀχ λοκράτειαν τῶν παθῶν ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας ἐξενηλάτησε ψυχῆς, ἀριστοκράτειαν δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ λογισμοῖς καταστησάμενος. Evagrius composed his history in the twelfth year of Maurice; and he had been so wisely indiscreet that the emperor knew and rewarded his favorable opinion (l. VI c. 24). ↩
The Columna Rhegina, in the narrowest part of the Faro of Messina, one hundred stadia from Rhegium itself, is frequently mentioned in ancient geography. Cluverius, Italia antiqua, tom. II, p. 1295. Lucas Holstenius, Annotationes ad Cluverius, p. 301. Wesseling, Intineraria, p. 106. ↩
The Greek historians afford some faint hints of the wars of Italy (Menander, in Excerpta legationum, pp. 124, 126; Theophylact, l. III c. 4). The Latins are more satisfactory; and especially Paul Warnefrid (l III c. 13⁠–⁠34), who had read the more ancient histories of Secundus and Gregory of Tours. Baronius produces some letters of the popes, etc.; and the times are measured by the accurate scale of Pagi and Muratori. ↩
The papal advocates, Zacagni and Fontanini, might justly claim the valley or morass of Commachio as a part of the exarchate. But the ambition of including Modena, Reggio, Parma, and Placentia has darkened a geographical question somewhat doubtful and obscure. Even Muratori, as the servant of the house of Este, is not free from partiality and prejudice. ↩
See Brenkman, Dissertatio I^ma “De republicâ Amalphitanâ,” pp. 1⁠–⁠42, ad calcem Historia pandectarum Florentinorum. ↩
Gregorius Magnus, l. III Epistolae 23, 25. ↩
I have described the state of Italy from the excellent dissertation of Beretti. Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. I, pp. 374⁠–⁠387) has followed the learned Camillo Pellegrini in the geography of the kingdom of Naples. After the loss of the true Calabria, the vanity of the Greeks substituted that name instead of the more ignoble appellation of Bruttium; and the change appears to have taken place before the time of Charlemagne (Eginard, p. 75). ↩
Maffei (Verona illustrata, part I, pp. 310⁠–⁠321) and Muratori (Antichità Italiane, tom. II Dissertazione XXXII, XXXIII, pp. 71⁠–⁠365) have asserted the native claims of the Italian idiom; the former with enthusiasm, the latter with discretion: both with learning, ingenuity, and truth.9162 ↩
Paul, De gestis Langobardorum, l. III c. 5⁠–⁠7. ↩
Paul, l. II c. 9. He calls these families or generations by the Teutonic name of Faras, which is likewise used in the Lombard laws. The humble deacon was not insensible of the nobility of his own race. See l. IV c. 39. ↩
Compare No. 3 and 177 of the laws of Rotharis. ↩
Paul, l. II c. 31, 32, l. III c. 16. The laws of Rotharis, promulgated AD 643, do not contain the smallest vestige of this payment of thirds; but they preserve many curious circumstances of the state of Italy and the manners of the Lombards. ↩
The studs of Dionysius of Syracuse, and his frequent victories in the Olympic games, had diffused among the Greeks the fame of the Venetian horses; but the breed was extinct in the time of Strabo (l. V, p. 325). Gisulf obtained from his uncle generosarum equarum greges. Paul, l. II c. 9. The Lombards afterwards introduced caballi sylvatici⁠—wild horses. Paul, l. IV c. 11. ↩
Tunc (AD 596) primum, bubali in Italiam delati Italiae populis miracula fuere (Paul Warnefrid, l. IV c. 11). The buffaloes, whose native climate appears to be Africa and India, are unknown to Europe except in Italy, where they are numerous and useful. The ancients were ignorant of these animals, unless Aristotle (History of Animals, l. II c. 1, p. 58, Paris, 1783) has described them as the wild oxen of Arachosia. See Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. XI and Supplement, tom. VI; Histoire générale des Voyages, tom. I, pp. 7, 481, II 105, III 291, IV 234, 461, V 193, VI 491, VIII 400, X 666; Pennant’s Synopsis of Quadrupeds, p. 24; Dictionnaire raisonné universel d’histoire naturelle, par Valmont de Bomare, tom. II, p. 74. Yet I must not conceal the suspicion that Paul, by a vulgar error, may have applied the name of bubalus to the aurochs, or wild bull, of ancient Germany. ↩
Consult the twenty-first dissertation of Muratori. ↩
Their ignorance is proved by the silence even of those who professedly treat of the arts of hunting and the history of animals. Aristotle (Historia Animalium, l. IX c. 36, tom. I, p. 586, and the notes of his last editor, M. Camus, tom. II, p. 314), Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae, l. X c. 10), Aelian (De natura animalium, l. II c. 42), and perhaps Homer (Odyssey XXII 302⁠–⁠306), describe with astonishment a tacit league and common chase between the hawks and the Thracian fowlers. ↩
Particularly the gerfaut, or gyrfalcon, of the size of a small eagle. See the animated description of M. de Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. XVI, p. 239, etc. ↩
Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I part II, p. 129. This is the sixteenth law of the emperor Lewis the Pious. His father Charlemagne had falconers in his household as well as huntsmen (Mémoires sur l’ancienne chevalerie, par M. Jean-Baptiste de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, tom. III, p. 175). I observe in the laws of Rotharis a more early mention of the art of hawking (No. 322); and in Gaul, in the fifth century, it is celebrated by Sidonius Apollinaris among the talents of Avitus (202⁠–⁠207).9163 ↩
The epitaph of Droctulf (Paul, l. III c. 19) may be applied to many of his countrymen:⁠—

Terribilis visu facies, sed corda benignus
Longaque robusto pectore barba fuit.

The portraits of the old Lombards might still be seen in the palace of Monza, twelve miles from Milan, which had been founded or restored by Queen Theudelinda (l. IV 22, 23). See Muratori, tom. I Dissertazione XXIII, p. 300. ↩
The story of Autharis and Theudelinda is related by Paul, l. III c. 29, 34; and any fragment of Bavarian antiquity excites the indefatigable diligence of the Count Du Buat, Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, tom. XI, pp. 595⁠–⁠635, tom. XII, pp. 1⁠–⁠53. ↩
Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. I, p. 263) has justly censured the impertinence of Boccaccio (Giorno, III Novella 2), who, without right, or truth, or pretence, has given the pious queen Theudelinda to the arms of a muleteer. ↩
Paul, l. III c. 16. The first dissertations of Muratori, and the first volume of Giannone’s history may be consulted for the state of the kingdom of Italy. ↩
The most accurate edition of the laws of the Lombards is to be found in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I part II, pp. 1⁠–⁠181, collated from the most ancient MSS. and illustrated by the critical notes of Muratori. ↩
Montesquieu, De l’esprit des loix, l. XXVIII c. 1. Les loix des Bourguignons sont assez judicieuses; celles de Rotharis et des autres princes Lombards le sont encore plus. ↩
See Leges Rotharis, No. 379, p. 47. Striga is used as the name of a witch. It is of the purest classic origin (Horatius, “Epode V 20”; Petronius, c. 134); and from the words of Petronius (quae striges comederunt nervos tuos?) it may be inferred that the prejudice was of Italian rather than barbaric extraction. ↩
Quia incerti sumus de judicio Dei, et multos audivimus per pugnam sine justa causâ suam causam perdere. Sed propter consuetudinem gentem nostram Langobardorum legem impiam vetare non possumus. See p. 74, No. 65, of the laws of Liutprand, promulgated AD 724. ↩
Read the history of Paul Warnefrid; particularly l. III c. 16. Baronius rejects the praise, which appears to contradict the invectives of Pope Gregory the Great; but Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. V, p. 217) presumes to insinuate that the saint may have magnified the faults of Arians and enemies. ↩
The passages of the homilies of Gregory which represent the miserable state of the city and country are transcribed in the Annals of Baronius, “AD 590,” No. 16, “AD 595,” No. 2, etc., etc. ↩
The inundation and plague were reported by a deacon, whom his bishop, Gregory of Tours, had despatched to Rome for some relics. The ingenious messenger embellished his tale and the river with a great dragon and a train of little serpents (Gregorii Turonici, l. X c. 1). ↩
Gregory of Rome (Dialogues, l. II c. 15) relates a memorable prediction of St. Benedict: Roma a Gentilibus non exterminabitur sed tempestatibus, coruscis turbinibus ac terrae motû in semetipsâ marcescet. Such a prophecy melts into true history, and becomes the evidence of the fact after which it was invented. ↩
Quia in uno se ore cum Jovis laudibus, Christi laudes non capiunt, et quam grave nefandumque sit episcopis canere quod nec laico religioso conveniat, ipse considera (l. IX, “Epistola 4”). The writings of Gregory himself attest his innocence of any classic taste or literature. ↩
Bayle (Dictionnaire historique et critique, tom. II 598, 599), in a very good article of “Grégoire I,” has quoted, for the buildings and statues, Platina in Vitae Pontificum, “Gregorio I”; for the Palatine library, John of Salisbury (Policraticus, sive de Nugis Caeurialium et de vestigis philosophorum, l. II c. 26); and for Livy, Antoninus of Florence: the oldest of the three lived in the twelth century. ↩
Gregorius, l. III, “Epistola 24,” edict. 12, etc. From the epistles of Gregory, and the eighth volume of the Annals of Baronius, the pious reader may collect the particles of holy iron which were inserted in keys or crosses of gold and distributed in Britain, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Constantinople, and Egypt. The pontifical smith who handled the file must have understood the miracles which it was in his own power to operate or withhold: a circumstance which abates the superstition of Gregory at the expense of his veracity. ↩
Besides the epistles of Gregory himself which are methodized by Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. V, pp. 103⁠–⁠126), we have three Lives of the pope: the two first written in the eighth and ninth centuries (De triplici vitâ St. Gregory, preface to the fourth volume of the Benedictine edition), by the deacons Paul (pp. 1⁠–⁠18) and John (pp. 19⁠–⁠188), and containing much original, though doubtful, evidence; the third, a long and labored compilation by the Benedictine editors (pp. 199⁠–⁠305). The Annals of Baronius are a copious but partial history. His papal prejudices are tempered by the good sense of Fleury (Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. VIII), and his chronology has been rectified by the criticism of Pagi and Muratori. ↩
John the deacon has described them like an eyewitness (l. IV c. 83, 84); and his description is illustrated by Angelo Rocca, a Roman antiquary (St. Gregory, Opera, tom. IV, pp. 312⁠–⁠326); who observes that some mosaics of the popes of the seventh century are still preserved in the old churches of Rome (pp. 321⁠–⁠323) The same walls which represented Gregory’s family are now decorated with the martyrdom of St. Andrew, the noble contest of Dominichino and Guido. ↩
Disciplinis vero liberalibus, hoc est grammaticâ, rhetoricâ, dialecticâ ita a puero est institutus, ut quamvis eo tempore florerent adhuc Romae studia literarum, tamen nulli in urbe ipsâ secundus putaretur. Paulus Diaconus in Vita S. Gregorii, c. 2. ↩
The Benedictines (Vita Gregorii I, l. I, pp. 205⁠–⁠208) labor to reduce the monasteries of Gregory within the rule of their own order; but, as the question is confessed to be doubtful, it is clear that these powerful monks are in the wrong. See Alban Butler’s The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints, vol. III, p. 145, a work of merit: the sense and learning belong to the author⁠—his prejudices are those of his profession. ↩
Monasterium Gregorianum in ejusdem Beati Gregorii aedibus ad clivum Scauri prope ecclesiam SS. Johannis et Pauli in honorem St. Andreae (John, in Vita Gregorii I, l. I c. 6; Gregorius, l. VII, “Epistola 13”). This house and monastery were situate on the side of the Caelian hill which fronts the Palatine; they are now occupied by the Camaldoli: San Gregorio triumphs, and St. Andrew has retired to a small chapel. Nardini, Roma antica, l. III c. 6, p. 100. Descrizzione di Roma, tom. I, pp. 442⁠–⁠446. ↩
The Lord’s Prayer consists of half a dozen lines: the Sacramentarius and Antiphonarius of Gregory fill 880 folio pages (tom. III pars I, pp. 1⁠–⁠880); yet these only constitute a part of the Ordo Romanus, which Mabillon has illustrated and Fleury has abridged (Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. VIII, pp. 139⁠–⁠152). ↩
I learn from the Abbé Dubos (Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, tom. III, pp. 174, 175), that the simplicity of the Ambrosian chant was confined to four modes, while the more perfect harmony of the Gregorian comprised the eight modes or fifteen chords of the ancient music. He observes (p. 332) that the connoisseurs admire the preface and many passages of the Gregorian office. ↩
John the deacon (in Vita Gregorii I, l. II c. 7) expresses the early contempt of the Italians for tramontane singing. Alpina scilicet corpora vocum suarum tonitruis altisone perstrepentia, susceptae modulationis dulcedinem proprie non resultant: quia bibuli gutturis barbara feritas dum inflectionibus et repercussionibus mitem nititur edere cantilenam, naturali quodam fragore, quasi plaustra per gradus confuse sonantia, rigidas voces jactat, etc. In the time of Charlemagne, the Franks, though with some reluctance, admitted the justice of the reproach. Muratori, Dissertazione XXV. ↩
A French critic (Petrus Gussanvillus, Opera, tom. II, pp. 105⁠–⁠112) has vindicated the right of Gregory to the entire nonsense of the Dialogues. Dupin (tom. V, p. 138) does not think that anyone will vouch for the truth of all these miracles: I should like to know how many of them he believed himself. ↩
Baronius is unwilling to expatiate on the care of the patrimonies, lest he should betray that they consisted not of kingdoms, but farms. The French writers, the Benedictine editors (tom. IV l. III, p. 272, etc.), and Fleury (tom. VIII, p. 29, etc.) are not afraid of entering into these humble though useful details; and the humanity of Fleury dwells on the social virtues of Gregory. ↩
I much suspect that this pecuniary fine on the marriages of villains produced the famous, and often fabulous, right de cuissage, de marquette, etc. With the consent of her husband, a handsome bride might commute the payment in the arms of a young landlord, and the mutual favor might afford a precedent of local rather than legal tyranny. ↩
The temporal reign of Gregory I is ably exposed by Sigonius in the first book, De regno Italiae. See his Works, tom. II, pp. 44⁠–⁠75. ↩
Missis qui⁠ ⁠… reposcerent⁠ ⁠… veteres Persarum ac Macedonum terminos, seque invasurum possessa Cyro et post Alexandro, per vaniloquentiam ac minas jaciebat. Tacitus, Annales VI 31. Such was the language of the Arsacides. I have repeatedly marked the lofty claims of the Sassanians. ↩
See the embassies of Menander, extracted and preserved in the tenth century by the order of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. ↩
The general independence of the Arabs, which cannot be admitted without many limitations, is blindly asserted in a separate dissertation of the authors of the Universal History, vol. XX, pp. 196⁠–⁠250. A perpetual miracle is supposed to have guarded the prophecy in favor of the posterity of Ishmael; and these learned bigots are not afraid to risk the truth of Christianity on this frail and slippery foundation.9164 ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 477. Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 64, 65. Father Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 646) has proved that, after ten years’ peace, the Persian war, which continued twenty years, was renewed AD 571. Muhammad was born AD 569, in the year of the elephant, or the defeat of Abrahah (Jean Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. I, pp. 89, 90, 98); and this account allows two years for the conquest of Yemen.9165 ↩
Persarmenia was long maintained in peace by the tolerant administration of Mejej, prince of the Gnounians. On his death he was succeeded by a persecutor, a Persian, named Ten-Schahpour, who attempted to propagate Zoroastrianism by violence. Nushirvan, on an appeal to the throne by the Armenian clergy, replaced Ten-Schahpour in 552, by Veschnas-Vahram. The new marzban or governor was instructed to repress the bigoted Magi in their persecutions of the Armenians, but the Persian converts to Christianity were still exposed to cruel sufferings. The most distinguished of them, Izdbouzid, was crucified at Dovin in the presence of a vast multitude. The fame of this martyr spread to the West. Menander, the historian, not only, as appears by a fragment published by Mai, related this event in his history, but, according to M. Saint-Martin, wrote a tragedy on the subject. This, however, is an unwarrantable inference from the phrase τραγωδίαν θέμενος, which merely means that he related the tragic event in his history. An epigram on the same subject preserved in the Anthology, Christian Friedrich Wilhelm Jacobs’ Anthologia Palatina I 27, belongs to the historian. Yet Armenia remained in peace under the government of Veschnas-Vahram and his successor Varazdat. The tyranny of his successor Surena led to the insurrection under Vartan, the Mamigonian, who revenged the death of his brother on the marzban Surena, surprised Dovin, and put to the sword the governor, the soldiers, and the Magians. From Saint-Martin, vol. X, pp. 79⁠–⁠89. —⁠M. ↩
Malathiah. It was in the lesser Armenia. —⁠M. ↩
He had vanquished the Albanians, who brought into the field 12,000 horse and 60,000 foot; but he dreaded the multitude of venomous reptiles, whose existence may admit of some doubt, as well as that of the neighboring Amazons. Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, “Pompeio,” tom. II, pp. 1165, 1166. ↩
In the history of the world I can only perceive two navies on the Caspian:
1. Of the Macedonians, when Patrocles, the admiral of the kings of Syria, Seleucus and Antiochus, descended most probably the river Oxus, from the confines of India (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VI 21).
2. Of the Russians, when Peter the First conducted a fleet and army from the neighborhood of Moscow to the coast of Persia (Bell’s Travels from St. Petersburg, vol. II, pp. 325⁠–⁠352). He justly observes that such martial pomp had never been displayed on the Volga.
↩
This circumstance rests on the statements of Evagrius and Theophylact Simocatta. They are not of sufficient authority to establish a fact so improbable. Saint-Martin, vol. X, p. 140. —⁠M. ↩
For these Persian wars and treaties, see Menander, in Excerpta legationum, pp. 113⁠–⁠125. Theophanes of Byzantium apud Photius, codex LXIV, pp. 77, 80, 81. Evagrius, l. V c. 7⁠–⁠15. Theophylact, l. III c. 9⁠–⁠16. Agathias, l. IV, p. 140. ↩
Buzurg Mihir may be considered, in his character and station, as the Seneca of the East; but his virtues, and perhaps his faults, are less known than those of the Roman, who appears to have been much more loquacious. The Persian sage was the person who imported from India the game of chess and the fables of Pilpay. Such has been the fame of his wisdom and virtues that the Christians claim him as a believer in the gospel; and the Muhammadans revere Buzurg as a premature Mussulman. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 218. ↩
See the imitation of Scipio in Theophylact, l. I c. 14; the image of Christ, l. II c. 3. Hereafter I shall speak more amply of the Christian images⁠—I had almost said idols. This, if I am not mistaken, is the oldest ἀχειροποίητος of divine manufacture; but in the next thousand years many others issued from the same workshop. ↩
He is named Shāba by Hishām, apud Tabari (Theodor Nöldeke, p. 269); and Rémusat identified him with Chao-wu, a khan who is mentioned at this time in the Chinese annals. —⁠B. ↩
Ragae, or Rei, is mentioned in the apocryphal book of Tobit as already flourishing, 700 years before Christ, under the Assyrian empire. Under the foreign names of Europus and Arsacia, this city, 500 stadia to the south of the Caspian gates, was successively embellished by the Macedonians and Parthians (Strabo, l. XI, p. 796). Its grandeur and populousness in the ninth century are exaggerated beyond the bounds of credibility; but Rei has been since ruined by wars and the unwholesomeness of the air. Chardin, Voyages en Perse, tom. I, pp. 279, 280. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 714. ↩
Theophylact. l. III c. 18. The story of the seven Persians is told in the third book of Herodotus; and their noble descendants are often mentioned, especially in the fragments of Ctesias. Yet the independence of Otanes (Herodotus, l. III c. 83, 84) is hostile to the spirit of despotism, and it may not seem probable that the seven families could survive the revolutions of eleven hundred years. They might however be represented by the seven ministers (Brisson, De regio Persarum, l. I, p. 190); and some Persian nobles, like the kings of Pontus (Polybius, l. V, p. 540) and Cappadocia (Diodorus Siculus, l. XXXI tom. II, p. 517), might claim their descent from the bold companions of Darius. ↩
He is generally called Baharam Choubeen, Baharam, the stick-like, probably from his appearance. Malcolm, vol. I, p. 120. —⁠M. ↩
The Persian historians say that Hormouz entreated his general to increase his numbers; but Baharam replied that experience had taught him that it was the quality, not the number of soldiers, which gave success.⁠ ⁠… No man in his army was under forty years, and none above fifty. Malcolm, vol. I, p. 121. —⁠M. ↩
See an accurate description of this mountain by Olearius (Relation du voyage d’Adam Olearius en Moscovie, Tartarie, et Perse, pp. 997, 998), who ascended it with much difficulty and danger in his return from Ispahan to the Caspian Sea. ↩
The Orientals suppose that Bahram convened this assembly and proclaimed Khosrow, but Theophylact is, in this instance, more distinct and credible.9166 ↩
See the words of Theophylact, l. IV c. 7. Βαρὰυ φίλος τοῖς θεοῖς, νικητὴς ἐπιφανὴς, τυράννων ἐχθρὸς, σατράπης μεγιστάνων, τῆς Περσικῆς ἄρχων δυνάμεως, etc. In answer, Khosrow styles himself τῇ νυκτὶ χαριζόμενος ὄμματα⁠ ⁠… ὀ τοῦς Ἄσωνας (the genii) μισθούμενος. This is genuine Oriental bombast. ↩
Theophylact (l. IV c. 7) imputes the death of Hormouz to his son, by whose command he was beaten to death with clubs. I have followed the milder account of Khondemir and Eutychius, and shall always be content with the slightest evidence to extenuate the crime of parricide.9167 ↩
After the battle of Pharsalia, the Pompey of Lucan (l. VIII 256⁠–⁠455) holds a similar debate. He was himself desirous of seeking the Parthians, but his companions abhorred the unnatural alliance; and the adverse prejudices might operate as forcibly on Khosrow and his companions, who could describe, with the same vehemence, the contrast of laws, religion, and manners, between the East and West. ↩
In this age there were three warriors of the name of Narses, who have been often confounded (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 640):
1. A Persarmenian, the brother of Isaac and Armatius, who, after a successful action against Belisarius, deserted from his Persian sovereign, and afterwards served in the Italian war.
2. The eunuch who conquered Italy.
3. The restorer of Khosrow, who is celebrated in the poem of Corippus (l. III 220⁠–⁠327) as excelsus super omnia vertice agmina⁠ ⁠… habitu modestus⁠ ⁠… morum probitate placens, virtute verendus; fulmineus, cautus, vigilans, etc.
↩
The Armenians adhered to Khosrow. Saint-Martin, vol. X, p. 312. —⁠M. ↩
According to Mirkhond and the Oriental writers, Bahram received the daughter of the Khakan in marriage, and commanded a body of Turks in an invasion of Persia. Some say that he was assassinated; Malcolm adopts the opinion that he was poisoned. His sister Gourdieh, the companion of his flight, is celebrated in the Shah Nameh. She was afterwards one of the wives of Khosrow. Saint-Martin, vol. X, p. 331. —⁠M. ↩
Experimentis cognitum est Barbaros malle Româ petere reges quam habere. These experiments are admirably represented in the invitation and expulsion of Vonones (Annales II 1⁠–⁠3), Tiridates (Annales VI 32⁠–⁠44), and Meherdates (Annales XI 10, XII 10⁠–⁠14). The eye of Tacitus seems to have transpierced the camp of the Parthians and the walls of the harem. ↩
Concerning Nisibis, see Saint-Martin and his Armenian authorities, vol. X, p. 332, and Mémoires sur l’Arménie, tom. I, p. 25. —⁠M. ↩
Sergius and his companion Bacchus, who are said to have suffered in the persecution of Maximian, obtained divine honor in France, Italy, Constantinople, and the East. Their tomb at Rasaphe was famous for miracles, and that Syrian town acquired the more honorable name of Sergiopolis. Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. V, pp. 481⁠–⁠496. Butler’s Lives of the Saints, vol. X, p. 155. ↩
Evagrius (l. VI c. 21) and Theophylact (l. V c. 13, 14) have preserved the original letters of Khosrow, written in Greek,9168 signed with his own hand, and afterwards inscribed on crosses and tables of gold, which were deposited in the church of Sergiopolis. They had been sent to the bishop of Antioch, as primate of Syria. ↩
The Greeks only describe her as a Roman by birth, a Christian by religion; but she is represented as the daughter of the emperor Maurice in the Persian and Turkish romances which celebrate the love of Khosrow for Shirin, of Shirin for Ferhad, the most beautiful youth of the East, d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 789, 997, 998.9169 ↩
The whole series of the tyranny of Hormouz, the revolt of Bahram, and the flight and restoration of Khosrow is related by two contemporary Greeks⁠—more concisely by Evagrius (l. VI c. 16⁠–⁠19), and most diffusely by Theophylact Simocatta (l. III c. 6⁠–⁠18, l. IV c. 1⁠–⁠16, l. V c. 1⁠–⁠15); succeeding compilers, Zonaras and Cedrenus, can only transcribe and abridge. The Christian Arabs, Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, pp. 200⁠–⁠208) and Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 96⁠–⁠98), appear to have consulted some particular memoirs. The great Persian historians of the fifteenth century, Mirkhond and Khondemir, are only known to me by the imperfect extracts of Schikard (Tarich, pp. 150⁠–⁠155), Texeira, or rather Stevens (History of Persia, pp. 182⁠–⁠186), a Turkish MS. translated by the Abbé Fourmount (Histoire de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. VII, pp. 325⁠–⁠334), and d’Herbelot (aux mots “Hormouz,” pp. 457⁠–⁠459; “Bahram,” p. 174; “Khosrou Parviz,” p. 996). Were I perfectly satisfied of their authority, I could wish these Oriental materials had been more copious. ↩
A general idea of the pride and power of the khagan may be taken from Menander (Excerpta legationum, p. 118, etc.) and Theophylact (l. I c. 3; l. VII c. 15), whose eight books are much more honorable to the Avar than to the Roman prince. The predecessors of Baian had tasted the liberality of Rome, and he survived the reign of Maurice (Buat, Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, “Barbares,” tom. XI, p. 545). The khagan who invaded Italy AD 611 (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. V, p. 305), was then juvenili aetate florentem (Paul Warnefrid, De gestis Langobardorum, l. V c. 38), the son, perhaps, or the grandson, of Baian. ↩
Theophylact, l. I c. 5, 6. ↩
Even in the field, the khagan delighted in the use of these aromatics. He solicited as a gift Ἰνδικὰς καρυκίας, and received πέπερι καὶ φύλλον Ἰνδῶν, κασίαν τε καὶ τὸν λεγόμενον κόστον. Theophylact, l. VII c. 13. The Europeans of the ruder ages consumed more spices in their meat and drink than is compatible with the delicacy of a modern palate. Histoire de la vie privée des François, tom. II, pp. 162, 163. ↩
Theophylact, l. VI c. 6; l. VII c. 15. The Greek historian confesses the truth and justice of his reproach. ↩
Menander (in Excerpta legationum, pp. 126⁠–⁠132, 174, 175) describes the perjury of Baian and the surrender of Sirmium. We have lost his account of the siege, which is commended by Theophylact, l. I c. 3. Τὸ δ’ ὄπως Μενάνδρῳ τώ περιφανεῖ σαφῶς διηγόρευται.9170 ↩
See d’Anville, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, pp. 412⁠–⁠443. The Sclavonic name of Belgrade is mentioned in the tenth century by Constantine Porphyrogenitus; the Latin appellation of Alba Groeca is used by the Franks in the beginning of the ninth (p. 414). ↩
Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 600,” No. 1. Paul Warnefrid (l. IV c. 38) relates their irruption into Friuli, and (c. 39) the captivity of his ancestors, about AD 632. The Sclavi traversed the Adriatic cum multitudine navium, and made a descent in the territory of Sipontum (c. 47). ↩
Even the helepolis, or movable turret. Theophylact, l. II 16, 17. ↩
The arms and alliances of the khagan reached to the neighborhood of a western sea, fifteen months’ journey from Constantinople. The emperor Maurice conversed with some itinerant harpers from that remote country, and only seems to have mistaken a trade for a nation. Theophylact, l. VI c. 2. ↩
This is one of the most probable and luminous conjectures of the learned Count Du Buat (Histoire anciens des peuples de l’Europe, “Barbares,” tom. XI, pp. 546⁠–⁠568). The Tzechi and Serbi are found together near Mount Caucasus, in Illyricum, and on the lower Elbe. Even the wildest traditions of the Bohemians, etc., afford some color to his hypothesis. ↩
See Fredegarius, in the Historians of France, tom. II, p. 432. Baian did not conceal his proud insensibility. Ὄτι τοιούτους (not τοσούτους according to a foolish emendation) ἐπαφήσω τῇ Ρωμαϊκῇ, ὡς εἰ καὶ συμβαίη γέ σφισι θανάτῳ ἁλῶναι, ἁλλ’ ἐμοί γε μὴ γενέσθαι συναίσθησιν. ↩
See the march and return of Maurice, in Theophylact, l. V c. 16, l. VI c. 1⁠–⁠3. If he were a writer of taste or genius, we might suspect him of an elegant irony; but Theophylact is surely harmless. ↩
Εῖς οἰωνὸς ἄριστος ἀμύνεσθαι περὶ πάτρης.
Iliad XII 243.

This noble verse, which unites the spirit of a hero with the reason of a sage, may prove that Homer was in every light superior to his age and country. ↩
Theophylact, l. VII c. 3. On the evidence of this fact, which had not occurred to my memory, the candid reader will correct and excuse a note in Chapter XXXIV of this history, which hastens the decay of Asimus, or Azimuntium; another century of patriotism and valor is cheaply purchased by such a confession. ↩
See the shameful conduct of Commentiolus, in Theophylact, l. II c. 10⁠–⁠15, l. VII c. 13, 14, l. VIII c. 2, 4. ↩
See the exploits of Priscus, l. VIII c. 2, 3. ↩
The general detail of the war against the Avars may be traced in the first, second, sixth, seventh, and eighth books of the History of the emperor Maurice, by Theophylact Simocatta. As he wrote in the reign of Heraclius, he had no temptation to flatter; but his want of judgment renders him diffuse in trifles and concise in the most interesting facts. ↩
Maurice himself composed XII books on the military art, which are still extant, and have been published (Upsal, 1664) by John Schaeffer at the end of the Tactics of Arrian (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, l. IV c. 8, tom. III, p. 278), who promises to speak more fully of his work in its proper place. ↩
See the mutinies under the reign of Maurice, in Theophylact, l. III c. 1⁠–⁠4, l. VI c. 7, 8, 10, l. VII c. 1, l. VIII c. 6, etc. ↩
Theophylact and Theophanes seem ignorant of the conspiracy and avarice of Maurice. These charges, so unfavorable to the memory of that emperor, are first mentioned by the author of the Paschal Chronicle (pp. 379, 380); from whence Zonaras (tom. II l. XIV, pp. 77, 78) has transcribed them. Cedrenus (p. 399) has followed another computation of the ransom. ↩
In their clamors against Maurice, the people of Constantinople branded him with the name of Marcionite or Marcionist; a heresy (says Theophylact, l. VIII c. 9) μετά τινος μωρᾶς εὐλαβείας, εὐήθης τε καὶ καταγέλαστος. Did they only cast out a vague reproach⁠—or had the emperor really listened to some obscure teacher of those ancient Gnostics? ↩
The church of St. Autonomus (whom I have not the honor to know) was 150 stadia from Constantinople (Theophylact, l. VIII c. 9). The port of Eutropius, where Maurice and his children were murdered, is described by Gyllius (De Bosphoro Thracio, l. III c. XI) as one of the two harbors of Chalcedon. ↩
The inhabitants of Constantinople were generally subject to the νόσοι ἀρθρίτιδες; and Theophylact insinuates (l. VIII c. 9), that, if it were consistent with the rules of history, he could assign the medical cause. Yet such a digression would not have been more impertinent than his inquiry (l. VII c. 16, 17) into the annual inundations of the Nile, and all the opinions of the Greek philosophers on that subject. ↩
From this generous attempt, Corneille has deduced the intricate web of his tragedy of Heraclius, which requires more than one representation to be clearly understood (Corneille de Voltaire, tom. V, p. 300); and which, after an interval of some years, is said to have puzzled the author himself (Anecdotes dramatiques, tom. I, p. 422). ↩
The revolt of Phocas and death of Maurice are told by Theophylact Simocatta (l. VIII c. 7⁠–⁠12), the Paschal Chronicle (pp. 379, 380), Theophanes (Chronographia, pp. 238⁠–⁠244), Zonaras (tom. II l. XIV, pp. 77⁠–⁠80), and Cedrenus (pp. 399⁠–⁠404). ↩
Gregorius, l. XI, “Epistola 38,” indict. VI. Benignitatem vestrae pietatis ad Imperiale fastigium pervenisse gaudemus. Laetentur caeli et exultet terra, et de vestris benignis actibus universae republicae populus nunc usque vehementer afflictus hilarescat, etc. This base flattery, the topic of Protestant invective, is justly censured by the philosopher Bayle (Dictionnaire historique et critique, “Grégoire I,” Note H tom. II, p. 597, 598). Cardinal Baronius justifies the pope at the expense of the fallen emperor. ↩
The images of Phocas were destroyed; but even the malice of his enemies would suffer one copy of such a portrait or caricature (Cedrenus, p. 404) to escape the flames. ↩
The family of Maurice is represented by du Cange (Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 106⁠–⁠108); his eldest son Theodosius had been crowned emperor when he was no more than four years and a half old, and he is always joined with his father in the salutations of Gregory. With the Christian daughters, Anastasia and Theocteste, I am surprised to find the Pagan name of Cleopatra. ↩
Some of the cruelties of Phocas are marked by Theophylact, l. VIII c. 13⁠–⁠15. George of Pisidia, the poet of Heraclius, styles him (Bellum avaricum, p. 46, Rome, 1777) τῆς τυραννίδος ὁ δυσκάθεκτος καὶ βιοφθόρος δράκων. The latter epithet is just⁠—but the corrupter of life was easily vanquished. ↩
In the writers, and in the copies of those writers, there is such hesitation between the names of Priscus and Crispus (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 111), that I have been tempted to identify the son-in-law of Phocas with the hero five times victorious over the Avars. ↩
According to Theophanes, κιβώτια and εἰκόνα θεομήτορος. Cedrenus adds an ἀχειροποίητον εἰκόνα τοῦ κυρίου, which Heraclius bore as a banner in the first Persian expedition. See George Pisidia, Acroaseis I 140. The manufacture seems to have flourished; but Foggini, the Roman editor (p. 26), is at a loss to determine whether this picture was an original or a copy. ↩
See the tyranny of Phocas and the elevation of Heraclius, in Chronicon Paschale, pp. 380⁠–⁠383; Theophanes, pp. 242⁠–⁠250; Nicephorus, pp. 3⁠–⁠7; Cedrenus, pp. 404⁠–⁠407; Zonaras, tom. II l. XIV, pp. 80⁠–⁠82. ↩
Theophylact, l. VIII c. 15. The life of Maurice was composed about the year 628 (l. VIII c. 13) by Theophylact Simocatta, ex-prefect, a native of Egypt. Photius, who gives an ample extract of the work (codex LXV, pp. 81⁠–⁠100), gently reproves the affectation and allegory of the style. His preface is a dialogue between Philosophy and History; they seat themselves under a plane-tree, and the latter touches her lyre. ↩
Christianis nec pactum esse, nec fidem nec foedus⁠ ⁠… quod si ulla illis fides fuisset, regem suum non occidissent. Eutychius, Annales, tom. II, p. 211, vers. Pococke. ↩
We must now, for some ages, take our leave of contemporary historians, and descend, if it be a descent, from the affectation of rhetoric to the rude simplicity of chronicles and abridgments. Those of Theophanes (Chronographia, pp. 244⁠–⁠279) and Nicephorus (pp. 3⁠–⁠16) supply a regular, but imperfect, series of the Persian war; and for any additional facts I quote my special authorities. Theophanes, a courtier who became a monk, was born AD 748; Nicephorus patriarch of Constantinople, who died AD 829, was somewhat younger: they both suffered in the cause of images. Martin Hankius, De Byzantinarum rerum scriptoribus Graecis, pp. 200⁠–⁠246. ↩
The Persian historians have been themselves deceived; but Theophanes (p. 244) accuses Khosrow of the fraud and falsehood; and Eutychius believes (Annales, tom. II, p. 211) that the son of Maurice, who was saved from the assassins, lived and died a monk on Mount Sinai. ↩
Eutychius dates all the losses of the empire under the reign of Phocas: an error which saves the honor of Heraclius, whom he brings not from Carthage, but Salonica, with a fleet laden with vegetables for the relief of Constantinople (Annales, tom. II, pp. 223, 224). The other Christians of the East, Bar Hebraeus (apud Asseman, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, pp. 412, 413), Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 13⁠–⁠16), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 98, 99), are more sincere and accurate. The years of the Persian war are disposed in the chronology of Pagi. ↩
On the conquest of Jerusalem, an event so interesting to the church, see the Annals of Eutychius (tom. II, pp. 212⁠–⁠223), and the lamentations of the monk Antiochus (apud Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 614,” No. 16⁠–⁠26), whose 129 homilies are still extant, if what no one reads may be said to be extant. ↩
See History of the Jews, vol. III, p. 240. —⁠M. ↩
The life of this worthy saint is composed by Leontius, a contemporary bishop; and I find in Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 610,” No. 10, etc.) and Fleury (tom. VIII, pp. 235⁠–⁠242) sufficient extracts of this edifying work. ↩
The error of Baronius and many others who have carried the arms of Khosrow to Carthage instead of Chalcedon, is founded on the near resemblance of the Greek words Καλχηδόνα and Καρχηδόνα, in the text of Theophanes, etc., which have been sometimes confounded by transcribers and sometimes by critics. ↩
The genuine acts of St. Anastasius are published in those of the seventh general council, from whence Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 614, 626, 627”) and Butler (Lives of the Saints, vol. I, pp. 242⁠–⁠248) have taken their accounts. The holy martyr deserted from the Persian to the Roman army, became a monk at Jerusalem, and insulted the worship of the Magi, which was then established at Caesarea in Palestine. ↩
Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 99. Elmacin, Historia saracenica, p. 14. ↩
D’Anville, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXXII, pp. 568⁠–⁠571. ↩
The difference between the two races consists in one or two humps; the dromedary has only one; the size of the proper camel is larger; the country he comes from, Turkistan or Bactriana; the dromedary is confined to Arabia and Africa. Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. XI, p. 211, etc. Aristotle, Historia Animalium, tom. I l. II c. 1, tom. II, p. 185. ↩
The ruins of these scenes of Khosrow’s magnificence have been visited by Sir Robert Ker Porter. At the ruins of Taq-e Bostan, he saw a gorgeous picture of a hunt, singularly illustrative of this passage. Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylonia, vol. II, p. 204. Kisra Shirene, which he afterwards examined, appears to have been the palace of Dastagerd. Vol. II, pp. 173⁠–⁠175. —⁠M. ↩
Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 268. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 997. The Greeks describe the decay, the Persians the splendor, of Dastagerd; but the former speak from the modest witness of the eye, the latter from the vague report of the ear. ↩
The historians of Muhammad, Abulfeda (in Vita Mohammed, pp. 92, 93) and Gagnier (La vie de Mahomet, tom. II, p. 247), date this embassy in the seventh year of the Hegira, which commences AD 628, May 11. Their chronology is erroneous, since Khosrow died in the month of February of the same year (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 779). The Count de Boulainvilliers (La vie de Mahomed, pp. 327, 328) places this embassy about AD 615, soon after the conquest of Palestine. Yet Muhammad would scarcely have ventured so soon on so bold a step. ↩
Khosrow Parviz was encamped on the banks of the Karasu River when he received the letter of Mohammed. He tore the letter and threw it into the Karasu. For this action, the moderate author of the Zeenut-ul-Tuarikh calls him a wretch, and rejoices in all his subsequent misfortunes. These impressions still exist. I remarked to a Persian, when encamped near the Karasu, in 1800, that the banks were very high, which must make it difficult to apply its waters to irrigation. “It once fertilized the whole country,” said the zealous Mohammedan, “but its channel sunk with honor from its banks, when that madman, Khosrow, threw our holy Prophet’s letter into its stream; which has ever since been accursed and useless.” Malcolm’s History of Persia, vol. I, p. 126. —⁠M. ↩
See the thirtieth chapter of the Koran, entitled “The Greeks.” Our honest and learned translator Sale (pp. 330, 331) fairly states this conjecture, guess, wager, of Muhammad; but Boulainvilliers (pp. 329⁠–⁠344), with wicked intentions, labors to establish this evident prophecy of a future event, which must, in his opinion, embarrass the Christian polemics. ↩
Paul Warnefrid, De gestis Langobardorum, l. IV c. 38, 42. Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. V, p. 305, etc. ↩
The Paschal Chronicle, which sometimes introduces fragments of history into a barren list of names and dates, gives the best account of the treason of the Avars, pp. 389, 390. The number of captives is added by Nicephorus. ↩
Some original pieces, such as the speech or letter of the Roman ambassadors (pp. 386⁠–⁠388), likewise constitute the merit of the Paschal Chronicle, which was composed, perhaps at Alexandria, under the reign of Heraclius. ↩
Nicephorus (pp. 10, 11), who brands this marriage with the name of ἄθεσμον and ἀθέμιτον, is happy to observe that of two sons, its incestuous fruit, the elder was marked by Providence with a stiff neck, the younger with the loss of hearing. ↩
George of Pisidia (Acroaseis I 112⁠–⁠125, p. 5), who states the opinions, acquits the pusillanimous counsellors of any sinister views. Would he have excused the proud and contemptuous admonition of Crispus? Ἐπιτωθάζων οὐκ ἐξὸν βασιλεῖ ἔφασκε καταλιμπάνειν βασίλεια, καὶ ταῖς πόρρω ἐπιχωριάζειν δυνάμεσιν. ↩
Εί τὰς ἐπ’ ἄκρον ἠρμένας εὐεξίας
Ἐσφαλμένας λέγουσιν οὐκ άπεικότως
Κείσθω τὸ λοιπὸν ἐν κακοῖς τὰ Περσίδος.
Ἀντιστρόφως δὲ, etc.
George Pisidia, Acroaseis I 51, etc., p. 4.

The Orientals are not less fond of remarking this strange vicissitude; and I remember some story of Khosrow Parviz, not very unlike the ring of Polycrates of Samos. ↩
Baronius gravely relates this discovery, or rather transmutation, of barrels, not of honey, but of gold (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 620,” No. 3, etc.). Yet the loan was arbitrary, since it was collected by soldiers, who were ordered to leave the patriarch of Alexandria no more than one hundred pounds of gold. Nicephorus (p. 11), two hundred years afterwards, speaks with ill-humor of this contribution, which the church of Constantinople might still feel. ↩
Theophylact Symocatta, l. VIII c. 12. This circumstance need not excite our surprise. The muster-roll of a regiment, even in time of peace, is renewed in less than twenty or twenty-five years. ↩
He changed his purple for black buckskins, and dyed them red in the blood of the Persians (George Pisidia, Acroaseis III 118, 121, 122. See the notes of Foggini, p. 35). ↩
George of Pisidia (Acroaseis II 10, p. 8) has fixed this important point of the Syrian and Cilician gates. They are elegantly described by Xenophon, who marched through them a thousand years before. A narrow pass of three stadia between steep high rocks (πέτραι ἠλίβατοι) and the Mediterranean was closed at each end by strong gates, impregnable to the land (παρελθεῖν οὐκ ἦν βία), accessible by sea (Anabasis, l. I, pp. 35, 36, with Hutchinson’s Geographical Dissertation, p. VI). The gates were thirty-five parasangs, or leagues, from Tarsus (Anabasis, l. I, pp. 33, 34), and eight or ten from Antioch. Compare Wesseling, Intineraria, pp. 580, 581; Schultens, “Index Geographicus” ad calcem Vita et res Gestae Saladini, p. 9; Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, par M. Jonas Otter, tom. I, pp. 78, 79. ↩
Heraclius might write to a friend in the modest words of Cicero: “Castra habuimus ea ipsa quae contra Darium habuerat apud Issum Alexander, imperator haud paulo melior quam aut tu aut ego.” Epistulae ad atticum V 20. Issus, a rich and flourishing city in the time of Xenophon, was ruined by the prosperity of Alexandria or Scanderoon, on the other side of the bay. ↩
Foggini (Annotat., p. 31) suspects that the Persians were deceived by the φάλαγξ πεπληγμένη of Aelian (Tactics, c. 48), an intricate spiral motion of the army. He observes (p. 28) that the military descriptions of George of Pisidia are transcribed in the Tactics of the emperor Leo. ↩
George of Pisidia, an eyewitness (Acroaseis II 122, etc.), described in three acroaseis, or cantos, the first expedition of Heraclius. The poem has been lately (1777) published at Rome; but such vague and declamatory praise is far from corresponding with the sanguine hopes of Pagi, d’Anville, etc. ↩
Theophanes (p. 256) carries Heraclius swiftly (κατὰ τάχος) into Armenia. Nicephorus (p. 11), though he confounds the two expeditions, defines the province of Lazica. Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, p. 231) has given the 5,000 men, with the more probable station of Trebizond. ↩
From Constantinople to Trebizond, with a fair wind, four or five days; from thence to Erzerom, five; to Erivan, twelve; to Taurus, ten; in all, thirty-two. Such is the itinerary of Tavernier (Les Six Voyages, tom. I, pp. 12⁠–⁠56), who was perfectly conversant with the roads of Asia. Tournefort, who travelled with a pasha, spent ten or twelve days between Trebizond and Erzerom (Voyage du Levant, tom. III lettre XVIII); and Chardin (Voyages en Perse, tom. I, pp. 249⁠–⁠254) gives the more correct distance of fifty-three parasangs, each of 5,000 paces (what paces?) between Erivan and Tauris. ↩
The expedition of Heraclius into Persia is finely illustrated by M. d’Anville (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, pp. 559⁠–⁠573). He discovers the situation of Gandzaca, Thebarma, Dastagerd, etc., with admirable skill and learning; but the obscure campaign of 624 he passes over in silence. ↩
Et pontem indignatus Araxes.
Virgil, Aeneid VIII 728.

The River Araxes is noisy, rapid, vehement, and, with the melting of the snows, irresistible; the strongest and most massy bridges are swept away by the current; and its indignation is attested by the ruins of many arches near the old town of Zulfa. Voyages de Chardin en Perse, tom. I, p. 252. ↩
Chardin, tom. I, pp. 255⁠–⁠259. With the Orientals (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 834), he ascribes the foundation of Tauris, or Tebris, to Zobeide, the wife of the famous Khalif Haroun Alrashid; but it appears to have been more ancient; and the names of Gandzaca, Gazaca, Gaza, are expressive of the royal treasure. The number of 550,000 inhabitants is reduced by Chardin from 1,100,000, the popular estimate. ↩
He opened the gospel, and applied or interpreted the first casual passage to the name and situation of Albania. Theophanes, p. 258. ↩
The heath of Mogan, between the Cyrus and the Araxes, is sixty parasangs in length and twenty in breadth (Olearius, pp. 1023, 1024), abounding in waters and fruitful pastures (The History of the Life of Nadir Shah, translated by Mr. Jones from a Persian MS., part II, pp. 2, 3). See the encampments of Timur (Histoire de Timur-Bec par Sherefeddin Ali, l. V c. 37; l. VI c. 13) and the coronation of Nadir Shah (Histoire Persane, pp. 3⁠–⁠13, and the English Life by Mr. Jones, pp. 64, 65). ↩
Thebarma and Ormia, near the lake Spauta, are proved to be the same city by d’Anville (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XXVIII, pp. 564, 565). It is honored as the birthplace of Zoroaster, according to the Persians (Schultens, “Index Geographicus,” p. 48); and their tradition is fortified by M. Perron d’Anquetil (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXXI, p. 375), with some texts from his, or their, Zendavesta.9171 ↩
I cannot find, and (what is much more), M. d’Anville does not attempt to seek, the Salban, Tarantum, territory of the Huns, etc., mentioned by Theophanes (pp. 260⁠–⁠262). Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, pp. 231, 232), an insufficient author, names Asphahan; and Casbin is most probably the city of Sapor. Ispahan is twenty-four days’ journey from Tauris, and Casbin halfway between them (Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, tom. I, pp. 63⁠–⁠82.) ↩
At ten parasangs from Tarsus, the army of the younger Cyrus passed the Sarus,9172 three plethra in breadth: the Pyramus, a stadium in breadth, ran five parasangs farther to the east (Xenophon, Anabasis, l. I, pp. 33, 34). ↩
George of Pisidia (Bellum avaricum 246⁠–⁠265, p. 49) celebrates with truth the persevering courage of the three campaigns (τρεῖς περιδρόμους) against the Persians. ↩
Petavius (Annotationes ad Nicephorum, pp. 62⁠–⁠64) discriminates the names and actions of five Persian generals who were successively sent against Heraclius. ↩
This number of eight myriads is specified by George of Pisidia (Bellum avaricum 219). The poet (50⁠–⁠88) clearly indicates that the old khagan lived till the reign of Heraclius, and that his son and successor was born of a foreign mother. Yet Foggini (Annotat., p. 57) has given another interpretation to this passage. ↩
A bird, a frog, a mouse, and five arrows had been the present of the Scythian king to Darius (Herodotus, l. IV c. 131, 132). Substituez une lettre à ces signes (says Rousseau, with much good taste) plus elle sera menaçante moins elle effrayera; ce ne sera qu’une fanfarronade dont Darius n’eut fait que rire (Emile, tom. III, p. 146). Yet I much question whether the senate and people of Constantinople laughed at this message of the khagan. ↩
The Paschal Chronicle (pp. 392⁠–⁠397) gives a minute and authentic narrative of the siege and deliverance of Constantinople. Theophanes (p. 264) adds some circumstances; and a faint light may be obtained from the smoke of George of Pisidia, who has composed a poem (Bellum avaricum, pp. 45⁠–⁠54) to commemorate this auspicious event. ↩
The power of the Khazars prevailed in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries. They were known to the Greeks, the Arabs, and, under the name of Kosa, to the Chinese themselves. De Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. II part II, pp. 507⁠–⁠509.9173 ↩
Epiphania, or Eudocia, the only daughter of Heraclius and his first wife Eudocia, was born at Constantinople on the 7th of July, AD 611, baptized the 15th of August, and crowned (in the oratory of St. Stephen in the palace) the 4th of October of the same year. At this time she was about fifteen. Eudocia was afterwards sent to her Turkish husband, but the news of his death stopped her journey and prevented the consummation (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 118). ↩
Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 13⁠–⁠16) gives some curious and probable facts; but his numbers are rather too high⁠—300,000 Romans assembled at Edessa⁠—500,000 Persians killed at Nineveh. The abatement of a cipher is scarcely enough to restore his sanity ↩
Ctesias (apud Diodorus Siculus, tom. I l. II, p. 115, edit. Wesseling) assigns 480 stadia (perhaps only 32 miles) for the circumference of Nineveh. Jonas talks of three days’ journey: the 120,000 persons described by the prophet as incapable of discerning their right hand from their left may afford about 700,000 persons of all ages for the inhabitants of that ancient capital (Goguet, De l’origine des loix, des arts et des sciences, etc., tom. III part I, pp. 92, 93), which ceased to exist 600 years before Christ. The western suburb still subsisted, and is mentioned under the name of Mosul in the first age of the Arabian caliphs. ↩
Niebuhr (Voyage en Arabie, etc., tom. II, p. 286) passed over Nineveh without perceiving it. He mistook for a ridge of hills the old rampart of brick or earth. It is said to have been 100 feet high, flanked with 1,500 towers, each of the height of 200 feet. ↩
Rex regia arma fero (says Romulus, in the first consecration) … bina postea (continues Livy I 10) inter tot bella, opima parta sunt spolia, adeo rara ejus fortuna decoris. If Varro (apud Pompeius Festus, p. 306, edit. Dacier) could justify his liberality in granting the opime spoils even to a common soldier who had slain the king or general of the enemy, the honor would have been much more cheap and common. ↩
Macdonald Kinneir places Dastagerd at Kasr e Shirin, the palace of Sira on the banks of the Diala between Holwan and Kanabee. Kinneir, A Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire, p. 306. —⁠M. ↩
In describing this last expedition of Heraclius, the facts, the places, and the dates of Theophanes (pp. 265⁠–⁠271) are so accurate and authentic that he must have followed the original letters of the emperor, of which the Paschal Chronicle has preserved (pp. 398⁠–⁠402) a very curious specimen. ↩
The Shirin of Persian poetry. The love of Khosrow and Shirin rivals in Persian romance that of Joseph with Zuleika the wife of Potiphar, of Solomon with the Queen of Sheba, and that of Mejnoun and Leila. The number of Persian poems on the subject may be seen in M. von Hammer’s preface to his poem of Shirin. —⁠M. ↩
The words of Theophanes are remarkable: είσῆλθε Χοσπόης εἰς οἶκον γεωργοῦ μηδαμινοῦ μεῖναι, οὐ χωρηθεὶς τῇ τούτου θύρᾳ ἣν ἰδὼν ἔσχατον Ἡράκλειος ἐθαύμασε. Young princes who discover a propensity to war should repeatedly transcribe and translate such salutary texts. ↩
His name was Kavad (as appears from an official letter in the Paschal Chronicle, p. 402). Saint-Martin considers the name Siroes, Schirouïeh of Schirwey, derived from the word schir, royal. Saint-Martin XI 153. —⁠M. ↩
The authentic narrative of the fall of Khosrow is contained in the letter of Heraclius (Chronicon Paschale, p. 398), and the history of Theophanes (p. 271). ↩
According to Le Beau this massacre was perpetrated at Mahuza in Babylonia, not in the presence of Khosrow. The Syrian historian, Thomas of Maraga, gives Khosrow twenty-four sons; Mirkhond (translated by De Sacy), fifteen; the inedited Modjmel-alte-warikh, agreeing with Gibbon, eighteen, with their names. Le Beau and Saint-Martin, XI 146. —⁠M. ↩
On the first rumor of the death of Khosrow, an Heracliad in two cantos was instantly published at Constantinople by George of Pisidia (pp. 97⁠–⁠105). A priest and a poet might very properly exult in the damnation of the public enemy (ἐμπεσὼν τῷ ταρτάρῳ) but such mean revenge is unworthy of a king and a conqueror; and I am sorry to find so much black superstition (θεομάχος Χοσπόης ἐπεσε καὶ ἐπρωματίσθη εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια⁠ ⁠… εἰς τὸ πῦρ ἀκατάσβεστον, etc.) in the letter of Heraclius: he almost applauds the parricide of Siroes as an act of piety and justice.9174 ↩
Yet Gibbon himself places the flight and death of Yesdegird III, the last king of Persia, in 651. The famous era of Yesdegird dates from his accession, June 16, 632. —⁠M. ↩
The best Oriental accounts of this last period of the Sassanian kings are found in Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, pp. 251⁠–⁠256), who dissembles the parricide of Siroes, d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 789), and Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, pp. 415⁠–⁠420). ↩
The letter of Siroes in the Paschal Chronicle (p. 402) unfortunately ends before he proceeds to business. The treaty appears in its execution in the histories of Theophanes and Nicephorus.9175 ↩
The burden of Corneille’s song,

“Montrez Héraclius au peuple qui l’attend,”

is much better suited to the present occasion. See his triumph in Theophanes (pp. 272, 273) and Nicephorus (pp. 15, 16). The life of the mother and tenderness of the son are attested by George of Pisidia (Bellum avaricum 255, etc., p. 49). The metaphor of the Sabbath is used somewhat profanely by these Byzantine Christians. ↩
See Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 628,” No. 1⁠–⁠4), Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, pp. 240⁠–⁠248), Nicephorus (Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, p. 15). The seals of the case had never been broken; and this preservation of the cross is ascribed (under God) to the devotion of Queen Sira. ↩
If the clergy imposed upon the kneeling and penitent emperor the persecution of the Jews, it must be acknowledge that provocation was not wanting; for how many of them had been eyewitnesses of, perhaps sufferers in, the horrible atrocities committed on the capture of the city! Yet we have no authentic account of great severities exercised by Heraclius. The law of Hadrian was reenacted, which prohibited the Jews from approaching within three miles of the city⁠—a law, which, in the present exasperated state of the Christians, might be a measure of security or mercy, rather than of oppression. Milman, History of the Jews III 242. —⁠M. ↩
George of Pisidia, Acroaseis III De expeditione Heraclii imperatoris contra Persas 415, etc., and Heracleid, Acroaseis I 65⁠–⁠138. I neglect the meaner parallels of Daniel, Timotheus, etc. Khosrow and the khagan were of course compared to Belshazzar, Pharaoh, the old serpent, etc. ↩
Suidas (in Excerpt. Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, p. 46) gives this number; but either the Persian must be read for the Isaurian war, or this passage does not belong to the emperor Heraclius. ↩
By what means shall I authenticate this previous inquiry, which I have studied to circumscribe and compress?⁠—If I persist in supporting each fact or reflection by its proper and special evidence, every line would demand a string of testimonies, and every note would swell to a critical dissertation. But the numberless passages of antiquity which I have seen with my own eyes are compiled, digested, and illustrated by Petavius and Leclerc, by Beausobre and Mosheim. I shall be content to fortify my narrative by the names and characters of these respectable guides; and in the contemplation of a minute or remote object, I am not ashamed to borrow the aid of the strongest glasses.
1. The Dogmata theologica of Petavius are a work of incredible labor and compass; the volumes which relate solely to the incarnation (two folios, fifth and sixth, of 837 pages) are divided into XVI books⁠—the first of history, the remainder of controversy and doctrine. The Jesuit’s learning is copious and correct; his Latinity is pure, his method clear, his argument profound and well connected; but he is the slave of the fathers, the scourge of heretics, and the enemy of truth and candor, as often as they are inimical to the Catholic cause.
2. The Arminian Leclerc, who has composed in a quarto volume (Amsterdam, 1716) the ecclesiastical history of the two first centuries, was free both in his temper and situation; his sense is clear, but his thoughts are narrow; he reduces the reason or folly of ages to the standard of his private judgment, and his impartiality is sometimes quickened, and sometimes tainted, by his opposition to the fathers. See the heretics (“Cerinthians,” LXXX; “Ebionites,” CIII; “Carpocratians,” CXX; “Valentinians,” CXXI; “Basilidians,” CXXIII; “Marcionites,” CXLI, etc.) under their proper dates.
3. The Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme (Amsterdam, 1734, 1739, in two vols. in quarto, with a posthumous dissertation sur les Nazarènes, Lausanne, 1745) of M. de Beausobre is a treasure of ancient philosophy and theology. The learned historian spins with incomparable art the systematic thread of opinion, and transforms himself by turns into the person of a saint, a sage, or a heretic. Yet his refinement is sometimes excessive; he betrays an amiable partiality in favor of the weaker side; and, while he guards against calumny, he does not allow sufficient scope for superstition and fanaticism. A copious table of contents will direct the reader to any point that he wishes to examine.
4. Less profound than Petavius, less independent than Leclerc, less ingenious than Beausobre, the historian Mosheim is full, rational, correct, and moderate. In his learned work, De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum (Helmstadt 1753, in quarto), see the “Nazarenes and Ebionites,” pp. 172⁠–⁠179, 328⁠–⁠332; the Gnostics in general, p. 179, etc.; “Cerinthus,” pp. 196⁠–⁠202; “Basilides,” pp. 352⁠–⁠361; “Carpocrates,” pp. 363⁠–⁠367; “Valentinus,” pp. 371⁠–⁠389; “Marcion,” pp. 404⁠–⁠410; the Manichaeans, pp. 829⁠–⁠837, etc.
↩
Καὶ γὰρ πάντες ἡμεῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων προσδοκῶμεν γενήσεσθαι, says the Jew Tryphon (Justin Matyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone, p. 207)9176 in the name of his countrymen; and the modern Jews, the few who divert their thoughts from money to religion, still hold the same language and allege the literal sense of the prophets.9177 ↩
Chrysostom (Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, tom. V c. 9, p. 183) and Athanasius (Petavius, Dogmata theologica, tom. V l. I c. 2, p. 3) are obliged to confess that the divinity of Christ is rarely mentioned by himself or his apostles. ↩
The two first chapters of St. Matthew did not exist in the Ebionite copies (Epiphanius, Adversus haereses XXX 13); and the miraculous conception is one of the last articles which Dr. Priestley has curtailed from his scanty creed.9178 ↩
It is probable enough that the first of the Gospels for the use of the Jewish converts was composed in the Hebrew or Syriac idiom: the fact is attested by a chain of fathers⁠—Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Jerome, etc. It is devoutly believed by the Catholics, and admitted by Casaubon, Grotius, and Isaac Vossius, among the Protestant critics. But this Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew is most unaccountably lost; and we may accuse the diligence or fidelity of the primitive churches, who have preferred the unauthorized version of some nameless Greek. Erasmus and his followers, who respect our Greek text as the original Gospel, deprive themselves of the evidence which declares it to be the work of an apostle. See Simon, Histoire critique du text du Nouveau Testament, tom. III c. 5⁠–⁠9, pp. 47⁠–⁠101, and the Prolegomena of Mill and Wetstein to the New Testament.9179 ↩
The metaphysics of the soul are disengaged by Cicero (Tusculanae quaestiones, l. I) and Maximus of Tyre (Dissertatio XVI) from the intricacies of dialogue, which sometimes amuse, and often perplex, the readers of the Phaedrus, the Phaedon, and the Laws of Plato. ↩
The disciples of Jesus were persuaded that a man might have sinned before he was born (John 9:2), and the Pharisees held the transmigration of virtuous souls (Josephus, De bello Judaico, l. II c. 7), and a modern Rabbi is modestly assured that Hermes, Pythagoras, Plato, etc., derived their metaphysics from his illustrious countrymen. ↩
Four different opinions have been entertained concerning the origin of human souls:
1. That they are eternal and divine.
2. That they were created in a separate state of existence, before their union with the body.
3. That they have been propagated from the original stock of Adam, who contained in himself the mental as well as the corporeal seed of his posterity.
4. That each soul is occasionally created and embodied in the moment of conception.
The last of these sentiments appears to have prevailed among the moderns; and our spiritual history is grown less sublime, without becoming more intelligible. ↩
Ὄτι ἠ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ψυχὴ, ἡ τοὒ Ἀδὰυ ἦν⁠—was one of the fifteen heresies imputed to Origen, and denied by his apologist (Photius, Bibliotheca codex CXVII, p. 296). Some of the Rabbis attribute one and the same soul to the persons of Adam, David, and the Messiah. ↩
Apostolis adhuc in saeculo superstitibus, apud Judaeam Christi sanguine recente, Phantasma domini corpus asserebatur. Hieronymus, “Dialogus adversus Luciferianos,” c. 8. The epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, and even the Gospel according to St. John, are levelled against the growing error of the Docetes, who had obtained too much credit in the world (1 John 4:1⁠–⁠5). ↩
About the year 200 of the Christian era, Irenaeus and Hippolytus refuted the thirty-two sects, τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, which had multiplied to fourscore in the time of Epiphanius (Photius, Bibliotheca codex CXX, CXXI, CXXII). The five books of Irenaeus exist only in barbarous Latin; but the original might perhaps be found in some monastery of Greece. ↩
The pilgrim Cassian, who visited Egypt in the beginning of the fifth century, observes and laments the reign of anthropomorphism among the monks, who were not conscious that they embraced the system of Epicurus (Cicero, De natura Deorum I 18, 34). Ab universo propemodum genere monachorum, qui per totam provinciam Aegyptum morabantur, pro simplicitatis errore susceptum est, ut e contrario memoratum pontificem (Theophilus) velut haeresi gravissimâ depravatum, pars maxima seniorum ab universo fraternitatis corpore decerneret detestandum (Cassian, Collationes X 2). As long as St. Augustine remained a Manichaean, he was scandalized by the anthropomorphism of the vulgar Catholics. ↩
Ita est in oratione senex mente confusus, eo quod illam ἀνθρωπομορφον imaginem Deitatis, quam proponere sibi in oratione consueverat, aboleri de suo corde sentiret, ut in amarissimos fletus, crebrosque singultus repente prorumpens, in terram prostratus, cum ejulatu validissimo proclamaret; “Heu me miserum! tulerunt a me Deum meum, et quem nunc teneam non habeo, vel quem adorem, aut interpallam am nescio.” Cassian, Collationes X 2. ↩
St. John and Cerinthus (AD 80, Cleric. Historia ecclesiastica, p. 493) accidentally met in the public bath of Ephesus; but the apostle fled from the heretic, lest the building should tumble on their heads. This foolish story, reprobated by Dr. Middleton (Miscellaneous Works, vol. II), is related however by Irenaeus (III 3), on the evidence of Polycarp, and was probably suited to the time and residence of Cerinthus. The obsolete, yet probably the true, reading of 1 John 4:3⁠—ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰνσοῦν⁠—alludes to the double nature of that primitive heretic.9180 ↩
The Valentinians embraced a complex and almost incoherent system.
1. Both Christ and Jesus were aeons, though of different degrees; the one acting as the rational soul, the other as the divine spirit, of the Savior.
2. At the time of the passion, they both retired, and left only a sensitive soul and a human body.
3. Even that body was ethereal, and perhaps apparent.
Such are the laborious conclusions of Mosheim. But I much doubt whether the Latin translator understood Irenaeus, and whether Irenaeus and the Valetinians understood themselves. ↩
The heretics abused the passionate exclamation of “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Rousseau, who has drawn an eloquent but indecent parallel between Christ and Socrates, forgets that not a word of impatience or despair escaped from the mouth of the dying philosopher. In the Messiah such sentiments could be only apparent; and such ill-sounding words were properly explained as the application of a psalm and prophecy. ↩
This strong expression might be justified by the language of St. Paul (1 Timothy 3:16), but we are deceived by our modern Bibles. The word ὄ9181 (which) was altered to θεός (God) at Constantinople in the beginning of the sixth century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and Syriac versions, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek as well as of the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses of St. John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton. (See his two letters translated by M. de Missy, in the Journal Britannique, tom. XV, pp. 148⁠–⁠190, 351⁠–⁠390). I have weighed the arguments, and may yield to the authority of the first of philosophers, who was deeply skilled in critical and theological studies. ↩
For Apollinaris and his sect, see Socrates, l. II c. 46, l. III c. 16; Sozomen, l. V c. 18, l. VI c. 25, 27; Theodoret, l. V 3, 10, 11; Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. VII, pp. 602⁠–⁠638, Note, pp. 789⁠–⁠794, in quarto, Venise, 1732. The contemporary saint always mentions the bishop of Laodicea as a friend and brother. The style of the more recent historians is harsh and hostile; yet Philostorgius compares him (l. VIII c. 11⁠–⁠15) to Basil and Gregory. ↩
I appeal to the confession of two Oriental prelates, Gregory Abulpharagius the Jacobite primate of the East, and Elias the Nestorian metropolitan of Damascus (see Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 291, tom. III, p. 514, etc.), that the Melchites, Jacobites, Nestorians, etc., agree in the doctrine, and differ only in the expression. Our most learned and rational divines⁠—Basnage, Leclerc, Beausobre, La Croze, Mosheim, Jablonski⁠—are inclined to favor this charitable judgment; but the zeal of Petavius is loud and angry, and the moderation of Dupin is conveyed in a whisper. ↩
La Croze (Histoire du christianisme des Indes, tom. I, p. 24) avows his contempt for the genius and writings of Cyril. De tous les ouvrages des anciens, il y en a peu qu’on lise avec moins d’utilité; and Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. IV, pp. 42⁠–⁠52), in words of respect, teaches us to despise them. ↩
Of Isidore of Pelusium (l. I, “Epistola 25,” p. 8). As the letter is not of the most creditable sort, Tillemont, less sincere than the Bollandists, affects a doubt whether this Cyril is the nephew of Theophilus (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, p. 268). ↩
A grammarian is named by Socrates (l. VII c. 13) διάπυρος δὲ ἀκροατὴς τοὒ ἐπισκόπου Κυρίλλου καθεστὼς καὶ περὶ τὸ κρότους ἐν ταὶς διδασκαλίαις αὐτοῦ ἐγείρειν ἦν σπουδαιότατος. ↩
See the youth and promotion of Cyril, in Socrates (l. VII c. 7) and Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 106, 108). The Abbé Renaudot drew his materials from the Arabic history of Severus, bishop of Hermopolis Magna, or Ashmunein, in the tenth century, who can never be trusted, unless our assent is extorted by the internal evidence of facts. ↩
The Parabolani of Alexandria were a charitable corporation, instituted during the plague of Gallienus, to visit the sick and to bury the dead. They gradually enlarged, abused, and sold the privileges of their order. Their outrageous conduct during the reign of Cyril provoked the emperor to deprive the patriarch of their nomination, and to restrain their number to five or six hundred. But these restraints were transient and ineffectual. See the Theodosian Code, l. XVI tit. II, and Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, pp. 276⁠–⁠278. ↩
For Theon and his daughter Hypatia, see Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VIII, pp. 210, 211. Her article in the Lexicon of Suidas is curious and original. Hesychius (Meursii opera, tom. VII, pp. 295, 296) observes that she was persecuted διὰ τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν σοφίαν; and an epigram in the Greek Anthology (l. I c. 76, p. 159, edit. Brodaei) celebrates her knowledge and eloquence. She is honorably mentioned (Epistolae 10, 15 16, 33⁠–⁠80, 124, 135, 153) by her friend and disciple the philosophic bishop Synesius. ↩
Ὀστράκοις ἀνεῖλον καὶ μεληδὸν δεασπάσαντες, etc. Oyster shells were plentifully strewed on the sea-beach before the Caesareum. I may therefore prefer the literal sense, without rejecting the metaphorical version of tegulae, tiles, which is used by M. de Valois. I am ignorant, and the assassins were probably regardless, whether their victim was yet alive. [ἀνεῖλον means simply killed (by cutting her throat?), not scraped. —⁠B.] ↩
These exploits of St. Cyril are recorded by Socrates (l. VII c. 13⁠–⁠15); and the most reluctant bigotry is compelled to copy an historian who coolly styles the murderers of Hypatia ἄνδρες τὸ φρόνημα ἔνθερμοι. At the mention of that injured name, I am pleased to observe a blush even on the cheek of Baronius (“AD 415,” No. 48). ↩
He was deaf to the entreaties of Atticus of Constantinople, and of Isidore of Pelusium, and yielded only (if we may believe Nicephorus, l. XIV c. 18) to the personal intercession of the Virgin. Yet in his last years he still muttered that John Chrysostom had been justly condemned (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, pp. 278⁠–⁠282; Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 412,” No. 46⁠–⁠64). ↩
See their characters in the history of Socrates (l. VII c. 25⁠–⁠28); their power and pretensions, in the huge compilation of Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. I, pp. 80⁠–⁠91). ↩
His elevation and conduct are described by Socrates (l. VII c. 29, 31); and Marcellinus seems to have applied the eloquentiae satis, sapientiae parum, of Sallust. ↩
Codex Theodosianus, l. XVI tit. V leg. 65, with the illustrations of Baronius (“AD 428,” No. 25, etc.), Godefroy (ad loc.), and Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 208). ↩
Isidore of Pelusium (l. IV Epistulae 57). His words are strong and scandalous⁠—τί θαυμάζεις, εἰ καὶ νῦν περὶ πρᾶημα θεῖον καὶ λόγου κρεῖττον διαφωνεῖν προσποιοῦνται ὑπὸ φιλαπχίας ἐκβακχευόμενοι; Isidore is a saint, but he never became a bishop; and I half suspect that the pride of Diogenes trampled on the pride of Plato. ↩
La Croze (Histoire du christianisme des Indes, tom. I, pp. 44⁠–⁠53; Thesaurus epistolicus Crozianus, tom. III, pp. 276⁠–⁠280) has detected the use of ὀ δεσπότης and ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς, which, in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries discriminates the school of Diodorus of Tarsus and his Nestorian disciples. ↩
Θεοτόκος⁠—Deipara: as in zoology we familiarly speak of oviparous and viviparous animals. It is not easy to fix the invention of this word, which La Croze (Histoire du christianisme des Indes, tom. I, p. 16) ascribes to Eusebius of Caesarea and the Arians. The orthodox testimonies are produced by Cyril and Petavius (Dogmata theologica, tom. V l. V c. 15, p. 254, etc.); but the veracity of the saint is questionable, and the epithet of θεοτόκος so easily slides from the margin to the text of a Catholic MS. ↩
Basnage, in his Histoire de l’Eglise, a work of controversy (tom. I, p. 505), justifies the mother, by the blood, of God (Acts 20:28, with Mill’s various readings). But the Greek MSS. are far from unanimous; and the primitive style of the blood of Christ is preserved in the Syriac version, even in those copies which were used by the Christians of St. Thomas on the coast of Malabar (La Croze, Histoire du christianisme des Indes, tom. I, p. 347). The jealousy of the Nestorians and Monophysites has guarded the purity of their text. ↩
The Pagans of Egypt already laughed at the new Cybele of the Christians (Isidorus, l. I Epistulae 54): a letter was forged in the name of Hypatia, to ridicule the theology of her assassin (“Synodicon,” c. 216, in IV tom. Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta, p. 484). In the article of “Nestorius,” Bayle has scattered some loose philosophy on the worship of the Virgin Mary. ↩
The ἀντίδοσις of the Greeks, a mutual loan or transfer of the idioms or properties of each nature to the other⁠—of infinity to man, passibility to God, etc. Twelve rules on this nicest of subjects compose the Theological Grammar of Petavius (Dogmata theologica, tom. V l. IV c. 14, 15, p. 209, etc.). ↩
See du Cange, Constantanopolis Christiana, l. I, p. 30, etc. ↩
Sacrosancta concilia, tom. III, p. 943. They have never been directly approved by the church (Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, pp. 368⁠–⁠372). I almost pity the agony of rage and sophistry with which Petavius seems to be agitated in the sixth book of his Dogmata theologica. ↩
Such as the rational Basnage (ad tom. I Lectiones antiquae, Canisii in Praefatio c. 2, pp. 11⁠–⁠23) and La Croze, the universal scholar (Histoire du christianisme des Indes, tom. I, pp. 16⁠–⁠20; Histoire du christianisme d’Ethiopie et d’Arménie, pp. 26, 27; Thesaurus epistolicus, p. 176, etc., 283, 285). His free sentence is confirmed by that of his friends Paul Ernest Jablonski (Thesaurus epistolicus, tom. I, pp. 193⁠–⁠201) and Mosheim (idem, p. 304: Nestorium crimine caruisse est et mea sententia); and three more respectable judges will not easily be found. Asseman, a learned and modest slave, can hardly discern (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, pp. 190⁠–⁠224) the guilt and error of the Nestorians. ↩
The origin and progress of the Nestorian controversy, till the synod of Ephesus, may be found in Socrates (l. VII c. 32), Evagrius (l. I c. 1, 2), Liberatus (Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 1⁠–⁠4), the original Acts (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. III, pp. 551⁠–⁠991, edit. Venise, 1728), the Annals of Baronius and Pagi, and the faithful collections of Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, pp. 283⁠–⁠377). ↩
The Christians of the four first centuries were ignorant of the death and burial of Mary. The tradition of Ephesus is affirmed by the synod (ἔνθα ὁ θεολόγος Ἰωάννης, καὶ ἡ θεοτόκος παρθένος ἡ ἁγία Μαρία. Sacrosancta concilia, tom. III, p. 1102); yet it has been superseded by the claim of Jerusalem; and her empty sepulchre, as it was shown to the pilgrims, produced the fable of her resurrection and assumption, in which the Greek and Latin churches have piously acquiesced. See Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 48,” No. 6, etc.) and Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. I, pp. 467⁠–⁠477). ↩
The Acts of Chalcedon (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, pp. 1405, 1408) exhibit a lively picture of the blind, obstinate servitude of the bishops of Egypt to their patriarch. ↩
Civil or ecclesiastical business detained the bishops at Antioch till the 18th of May. Ephesus was at the distance of thirty days’ journey; and ten days more may be fairly allowed for accidents and repose. The march of Xenophon over the same ground enumerates above 260 parasangs or leagues; and this measure might be illustrated from ancient and modern itineraries, if I knew how to compare the speed of an army, a synod, and a caravan. John of Antioch is reluctantly acquitted by Tillemont himself (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, pp. 386⁠–⁠389). ↩
Μεμφόμενον μὴ κατὰ τὸ δέον τὰ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ συντεθῆναι ὑπομνήματα, πανουργίᾳ δὲ καὶ τινι ἀθέσμῳ καινοτομίᾳ Κυρίλλου τεχνάζοντος. Evagrius, l. I c. 7. The same imputation was urged by Count Irenaeus (tom. III, p. 1249); and the orthodox critics do not find it an easy task to defend the purity of the Greek or Latin copies of the Acts. ↩
Ὁ δὲ ἐπ’ ὀλέθρῳ τῶν έκκλησιῶν τεχθείς καὶ τραφεις. After the coalition of John and Cyril these invectives were mutually forgotten. The style of declamation must never be confounded with the genuine sense which respectable enemies entertain of each other’s merit (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. III, p. 1244). ↩
See the Acts of the Synod of Ephesus in the original Greek, and a Latin version almost contemporary (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. III, pp. 991⁠–⁠1339), with the “Synodicon adversus Tragoediam Irenaei” (tom. IV, pp. 235⁠–⁠497), the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates (l. VII c. 34) and Evagrius (l. I c. 3⁠–⁠5), and the “Breviary” of Liberatus (in Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VI, pp. 419⁠–⁠459, c. 5, 6), and the Mémoires ecclésiastiques of Tillemont (tom. XIV, pp. 377⁠–⁠487). ↩
Ταραχὴν (says the emperor in pointed language) τό γε ἐπὶ σαυτῷ καὶ χωρισμὸν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐμβέβληκας⁠ ⁠… ὡς θρασυτέρας ὁρμῆς πρεπούσης μᾶλλον ἢ ἀκριβείας⁠ ⁠… καὶ ποικιλίας μᾶλλον τοῦτων ἡμῖν ἀρκούσης ἤπερ ἁπ λότητος⁠ ⁠… παντὸς μᾶλλον ἢ ἰερέως⁠ ⁠… τά τε τῶν ἑκκλησιῶν, τά τε τῶν βασιλέων μέλλειν χωρίζειν βούλεσθαι, ὡς οὐκ οὐσῆς ἀφορμῆς ἐτέρας εὐδοκιμήσεως. I should be curious to know how much Nestorius paid for these expressions so mortifying to his rival. ↩
Eutyches, the heresiarch Eutyches, is honorably named by Cyril as a friend, a saint, and the strenuous defender of the faith. His brother, the abbot Dalmatus, is likewise employed to bind the emperor and all his chamberlains terribili conjuratione. “Synodicon,” c. 203, in Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, p. 467. ↩
Clerici qui hic sunt contristantur, quod ecclesia Alexandrina nudata sit hujus causâ turbelae: et debet praeter illa quae hinc transmissa sint auri libras mille quingentas. Et nunc ei scriptum est ut praestet; sed de tuâ ecclesiâ praesta avaritiae quorum nosti, etc. This curious and original letter, from Cyril’s archdeacon to his creature the new bishop of Constantinople, has been unaccountably preserved in an old Latin version (“Synodicon,” c. 203, Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, pp. 465⁠–⁠468). The mask is almost dropped, and the saints speak the honest language of interest and confederacy. ↩
The tedious negotiations that succeeded the synod of Ephesus are diffusely related in the original Acts (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. III, pp. 1339⁠–⁠1771, ad fin. vol. and the “Synodicon,” in tom. IV), Socrates (l. VII c. 28, 35, 40, 41), Evagrius (l. I c. 6⁠–⁠8, 12), Liberatus (c. 7⁠–⁠10), Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, pp. 487⁠–⁠676). The most patient reader will thank me for compressing so much nonsense and falsehood in a few lines. ↩
Αὐτοῦ τε αὖ δεηθέντος, ἐπετράπη κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐπαναζεῦξαι μοναστήριον. Evagrius, l. I c. 7. The original letters in the “Synodicon” (c. 15, 24⁠–⁠26) justify the appearance of a voluntary resignation, which is asserted by Ebed-Jesu, a Nestorian writer, apud Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, pp. 299, 302. ↩
See the Imperial letters in the Acts of the Synod of Ephesus (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. III, pp. 1730⁠–⁠1735). The odious name of Simonians, which was affixed to the disciples of this τερατώδους διδασκαλίας, was designed ὡς ἂν ὀνείδεσι προβληθέντες αἰώνιον ὑπομένοιεν τιμωρίαν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, καί μήτε ζῶντας τιμωρίας, μήτε θανόντας ἀτιμίας ἐκτὸς ὑπάρχειν. Yet these were Christians! who differed only in names and in shadows. ↩
The metaphor of islands is applied by the grave civilians (Pandectae, l. XLVIII tit. 22, leg. 7) to those happy spots which are discriminated by water and verdure from the Libyan sands. Three of these under the common name of Oasis, or Alvahat:
1. The temple of Jupiter Ammon.
2. The middle Oasis, three days’ journey to the west of Lycopolis.
3. The southern, where Nestorius was banished, in the first climate and only three days’ journey from the confines of Nubia.
See a learned note of Michaelis (ad Descriptio Aegypti Abulfedae, pp. 21⁠–⁠34).9182 ↩
The invitation of Nestorius to the Synod of Chalcedon is related by Zacharias, bishop of Melitene (Evagrius, l. II c. 2; Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 55), and the famous Xenaias or Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 40, etc.), denied by Evagrius and Asseman, and stoutly maintained by La Croze (Thesaurus epistolicus, tom. III, p. 181, etc.). The fact is not improbable; yet it was the interest of the Monophysites to spread the invidious report; and Eutychius (tom. II, p. 12) affirms that Nestorius died after an exile of seven years, and consequently ten years before the synod of Chalcedon. ↩
Consult d’Anville (Mémoires sur l’Egypte, p. 191), Pococke (Description of the East, vol. I, p. 76), Abulfeda (Descriptio Aegypti, p. 14), and his commentator Michaelis (Note, pp. 78⁠–⁠83), and the Nubian Geographer (p. 42), who mentions, in the twelth century, the ruins and the sugar-canes of Akmim. ↩
Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, p. 12) and Gregory Bar Hebraeus, or Abulpharagius (Assemani, tom. II, p. 316), represent the credulity of the tenth and twelth centuries. ↩
We are obliged to Evagrius (l. I c. 7) for some extracts from the letters of Nestorius; but the lively picture of his sufferings is treated with insult by the hard and stupid fanatic. ↩
Dixi Cyrillum dum viveret, auctoritate suâ effecisse, ne Eutychianismus et Monophysitarum error in nervum erumperet: idque verum puto⁠ ⁠… aliquo⁠ ⁠… honesto modo παλινωδίαν cecinerat. The learned but cautious Jablonski did not always speak the whole truth. Cum Cyrillo lenius omnino egi, quam si tecum aut cum aliis rei hujus probe gnaris et aequis rerum aestimatoribus sermones privatos conferrem (Thesaurus epistolicus Crozianus, tom. I, pp. 197, 198); an excellent key to his dissertations on the Nestorian controversy! ↩
Ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος εἶπεν, ἆρον, καῦσον Εὐσέβιον, οὖτος ζῶν καῇ, οὖτος εἰς δύο γένηται, ὡς έμέρισε μερισθῇ⁠ ⁠… εἴ τις λέγει δύο, ἀνάθεμα. At the request of Dioscorus, those who were not able to roar (βοῆσαι) stretched out their hands. At Chalcedon, the Orientals disclaimed these exclamations; but the Egyptians more consistently declared ταῦτα καὶ τότε εἴπομεν καὶ νῦν λέγομεν (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, p. 1012.) ↩
Ἔλεγε δὲ (Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum) τὸν Φλαβιανὸν καὶ δειλαίως ἀναιρεθῆναι πρὸς Δισκόρου ὠθούμενόν τε καὶ λακτιζόμενον; and this testimony of Evagrius (l. II c. 2) is amplified by the historian Zonaras (tom. II l. XIII, p. 44), who affirms that Dioscorus kicked like a wild ass. But the language of Liberatus (Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 12, in Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VI, p. 438) is more cautious; and the Acts of Chalcedon, which lavish the names of homicide, Cain, etc., do not justify so pointed a charge. The monk Barsumas is more particularly accused⁠—ἔσφαξε τὸν μακάριον Φλαυιανὸν, αὐτὸς ἔστηκε καὶ ἔλεγε, σφάξον (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, p. 1413). ↩
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, pp. 761⁠–⁠2071) comprehend those of Ephesus (pp. 890⁠–⁠1189), which again comprise the synod of Constantinople under Flavian (pp. 930⁠–⁠1072); and it requires some attention to disengage this double involution. The whole business of Eutyches, Flavian, and Dioscorus is related by Evagrius (l. I c. 9⁠–⁠12, and l. II c. 1⁠–⁠4), and Liberatus (Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 11⁠–⁠14). Once more, and almost for the last time, I appeal to the diligence of Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XV, pp. 479⁠–⁠719). The annals of Baronius and Pagi will accompany me much further on my long and laborious journey. ↩
Μάλιστα ἡ περιβόητος Πανσοφία ἡ καλουμένη Ὀρεινὴ (perhaps Εἰρήνη) περὶ ἦς καὶ ὁ πολυάνθρωπος τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων δῆμος ἀφῆκε φωνὴν αὐτῆς τε καὶ τοῦ ἐπαστοῦ μεμνημένος (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, p. 1276). A specimen of the wit and malice of the people is preserved in the Greek Anthology (l. II c. 5, p. 188, edit. Wechel), although the application was unknown to the editor Brodaeus. The nameless epigrammatist raises a tolerable pun, by confounding the episcopal salutation of “Peace be to all!” with the genuine or corrupted name of the bishop’s concubine:⁠—

Εἰρήνη πάντεσσιν, ἐπίσκοπος εἶπεν ἐπελθών,
Πῶς δὐναται πᾶσιν ἢν μόνος ἔνδον ἔχει;

I am ignorant whether the patriarch, who seems to have been a jealous lover, is the Cimon of a preceding epigram, whose πἐος ἑστηκός was viewed with envy and wonder by Priapus himself. ↩
Those who reverence the infallibility of synods may try to ascertain their sense. The leading bishops were attended by partial or careless scribes, who dispersed their copies round the world. Our Greek MSS. are sullied with the false and prescribed reading of ἐκ τῶνφύσεων (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. III, p. 1460); the authentic translation of Pope Leo I does not seem to have been executed; and the old Latin versions materially differ from the present Vulgate, which was revised (AD 550) by Rusticus, a Roman priest, from the best MSS. of the Ἀκοίμητος at Constantinople (du Cange, Constantanopolis Christiana, l. IV, p. 151), a famous monastery of Latins, Greeks, and Syrians. See Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, pp. 1959⁠–⁠2049, and Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 326, etc. ↩
It is darkly represented in the microscope of Petavius (tom. V l. III c. 5); yet the subtle theologian is himself afraid⁠—ne quis fortasse supervacaneam, et nimis anxiam putet hujusmodi vocularum inquisitionem, et ab instituti theologici gravitate alienam (p. 124). ↩
Ἐβόνσαν ἢ ὁ ὄρος κρατείτω ἢ ἀπερχόμεθα⁠ ⁠… οἰ ἀντιλέγοντες φανεποὶ γένωνται οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες Νεστοριανοί εἰσιν, οἰ ἀντιλέγοντες εἰς Ῥώμην ἀπέλθωσιν (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, p. 1449). Evagrius and Liberatus present only the placid face of the synod, and discreetly slide over these embers suppositos cineri doloso. ↩
See, in the Appendix to the Acts of Chalcedon, the confirmation of the synod by Marcian (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, pp. 1781, 1783); his letters to the monks of Alexandria (p. 1791), of Mount Sinai (p. 1793), of Jerusalem and Palestine (p. 1798); his laws against the Eutychians (pp. 1809, 1811, 1831); the correspondence of Leo with the provincial synods on the revolution of Alexandria (pp. 1835⁠–⁠1930). ↩
Photius (or rather Eulogius of Alexandria) confesses in a fine passage the specious color of this double charge against Pope Leo and his synod of Chalcedon (Bibliotheca codex CCXXV, p. 768). He waged a double war against the enemies of the church, and wounded either foe with the darts of his adversary⁠—καταλλήλοις βέλεσι τοῦς ἀντιπάλους ἐτίτρωσκε. Against Nestorius he seemed to introduce the σύγχυσις Monophysites; against Eutyches he appeared to countenance the ὑποστάσεων διαφορά of the Nestorians. The apologist claims a charitable interpretation for the saints; if the same had been extended to the heretics, the sound of the controversy would have been lost in the air. ↩
Αἰλουρός from his nocturnal expeditions. In darkness and disguise he crept round the cells of the monastery, and whispered the revelation to his slumbering brethren (Theodorus Lector, l. I). ↩
Φόνους τε τολμηθῆναι μυρίους, αἰμάτων πλήθει μολυνθῆναι μὴ μόνον τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἀέρα. Such is the hyperbolic language of the Henoticon. ↩
See the Chronicle of Victor Tunnunensis, in the Lectiones antiquae of Canisius, republished by Basnage, tom. I p. 326. ↩
The Henoticon is transcribed by Evagrius (l. III c. 13), and translated by Liberatus (Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 18). Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 411) and Asseman (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. I, p. 343) are satisfied that it is free from heresy; but Petavius (Dogmata theologica, tom. V l. I c. 13, p. 40) most unaccountably affirms Chalcedonensem ascivit. An adversary would prove that he had never read the Henoticon. ↩
See Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 123, 131, 145, 195, 247). They were reconciled by the care of Mark I (AD 799⁠–⁠819); he promoted their chiefs to the bishoprics of Athribis and Talba (perhaps Tava; see d’Anville, p. 82), and supplied the sacraments, which had failed for want of an episcopal ordination. ↩
De his quos baptizavit, quos ordinavit Acacius, majorum traditione confectam et veram, praecipue religiosae solicitudini congruam praebemus sine difficultate medicinam (Galacius, in “Epistola I” ad Euphemium, Sacrosancta concilia, tom. V, p. 286). The offer of a medicine proves the disease, and numbers must have perished before the arrival of the Roman physician. Tillemont himself (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XVI, pp. 372, 642, etc.) is shocked at the proud uncharitable temper of the popes; they are now glad, says he, to invoke St. Flavian of Antioch, St. Elias of Jerusalem, etc., to whom they refused communion whilst upon earth. But Cardinal Baronius is firm and hard as the rock of St. Peter. ↩
Their names were erased from the diptych of the church: ex venerabili diptycho, in quo piae memoriae transitum ad coelum habentium episcoporum vocabula continentur (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IV, p. 1846). This ecclesiastical record was therefore equivalent to the Book of Life. ↩
Petavius (Dogmata theologica, tom. V l. V c. 2⁠–⁠4, pp. 217⁠–⁠225) and Tillemont (Mémoires ecclésiastiques, tom. XIV, p. 713, etc., 799) represent the history and doctrine of the Trisagion. In the twelve centuries between Isaiah and St. Proclus’s boy, who was taken up into heaven before the bishop and people of Constantinople, the song was considerably improved. The boy heard the angels sing, “Holy God! Holy strong! Holy immortal!” ↩
Peter Gnapheus, the fuller (a trade which he had exercised in his monastery), patriarch of Antioch. His tedious story is discussed in the Annals of Pagi (AD 477⁠–⁠490) and a dissertation of M. de Valois at the end of his Evagrius. ↩
The troubles under the reign of Anastasius must be gathered from the Chronicles of Victor, Marcellinus, and Theophanes. As the last was not published in the time of Baronius, his critic Pagi is more copious, as well as more correct. ↩
The general history, from the council of Chalcedon to the death of Anastasius, may be found in the Breviary of Liberatus (c. 14⁠–⁠19), the second and third books of Evagrius, the abstract of the two books of Theodore the Reader, the Acts of the Synods, and the Epistles of the Pope (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. V). The series is continued with some disorder in the fifteenth and sixteenth tomes of the Mémoires ecclésiastiques of Tillemont. And here I must take leave forever of that incomparable guide⁠—whose bigotry is overbalanced by the merits of erudition, diligence, veracity, and scrupulous minuteness. He was prevented by death from completing, as he designed, the sixth century of the church and empire. ↩
The strain of the Anecdotes of Procopius (c. 11, 13, 18, 27, 28), with the learned remarks of Alemannus, is confirmed, rather than contradicted, by the Acts of the Councils, the fourth book of Evagrius, and the complaints of the African Facundus, in his twelth book⁠—Pro defensione trium capitulorum, “cum videri doctus appetit importune⁠ ⁠… spontaneis quaestionibus ecclesiam turbat.” See Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. III c. 35. ↩
Procopius, De aedificiis, l. I c. 6, 7, etc., passim. ↩
Ὂς δὴ κάθηται ἀφύλακτος ἐς ἀεὶ ἐπὶ λέσχης τινὸς ἀωρὶ νυκτῶν ὁμοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἱερέων ἔσχατον γέρουσιν ἀνα κυκλεῖν τὰ Χριστιανῶν λόγια σπουδῆν ἔχων. Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. III c. 32. In the Life of St. Eutychius (apud Alemannus ad Procopius, Historia arcana, c. 18) the same character is given with a design to praise Justinian. ↩
For these wise and moderate sentiments, Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. I c. 3) is scourged in the preface of Alemannus, who ranks him among the political Christians⁠—sed longe verius haeresium omnium sentinas, prorsusque Atheos⁠—abominable Atheists, who preached the imitation of God’s mercy to man (ad Historia arcana, c. 13). ↩
This alternative, a precious circumstance, is preserved by John Malalas (tom. II, p. 63, edit. Venetiis, 1733), who deserves more credit as he draws towards his end. After numbering the heretics, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc., ne expectent, says Justinian, ut digni veniâ judicentur: jubemus, enim ut⁠ ⁠… convicti et aperti haeretici justae et idoneae animadversioni subjiciantur. Baronius copies and applauds this edict of the Code (“AD 527,” No. 39, 40). ↩
See the character and principles of the Montanists, in Mosheim, De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, pp. 410⁠–⁠424. ↩
Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 153. John the Monophysite, bishop of Asia, is a more authentic witness of this transaction, in which he was himself employed by the emperor (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 85). ↩
Compare Procopius (Historia arcana, c. 28, and Aleman’s notes) with Theophanes (Chronographia, p. 190). The council of Nice has entrusted the patriarch, or rather the astronomers, of Alexandria with the annual proclamation of Easter; and we still read, or rather we do not read, many of the Paschal epistles of St. Cyril. Since the reign of Monophytism in Egypt, the Catholics were perplexed by such a foolish prejudice as that which so long opposed, among the Protestants, the reception of the Gregorian style. ↩
For the religion and history of the Samaritans, consult Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, a learned and impartial work. ↩
Sichem, Neapolis, Naplous, the ancient and modern seat of the Samaritans, is situate in a valley between the barren Ebal, the mountain of cursing to the north, and the fruitful Garizim, or mountain of cursing [blessing —B.] to the south, ten or eleven hours’ travel from Jerusalem. See Maundrell, A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem. ↩
Procopius, Anecdota, c. 11. Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 122. John Malalas, Chronographia, tom. II, p. 62. I remember an observation, half philosophical, half superstitious, that the province which had been ruined by the bigotry of Justinian was the same through which the Muhammadans penetrated into the empire. ↩
The expression of Procopius is remarkable: οὐ γἀρ οι ἐδόκει φόνος ἀνθρώπων εἶναι, ἢν γε μὴ τῆς αὐτοῦ δόξης οἰ τελευτῶντες τὐχοιεν ὄντες. Anecdota, c. 13. ↩
See the Chronicle of Victor, p. 328, and the original evidence of the laws of Justinian. During the first years of his reign, Baronius himself is in extreme good humor with the emperor, who courted the popes till he got them into his power. ↩
Procopius, Anecdota, c. 13. Evagrius, l. IV c. 10. If the ecclesiastical never read the secret historian, their common suspicion proves at least the general hatred. ↩
On the subject of the three chapters, the original acts of the fifth general council of Constantinople supply much useless, though authentic, knowledge (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VI, pp. 1⁠–⁠419). The Greek Evagrius is less copious and correct (l. IV c. 38) than the three zealous Africans, Facundus (in his twelve books, Pro defensione trium capitulorum, which are most correctly published by Sirmond), Liberatus (in his Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 22⁠–⁠24), and Victor Tunnunensis in his Chronicle (in tom. I Lectiones antiquae Canisii 330⁠–⁠334). The Liber pontificalis, or Anastasius (in “Vigilio,” “Pelagio,” etc.), is original Italian evidence. The modern reader will derive some information from Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. V, pp. 189⁠–⁠207) and Basnage (Histoire de l’Eglise, tom. I, pp. 519⁠–⁠541); yet the latter is too firmly resolved to depreciate the authority and character of the popes. ↩
Origen had indeed too great a propensity to imitate the πλάνη and δυσσέβεια of the old philosophers (Justinian, ad Mennam, in Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VI, p. 356). His moderate opinions were too repugnant to the zeal of the church, and he was found guilty of the heresy of treason. ↩
Basnage (Praefatio, pp. 11⁠–⁠14, ad tom. I Lectiones antiquae Canisii) has fairly weighed the guilt and innocence of Theodore of Mopsuestia. If he composed 10,000 volumes, as many errors would be a charitable allowance. In all the subsequent catalogues of heresiarchs, he alone, without his two brethren, is included; and it is the duty of Asseman (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, pp. 203⁠–⁠207) to justify the sentence. ↩
See the complaints of Liberatus and Victor, and the exhortations of Pope Pelagius to the conqueror and exarch of Italy. Schisma⁠ ⁠… per potestates publicas opprimatur, etc. (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VI, p. 467, etc.). An army was detained to suppress the sedition of an Illyrian city. See Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 25): ὦνπερ ἔνεκα σφίσιν αὐτοῖς οί Χριστιανοι διαμάχονται. He seems to promise an ecclesiastical history. It would have been curious and impartial. ↩
The bishops of the patriarchate of Aquileia were reconciled by Pope Honorius, AD 638 (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. V, p. 376); but they again relapsed, and the schism was not finally extinguished till 698. Fourteen years before, the church of Spain had overlooked the fifth general council with contemptuous silence (XIII Concilium Toletanum in Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, pp. 487⁠–⁠494). ↩
Nicetius, bishop of Treves (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VI, pp. 511⁠–⁠513). He himself, like most of the Gallican prelates (Gregorii, Epistulae, l. VII “Epistula 5” in Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VI, p. 1007), was separated from the communion of the four patriarchs by his refusal to condemn the three chapters. Baronius almost pronounces the damnation of Justinian (“AD 565,” No. 6). ↩
After relating the last heresy of Justinian (l. IV c. 39⁠–⁠41) and the edict of his successor (l. V c. 3), the remainder of the history of Evagrius is filled with civil, instead of ecclesiastical, events. ↩
This extraordinary and perhaps inconsistent doctrine of the Nestorians had been observed by La Croze (Histoire du christianisme des Indes, tom. I, pp. 19, 20), and is more fully exposed by Abulpharagius (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 292; Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 91, vers. Latin, Pococke) and Asseman himself (tom. IV, p. 218). They seem ignorant that they might allege the positive authority of the Ecthesis. Ὁ μιαρὸς Νεστόριος καίπερ διαιρῶν τὴν θείαν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐνανθρώπησιν, καὶ δύο είσάγων υἰούς (the common reproach of the Monophysites), δύο θελήματα τούτων εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἐτόλμησε, τοὐναντίον δὲ ταύτοβουλίαν τῶν⁠ ⁠… δύο προσώπων ἐδόξασε (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, p. 205). ↩
See the Orthodox faith in Petavius (Dogmata theologica, tom. V l. IX c. 6⁠–⁠10, pp. 433⁠–⁠447): all the depths of this controversy are sounded in the Greek dialogue between Maximus and Pyrrhus (ad calcem Baronius, tom. VIII Annales ecclesiastici, pp. 755⁠–⁠794), which relates a real conference, and produced as short-lived a conversion. ↩
Impiissimam ecthesim⁠ ⁠… scelerosum typum (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, p. 366), diabolicae operationis genimina (fors. germina, or else the Greek γενήματα, in the original; Sacrosancta concilia, pp. 363, 364) are the expressions of the eighteenth anathema. The epistle of Pope Martin to Amandus, Gallican bishop, stigmatizes the Monothelites and their heresy with equal virulence (p. 392). ↩
The sufferings of Martin and Maximus are described with simplicity in their original letters and acts (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, pp. 63⁠–⁠78; Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 656,” No. 2, et annos subsequent). Yet the chastisement of their disobedience, ἐξορία and σώματος αἰκισμός, had been previously announced in the Type of Constans (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, p. 240). ↩
Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, p. 368) most erroneously supposes that the 124 bishops of the Roman synod transported themselves to Constantinople; and by adding them to the 168 Greeks, thus composes the sixth council of 292 fathers. ↩
The Monothelite Constans was hated by all διἀ τοι ταῦτα (says Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 292) ἐμισήθη σφόδρῶς παρὰ πάντων. When the Monothelite monk failed in his miracle, the people shouted ὁ λαός ἀνεβόνησε (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, p. 1032). But this was a natural and transient emotion; and I much fear that the latter is an anticipation of orthodoxy in the good people of Constantinople. ↩
The history of Monothelitism may be found in the Acts of the Synods of Rome (tom. VII, pp. 77⁠–⁠395, 601⁠–⁠608) and Constantinople (pp. 609⁠–⁠1429). Baronius extracted some original documents from the Vatican library; and his chronology is rectified by the diligence of Pagi. Even Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. VI, pp. 57⁠–⁠71) and Basnage (Histoire de l’Eglise, tom. I, pp. 541⁠–⁠555) afford a tolerable abridgment. ↩
In the Lateran synod of 679, Wilfred, an Anglo-Saxon bishop, subscribed pro omni Aquilonari parte Britanniae et Hiberniae, quae ab Anglorum et Britonum, necnon Scotorum et Pictorum gentibus colebantur (Eddius, in Vita Sancti Wilfrithi, c. 31, apud Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. III, p. 88). Theodore (magnae insulae Britanniae archiepiscopus et philosophus) was long expected at Rome (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, p. 714), but he contented himself with holding (AD 680) his provincial synod of Hatfield, in which he received the decrees of Pope Martin and the first Lateran council against the Monothelites (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, p. 597, etc.). Theodore, a monk of Tarsus in Cilicia, had been named to the primacy of Britain by Pope Vitalian (AD 688; see Baronius and Pagi), whose esteem for his learning and piety was tainted by some distrust of his national character⁠—ne quid contrarium veritati fidei, Graecorum more, in ecclesiam cui praeesset introduceret. The Cilician was sent from Rome to Canterbury under the tuition of an African guide (Bedae, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, l. IV c. 1). He adhered to the Roman doctrine; and the same creed of the incarnation has been uniformly transmitted from Theodore to the modern primates, whose sound understanding is perhaps seldom engaged with that abstruse mystery. ↩
This name, unknown till the tenth century, appears to be of Syriac origin. It was invented by the Jacobites, and eagerly adopted by the Nestorians and Muhammadans; but it was accepted without shame by the Catholics, and is frequently used in the Annals of Eutychius (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 507, etc., tom. III, p. 355; Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 119). Ἡμεῖς δοῦλοι τοῦ βασιλέως, was the acclamation of the fathers of Constantinople (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, p. 765). ↩
The Syriac, which the natives revere as the primitive language, was divided into three dialects:
1. The Aramaean, as it was refined at Edessa and the cities of Mesopotamia.
2. The Palestine, which was used in Jerusalem, Damascus, and the rest of Syria.
3. The Nabathaean, the rustic idiom of the mountains of Assyria and the villages of Iraq (Gregory Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 11).
On the Syriac, sea Ebed-Jesu (Assemani, tom. III, p. 326, etc.), whose prejudice alone could prefer it to the Arabic. ↩
I shall not enrich my ignorance with the spoils of Simon, Walton, Mill, Wetstein, Assemani, Ludolphus, La Croze, whom I have consulted with some care. It appears:
1. That, of all the versions which are celebrated by the fathers, it is doubtful whether any are now extant in their pristine integrity.
2. That the Syriac has the best claim; and that the consent of the Oriental sects is a proof that it is more ancient than their schism.
↩
In the account of the Monophysites and Nestorians, I am deeply indebted to the Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-Vaticana of Joseph Simon Assemani. That learned Maronite was despatched in the year 1715 by Pope Clement XI to visit the monasteries of Egypt and Syria, in search of MSS. His four folio volumes, published at Rome 1719⁠–⁠1728, contain a part only, though perhaps the most valuable, of his extensive project. As a native and as a scholar, he possessed the Syriac literature; and though a dependent of Rome, he wishes to be moderate and candid. ↩
See the Arabic canons of Nice in the translation of Abraham Ecchelensis, No. 37⁠–⁠40. Sacrosancta concilia, tom. II, pp. 335, 336, edit. Venetiis. These vulgar titles, Nicene and Arabic, are both apocryphal. The council of Nice enacted no more than twenty canons (Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, l. I c. 8), and the remainder, seventy or eighty, were collected from the synods of the Greek church. The Syriac edition of Maruthas is no longer extant (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. I, p. 195, tom. III, p. 74), and the Arabic version is marked with many recent interpolations. Yet this code contains many curious relics of ecclesiastical discipline; and since it is equally revered by all the Eastern communions, it was probably finished before the schism of the Nestorians and Jacobites (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. XI, pp. 363⁠–⁠367). ↩
Theodore the Reader (l. II c. 5, 49, ad calcem Historia ecclesiastica) has noticed this Persian school of Edessa. Its ancient splendor, and the two eras of its downfall (AD 431 and 489) are clearly discussed by Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 402, III, pp. 376, 378, IV, pp. 70, 924). ↩
A dissertation on the state of the Nestorians has swelled in the hands of Assemani to a folio volume of 950 pages, and his learned researches are digested in the most lucid order. Besides this fourth volume of the Bibliotheca orientalis, the extracts in the three preceding tomes (tom. I, p. 203, II, pp. 321⁠–⁠463, III 64⁠–⁠70, 378⁠–⁠395, etc., 405⁠–⁠408, 580⁠–⁠589) may be usefully consulted. ↩
See the Topographia christiana of Cosmas, surnamed Indicopleustes, or the Indian navigator, l. III, pp. 178, 179, l. XI, p. 337. The entire work, of which some curious extracts may be found in Photius (codex XXXVI, pp. 9, 10, edit. Hoeschel), Thévenot (in the first part of his Relation de divers voyages, etc.), and Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, l. III c. 25, tom. II, pp. 603⁠–⁠617), has been published by Father Montfaucon at Paris, 1707, in the Collectio nova patrum et scriptorum Graecorum (tom. II, pp. 113⁠–⁠346). It was the design of the author to confute the impious heresy of those who maintained that the earth is a globe, and not a flat oblong table, as it is represented in the Scriptures (l. II, p. 138). But the nonsense of the monk is mingled with the practical knowledge of the traveller, who performed his voyage AD 522, and published his book at Alexandria, AD 547 (l. II, pp. 140, 141. Montfaucon, Praefatio c. 2). The Nestorianism of Cosmas, unknown to his learned editor, was detected by La Croze (Histoire du christianisme des Indes, tom. I, pp. 40⁠–⁠55), and is confirmed by Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, pp. 605, 606). ↩
In its long progress to Mosul, Jerusalem, Rome, etc., the story of Prester John evaporated in a monstrous fable, of which some features have been borrowed from the Lama of Tibet (Histoire généalogique des Tatars, partie II, p. 42; Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, p. 31, etc.), and were ignorantly transferred by the Portuguese to the emperor of Abyssinia (Ludolphus, Historia et commentarius Aethiopica, l. II c. 1). Yet it is probable that in the eleventh and twelth centuries Nestorian Christianity was professed in the horde of the Keraites (d’Herbelot, pp. 256, 915, 959; Assemani, tom. IV, pp. 468⁠–⁠504).9183 ↩
The Christianity of China, between the seventh and the thirteenth century, is invincibly proved by the consent of Chinese, Arabian, Syriac, and Latin evidence (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, pp. 502⁠–⁠552; Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXX, pp. 802⁠–⁠819). The inscription of Siganfu, which describes the fortunes of the Nestorian church, from the first mission, AD 636, to the current year 781, is accused of forgery by La Croze, Voltaire, etc., who become the dupes of their own cunning, while they are afraid of a Jesuitical fraud.9184 ↩
Jacobitae et Nestorianae plures quam Graeci et Latini. Jacobitae Vitriaco, Historia Hierosolymitana, l. II c. 76, p. 1093, in the Gesta Dei per Francos. The numbers are given by Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. I, p. 172. ↩
The division of the patriarchate may be traced in the Bibliotheca orientalis of Assemani, tom. I, pp. 523⁠–⁠549, tom. II, p. 457, etc.; tom. III, pp. 603, 621⁠–⁠623; tom. IV, pp. 164⁠–⁠169, 423, 622⁠–⁠629, etc. ↩
The pompous language of Rome, on the submission of a Nestorian patriarch, is elegantly represented in the seventh book of Fra Paola: Babylon, Nineveh, Arbela, and the trophies of Alexander, Tauris and Ecbatana, the Tigris and Indus. ↩
The Indian missionary St. Thomas, an apostle, a Manichaean, or an Armenian merchant (La Croze, Histoire du christianisme des Indes, tom. I, pp. 57⁠–⁠70), was famous, however, as early as the time of Jerome (ad Marcellam, “Epistola 148”). Marco-Polo was informed on the spot that he suffered martyrdom in the city of Malabar, or Meliapour, a league only from Madras (d’Anville, Éclaircissemens géographiques sur l’Inde, p. 125), where the Portuguese founded an episcopal church under the name of St. Thomé, and where the saint performed an annual miracle, till he was silenced by the profane neighborhood of the English (La Croze, tom. II, pp. 7⁠–⁠16). ↩
Neither the author of the Saxon Chronicle (AD 833) not William of Malmesbury (De gestis regum Anglorum, l. II c. 4, p. 44) were capable, in the twelfth century, of inventing this extraordinary fact; they are incapable of explaining the motives and measures of Alfred; and their hasty notice serves only to provoke our curiosity. William of Malmesbury feels the difficulty of the enterprise, quod quivis in hoc saeculo miretur; and I almost suspect that the English ambassadors collected their cargo and legend in Egypt. The royal author has not enriched his Orosius (see Daines Barrington’s Miscellanies on Various Subjects) with an Indian, as well as a Scandinavian, voyage. ↩
Concerning the Christians of St. Thomas, see Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, pp. 391⁠–⁠407, 435⁠–⁠451; Geddes’s The History of the Church of Malabar; and, above all, La Croze, Histoire du christianisme des Indes, in two vols. duodecimo, La Haye, 1758, a learned and agreeable work. They have drawn from the same source, the Portuguese and Italian narratives; and the prejudices of the Jesuits are sufficiently corrected by those of the Protestants.9185 ↩
Οἶον εἰπεῖν ψευδαλήθης is the expression of Theodore in his Treatise of the Incarnation, pp. 245, 247, as he is quoted by La Croze (Histoire du christianisme d’Ethiopie et d’Arménie, p. 35), who exclaims, perhaps too hastily, “Quel pitoyable raisonnement!” Renaudot has touched (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 127⁠–⁠138) the Oriental accounts of Severus; and his authentic creed may be found in the epistle of John the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch, in the tenth century, to his brother Mannas of Alexandria (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, pp. 132⁠–⁠141). ↩
“Epistle Archimandritarum et Monachorum Syriae Secundae ad Papam Hormisdam,” Sacrosancta concilia, tom. V, pp. 598⁠–⁠602. The courage of St. Sabas, ut leo animosus, will justify the suspicion that the arms of these monks were not always spiritual or defensive (Baronius, “AD 513,” No. 7, etc.). ↩
Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, pp. 10⁠–⁠46) and La Croze (Histoire du christianisme d’Ethiopie et d’Arménie, pp. 36⁠–⁠40) will supply the history of Xenaias, or Philoxenus, bishop of Mabug, or Hierapolis, in Syria. He was a perfect master of the Syriac language, and the author or editor of a version of the New Testament. ↩
The names and titles of fifty-four bishops who were exiled by Justin are preserved in the Chronicle of Dionysius (apud Assemani, tom. II, p. 54). Severus was personally summoned to Constantinople⁠—for his trial, says Liberatus (Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 19)⁠—that his tongue might be cut out, says Evagrius (l. IV c. IV). The prudent patriarch did not stay to examine the difference. This ecclesiastical revolution is fixed by Pagi to the month of September of the year 518 (Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 506). ↩
The obscure history of James or Jacobus Baradaeus, or Zanzalust, may be gathered from Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, pp. 144, 147), Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 133), and Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. I, p. 424, tom. II, pp. 62⁠–⁠69, 324⁠–⁠332, 414, tom. III, pp. 385⁠–⁠388). He seems to be unknown to the Greeks. The Jacobites themselves had rather deduce their name and pedigree from St. James the apostle. ↩
The account of his person and writings is perhaps the most curious article in the Bibliotheca of Assemani (tom. II, pp. 244⁠–⁠321, under the name of “Gregorius Bar Hebraeus”). La Croze (Histoire du christianisme d’Ethiopie et d’Arménie, pp. 53⁠–⁠63) ridicules the prejudice of the Spaniards against the Jewish blood which secretly defiles their church and state. ↩
This excessive abstinence is censured by La Croze (p. 352), and even by the Syrian Assemani (tom. I, p. 226, tom. II, pp. 304, 305). ↩
The state of the Monophysites is excellently illustrated in a dissertation at the beginning of the second volume of Assemani, which contains 142 pages. The Syriac Chronicle of Gregory Bar Hebraeus, or Abulpharagius (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, pp. 321⁠–⁠463), pursues the double series of the Nestorian Catholics and the Maphrians of the Jacobites. ↩
The synonymous use of the two words may be proved from Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, pp. 191, 267, 332), and many similar passages which may be found in the methodical table of Pococke. He was not actuated by any prejudice against the Maronites of the tenth century; and we may believe a Melchite, whose testimony is confirmed by the Jacobites and Latins. ↩
Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, p. 780. The Monothelite cause was supported with firmness and subtlety by Constantine, a Syrian priest of Apamea (p. 1040, etc.). ↩
Theophanes (Chronographia, pp. 295, 296, 300, 302, 306) and Cedrenus (pp. 437, 440) relates the exploits of the Mardaites: the name (Mard, in Syriac rebellavit) is explained by Jean de la Roque (Voyage de Syrie et du Mont-Liban, tom. II, p. 53), the dates are fixed by Pagi (“AD 676,” No. 4⁠–⁠14, “AD 685,” No. 3, 4), and even the obscure story of the patriarch John Maron (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. I, pp. 496⁠–⁠520) illustrates, from the year 686 to 707, the troubles of Mount Libanus.9186 ↩
In the last century twenty large cedars still remained (Voyage de la Roque, tom. I, pp. 68⁠–⁠76); at present they are reduced to four or five (Volney, tom. I, p. 264).9187 These trees, so famous in Scripture, were guarded by excommunication; the wood was sparingly borrowed for small crosses, etc.; an annual mass was chanted under their shade; and they were endowed by the Syrians with a sensitive power of erecting their branches to repel the snow, to which Mount Libanus is less faithful than it is painted by Tacitus: inter ardores opacum fidumque nivibus⁠—a daring metaphor (Historiae V 6). ↩
The evidence of William of Tyre (Historia in Gesta Dei per Francos, l. XXII c. 8, p. 1022) is copied or confirmed by Jacques de Vitry (Historia Hierosolymitana, l. II c. 77, pp. 1093, 1094). But this unnatural league expired with the power of the Franks; and Abulpharagius (who died in 1286) considers the Maronites as a sect of Monothelites (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 292). ↩
I find a description and history of the Maronites in the Voyage de Syrie et du Mont-Liban par la Roque (two vols. in duodecimo, Amsterdam, 1723; particularly tom. I, pp. 42⁠–⁠47, 174⁠–⁠184, tom. II, pp. 10⁠–⁠120). In the ancient part, he copies the prejudices of Nairon and the other Maronites of Rome, which Assemani is afraid to renounce and ashamed to support. Jablonski (Institutiones historiae Christianae antiquioris, tom. III, p. 186), Niebuhr (Voyage en Arabie, etc., tom. II, pp. 346, 370⁠–⁠381), and, above all, the judicious Constantin François de Chasseboeuf, comte de Volney (Voyage en Syrie et en Égypte, tom. II, pp. 8⁠–⁠31, Paris, 1787), may be consulted. ↩
The religion of the Armenians is briefly described by La Croze (Histoire du christianisme d’Ethiopie et d’Arménie, pp. 269⁠–⁠402). He refers to the great Armenian History of Galanus (three vols. in folio, Rome, 1650⁠–⁠1661), and commends the state of Armenia in the third volume of the Nouveaux mémoires des missions de la Compagnie de Jesus, dans le Levant. The work of a Jesuit must have sterling merit when it is praised by La Croze. ↩
See here in chapter XX. —⁠M. ↩
The schism of the Armenians is placed 84 years after the council of Chalcedon (Pagi, Critica Baronii, ad “AD 535”). It was consummated at the end of seventeen years; and it is from the year of Christ 552 that we date the era of the Armenians (L’Art de vérifier les dates, p. xxxv). ↩
The sentiments and success of Julian of Halicarnassus may be seen in Liberatus (Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 19), Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 132, 303), and Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, “Dissertatio de Monophysitis,” l. VIII, p. 286). ↩
See a remarkable fact of the twelth century in the History of Nicetas Choniates (p. 258). Yet three hundred years before, Photius (Epistolae II, p. 49, edit. Montacutium) had gloried in the conversion of the Armenians⁠—λατρεύει σήμερον ὁρθοδόξως. ↩
The travelling Armenians are in the way of every traveller, and their mother church is on the high road between Constantinople and Ispahan; for their present state, see Fabricius (Lux evangelii, etc., c. XXXVIII, pp. 40⁠–⁠51), Olearius (l. IV c. 40), Chardin (vol. II, p. 232), Tournefort (lettre XX), and, above all, Tavernier (tom. I, pp. 28⁠–⁠37, 510⁠–⁠518), that rambling jeweller, who had read nothing, but had seen so much and so well. ↩
The history of the Alexandrian patriarchs, from Dioscorus to Benjamin, is taken from Renaudot (pp. 114⁠–⁠164), and the second tome of the Annals of Eutychius. ↩
Liberatus, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum, c. 20, 23. Victor Tunnunensis, Chronicon, pp. 329, 330. Procopius, Anecdota, c. 26, 27. ↩
Eulogius, who had been a monk of Antioch, was more conspicuous for subtlety than eloquence. He proves that the enemies of the faith, the Gaianites and Theodosians, ought not to be reconciled; that the same proposition may be orthodox in the mouth of St. Cyril, heretical in that of Severus; that the opposite assertions of St. Leo are equally true, etc. His writings are no longer extant, except in the extracts of Photius, who had perused them with care and satisfaction, codex CCVIII, CCXXV, CCXXVI, CCXXVII, CCXXX, CCLXXX. ↩
See the Life of John the Eleemosynary by his contemporary Leontius, bishop of Neapolis in Cyrus, whose Greek text, either lost or hidden, is reflected in the Latin version of Baronius (“AD 610,” No. 9, “AD 620,” No. 8). Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 763) and Fabricius (l. V c. 11, tom. VII, p. 454) have made some critical observations. ↩
This number is taken from the curious Recherches sur les Chinois et les Egyptiens (tom. II, pp. 192, 193), and appears more probable than the 600,000 ancient, or 15,000 modern, Copts of Gemelli Carreri. Cyril Lucar, the Protestant patriarch of Constantinople, laments that those heretics were ten times more numerous than his orthodox Greeks, ingeniously applying the πολλαί κεν δεκάδες δευοίατο οἰνοχόοιο of Homer (Iliad II 128), the most perfect expression of contempt (Fabricius, Lux evangelii 740). ↩
The history of the Copts, their religion, manners, etc., may be found in the Abbé Renaudot’s motley work, neither a translation nor an original; the Chronicon Orientale of Peter, a Jacobite; in the two versions of Abraham Ecchellensis, Paris, 1651; and John Simon Asseman, Venetiis, 1729. These annals descend no lower than the thirteenth century. The more recent accounts must be searched for in the travellers into Egypt, and the Nouveaux mémoires des missions de la Compagnie de Jesus, dans le Levant. In the last century, Joseph Abudacnus, a native of Cairo, published at Oxford, in thirty pages, a slight Historia Jacobitarum, 147, post 150. ↩
About the year 737. See Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 221, 222; Elmacin, Historia saracenica, p. 99. ↩
Ludolphus, Historia aethiopica et Commentarius, l. I c. 8. Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 480, etc. This opinion, introduced into Egypt and Europe by the artifice of the Copts, the pride of the Abyssinians, the fear and ignorance of the Turks and Arabs, has not even the semblance of truth. The rains of Aethiopia do not, in the increase of the Nile, consult the will of the monarch. If the river approaches at Napata within three days’ journey of the Red Sea (see d’Anville’s maps), a canal that should divert its course would demand, and most probably surpass, the power of the Caesars. ↩
The Abyssinians, who still preserve the features and olive complexion of the Arabs, afford a proof that two thousand years are not sufficient to change the color of the human race. The Nubians, an African race, are pure Negroes, as black as those of Senegal or Congo, with flat noses, thick lips, and woolly hair (Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. V, pp. 117, 143, 144, 166, 219, edit. in duodecimo, Paris, 1769). The ancients beheld, without much attention, the extraordinary phenomenon which has exercised the philosophers and theologians of modern times. ↩
Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. I, p. 329. ↩
The Christianity of the Nubians (AD 1153) is attested by the sherif al Edrisi, falsely described under the name of the Nubian geographer (p. 18), who represents them as a nation of Jacobites. The rays of historical light that twinkle in the history of Ranaudot (pp. 178, 220⁠–⁠224, 281⁠–⁠286, 405, 434, 451, 464) are all previous to this era. See the modern state in the Lettres édifiantes et curieuses de Chine (Recueil, IV) and Busching (tom. IX, pp. 152⁠–⁠139, par Bérenger). ↩
The abuna is improperly dignified by the Latins with the title of patriarch. The Abyssinians acknowledge only the four patriarchs, and their chief is no more than a metropolitan or national primate (Ludolphus, Historia aethiopica et Commentarius, l. III c. 7). The seven bishops of Renaudot (p. 511), who existed AD 1131, are unknown to the historian. ↩
I know not why Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 384) should call in question these probable missions of Theodora into Nubia and Aethiopia. The slight notices of Abyssinia till the year 1500 are supplied by Renaudot (pp. 336⁠–⁠341, 381, 382, 405, 443, etc., 452, 456, 463, 475, 480, 511, 525, 559⁠–⁠564) from the Coptic writers. The mind of Ludolphus was a perfect blank. ↩
Ludolphus, Historia aethiopica, l. IV c. 5. The most necessary arts are now exercised by the Jews, and the foreign trade is in the hands of the Armenians. What Gregory principally admired and envied was the industry of Europe⁠—artes et opificia. ↩
John de Bermúdez, whose relation, printed at Lisbon, 1569, was translated into English by Purchas (Purchas His Pilgrimage, l. VII c. 7, p. 1149, etc.), and from thence into French by La Croze (Histoire du christianisme d’Ethiopie et d’Arménie, pp. 92⁠–⁠265). The piece is curious; but the author may be suspected of deceiving Abyssinia, Rome, and Portugal. His title to the rank of patriarch is dark and doubtful (Ludolphus, Commentarius, No. 101, p. 473). ↩
Religio Romana⁠ ⁠… nec precibus patrum nec miraculis ab ipsis editis suffulciebatur, is the uncontradicted assurance of the devout emperor Susneus to his patriarch Mendez (Ludolphus, Commentarius, No. 126, p. 529); and such assurances should be preciously kept, as an antidote against any marvellous legends. ↩
I am aware how tender is the question of circumcision. Yet I will affirm:
1. That the Aethiopians have a physical reason for the circumcision of males, and even of females (Recherches philosophiques sur les Américains, tom. II).
2. That it was practiced in Aethiopia long before the introduction of Judaism or Christianity (Herodotus, l. II c. 104; Marsham, Canon chronicus, pp. 72, 73). “Infantes circumcidunt ob consuetudinemn, non ob Judaismum,” says Gregory the Abyssinian priest (apud Fabricius, Lux evangelii, p. 720).
Yet in the heat of dispute, the Portuguese were sometimes branded with the name of uncircumcised (La Croze, p. 80; Ludolphus, Historia aethiopica et Commentarius, l. III c. 1). ↩
The three Protestant historians, Ludolphus (Historia aethiopica, Francofurti ad Maenum, 1681; Commentarius, 1691; Relatio Nova, etc., 1693, in folio), Geddes (Church History of Aethiopia, London, 1696, in octavo), and La Croze (Histoire du christianisme d’Ethiopie et d’Arménie, La Haye, 1739, in duodecimo), have drawn their principal materials from the Jesuits, especially from the General History of Baltazar Tellez, published in Portuguese at Coimbra, 1660. We might be surprised at their frankness; but their most flagitious vice, the spirit of persecution, was in their eyes the most meritorious virtue. Ludolphus possessed some, though a slight, advantage from the Aethiopic language, and the personal conversation of Gregory, a free-spirited Abyssinian priest, whom he invited from Rome to the court of Saxe-Gotha. See the “Theologia Aethiopica” of Gregory, in Fabricius, Lux evangelii, pp. 716⁠–⁠734.9188 ↩
The baptismal name of this emperor was Heraclius; he was renamed Constantine at his coronation⁠—perhaps because his step-uncle Heraclius had brought discredit on the name. He is Constantine on his coins, and is so called by Nicephorus; but Theophanes calls him Constans, and he is always known as Constans II. We must infer that Constantine was his official name, but that he was popularly called Constans in a hypocoristic sense (cp. Heraclius: Heraclonas). —⁠B. ↩
His soldiers (according to Abulpharagius, Chronicon Syriacum, p. 112) called him another Cain. Saint-Martin, tom. XI, p. 379. —⁠M. ↩
He was received in Rome, and pillaged the churches. He carried off the brass roof of the Pantheon to Syracuse, or, as Schlosser conceives, to Constantinople. Schlosser, Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser, p. 80. —⁠M. ↩
Schlosser (Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser, p. 90) supposes that the young princes were mutilated after the first insurrection; that after this the acts were still inscribed with their names, the princes being closely secluded in the palace. The improbability of this circumstance may be weighed against Gibbon’s want of authority for his statement. —⁠M. ↩
Of fear rather than of more generous motives. Compare Le Beau, vol. XII, p. 64. —⁠M. ↩
Psalm 91:13; according to reading of the Septuagint, Lion (λέοντα) alludes to Leontius, ἀσπίδα to Apsimar; while βασιλίσκον suggests a petty βασιλεύς. —⁠B. ↩
The authority is Theophanes, who calls him “the Isaurian,” but makes the strange statement that he came from Germanicia τῇ ἀληθείᾳ δὲ ἐκ τῆς Ἰσαυρίας, “but really from Isauria,” which Anastasius, in his Latin translation, corrects into genere Syrus. It is clear that there is a mistake here, as Karl Schenk has shown (Byzantinische Zeitschrift V, p. 296⁠–⁠298, 1896); as Leo’s family belonged to Germanicia he was a Syrian of Commagene, not an Isaurian; and in the “Συναγωγὴ χρόνων” (in de Boor’s edition of Nicephorus, p. 225) he is called ὁ Σύρος. Schenk thinks that Theophanes confounded Germanicia with Germanicopolis in Isauria (West Cilicia); but the position of Germanicia in “Syria” was well known to Theophanes (cp. p. 422, 445, 451). Possibly Theophanes wrote ἐκ τῆς Συρίας, and Anastasius translated the genuine reading. There is nothing improbable in an accidental corruption of τῆς Συρίας to τῆς Ἰσαυρίας (and ὁ’ Ἰσαυρος two lines before would follow). This explanation is supported by the fact that in another passage (which Schenk omits to notice) Theophanes does call Leo “the Syrian” (p. 412, 2). —⁠B. ↩
During the latter part of his reign, the hostilities of the Saracens, who invested a Pergamenian, named Tiberius, with the purple, and proclaimed him as the son of Justinian, and an earthquake which destroyed the walls of Constantinople, compelled Leo greatly to increase the burdens of taxation upon his subjects. A twelfth was exacted in addition to every aureus (νόμισμα) as a wall tax. Theophanes, p. 275. Schlosser, Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser, p. 197. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon has omitted to mention that, on the death of Leo III, Artavasdus, who had married his daughter Anna, seized the throne, defeated Constantine, was proclaimed emperor, and associated with him in the empire his eldest son Nicephorus. But in 743 Constantinople was taken by the troops of Constantine, and both Artavasdus and his sons were put to death. There are coins extant both of Artavasdus and Nicephorus (Ekhel, vol. VIII, p. 233). —⁠S. ↩
He is accused of burning the library of Constantinople, founded by Julian, with its president and twelve professors. This eastern Sorbonne had discomfited the Imperial theologians on the great question of image worship. Schlosser observes that this accidental fire took place six years after the emperor had laid the question of image worship before the professors. Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser, p. 264. Compare Le Beau, vol. XII, p. 156. —⁠M. ↩
Schlosser thinks more highly of Leo’s mind; but his only proof of his superiority is the successes of his generals against the Saracens. Schlosser, p. 256. —⁠M. ↩
The second offence was on the accession of the young Constantine. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon has been attacked on account of this statement, but is successfully defended by Schlosser, Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser, p. 327. Compare Le Beau, vol. XII, p. 372. —⁠M. ↩
The Syrian historian Aboulfaradj, Chronicon Syriacum, pp. 133, 139, speaks of him as a brave, prudent, and pious prince, formidable to the Arabs. Saint-Martin, c. XII, p. 402. Compare Schlosser, p. 350. —⁠M. ↩
In a campaign against the Saracens he betrayed both imbecility and cowardice. Genesius, c. IV, p. 94. —⁠M. ↩
Finlay (vol. I, p. 300) controverts this statement, and shows that Thecla, the sister of the emperor Michael, was the concubine of Basil. —⁠S. ↩
Three years and five months. Leo Diaconus in Niebuhr, Byzantine Historians, p. 30. —⁠M. ↩
The canonical objection to the marriage was his relation of godfather to her sons. Leo Diaconus, p. 50. —⁠M. ↩
He retook Antioch, and brought home as a trophy the sword of “the most unholy and impious Mahomet.” Leo Diaconus, p. 76. —⁠M. ↩
According to Leo Diaconus, Zimisces, after ordering the wounded emperor to be dragged to his feet, and heaping him with insult, to which the miserable man only replied by invoking the name of the “mother of God,” with his own hand plucked his beard, while his accomplices beat out his teeth with the hilts of their swords, and then trampling him to the ground, drove his sword into his skull. Leo Diaconus, in Niebuhr, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, l. VII c. 8, p. 88. —⁠M. ↩
This is a mistake; it was the chamberlain Basil, the son of a Scythian woman, and not her own son, whom Theophano assaulted upon hearing her sentence (Leo Diaconus, p. 99; Cedrenus, p. 664). Moreover, there is nothing in the authorities about her proclaiming the illegitimacy of her son, nor indeed any reason to suppose he was present, from the accounts of Leo Diaconus, Cedrenus, and Zonoras. Finlay, p. 398. —⁠S. ↩
Once by the caliph, once by his rival Phocas. Compare Le Beau, l. XIV, p. 176. —⁠M. ↩
Monomachus was a hereditary name in the family of Constantine, and therefore had no reference to the qualities of the individual. Finlay, vol. I, p. 500. —⁠S. ↩
Fallmerayer (Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt, pp. 29, 33) has highly drawn the character of Andronicus. In his view the extermination of the Byzantine factions and dissolute nobility was part of a deep-laid and splendid plan for the regeneration of the empire. It was necessary for the wise and benevolent schemes of the father of his people to lop off those limbs which were infected with irremediable pestilence⁠—

“and with necessity,
The tyrant’s plea, excused his devilish deeds!!”

Still the fall of Andronicus was a fatal blow to the Byzantine empire. —⁠M. ↩
According to Nicetas (p. 444), Andronicus despised the imbecile Isaac too much to fear him; he was arrested by the officious zeal of Stephen, the instrument of the Emperor’s cruelties. —⁠M. ↩
The learned Selden has given the history of transubstantiation in a comprehensive and pithy sentence: “This opinion is only rhetoric turned into logic” (his Works, vol. III, p. 2073, in his “Table-Talk.”) ↩
Nec intelligunt homines ineptissimi, quod si sentire simulacra et moveri possent, adoratura hominem fuissent a quo sunt expolita (Institutiones divinae, l. II c. 2). Lactantius is the last, as well as the most eloquent, of the Latin apologists. Their raillery of idols attacks not only the object, but the form and matter. ↩
See Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Augustine (Basnage, Histoire de la religion des Églises réformées, tom. II, p. 1313). This Gnostic practice has a singular affinity with the private worship of Alexander Severus (Lampridius, c. 29; Lardner, Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. III, p. 34). ↩
See here in chapter XX, here in chapter XXIII, and here in chapter XXVIII. ↩
Οὐ γὰρ τὸ Θεὶον ἁπλοὺν ὑπάρχον καὶ ἄληπτον μορφαῖς τισι καὶ σχήμασιν ἀπεικάζομεν, οὔτε κηρῷ καὶ ξύλοις τὴν ὑπερούσιον καὶ προάναρχον οὐσίαν τιμᾶν ἡμεῖς διεγνώκαμεν (“Concilium Nicenum” II in Sacrosancta concilia, Labbe, tom. VIII, p. 1025, edit. Venetiis). Il seroit peut-être àpropos de ne point souffrir d’images de la Trinité ou de la Divinité; les défenseurs les plus zélés des images ayant condamné celles-ci, et le concile de Trente ne parlant que des images de Jésus Christ et des Saints (Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. VI, p. 154). ↩
This general history of images is drawn from the twenty-second book of the Histoire de la religion des Églises réformées of Basnage, tom. II, pp. 1310⁠–⁠1337. He was a Protestant, but of a manly spirit; and on this head the Protestants are so notoriously in the right that they can venture to be impartial. See the perplexity of poor Friar Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. I, p. 42. ↩
After removing some rubbish of miracle and inconsistency, it may be allowed that, as late as the year 300, Paneas in Palestine was decorated with a bronze statue, representing a grave personage wrapped in a cloak, with a grateful or suppliant female kneeling before him, and that an inscription⁠—τῷ Σωτῆρι, τῷ εὐεργέτῃ⁠—was perhaps inscribed on the pedestal. By the Christians, this group was foolishly explained of their founder, and the poor woman whom he had cured of the bloody flux (Eusebius VII 18, Philostorgius VII 3, etc.). M. de Beausobre more reasonably conjectures the philosopher Apollonius, or the emperor Vespasian: in the latter supposition, the female is a city, a province, or perhaps the queen Berenice (Bibliothèque Germanique, tom. XIII, pp. 1⁠–⁠92). ↩
Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. I c. 13. The learned Assemani has brought up the collateral aid of three Syrians, St. Ephrem, Josua Stylites, and James bishop of Sarug; but I do not find any notice of the Syriac original or the archives of Edessa (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. I, pp. 318, 420, 554); their vague belief is probably derived from the Greeks. ↩
The evidence for these epistles is stated and rejected by the candid Lardner (Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. I, pp. 297⁠–⁠309). Among the herd of bigots who are forcibly driven from this convenient but untenable post, I am ashamed, with the Grabes, Caves, Tillemonts, etc., to discover Mr. Addison, an English gentleman (his Works, vol. I, p. 528, Baskerville’s edition); but his superficial tract on the Christian religion owes its credit to his name, his style, and the interested applause of our clergy. ↩
From the silence of James of Sarug (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, pp. 289, 318), and the testimony of Evagrius (Historia ecclesiastica, l. IV c. 27), I conclude that this fable was invented between the years 521 and 594, most probably after the siege of Edessa in 540 (Assemani, tom. I, p. 416; Procopius, De bello Persico, l. II). It is the sword and buckler of Gregory II (in “Epistola I” ad Leon Isauros Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VIII, pp. 656, 657), of John Damascenus (Opera, tom. I, p. 281, edit. Lequien), and of the second Nicene Council (Actio V, p. 1030). The most perfect edition may be found in Cedrenus (Historiarum compendium, pp. 175⁠–⁠178). ↩
Ἀχειροποίητος. See du Cange, in Glossarium Graecitatis et Latinitatis. The subject is treated with equal learning and bigotry by the Jesuit Gretser (Syntagma de imaginibus non Manu factis, ad calcem Codini, De officiis, pp. 289⁠–⁠330), the ass, or rather the fox, of Ingoldstadt (see the Scaligerana); with equal reason and wit by the Protestant Beausobre, in the ironical controversy which he has spread through many volumes of the Bibliothèque Germanique (tom. XVIII, pp. 1⁠–⁠50, XX, pp. 27⁠–⁠68, XXV, pp. 1⁠–⁠36, XXVII, pp. 85⁠–⁠118, XXVIII, pp. 1⁠–⁠33, XXXI, pp. 111⁠–⁠148, XXXII, pp. 75⁠–⁠107, XXXIV, pp. 67⁠–⁠96). ↩
Theophylact Simocatta (l. II c. 3, p. 34, l. III c. 1, p. 63) celebrates the θεανδρικὸν εἴκασμα, which he styles ἀχειροποίητον; yet it was no more than a copy, since he adds ἀρχέτυπον τὸ ἐκείνου οἰ Ῥωμαῖοι (of Edessa) θρησκεύουσι τι ἄρρητον. See Pagi, tom. II, “AD 588,” No. 11. ↩
See, in the genuine or supposed works of John Damascenus, two passages on the Virgin and St. Luke, which have not been noticed by Gretser, nor consequently by Beausobre (Johannis Damasceni opera, tom. I, pp. 618, 631). ↩
“Your scandalous figures stand quite out from the canvass: they are as bad as a group of statues!” It was thus that the ignorance and bigotry of a Greek priest applauded the pictures of Titian, which he had ordered, and refused to accept. ↩
By Cedrenus, Zonaras, Glycas, and Manasses, the origin of the Iconoclcasts is imprinted to the caliph Yezid and two Jews, who promised the empire to Leo; and the reproaches of these hostile sectaries are turned into an absurd conspiracy for restoring the purity of the Christian worship (see Spanheim, Historia imaginum, c. 2). ↩
Yezid, ninth caliph of the race of the Ommiadae, caused all the images in Syria to be destroyed about the year 719; hence the orthodox reproached the sectaries with following the example of the Saracens and the Jews. Fragm. Mon. Johann Jerosylym, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, vol. XVI, p. 235; Histoire des républiques italiennes par M. Sismondi, vol. I, p. 126. —⁠G. ↩
See Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 267), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 201), and Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, p. 264); and the criticisms of Pagi (tom. III, “AD 944”). The prudent Franciscan refuses to determine whether the image of Edessa now reposes at Rome or Genoa; but its repose is inglorious, and this ancient object of worship is no longer famous or fashionable. ↩
Ἀρμενίοις καὶ Ἀλαμανοῖς ἐπίσης ἡ ἁγίων είκόνων προσκύνησις ἀπηγόρευται (Nicetas, l. II, p. 258). The Armenian churches are still content with the cross (Missions du Levant, tom. III, p. 148); but surely the superstitious Greek is unjust to the superstition of the Germans of the twelth century. ↩
Our original, but not impartial, monuments of the Iconoclasts must be drawn from the Acts of the Councils, tom. VIII and IX Sacrosancta concilia Labbe, edit. Venetiis, and the historical writings of Theophanes, Nicephorus, Manasses, Cedrenus, Zonoras, etc. Of the modern Catholics, Baronius, Pagi, Natalis Alexander (Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Novique Testamenti, Seculum VIII and IX), and Louis Maimbourg (Histoire des l’Hérésie des Iconoclastes), have treated the subject with learning, passion, and credulity. The Protestant labors of Frederick Spanheim (Historia imaginum restituta) and James Basnage (Histoire de la religion des Églises réformées, tom. II l. XXIIII, pp. 1339⁠–⁠1385) are cast into the Iconoclast scale. With this mutual aid, and opposite tendency, it is easy for us to poise the balance with philosophic indifference.9189 ↩
Some flowers of rhetoric are Σὐνοδον παράνομον καὶ ἄθεον, and the bishops τοῖς ματαιόφροσιν. By Damascenus it is styled ἄκυρος καὶ ἄδεκτος (Opera, tom. I, p. 623). Spanheim’s Apology for the Synod of Constantinople (p. 171, etc.) is worked up with truth and ingenuity, from such materials as he could find in the Nicene Acts (p. 1046, etc.). The witty John of Damascus converts ἐπισκόπους into ἐπισκότους, makes them κοιλιοδοὐλους, slaves of their belly, etc. Opera, tom. I, p. 306. ↩
He is accused of proscribing the title of saint; styling the Virgin, Mother of Christ; comparing her after her delivery to an empty purse; of Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. In his defence, Spanheim (c. IV, p. 207) is somewhat embarrassed between the interest of a Protestant and the duty of an orthodox divine. ↩
The holy confessor Theophanes approves the principle of their rebellion, θείῳ κινοὐμενοι ζήλῳ (p. 339). Gregory II (in “Epistola I” ad Imp. Leon. Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VIII, pp. 661, 664) applauds the zeal of the Byzantine women who killed the Imperial officers. ↩
John, or Mansur, was a noble Christian of Damascus, who held a considerable office in the service of the caliph. His zeal in the cause of images exposed him to the resentment and treachery of the Greek emperor; and on the suspicion of a treasonable correspondence, he was deprived of his right hand, which was miraculously restored by the Virgin. After this deliverance, he resigned his office, distributed his wealth, and buried himself in the monastery of St. Sabas, between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. The legend is famous; but his learned editor, Father Lequien, has a unluckily proved that St. John Damascenus was already a monk before the Iconoclast dispute (Opera, tom. I, “Vita St. Joannes Damascenus,” pp. 10⁠–⁠13, et Notas ad loc.). ↩
After sending Leo to the devil, he introduces his heir⁠—τὸ μιαρὸν αὐτοῦ γέννημα, καὶ τῆς κακίας αὐτοῦ κληρονόμος ἐν διπλῷ γενόμενος (Opera, Damascenus, tom. I, p. 625). If the authenticity of this piece be suspicious, we are sure that in other works, no longer extant, Damascenus bestowed on Constantine the title of νέον Μωαμὲθ Χριστόμαχον, μισάγιον (tom. I, p. 306). ↩
The patriarch Anastasius, an Iconoclast under Leo, an image worshipper under Artavasdes, was scourged, led through the streets on an ass, with his face to the tail; and, reinvested in his dignity, became again the obsequious minister of Constantine in his Iconoclastic persecutions. See Schlosser, p. 211. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Schlosser, pp. 228⁠–⁠234. —⁠M. ↩
In the narrative of this persecution from Theophanes and Cedrenus, Spanheim (pp. 235⁠–⁠238) is happy to compare the Draco of Leo with the dragoons (Dracones) of Louis XIV; and highly solaces himself with the controversial pun. ↩
Πρόγραμμα γὰρ ἐξέπεμψε κατὰ πᾶσαν ἐξαρχίαν τὴν ὑπό τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ, πάντας ὑπογράψαι καὶ ὀμνύναι τοῦ ἀθετῆσαι τῆν προσκύνησιν τῶν σεπτῶν εἰκόνων (Damascenus, Opera, tom. I, p. 625). This oath and subscription I do not remember to have seen in any modern compilation. ↩
Καὶ τὴν Ῥώμην σὺν πάσῃ Ἰταλίᾳ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ ἀπέστησε, says Theophanes (Chronographia, p. 343). For this Gregory is styled by Cedrenus ἀνὴρ ἀποστολικός (p. 450). Zonaras specifies the thunder, ἀναθέματι συνοκικῷ (tom. II l. XV, pp. 104, 105). It may be observed that the Greeks are apt to confound the times and actions of two Gregories. ↩
See Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 730,” No. 4, 5; dignum exemplum! Robert Bellarmine, De Romano pontifice, l. V c. 8, mulctavit eum parte imperii. Sigonius, De regno Italiae, l. III Opera omnia, tom. II, p. 169. Yet such is the change of Italy that Sigonius is corrected by the editor of Milan, Philippus Argelatus, a Bolognese, and subject of the pope. ↩
Quod si Christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem aut Julianum, id fuit quia deerant vires temporales Christianis (honest Bellarmine, De Romano pontifice, l. V c. 7). Cardinal Perron adds a distinction more honorable to the first Christians, but not more satisfactory to modern princes⁠—the treason of heretics and apostates, who break their oath, belie their coin, and renounce their allegiance to Christ and his vicar (Perroniana, p. 89). ↩
Take, as a specimen, the cautious Basnage (Histoire d’eglise, pp. 1350, 1351) and the vehement Spanheim (Historia imaginum), who, with a hundred more, tread in the footsteps of the centuriators of Magdeburgh. ↩
See Jean de Launoy (Opera omnia, tom. V pars, II “Epistola VII” 7, pp. 456⁠–⁠474), Natalis Alexander (Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Novique Testamenti, seculum VIII dissertatio I, pp. 92⁠–⁠96), Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. III, pp. 215, 216), and Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. I, pp. 317⁠–⁠320), a disciple of the Gallican school. In the field of controversy I always pity the moderate party, who stand on the open middle ground exposed to the fire of both sides. ↩
They appeal to Paul Warnefrid, or Diaconus (De gestis Langobardorum, l. VI c. 49, pp. 506, 507, in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, Muratori, tom. I pars I), and the nominal Anastasius (De vitis Romanorum pontificum in Muratori, tom. III pars I; Gregorius II, p. 154; Gregorius III, p. 158; Zacharias, p. 161; Stephanus III, p. 165; Paulus, p. 172; Stephanus IV, p. 174; Hadrianus, p. 179; Leo III, p. 195). Yet I may remark that the true Anastasius (Historia ecclesiastica, p. 134, edit. Regia) and the Historia miscella (l. XXI, p. 151, in tom. I Rerum Italicarum scriptores), both of the ninth century, translate and approve the Greek text of Theophanes. ↩
With some minute difference, the most learned critics, Lucas Holstenius, Schelestrate, Ciampini, Bianchini, Muratori (Prolegomena ad tom. III pars I), are agreed that the Liber pontificalis was composed and continued by the apostolic librarians and notaries of the eighth and ninth centuries; and that the last and smallest part is the work of Anastasius, whose name it bears. The style is barbarous, the narrative partial, the details are trifling⁠—yet it must be read as a curious and authentic record of the times. The epistles of the popes are dispersed in the volumes of Councils. ↩
The two epistles of Gregory II have been preserved in the Acta of the Nicene Council (tom. VIII, pp. 651⁠–⁠674). They are without a date, which is variously fixed, by Baronius in the year 726, by Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. VI, p. 120) in 729, and by Pagi in 730. Such is the force of prejudice that some Papists have praised the good sense and moderation of these letters. ↩
Εἴκοσι τέσσαρα στάδια ὑποχωρήσει ὁ Ἀρχειρεὺς Ῥώμης εἰς τὴν χώραν τῆς Καμπανίας, καὶ ὔπαγε δίωξον τοὺς ἀνέμους (“Epistola I,” p. 664). This proximity of the Lombards is hard of digestion. Camillo Pellegrini (Dissertatio IV de Ducatu Beneventi, in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, pp. 172, 173) forcibly reckons the twenty-fourth stadia, not from Rome, but from the limits of the Roman duchy, to the first fortress, perhaps Sora, of the Lombards. I rather believe that Gregory, with the pedantry of the age, employs stadia for miles without much inquiry into the genuine measure. ↩
Ὄν αἰ πᾶσαι Βασίλειαι τῆς δύσεως ὡς Θεὸν ἐπίγειον ἔχουσι. ↩
Ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσωτέρου δύσεως τοῦ λεγομένου Σεπτετοῦ (p. 665). The pope appears to have imposed on the ignorance of the Greeks; he lived and died in the Lateran; and in his time all the kingdoms of the West had embraced Christianity. May not this unknown Septetus have some reference to the chief of the Saxon Heptarchy, to Ina king of Wessex, who, in the pontificate of Gregory the Second, visited Rome for the purpose, not of baptism, but of pilgrimage? (Pagi, “AD 689,” No. 2, “AD 726,” No. 15). ↩
I shall transcribe the important and decisive passage of the Liber pontificalis. Respiciens ergo pius vir profanam principis jussionem, jam contra Imperatorem quasi contra hostem se armavit, renuens haeresim ejus, scribens ubique se cavere Christianos, eo quod orta fuisset impietas talis. Igitur permoti omnes Pentapolenses, atque Venetiarum exercitus contra Imperatoris jussionem restiterunt; dicentes se nunquam in ejusdem pontificis condescendere necem, sed pro ejus magis defensione viriliter decertare (p. 156). ↩
A census, or capitation, says Anastasius (p. 156); a most cruel tax, unknown to the Saracens themselves, exclaims the zealous Maimbourg (Histoire des l’hérésie des iconoclastes, l. I), and Theophanes (p. 344), who talks of Pharaoh’s numbering the male children of Israel. This mode of taxation was familiar to the Saracens; and, most unluckily for the historian, it was imposed a few years afterwards in France by his patron Louis XIV. ↩
See the Liber pontificalis of Agnellus (in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores of Muratori, tom. II pars I), whose deeper shade of barbarism marks the difference between Rome and Ravenna. Yet we are indebted to him for some curious and domestic facts⁠—the quarters and factions of Ravenna (p. 154), the revenge of Justinian II (pp. 160, 161), the defeat of the Greeks (pp. 170, 171), etc. ↩
Yet Leo was undoubtedly comprised in the si quis⁠ ⁠… imaginum sacrarum⁠ ⁠… destructor⁠ ⁠… extiterit, sit extorris a corpore domini nostri Jesu Christi vel totius ecclesiae unitate. The canonists may decide whether the guilt or the name constitutes the excommunication; and the decision is of the last importance to their safety, since, according to the oracle (Decretem gratiani, Causae XXIII questio 5 c. 47, apud Spanheim, Historia imaginum, p. 112), homicidas non esse qui excommunicatos trucidant. ↩
Compescuit tale consilium Pontifex, sperans conversionem principis (Anastasius, p. 156). Sed ne desisterent ab amore et fide Romani Imperii admonebat (p. 157). The popes style Leo and Constantine Copronymus, Imperatores et Domini, with the strange epithet of Piissimi. A famous Mosaic of the Lateran (AD 798) represents Christ, who delivers the keys to St. Peter and the banner to Constantine V (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. VI, p. 337). ↩
I have traced the Roman duchy according to the maps, and the maps according to the excellent dissertation of Father Beretti (De Italia medii aevi dissertatio chorographica, sect. XX, pp. 216⁠–⁠232). Yet I must nicely observe that Viterbo is of Lombard foundation (p. 211), and that Terracina was usurped by the Greeks. ↩
On the extent, population, etc. of the Roman kingdom, the reader may peruse, with pleasure, the Discours Preliminaire to the La République romaine of M. de Beaufort (tom. I), who will not be accused of too much credulity for the early ages of Rome. ↩
Quos (Romanos) nos, Longobardi scilicet, Saxones, Franci, Lotharingi, Bajoarii, Suevi, Burgundiones, tanto dedignamur ut inimicos nostros commoti, nil aliud contumeliarum nisi Romane, dicamus: hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine, quicquid ignobilitatis, quicquid timiditatis, quicquid avaritiae, quicquid luxuriae, quicquid mendacii, immo quicquid vitiorum est comprehendentes (Liutprand, in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 481). For the sins of Cato or Tully, Minos might have imposed as a fit penance the daily perusal of this barbarous passage. ↩
Yet this contumelious sentence, quoted by Robertson (History of Charles V note 2) as well as Gibbon, was applied by the angry bishop to the Byzantine Romans, whom, indeed, he admits to be the genuine descendants of Romulus. —⁠M. ↩
Pipino regi Francorum, omnis senatus, atque universa populi generalitas a Deo servatae Romanae urbis. Codex Carolinus, “Epistola 36,” in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars II, p. 160. The names of senatus and senator were never totally extinct (De Italia Medii Aevi dissertatio chorographica, pp. 216, 217); but in the Middle Ages they signified little more than nobiles, optimates, etc. (du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis). ↩
See Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. II Dissertatio XXVII, p. 548. On one of these coins we read Hadrianus Papa (AD 772); on the reverse, Vict. DDNN. with the word CONOB, which the Père Joubert (Science des médailles, tom. II, p. 42) explains by Constantinopoli Officina B (secunda).9190 ↩
See West’s Dissertation on the Olympic Games (Odes of Pindar, vol. II, pp. 32⁠–⁠36, edition in duodecimo), and the judicious reflections of Polybius (tom. I l. IV, p. 466, edit. Jacobus Gronovius). ↩
The speech of Gregory to the Lombard is finely composed by Sigonius (De regno Italiae, l. III Opera omnia, tom. II, p. 173), who imitates the license and the spirit of Sallust or Livy. ↩
The Venetian historians, John Sagorninus (Chronicon Venetum, p. 13), and the doge Andrew Dandolo (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XII, p. 135), have preserved this epistle of Gregory. The loss and recovery of Ravenna are mentioned by Paulus Diaconus (De gestis Langobardorum, l. VI c. 49, 54, in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I pars I, pp. 506, 508); but our chronologists, Pagi, Muratori, etc. cannot ascertain the date or circumstances. ↩
The option will depend on the various readings of the MSS. of Anastasius⁠—deceperat, or decerpserat (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, p. 167). ↩
The Codex Carolinus is a collection of the epistles of the popes to Charles Martel (whom they style Subregulus), Pepin, and Charlemagne, as far as the year 791, when it was formed by the last of these princes. His original and authentic MS. (Bibliothecae cubicularis) is now in the Imperial library of Vienna, and has been published by Lambecius and Muratori (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars II, p. 75, etc.). ↩
Gregory I had been dead above a century; read Gregory III. —⁠M. ↩
See this most extraordinary letter in the Codex Carolinus, “Epistola III,” p. 92. The enemies of the popes have charged them with fraud and blasphemy; yet they surely meant to persuade rather than deceive. This introduction of the dead, or of immortals, was familiar to the ancient orators, though it is executed on this occasion in the rude fashion of the age. ↩
Except in the divorce of the daughter of Desiderius, whom Charlemagne repudiated sine aliquo crimine. Pope Stephen IV had most furiously opposed the alliance of a noble Frank⁠—cum perfidâ, horridâ nec dicendâ, foetentissimâ natione Longobardorum⁠—to whom he imputes the first stain of leprosy (Codex Carolinus, “Epistola 45,” pp. 178, 179). Another reason against the marriage was the existence of a first wife (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. VI, pp. 232, 233, 236, 237). But Charlemagne indulged himself in the freedom of polygamy or concubinage. ↩
Of fifteen months. George Payne Rainsford James, History of Charlemagne, p. 187. —⁠M. ↩
See the Annali d’Italia of Muratori, tom. VI, and the three first dissertations of his Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. I. ↩
Besides the common historians, three French critics, Launoy (Opera, tom. V pars II l. VII, “Epistola 9,” pp. 477⁠–⁠487), Pagi (Critica Baronii, “AD 751,” No. 1⁠–⁠6, “AD 752,” No. 1⁠–⁠10), and Natalis Alexander (Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Novique Testamenti, dissertatio II, pp. 96⁠–⁠107) have treated this subject of the deposition of Childeric with learning and attention but with a strong bias to save the independence of the crown. Yet they are hard pressed by the texts which they produce of Eginhard, Theophanes, and the old annals, Laureshamenses, Fuldenses, Loisielani. ↩
Not absolutely for the first time. On a less conspicuous theatre it had been used, in the sixth and seventh centuries, by the provincial bishops of Britain and Spain. The royal unction of Constantinople was borrowed from the Latins in the last age of the empire. Constantine Manasses mentions that of Charlemagne as a foreign, Jewish, incomprehensible ceremony. See Selden’s Titles of Honor, in his Works, vol. III part I, pp. 234⁠–⁠249. ↩
See Eginhard, in Vita Karoli Magni, c. I, p. 9, etc., c. III, p. 24. Childeric was deposed⁠—jussu, the Carlovingians were established⁠—auctoritate, Pontificis Romani. Launoy, etc., pretend that these strong words are susceptible of a very soft interpretation. Be it so; yet Eginhard understood the world, the court, and the Latin language. ↩
For the title and powers of patrician of Rome, see du Cange (Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. V, pp. 149⁠–⁠151), Pagi (Critica Baronii, “AD 740,” No. 6⁠–⁠11), Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. VI, pp. 308⁠–⁠329), and Saint-Marc (Abrégé chronologique de l’histoire générale d’Italie, tom. I, pp. 379⁠–⁠382). Of these the Franciscan Pagi is the most disposed to make the patrician a lieutenant of the church rather than of the empire. ↩
The papal advocates can soften the symbolic meaning of the banner and the keys; but the style of ad regnum dimisimus, or direximus (Codex Carolinus, “Epistola I” tom. III pars II, p. 76), seems to allow of no palliation or escape. In the MS. of the Vienna library, they read, instead of regnum, rogum, prayer or request (see du Cange), and the royalty of Charles Martel is subverted by this important correction (Catalani, in his Critical Prefaces, Annali d’Italia, tom. XVII, pp. 95⁠–⁠99). ↩
In the authentic narrative of this reception, the Liber pontificalis observes⁠—obviam illi ejus sanctitas dirigens venerabiles cruces, id est signa; sicut mos est ad exarchum, aut patricium suscipiendum, eum cum ingenti honore suscipi fecit (tom. III pars I, p. 185). ↩
Paulus Diaconus, who wrote before the empire of Charlemagne, describes Rome as his subject city⁠—vestrae civitates (ad Pompeius Festus) suis addidit sceptris (Liber de Mettensibus episcopis). Some Carlovingian medals, struck at Rome, have engaged Le Blanc to write an elaborate, though partial, dissertation on their authority at Rome, both as patricians and emperors (Amsterdam, 1692, in quarto). ↩
Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, p. 263) weighs this donation with fair and deliberate prudence. The original act has never been produced; but the Liber pontificalis represents (p. 171), and the Codex Carolinus supposes, this ample gift. Both are contemporary records; and the latter is the more authentic, since it has been preserved, not in the Papal, but the Imperial, library. ↩
Between the exorbitant claims, and narrow concessions, of interest and prejudice, from which even Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. I, pp. 63⁠–⁠68) is not exempt, I have been guided, in the limits of the Exarchate and Pentapolis, by the De Italia Medii Aevi dissertatio chorographica, tom. X, pp. 160⁠–⁠180. ↩
Spoletini deprecati sunt, ut eos in servitio Beati Petri receperet et more Romanorum tonsurari faceret (Anastasius, p. 185). Yet it may be a question whether they gave their own persons or their country. ↩
The policy and donations of Charlemagne are carefully examined by Saint-Marc (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. I, pp. 390⁠–⁠408), who has well studied the Codex Carolinus. I believe, with him, that they were only verbal. The most ancient act of donation that pretends to be extant is that of the emperor Lewis the Pious (Sigonius, De regno Italiae, l. IV, Opera omnia, tom. II, pp. 267⁠–⁠270). Its authenticity, or at least its integrity, are much questioned (Pagi, “AD 817,” No. 7, etc.; Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. VI, p. 432, etc.; De Italia medii aevi dissertatio chorographica, pp. 33, 34), but I see no reasonable objection to these princes so freely disposing of what was not their own. ↩
Charlemagne solicited and obtained from the proprietor, Adrian I, the mosaics of the palace of Ravenna, for the decoration of Aix-la-Chapelle (Codex Carolinus, “Epistola 67,” p. 223). ↩
The popes often complain of the usurpations of Leo of Ravenna (Codex Carolinus, Epistolae 51⁠–⁠53, pp. 200⁠–⁠205). Sir corpus St. Andreae fratris germani St. Petri hic humasset, nequaquam nos Romani pontifices sic subjugassent (Agnellus, Liber pontificalis, in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 107). ↩
Piissimo Constantino magno, per ejus largitatem Sancta Romana Ecclesia elevata et exaltata est, et potestatem in his Hesperiae partibus largiri dignatus est.⁠ ⁠… Quia ecce novus Constantinus his temporibus, etc. (Codex Carolinus, “Epistola 49,” in tom. III part II, p. 195). Pagi (Critica Baronii, “AD 324,” No. 16) ascribes them to an impostor of the eighth century, who borrowed the name of St. Isidore: his humble title of Peccator was ignorantly, but aptly, turned into Mercator; his merchandise was indeed profitable, and a few sheets of paper were sold for much wealth and power. ↩
Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, pp. 4⁠–⁠7) has enumerated the several editions of this Act, in Greek and Latin. The copy which Laurentius Valla recites and refutes appears to be taken either from the spurious Acts of St. Silvester or from Gratian’s Decree, to which, according to him and others, it has been surreptitiously tacked. ↩
In the year 1059, it was believed (was it believed?) by Pope Leo IX, Cardinal Peter Damianus, etc. Muratori places (Annali d’Italia, tom. IX, pp. 23, 24) the fictitious donations of Lewis the Pious, the Ottos, etc., De donatione Constantini. See a dissertation of Natalis Alexander, seculum IV dissertatio 25, pp. 335⁠–⁠350. ↩
See a large account of the controversy (AD 1105) which arose from a private lawsuit, in the Chronicon Farfense (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars II, p. 637, etc.), a copious extract from the archives of that Benedictine abbey. They were formerly accessible to curious foreigners (Le Blanc and Mabillon), and would have enriched the first volume of the De monastica Italiae historia of Angelo Quirini. But they are now imprisoned (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars II, p. 269) by the timid policy of the court of Rome; and the future cardinal yielded to the voice of authority and the whispers of ambition (Quirini, Comment. pars II, pp. 123⁠–⁠136). ↩
I have read in the collection of Simon Schardius (De jurisdictione, autoritate, et praeeminentia imperiali, ac potestate ecclesiastica, pp. 734⁠–⁠780) this animated discourse, which was composed by the author AD 1440, six years after the flight of Pope Eugenius IV. It is a most vehement party pamphlet: Valla justifies and animates the revolt of the Romans, and would even approve the use of a dagger against their sacerdotal tyrant. Such a critic might expect the persecution of the clergy; yet he made his peace, and is buried in the Lateran (Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, “Valla”; Vossius, De historicis Latinis, p. 580). ↩
See Guicciardini, a servant of the popes, in that long and valuable digression, which has resumed its place in the last edition, correctly published from the author’s MS. and printed in four volumes in quarto, under the name of Friburgo, 1775 (Istoria d’Italia, tom. I, pp. 385⁠–⁠395). ↩
The Paladin Astolpho found it in the moon, among the things that were lost upon earth (Orlando Furioso XXXIV 80).

Di vari fiore ad un grand monte passa,
Ch’ebbe già buono odore, or puzza forte:
Questo era il dono (se però dir lece)
Che Constantino al buon Silvestro fece.

Yet this incomparable poem has been approved by a bull of Leo X. ↩
See Baronius, “AD 324,” No. 117⁠–⁠123, “AD 1191,” No. 51, etc. The cardinal wishes to suppose that Rome was offered by Constantine, and refused by Silvester. The act of donation he considers, strangely enough, as a forgery of the Greeks. ↩
Baronius n’en dit guères contre; encore en a-t’il trop dit, et l’on vouloit sans moi (Cardinal du Perron), qui l’empêchai, censurer cette partie de son histoire. J’en devisai un jour avec le Pape, et il ne me repondit autre chose “che volete? i Canonici la tengono,” il le disoit en riant (Perroniana, p. 77). ↩
The remaining history of images, from Irene to Theodora, is collected, for the Catholics, by Baronius and Pagi (AD 780⁠–⁠840), Natalis Alexander (Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Novique Testamenti seculum VIII “Panoplia adversus Haereticos,” pp. 118⁠–⁠178), and Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. VI, pp. 136⁠–⁠154); for the Protestants, by Spanheim (Historia imaginum, pp. 305⁠–⁠639). Basnage (Histoire de l’Eglise, tom. I, pp. 556⁠–⁠572, tom. II, pp. 1362⁠–⁠1385), and Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae seculum VIII et IX). The Protestants, except Mosheim, are soured with controversy; but the Catholics, except Dupin, are inflamed by the fury and superstition of the monks; and even Le Beau (Histoire du Bas-Empire), a gentleman and a scholar, is infected by the odious contagion. ↩
See the Acts, in Greek and Latin, of the second Council of Nice, with a number of relative pieces, in the eighth volume of the Councils, pp. 645⁠–⁠1600. A faithful version, with some critical notes, would provoke, in different readers, a sigh or a smile. ↩
The pope’s legates were casual messengers, two priests without any special commission, and who were disavowed on their return. Some vagabond monks were persuaded by the Catholics to represent the Oriental patriarchs. This curious anecdote is revealed by Theodore Studites (“Epistola I” 38, in Sirmond, Opera varia, tom. V, p. 1319), one of the warmest Iconoclasts of the age. ↩
Συμφέρει δὲ σοὶ μὴ καταλιπεῖν ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ πορνεῖον εἰς ὃ μὴ εἰσέλθης, ἥ ἴνα ἀρνήσῃ τὸ προσκυνεῖν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν καὶ θεὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ιδίας αὐτοῦ μητρὸς ἐν εἰκόνι. These visits could not be innocent since the Δαίμων πορνείας (demon of fornication) ἐπολέμει δὲ αὐτὸν⁠ ⁠… ἐν μίᾳ οῦν ὠς ἐπέκειτο αὐτῳ σφόδρα, etc. Actio IV, p. 901, Actio V, p. 1081. ↩
See an account of this controversy in the Alexias of Anna Comnena (l. V, p. 129), and Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 371, 372). ↩
The Libri Carolini (Spanheim, pp. 443⁠–⁠529), composed in the palace or winter quarters of Charlemagne, at Worms, AD 790; and sent by Engebert to Pope Adrian I, who answered them by a grandis et verbosa epistola (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VII, p. 1553). The Carolines propose 120 objections against the Nicene synod and such words as these are the flowers of their rhetoric⁠—Dementiam⁠ ⁠… priscae Gentilitatis obsoletum errorem⁠ ⁠… argumenta insanissima et absurdissima⁠ ⁠… derisione dignas naenias, etc., etc. ↩
The assemblies of Charlemagne were political, as well as ecclesiastical; and the three hundred members (Natalis Alexander, seculum VIII, p. 53), who sat and voted at Frankfurt, must include not only the bishops, but the abbots, and even the principal laymen. ↩
Qui supra sanctissima patres nostri (episcopi et sacerdotes) omnimodis servitium et adorationem imaginum renuentes contempserunt, atque consentientes condemnaverunt (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IX, p. 101; Canon II, Franckfurd). A polemic must be hard-hearted indeed, who does not pity the efforts of Baronius, Pagi, Alexander, Maimbourg, etc., to elude this unlucky sentence. ↩
Theophanes (p. 343) specifies those of Sicily and Calabria, which yielded an annual rent of three talents and a half of gold (perhaps £7,000 sterling). Liutprand more pompously enumerates the patrimonies of the Roman church in Greece, Judea, Persia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Egypt, and Libya, which were detained by the injustice of the Greek emperor (Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 481). ↩
The great diocese of the Eastern Illyricum, with Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily (Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. I, p. 145). By the confession of the Greeks, the patriarch of Constantinople had detached from Rome the metropolitans of Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Nicopolis, and Patrae (Lucas Holstenius, Geographia sacra, p. 22) and his spiritual conquests extended to Naples and Amalphi (Giannone, Istoria Civile del Regno di Napoli, tom. I, pp. 517⁠–⁠524; Pagi, “AD 780,” No. 11). ↩
In hoc ostenditur, quia ex uno capitulo ab errore reversis, in aliis duobus, in eodem (was it the same?) permaneant errore⁠ ⁠… de diocessi Sanctae Romanae Ecclesae seu de patrimoniis iterum increpantes commonemus, ut si ea restituere noluerit hereticum eum pro hujusmodi errore perseverantiâ decernemus (“Epistola Hadrianus Papae ad Carolum Magnum,” in Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VIII, p. 1598); to which he adds a reason, most directly opposite to his conduct, that he preferred the salvation of souls and rule of faith to the goods of this transitory world. ↩
Fontanini considers the emperors as no more than the advocates of the church (advocatus et defensor Sanctae Romanae Ecclesae; see du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. I, p. 97). His antagonist Muratori reduces the popes to be no more than the exarchs of the emperor. In the more equitable view of Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 264, 265), they held Rome under the empire as the most honorable species of fief or benefice⁠—premuntur nocte caliginosâ! ↩
His merits and hopes are summed up in an epitaph of thirty-eight-verses, of which Charlemagne declares himself the author (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. VIII, p. 520).

Post patrem lacrymans Carolus haec carmina scripsi.
Tu mihi dulcis amor, te modo plango pater⁠ ⁠…
Nomina jungo simul titulis, clarissime, nostra
Adrianus, Carolus, rex ego, tuque pater.

The poetry might be supplied by Alcuin; but the tears, the most glorious tribute, can only belong to Charlemagne. ↩
Every new pope is admonished⁠—“Sancte Pater, non videbis annos Petri,” twenty-five years. On the whole series the average is about eight years⁠—a short hope for an ambitious cardinal. ↩
The assurance of Anastasius (tom. III pars I, pp. 197, 198) is supported by the credulity of some French annalists; but Eginhard and other writers of the same age are more natural and sincere. “Unus ei oculus paullulum est laesus,” says John the Deacon of Naples (Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum in Rerum Italicarum scriptores Muratori, tom. I pars II, p. 312). Theodolphus, a contemporary bishop of Orleans, observes with prudence (l. III, “Carmen 3”):

Reddita sunt? mirum est: mitum est auferre nequisse.
Est tamen in dubio, hinc mirer an inde magis.

↩
Twice, at the request of Adrian and Leo, he appeared at Rome⁠—longâ tunicâ et chlamyde amictus, et calceamentis quoque Romano more formatis. Eginhard (c. XXIII, pp. 109⁠–⁠113) describes, like Suetonius, the simplicity of his dress, so popular in the nation that, when Charles the Bald returned to France in a foreign habit, the patriotic dogs barked at the apostate (Gabriel-Henri Gaillard, Histoire de Charlemagne, tom. IV, p. 109). ↩
See Anastasius (p. 199) and Eginhard (c. XXVIII, pp. 124⁠–⁠128). The unction is mentioned by Theophanes (p. 399), the oath by Sigonius (from the Ordo Romanus), and the pope’s adoration more antiquorum principum by the Annales Bertiniani (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 505). ↩
This great event of the translation or restoration of the empire is related and discussed by Natalis Alexander (seculum IX dissertatio I, pp. 390⁠–⁠397), Pagi (tom. III, p. 418), Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. VI, pp. 339⁠–⁠352), Sigonius (De regno Italiae, l. IV Opera omnia, tom. II, pp. 247⁠–⁠251), Spanheim (De fictâ translatione Imperii), Giannone (tom. I, pp. 395⁠–⁠405), Saint-Marc (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. I, pp. 438⁠–⁠450), Gaillard (Histoire de Charlemagne, tom. II, pp. 386⁠–⁠446). Almost all these moderns have some religious or national bias. ↩
By Mably (Observations sur l’histoire de France), Voltaire (Histoire générale), Robertson (History of Charles V), and Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXXI c. 18). In the year 1782, M. Gaillard published his Histoire de Charlemagne (in four vols. in duodecimo), which I have freely and profitably used. The author is a man of sense and humanity; and his work is labored with industry and elegance. But I have likewise examined the original monuments of the reigns of Pepin and Charlemagne, in the fifth volume of the Historians of France. ↩
The vision of Weltin, composed by a monk eleven years after the death of Charlemagne, shows him in purgatory, with a vulture, who is perpetually gnawing the guilty member, while the rest of his body, the emblem of his virtues, is sound and perfect (see Gaillard, tom. II, pp. 317⁠–⁠360). ↩
The marriage of Eginhard with Imma, daughter of Charlemagne, is, in my opinion, sufficiently refuted by the probum and suspicio that sullied these fair damsels, without excepting his own wife (c. XIX, pp. 98⁠–⁠100, cum Notis Schmincke). The husband must have been too strong for the historian. ↩
This charge of incest, as Mr. Hallam justly observes, “seems to have originated in a misinterpreted passage of Eginhard.” Hallam’s Europe During the Middle Ages, vol. I, p. 16. —⁠M. ↩
Besides the massacres and transmigrations, the pain of death was pronounced against the following crimes:
1. The refusal of baptism.
2. The false pretence of baptism.
3. A relapse to idolatry.
4. The murder of a priest or bishop.
5. Human sacrifices.
6. Eating meat in Lent.
But every crime might be expiated by baptism or penance (Gaillard, tom. II, pp. 241⁠–⁠247); and the Christian Saxons became the friends and equals of the Franks (Struvius, Corpus historiae Germanicae, p.133). ↩

M. Guizot (Cours d’histoire moderne, pp. 270⁠–⁠273) has compiled the following statement of Charlemagne’s military campaigns:⁠—

# Campaigns		People Groups
1	Against	the Aquitanians
18	”	the Saxons
5	”	the Lombards
7	”	the Arabs in Spain
1	”	the Thuringians
4	”	the Avars
2	”	the Bretons
1	”	the Bavarians
4	”	the Slavs beyond the Elbe
5	”	the Saracens in Italy
3	”	the Danes
2	”	the Greeks
53	total	—⁠M.

↩

In this action the famous Rutland, Rolando, Orlando, was slain⁠—cum compluribus aliis. See the truth in Eginhard (c. 9, pp. 51⁠–⁠56), and the fable in an ingenious supplement of M. Gaillard (tom. III, p. 474). The Spaniards are too proud of a victory which history ascribes to the Gascons, and romance to the Saracens.9191 ↩
Yet Michael Ignaz Schmidt, from the best authorities, represents the interior disorders and oppression of his reign (Histoire des Allemands, tom. II, pp. 45⁠–⁠49). ↩
Omnis homo ex suâ proprietate legitimam decimam ad ecclesiam conferat. Experimento enim didicimus, in anno, quo illa valida fames irrepsit, ebullire vacuas annonas a daemonibus devoratas, et voces exprobationis auditas. Such is the decree and assertion of the great Council of Frankfurt (Canon XXV tom. IX, p. 105). Both Selden (History of Tithes; Works, vol. III part II, p. 1146) and Montesquieu (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXXI c. 12) represent Charlemagne as the first legal author of tithes. Such obligations have country gentlemen to his memory! ↩
Eginhard (c. 25, p. 119) clearly affirms, tentabat et scribere⁠ ⁠… sed parum prospere successit labor praeposterus et sero inchoatus. The moderns have perverted and corrected this obvious meaning, and the title of M. Gaillard’s dissertation (tom. III, pp. 247⁠–⁠260) betrays his partiality.9192 ↩
See Gaillard, tom. III, pp. 138⁠–⁠176, and Schmidt, tom. II, pp. 121⁠–⁠129. ↩
M. Gaillard (tom. III, p. 372) fixes the true stature of Charlemagne (see a dissertation of Marquard Freher ad calcem Eginhart, p. 220, etc.) at five feet nine inches of French, about six feet one inch and a fourth English, measure. The romance writers have increased it to eight feet, and the giant was endowed with matchless strength and appetite: at a single stroke of his good sword Joyeuse he cut asunder a horseman and his horse; at a single repast he devoured a goose, two fowls, a quarter of mutton, etc. ↩
See the concise but correct and original work of d’Anville (États formés en Europe après la chute de l’empire romain en occident, Paris, 1771, in quarto), whose map includes the empire of Charlemagne; the different parts are illustrated by Valesius (Notitia Galliarum) for France, Beretti (Dissertatio chorographica) for Italy, de Marca (Marca Hispanica) for Spain. For the middle geography of Germany, I confess myself poor and destitute. ↩
After a brief relation of his wars and conquests (Vita Karoli Magni, c. 5⁠–⁠14), Eginhard recapitulates, in a few words (c. 15), the countries subject to his empire. Struvius (Corpus historiae Germanicae, pp. 118⁠–⁠149) has inserted in his notes the texts of the old Chronicles. ↩
On a charter granted to the monastery of Alaon (AD 845) by Charles the Bald, which deduces this royal pedigree. I doubt whether some subsequent links of the ninth and tenth centuries are equally firm; yet the whole is approved and defended by M. Gaillard (tom. II, p.60⁠–⁠81, 203⁠–⁠206), who affirms that the family of Montesquiou (not of the president de Montesquieu) is descended, in the female line, from Clotaire and Clovis⁠—an innocent pretension! ↩
The governors or counts of the Spanish march revolted from Charles the Simple about the year 900; and a poor pittance, the Rousillon, has been recovered in 1642 by the kings of France (Longuerue, Description de la France, tom. I, pp. 220⁠–⁠222). Yet the Rousillon contains 188,900 subjects, and annually pays 2,600,000 livres (Necker, Traité de l’administration des finances de la France, tom. I, pp. 278, 279); more people, perhaps, and doubtless more money, than the march of Charlemagne. ↩
Schmidt, Histoire des Allemands, tom. II, p. 200, etc. ↩
See Giannone, tom. I, pp. 374, 375, and the Annali d’Italia of Muratori. ↩
Quot praelia in eo gesta! quantum sanguinis effusum sit! Testatur vacua omni habitatione Pannonia, et locus in quo regia Cagani fuit ita desertus, ut ne vestigium quidem humanae habitationis appareat. Tota in hoc bello Hunnorum nobilitas periit, tota gloria decidit, omnis pecunia et congesti ex longo tempore thesauri direpti sunt. Eginhard, c. XIII. ↩
The junction of the Rhine and Danube was undertaken only for the service of the Pannonian war (Gaillard, Histoire de Charlemagne, tom. II, pp. 312⁠–⁠315). The canal, which would have been only two leagues in length, and of which some traces are still extant in Swabia, was interrupted by excessive rains, military avocations, and superstitious fears (Schaepflin, Histoire de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XVIII, p. 256. Molimina fluviorum, etc., jungendorum, pp. 59⁠–⁠62). ↩
I should doubt this in the time of Charlemagne, even if the term “expended” were substituted for “wasted.” —⁠M. ↩
See Eginhard, c. 16, and Gaillard, tom. II, pp. 361⁠–⁠385, who mentions, with a loose reference, the intercourse of Charlemagne and Egbert, the emperor’s gift of his own sword, and the modest answer of his Saxon disciple. The anecdote, if genuine, would have adorned our English histories. ↩
The correspondence is mentioned only in the French annals, and the Orientals are ignorant of the caliph’s friendship for the Christian dog⁠—a polite appellation, which Harun bestows on the emperor of the Greeks. ↩
Had he the choice? M. Guizot has eloquently described the position of Charlemagne towards the Saxons. Il y fit face par le conquête; la guerre défensive prit la forme offensive: il transporta la lutte sur le territoire des peuples qui voulaient envahir le sien: il travailla à asservir les races étrangères, et extirper les croyances ennemies. De là son mode de gouvernement et la fondation de son empire: la guerre offensive et la conquête voulaient cette vaste et redoutable unité. Compare observations in the Quarterly Review, vol. XLVIII, and James’s Life of Charlemagne. —⁠M. ↩
Gaillard, tom. II, pp. 361⁠–⁠365, 471⁠–⁠476, 492. I have borrowed his judicious remarks on Charlemagne’s plan of conquest, and the judicious distinction of his enemies of the first and the second enceinte (tom. II, pp. 184, 509, etc.). ↩
Thegan, the biographer of Lewis, relates this coronation; and Baronius has honestly transcribed it (“AD 813,” No. 13, etc.; see Gaillard, tom. II, pp. 506⁠–⁠508), howsoever adverse to the claims of the popes. For the series of the Carlovingians, see the historians of France, Italy, and Germany; Pfeffel, Schmidt, Velly, Muratori, and even Voltaire, whose pictures are sometimes just and always pleasing. ↩
He was the son of Otto, the son of Ludolph, in whose favor the Duchy of Saxony had been instituted, AD 858. Ruotgerus, the biographer of a St. Bruno (Catalogus bibliothecae Bunavianae, tom. III vol. II, p. 679), gives a splendid character of his family. Atavorum atavi usque ad hominum memoriam omnes nobilissimi; nullus in eorum stirpe ignotus, nullus degener facile reperitur (apud Burkhard Gotthelf Struve, Corpus historiae Germanicae, p. 216). Yet Nikolaus Gundling (in De Henrico Aucupe) is not satisfied of his descent from Widukind. ↩
See the treatise of Hermann Conringius (De finibus imperii Germanici, Francofurti 1680, in quarto): he rejects the extravagant and improper scale of the Roman and Carlovingian empires, and discusses with moderation the rights of Germany, her vassals, and her neighbors. ↩
The power of custom forces me to number Conrad I and Henry I, the Fowler, in the list of emperors, a title which was never assumed by those kings of Germany. The Italians, Muratori for instance, are more scrupulous and correct, and only reckon the princes who have been crowned at Rome. ↩
Invidiam tamen suscepti nominis (Constantinopolis imperatoribus super hoc indignantibus) magnâ tulit patientiâ, vicitque eorum contumaciam⁠ ⁠… mittendo ad eos crebras legationes, et in epistolis fratres eos appellando. Eginhard, c. 28, p. 128. Perhaps it was on their account that, like Augustus, he affected some reluctance to receive the empire. ↩
Theophanes speaks of the coronation and unction of Charles, Κάρουλλος (Chronographia, p. 399), and of his treaty of marriage with Irene (p. 402), which is unknown to the Latins. Gaillard relates his transactions with the Greek empire (tom. II, pp. 446⁠–⁠468). ↩
Gaillard very properly observes that this pageant was a farce suitable to children only; but that it was indeed represented in the presence, and for the benefit, of children of a larger growth. ↩
Compare, in the original texts collected by Pagi (tom. III, “AD 812,” No. 7, “AD 824,” No. 10, etc.), the contrast of Charlemagne and his son: To the former the ambassadors of Michael (who were indeed disavowed) more suo, id est linguâ Graecâ laudes dixerunt, imperatorem eum et Βασιλέα appellantes; to the latter, Vocato imperatori Francorum, etc. ↩
See the epistle, in “Paralipomena,” of the anonymous writer of Salerno (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars II, pp. 243⁠–⁠254, c. 93⁠–⁠107), whom Baronius (“AD 871,” No. 51⁠–⁠71) mistook for Erchempert, when he transcribed it in his Annals. ↩
Ipse enim vos, non imperatorem, id est Βασιλέα suâ linguâ, sed ob indignationem Ῥῆγα, id est regem nostrâ vocabat, Liutprand, in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 479. The pope had exhorted Nicephorus, emperor of the Greeks, to make peace with Otto, the august emperor of the Romans⁠—quae inscriptio secundum Graecos peccatoria et temeraria⁠ ⁠… imperatorem inquiunt, universalem, Romanorum, Augustum, magnum, solum, Nicephorum (p. 486). ↩
The origin and progress of the title of cardinal may be found in Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. I, pp. 1261⁠–⁠1298), Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. VI Dissertatio LXI, pp. 159⁠–⁠182), and Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 345⁠–⁠347), who accurately remarks the forms and changes of the election. The cardinal-bishops, so highly exalted by Peter Damianus, are sunk to a level with the rest of the sacred college. ↩
Firmiter jurantes, nunquam se papam electuros aut ordinaturos, praeter consensum et electionem Othonis et filii sui (Liutprand, l. VI c. 6, p. 472.) This important concession may either supply or confirm the decree of the clergy and people of Rome, so fiercely rejected by Baronius, Pagi, and Muratori (“AD 964”), and so well defended and explained by Saint-Marc (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. II, pp. 808⁠–⁠816, tom. IV, pp. 1167⁠–⁠1185). Consult the historical critic, and the Annali d’Italia of Muratori, for the election and confirmation of each pope. ↩
The oppression and vices of the Roman church in the tenth century are strongly painted in the history and legation of Liutprand (see pp. 440, 450, 471⁠–⁠476, 479, etc.); and it is whimsical enough to observe Muratori tempering the invectives of Baronius against the popes. But these popes had been chosen, not by the cardinals, but by lay-patrons. ↩
The time of Pope Joan (papissa Joanna) is placed somewhat earlier than Theodora or Marozia; and the two years of her imaginary reign are forcibly inserted between Leo IV and Benedict III. But the contemporary Anastasius indissolubly links the death of Leo and the elevation of Benedict (illico, mox, p. 247), and the accurate chronology of Pagi, Muratori, and Leibnitz fixes both events to the year 857. ↩
The advocates for Pope Joan produce one hundred and fifty witnesses, or rather echoes, of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. They bear testimony against themselves and the legend, by multiplying the proof that so curious a story must have been repeated by writers of every description to whom it was known. On those of the ninth and tenth centuries the recent event would have flashed with a double force. Would Photius have spared such a reproach? Could Liutprand have missed such scandal? It is scarcely worth while to discuss the various readings of Martinus Polonus, Sigeber of Gamblours, or even Marianus Scotus; but a most palpable forgery is the passage of Pope Joan, which has been foisted into some MSS. and editions of the Roman Anastasius. ↩
As false, it deserves that name; but I would not pronounce it incredible. Suppose a famous French chevalier of our own times to have been born in Italy, and educated in the church, instead of the army; her merit or fortune might have raised her to St. Peter’s chair; her amours would have been natural; her delivery in the streets unlucky, but not improbable. ↩
Till the Reformation, the tale was repeated and believed without offence; and Joan’s female statue long occupied her place among the popes in the cathedral of Sienna (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. III, pp. 624⁠–⁠626). She has been annihilated by two learned Protestants, Blondel and Bayle (Dictionnaire historique et critique, “Papesse,” “Polonus,” “Blondel”); but their brethren were scandalized by this equitable and generous criticism. Spanheim and Lenfant attempt to save this poor engine of controversy; and even Mosheim condescends to cherish some doubt and suspicion (p. 289). ↩
John XI was the son of her husband Alberic, not of her lover, Pope Sergius III, as Muratori has distinctly proved, Annotation ad anno 911, tom. V, p. 268. Her grandson Octavian, otherwise called John XII, was pope; but a great-grandson cannot be discovered in any of the succeeding popes; nor does our historian himself, in his subsequent narration (here and following), seem to know of one. Hobhouse, Historical Illustrations of the Fourth Canto of “Childe Harold”, p. 309. —⁠M. ↩
Lateranense palatium⁠ ⁠… prostibulum meretricum⁠ ⁠… Testis omnium gentium, praeterquam Romanorum, absentia mulierum, quae sanctorum apostolorum limina orandi gratiâ timent visere, cum nonnullas ante dies paucos, hunc audierint conjugatas, viduas, virgines vi oppressisse (Liutprand, Historia Ottonis, l. VI c. 6, p. 471. See the whole affair of John XII, pp. 471⁠–⁠476). ↩
A new example of the mischief of equivocation is the beneficium (du Cange, tom. I, p. 617, etc.), which the pope conferred on the emperor Frederic I, since the Latin word may signify either a legal fief, or a simple favor, an obligation (we want the word bienfait). See Schmidt, Histoire des Allemands, tom. III, pp. 393⁠–⁠408. Christian-Frédéric Pfeffel, Nouvel abrégé chronologique de l’histoire et du droit public d’Allemagne, tom. I, pp. 229, 296, 317, 324, 420, 430, 500, 505, 509, etc. ↩
For the history of the emperors in Rome and Italy, see Sigonius, De regno Italiae, Opera omnia, tom. II, with the notes of Saxius, and the Annali d’Italia of Muratori, who might refer more distinctly to the authors of his great collection. ↩
See the dissertation of Le Blanc at the end of his treatise Traité historique des monnoyes de France, in which he produces some Roman coins of the French emperors. ↩
Romanorum aliquando servi, scilicet Burgundiones, Romanis imperent?⁠ ⁠… Romanae urbis dignitas ad tantam est stultitiam ducta, ut meretricum etiam imperio pareat? (Liutprand, l. III c. 12, p. 450). Sigonius (l. VI, p. 400) positively affirms the renovation of the consulship; but in the old writers Albericus is more frequently styled princeps Romanorum. ↩
Ditmar, p. 354, apud Schmidt, tom. III, p. 439. ↩
This bloody feast is described in Leonine verse in the Pantheon of Godfrey of Viterbo (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VII, pp. 436, 437), who flourished towards the end of the twelth century (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. III, p. 69, edit. Mansi); but his evidence, which imposed on Sigonius, is reasonably suspected by Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. VIII, p. 177). ↩
The Marquis Maffei’s gallery contained a medal with Imp. Caes. August. P.P. Crescentius. Hence Hobhouse infers that he affected the empire. Hobhouse, Historical Illustrations of the Fourth Canto of “Childe Harold”, p. 252. —⁠M. ↩
The coronation of the emperor, and some original ceremonies of the tenth century, are preserved in the “Panegyric on Berengarius” (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, pp. 405⁠–⁠414), illustrated by the notes of Hadrian Valesius and Leibnitz. Sigonius has related the whole process of the Roman expedition, in good Latin, but with some errors of time and fact (l. VII, pp. 441⁠–⁠446). ↩
In a quarrel at the coronation of Conrad II Muratori takes leave to observe⁠—doveano ben essere allora, indisciplinati, Barbari, e bestiali Tedeschi. Annali d’Italia, tom. VIII, p. 368. ↩
After boiling away the flesh. The cauldrons for that purpose were a necessary piece of travelling furniture; and a German, who was using it for his brother, promised it to a friend, after it should have been employed for himself (Schmidt, tom. III, pp. 423, 424). The same author observes that the whole Saxon line was extinguished in Italy (tom. II, p. 440). ↩
Compare Sismondi, Histoire des républiques italiennes. Hallam’s Europe During the Middle Ages. Raumer, Geschichte der Hohenstaufen. Savigny, Geschichte des römischen Rechts, vol. III, p. 19, with the authors quoted. —⁠M. ↩
Otto, bishop of Freising, has left an important passage on the Italian cities (l. II c. 13, in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VI, pp. 707⁠–⁠710); and the rise, progress, and government of these republics are perfectly illustrated by Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. IV dissertatio XLV⁠–⁠LII, pp. 1⁠–⁠675; Annali d’Italia, tom. VIII, IX, X). ↩
For these titles, see Selden (Titles of Honor, vol. III part I, p. 488). Du Cange (Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. II, p. 140, tom. VI, p. 776), and Saint-Marc (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. II, p. 719). ↩
The Lombards invented and used the carocium, a standard planted on a car or wagon, drawn by a team of oxen (du Cange, tom. II, pp. 194, 195. Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. II dissertatio XXVI, pp. 489⁠–⁠493). ↩
Gunther, Ligurinus, l. VIII 584, et seq., apud Schmidt, tom. III, p. 399. ↩
Solus imperator faciem suam firmavit ut petram (Burcardus, “De Excidio Mediolani,” Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VI, p. 917). This volume of Muratori contains the originals of the history of Frederic the First, which must be compared with due regard to the circumstances and prejudices of each German or Lombard writer.9193 ↩
For the history of Frederic II and the house of Swabia at Naples, see Giannone, Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. II l. XIV⁠–⁠XIX. ↩
In the immense labyrinth of the jus publicum of Germany, I must either quote one writer or a thousand; and I had rather trust to one faithful guide than transcribe, on credit, a multitude of names and passages. That guide is M. Pfeffel, the author of the best legal and constitutional history that I know of any country (Nouvel abrégé chronologique de l’histoire et du droit public d’Allemagne; Paris, 1776, two vols. in quarto). His learning and judgment have discerned the most interesting facts; his simple brevity comprises them in a narrow space. His chronological order distributes them under the proper dates; and an elaborate index collects them under their respective heads. To this work, in a less perfect state, Dr. Robertson was gratefully indebted for that masterly sketch which traces even the modern changes of the Germanic body. The Corpus historiae Germanicae of Struvius has been likewise consulted, the more usefully, as that huge compilation is fortified in every page with the original texts.9194 ↩
Yet, personally, Charles IV must not be considered as a Barbarian. After his education at Paris, he recovered the use of the Bohemian, his native, idiom; and the emperor conversed and wrote with equal facility in French, Latin, Italian, and German (Struvius, pp. 615, 616). Petrarch always represents him as a polite and learned prince. ↩
Besides the German and Italian historians, the expedition of Charles IV is painted in lively and original colors in the curious Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, pp. 376⁠–⁠430, by the Abbé de Sade, whose prolixity has never been blamed by any reader of taste and curiosity. ↩
See the whole ceremony in Struvius, p. 629. ↩
The republic of Europe, with the pope and emperor at its head, was never represented with more dignity than in the council of Constance. See Lenfant’s history of that assembly. ↩
Gravina, Origines juris civilis, p. 108. ↩
Six thousand urns have been discovered of the slaves and freedmen of Augustus and Livia. So minute was the division of office that one slave was appointed to weigh the wool which was spun by the empress’s maids, another for the care of her lapdog, etc. (Camera ed inscrizioni sepolcrali, by Francesco Bianchini. Extract of his work in the Bibliothèque Italique, tom. IV, p. 175. His Eloge, by Fontenelle, tom. VI, p. 356). But these servants were of the same rank, and possibly not more numerous than those of Pollio or Lentulus. They only prove the general riches of the city. ↩
As in this and the following chapter I shall display much Arabic learning, I must profess my total ignorance of the Oriental tongues, and my gratitude to the learned interpreters, who have transfused their science into the Latin, French, and English languages. Their collections, versions, and histories, I shall occasionally notice. ↩
The geographers of Arabia may be divided into three classes:
1. The Greeks and Latins, whose progressive knowledge may be traced in Agatharchides (“De mari rubro,” in Hudson, Geographi Graeci minores, tom. I), Diodorus Siculus (tom. I l. II, pp. 159⁠–⁠167, l. III, pp. 211⁠–⁠216, edit. Wesseling), Strabo (l. XVI, pp. 1112⁠–⁠1114, from Eratosthenes; pp. 1122⁠–⁠1132, from Artemidorus), Dionysius (Periegesis 927⁠–⁠969), Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae V 12, VI 32), and Ptolemy (Descript. et Tabulae urbium, in Hudson, tom. III).
2. The Arabic writers, who have treated the subject with the zeal of patriotism or devotion: the extracts of Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 125⁠–⁠128) from the Geography of the Sherif al Edrissi, render us still more dissatisfied with the version or abridgment (pp. 24⁠–⁠27, 44⁠–⁠56, 108, etc., 119, etc.) which the Maronites have published under the absurd title of Geographia nubiensis (Paris, 1619); but the Latin and French translators, Greaves (in Hudson, tom. III) and Galland (Voyage dans la Palestine par la Roque, pp. 265⁠–⁠346), have opened to us the Arabia of Abulfeda, the most copious and correct account of the peninsula, which may be enriched, however, from the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot, p. 120, et alibi passim.
3. The European travellers; among whom Shaw (pp. 438⁠–⁠455) and Niebuhr (Description de l’Arabie, 1773, Voyage en Arabie, tom. I, 1776) deserve an honorable distinction; Busching (Géographie de Busching par Bérenger, tom. VIII, pp. 416⁠–⁠510) has compiled with judgment; and d’Anville’s Maps (“Orbis Veteribus Notus,” and “1^re Partie de l’Asie”) should lie before the reader, with his Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, pp. 208⁠–⁠231.9195
↩
Abulfeda, Descriptio Arabiae, p. 1. D’Anville, L’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 19, 20. It was in this place, the paradise or garden of a satrap, that Xenophon and the Greeks first passed the Euphrates (Anabasis, l. I c. 10, p. 29, edit. Wells). ↩
Reland has proved, with much superfluous learning:
1. That our Red Sea (the Arabian Gulf) is no more than a part of the Mare Rubrum, the Ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα of the ancients, which was extended to the indefinite space of the Indian Ocean.
2. That the synonymous words ἐρυθρός, αἰθίοψ, allude to the color of the blacks or Negroes (Dissertationum miscellanearum, tom. I, pp. 59⁠–⁠117).
↩
In the thirty days, or stations, between Cairo and Mecca, there are fifteen destitute of good water. See the route of the Hadjees, in Shaw’s Travels, p. 477. ↩
The aromatics, especially the thus, or frankincense, of Arabia occupy the twelth book of Pliny the Elder. Our great poet (Paradise Lost, l. IV) introduces, in a simile, the spicy odors that are blown by the northeast wind from the Sabaean coast:

… Many a league,
Pleased with the grateful scent, old Ocean smiles.

(Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XII 42.) ↩
Agatharchides affirms that lumps of pure gold were found, from the size of an olive to that of a nut; that iron was twice, and silver ten times, the value of gold (“De mari rubro,” p. 60). These real or imaginary treasures are vanished, and no gold mines are at present known in Arabia (Niebuhr, Description de l’Arabie, p. 124).9196 ↩
Hejaz means the “barrier” or “frontier,” as lying between the southern and northern merchants, or, in other words, between Arabia Felix and Arabia Petraea. It is a mountainous district, and includes Medina as well as Mecca. It occupies the space between Neged (Najd) and the Red Sea. Aloys Sprenger, Life of Mohammad, p. 14; Armand-Pierre Caussin de Perceval, Essai sur l’histoire des Arabes, vol. I, p. 3. —⁠S. ↩
Consult, peruse, and study the Specimen historiae Arabum of Pococke (Oxoniae, 1650, in quarto). The thirty pages of text and version are extracted from the Dynasties of Gregory Abulpharagius, which Pococke afterwards translated (Oxoniae, 1663, in quarto); the 358 notes form a classic and original work on the Arabian antiquities. ↩
Arrian remarks the Icthyophagi of the coast of Hejez (“Periplus Maris Erythraei,” p. 12), and beyond Aden (p. 15). It seems probable that the shores of the Red Sea (in the largest sense) were occupied by these savages in the time, perhaps, of Cyrus; but I can hardly believe that any cannibals were left among the savages in the reign of Justinian (Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 19). ↩
See the Specimen historiae Arabum of Pococke, pp. 2, 5, 86, etc. The journey of M. Laurent d’Arvieux, in 1664, to the camp of the emir of Mount Carmel (Voyage dans la Palestine, Amsterdam, 1718), exhibits a pleasing and original picture of the life of the Bedouins, which may be illustrated from Niebuhr (Description de l’Arabie, pp. 327⁠–⁠344) and Volney (tom. I, pp. 343⁠–⁠385), the last and most judicious of our Syrian travellers. ↩
Read (it is no unpleasing task) the incomparable articles of the “Horse” and the “Camel,” in the Natural History of M. de Buffon. ↩
For the Arabian horses, see d’Arvieux (pp. 159⁠–⁠173) and Niebuhr (pp. 142⁠–⁠144). At the end of the thirteenth century, the horses of Neged were esteemed surefooted, those of Yemen strong and serviceable, those of Hejaz most noble. The horses of Europe, the tenth and last class, were generally despised as having too much body and too little spirit (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 339); their strength was requisite to bear the weight of the knight and his armor. ↩
Qui carnibus camelorum vesci solent odii tenaces sunt, was the opinion of an Arabian physician (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 88). Muhammad himself, who was fond of milk, prefers the cow, and does not even mention the camel; but the diet of Mecca and Medina was already more luxurious (Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, p. 404). ↩
Yet Marcian of Heraclea (in “Periplus Maris Exteri,” p. 16, in tom. I Hudson, Geographi Graeci minores) reckons 164 towns in Arabia Felix. The size of the towns might be small⁠—the faith of the writer might be large. ↩
It is compared by Abulfeda (in Hudson, tom. II, p. 54) to Damascus, and is still the residence of the Imam of Yemen (Voyages de Niebuhr en Arabie, tom. I, pp. 331⁠–⁠342). Saana is twenty-four parasangs from Dafar (Abulfeda, p. 51), and sixty-eight from Aden (p. 53). ↩
Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 57; Geographia nubiensis, p. 52. Meriaba, or Merab, six miles in circumference, was destroyed by the legions of Augustus (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VI 32), and had not revived in the fourteenth century (Abulfeda Arabiae descriptio, p. 58).9197 ↩
The name of city, Medina, was appropriated, κατ’ ἐξοχήν to Yatreb (the Iatrippa of the Greeks), the seat of the prophet. The distances from Medina are reckoned by Abulfeda in stations, or days’ journey of a caravan (p. 15): to Bahrein, XV; to Bassora, XVIII; to Cufah, XX; to Damascus or Palestine, XX; to Cairo, XXV; to Mecca, X; from Mecca to Saana (p. 52), or Aden, XXX; to Cairo, XXXI days, or 412 hours (Shaw’s Travels, p. 477); which, according to the estimate of d’Anville (Traité des mesures itinéraires, p. 99), allows about twenty-five English miles for a day’s journey. From the land of frankincense (Hadramaut, in Yemen, between Aden and Cape Fartasch) to Gaza in Syria, Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae XII 32) computes LXV mansions of camels. These measures may assist fancy and elucidate facts. ↩
Our notions of Mecca must be drawn from the Arabians (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 368⁠–⁠371; Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 125⁠–⁠128; Abulfeda, pp. 11⁠–⁠40). As no unbeliever is permitted to enter the city, our travellers are silent; and the short hints of Thévenot (Voyage fait au Levant, part I, p. 490) are taken from the suspicious mouth of an African renegado. Some Persians counted 6,000 houses (Chardin, tom. IV, p. 167).9198 ↩
Strabo, l. XVI, p. 1110. See one of these salt houses near Bassora, in d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 6. ↩
Mirum dictu ex innumeris populis pars aequa in commerciis aut in latrociniis degit (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VI 32). See Sale’s Koran, Surah CVI, p. 503. Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 2. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 361. Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 5. Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. I, pp. 72, 120, 126, etc. ↩
A nameless doctor (Universal History, vol. XX octavo edition) has formally demonstrated the truth of Christianity by the independence of the Arabs. A critic, besides the exceptions of fact, might dispute the meaning of the text (Genesis 16:12), the extent of the application, and the foundation of the pedigree.9199 ↩
It was subdued, AD 1173, by a brother of the great Saladin, who founded a dynasty of Curds or Ayoubites (de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. I, p. 425; d’Herbelot, p. 477). ↩
By the lieutenant of Soliman I (AD 1538) and Selim II (1568). See Cantemir’s History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 201, 221. The Pasha, who resided at Saana, commanded twenty-one Beys; but no revenue was ever remitted to the Porte (Marsigli, Stato militare dell’ imperio Ottomano, p. 124), and the Turks were expelled about the year 1630 (Niebuhr, pp. 167, 168). ↩
Of the Roman province, under the name of Arabia and the third Palestine, the principal cities were Bostra and Petra, which dated their era from the year 105, when they were subdued by Palma, a lieutenant of Trajan (Dion Cassius, l. LXVIII). Petra was the capital of the Nabathaeans; whose name is derived from the eldest of the sons of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12, etc., with the commentaries of Jerome, Leclerc, and Calmet). Justinian relinquished a palm country of ten days’ journey to the south of Aelah (Procopius, De bello Persico, l. I c. 19), and the Romans maintained a centurion and a customhouse (Arrian in “Periplus Maris Erythraei,” p. 11, in Hudson, tom. I), at a place (λευκὴ κώηη, Pagus Albus, Hawara) in the territory of Medina (d’Anville, Mémoires sur l’Egypte, p. 243). These real possessions, and some naval inroads of Trajan (“Periplus Maris Erythraei,” pp. 14, 15), are magnified by history and medals into the Roman conquest of Arabia.9200 ↩
Niebuhr (Description de l’Arabie, pp. 302, 303, 329⁠–⁠331) affords the most recent and authentic intelligence of the Turkish empire in Arabia.9201 ↩
Diodorus Siculus (tom. II l. XIX, pp. 390⁠–⁠393, edit. Wesseling) has clearly exposed the freedom of the Nabathaean Arabs, who resisted the arms of Antigonus and his son. ↩
Strabo, l. XVI, pp. 1127⁠–⁠1129; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae VI 32. Aelius Gallus landed near Medina, and marched near a thousand miles into the part of Yemen between Mareb and the ocean. The non ante devictis Sabeae regibus (Odes I 29), and the intacti Arabum thesanri (Odes III 24) of Horace attest the virgin purity of Arabia. ↩
See the imperfect history of Yemen in Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 55⁠–⁠66, of Hira, pp. 66⁠–⁠74, of Gassan, pp. 75⁠–⁠78, as far as it could be known or preserved in the time of ignorance.9202 ↩
The Σαρακηνικὰ φῦλα, μυριάδες ταῦτα, καὶ τὸ πλεῖστον αὐτῶν ἐρημονόμοι καὶ ἀδέσποτοι, are described by Menander (Excerpta legationum, p. 149), Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 17, 19, l. II c. 10), and, in the most lively colors, by Ammianus Marcellinus (l. XIV c. 4), who had spoken of them as early as the reign of Marcus. ↩
The name which, used by Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder in a more confined, by Ammianus and Procopius in a larger, sense, has been derived, ridiculously from Sarah, the wife of Abraham, obscurely from the village of Saraka (μετὰ Ναβαταίους, Stephanus Byzantinus, De urbibus), more plausibly from the Arabic words which signify a thievish character, or Oriental situation (Johann Heinrich Hottinger, Historia orientalis, l. I c. I, pp. 7, 8; Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 33, 35; Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, p. 567). Yet the last and most popular of these etymologies is refuted by Ptolemy (Arabia, pp. 2, 18, in Hudson, tom. IV), who expressly remarks the western and southern position of the Saracens, then an obscure tribe on the borders of Egypt. The appellation cannot therefore allude to any national character; and, since it was imposed by strangers, it must be found, not in the Arabic, but in a foreign language.9203 ↩
Saraceni⁠ ⁠… mulieres aiunt in eos regnare (“Expositio totius Mundi,” p. 3, in Hudson, tom. III). The reign of Mavia is famous in ecclesiastical story. Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 69, 83. ↩
Ἐκ τῶν βασιλείων μὴ ἐξελθεῖν is the report of Agatharchides (“De mari rubro,” pp. 63, 64, in Hudson, tom. I), Diodorus Siculus (tom. I l. III c. 47, p. 215), and Strabo (l. XVI, p. 1124). But I much suspect that this is one of the popular tales or extraordinary accidents which the credulity of travellers so often transforms into a fact, a custom, and a law. ↩
Non gloriabantur antiquitus Arabes, nisi gladio, hospite, et eloquentiâ (Sephadius apud Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 161, 162). This gift of speech they shared only with the Persians; and the sententious Arabs would probably have disdained the simple and sublime logic of Demosthenes. ↩
I must remind the reader that d’Arvieux, d’Herbelot, and Niebuhr represent, in the most lively colors, the manners and government of the Arabs, which are illustrated by many incidental passages in the Life of Mahomet.9204 ↩
Observe the first chapter of Job, and the long wall of 1,500 stadia which Sesostris built from Pelusium to Heliopolis (Diodorus Siculus, tom. I l. I, p. 67). Under the name of Hycsos, the shepherd kings, they had formerly subdued Egypt (Marsham, Canon chronicus, pp. 98⁠–⁠163, etc.).9205 ↩
Or, according to another account, 1,200 (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 75). The two historians who wrote of the Ayyam al-Arab, the battles of the Arabs, lived in the ninth and tenth century. The famous war of Dahes and Gabrah was occasioned by two horses, lasted forty years, and ended in a proverb (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 48). ↩
The modern theory and practice of the Arabs in the revenge of murder are described by Niebuhr (Description de l’Arabie, pp. 26⁠–⁠31). The harsher features of antiquity may be traced in the Koran, c. 2, p. 20, c. 17, p. 230, with Sale’s observations. ↩
Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 16) places the two holy months about the summer solstice. The Arabians consecrate four months of the year⁠—the first, seventh, eleventh, and twelfth; and pretend that in a long series of ages the truce was infringed only four or six times. (Sale’s Preliminary Discourse, pp. 147⁠–⁠150, and notes on the ninth chapter of the Koran, p. 154, etc. Miguel Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, pp. 20, 21.) ↩
Arrian, in the second century, remarks (in “Periplus Maris Erythraei,” p. 12) the partial or total difference of the dialects of the Arabs. Their language and letters are copiously treated by Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 150⁠–⁠154), Casiri (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, pp. 1, 83, 292, tom. II, p. 25, etc.), and Niebuhr (Description de l’Arabie, pp. 72⁠–⁠86). I pass slightly; I am not fond of repeating words like a parrot. ↩
A familiar tale in Voltaire’s Zadig (“Le Chien et le Cheval”) is related to prove the natural sagacity of the Arabs (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 120, 121; Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. I, pp. 37⁠–⁠46); but d’Arvieux, or rather la Roque (Voyage dans la Palestine, p. 92), denies the boasted superiority of the Bedouins. The 169 sentences of Ali (translated by Ockley, London, 1718) afford a just and favorable specimen of Arabian wit.9206 ↩
Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 158⁠–⁠161) and Casiri (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, pp. 48, 84, etc., 119, tom. II, p. 17, etc.) speak of the Arabian poets before Muhammad; the seven poems of the Caaba have been published in English by Sir William Jones; but his honorable mission to India has deprived us of his own notes, far more interesting than the obscure and obsolete text. ↩
Sale’s Preliminary Discourse, pp. 29, 30. ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 458. Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, p. 118. Caab and Hesnus (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 43, 46, 48) were likewise conspicuous for their liberality; and the latter is elegantly praised by an Arabian poet: “Videbis eum cum accesseris exultantem, ac si dares illi quod ab illo petis.”9207 ↩
Whatever can now be known of the idolatry of the ancient Arabians may be found in Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 89⁠–⁠136, 163, 164). His profound erudition is more clearly and concisely interpreted by Sale (Preliminary Discourse, pp. 14⁠–⁠24); and Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, pp. 580⁠–⁠590) has added some valuable remarks. ↩
Ἱερὸν ἁγιώτατον ἴδρυται τιμώμενον ὑπὸ πάντων Ἀράβων περιττότερον (Diodorus Siculus, tom. I l. III, p. 211). The character and position are so correctly apposite, that I am surprised how this curious passage should have been read without notice or application. Yet this famous temple had been overlooked by Agatharchides (“De mari rubro,” p. 58, in Hudson, tom. I), whom Diodorus copies in the rest of the description. Was the Sicilian more knowing than the Egyptian? Or was the Caaba built between the years of Rome 650 and 746, the dates of their respective histories? (Dodwell, in Dissertiones ad tom. I Hudson, p. 72. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. II, p. 770.)9208 ↩
Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 60, 61. From the death of Muhammad we ascend to 68, from his birth to 129, years before the Christian era. The veil or curtain, which is now of silk and gold, was no more than a piece of Egyptian linen (Abulfeda, in Vita Mohammed, c. 6, p. 14). ↩
The original plan of the Caaba (which is servilely copied in Sale, the Universal History, etc.) was a Turkish draught, which Reland (De religione Mohammedicâ, pp. 113⁠–⁠123) has corrected and explained from the best authorities. For the description and legend of the Caaba, consult Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 115⁠–⁠122), the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot (“Caaba,” “Hagir,” “Zemzem,” etc.), and Sale (Preliminary Discourse, pp. 114⁠–⁠122). ↩
Cosa, the fifth ancestor of Muhammad, must have usurped the Caaba AD 440; but the story is differently told by Jannabi (Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. I, pp. 65⁠–⁠69), and by Abulfeda (in Vita Mohammed, c. 6, p. 13). ↩
In the second century, Maximus of Tyre attributes to the Arabs the worship of a stone⁠—Ἀράβιοι σέβουσι μὲν, ὄντινα δὲ οὐκ οἶδα, τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα εἶδον λίθος ἦν τετράγωνος (Dissertatio VIII tom. I, p. 142, edit. Reiske); and the reproach is furiously reechoed by the Christians (Clemens Alexandrinus in Protrepticus, p. 40; Arnobius, Adversus gentes, l. VI, p. 246). Yet these stones were no other than the βαίτυλα of Syria and Greece, so renowned in sacred and profane antiquity (Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, l. I, p. 37, Marsham, Canon chronicus, pp. 54⁠–⁠56). ↩
The two horrid subjects of Ἀνδροθυσία and Παιδοθυσία are accurately discussed by the learned Sir John Marsham (Canon chronicus, pp. 76⁠–⁠78, 301⁠–⁠304). Sanchoniatho derives the Phoenician sacrifices from the example of Chronus; but we are ignorant whether Chronus lived before or after Abraham, or indeed whether he lived at all. ↩
Κατ’ ἔτος ἔκαστον παῖδα ἔθυον, is the reproach of Porphyry; but he likewise imputes to the Roman the same barbarous custom, which, AUC 657, had been finally abolished. Dumaetha, Daumat al Gendai, is noticed by Ptolemy (Tabulae, p. 37, Arabia, pp. 9⁠–⁠29) and Abulfeda (p. 57); and may be found in d’Anville’s maps, in the mid-desert between Chaibar and Tadmor. ↩
Procopius (De bello Persico, l. I c. 28), Evagrius (l. VI c. 21), and Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 72, 86), attest the human sacrifices of the Arabs in the sixth century. The danger and escape of Abdallah is a tradition rather than a fact (Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. I, pp. 82⁠–⁠84). ↩
Suillis carnibus abstinent, says Solinus (Polyhistor, c. 33), who copies Pliny the Elder (l. VIII c. 68) in the strange supposition that hogs can not live in Arabia. The Egyptians were actuated by a natural and superstitious horror for that unclean beast (Marsham, Canon chronicus, p. 205). The old Arabians likewise practiced, post coitum, the rite of ablution (Herodotus, l. I c. 80), which is sanctified by the Muhammadan law (Reland, p. 75, etc.; Chardin, or rather the Mullah of Shah Abbas, tom. IV, p. 71, etc.). ↩
The Muhammadan doctors are not fond of the subject; yet they hold circumcision necessary to salvation, and even pretend that Muhammad was miraculously born without a foreskin (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 319, 320; Sale’s Preliminary Discourse, pp. 106, 107). ↩
Diodorus Siculus (tom. I l. II, pp. 142⁠–⁠145) has cast on their religion the curious but superficial glance of a Greek. Their astronomy would be far more valuable: they had looked through the telescope of reason, since they could doubt whether the sun were in the number of the planets or of the fixed stars. ↩
Simplicius (who quotes Porphyry), De Coelo, l. II com. XLVI, p. 123, lin. 18, apud Marsham, Canon chronicus, p. 474, who doubts the fact, because it is adverse to his systems. The earliest date of the Chaldaean observations is the year 2234 before Christ. After the conquest of Babylon by Alexander, they were communicated at the request of Aristotle, to the astronomer Hipparchus. What a moment in the annals of science! ↩
Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 138⁠–⁠146), Hottinger (Historia orientalis, pp. 162⁠–⁠203), Hyde (Historia religionis veterum Persarum, pp. 124, 128, etc.), d’Herbelot (“Sabi,” pp. 725, 726), and Sale (Preliminary Discourse, pp. 14, 15), rather excite than gratify our curiosity; and the last of these writers confounds Sabianism with the primitive religion of the Arabs. ↩
D’Anville (L’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 130⁠–⁠147) will fix the position of these ambiguous Christians; Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, pp. 607⁠–⁠614) may explain their tenets. But it is a slippery task to ascertain the creed of an ignorant people, afraid and ashamed to disclose their secret traditions.9209 ↩
The Magi were fixed in the province of Bahrein (Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, p. 114) and mingled with the old Arabians (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 146⁠–⁠150). ↩
The state of the Jews and Christians in Arabia is described by Pococke from Sharestani, etc. (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 60, 134, etc.), Hottinger (Historia orientalis, pp. 212⁠–⁠238), d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 474⁠–⁠476), Basnage (Histoire des Juifs, tom. VII, p. 185, tom. VIII, p. 280), and Sale (Preliminary Discourse, p. 22, etc., 33, etc.). ↩
In their offerings, it was a maxim to defraud God for the profit of the idol, not a more potent, but a more irritable patron (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 108, 109). ↩
Our versions now extant, whether Jewish or Christian, appear more recent than the Koran; but the existence of a prior translation may be fairly inferred:
1. From the perpetual practice of the synagogue of expounding the Hebrew lesson by a paraphrase in the vulgar tongue of the country;
2. From the analogy of the Armenian, Persian, Aethiopic versions, expressly quoted by the fathers of the fifth century, who assert that the Scriptures were translated into all the Barbaric languages (Brian Walton, Prolegomena ad Biblia Polyglotta, pp. 34, 93⁠–⁠97; Simon, Histoire critique du text du Nouveau Testament, tom. I, pp. 180, 181, 282⁠–⁠286, 293, 305, 306, tom. IV, p. 206).
↩
In eo conveniunt omnes, ut plebeio vilique genere ortum, etc. (Hottinger, Historia orientalis, p. 136). Yet Theophanes, the most ancient of the Greeks, and the father of many a lie, confesses that Muhammad was of the race of Ishmael, ἐκ μιᾶς γενικωτάτης φυλῆς (Chronographia, p. 277). ↩
Abulfeda (in Vita Mohammed, c. 1, 2) and Gagnier (La vie de Mahomet, pp. 25⁠–⁠97) describe the popular and approved genealogy of the prophet. At Mecca, I would not dispute its authenticity: at Lausanne, I will venture to observe:
1. That from Ishmael to Muhammad, a period of 2500 years, they reckon thirty, instead of seventy-five, generations;
2. That the modern Bedouins are ignorant of their history and careless of their pedigree (Voyage de D’Arvieux, pp. 100, 103).9210
↩
The seed of this history, or fable, is contained in the 105th chapter of the Koran; and Gagnier (in Praefatio ad La vie de Mahomet, p. 18, etc.) has translated the historical narrative of Abulfeda, which may be illustrated from d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 12) and Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 64). Prideaux (Life of Mahomet, p. 48) calls it a lie of the coinage of Muhammad; but Sale (Koran, pp. 501⁠–⁠503), who is half a Mussulman, attacks the inconsistent faith of the doctor for believing the miracles of the Delphic Apollo. Maracci (Alcoran, tom. I part II, p. 14, tom. II, p. 823) ascribes the miracle to the devil, and extorts from the Muhammadans the confession that God would not have defended against the Christians the idols of the Caaba.9211 ↩
Amina, or Emina, was of Jewish birth. Von Hammer, Die Geschichte der Assassinen, p. 10. —⁠M. ↩
The safest eras of Abulfeda (in Vita Mohammed, c. I, p. 2), of Alexander, or the Greeks, 882, of Bocht Naser, or Nabonassar, 1316, equally lead us to the year 569. The old Arabian calendar is too dark and uncertain to support the Benedictines (L’Art de vérifier les dates, p. 15), who from the day of the month and week deduce a new mode of calculation, and remove the birth of Muhammad to the year of Christ 570, the 10th of November. Yet this date would agree with the year 882 of the Greeks, which is assigned by Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 5) and Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 101, and Errata, Pococke’s version). While we refine our chronology, it is possible that the illiterate prophet was ignorant of his own age.9212 ↩
I copy the honorable testimony of Abu Taleb to his family and nephew. Laus Dei, qui nos a stirpe Abrahami et semine Ismaelis constituit, et nobis regionem sacram dedit, et nos judices hominibus statuit. Porro Mohammed filius Abdollahi nepotis mei (nepos meus) quocum ex aequo librabitur e Koraishidis quispiam cui non praeponderaturus est, bonitate et excellentiâ, et intellectu et gloriâ, acumine, etsi opum inops fuerit (et certe opes umbra transiens sunt et depositum quod reddi debet), desiderio Chadijae filiae Chowailedi tenetur, et illa vicissim ipsius, quicquid autem dotis vice petieritis, ego in me suscipiam (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, e septimâ parte libri Ebn Hamduni). ↩
The private life of Muhammad, from his birth to his mission, is preserved by Abulfeda (in Vita Mohammed, c. 3⁠–⁠7) and the Arabian writers of genuine or apocryphal note, who are alleged by Hottinger (Historia orientalis, pp. 204⁠–⁠211), Maracci (tom. I, pp. 10⁠–⁠14), and Gagnier (La vie de Mahomet, tom. I, pp. 97⁠–⁠134). ↩
Abulfeda, in Vita Mohammed, c. 65, 66; Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, pp. 272⁠–⁠289; the best traditions of the person and conversation of the prophet are derived from Ayesha, Ali, and Abu Horaira (Gagnier, tom. II, p. 267; Ockley’s History of the Saracens, vol. II, p. 149), surnamed the Father of a Cat, who died in the year 59 of the Hegira.9213 ↩
Those who believe that Muhammad could read or write are incapable of reading what is written with another pen, in the Suras, or chapters of the Koran, VII, XXIX, XCVI. These texts, and the tradition of the Sonna, are admitted, without doubt, by Abulfeda (in Vita Mohammed, c. VII), Gagnier (Note ad Abulfeda, p. 15), Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 151), Reland (De religione Mohammedicâ, p. 236), and Sale (Preliminary Discourse, p. 42). Mr. Joseph White, almost alone, denies the ignorance, to accuse the imposture, of the prophet. His arguments are far from satisfactory. Two short trading journeys to the fairs of Syria were surely not sufficient to infuse a science so rare among the citizens of Mecca: it was not in the cool, deliberate act of treaty that Muhammad would have dropped the mask; nor can any conclusion be drawn from the words of disease and delirium. The lettered youth, before he aspired to the prophetic character, must have often exercised, in private life, the arts of reading and writing; and his first converts, of his own family, would have been the first to detect and upbraid his scandalous hypocrisy (White’s Sermons, pp. 203, 204, Notes, p. xxxvi⁠–⁠xxxviii).9214 ↩
The Count de Boulainvilliers (La vie de Mahomed, pp. 202⁠–⁠228) leads his Arabian pupil, like the Telemachus of Fénélon, or the Cyrus of Ramsay. His journey to the court of Persia is probably a fiction; nor can I trace the origin of his exclamation, “Les Grecs sont pourtant des hommes.” The two Syrian journeys are expressed by almost all the Arabian writers, both Muhammadans and Christians (Gagnier ad Abulfeda, p. 10). ↩
I am not at leisure to pursue the fables or conjectures which name the strangers accused or suspected by the infidels of Mecca (Koran, c. 16, p. 223, c. 35, p. 297, with Sale’s remarks; Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, pp. 22⁠–⁠27; Gagnier, Note ad Abulfeda, pp. 11, 74; Maracci, tom. II, p. 400). Even Prideaux has observed that the transaction must have been secret, and that the scene lay in the heart of Arabia. ↩
Abulfeda in Vita Mohammed, c. 7, p. 15. Gagnier, tom. I, pp. 133, 135. The situation of Mount Hera is remarked by Abulfeda (Geographia Arabica, p. 4). Yet Muhammad had never read of the cave of Egeria ubi nocturnae Numa constituebat amicae, of the Idaean Mount, where Minos conversed with Jove, etc. ↩
Koran, c. 9, p. 153. Al Beidawi and the other commentators quoted by Sale adhere to the charge; but I do not understand that it is colored by the most obscure or absurd tradition of the Talmud. ↩
Hottinger, Historia orientalis, pp. 225⁠–⁠228. The Collyridian heresy was carried from Thrace to Arabia by some women, and the name was borrowed from the κολλυρίς, or cake, which they offered to the goddess. This example, that of Beryllus bishop of Bostra (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. VI c. 33), and several others, may excuse the reproach, Arabia haereseωn ferax. ↩
The three gods in the Koran (c. 4, p. 81, c. 5, p. 92) are obviously directed against our Catholic mystery: but the Arabic commentators understand them of the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, an heretical Trinity, maintained, as it is said, by some Barbarians at the Council of Nice (Eutychius, Annales, tom. I, p. 440). But the existence of the Marianites is denied by the candid Beausobre (Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. I, p. 532), and he derives the mistake from the word Rouah, the Holy Ghost, which in some Oriental tongues is of the feminine gender, and is figuratively styled the mother of Christ in the gospel of the Nazarenes. ↩
This train of thought is philosophically exemplified in the character of Abraham, who opposed in Chaldaea the first introduction of idolatry (Koran, c. 6, p. 106; d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 13). ↩
See the Koran, particularly the second (p. 30), the fifty-seventh (p. 437), the fifty-eighth (p. 441) chapters, which proclaim the omnipotence of the Creator. ↩
The most orthodox creeds are translated by Pococke (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 274, 284⁠–⁠292), Ockley (History of the Saracens, vol. II, p. LXXXII⁠–⁠XCV), Reland (De religione Mohammedicâ, l. I, pp. 7⁠–⁠13), and Chardin (Voyages en Perse, tom. IV, pp. 4⁠–⁠28). The great truth that God is without similitude is foolishly criticized by Maracci (Alcoran, tom. I part III, pp. 87⁠–⁠94), because he made man after his own image. ↩
Reland, De religione Mohammedicâ, l. I, pp. 17⁠–⁠47. Sale’s Preliminary Discourse, pp. 73⁠–⁠76. Voyages de Chardin en Perse, tom. IV, pp. 28⁠–⁠37, and 37⁠–⁠47 for the Persian addition, “Ali is the vicar of God!” Yet the precise number of the prophets is not an article of faith. ↩
For the apocryphal books of Adam, see Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti, pp. 27⁠–⁠29; of Seth, pp. 154⁠–⁠157; of Enoch, pp. 160⁠–⁠219. But the book of Enoch is consecrated, in some measure, by the quotation of the apostle St. Jude; and a long legendary fragment is alleged by Syncellus and Scaliger.9215 ↩
The seven precepts of Noah are explained by Marsham (Canon chronicus, pp. 154⁠–⁠180), who adopts, on this occasion, the learning and credulity of Selden. ↩
The articles of “Adam,” “Noah,” “Abraham,” “Moses,” etc., in the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot, are gayly bedecked with the fanciful legends of the Muhammadans, who have built on the groundwork of Scripture and the Talmud. ↩
Koran, c. 7, p. 128, etc., c. 10, p. 173, etc. D’Herbelot, p. 647, etc. ↩
Koran, c. 3, p. 40, c. 4, p. 80. D’Herbelot, p. 399, etc. ↩
See the gospel of St. Thomas, or of the Infancy, in the Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti of Fabricius, who collects the various testimonies concerning it (pp. 128⁠–⁠158). It was published in Greek by Cotelier, and in Arabic by Henry Sike, who thinks our present copy more recent than Muhammad. Yet his quotations agree with the original about the speech of Christ in his cradle, his living birds of clay, etc. (Sike, c. I, pp. 168, 169, c. 36, pp. 198, 199, c. 46, p. 206; Cotelier, c. 2, pp. 160, 161). ↩
It is darkly hinted in the Koran (c. 3, p. 39), and more clearly explained by the tradition of the Sonnites (Sale’s Note, and Maracci, tom. II, p. 112). In the twelth century, the immaculate conception was condemned by St. Bernard as a presumptuous novelty (Fra Paolo Sarpi, Istoria del Concilio tridentino, l. II). ↩
See the Koran 3:53 and 4:156, of Maracci’s edition. Deus est praestantissimus dolose agentium (an odd praise)⁠ ⁠… nec crucifixerunt eum, sed objecta est eis similitudo: an expression that may suit with the system of the Docetes; but the commentators believe (Maracci, tom. II, pp. 113⁠–⁠115, 173; Sale, pp. 42, 43, 79) that another man, a friend or an enemy, was crucified in the likeness of Jesus: a fable which they had read in the gospel of St. Barnabus, and which had been started as early as the time of Irenaeus, by some Ebionite heretics (Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. II, p. 25, Mosheim, De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, p. 353). ↩
This charge is obscurely urged in the Koran (c. 3, p. 45); but neither Muhammad nor his followers are sufficiently versed in languages and criticism to give any weight or color to their suspicions. Yet the Arians and Nestorians could relate some stories, and the illiterate prophet might listen to the bold assertions of the Manichaeans. See Beausobre, tom. I, pp. 291⁠–⁠305. ↩
Among the prophecies of the Old and New Testament, which are perverted by the fraud or ignorance of the Mussulmans, they apply to the prophet the promise of the Paraclete, or Comforter, which had been already usurped by the Montanists and Manichaeans (Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. I, p. 263, etc.); and the easy change of letters, περικλυτός for παράκλητος affords the etymology of the name of Mohammed (Maracci, tom. I part I, pp. 15⁠–⁠28). ↩
For the Koran, see d’Herbelot, pp. 85⁠–⁠88; Maracci, tom. I in Vita Mohammed, pp. 32⁠–⁠45; Sale, Preliminary Discourse, pp. 56⁠–⁠70. ↩
Koran 17:89. In Sale, pp. 235, 236. In Maracci, p. 410.9216 ↩
Yet a sect of Arabians was persuaded that it might be equalled or surpassed by a human pen (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 221, etc.); and Maracci (the polemic is too hard for the translator) derides the rhyming affectation of the most applauded passage (tom. I part II, pp. 69⁠–⁠75). ↩
Colloquia (whether real or fabulous) in mediâ Arabiâ atque ab Arabibus habita (Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, with his German editor Michaelis, Epimetron IV). Yet Michaelis (pp. 671⁠–⁠673) has detected many Egyptian images, the elephantiasis, papyrus, Nile, crocodile, etc. The language is ambiguously styled Arabico-Hebraea. The resemblance of the sister dialects was much more visible in their childhood than in their mature age (Michaelis, p. 682; Schultens, in Praefatio, Job).9217 ↩
The numbers were much more disproportionate than these. Out of 600,000 traditions, Bokhari found only 4,000 to be genuine. Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, vol. I, p. 291. —⁠S. ↩
Ali Bochari died AH [Anno Hegirae] 224. See d’Herbelot, pp. 208, 416, 827. Gagnier, Note ad Abulfeda, c. 19, p. 33. ↩
See, more remarkably, Koran, c. 2, 6, 12, 13, 17. Prideaux (Life of Mahomet, pp. 18, 19) has confounded the impostor. Maracci, with a more learned apparatus, has shown that the passages which deny his miracles are clear and positive (Alcoran, tom. I part II, pp. 7⁠–⁠12), and those which seem to assert them are ambiguous and insufficient (pp. 12⁠–⁠22). ↩
See the Specimen historiae Arabum, the text of Abulpharagius, p. 17; the notes of Pococke, pp. 187⁠–⁠190; d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 76, 77; Voyages de Chardin en Perse, tom. IV, pp. 200⁠–⁠203. Maracci (Alcoran, tom. I, pp. 22⁠–⁠64) has most laboriously collected and confuted the miracles and prophecies of Muhammad, which, according to some writers, amount to three thousand. ↩
The nocturnal journey is circumstantially related by Abulfeda (in Vita Mohammed, c. 19, p. 33), who wishes to think it a vision; by Prideaux (pp. 31⁠–⁠40), who aggravates the absurdities; and by Gagnier (tom. I, pp. 252⁠–⁠343), who declares, from the zealous Al Jannabi, that to deny this journey is to disbelieve the Koran. Yet the Koran, without naming either heaven or Jerusalem or Mecca, has only dropped a mysterious hint: Laus illi qui transtulit servum suum ab oratorio Haram ad oratorium remotissimum (Koran 17:1, in Maracci, tom. II, p. 407; for Sale’s version is more licentious). A slender basis for the aerial structure of tradition. ↩
In the prophetic style, which uses the present or past for the future, Muhammad had said, Appropinquavit hora, et scissa est luna (Koran, c. 54, v. 1; in Maracci, tom. II, p. 688). This figure of rhetoric has been converted into a fact, which is said to be attested by the most respectable eyewitnesses (Maracci, tom. II, p. 690). The festival is still celebrated by the Persians (Chardin, tom. IV, p. 201); and the legend is tediously spun out by Gagnier (La vie de Mahomet, tom. I, pp. 183⁠–⁠234), on the faith, as it should seem, of the credulous Al Jannabi. Yet a Muhammadan doctor has arraigned the credit of the principal witness (apud Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 187); the best interpreters are content with the simple sense of the Koran (Al Beidawi, apud Hottinger, Historia orientalis, l. II, p. 302); and the silence of Abulfeda is worthy of a prince and a philosopher.9218 ↩
Abulpharagius, in Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 17; and his scepticism is justified in the notes of Pococke, pp. 190⁠–⁠194, from the purest authorities. ↩
The most authentic account of these precepts, pilgrimage, prayer, fasting, alms, and ablutions is extracted from the Persian and Arabian theologians by Maracci (Prodromus ad refutationem Alcoran, part IV, pp. 9⁠–⁠24); Reland (in his excellent treatise De religione Mohammedicâ Utrecht, 1717, pp. 67⁠–⁠123); and Chardin (Voyages en Perse, tom. IV, pp. 47⁠–⁠195). Marace is a partial accuser; but the jeweller, Chardin, had the eyes of a philosopher; and Reland, a judicious student, had travelled over the East in his closet at Utrecht. The fourteenth letter of Tournefort (Voyage du Levant, tom. II, pp. 325⁠–⁠360, in octavo) describes what he had seen of the religion of the Turks. ↩
Muhammad at first granted the Jews many privileges in observing their ancient customs, and especially their sabbath; and he himself kept the fast of ten days with which the Jewish year begins. But, when he found himself deceived in his expectations of converting them, these privileges were withdrawn. Mecca was substituted for Jerusalem as the kibla, or quarter to which the face is directed during prayer; and, in place of the Jewish fast, that of Ramadan was instituted. Weil, Mohammed der Prophet, p. 90. —⁠S. ↩
Such is Muhammadanism beyond the precincts of the Holy City. But Muhammad retained, and the Koran sanctions (Sale’s Koran, c. 5, in init. c. 22, vol. II, pp. 171, 172), the sacrifice of sheep and camels (probably according to the old Arabian rites) at Mecca; and the pilgrims complete their ceremonial with sacrifices, sometimes as numerous and costly as those of King Solomon. Compare note, vol. IV c. XXIII, p. 96, and Forster’s Mahometanism Unveiled, vol. I, p. 420. This author quotes the questionable authority of Benjamin of Tudela for the sacrifice of a camel by the caliph at Bosra; but sacrifice undoubtedly forms no part of the ordinary Muhammadan ritual; nor will the sanctity of the caliph, as the earthly representative of the prophet, bear any close analogy to the priesthood of the Mosaic or Gentile religions. —⁠M. ↩
Muhammad (Sale’s Koran, c. 9, p. 153) reproaches the Christians with taking their priests and monks for their lords, besides God. Yet Maracci (Prodromus ad refutationem Alcoran, part III, pp. 69, 70) excuses the worship, especially of the pope, and quotes, from the Koran itself, the case of Eblis, or Satan, who was cast from heaven for refusing to adore Adam. ↩
Koran, c. 5, p. 94, and Sale’s note, which refers to the authority of Jallaloddin and Al Beidawi. D’Herbelot declares that Muhammad condemned la vie religieuse; and that the first swarms of fakirs, dervishes, etc., did not appear till after the year 300 of the Hegira (Bibliotheca orientalis, pp. 292, 718). ↩
See the double prohibition (Koran, c. 2, p. 25, c. 5, p. 94), the one in the style of a legislator, the other in that of a fanatic. The public and private motives of Muhammad are investigated by Prideaux (Life of Mahomet, pp. 62⁠–⁠64) and Sale (Preliminary Discourse, p. 124). ↩
The jealousy of Maracci (Prodromus ad refutationem Alcoran, part IV, p. 33) prompts him to enumerate the more liberal alms of the Catholics of Rome. Fifteen great hospitals are open to many thousand patients and pilgrims, fifteen hundred maidens are annually portioned; fifty-six charity schools are founded for both sexes, one hundred and twenty confraternities relieve the wants of their brethren, etc. The benevolence of London is still more extensive; but I am afraid that much more is to be ascribed to the humanity than to the religion of the people. ↩
See Herodotus (l. II c. 123) and our learned countryman Sir John Marsham (Canon chronicus, p. 46). The Ἄδης of the same writer (pp. 254⁠–⁠274) is an elaborate sketch of the infernal regions, as they were painted by the fancy of the Egyptians and Greeks, of the poets and philosophers of antiquity. ↩
The Koran (c. 2, p. 259, etc.; of Sale, p. 32; of Maracci, p. 97) relates an ingenious miracle, which satisfied the curiosity, and confirmed the faith, of Abraham. ↩
The candid Reland has demonstrated that Muhammad damns all unbelievers (De religione Mohammedicâ, pp. 128⁠–⁠142); that devils will not be finally saved (pp. 196⁠–⁠199); that paradise will not solely consist of corporeal delights (pp. 199⁠–⁠205); and that women’s souls are immortal (pp. 205⁠–⁠209). ↩
A Beidawi, apud Sale, Koran, c. 9, p. 164. The refusal to pray for an unbelieving kindred is justified, according to Muhammad, by the duty of a prophet, and the example of Abraham, who reprobated his own father as an enemy of God. Yet Abraham (he adds, 9:116; Maracci, tom. II, p. 317) fuit sane pius, mitis. ↩
For the day of judgment, hell, paradise, etc., consult the Koran (2:25, c. 56, 78, etc.), with Maracci’s virulent, but learned, refutation (in his notes, and in the Prodromus ad refutationem Alcoran, part IV, pp. 78, 120, 122, etc.); d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 368, 375); Reland (pp. 47⁠–⁠61); and Sale (pp. 76⁠–⁠103). The original ideas of the Magi are darkly and doubtfully explored by their apologist, Dr. Hyde (Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 33, pp. 402⁠–⁠412, Oxoniae, 1760). In the article of “Mahomet,” Bayle has shown how indifferently wit and philosophy supply the absence of genuine information. ↩
Before I enter on the history of the prophet, it is incumbent on me to produce my evidence. The Latin, French, and English versions of the Koran are preceded by historical discourses, and the three translators, Maracci (tom. I, pp. 10⁠–⁠32), Savary (tom. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠248), and Sale (Preliminary Discourse, pp. 33⁠–⁠56), had accurately studied the language and character of their author. Two professed lives of Muhammad have been composed by Dr. Prideaux (Life of Mahomet, seventh edition, London, 1718, in octavo) and the Count de Boulainvilliers (La vie de Mahomed, Londres, 1730, in octavo), but the adverse wish of finding an impostor or a hero has too often corrupted the learning of the doctor and the ingenuity of the count. The article in d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 598⁠–⁠603) is chiefly drawn from al-Nuwayri and Mirkond; but the best and most authentic of our guides is M. Gagnier, a Frenchman by birth, and professor at Oxford of the Oriental tongues. In two elaborate works (Ismael Abulfeda de Vita, et rebus gestis Mohammedis, Moslemicae religionis auctoris, et imperii saracenici fundatoris. Ex codice MS^to Pocockiano bibliothecae bodleianae textum Arabicum primus edidit, Latinè vertit, praefatione et notis illustravit. Johannes Gagnier, Oxoniae, 1723, in folio; La vie de Mahomet traduite et compilée de l’Alcoran, des traditions authentiques de la Sonna, et des meilleurs auteurs arabes, Amsterdam, 1748, three vols. in duodecimo) he has interpreted, illustrated, and supplied the Arabic text of Abulfeda and Al Jannabi: the first, an enlightened prince who reigned at Hamah in Syria AD 1310⁠–⁠1332 (see Gagnier, Praefatio ad Abulfeda); the second, a credulous doctor, who visited Mecca AD 1556 (d’Herbelot, p. 397; Gagnier, tom. III, pp. 209, 210). These are my general vouchers, and the inquisitive reader may follow the order of time and the division of chapters. Yet I must observe that both Abulfeda and Al Jannabi are modern historians, and that they cannot appeal to any writers of the first century of the Hegira.9219 ↩
After the Greeks, Prideaux (p. 8) discloses the secret doubts of the wife of Muhammad. As if he had been a privy counsellor of the prophet, Boulainvilliers (p. 272, etc.) unfolds the sublime and patriotic views of Cadijah and the first disciples. ↩
Vezirus, portitor, bajulus, onus ferens; and this plebeian name was transferred by an apt metaphor to the pillars of the state (Gagnier, Note ad Abulfeda, p. 19). I endeavor to preserve the Arabian idiom, as far as I can feel it myself in a Latin or French translation. ↩
There were two emigrations to Abyssinia. The first was in the fifth year of the prophet’s mission, when twelve men and four women emigrated. They returned to Mecca in the course of the same year upon hearing that a reconciliation had taken place between the prophet and his enemies. The second emigration was in the seventh year of the mission, and is the one mentioned in the text. Omar had been converted in the preceding year, the sixth of the mission; and after his conversion the number of the faithful was almost immediately doubled. Sprenger, p. 182⁠–⁠189. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The passages of the Koran in behalf of toleration are strong and numerous: 2:257, 16:129, 17:54, 45:15, 50:39, 88:21, etc., with the notes of Maracci and Sale. This character alone may generally decide the doubts of the learned, whether a chapter was revealed at Mecca or Medina. ↩
See the Koran (passim, and especially c. 7, pp. 123, 124, etc.), and the tradition of the Arabs (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 35⁠–⁠37). The caverns of the tribe of Thamud, fit for men of the ordinary stature, were shown in the midway between Medina and Damascus (Abulfeda Arabiae descriptio, pp. 43, 44), and may be probably ascribed to the Troglodytes of the primitive world (Michaelis, ad Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, pp. 131⁠–⁠134; Recherches sur les Egyptiens, tom. II, p. 48, etc.). ↩
In the time of Job, the crime of impiety was punished by the Arabian magistrate (31:26⁠–⁠28). I blush for a respectable prelate (De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, pp. 650, 651, edit. Michaelis; and letter of a late professor in the university of Oxford, pp. 15⁠–⁠53), who justifies and applauds this patriarchal inquisition. ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 445. He quotes a particular history of the flight of Muhammad. ↩
The Hegira was instituted by Omar, the second caliph, in imitation of the era of the martyrs of the Christians (d’Herbelot, p. 444); and properly commenced sixty-eight days before the flight of Muhammad, with the first of Moharren, or first day of that Arabian year, which coincides with Friday, July 16th, AD 622 (Abulfeda, Vita Mohammed, c. 22, 23, pp. 45⁠–⁠50; and Greaves’s edition of Ullug Beg’s Epochae Arabum, etc., c. 1, pp. 8, 10, etc.).9220 ↩
Muhammad’s life, from his mission to the Hegira, may be found in Abulfeda (pp. 14⁠–⁠45) and Gagnier (tom. I, pp. 134⁠–⁠251, 342⁠–⁠383). The legend from pp. 187⁠–⁠234 is vouched by Al Jannabi, and disdained by Abulfeda. ↩
The triple inauguration of Muhammad is described by Abulfeda (pp. 30, 33, 40, 86) and Gagnier (tom. I, p. 342, etc., 349, etc., tom. II, p. 223, etc.). ↩
Prideaux (Life of Mahomet, p. 44) reviles the wickedness of the impostor, who despoiled two poor orphans, the sons of a carpenter: a reproach which he drew from the Disputatio contra Saracenos, composed in Arabic before the year 1130; but the honest Gagnier (ad Abulfeda, p. 53) has shown that they were deceived by the word Al Nagjar, which signifies, in this place, not an obscure trade, but a noble tribe of Arabs. The desolate state of the ground is described by Abulfeda; and his worthy interpreter has proved, from Al Bochari, the offer of a price; from Al Jannabi, the fair purchase; and from Ahmeq Ben Joseph, the payment of the money by the generous Abubeker. On these grounds the prophet must be honorably acquitted. ↩
Al Jannabi (apud Gagnier, tom. II, pp. 246, 324) describes the seal and pulpit as two venerable relics of the apostle of God; and the portrait of his court is taken from Abulfeda (c. 44, p. 85). ↩
The eighth and ninth chapters of the Koran are the loudest and most vehement; and Maracci (Prodromus ad refutationem Alcoran, part IV, pp. 59⁠–⁠64) has inveighed with more justice than discretion against the double dealing of the impostor. ↩
The tenth and twentieth chapters of Deuteronomy, with the practical comments of Joshua, David, etc., are read with more awe than satisfaction by the pious Christians of the present age. But the bishops, as well as the rabbis of former times, have beat the drum-ecclesiastic with pleasure and success (Sale’s Preliminary Discourse, pp. 142, 143). ↩
The editor’s opinions on this subject may be read in the History of the Jews, vol. I, p. 137. —⁠M. ↩
Abulfeda, in Vita Mohammed, p. 156. The private arsenal of the apostle consisted of nine swords, three lances, seven pikes or half-pikes, a quiver and three bows, seven cuirasses, three shields, and two helmets (Gagnier, tom. III, pp. 328⁠–⁠334), with a large white standard, a black banner (p. 335), twenty horses (p. 322, etc.). Two of his martial sayings are recorded by tradition (Gagnier, tom. II, pp. 88, 337). ↩
The whole subject de jure belli Mohammedanorum is exhausted in a separate dissertation by the learned Reland (Dissertationum Miscellanearum, tom. III, Dissertatio X, pp. 3⁠–⁠53). ↩
The doctrine of absolute predestination, on which few religions can reproach each other, is sternly exposed in the Koran (c. 3, pp. 52, 53, c. 4, p. 70, etc., with the notes of Sale, and c. 17, p. 413, with those of Maracci). Reland (De religione Mohammedicâ, pp. 61⁠–⁠64) and Sale (Preliminary Discourse, p. 103) represent the opinions of the doctors, and our modern travellers the confidence, the fading confidence, of the Turks. ↩
Al Jannabi (apud Gagnier, tom. II, p. 9) allows him seventy or eighty horse; and on two other occasions, prior to the battle of Ohud, he enlists a body of thirty (p. 10) and of 500 (p. 66), troopers. Yet the Mussulmans, in the field of Ohud, had no more than two horses, according to the better sense of Abulfeda (in Vita Mohammed, c. 31, p. 65). In the Stony province, the camels were numerous; but the horse appears to have been less numerous than in the Happy or the Desert Arabia. ↩
Bedder Houneene, twenty miles from Medina and forty from Mecca, is on the high road of the caravan of Egypt; and the pilgrims annually commemorate the prophet’s victory by illuminations, rockets, etc. Shaw’s Travels, p. 477. ↩
The place to which Muhammad retired during the action is styled by Gagnier (in Abulfeda, c. 27, p. 58; La vie de Mahomet, tom. II, pp. 30, 33), Umbraculum, une loge de bois avec une porte. The same Arabic word is rendered by Reiske (Annales moslemici Abulfedae, p. 23) by Solium, Suggestus editior; and the difference is of the utmost moment for the honor both of the interpreter and of the hero. I am sorry to observe the pride and acrimony with which Reiske chastises his fellow-laborer. Saepi sic vertit, ut integrae paginae nequeant nisi unâ liturâ corrigi. Arabice non satis callebat, et carebat judicio critico. Johann Jacob Reiske, Prodidagmata ad Hagji Chalisae librum memorialem, p. 228, ad calcem Abulfedae, Tabula Syriae, Lipsiae, 1766, in quarto. ↩
The loose expressions of the Koran (c. 3, pp. 124, 125; c. 8, p. 9) allow the commentators to fluctuate between the numbers of 1,000, 3,000, or 9,000 angels; and the smallest of these might suffice for the slaughter of seventy of the Koreish (Maracci, Alcoran, tom. II, p. 131). Yet the same scholiasts confess that this angelic band was not visible to any mortal eye (Maracci, p. 297). They refine on the words (c. 8, 16) “not thou, but God,” etc. (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 600, 601). ↩
Geographia nubiensis, p. 47. ↩
In the third chapter of the Koran (pp. 50⁠–⁠53, with Sale’s notes) the prophet alleges some poor excuses for the defeat of Ohud.9221 ↩
For the detail of the three Koreish wars, of Beder, of Ohud, and of the ditch, peruse Abulfeda (pp. 56⁠–⁠61, 64⁠–⁠69, 73⁠–⁠77), Gagnier (tom. II, pp. 23⁠–⁠45, 70⁠–⁠96, 120⁠–⁠139), with the proper articles of d’Herbelot, and the abridgments of Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 6, 7) and Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 102). ↩
The wars of Muhammad against the Jewish tribes of Kainoka, the Nadhirites, Koraidha, and Chaibar, are related by Abulfeda (pp. 61, 71, 77, 87, etc.) and Gagnier (tom. II, pp. 61⁠–⁠65, 107⁠–⁠112, 139⁠–⁠148, 268⁠–⁠294). ↩
Abu Rafe, the servant of Muhammad, is said to affirm that he himself, and seven other men, afterwards tried, without success, to move the same gate from the ground (Abulfeda, p. 90). Abu Rafe was an eyewitness, but who will be witness for Abu Rafe? ↩
The banishment of the Jews is attested by Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 9) and the great Al Tabari (Gagnier, tom. II, p. 285). Yet Niebuhr (Description de l’Arabie, p. 324) believes that the Jewish religion, and Karaite sect, are still professed by the tribe of Chaibar; and that in the plunder of the caravans the disciples of Moses are the confederates of those of Muhammad. ↩
The successive steps of the reduction of Mecca are related by Abulfeda (pp. 84⁠–⁠87, 97⁠–⁠100, 102⁠–⁠111) and Gagnier (tom. II, pp. 209⁠–⁠245, 309⁠–⁠322, tom. III, pp. 1⁠–⁠58), Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 8⁠–⁠10), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 103). ↩
This peaceful entrance into Mecca took place, according to the treaty, the following year. Weil, p. 202. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
After the conquest of Mecca, the Mahomet of Voltaire imagines and perpetuates the most horrid crimes. The poet confesses that he is not supported by the truth of history, and can only allege, que celui qui fait la guerre à sa patrie au nom de Dieu, est capable de tout (Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire, tom. XV, p. 282). The maxim is neither charitable nor philosophic; and some reverence is surely due to the fame of heroes and the religion of nations. I am informed that a Turkish ambassador at Paris was much scandalized at the representation of this tragedy. ↩
The Muhammadan doctors still dispute whether Mecca was reduced by force or consent (Abulfeda, p. 107, et Gagnier ad loc.); and this verbal controversy is of as much moment as our own about William the Conqueror. ↩
In excluding the Christians from the peninsula of Arabia, the province of Hejaz, or the navigation of the Red Sea, Chardin (Voyages en Perse, tom. IV, p. 166) and Reland (Dissertationum Miscellanearum, tom. III, p. 51) are more rigid than the Mussulmans themselves. The Christians are received without scruple into the ports of Mocha, and even of Gedda; and it is only the city and precincts of Mecca that are inaccessible to the profane (Niebuhr, Description de l’Arabie, pp. 308, 309. Voyage en Arabie, tom. I, pp. 205, 248, etc.). ↩
Abulfeda, pp. 112⁠–⁠115. Gagnier, tom. III, pp. 67⁠–⁠88. D’Herbelot, “Mohammed.” ↩
The siege of Tayef, division of the spoil, etc., are related by Abulfeda (pp. 117⁠–⁠123) and Gagnier (tom. III, pp. 88⁠–⁠111). It is Al Jannabi who mentions the engines and engineers of the tribe of Daws. The fertile spot of Tayef was supposed to be a piece of the land of Syria detached and dropped in the general deluge. ↩
The last conquests and pilgrimage of Muhammad are contained in Abulfeda (pp. 121, 133), Gagnier (tom. III, pp. 119⁠–⁠219), Elmacin (pp. 10, 11), Abulpharagius (p. 103). The ninth of the Hegira was styled the Year of Embassies (Gagnier, Note ad Abulfeda, p. 121). ↩
Compare the bigoted Al Jannabi (apud Gagnier, tom. II, pp. 232⁠–⁠255) with the no less bigoted Greeks, Theophanes (pp. 276⁠–⁠278), Zonaras (tom. II l. XIV, p. 86), and Cedrenus (p. 421). ↩
For the battle of Muta, and its consequences, see Abulfeda (pp. 100⁠–⁠102) and Gagnier (tom. II, pp. 327⁠–⁠343). Χάλεδος (says Theophanes) ὃν λέγουσι μάχαιραν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ↩
To console the afflicted relatives of his kinsman Jauffer, he (Muhammad) represented that, in Paradise, in exchange for the arms which he had lost, he had been furnished with a pair of wings, resplendent with the blushing glories of the ruby, and with which he was become the inseparable companion of the archangal Gabriel, in his volitations through the regions of eternal bliss. Hence, in the catalogue of the martyrs, he has been denominated Jauffer teyaur, the winged Jauffer. David Price, Chronological Retrospect, or Memoirs of the Principal Events of Mohammedan History, vol. I, p. 5. —⁠M. ↩
The expedition of Tabuc is recorded by our ordinary historians, Abulfeda (Vita Mohammed, pp. 123⁠–⁠127) and Gagnier (La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, pp. 147⁠–⁠163); but we have the advantage of appealing to the original evidence of the Koran (c. 9, pp. 154, 165), with Sale’s learned and rational notes. ↩
The Diploma securitatis Ailensibus is attested by Ahmed Ben Joseph, and the author Libri Splendorum (Gagnier, Note ad Abulfeda, p. 125); but Abulfeda himself, as well as Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 11), though he owns Muhammad’s regard for the Christians (p. 13), only mentions peace and tribute. In the year 1630, Sionita published at Paris the text and version of Muhammad’s patent in favor of the Christians; which was admitted and reprobated by the opposite taste of Salmasius and Grotius (Bayle, “Mahomet,” Rem. AA). Hottinger doubts of its authenticity (Historia orientalis, p. 237); Renaudot urges the consent of the Mohametans (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 169); but Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, p. 244) shows the futility of their opinion and inclines to believe it spurious. Yet Abulpharagius quotes the impostor’s treaty with the Nestorian patriarch (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 418); but Abulpharagius was primate of the Jacobites. ↩
The epilepsy, or falling-sickness, of Muhammad is asserted by Theophanes, Zonaras, and the rest of the Greeks; and is greedily swallowed by the gross bigotry of Hottinger (Historia orientalis, pp. 10, 11), Prideaux (Life of Mahomet, p. 12), and Maracci (tom. II Alcoran, pp. 762, 763). The titles (the wrapped-up, the covered) of two chapters of the Koran (73, 74) can hardly be strained to such an interpretation; the silence, the ignorance, of the Muhammadan commentators is more conclusive than the most peremptory denial; and the charitable side is espoused by Ockley (History of the Saracens, tom. I, p. 301), Gagnier (ad Abulfeda, p. 9, La vie de Mahomet, tom. I, p. 118), and Sale (Koran, pp. 469⁠–⁠474).9222 ↩
This poison (more ignominious since it was offered as a test of his prophetic knowledge) is frankly confessed by his zealous votaries, Abulfeda (p. 92) and Al Jannabi (apud Gagnier, tom. II, pp. 286⁠–⁠288). ↩
The tradition seems to be doubtful; but, if true, it proves, as Dr. Weil remarks, Muhammad’s ability to write. There is no authority for Gibbon’s addition, “or, more properly, to dictate,” which seems to be a salvo for his own theory. According to one version he said, “Bring me parchment, or a table, I will write something for Abu Bekr, in order that nobody may oppose him.”⁠—Weil, p. 330 and note 526.

Gagnier, whom Gibbon follows, has erroneously translated “book.” It was only a short paper that Muhammad wished to write, probably to name his successor.⁠—Ibid., note 527. —⁠S. ↩
Major Price, who writes with the authority of one widely conversant with the original sources of Eastern knowledge, and in a very candid tone, takes a very different view of the prophet’s death. “In tracing the circumstances of Muhammad’s illness, we look in vain for any proofs of that meek and heroic firmness which might be expected to dignify and embellish the last moments of the apostle of God. On some occasions he betrayed such want of fortitude, such marks of childish impatience, as are in general to be found in men only of the most ordinary stamp; and such as extorted from his wife Ayesha, in particular, the sarcastic remark that, in herself or any of her family, a similar demeanor would long since have incurred his severe displeasure.⁠ ⁠… He said that the acuteness and violence of his sufferings were necessarily in the proportion of those honors with which it had ever pleased the hand of Omnipotence to distinguish its peculiar favorites.” Price, vol. I, p. 13. —⁠M. ↩
The Greeks and Latins have invented and propagated the vulgar and ridiculous story that Muhammad’s iron tomb is suspended in the air at Mecca (σῆμα μετεωριζόμενον, Laonicus Chalcondyles, De rebus Turcicis, l. III, p. 66), by the action of equal and potent loadstones (Dictionnaire de Bayle, “Mahomet,” Rem. EE, FF). Without any philosophical inquiries, it may suffice that, 1. The prophet was not buried at Mecca; and, 2. That his tomb at Medina, which has been visited by millions, is placed on the ground (Reland, De religione Mohammedicâ, l. II c. 19, pp. 209⁠–⁠211. Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, pp. 263⁠–⁠268).9223 ↩
Al Jannabi enumerates (La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, pp. 372⁠–⁠391) the multifarious duties of a pilgrim who visits the tombs of the prophet and his companions; and the learned casuist decides that this act of devotion is nearest in obligation and merit to a divine precept. The doctors are divided, which, of Mecca or Medina, be the most excellent (pp. 391⁠–⁠394). ↩
The last sickness, death, and burial of Muhammad are described by Abulfeda and Gagnier (Vita Mohammed, pp. 133⁠–⁠142, La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, pp. 220⁠–⁠271). The most private and interesting circumstances were originally received from Ayesha, Ali, the sons of Abbas, etc.; and as they dwelt at Medina and survived the prophet many years, they might repeat the pious tale to a second or third generation of pilgrims. ↩
The Christians, rashly enough, have assigned to Muhammad a tame pigeon that seemed to descend from heaven and whisper in his ear. As this pretended miracle is urged by Grotius (De veritate religionis Christianae), his Arabic translator, the learned Pococke, inquired of him the names of his authors; and Grotius confessed that it is unknown to the Muhammadans themselves. Lest it should provoke their indignation and laughter, the pious lie is suppressed in the Arabic version; but it has maintained an edifying place in the numerous editions of the Latin text (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 186, 187; Reland, De religione Mohammedicâ, l. II c. 39, pp. 259⁠–⁠262). ↩
Ἐμοὶ δὲ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἐκ παιδὸς ἀρξάμενον, φωνή τις γιγνομένη ἣ ὅταν γένηται ἁεὶ ἀποτρέπει με τούτου ὃ ἃν μέλλω πράττειν, προτρέπει δὲ οὔποτε (Plato, in Apologia Socratis, c. 19, pp. 121, 122, edit. Fischer). The familiar examples, which Socrates urges in his dialogue with Theages (Platonis opera quae extant omnia, tom. I, pp. 128, 129, edit. Henricus Stephanus), are beyond the reach of human foresight; and the divine inspiration (the Δαιμόνιον) of the philosopher is clearly taught in the Memorabilia of Xenophon. The ideas of the most rational Platonists are expressed by Cicero (De divinatione I 54), and in the fourteenth and fifteenth dissertations of Maximus of Tyre (pp. 153⁠–⁠172, edit. Davis). ↩
In some passage of his voluminous writings, Voltaire compares the prophet, in his old age, to a fakir: “qui détache la chaîne de son cou pour en donner sur les oreilles à ses confrères.” ↩
Gagnier relates, with the same impartial pen, this humane law of the prophet, and the murders of Caab, and Sophian, which he prompted and approved (La vie de Mahomet, tom. II, pp. 69, 97, 208). ↩
For the domestic life of Muhammad, consult Gagnier, and the corresponding chapters of Abulfeda, for his diet (tom. III, pp. 285⁠–⁠288), his children (pp. 189, 289), his wives (pp. 290⁠–⁠303), his marriage with Zeineb (tom. II, pp. 152⁠–⁠160), his amour with Mary (pp. 303⁠–⁠309), the false accusation of Ayesha (pp. 186⁠–⁠199). The most original evidence of the three last transactions is contained in the twenty-fourth, thirty-third, and sixty-sixth chapters of the Koran, with Sale’s Commentary. Prideaux (Life of Mahomet, pp. 80⁠–⁠90) and Maracci (Prodromus ad refutationem Alcoran, part IV, pp. 49⁠–⁠59) have maliciously exaggerated the frailties of Muhammad. ↩
Incredibile est quo ardore apud eos in Venerem uterque solvitur sexus (Ammianus Marcellinus, l. XIV c. 4). ↩
Sale (Preliminary Discourse, pp. 133⁠–⁠137) has recapitulated the laws of marriage, divorce, etc., and the curious reader of Selden’s Uxor Ebraica will recognize many Jewish ordinances. ↩
In a memorable case, the Caliph Omar decided that all presumptive evidence was of no avail; and that all the four witnesses must have actually seen stylum in pyxide (Abilfedae annales moslemici, p. 71, vers. Reiske). ↩
Sibi robur ad generationem, quantum triginta viri habent, inesse jacteret; ita ut unicâ horâ posset undecim foeminis satisfacere, ut ex Arabum libris refert Sanctus Petrus Paschasius, c. 2. (Maracci, Prodromus ad refutationem Alcoran, part IV, p. 55; see likewise Observations de Belon, l. III c. 10, folio 179, recto). Al Jannabi (Gagnier, tom. III, p. 287) records his own testimony that he surpassed all men in conjugal vigor; and Abulfeda mentions the exclamation of Ali, who washed the body after his death, “O propheta, certe penis tuus coelum versus erectus est” (in Vita Mohammed, p. 140). ↩
I borrow the style of a father of the church, ἐναθλεύων Ἡρακλῆς τρισκαιδέκατον ἆθλον (Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio III,” p. 108). ↩
The common and most glorious legend includes, in a single night, the fifty victories of Hercules over the virgin daughters of Thestius (Diodorus Siculus, tom. I l. IV, p. 274; Pausanias, l. IX, p. 763; Statius, Silvae, l. I eleg. III v. 42). But Athenaeus allows seven nights (Deipnosophistae, l. XIII, p. 556), and Apollodorus fifty, for this arduous achievement of Hercules, who was then no more than eighteen years of age (Bibliotheca Graeca, l. II c. 4, p. 111, cum notis Heyne, part I, p. 332). ↩
Abulfeda in Vita Mohammed, pp. 12, 13, 16, 17, cum notis Gagnier. ↩
This outline of the Arabian history is drawn from the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot (under the names of “Aboubecre,” “Omar Othman,” “Ali,” etc.), from the Annals of Abulfeda, Abulpharagius, and Elmacin (under the proper years of the Hegira), and especially from Ockley’s History of the Saracens (vol. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠10, 115⁠–⁠122, 229, 249, 363⁠–⁠372, 378⁠–⁠391, and almost the whole of the second volume). Yet we should weigh with caution the traditions of the hostile sects; a stream which becomes still more muddy as it flows farther from the source. Sir John Chardin has too faithfully copied the fables and errors of the modern Persians (Voyages en Perse, tom. II, pp. 235⁠–⁠250, etc.). ↩
Ockley (at the end of his second volume) has given an English version of 169 sentences, which he ascribes, with some hesitation, to Ali, the son of Abu Taleb. His preface is colored by the enthusiasm of a translator; yet these sentences delineate a characteristic, though dark, picture of human life. ↩
Gibbon wrote chiefly from the Arabic or Sunnite account of these transactions, the only sources accessible at the time when he composed his History. Major Price, writing from Persian authorities, affords us the advantage of comparing throughout what may be fairly considered the Shiite Version. The glory of Ali is the constant burden of their strain. He was destined, and, according to some accounts, designated, for the caliphate by the prophet; but while the others were fiercely pushing their own interests, Ali was watching the remains of Muhammad with pious fidelity. His disinterested magnanimity, on each separate occasion, declined the sceptre, and gave the noble example of obedience to the appointed caliph. He is described, in retirement, on the throne, and in the field of battle, as transcendently pious, magnanimous, valiant, and humane. He lost his empire through his excess of virtue and love for the faithful, his life through his confidence in God and submission to the decrees of fate.

Compare the curious account of this apathy in Price, ch. 2. It is to be regretted, I must add, that Major Price has contented himself with quoting the names of the Persian works which he follows, without any account of their character, age, and authority. —⁠M. ↩
Abubeker, the father of the virgin Ayesha. Saint-Martin, vol. XI, p. 88. —⁠M. ↩
Ockley (History of the Saracens, vol. I, pp. 5, 6), from an Arabian MS., represents Ayesha as adverse to the substitution of her father in the place of the apostle. This fact, so improbable in itself, is unnoticed by Abulfeda, Al Jannabi, and Al Bochari; the last of whom quotes the tradition of Ayesha herself (Vita Mohammed, p. 136; La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, p. 236). ↩
Particularly by his friend and cousin Abdallah, the son of Abbas, who died AD 687, with the title of grand doctor of the Muslims. In Abulfeda he recapitulates the important occasions in which Ali had neglected his salutary advice (p. 76, vers. Reiske); and concludes (p. 85), O princeps fidelium, absque controversiâ tu quidem vere fortis es, at inops boni consilii, et rerum gerendarum parum callens. ↩
I suspect that the two seniors (Abulpharagius, p. 115; Ockley, tom. I, p. 371) may signify not two actual counsellors, but his two predecessors, Abubeker and Omar. ↩
The schism of the Persians is explained by all our travellers of the last century, especially in the second and fourth volumes of their master, Chardin. Niebuhr, though of inferior merit, has the advantage of writing so late as the year 1764 (Voyage en Arabie, etc., tom. II, pp. 208⁠–⁠233), since the ineffectual attempt of Nadir Shah to change the religion of the nation (see his Persian History translated into French by Sir William Jones, tom. II, pp. 5, 6, 47, 48, 144⁠–⁠155). ↩
Omar is the name of the devil; his murderer is a saint. When the Persians shoot with the bow, they frequently cry, “May this arrow go to the heart of Omar!” (Voyages de Chardin en Perse, tom. II, pp. 239, 240, 259, etc.). ↩
This gradation of merit is distinctly marked in a creed illustrated by Reland (De religione Mohammedicâ, l. I, p. 37), and a Sonnite argument inserted by Ockley (History of the Saracens, tom. II, p. 230). The practice of cursing the memory of Ali was abolished, after forty years, by the Ommiades themselves (d’Herbelot, p. 690); and there are few among the Turks who presume to revile him as an infidel (Voyages de Chardin en Perse, tom. IV, p. 46). ↩
Compare Price, p. 180. —⁠M. ↩
Ali had determined to supersede all the lieutenants in the different provinces. Price, p. 191. Compare, on the conduct of Telha and Zobeir, p. 193. —⁠M. ↩
See the very curious circumstances which took place before and during her flight. Price, p. 196. —⁠M. ↩
The reluctance of Ali to shed the blood of true believers is strikingly described by Major Price’s Persian historians. Price, p. 222. —⁠M. ↩
See (in Price) the singular adventures of Zobeir. He was murdered after having abandoned the army of the insurgents. Telha was about to do the same, when his leg was pierced with an arrow by one of his own party. The wound was mortal. Price, p. 222. —⁠M. ↩
According to Price, 280 of the Benni Beianziat alone lost a right hand in this service (p. 225). —⁠M. ↩
She was escorted by a guard of females disguised as soldiers. When she discovered this, Ayesha was as much gratified by the delicacy of the arrangement, as she had been offended by the familiar approach of so many men. Price, p. 229. —⁠M. ↩
The plain of Siffin is determined by d’Anville (L’Euphrate et le Tigre, p. 29) to be the Campus Barbaricus of Procopius. ↩
The Shiite authors have preserved a noble instance of Ali’s magnanimity. The superior generalship of Moawiyah had cut off the army of Ali from the Euphrates; his soldiers were perishing from want of water. Ali sent a message to his rival to request free access to the river, declaring that under the same circumstances he would not allow any of the faithful, though his adversaries, to perish from thirst. After some debate, Moawiyah determined to avail himself of the advantage of his situation, and to reject the demand of Ali. The soldiers of Ali became desperate; forced their way through that part of the hostile army which commanded the river, and in their turn entirely cut off the troops of Moawiyah from the water. Moawiyah was reduced to make the same supplication to Ali. The generous caliph instantly complied; and both armies, with their cattle, enjoyed free and unmolested access to the river. Price, vol. I, pp. 268, 272. —⁠M. ↩
His son Hassan was recognized as caliph in Arabia and Iraq; but voluntarily abdicated the throne, after six or seven months, in favor of Moawiyah. Saint-Martin, vol. XI, p. 375. —⁠M. ↩
Abulfeda, a moderate Sonnite, relates the different opinions concerning the burial of Ali, but adopts the sepulchre of Cufa, hodie famâ numeroque religiose frequentantium celebratum. This number is reckoned by Niebuhr to amount annually to 2,000 of the dead, and 5,000 of the living (tom. II, pp. 208, 209). ↩
All the tyrants of Persia, from Adhad el Dowlat (AD 977, d’Herbelot, pp. 58, 59, 95) to Nadir Shah (AD 1743, Histoire de Nadir Shah, tom. II, p. 155), have enriched the tomb of Ali with the spoils of the people. The dome is copper, with a bright and massy gilding, which glitters to the sun at the distance of many a mile. ↩
The city of Meshed Ali, five or six miles from the ruins of Cufa, and one hundred and twenty to the south of Baghdad, is of the size and form of the modern Jerusalem. Meshed Hosein, larger and more populous, is at the distance of thirty miles. ↩
I borrow, on this occasion, the strong sense and expression of Tacitus (Historiae I 4): Evulgato imperii arcano posse imperatorem alibi quam Romae fieri. ↩
According to Major Price’s authorities a much longer time elapsed (p. 400, etc.). —⁠M. ↩
I have abridged the interesting narrative of Ockley (tom. II, pp. 170⁠–⁠231). It is long and minute; but the pathetic, almost always, consists in the detail of little circumstances. ↩
The account of Hosein’s death, in the Persian Tarikh al-Tabari, is much longer; in some circumstances, more pathetic, than that of Ockley, followed by Gibbon. His family, after his defenders were all slain, perished in succession before his eyes. They had been cut off from the water, and suffered all the agonies of thirst. His eldest son, Ally Akbar, after ten different assaults on the enemy, in each of which he slew two or three, complained bitterly of his sufferings from heat and thirst. “His father arose, and introducing his own tongue within the parched lips of his favorite child, thus endeavored to alleviate his sufferings by the only means of which his enemies had not yet been able to deprive him.” Ally was slain and cut to pieces in his sight; this wrung from him his first and only cry; then it was that his sister Zeyneb rushed from the tent. The rest, including his nephew, fell in succession. Hosein’s horse was wounded⁠—he fell to the ground. The hour of prayer, between noon and sunset, had arrived; the Imaun began the religious duties⁠—as Hosein prayed, he heard the cries of his infant child Abdallah, only twelve months old. The child was, at his desire, placed on his bosom; as he wept over it, it was transfixed by an arrow. Hosein dragged himself to the Euphrates; as he slaked his burning thirst, his mouth was pierced by an arrow; he drank his own blood. Wounded in four-and-thirty places, he still gallantly resisted. A soldier named Zeraiah gave the fatal wound; his head was cut off by Ziljousheng. Price, pp. 403⁠–⁠410. —⁠M. ↩
Niebuhr the Dane (Voyage en Arabie, etc., tom. II, p. 208, etc.) is perhaps the only European traveller who has dared to visit Meshed Ali and Meshed Hosein. The two sepulchres are in the hands of the Turks, who tolerate and tax the devotion of the Persian heretics. The festival of the death of Hosein is amply described by Sir John Chardin, a traveller whom I have often praised. ↩
The general article of “Imam,” in d’Herbelot’s Bibliothèque Orientale, will indicate the succession; and the lives of the twelve are given under their respective names. ↩
The name of Antichrist may seem ridiculous, but the Muhammadans have liberally borrowed the fables of every religion (Sale’s Preliminary Discourse, pp. 80, 82). In the royal stable of Ispahan, two horses were always kept saddled, one for the Mahadi himself, the other for his lieutenant, Jesus the son of Mary. ↩
In the year of the Hegira 200 (AD 815). See d’Herbelot, p. 546. ↩
D’Herbelot, p. 342. The enemies of the Fatimites disgraced them by a Jewish origin. Yet they accurately deduced their genealogy from Jaafar, the sixth Imam; and the impartial Abulfeda allows (Annales moslemici, p. 230) that they were owned by many, qui absque controversiâ genuini sunt Alidarum, homines propaginum suae gentis exacte callentes. He quotes some lines from the celebrated Scherif or Rahdi, Egone humilitatem induam in terris hostium? (I suspect him to be an Edrissite of Sicily) cum in Aegypto sit Chalifa de gente Alii, quocum ego communem habeo patrem et vindicem. ↩
The kings of Persia of the last dynasty are descended from Sheik Sefi, a saint of the fourteenth century, and through him from Moussa Cassem, the son of Hosein, the son of Ali (Olearius, p. 957; Chardin, tom. III, p. 288). But I cannot trace the intermediate degrees in any genuine or fabulous pedigree. If they were truly Fatimites, they might draw their origin from the princes of Mazanderan, who reigned in the ninth century (d’Herbelot, p. 96). ↩
The present state of the family of Muhammad and Ali is most accurately described by Demetrius Cantemir (History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire, p. 94) and Niebuhr (Description de l’Arabie, pp. 9⁠–⁠16, 317, etc.). It is much to be lamented that the Danish traveller was unable to purchase the chronicles of Arabia. ↩
The writers of the Modern Universal History (vols. I and II) have compiled, in 850 folio pages, the life of Muhammad and the annals of the caliphs. They enjoyed the advantage of reading, and sometimes correcting, the Arabic text; yet, notwithstanding their high-sounding boasts, I cannot find, after the conclusion of my work, that they have afforded me much (if any) additional information. The dull mass is not quickened by a spark of philosophy or taste; and the compilers indulge the criticism of acrimonious bigotry against Boulainvilliers, Sale, Gagnier, and all who have treated Muhammad with favor, or even justice. ↩
See the description of the city and country of Al Yamanah, in Abulfeda, Descriptio Arabiae, pp. 60, 61. In the thirteenth century, there were some ruins and a few palms, but in the present century, the same ground is occupied by the visions and arms of a modern prophet, whose tenets are imperfectly known (Niebuhr, Description de l’Arabie, pp. 296⁠–⁠302). ↩
This extraordinary woman was a Christian; she was at the head of a numerous and flourishing sect; Moseilama professed to recognize her inspiration. In a personal interview he proposed their marriage and the union of their sects. The handsome person, the impassioned eloquence, and the arts of Moseilama triumphed over the virtue of the prophetess, who was rejected with scorn by her lover, and by her notorious unchastity lost her influence with her own followers. Gibbon, with that propensity too common, especially in his later volumes, has selected only the grosser part of this singular adventure. —⁠M. ↩
The first salutation may be transcribed, but cannot be translated. It was thus that Moseilama said or sung:⁠—

Surge tandem itaque strenue permolenda; nam stratus tibi thorus est.
Aut in propatulo tentorio si velis, aut in abditiore cubiculo si malis;
Aut supinam te humi exporrectam fustigabo, si velis, Aut si malis manibus pedibusque nixam.
Aut si velis ejus (Priapi) gemino triente aut si malis totus veniam.
Imo, totus venito, O Apostole Dei, clamabat foemina. Id ipsum, dicebat
Moseilama, mihi quoque suggessit Deus.

The prophetess Segjah, after the fall of her lover, returned to idolatry; but under the reign of Moawiyah, she became a Mussulman, and died at Bassora (Abulfeda, Annales moslemici, vers. Reiske, p. 63). ↩
See this text, which demonstrates a God from the work of generation, in Abulpharagius (Specimen historiae Arabum, p. 13, and Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 103) and Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, p. 63). ↩
Compare a long account of this battle in Price, p. 42. —⁠M. ↩
In Arabic, “successors.” Von Hammer, Die Geschichte der Assassinen, p. 16. —⁠M. ↩
His reign in Eutychius, tom. II, p. 251; Elmacin, p. 18; Abulpharagius, p. 108; Abulfeda, p. 60; d’Herbelot, p. 58. ↩
His reign in Eutychius, p. 264; Elmacin, p. 24; Abulpharagius, p. 110; Abulfeda, p. 66; d’Herbelot, p. 686. ↩
His reign in Eutychius, p. 323; Elmacin, p. 36; Abulpharagius, p. 115; Abulfeda, p. 75; d’Herbelot, p. 695. ↩
His reign in Eutychius, p. 343; Elmacin, p. 51; Abulpharagius, p. 117; Abulfeda, p. 83; d’Herbelot, p. 89. ↩
His reign in Eutychius, p. 344; Elmacin, p. 54; Abulpharagius, p. 123; Abulfeda, p. 101; d’Herbelot, p. 586. ↩
Their reigns in Eutychius, tom. II, pp. 360⁠–⁠395; Elmacin, pp. 59⁠–⁠108; Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum IX, pp. 124⁠–⁠139; Abulfeda, pp. 111⁠–⁠141; d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 691, and the particular articles of the Ommiades. ↩
For the seventh and eighth century, we have scarcely any original evidence of the Byzantine historians, except the Chronicles of Theophanes (Theophanis confessoris chronographia, Graeca et Latine cum notis Jacobi Goar, Paris, 1665, in folio) and the Abridgment of Nicephorus (Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, Greek et Latin, Paris, 1648, in folio), who both lived in the beginning of the ninth century (see Hankius, De Byzantinarum rerum scriptoribus Graecis, pp. 200⁠–⁠246). Their contemporary Photius does not seem to be more opulent. After praising the style of Nicephorus, he adds, Καὶ ὅλως πολλούς ἐστι τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἀποκρυπτόμενος τῇδε τῆς ἱστορίας τῇ συγγραφῇ, and only complains of his extreme brevity (Photius, Bibliotheca, codex LXVI, p. 100). Some additions may be gleaned from the more recent histories of Cedrenus and Zonaras of the twelth century. ↩
Tabari, or Al Tabari, a native of Taborestan, a famous Imam of Baghdad, and the Livy of the Arabians, finished his general history in the year of the Hegira 302 (AD 914). At the request of his friends, he reduced a work of 30,000 sheets to a more reasonable size. But his Arabic original is known only by the Persian and Turkish versions. The Saracenic history of Ebn Amid or Elmacin is said to be an abridgment of the great Tabari (Ockley’s History of the Saracens, vol. II preface, p. XXXIX and list of authors; d’Herbelot, pp. 866, 870, 1014). ↩
Besides the list of authors framed by Prideaux (Life of Mahomet, pp. 179⁠–⁠189), Ockley (at the end of his second volume), and Pétis de la Croix (Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, pp. 525⁠–⁠550), we find, in the Bibliothèque Orientale, “Tarikh,” a catalogue of two or three hundred histories or chronicles of the East, of which not more than three or four are older than Tabari. A lively sketch of Oriental literature is given by Reiske (in his Prodidagmata ad Hagji Chalisae librum memorialem ad calcem Abulfedae, Tabula Syriae, Lipsiae, 1776); but his project and the French version of Pétis de la Croix (Histoire de Timur-Bec, tom. I preface, p. XLV) have fallen to the ground. ↩
The particular historians and geographers will be occasionally introduced. The four following titles represent the annals which have guided me in this general narrative.
1. Annales Eutychii, patriarchoe Alexandrini, ab Edwardo Pocockio, Oxoniae 1656, two vols. in quarto. A pompous edition of an indifferent author, translated by Pococke to gratify the Presbyterian prejudices of his friend Selden.
2. Historia Saracenica, Georgii Elmacini, opera et studio Thomae Erpenii, in quarto, Lugduni Batavorum, 1625. He is said to have hastily translated a corrupt MS., and his version is often deficient in style and sense.
3. Historia compendiosa dynastiarum a Gregorio Abulpharagio, interprete Edwardo Pocockio, in quarto, Oxoniae 1663. More useful for the literary than the civil history of the East.
4. Abilfedae annales moslemici, ad Anno Hegirae 406, à Joseph Jacob Reiske, in quarto, Lipsioe, 1754. The best of our chronicles, both for the original and version, yet how far below the name of Abulfeda! We know that he wrote at Hamah in the fourteenth century. The three former were Christians of the tenth, twelth, and thirteenth centuries; the two first, natives of Egypt; a Melchite patriarch and a Jacobite scribe.
↩
M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I préface, p. XIX, XX) has characterized, with truth and knowledge, the two sorts of Arabian historians⁠—the dry annalist and the tumid and flowery orator. ↩
Bibliothèque Orientale, par M. d’Herbelot, in folio, Paris, 1697. For the character of the respectable author, consult his friend Thévenot (Voyage fait au Levant, part I ch. 1). His work is an agreeable miscellany, which must gratify every taste; but I never can digest the alphabetical order, and I find him more satisfactory in the Persian than the Arabic history. The recent supplement from the papers of MM. Visdelou and Galland (in folio, La Haye, 1779) is of a different cast, a medley of tales, proverbs, and Chinese antiquities. ↩
Pococke will explain the chronology (Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 66⁠–⁠74), and d’Anville the geography (L’Euphrate et le Tigre, p. 125), of the dynasty of the Almondars. The English scholar understood more Arabic than the mufti of Aleppo (Ockley, vol. II, p. 34); the French geographer is equally at home in every age and every climate of the world. ↩
Eichhorn and Silvestre de Sacy have written on the obscure history of the Mondars. —⁠M. ↩
Fecit et Chaled plurima in hoc anno proelia, in quibus vicerunt Muslimi, et infidelium immensâ multitudine occisâ spolia infinita et innumera sunt nacti (Historia saracenica, p. 20). The Christian annalist slides into the national and compendious term of infidels, and I often adopt (I hope without scandal) this characteristic mode of expression. ↩
Compare throughout Malcolm, vol. II, p. 136. —⁠M. ↩
A cycle of 120 years, at the end of which an intercalary month of 30 days supplied the use of our Bissextile, and restored the integrity of the solar year. In a great revolution of 1,440 years, this intercalation was successively removed from the first to the twelfth month; but Hyde and Fréret are involved in a profound controversy, whether the twelve or only eight of these changes were accomplished before the era of Yezdegerd, which is unanimously fixed to the 16th of June, AD 632. How laboriously does the curious spirit of Europe explore the darkest and most distant antiquities! (Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 14⁠–⁠18, pp. 181⁠–⁠211. Fréret in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XVI, pp. 233⁠–⁠267.) ↩
Nine days after the death of Muhammad (7th June, AD 632), we find the era of Yezdegerd (16th June, AD 632), and his accession cannot be postponed beyond the end of the first year. His predecessors could not therefore resist the arms of the caliph Omar, and these unquestionable dates overthrow the thoughtless chronology of Abulpharagius. See Ockley’s History of the Saracens, vol. I, p. 130.9224 ↩
Cadesia, says the Nubian geographer (p. 121), is in margine solitudinis, 61 leagues from Baghdad, and two stations from Cufa. Otter (Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, tom. I, p. 163) reckons 15 leagues, and observes that the place is supplied with dates and water. ↩
The day of Aghwath (crying for succor) was the second day of the battle. Gibbon (following Abulfeda) omits the first day, called the day Armath. The day of Ghimas (concussion) was the third, the night of Harir (yelping) the fourth. Tabari gives a chapter to each period, III, p. 21, sqq., tr. Kosegarten; Michael Jan de Goeje’s Arabic text, I 2285⁠–⁠2334; and calls the third day Imas (concealing). —⁠B. ↩
The day of cormorants, or, according to another reading, the day of reinforcements. It was the night which was called the night of snarling. Price, p. 114. —⁠M. ↩
The account of the death of Rustam given by Tabari is different and more authentic (tr. Hermann Zotenberg, III, p. 396).

“An Arab named Hilal, approaching the treasure-laden camels of Rustam, struck at them with his sword, at a hazard. The stroke hit the camel on which Rustam was seated; for the darkness caused by the dart hindered him from seeing Rustam. The cord which tied the load of treasure to the camel was severed and the load fell on the head of Rustam, who notwithstanding the pain he experienced leapt on his feet and threw himself into the canal to save himself by swimming. Now in leaping he broke his leg and could not move. Hilal ran to the spot, seized him by the leg, drew him out of the water and cut off his head, which he fastened to the point of his spear. Then he got up on the seat and cried, ‘Muslims, I have slain Rustam.’ ”

I have taken this from the Persian version of Tabari, to illustrate how it differs from the original Arabic, but I have shortened it somewhat. Tabari says there were two packets on the camel (mulo Kosegarten), and that one fell on Rustam and injured his spine; but says nothing of the leg being broken by the leap. Kosegarten, III, p. 56; de Goeje I 2336⁠–⁠7. —⁠B. ↩
According to Malcolm’s authorities, only three thousand, but he adds “This is the report of Muhammadan historians, who have a great disposition of the wonderful in relating the first actions of the faithful.” Vol. I, p. 39. —⁠M. ↩
Atrox, contumax, plus semel renovatum, are the well-chosen expressions of the translator of Abulfeda (Reiske, p. 69). ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 297, 348. ↩
The reader may satisfy himself on the subject of Bassora by consulting the following writers: Geographia nubiensis, p. 121; d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 192; d’Anville, L’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 130, 133, 145; Guillaume Thomas Raynal, Histoire philosophique des deux Indes, tom. II, pp. 92⁠–⁠100; Voyages di Pietro della Valle, tom. IV, pp. 370⁠–⁠391; de Tavernier, tom. I, pp. 240⁠–⁠247; de Thévenot, tom. II, pp. 545⁠–⁠584; d’Otter, tom. II, pp. 45⁠–⁠78; de Niebuhr, tom. II, pp. 172⁠–⁠199. ↩
Mente vix potest numerove comprehendi quanta spolia nostris cesserint. Abulfeda, p. 69. Yet I still suspect that the extravagant numbers of Elmacin may be the error, not of the text, but of the version. The best translators from the Greek, for instance, I find to be very poor arithmeticians.9225 ↩
The camphire tree grows in China and Japan; but many hundredweight of those meaner sorts are exchanged for a single pound of the more precious gum of Borneo and Sumatra (Raynal, Histoire philosophique des deux Indes, tom. I, pp. 362⁠–⁠365; Dictionnaire raisonné universel d’histoire naturelle par Bomare; Philip Miller’s Gardener’s Dictionary). These may be the islands of the first climate from whence the Arabians imported their camphire (Geographia nubiensis, pp. 34, 35; d’Herbelot, p. 232.) ↩
Compare Price, p. 122. —⁠M. ↩
See Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. I, pp. 376, 377. I may credit the fact, without believing the prophecy. ↩
The most considerable ruins of Assyria are the tower of Belus, at Babylon, and the hall of Khosrow, at Ctesiphon: they have been visited by that vain and curious traveller Pietro della Valle (tom. I, pp. 713⁠–⁠718, 731⁠–⁠735).9226 ↩
Consult the article of “Coufah” in the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot (pp. 277, 278), and the second volume of Ockley’s History of the Saracens, particularly p. 40 and 153. ↩
See the article of “Nehavend” in d’Herbelot, pp. 667, 668, and Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, par Otter, tom. I, p. 191.9227 ↩
It is in such a style of ignorance and wonder that the Athenian orator describes the Arctic conquests of Alexander, who never advanced beyond the shores of the Caspian. Ἀλέξανδρος ἔξω τῆς ἄρκτου καὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης, ὀλίγου δεῖν πάσης μεθειστήκει. Aeschines, Contra Ctesiphontem, tom. III, p. 554, edit. Oratores Graeci, Reiske. This memorable cause was pleaded at Athens, Olympiad CXII 3 (before Christ 330), in the autumn (Taylor, praefatio, p. 370, etc.), about a year after the battle of Arbela; and Alexander, in the pursuit of Darius, was marching towards Hyrcania and Bactriana. ↩
We are indebted for this curious particular to the Dynasties of Abulpharagius, p. 116; but it is needless to prove the identity of Estachar and Persepolis (d’Herbelot, p. 327), and still more needless to copy the drawings and descriptions of Sir John Chardin or Corneillo le Bruyn. ↩
After the conquest of Persia, Theophanes adds, αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ χρόνῳ ἐκέλευσεν Οὔμαρος ἀναγραφῆναι πᾶσαν τὴν ὑπ’ αὐτὸν οἰκουμένην, ἔγενετο δὲ ἡ ἀναγραφὴ καὶ ἀνθρώπων καὶ κτηνῶν καὶ φυτῶν (Chronographia, p. 283). ↩
Amidst our meagre relations, I must regret that d’Herbelot has not found and used a Persian translation of Tabari, enriched, as he says, with many extracts from the native historians of the Ghebers or Magi (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 1014). ↩
The most authentic accounts of the two rivers, the Sihon (Jaxartes) and the Gihon (Oxus), may be found in Sherif al Edrisi (Geographia nubiensis, p. 138), Abulfeda (“Chorasmiae et Mawaralnahrae” in Hudson, tom. III, p. 23), Abulghazi Khan, who reigned on their banks (Histoire généalogique des Tatars, pp. 32, 57, 766), and the Turkish Geographer, a MS. in the king of France’s library (Examen critique des anciens historiens d’Alexandre-le-Grand, pp. 194⁠–⁠360).9228 ↩
The territory of Fergana is described by Abulfeda, pp. 76, 77. ↩
Eo redegit angustiarum eundem regem exsulem, ut Turcici regis, et Sogdiani, et Sinensis, auxilia missis literis imploraret (Abulfeda, Annales moslemici, p. 74). The connection of the Persian and Chinese history is illustrated by Fréret (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. XVI, pp. 245⁠–⁠255) and de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I, pp. 54⁠–⁠59, and for the geography of the borders, tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠43). ↩
Historia Tartaro-Sinica, pp. 41⁠–⁠46, in the third part of the Relations de divers voyages curieux of Thévenot. ↩
I have endeavored to harmonize the various narratives of Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 37), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 116), Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, pp. 74, 79), and d’Herbelot (p. 485). The end of Yezdegerd was not only unfortunate but obscure. ↩
The account of Yezdegerd’s death in the Habeib ’usseyr and Rouzut uzzuffa (Price, p. 162) is much more probable. On the demand of the few dhirems, he offered to the miller his sword and royal girdle, of inestimable value. This awoke the cupidity of the miller, who murdered him, and threw the body into the stream. —⁠M.

This account agrees with Weil’s (vol. I, p. 202), who observes, however, that the traditions respecting his death vary very much. —⁠S. ↩
Firouz died leaving a son called Ni-ni-cha by the Chinese, probably Narses. Yezdegerd had two sons, Firouz and Bahram. Saint-Martin, vol. XI, p. 318. —⁠M. ↩
The two daughters of Yezdegerd married Hassan, the son of Ali, and Mohammed, the son of Abubeker; and the first of these was the father of a numerous progeny. The daughter of Phirouz became the wife of the caliph Walid, and their son Yezid derived his genuine or fabulous descent from the Khosrow of Persia, the Caesars of Rome, and the Chagans of the Turks or Avars (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 96, 487). ↩
It was valued at 2,000 pieces of gold, and was the prize of Obeidollah the son of Ziyad, a name afterwards infamous by the murder of Hosein (Ockley’s History of the Saracens, vol. II, pp. 142, 143). His brother Salem was accompanied by his wife, the first Arabian woman (AD 680) who passed the Oxus; she borrowed, or rather stole, the crown and jewels of the princess of the Sogdians (pp. 231, 232). ↩
A part of Abulfeda’s geography is translated by Greaves, inserted in Hudson’s collection of the minor geographers (tom. III), and entitled “Descriptio Chorasmiae et Mawaralnahroe, id est, regionum extra fluvium, Oxum,” p. 80. The name of Transoxiana, softer in sound, equivalent in sense, is aptly used by Pétis de la Croix (Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, etc.), and some modern Orientalists, but they are mistaken in ascribing it to the writers of antiquity. ↩
The conquests of Catibah are faintly marked by Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 84), d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, “Catbah,” “Samarkand Valid”), and de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I, pp. 58, 59). ↩
The manuscript Arabian and Persian writers in the royal library contain very circumstantial details on the contest between the Persians and Arabians. M. Saint-Martin declined this addition to the work of Le Beau, as extending to too great a length. Saint-Martin vol. XI, p. 320. —⁠M. ↩
A curious description of Samarkand is inserted in the Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, p. 208, etc. The librarian Casiri (tom. II 9) relates, from credible testimony, that paper was first imported from China to Samarkand, AH 30, and invented, or rather introduced, at Mecca, AH 88. The Escurial library contains paper MSS. as old as the fourth or fifth century of the Hegira. ↩
A separate history of the conquest of Syria has been composed by Al Wakidi, qadi of Baghdad, who was born AD 748, and died AD 822; he likewise wrote the conquest of Egypt, of Diarbekir, etc. Above the meagre and recent chronicles of the Arabians, Al Wakidi has the double merit of antiquity and copiousness. His tales and traditions afford an artless picture of the men and the times. Yet his narrative is too often defective, trifling, and improbable. Till something better shall be found, his learned and spiritual interpreter (Ockley, in his History of the Saracens, vol. I, pp. 21⁠–⁠342) will not deserve the petulant animadversion of Reiske (“Prodidagmata ad Magji Chalifae Tabulas,” p. 236). I am sorry to think that the labors of Ockley were consummated in a jail (see his two prefaces to the first vol. AD 1708, to the second, 1718, with the list of authors at the end).9229 ↩
The instructions, etc., of the Syrian war are described by Al Wakidi and Ockley, tom. I, pp. 22⁠–⁠27, etc. In the sequel it is necessary to contract, and needless to quote, their circumstantial narrative. My obligations to others shall be noticed. ↩
Notwithstanding this precept, M. Pauw (Recherches philosophiques sur les Égyptiens et les Chinois, tom. II, p. 192, edit. Lausanne) represents the Bedouins as the implacable enemies of the Christian monks. For my own part, I am more inclined to suspect the avarice of the Arabian robbers, and the prejudices of the German philosopher.9230 ↩
Even in the seventh century the monks were generally laymen; they wore their hair long and dishevelled, and shaved their heads when they were ordained priests. The circular tonsure was sacred and mysterious; it was the crown of thorns; but it was likewise a royal diadem, and every priest was a king, etc. (Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. I, pp. 721⁠–⁠758, especially pp. 737, 738). ↩
Compare Price, p. 60. —⁠M. ↩
Huic Arabia est conserta, ex alio latere Nabathaeis contigua; opima varietate commerciorum, castrisque oppleta validis et castellis, quae ad repellendos gentium vicinarum excursus, solicitudo pervigil veterum per opportunos saltus erexit et cautos. Ammianus Marcellinus XIV 8. Reland, Palaestina, tom. I, pp. 85, 86. ↩
With Gerasa and Philadelphia, Ammianus praises the fortifications of Bosra, firmitate cautissimas. They deserved the same praise in the time of Abulfeda (Tabula Syriae, p. 99), who describes this city, the metropolis of Hawran (Auranitis), four days’ journey from Damascus. The Hebrew etymology I learn from Reland, Palaestina, tom. II, p. 666. ↩
The apostle of a desert and an army was obliged to allow this ready succedaneum for water (Koran, c. III, p. 66, c. V, p. 83); but the Arabian and Persian casuists have embarrassed his free permission with many niceties and distinctions (Reland, De religione Mohammedicâ, l. I, pp. 82, 83; Chardin, Voyages en Perse, tom. IV). ↩
The bells rung! Ockley, vol. I, p. 38. Yet I much doubt whether this expression can be justified by the text of Al Wakidi9231 or the practice of the times. Ad Gradecos, says the learned du Cange (Glossarium mediae et infimae Graecitatis, tom. I, p. 774), campanarum usus serius transit et etiamnum rarissimus est. The oldest example which he can find in the Byzantine writers is of the year 1040; but the Venetians pretend that they introduced bells at Constantinople in the ninth century. ↩
Damascus is amply described by the Sherif al Edrisi (Geographia nubiensis, pp. 116, 117), and his translator, Sionita (Appendix, c. 4); Abulfeda (Tabula Syriae, p. 100); Schultens (“Index Geographicus” ad Vita et res Gestae Saladini); d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 291); Thévenot (Voyage fait au Levant, part I, pp. 688⁠–⁠698); Maundrell (A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, pp. 122⁠–⁠130); and Pococke (Description of the East, vol. II, pp. 117⁠–⁠127). ↩
Nobilissima civitas, says Justin. According to the Oriental traditions, it was older than Abraham or Semiramis. Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, l. I c. 6, 7, pp. 24, 29, edit. Havercamp. Justin XXXVI 2. ↩
Ἔδει γὰρ, οἶμαι, τὴν Διὸς πόλιν ἀληθῶς, καὶ τῆς Ἑώας ἁπάσης ὀφθαλμόν, τὴν ἰερὰν καὶ μεγίστην Δάμασκον λέγω, τοῖς τε ἄλλοις σύμπασιν, οἷον ἱερῶν κάλλει, καὶ νεῶν μεγέθει, καὶ ὡρῶν εὐκαιρίᾳ καὶ πηγῶν ἀλγαἴᾳ, καὶ ποταμῶν πλήθει, καὶ γῆς εὐφορίᾳ νικῶσαν, etc., Julianus, “Epistola XXIV,” p. 392. These splendid epithets are occasioned by the figs of Damascus, of which an author sends a hundred to his friend Serapion, and this rhetorical theme is inserted by Petavius, Spanheim, etc. (pp. 390⁠–⁠396), among the genuine epistles of Julian. How could they overlook that the writer is an inhabitant of Damascus (he thrice affirms that this peculiar fig grows only παρ’ ἡμῖν), a city which Julian never entered or approached? ↩
Voltaire, who casts a keen and lively glance over the surface of history, has been struck with the resemblance of the first Muslims and the heroes of the Iliad; the siege of Troy and that of Damascus (Essai sur l’histoire générale, tom. I, p. 348). ↩
These words are a text of the Koran, 9:32, 61:8. Like our fanatics of the last century, the Muslims, on every familiar or important occasion, spoke the language of their Scriptures; a style more natural in their mouths than the Hebrew idiom transplanted into the climate and dialect of Britain. ↩
It is difficult here to reconcile the Persian authorities of Major Price with the Arabian writers consulted by Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
The name of Werdan is unknown to Theophanes, and though it might belong to an Armenian chief, has very little of a Greek aspect or sound. If the Byzantine historians have mangled the Oriental names, the Arabs, in this instance, likewise have taken ample revenge on their enemies. In transposing the Greek character from right to left, might they not produce, from the familiar appelation of Andrew, something like the anagram Werdan?9232 ↩
Vanity prompted the Arabs to believe that Thomas was the son-in-law of the emperor. We know the children of Heraclius by his two wives; and his august daughter would not have married in exile at Damascus (see du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 118, 119). Had he been less religious, I might only suspect the legitimacy of the damsel. ↩
Al Wakidi (Ockley, p. 101) says, “with poisoned arrows”; but this savage invention is so repugnant to the practice of the Greeks and Romans that I must suspect, on this occasion, the malevolent credulity of the Saracens. ↩
Abulfeda allows only seventy days for the siege of Damascus (Annales moslemici, p. 67, vers. Reiske); but Elmacin, who mentions this opinion, prolongs the term to six months, and notices the use of balistae by the Saracens (Historia saracenica, pp. 25, 32). Even this longer period is insufficient to fill the interval between the battle of Aiznadin (July AD 633) and the accession of Omar (24th July, AD 634), to whose reign the conquest of Damascus is unanimously ascribed (Al Wakidi, apud Ockley, vol. I, p. 115; Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 112, vers. Pococke).9233 Perhaps, as in the Trojan war, the operations were interrupted by excursions and detachments, till the last seventy days of the seige. ↩
It appears from Abulfeda (p. 125) and Elmacin (p. 32) that this distinction of the two parts of Damascus was long remembered, though not always respected, by the Muhammadan sovereigns. See likewise Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, pp. 379, 380, 383). ↩
On the fate of these lovers, whom he names Phocyas and Eudocia, Mr. Hughes has built the Siege of Damascus, one of our most popular tragedies, and which possesses the rare merit of blending nature and history, the manners of the times and the feelings of the heart. The foolish delicacy of the players compelled him to soften the guilt of the hero and the despair of the heroine. Instead of a base renegado, Phocyas serves the Arabs as an honorable ally; instead of prompting their pursuits, he flies to the succor of his countrymen, and, after killing Caled and Derar, is himself mortally wounded, and expires in the presence of Eudocia, who professes her resolution to take the veil at Constantinople. A frigid catastrophe! ↩
The towns of Gabala and Laodicea, which the Arabs passed, still exist in a state of decay (Maundrell, pp. 11, 12; Pococke, vol. II, p. 13). Had not the Christians been overtaken, they must have crossed the Orontes on some bridge in the sixteen miles between Antioch and the sea, and might have rejoined the high road of Constantinople at Alexandria. The Itineraries will represent the directions and distances (pp. 146, 148, 581, 582, edit. Wesseling). ↩
Dair Abil Kodos. After retrenching the last word, the epithet holy, I discover the Abila of Lysanias between Damascus and Heliopolis; the name (Abil signifies a vineyard) concurs with the situation to justify my conjecture (Reland, Palaestina, tom. I, p. 317, tom. II, pp. 526, 527). ↩
I am bolder than Mr. Ockley (vol. I, p. 164), who dares not insert this figurative expression in the text, though he observes in a marginal note that the Arabians often borrow their similes from that useful and familiar animal. The reindeer may be equally famous in the songs of the Laplanders. ↩
We hear the tecbir; so the Arabs call
Their shout of onset, when with loud appeal
They challenge heaven, as if demanding conquest.

This word, so formidable in their holy wars, is a verb active (says Ockley in his index), of the second conjugation from Kabbara, which signifies saying Alla Acbar, God is most mighty! ↩
In the Geography of Abulfeda, the description of Syria, his native country, is the most interesting and authentic portion. It was published in Arabic and Latin, Lipsiae, 1766, in quarto, with the learned notes of Kochler and Reiske, and some extracts of geography and natural history from Ibn Ol Wardii. Among the modern travels, Pococke’s Description of the East (of Syria and Mesopotamia, vol. II, pp. 88⁠–⁠209) is a work of superior learning and dignity; but the author too often confounds what he had seen and what he had read. ↩
The praises of Dionysius are just and lively. Καὶ τὴν μὲν (Syria) πολλοί τε καὶ ὄλβιοι ἄνδρες ἔχουσιν (in Periegesi V 902, in tom. IV Geographi Graeci minores, Hudson). In another place he styles the country πολύπτολιν αἶαν (V 898). He proceeds to say,

Πᾶσα δέ τοι λιπαρή τε καὶ εὔβοτος ἔπλετο χώρη
Μῆλά τε φερβεμέναι καὶ δένδρεσι κάρπον ἀέξειν.
V 921, 922.

This poetical geographer lived in the age of Augustus, and his description of the world is illustrated by the Greek commentary of Eustathius, who paid the same compliment to Homer and Dionysius (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, l. IV c. 2, tom. III, p. 21, etc.). ↩
The topography of the Libanus and Anti-Libanus is excellently described by the learning and sense of Reland (Palaestina, tom. I, pp. 311⁠–⁠326). ↩
… Emesae fastigia celsa renident.
Nam diffusa solo latus explicat; ac subit auras
Turribus in coelum nitentibus: incola claris
Cor studiis acuit⁠ ⁠…
Denique flammicomo devoti pectora soli
Vitam agitant. Libanus frondosa cacumina turget.
Et tamen his certant celsi fastigia templi.

These verses of the Latin version of Rufus Avienus are wanting in the Greek original of Dionysius; and since they are likewise unnoticed by Eustathius, I must, with Fabricius (Bibliotheca Latina, tom. III, p. 153, edit. Ernesti), and against Salmasius (ad Vopiscus, pp. 366, 367, in Historia Augusta), ascribe them to the fancy rather than the MSS. of Avienus. ↩
I am much better satisfied with Maundrell’s slight octavo (A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, pp. 134⁠–⁠139), than with the pompous folio of Dr. Pococke (Description of the East, vol. II, pp. 106⁠–⁠113); but every preceding account is eclipsed by the magnificent description and drawings of MM. Dawkins and Wood, who have transported into England the ruins of Pamyra and Baalbec. ↩
The Orientals explain the prodigy by a never-failing expedient. The edifices of Baalbec were constructed by the fairies or the genii (Histoire de Timur-Bec, tom. III l. V c. 23, pp. 311, 312; d’Otter, Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, tom. I, p. 83). With less absurdity, but with equal ignorance, Abulfeda and Ibn Chaukel ascribe them to the Sabaeans or Aadites. Non sunt in omni Syria aedificia magnificentiora his (Tabula Syriae, p. 108). ↩
I have read somewhere in Tacitus, or Grotius, Subjectos habent tanquam suos, viles tanquam alienos. Some Greek officers ravished the wife, and murdered the child, of their Syrian landlord; and Manuel smiled at his undutiful complaint. ↩
See Reland, Palaestina, tom. I, pp. 272, 283, tom. II, pp. 773, 775. This learned professor was equal to the task of describing the Holy Land, since he was alike conversant with Greek and Latin, with Hebrew and Arabian literature. The Yermuk, or Hieromax, is noticed by Cellarius (Geographia antiqua, tom. II, p. 392) and d’Anville (Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, p. 185). The Arabs, and even Abulfeda himself, do not seem to recognize the scene of their victory. ↩
Compare Price, p. 79. The army of the Romans is swollen to 400,000 men, of which 70,000 perished. —⁠M. ↩
These women were of the tribe of the Hamyarites, who derived their origin from the ancient Amalekites. Their females were accustomed to ride on horseback, and to fight like the Amazons of old (Ockley, vol. I, p. 67). ↩
We killed of them, says Abu Obeidah to the caliph, one hundred and fifty thousand, and made prisoners forty thousand (Ockley vol. I, p. 241). As I cannot doubt his veracity nor believe his computation, I must suspect that the Arabic historians indulge themselves in the practice of comparing speeches and letters for their heroes. ↩
After deploring the sins of the Christians, Theophanes adds (Chronographia, p. 276): ἁνέστη ὁ ἐρημικὸς Ἀμαλὴκ τύπτων ἡμᾶς τὸν λαὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ γίνεται πρώτῃ φορᾷ πτὢσις τοῦ Ρωμαικοῦ στρατοῦ ἡ κατὰ τὸ Γαβιθὰν λέγω (does he mean Aiznadin?) καὶ Ἱερμουχὰν, καὶ τὴν ἄθεσμον αἱματο χυσίαν. His account is brief and obscure, but he accuses the numbers of the enemy, the adverse wind, and the cloud of dust; μὴ δυνηθέντες (the Romans) ἀντιπροσωπῆσαι ἐχθροῖς διὰ τὸν κονιορτόν, ἡττῶνται, καὶ ἑαυτοὺς βάλλοντες εἰς τὰς στενόδους τοῦ Ἱερμογθοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐκεῖ ἀπ ώλοντο ἄρδην (Chronographia, p. 280). ↩
See Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, pp. 70, 71), who transcribes the poetical complaint of Jabalah himself, and some panegyrical strains of an Arabian poet, to whom the chief of Gassan sent from Constantinople a gift of five hundred pieces of gold by the hands of the ambassador of Omar. ↩
There are great variations in the authorities as to the date of the capture of Jerusalem. See Weil, vol. i, pp. 80, 82. —S. ↩
In the name of the city, the profane prevailed over the sacred; Jerusalem was known to the devout Christians (Eusebius, De martyribus Palestinae, c. XI); but the legal and popular appellation of Aelia (the colony of Aelius Hadrianus) has passed from the Romans to the Arabs (Reland, Palaestina, tom. I, p. 207, tom. II, p. 835; d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, “Cods,” p. 269, “Ilia,” p. 420). The epithet of Al Cods, the Holy, is used as the proper name of Jerusalem. ↩
See the explanation of this in Price, with the prophecy which was thereby fulfilled, p. 85. —⁠M. ↩
The singular journey and equipage of Omar are described (besides Ockley, vol. I, p. 250) by Murtadi (Merveilles de l’Egypte, pp. 200⁠–⁠202). ↩
The Arabs boast of an old prophecy preserved at Jerusalem, and describing the name, the religion, and the person of Omar, the future conqueror. By such arts the Jews are said to have soothed the pride of their foreign masters, Cyrus and Alexander (Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, l. XI c. 1, 8, pp. 547, 579⁠–⁠582). ↩
Τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου ἑστὼς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγιῳ. Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 281. This prediction, which had already served for Antiochus and the Romans, was again refitted for the present occasion, by the economy of Sophronius, one of the deepest theologians of the Monothelite controversy. ↩
According to the accurate survey of d’Anville (Dissertation sur l’étendue de l’ancienne Jérusalem, pp. 42⁠–⁠54), the mosque of Omar, enlarged and embellished by succeeding caliphs, covered the ground of the ancient temple (παλαιὸν τοῦ μεγάλου ναοῦ δάπεδον, says Phocas), a length of 215, a breadth of 172, toises. The Nubian geographer declares that this magnificent structure was second only in size and beauty to the great mosque of Cordova (p. 113), whose present state Mr. Henry Swinburne has so elegantly represented (Travels Through Spain, pp. 296⁠–⁠302). ↩
Of the many Arabic tarikhs or chronicles of Jerusalem (d’Herbelot, p. 867), Ockley found one among the Pococke MSS. of Oxford (vol. I, p. 257), which he has used to supply the defective narrative of Al Wakidi. ↩
The Persian historian of Timur (tom. III l. V c. 21, p. 300) describes the castle of Aleppo as founded on a rock one hundred cubits in height; a proof, says the French translator, that he had never visited the place. It is now in the midst of the city, of no strength, with a single gate, the circuit is about 500 or 600 paces, and the ditch half full of stagnant water (Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, tom. I, p. 149; Pococke, vol. II part I, p. 150). The fortresses of the East are contemptible to a European eye. ↩
The date of the conquest of Antioch by the Arabs is of some importance. By comparing the years of the world in the chronography of Theophanes with the years of the Hegira in the history of Elmacin, we shall determine that it was taken between January 23rd and September 1st of the year of Christ 638 (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. II, pp. 812, 813). Al Wakidi (Ockley, vol. I, p. 314) assigns that event to Tuesday, August 21st, an inconsistent date; since Easter fell that year on April 5th, the 21st of August must have been a Friday (see the Tables of the L’Art de vérifier les dates). ↩
His bounteous edict, which tempted the grateful city to assume the victory of Pharsalia for a perpetual era, is given Ἀντιοχείᾳ τῇ μητροπόλει, ἰερᾷ καὶ ἀσύλῳ καὶ αὐτονόμῳ καὶ ἀρχούσῃ καὶ προκαθημένῃ τῆς ἀνατολῆς. John Malalas, in Chronographia, p. 91, edit. Venetiis. We may distinguish his authentic information of domestic facts from his gross ignorance of general history. ↩
See Ockley (vol. I, pp. 308, 312), who laughs at the credulity of his author. When Heraclius bade farewell to Syria, Vale Syria et ultimum vale, he prophesied that the Romans should never reenter the province till the birth of an inauspicious child, the future scourge of the empire. Abulfeda, p. 68. I am perfectly ignorant of the mystic sense, or nonsense, of this prediction. ↩
In the loose and obscure chronology of the times, I am guided by an authentic record (in the book of ceremonies of Constantine Porphyrogenitus) which certifies that, June 4, AD 638, the emperor crowned his younger son Heraclius in the presence of his eldest, Constantine, and in the palace of Constantinople; that January 1, AD 639, the royal procession visited the great church, and, on the 4th of the same month, the hippodrome. ↩
Sixty-five years before Christ, Syria Pontusque monumenta sunt Cn. Pompeii virtutis (Velleius Paterculus II 38), rather of his fortune and power, he adjudged Syria to be a Roman province, and the last of the Seleucides were incapable of drawing a sword in the defence of their patrimony (see the original texts collected by Usher, Annales Veteris Testamenti, p. 420). ↩
Abulfeda, Annales moslemici, p. 73. Muhammad could artfully vary the praises of his disciples. Of Omar he was accustomed to say that, if a prophet could arise after himself, it would be Omar; and that in a general calamity Omar would be accepted by the divine justice (Ockley, vol. I, p. 221). ↩
Khaled, according to the Rouzont Uzzuffa (Price, p. 90), after having been deprived of his ample share of the plunder of Syria by the jealousy of Omar, died, possessed only of his horse, his arms, and a single slave. Yet Omar was obliged to acknowledge to his lamenting parent that never mother had produced a son like Khaled. —⁠M. ↩
Al Wakidi had likewise written a history of the conquest of Diarbekir, or Mesopotamia (Ockley, at the end of the second vol.), which our interpreters do not appear to have seen.9234 The Chronicle of Dionysius of Telmar, the Jacobite patriarch, records the taking of Edessa, AD 637, and of Dara, AD 641 (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 103), and the attentive may glean some doubtful information from the Chronography of Theophanes (pp. 285⁠–⁠287). Most of the towns of Mesopotamia yielded by surrender (Abulpharagius, p. 112). ↩
He dreamt that he was at Thessalonica, a harmless and unmeaning vision; but his soothsayer, or his cowardice, understood the sure omen of a defeat concealed in that inauspicious word θὲς ἄλλῳ νίκην, Give to another the victory (Theophanes, p. 286; Zonaras, tom. II l. XIV, p. 88). ↩
Every passage and every fact that relates to the isle, the city, and the colossus of Rhodes, are compiled in the laborious treatise of Meursius, who has bestowed the same diligence on the two larger islands of Crete and Cyprus. See, in the third vol. of his works, the Creta, Cyprus, Rhodus of Meursius (l. I c. 15, pp. 715⁠–⁠719). The Byzantine writers, Theophanes and Constantine, have ignorantly prolonged the term to 1,360 years, and ridiculously divide the weight among 30,000 camels. ↩
Centum colossi alium nobilitaturi locum, says Pliny the Elder, with his usual spirit. Naturalis historiae XXXIV 18. ↩
We learn this anecdote from a spirited old woman, who reviled to their faces the caliph and his friend. She was encouraged by the silence of Amrou and the liberality of Moawiyah (Abulfeda, Annales moslemici, p. 111). ↩
Gagnier, La vie de Mahomet, tom. II, p. 46, etc., who quotes the Abyssinian history, or romance, of Abdel Balcides. Yet the fact of the embassy and ambassador may be allowed. ↩
This saying is preserved by Pococke (Note ad Carmen Tograi, p. 184), and justly applauded by Mr. James Harris (Philosophical Arrangements, p. 850). ↩
For the life and character of Amrou, see Ockley (History of the Saracens, vol. I, pp. 28, 63, 94, 328, 342, 344, and to the end of the volume; vol. II, pp. 51, 55, 57, 74, 110⁠–⁠112, 162) and Otter (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXI, pp. 131, 132). The readers of Tacitus may aptly compare Vespasian and Mucianus with Moawiyah and Amrou. Yet the resemblance is still more in the situation than in the characters of the men. ↩
Al Wakidi had likewise composed a separate history of the conquest of Egypt, which Mr. Ockley could never procure; and his own inquiries (vol. I 344⁠–⁠362) have added very little to the original text of Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, pp. 296⁠–⁠323, vers. Pococke), the Melchite patriarch of Alexandria, who lived three hundred years after the revolution. ↩
Strabo, an accurate and attentive spectator, observes of Heliopolis, νυνὶ μὲν οὖν ἐστι πανέρημος ἡ πόλις (Geographica, l. XVII, p. 1158), but of Memphis he declares, πόλις δ’ ἐστι μεγάλη τε καὶ εὔανδρος δευτέρα μετ’ Ἀλεξανδρείαν; he notices, however, the mixture of inhabitants and the ruin of the palaces. In the proper Egypt, Ammianus enumerates Memphis among the four cities, maximis urbibus quibus provincia nitet (XXII 16); and the name of Memphis appears with distinction in the Roman Itinerary and Episcopal lists. ↩
These rare and curious facts, the breadth (2,946 feet) and the bridge of the Nile, are only to be found in the Danish traveller and the Nubian geographer (p. 98). ↩
From the month of April, the Nile begins imperceptibly to rise; the swell becomes strong and visible in the moon after the summer solstice (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae V 10), and is usually proclaimed at Cairo on St. Peter’s day (June 29). A register of thirty successive years marks the greatest height of the waters between July 25 and August 18 (Benoet de Maillet, Description de l’Egypte, lettre XI, p. 67, etc.; Pococke’s Description of the East, vol. I, p. 200; Shaw’s Travels, p. 383). ↩
Murtadi, Merveilles de l’Egypte, pp. 243, 259. He expatiates on the subject with the zeal and minuteness of a citizen and a bigot, and his local traditions have a strong air of truth and accuracy. ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 233. ↩
The position of New and of Old Cairo is well known, and has been often described. Two writers who were intimately acquainted with ancient and modern Egypt, have fixed, after a learned inquiry, the city of Memphis at Giza, directly opposite the Old Cairo (Sicard, Nouveaux mémoires des missions de la Compagnie de Jesus, dans le Levant, tom. VI, pp. 5, 6; Shaw’s Travels or Observations, pp. 296⁠–⁠304). Yet we may not disregard the authority or the arguments of Pococke (vol. I, pp. 25⁠–⁠41), Niebuhr (Voyage en Arabie, tom. I, pp. 77⁠–⁠106), and above all, of d’Anville (Mémoires sur l’Egypte, pp. 111, 112, 130⁠–⁠149), who have removed Memphis towards the village of Mohannah, some miles farther to the south. In their heat, the disputants have forgot that the ample space of a metropolis covers and annihilates the far greater part of the controversy. ↩
See Herodotus, l. III c. 27⁠–⁠29. Aelian, Varia historia, l. IV c. 8. Suidas in Ὤχος, tom. II, p. 774. Diodorus Siculus, tom. II l. XVII, p. 197, edit. Wesseling. Τὼν Περσῶν ἠσεβηκότων είς τὰ ἱερά, says the last of these historians. ↩
Mokawkas sent the prophet two Coptic damsels, with two maids and one eunuch, an alabaster vase, an ingot of pure gold, oil, honey, and the finest white linen of Egypt, with a horse, a mule, and an ass, distinguished by their respective qualifications. The embassy of Muhammad was despatched from Medina in the seventh year of the Hegira (AD 628). See Gagnier (La vie de Mahomet, tom. II, pp. 255, 256, 303), from Al Jannabi. ↩
The prefecture of Egypt, and the conduct of the war, had been trusted by Heraclius to the patriarch Cyrus (Theophanes, pp. 280, 281). “In Spain,” said James II, “do you not consult your priests?” “We do,” replied the Catholic ambassador, “and our affairs succeed accordingly.” I know not how to relate the plans of Cyrus, of paying tribute without impairing the revenue, and of converting Omar by his marriage with the Emperor’s daughter (Nicephorus, Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, pp. 17, 18). ↩
See the life of Benjamin, in Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 156⁠–⁠172), who has enriched the conquest of Egypt with some facts from the Arabic text of Severus the Jacobite historian. ↩
The local description of Alexandria is perfectly ascertained by the master hand of the first of geographers (d’Anville, Mémoires sur l’Egypte, pp. 52⁠–⁠63); but we may borrow the eyes of the modern travellers, more especially of Thévenot (Voyage fait au Levant, part I, pp. 381⁠–⁠395), Pococke (vol. I, pp. 2⁠–⁠13), and Niebuhr (Voyage en Arabie, tom. I, pp. 34⁠–⁠43). Of the two modern rivals, Claude-Étienne Savary and Volney, the one may amuse, the other will instruct. ↩
Both Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, p. 319) and Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 28) concur in fixing the taking of Alexandria to Friday of the new moon of Moharram of the twentieth year of the Hegira (December 22, AD 640). In reckoning backwards fourteen months spent before Alexandria, seven months before Babylon, etc., Amrou might have invaded Egypt about the end of the year 638; but we are assured that he entered the country the 12th of Bayni, 6th of June (Murtadi, Merveilles de l’Egypte, p. 164; Severus, apud Renaudot, p. 162). The Saracen, and afterwards Lewis IX of France, halted at Pelusium, or Damietta, during the season of the inundation of the Nile. ↩
Eutychius, Annales, tom. II, pp. 316, 319. ↩
Notwithstanding some inconsistencies of Theophanes and Cedrenus, the accuracy of Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. II, p. 824) has extracted from Nicephorus and the Chronicon Orientale the true date of the death of Heraclius, February 11th, AD 641, fifty days after the loss of Alexandria. A fourth of that time was sufficient to convey the intelligence. ↩
Many treatises of this lover of labor (φιλόπονος) are still extant, but for readers of the present age, the printed and unpublished are nearly in the same predicament. Moses and Aristotle are the chief objects of his verbose commentaries, one of which is dated as early as May 10th, AD 617 (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. IX, pp. 458⁠–⁠468). A modern (John Leclerc), who sometimes assumed the same name, was equal to old Philoponus in diligence, and far superior in good sense and real knowledge. ↩
Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 114, vers. Pococke. Audi quid factum sit et mirare. It would be endless to enumerate the moderns who have wondered and believed, but I may distinguish with honor the rational scepticism of Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 170): historia⁠ ⁠… habet aliquid ἄπιστον ut Arabibus familiare est. ↩
Since this period several new Muhammadan authorities have been adduced to support the authority of Abulpharagius. That of, I. Abdollatiph by Professor Joseph White; II. Of Makrizi⁠—I have seen a MS. extract from this writer; III. Of Ibn Chaledun; and after them Hadschi Chalfa. See von Hammer, Die Geschichte der Assassinen, p. 17. Reinhard, in a German dissertation, printed at Göttingen, 1792, and Sainte-Croix (Magasin Encyclopedia, tom. IV, p. 433), have examined the question. Among Oriental scholars, Professor White, M. Saint-Martin, von Hammer, and Silvestre de Sacy, consider the fact of the burning the library, by the command of Omar, beyond question. Compare Saint-Martin’s note, vol. XI, p. 296. A Muhammadan writer brings a similar charge against the Crusaders. The library of Tripoli is said to have contained the incredible number of three millions of volumes. On the capture of the city, Count Bertram of St. Giles, entering the first room, which contained nothing but the Koran, ordered the whole to be burnt, as the works of the false prophet of Arabia. See Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, vol. II, p. 211. —⁠M.

Jacques Matter also argues in favor of the received account respecting the burning of the Alexandrian library. Histoire de l’ecole d’Alexandrie, vol. I, p. 342. —⁠S. ↩
This curious anecdote will be vainly sought in the annals of Eutychius, and the Saracenic history of Elmacin. The silence of Abulfeda, Murtadi, and a crowd of Muslims is less conclusive from their ignorance of Christian literature. ↩
See Reland, “De Jure Militari Mohammedanorum,” in his third volume of Dissertationum Miscellanearum, p. 37. The reason for not burning the religious books of the Jews or Christians is derived from the respect that is due to the name of God. ↩
Consult the collections of Freinsheim (Supplementa liviana, c. 12, 43) and Usher (Annales Veteris Testamenti, p. 469). Livy himself had styled the Alexandrian library, elegantiae regum curaeque egregium opus: a liberal encomium, for which he is pertly criticized by the narrow stoicism of Seneca (De tranquillitate animi, c. 9), whose wisdom, on this occasion, deviates into nonsense. ↩
See here in chapter XXVIII. ↩
Aulus Gellius (Noctes atticae VI 17), Ammianus Marcellinus (XXII 16), and Orosius (l. VI c. 15). They all speak in the past tense, and the words of Ammianus are remarkably strong; fuerunt Bibliothecae innumerabiles; et loquitur monumentorum veterum concinens fides, etc. ↩
Renaudot answers for versions of the Bible, Hexapla, Catenoe Patrum, Commentaries, etc. (p. 170). Our Alexandrian MS., if it came from Egypt, and not from Constantinople or Mount Athos (Wetstein, Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci, p. 8, etc.), might possibly be among them. ↩
I have often perused with pleasure a chapter of Quintilian (De institutione oratoria X 1), in which that judicious critic enumerates and appreciates the series of Greek and Latin classics. ↩
Such as Galen, Pliny, Aristotle, etc. On this subject Wotton (Reflections on Ancient and Modern Learning, pp. 85⁠–⁠95) argues with solid sense against the lively exotic fancies of Sir William Temple. The contempt of the Greeks for Barbaric science would scarcely admit the Indian or Aethiopic books into the library of Alexandria; nor is it proved that philosophy has sustained any real loss from their exclusion. ↩
This curious and authentic intelligence of Murtadi (pp. 284⁠–⁠289) has not been discovered either by Mr. Ockley or by the self-sufficient compilers of the Modern Universal History. ↩
Eutychius, Annales, tom. II, p. 320. Elmacin, Historia saracenica, p. 35. ↩
Many learned men have doubted the existence of a communication by water between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean by the Nile. Yet the fact is positively asserted by the ancients. Diodorus Siculus (l. I, p. 33) speaks of it in the most distinct manner as existing in his time. So, also, Strabo (l. XVII, p. 805). Pliny the Elder (vol. VI, p. 29) says that the canal which united the two seas was navigable (alveus navigabilis). The indications furnished by Ptolemy and by the Arabic historian, Makrisi, show that works were executed under the reign of Hadrian to repair the canal and extend the navigation; it then received the name of the River of Trajan. Lucian (in his Pseudomantis, p. 44), says that he went by water from Alexandria to Clysma, on the Red Sea. Testimonies of the sixth and of the eighth century show that the communication was not interrupted at that time. See the French translation of Strabo, vol. V, p. 382. Saint-Martin vol. XI, p. 299. —⁠M. ↩
On these obscure canals, the reader may try to satisfy himself from d’Anville (Mémoires sur l’Egypte, pp. 108⁠–⁠110, 124, 132), and a learned thesis maintained and printed at Strasburg in the year 1770 (Jungendorum marium fluviorumque molimina, pp. 39⁠–⁠47, 68⁠–⁠70). Even the supine Turks have agitated the old project of joining the two seas (Mémoires du Baron de Tott, tom. IV). ↩
A small volume, L’Egypte de Murtadi fils du Gaphiphe, ou il est traité des pyramides, du débordement du Nil, et des autres merveilles de cette province, composed in the thirteenth century by Murtadi of Cairo, and translated from an Arabic MS. of Cardinal Mazarin, was published by Pierre Vatier, Paris, 1666. The antiquities of Egypt are wild and legendary; but the writer deserves credit and esteem for his account of the conquest and geography of his native country (see the correspondence of Amrou and Omar, pp. 279⁠–⁠289). ↩
In a twenty years’ residence at Cairo, the consul Maillet had contemplated that varying scene, the Nile (lettre II, particularly pp. 70, 75); the fertility of the land (lettre IX). From a college at Cambridge, the poetic eye of Gray had seen the same objects with a keener glance:⁠—

What wonder in the sultry climes that spread,
Where Nile, redundant o’er his summer bed,
From his broad bosom life and verdure flings,
And broods o’er Egypt with his wat’ry wings;
If with advent’rous oar, and ready sail,
The dusky people drive before the gale;
Or on frail floats to neighboring cities ride,
That rise and glitter o’er the ambient tide.
Mason’s Works and Memoirs of Gray, pp. 199, 200.

↩
Murtadi, pp. 164⁠–⁠167. The reader will not easily credit a human sacrifice under the Christian emperors, or a miracle of the successors of Muhammad. ↩
Maillet, Description de l’Egypte, p. 22. He mentions this number as the common opinion; and adds that the generality of these villages contain two or three thousand persons, and that many of them are more populous than our large cities. ↩
Eutychius, Annales, tom. II, pp. 308, 311. The twenty millions are computed from the following data: one twelfth of mankind above sixty, one third below sixteen, the proportion of men to women as seventeen to sixteen (Recherches sur la population de la France, pp. 71, 72). The president Goguet (De l’origine des loix, des arts et des sciences, etc., tom. III, p. 26, etc.) bestows twenty-seven millions on ancient Egypt, because the seventeen hundred companions of Sesostris were born on the same day. ↩
Elmacin, Historia saracenica, p. 218; and this gross lump is swallowed without scruple by d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 1031), Arbuthnot (Tables of Ancient Coins, p. 262), and de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. III, p. 135). They might allege the not less extravagant liberality of Appian in favor of the Ptolemies (in praefatio), of seventy four myriads, 740,000 talents, an annual income of 185, or near 300 millions of pounds sterling, according as we reckon by the Egyptian or the Alexandrian talent (Edward Bernard, De mensuris et ponderibus antiquis, p. 186). ↩
See the measurement of d’Anville (Mémoires sur l’Egypte, p. 23, etc.). After some peevish cavils, M. Pauw (Recherches sur les Egyptiens, tom. I, pp. 118⁠–⁠121) can only enlarge his reckoning to 2,250 square leagues. ↩
Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 334, who calls the common reading or version of Elmacin, error librarii. His own emendation of 4,300,000 pieces, in the ninth century, maintains a probable medium between the 3,000,000 which the Arabs acquired by the conquest of Egypt (idem, p. 168), and the 2,400,000 which the sultan of Constantinople levied in the last century (Pietro della Valle, tom. I, p. 352; Thévenot, part I, p. 824). Pauw (Recherches sur les Egyptiens, tom. II, pp. 365⁠–⁠373) gradually raises the revenue of the Pharaohs, the Ptolemies, and the Caesars, from six to fifteen millions of German crowns. ↩
The list of Schultens (“Index Geographicus” ad calcem Vita et res Gestae Saladini, p. 5) contains 2,396 places; that of d’Anville (Mémoires sur l’Egypte, p. 29), from the divan of Cairo, enumerates 2,696. ↩
See Maillet (Description de l’Egypte, p. 28), who seems to argue with candor and judgment. I am much better satisfied with the observations than with the reading of the French consul. He was ignorant of Greek and Latin literature, and his fancy is too much delighted with the fictions of the Arabs. Their best knowledge is collected by Abulfeda (Descriptio Aegypti Arabice et Latine à Johann David Michaelis, Gottingae, in quarto, 1776), and in two recent voyages into Egypt we are amused by Savary and instructed by Volney. I wish the latter could travel over the globe. ↩
My conquest of Africa is drawn from two French interpreters of Arabic literature, Cardonne (Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne sous la domination des Arabes, tom. I, pp. 8⁠–⁠55) and Otter (Histoire de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXI, pp. 111⁠–⁠125, and 136). They derive their principal information from al-Nuwayri, who composed, AD 1331, an Encyclopaedia in more than twenty volumes. The five general parts successively treat of, 1. Physics, 2. Man, 3. Animals, 4. Plants; and, 5. History; and the African affairs are discussed in the sixth chapter of the fifth section of this last part (Reiske, Prodidagmata ad Hagji Chalisae librum memorialem, pp. 232⁠–⁠234). Among the older historians who are quoted by Navairi, we may distinguish the original narrative of a soldier who led the van of the Muslims. ↩
See the history of Abdallah in Abulfeda (Vita Mohammed, p. 109) and Gagnier (La vie de Mahomet, tom. III 45⁠–⁠48). ↩
The province and city of Tripoli are described by Leo Africanus (in Delle navigationi e Viaggi di Ramusio, tom. I, Venetia, 1550, folio 76, verso) and Marmol (L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. II, p. 562). The first of these writers was a Moor, a scholar, and a traveller, who composed or translated his African geography in a state of captivity at Rome, where he had assumed the name and religion of Pope Leo X. In a similar captivity among the Moors, the Spaniard Marmol, a soldier of Charles V, compiled his Description of Africa, translated by d’Ablancourt into French (Paris, 1667, three vols. in quarto). Marmol had read and seen, but he is destitute of the curious and extensive observation which abounds in the original work of Leo the African. ↩
Theophanes, who mentions the defeat, rather than the death, of Gregory. He brands the prefect with the name Τύραννος; he had probably assumed the purple (Chronographia, p. 285). ↩
See in Ockley (History of the Saracens, vol. II, p. 45) the death of Zobeir, which was honored with the tears of Ali, against whom he had rebelled. His valor at the siege of Babylon, if indeed it be the same person, is mentioned by Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, p. 308). ↩
Shaw’s Travels, pp. 118, 119. ↩
Mimica emptio, says Abulfeda, erat haec, et mira donatio; quandoquidem Othman, ejus nomine nummos ex aerario prius ablatos aerario praestabat (Annales moslemici, p. 78). Elmacin (in his cloudy version, p. 39) seems to report the same job. When the Arabs besieged the palace of Othman, it stood high in their catalogue of grievances. ↩
Ἐπεστράτευσαν Σαρακηνοὶ τὴν Ἀφρικὴν, καὶ συμβαλόντες τῷ τυράννῳ Γρηγορίῳ τοῦτον τρέπουσι καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ κτέννουσι καὶ στοιχήσαντες φόρους μετὰ τῶν Ἄφρων ὑπέστρεψαν.9235 Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 285, edit. Paris. His chronology is loose and inaccurate. ↩
Theophanes (in Chronographia, p. 293) inserts the vague rumors that might reach Constantinople, of the western conquests of the Arabs; and I learn from Paul Warnefrid, deacon of Aquileia (De gestis Langobardorum, l. V c. 13), that at this time they sent a fleet from Alexandria into the Sicilian and African seas. ↩
See al-Nuwayri (apud Otter, p. 118), Leo Africanus (folio 81, verso), who reckoned only cinque citta e infinite casal, Marmol (L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. III, p. 33), and Shaw (Travels, pp. 57, 65⁠–⁠68) ↩
Leo Africanus, folio 58, verso; 59, recto. Marmol, tom. II, p. 415. Shaw, p. 43. ↩
Leo Africanus, folio 52. Marmol, tom. II, p. 228. ↩
Regio ignobilis, et vix quicquam illustre sortita, parvis oppidis habitatur, parva flumina emittit, solo quam viris melior et segnitie gentis obscura. Pomponius Mela I 5, III 10. Mela deserves the more credit, since his own Phoenician ancestors had migrated from Tingitana to Spain (see, in II 6, a passage of that geographer so cruelly tortured by Salmasius, Isaac Vossius, and the most virulent of critics, James Gronovius). He lived at the time of the final reduction of that country by the emperor Claudius: yet almost thirty years afterwards Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae V 1) complains of his authors, too lazy to inquire, too proud to confess their ignorance of that wild and remote province. ↩
The foolish fashion of this citron wood prevailed at Rome among the men, as much as the taste for pearls among the women. A round board or table, four or five feet in diameter, sold for the price of an estate (latefundii taxatione), eight, ten, or twelve thousand pounds sterling (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XIII 29). I conceive that I must not confound the tree citrus with that of the fruit citrum. But I am not botanist enough to define the former (it is like the wild cypress) by the vulgar or Linnaean name; nor will I decide whether the citrum be the orange or the lemon. Salmasius appears to exhaust the subject, but he too often involves himself in the web of his disorderly erudition (Plinianae exercitationes, tom. II, p. 666, etc.). ↩
Leo Africanus, folio 16, verso. Marmol, tom. II, p. 28. This province, the first scene of the exploits and greatness of the sharifs, is often mentioned in the curious history of that dynasty at the end of the third volume of Marmol, L’Afrique de Marmol. The third volume of the Recherches historiques sur les Maures (lately published at Paris) illustrates the history and geography of the kingdoms of Fez and Morocco. ↩
Otter (p. 119), has given the strong tone of fanaticism to this exclamation, which Cardonne (p. 37) has softened to a pious wish of preaching the Koran. Yet they had both the same text of al-Nuwayri before their eyes. ↩
The foundation of Cairoan is mentioned by Ockley (History of the Saracens, vol. II, pp. 129, 130); and the situation, mosque, etc. of the city are described by Leo Africanus (folio 75), Marmol (tom. II, p. 532), and Shaw (p. 115). ↩
A portentous, though frequent mistake, has been the confounding, from a slight similitude of name, the Cyrene of the Greeks, and the Cairoan of the Arabs, two cities which are separated by an interval of a thousand miles along the seacoast. The great Thuanus has not escaped this fault, the less excusable as it is connected with a formal and elaborate description of Africa (Historiarum sui temporis, l. VII c. 2, in tom. I, p. 240, edit. Buckley). ↩
Besides the Arabic chronicles of Abulfeda, Elmacin, and Abulpharagius, under the seventy-third year of the Hegira, we may consult d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 7), and Ockley (History of the Saracens, vol. II, pp. 339⁠–⁠349). The latter has given the last and pathetic dialogue between Abdallah and his mother; but he has forgot a physical effect of her grief for his death, the return, at the age of ninety, and fatal consequences, of her menses. ↩
Λεόντιος⁠ ⁠… ἅπαντα τὰ Ῥωμαικὰ ἐξώπλισε πλόϊμα στρατηγόν τε ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς Ἰωάννην τὸν Πατρίκιον ἔμπειρον τῶν πολεμίων προχειρισάμενος πρὸς Καρχηδόνα κατὰ τῶν Σαρακηνῶν ἐξέπεμψεν. Nicephorus, Constantinopolitani breviarium, p. 28. The patriarch of Constantinople, with Theophanes (Chronographia, p. 309), have slightly mentioned this last attempt for the relief or Africa. Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. III, pp. 129, 141), has nicely ascertained the chronology by a strict comparison of the Arabic and Byzantine historians, who often disagree both in time and fact. See likewise a note of Otter (p. 121). ↩
Dove s’erano ridotti i nobili Romani e i Gotti; and afterwards, i Romani suggirono e i Gotti, lasciarono Carthagine (Leo Africanus, folio 72, recto). I know not from what Arabic writer the African derived his Goths; but the fact, though new, is so interesting and so probable that I will accept it on the slightest authority. ↩
This commander is styled by Nicephorus Βασιλεὺς Σαρακηνῶν, a vague though not improper definition of the caliph. Theophanes introduces the strange appellation of Πρωτοσύμβουλος, which his interpreter Goar explains by Vizir Azem. They may approach the truth, in assigning the active part to the minister, rather than the prince; but they forget that the Ommiades had only a kateb, or secretary, and that the office of Vizir was not revived or instituted till the 132nd year of the Hegira (d’Herbelot, p. 912). ↩
According to Solinus (l. 27, p. 36, edit. Salmasius), the Carthage of Dido stood either 677 or 737 years: a various reading, which proceeds from the difference of MSS. or editions (Salmasius, Plinianae exercitationes, tom. I, p. 228). The former of these accounts, which gives 823 years before Christ, is more consistent with the well-weighed testimony of Velleius Paterculus; but the latter is preferred by our chronologists (Marsham, Canon chronicus, p. 398) as more agreeable to the Hebrew and Syrian annals. ↩
Leo Africanus, folio 71, verso; 72, recto. Marmol, tom. II, p.445⁠–⁠447. Shaw, p.80. ↩
The history of the word Barbar may be classed under four periods:
1. In the time of Homer, when the Greeks and Asiatics might probably use a common idiom, the imitative sound of Barbar was applied to the ruder tribes, whose pronunciation was most harsh, whose grammar was most defective. Κᾶρες βαρβαρόφωνοι (Iliad II 867, with the Oxford scholiast Clark’s Annotation, and Henry Stephens’s Greek Thesaurus, tom. I, p. 720).
2. From the time, at least, of Herodotus, it was extended to all the nations who were strangers to the language and manners of the Greeks.
3. In the age of Plautus, the Romans submitted to the insult (Pompeius Festus, l. II, p. 48, edit. Dacier) and freely gave themselves the name of Barbarians. They insensibly claimed an exemption for Italy and her subject provinces; and at length removed the disgraceful appellation to the savage or hostile nations beyond the pale of the empire.
4. In every sense, it was due to the Moors; the familiar word was borrowed from the Latin provincials by the Arabian conquerors, and has justly settled as a local denomination (Barbary) along the northern coast of Africa.
↩
The first book of Leo Africanus, and the observations of Dr. Shaw (p. 220, 223, 227, 247, etc.) will throw some light on the roving tribes of Barbary, of Arabian or Moorish descent. But Shaw had seen these savages with distant terror; and Leo, a captive in the Vatican, appears to have lost more of his Arabic, than he could acquire of Greek or Roman, learning. Many of his gross mistakes might be detected in the first period of the Muhammadan history. ↩
In a conference with a prince of the Greeks, Amrou observed that their religion was different; upon which score it was lawful for brothers to quarrel. Ockley’s History of the Saracens, vol. I, p. 328. ↩
Abulfeda, Annales moslemici, p. 78, vers. Reiske. ↩
The name of Andalusia is applied by the Arabs not only to the modern province, but to the whole peninsula of Spain (Geographia nubiensis, p. 151; d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 114, 115). The etymology has been most improbably deduced from Vandalusia, country of the Vandals (d’Anville, États Formés en Europe, pp. 146, 147, etc.). But the Handalusia of Casiri, which signifies in Arabic, the region of the evening, of the West, in a word the Hesperia of the Greeks, is perfectly apposite (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, p. 327, etc.). ↩
There is a serious mistake here. The fortress of Septem (Ceuta) did not belong to the Visigothic king, but to the Roman emperor; Count Julian was an Imperial not a Gothic general. It seems probable that, as Dozy conjectures, the governor of Septem received the title of Exarch after the fall of Carthage. It seems too that some posts on the coast of Spain were still retained by the Empire⁠—perhaps reconquered since the reign of Suinthila (see vol. VII, p. 122, note 56). Cp. Reinhart Dozy, Recherches sur l’histoire politique et littéraire de l’Espagne pendant le moyen âge I, p. 64, sqq.; Isidore Pacensis, 38 (in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 96); and Life of St. Gregory of Agrigentum, in Patrologia Graeca, vol. 98, p. 685, 697. —⁠B. ↩
The fall and resurrection of the Gothic monarchy are related by Mariana (tom. I, pp. 238⁠–⁠260, l. VI c. 19⁠–⁠26, l. VII c. 1, 2). That historian has infused into his noble work (Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, libri XXX, Hagae Comitum, 1733, in four volumes, folio, with the continuation of Miniana) the style and spirit of a Roman classic; and after the twelfth century, his knowledge and judgment may be safely trusted. But the Jesuit is not exempt from the prejudices of his order; he adopts and adorns, like his rival Buchanan, the most absurd of the national legends; he is too careless of criticism and chronology, and supplies from a lively fancy the chasms of historical evidence. These chasms are large and frequent: Roderic, archbishop of Toledo, the father of the Spanish history, lived five hundred years after the conquest of the Arabs; and the more early accounts are comprised in some meagre lines of the blind chronicles of Isidore of Badajoz (Pacensis), and of Alphonso III king of Leon, which I have seen only in the Annals of Pagi. ↩
Le viol (says Voltaire) est aussi difficile à faire qu’à prouver. Des Evêques se seroient ils ligués pour une fille? (Essai sur l’histoire générale, c. XXVI). His argument is not logically conclusive. ↩
In the story of Cava, Mariana (l. VI c. 21, pp. 241, 242) seems to vie with the Lucretia of Livy. Like the ancients, he seldom quotes; and the oldest testimony of Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 713,” No. 19), that of Lucus Tudensis, a Gallician deacon of the thirteenth century, only says, Cava quam pro concubinâ utebatur. ↩
The Orientals, Elmacin, Abulpharagius, Abulfeda, pass over the conquest of Spain in silence, or with a single word. The text of al-Nuwayri and the other Arabian writers is represented, though with some foreign alloy, by M. de Cardonne (Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne sous la domination des Arabes, Paris, 1765, three vols. duodecimo, tom. I, pp. 55⁠–⁠114), and more concisely by M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I, pp. 347⁠–⁠350). The librarian of the Escurial has not satisfied my hopes; yet he appears to have searched with diligence his broken materials; and the history of the conquest is illustrated by some valuable fragments of the genuine Razis (who wrote at Corduba, AH 300), of Ben Hazil, etc. See Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, p. 32, 105, 106, 182, 252, 319⁠–⁠332. On this occasion, the industry of Pagi has been aided by the Arabic learning of his friend the Abbé de Longuerue, and to their joint labours I am deeply indebted. ↩
A mistake of Roderic of Toledo, in comparing the lunar years of the Hegira with the Julian years of the Era, has determined Baronius, Mariana, and the crowd of Spanish historians to place the first invasion in the year 713, and the battle of Xeres in November 714. This anachronism of three years has been detected by the more correct industry of modern chronologists, above all, of Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. III, p. 169, 171⁠–⁠174), who have restored the genuine state of the revolution. At the present time an Arabian scholar, like Cardonne, who adopts the ancient error (tom. I, p. 75), is inexcusably ignorant or careless. ↩
The Era of Caesar, which in Spain was in legal and popular use till the fourteenth century, begins thirty-eight years before the birth of Christ. I would refer the origin to the general peace by sea and land, which confirmed the power and partition of the triumvirs (Dion Cassius, l. XLVIII, p. 547, 553; Appian, De bello Civili, l. V, p. 1034, edit. folio). Spain was a province of Caesar Octavian; and Tarragona, which raised the first temple to Augustus (Tacitus, Annales I 78), might borrow from the Orientals this mode of flattery. ↩
The road, the country, the old castle of Count Julian, and the superstitious belief of the Spaniards of hidden treasures, etc. are described by Père Labat (Voyages en Espagne et en Italie, tom. I, pp. 207⁠–⁠217), with his usual pleasantry. ↩
The Nubian geographer (p. 154) explains the topography of the war; but it is highly incredible that the lieutenant of Musa should execute the desperate and useless measure of burning his ships. ↩
Xeres (the Roman colony of Asta Regia) is only two leagues from Cadiz. In the sixteenth century it was a granary of corn; and the wine of Xeres is familiar to the nations of Europe (Ludovici nonii medici hispania, c. 13, pp. 54⁠–⁠56, a work of correct and concise knowledge; d’Anville, États Formés en Europe, p. 154). ↩
Id sane infortunii regibus pedem ex acie referentibus saepe contingit. Ben Hazil of Grenada, in Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, p. 337. Some credulous Spaniards believe that King Roderic, or Rodrigo, escaped to a hermit’s cell; and others that he was cast alive into a tub full of serpents, from whence he exclaimed with a lamentable voice, “they devour the part with which I have so grievously sinned” (Don Quixote, part II l. III c. 1). ↩
The direct road from Corduba to Toledo was measured by Mr. Swinburne’s mules in 72½ hours; but a larger computation must be adopted for the slow and devious marches of an army. The Arabs traversed the province of La Mancha, which the pen of Cervantes has transformed into classic ground to the reader of every nation. ↩
The antiquities of Toledo, Urbs Parva in the Punic wars, Urbs Regia in the sixth century, are briefly described by Nonius (Hispaniae illustratae, c. 59, pp. 181⁠–⁠186). He borrows from Roderic the fatale palatium of Moorish portraits; but modestly insinuates that it was no more than a Roman amphitheatre. ↩
In the Historia Arabum (c. 9, p. 17, ad calcem Elmacin), Roderic of Toledo describes the emerald tables, and inserts the name of Medinat Ahneyda in Arabic words and letters. He appears to be conversant with the Muhammadan writers; but I cannot agree with M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I, p. 350) that he had read and transcribed al-Nuwayri; because he was dead a hundred years before al-Nuwayri composed his history. This mistake is founded on a still grosser error. M. de Guignes confounds the historian Roderic Ximines, archbishop of Toledo in the thirteenth century, with Cardinal Ximines, who governed Spain in the beginning of the sixteenth, and was the subject, not the author, of historical compositions. ↩
Tarik might have inscribed on the last rock the boast of Regnard and his companions in their Lapland journey:

“Hic tandem stetimus, nobis ubi defuit orbis.”

↩
Such was the argument of the traitor Oppas, and every chief to whom it was addressed did not answer with the spirit of Pelagius: Omnis Hispania dudum sub uno regimine Gothorum, omnis exercitus Hispaniae in uno congregatus Ismaelitarum non valuit sustinere impetum. Chronicon Alphonsi Regis, apud Pagi, tom. III, p. 177. ↩
The revival of the Gothic kingdom in the Asturias is distinctly though concisely noticed by d’Anville (États Formés en Europe, p. 159). ↩
The honorable relics of the Cantabrian war (Dion Cassius, l. LIII, p. 720) were planted in this metropolis of Lusitania, perhaps of Spain (submittit cui tota suos Hispania fasces). Nonius (Hispaniae illustratae, c. 31, pp. 106⁠–⁠110) enumerates the ancient structures, but concludes with a sigh: Urbs haec olim nobilissima ad magnam incolarum infrequentiam delapsa est, et praeter priscae claritatis ruinas nihil ostendit. ↩
Both the interpreters of al-Nuwayri, de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I, p. 349) and Cardonne (Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne, tom. I, pp. 93, 94, 104, 105), lead Musa into the Narbonnese Gaul. But I find no mention of this enterprise either in Roderic of Toledo or the MSS. of the Escurial, and the invasion of the Saracens is postponed by a French chronicle till the ninth year after the conquest of Spain, AD 721 (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. III, pp. 177, 195; Historians of France, tom. III). I much question whether Musa ever passed the Pyrenees. ↩
Four hundred years after Theodemir, his territories of Murcia and Carthagena retain in the Nubian geographer Edrisi (p, 154, 161) the name of Tadmir (d’Anville, États Formés en Europe, p. 156; Pagi, tom. III, p. 174). In the present decay of Spanish agriculture, Mr. Swinburne (Travels Through Spain, p. 119) surveyed with pleasure the delicious valley from Murcia to Orihuela, four leagues and a half of the finest corn pulse, lucerne, oranges, etc. ↩
Gibbon has made eight cities: in Conde’s translation Bigerra does not appear. —⁠M. ↩
See the treaty in Arabic and Latin, in the Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, pp. 105, 106. It is signed the 4th of the month of Regeb, AH 94, the 5th of April, AD 713, a date which seems to prolong the resistance of Theodemir and the government of Musa. ↩
From the history of Sandoval, p. 87, Fleury (Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. IX, p. 261) has given the substance of another treaty concluded AÆC 782, AD 734, between an Arabian chief and the Goths and Romans, of the territory of Conimbra in Portugal. The tax of the churches is fixed at twenty-five pounds of gold; of the monasteries, fifty; of the cathedrals, one hundred; the Christians are judged by their count, but in capital cases he must consult the alcaide. The church doors must be shut, and they must respect the name of Muhammad. I have not the original before me; it would confirm or destroy a dark suspicion that the piece has been forged to introduce the immunity of a neighboring convent. ↩
This design, which is attested by several Arabian historians (Cardonne, tom. I, pp. 95, 96), may be compared with that of Mithridates, to march from the Crimaea to Rome; or with that of Caesar, to conquer the East and return home by the North. And all three are, perhaps, surpassed by the real and successful enterprise of Hannibal. ↩
I much regret our loss, or my ignorance, of two Arabic works of the eighth century, a Life of Musa, and a poem on the exploits of Tarik. Of these authentic pieces, the former was composed by a grandson of Musa, who had escaped from the massacre of his kindred; the latter by the Vizier of the first Abdalrahman, caliph of Spain, who might have conversed with some of the veterans of the conqueror (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, pp. 36, 139). ↩
Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, pp. 32, 252. The former of these quotations is taken from a Biographia Hispanica, by an Arabian of Valentia (see the copious extracts of Casiri, tom. II, pp. 30⁠–⁠121); and the latter from a general Chronology of the Caliphs, and of the African and Spanish Dynasties, with a particular history of the kingdom of Grenada, of which Casiri has given almost an entire version (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, pp. 177⁠–⁠319). The author, Ebn Khateb, a native of Grenada, and a contemporary of al-Nuwayri and Abulfeda (born AD 1313, died AD 1374), was an historian, geographer, physician, poet, etc. (tom. II, pp. 71, 72). ↩
Cardonne, Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne, tom. I, pp. 116, 117. ↩
A copious treatise of husbandry, by an Arabian of Seville, in the twelth century, is in the Escurial library, and Casiri had some thoughts of translating it. He gives a list of the authors quoted, Arabs as well as Greeks, Latins, etc.; but it is much if the Andalusian saw these strangers through the medium of his countryman Columella (Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, pp. 323⁠–⁠338). ↩
Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, p. 104. Casiri translates the original testimony of the historian Rasis, as it is alleged in the Arabic Biographia Hispanica, pars IX. But I am most exceedingly surprised at the address, Principibus caeterisque Christianis, Hispanis suis Castellae. The name of Castellae was unknown in the eighth century; the kingdom was not erected till the year 1022, a hundred years after the time of Rasis (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, p. 330), and the appellation was always expressive, not of a tributary province, but of a line of castles independent of the Moorish yoke (d’Anville, États Formés en Europe, pp. 166⁠–⁠170). Had Casiri been a critic, he would have cleared a difficulty, perhaps of his own making. ↩
Cardonne, tom. I, pp. 337, 338. He computes the revenue at 130,000,000 of French livres. The entire picture of peace and prosperity relieves the bloody uniformity of the Moorish annals. ↩
I am happy enough to possess a splendid and interesting work, which has only been distributed in presents by the court of Madrid, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis operâ et studio Michaelis Casiri, Syro Maronitoe, Matriti, in folio, tomus prior, 1760, tomus posterior, 1770. The execution of this work does honor to the Spanish press; the MSS., to the number of MDCCCLI, are judiciously classed by the editor, and his copious extracts throw some light on the Muhammadan literature and history of Spain. These relics are now secure, but the task has been supinely delayed, till in the year 1671 a fire consumed the greatest part of the Escurial library, rich in the spoils of Grenada and Morocco.9236 ↩
The Harbii, as they are styled, qui tolerari nequeunt, are, 1. Those who, besides God, worship the sun, moon, or idols. 2. Atheists. Utrique, quamdiu princeps aliquis inter Mohammedanos superest, oppugnari debent donec religionem amplectantur, nec requies iis concedenda est, nec pretium acceptandum pro obtinendâ conscientiae libertate (Reland, Dissertatio ex “De Jure Militari Mohammedan,” tom. III, p. 14); a rigid theory! ↩
The distinction between a proscribed and a tolerated sect, between the Harbii and the people of the Book, the believers in some divine revelation, is correctly defined in the conversation of the caliph Al Mamun with the idolaters or Sabaeans of Charrae (Hottinger, Historia orientalis, pp. 107, 108). ↩
The Zend or Pazend, the bible of the Ghebers, is reckoned by themselves, or at least by the Muhammadans, among the ten books which Abraham received from heaven; and their religion is honorably styled the religion of Abraham (d’Herblot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 701; Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. III, pp. 27, 28, etc.). I much fear that we do not possess any pure and free description of the system of Zoroaster.9237 Dr. Prideaux (Old and New Testament Connected, vol. I, p. 300, octavo) adopts the opinion that he had been the slave and scholar of some Jewish prophet in the captivity of Babylon. Perhaps the Persians, who have been the masters of the Jews, would assert the honor, a poor honor, of being their masters. ↩
The Arabian Nights, a faithful and amusing picture of the Oriental world, represent in the most odious colors the Magians, or worshippers of fire, to whom they attribute the annual sacrifice of a Mussulman. The religion of Zoroaster has not the least affinity with that of the Hindus, yet they are often confounded by the Muhammadans; and the sword of Timour was sharpened by this mistake (Histoire de Timur-Bec, par Cherefeddin Ali Yezdi, l. V). ↩
La vie de Mahomet par Gagnier, tom. III, pp. 114, 115. ↩
Hae tres sectae, Judaei, Christiani, et qui inter Persas Magorum institutis addicti sunt, κατ’ ἐξοχήν, populi libri dicuntur (Reland, Dissertationum Miscellanearum, tom. III, p. 15). The caliph Al Mamun confirms this honorable distinction in favor of the three sects, with the vague and equivocal religion of the Sabaeans, under which the ancient polytheists of Charrae were allowed to shelter their idolatrous worship (Hottinger, Historia orientalis, pp. 167, 168). ↩
This singular story is related by d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 448, 449), on the faith of Khondemir, and by Mirchond himself (Historia priorum regum Persarum, etc., pp. 9, 10, note pp. 88, 89). ↩
Mirchond (Mohammed Emir Khoondah Shah), a native of Herat, composed in the Persian language a general history of the East, from the creation to the year of the Hegira 875 (AD 1471). In the year 904 (AD 1498) the historian obtained the command of a princely library, and his applauded work, in seven or twelve parts, was abbreviated in three volumes by his son Khondemir, AH 927, AD 1520. The two writers, most accurately distinguished by Pétis de la Croix (Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, p.537, 538, 544, 545), are loosely confounded by d’Herbelot (pp. 358, 410, 994, 995); but his numerous extracts, under the improper name of Khondemir, belong to the father rather than the son. The historian of Genghizcan refers to a MS. of Mirchond, which he received from the hands of his friend d’Herbelot himself. A curious fragment (the Taherian and Soffarian Dynasties) has been lately published in Persic and Latin (Viennae, 1782, in quarto, cum notis Bernard de Jenisch); and the editor allows us to hope for a continuation of Mirchond. ↩
Quo testimonio boni se quidpiam praestitisse opinabantur. Yet Mirchond must have condemned their zeal, since he approved the legal toleration of the Magi, cui (the fire temple) peracto singulis annis censu uti sacra Mohammedis lege cautum, ab omnibus molestiis ac oneribus libero esse licuit. ↩
The last Magian of name and power appears to be Mardavige the Dilemite, who, in the beginning of the 10th century, reigned in the northern provinces of Persia, near the Caspian Sea (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 355). But his soldiers and successors, the Bowides, either professed or embraced the Muhammadan faith; and under their dynasty (AD 933⁠–⁠1020) I should place the fall of the religion of Zoroaster. ↩
The present state of the Ghebers in Persia is taken from Sir John Chardin, not indeed the most learned, but the most judicious and inquisitive, of our modern travellers (Voyages en Perse, tom. II, pp. 109, 179⁠–⁠187, in quarto). His brethren, Pietro della Valle, Olearius, Thévenot, Tavernier, etc., whom I have fruitlessly searched, had neither eyes nor attention for this interesting people. ↩
The letter of Abdoulrahman, governor or tyrant of Africa, to the caliph Aboul Abbas, the first of the Abbassides, is dated AH 132 (Cardonne, Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne, tom. I, p. 168). ↩
Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 66. Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 287, 288. ↩
Among the Epistles of the Popes, see Leo IX “Epistola 3”; Gregorius VII l. I Epistolae 22, 23, l. III Epistolae 19⁠–⁠21; and the criticisms of Pagi (tom. IV, “AD 1053,” No. 14, “AD 1073,” No. 13), who investigates the name and family of the Moorish prince, with whom the proudest of the Roman pontiffs so politely corresponds. ↩
Mozarabes, or Mostarabes, adscititii, as it is interpreted in Latin (Pococke, Specimen historiae Arabum, pp. 39, 40; Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, p. 18). The Mozarabic liturgy, the ancient ritual of the church of Toledo, has been attacked by the popes and exposed to the doubtful trials of the sword and of fire (Mariana, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, tom. I l. IX c. 18, p. 378). It was, or rather it is, in the Latin tongue; yet in the eleventh century, it was found necessary (AÆC 1087, AD 1039) to transcribe an Arabic version of the canons of the councils of Spain (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, p. 547), for the use of the bishops and clergy in the Moorish kingdoms. ↩
About the middle of the tenth century, the clergy of Cordova was reproached with this criminal compliance, by the intrepid envoy of the Emperor Otto I (Vita Johannes Gorziensis, in Seculorum Benedictus V No. 115, apud Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XII, p. 91). ↩
Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. IV, “AD 1149,” No. 8, 9. He justly observes that, when Seville, etc., were retaken by Ferdinand of Castille, no Christians, except captives, were found in the place; and that the Mozarabic churches of Africa and Spain, described by James à Vitriaco, AD 1218 (Historia Hierosolymitana, c. 80, p. 1095, in Gesta Dei per Francos), are copied from some older book. I shall add that the date of the Hegira 677 (AD 1278) must apply to the copy, not the composition, of a treatise of a jurisprudence, which states the civil rights of the Christians of Cordova (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, p. 471); and that the Jews were the only dissenters whom Abul Waled, king of Grenada (AD 1313), could either discountenance or tolerate (tom. II, p. 288). ↩
Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 288. Leo Africanus would have flattered his Roman masters, could he have discovered any latent relics of the Christianity of Africa. ↩
Absit (said the Catholic to the vizier of Baghdad) ut pari loco habeas Nestorianos, quorum praeter Arabas nullus alius rex est, et Graecos quorum reges amovendo Arabibus bello non desistunt, etc. See in the collections of Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, pp. 94⁠–⁠101) the state of the Nestorians under the caliphs. That of the Jacobites is more concisely exposed in the preliminary dissertation of the second volume of Assemani. ↩
Eutychius, Annales, tom. II, pp. 384, 387, 388. Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 205, 206, 257, 332. A taint of the Monothelite heresy might render the first of these Greek patriarchs less loyal to the emperors and less obnoxious to the Arabs. ↩
Motadhed, who reigned from AD 892 to 902. The Magians still held their name and rank among the religions of the empire (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. IV, p. 97). ↩
Reland explains the general restraints of the Muhammadan policy and jurisprudence (Dissertationum Miscellanearum, tom. III, pp. 16⁠–⁠20). The oppressive edicts of the caliph Motawakkel (AD 847⁠–⁠861), which are still in force, are noticed by Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, p. 448) and d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 640). A persecution of the caliph Omar II is related, and most probably magnified, by the Greek Theophanes (Chronographia, p. 334). ↩
The martyrs of Cordova (AD 850, etc.) are commemorated and justified by St. Eulogius, who at length fell a victim himself. A synod, convened by the caliph, ambiguously censured their rashness. The moderate Fleury cannot reconcile their conduct with the discipline of antiquity, toutefois l’autorité de l’église, etc. (Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. X, pp. 415⁠–⁠522, particularly pp. 451, 508, 509). Their authentic acts throw a strong though transient light on the Spanish church in the ninth century. ↩
See the article “Eslamiah” (as we say Christendom), in the Bibliothèque Orientale (p. 325). This chart of the Muhammadan world is suited by the author, Ebn Alwardi, to the year of the Hegira 385 (AD 995). Since that time, the losses in Spain have been overbalanced by the conquests in India, Tartary, and the European Turkey. ↩
The Arabic of the Koran is taught as a dead language in the college of Mecca. By the Danish traveller, this ancient idiom is compared to the Latin; the vulgar tongue of Hejaz and Yemen to the Italian; and the Arabian dialects of Syria, Egypt, Africa, etc., to the Provençal, Spanish, and Portuguese (Niebuhr, Description de l’Arabie, p. 74, etc.). ↩
Theophanes places the seven years of the siege of Constantinople in the year of our Christian era 673 (of the Alexandrian 665, Sept. 1), and the peace of the Saracens, four years afterwards: a glaring inconsistency! which Petavius, Goar, and Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. IV, pp. 63, 64), have struggled to remove. Of the Arabians, the Hegira 52 (AD 672, January 8) is assigned by Elmacin, the year 48 (AD 688, Feb. 20) by Abulfeda, whose testimony I esteem the most convenient and credible.9238 ↩
For this first siege of Constantinople, see Nicephorus (Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, pp. 21, 22), Theophanes (Chronographia, p. 294), Cedrenus (Historiarum compendium, p. 437), Zonaras (Epitome historiarum, tom. II l. XIV, p. 89), Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 56, 57), Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, pp. 107, 108, vers. Reiske), d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, “Consthanthinah”), Ockley’s History of the Saracens, vol. II, pp. 127, 128. ↩
The state and defence of the Dardanelles is exposed in the Memoirs of the Baron de Tott (tom. III, pp. 39⁠–⁠97), who was sent to fortify them against the Russians. From a principal actor, I should have expected more accurate details; but he seems to write for the amusement, rather than the instruction, of his reader. Perhaps, on the approach of the enemy, the minister of Constantine was occupied, like that of Mustapha, in finding two Canary birds who should sing precisely the same note. ↩
Demetrius Cantemir’s History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 105, 106. Rycaut’s The Present State of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 10, 11. Voyages de Thévenot, part I, p. 189. The Christians, who suppose that the martyr Abu Ayub is vulgarly confounded with the patriarch Job, betray their own ignorance rather than that of the Turks. ↩
Theophanes, though a Greek, deserves credit for these tributes (Chronographia, pp. 295, 296, 300, 301), which are confirmed, with some variation, by the Arabic history of Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 128, vers. Pococke). ↩
The censure of Theophanes is just and pointed, τὴν Ῥωμαικὴν δυναστείαν ἀκρωτηρίασας⁠ ⁠… πάνδεινα κακὰ πέπονθεν ἡ Ῥωμάνια ὑπο τῶν Ἁράβων μέχρι τοῦ νῦν (Chronographia, pp. 302, 303). The series of these events may be traced in the Annals of Theophanes, and in the Abridgment of the patriarch Nicephorus, pp. 22, 24. ↩
These domestic revolutions are related in a clear and natural style, in the second volume of Ockley’s History of the Saracens, pp. 253⁠–⁠370. Besides our printed authors, he draws his materials from the Arabic MSS. of Oxford, which he would have more deeply searched had he been confined to the Bodleian library instead of the city jail: a fate how unworthy of the man and of his country! ↩
Elmacin, who dates the first coinage AH 76, AD 695, five or six years later than the Greek historians, has compared the weight of the best or common gold dinar to the drachm or dirhem of Egypt (p. 77), which may be equal to two pennies (48 grains) of our Troy weight (Hooper’s Inquiry Into the State of Ancient Weights and Measures, pp. 24⁠–⁠36), and equivalent to eight shillings of our sterling money. From the same Elmacin and the Arabian physicians, some dinars as high as two dirhems, as low as half a dirhem, may be deduced. The piece of silver was the dirhem, both in value and weight; but an old though fair coin, struck at Waset, AH 88, and preserved in the Bodleian library, wants four grains of the Cairo standard (see the Modern Universal History, tom. I, p. 548 of the French translation).9239 ↩
Καὶ ἐκώλυσε γράφεσθαι ἑλληνιστὶ τοὺς δημόσιους τῶν λογοθεσίων κώδικας ἄλλ Ἀραβίοις αὐτὰ παρασημίνεσθαι χωρὶς τῶν ψήφων, ἐπειδὴ ἀδυναστὸν τῇ ἐκεῖνων γλωσσῇ μονάδα, ἢ δυάδα, ἢ τριάδα, ἢ ὀκτὼ ἤμισυ ἢ τρία γράφεσθαι. Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 314. This defect, if it really existed, must have stimulated the ingenuity of the Arabs to invent or borrow. ↩
According to a new, though probable, notion, maintained by M. de Villoison (Anecdota Graeca, tom. II, pp. 152⁠–⁠157), our ciphers are not of Indian or Arabic invention. They were used by the Greek and Latin arithmeticians long before the age of Boethius. After the extinction of science in the West, they were adopted by the Arabic versions from the original MSS. and restored to the Latins about the eleventh century.9240 ↩
In the division of the Themes, or provinces described by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De thematibus, l. I, pp. 9, 10), the Obsequium, a Latin appellation of the army and palace, was the fourth in the public order. Nice was the metropolis, and its jurisdiction extended from the Hellespont over the adjacent parts of Bithynia and Phrygia (see the two maps prefixed by Delisle to the Imperium orientale of Banduri). ↩
Compare earlier in this chapter. It is singular that Gibbon should thus contradict himself in a few pages. By his own account this was the second time. —⁠M. ↩
The account of this siege in the Tarikh al-Tabari is a very unfavorable specimen of Asiatic history, full of absurd fables, and written with total ignorance of the circumstances of time and place. Price, vol. I, p. 498. —⁠M. ↩
The caliph had emptied two baskets of eggs and of figs, which he swallowed alternately, and the repast was concluded with marrow and sugar. In one of his pilgrimages to Mecca, Soliman ate, at a single meal, seventy pomegranates, a kid, six fowls, and a huge quantity of the grapes of Tayef. If the bill of fare be correct, we must admire the appetite rather than the luxury of the sovereign of Asia (Abulfeda, Annales moslemici, p. 126).9241 ↩
Major Price’s estimate of Omar’s character is much more favorable. Among a race of sanguinary tyrants, Omar was just and humane. His virtues as well as his bigotry were active. —⁠M. ↩
See the article of “Omar Ben Abdalaziz,” in the Bibliothèque Orientale (pp. 689, 690), praeferens, says Elmacin (p. 91), religionem suam rebus suis mundanis. He was so desirous of being with God that he would not have anointed his ear (his own saying) to obtain a perfect cure of his last malady. The caliph had only one shirt, and in an age of luxury his annual expense was no more than two drachms (Abulpharagius, p. 131). Haud diu gavisus eo principe fuit urbis Muslemus (Abulfeda, p. 127). ↩
Both Nicephorus and Theophanes agree that the siege of Constantinople was raised the 15th of August (AD 718); but as the former, our best witness, affirms that it continued thirteen months, the latter must be mistaken in supposing that it began on the same day of the preceding year. I do not find that Pagi has remarked this inconsistency. ↩
The Tarikh al-Tabari embellishes the retreat of Moslemah with some extraordinary and incredible circumstances. Price, p. 514. —⁠M. ↩
In the second siege of Constantinople, I have followed Nicephorus (Breviarum historicum, pp. 33⁠–⁠36), Theophanes (Chronographia, pp. 324⁠–⁠334), Cedrenus (Historiarum compendium, pp. 449⁠–⁠452), Zonaras (tom. II, pp. 98⁠–⁠102), Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 88), Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, p. 126), and Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 130), the most satisfactory of the Arabs. ↩
Our sure and indefatigable guide in the Middle Ages and Byzantine history, Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange, has treated in several places of the Greek fire, and his collections leave few gleanings behind. See particularly Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis, p. 1275, sub voce “Πὺρ θαλάσσιον ὑγρόν.” Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, “Ignis Groecus.” Observations sur Villehardouin, pp. 305, 306. Observations sur Joinville, pp. 71, 72. ↩
Theophanes styles him ἀρχιτέκτων (p. 295). Cedrenus (p. 437) brings this artist from (the ruins of) Heliopolis in Egypt; and chemistry was indeed the peculiar science of the Egyptians. ↩
The naphtha, the oleum incendiarium of the history of Jerusalem (Gesta Dei per Francos, p. 1167), the Oriental fountain of James de Vitry (l. III c. 84), is introduced on slight evidence and strong probability. Cinnamus (l. VI, p. 165) calls the Greek fire πῦρ Μηδικόν; and the naphtha is known to abound between the Tigris and the Caspian Sea. According to Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae II 109), it was subservient to the revenge of Medea, and in either etymology the ἔλαιον Μηδίας or Μηδείας (Procopius, De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 11) may fairly signify this liquid bitumen.9242 ↩
On the different sorts of oils and bitumens, see Dr. Watson’s (the present bishop of Llandaff’s) Chemical Essays, vol. III essay I, a classic book, the best adapted to infuse the taste and knowledge of chemistry. The less perfect ideas of the ancients may be found in Strabo (Geographica, l. XVI, p. 1078) and Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae II 108, 109): Huic (Naphthae) magna cognatio est ignium, transiliuntque protinus in eam undecunque visam. Of our travellers I am best pleased with Otter (tom. I, pp. 153, 158). ↩
Anna Comnena has partly drawn aside the curtain. Ἀπὸ τῆς πεύκης καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν τοιούτων δένδρων ἀειθαλῶν συνάγεται δάκρυον δὔκαυστον. Τοῦτο μετὰ θείου τριβόμενον ἐμβάλλεται εἰς αὐλίσκους καλάμων καὶ ἐμφυσᾶται ταρὰ τοῦ ταίζοντος λάββῳ καὶ συνεχεῖ πνεύματι (Alexias, l. XIII, p. 383). Elsewhere (l. XI, p. 336) she mentions the property of burning, κατὰ τὸ πρανὲς καὶ εφ’ ἐκάτερα. Leo, in the nineteenth chapter of his Tactics (Opera Meursii, tom. VI, p. 843, edit. Lami, Florentiae, 1745), speaks of the new invention of πῦρ μετὰ βροντῆς καὶ καπνοῦ. These are genuine and Imperial testimonies. ↩
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, c. XIII, pp. 64, 65. ↩
Histoire de St. Louis, p. 39, Paris, 1668; p. 44, Paris, de l’Imprimerie Royale, 1761. The former of these editions is precious for the observations of du Cange; the latter for the pure and original text of Joinville. We must have recourse to that text to discover that the feu Gregeois was shot with a pile or javelin, from an engine that acted like a sling. ↩
The vanity, or envy, of shaking the established property of Fame has tempted some moderns to carry gunpowder above the fourteenth (see Sir William Temple, Louis Dutens, etc.), and the Greek fire above the seventh century (see the Salluste du president de Brosses, tom. II, p. 381). But their evidence, which precedes the vulgar era of the invention, is seldom clear or satisfactory, and subsequent writers may be suspected of fraud or credulity. In the earliest sieges some combustibles of oil and sulphur have been used, and the Greek fire has some affinities with gunpowder both in its nature and effects: for the antiquity of the first, a passage of Procopius (De bello Gothico, l. IV c. 11), for that of the second, some facts in the Arabic history of Spain (AD 1249, 1312, 1332, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, pp. 6⁠–⁠8), are the most difficult to elude. ↩
That extraordinary man, Friar Bacon, reveals two of the ingredients, saltpetre and sulphur, and conceals the third in a sentence of mysterious gibberish, as if he dreaded the consequences of his own discovery (Biographia Britannica, vol. I, p. 430, new edition). ↩
For the invasion of France and the defeat of the Arabs by Charles Martel, see the Historia Arabum (c. 11⁠–⁠14) of Roderic Ximenes, archbishop of Toledo, who had before him the Christian Chronicle of Isidore Pacensis, and the Muhammadan history of al-Nuwayri. The Muslims are silent or concise in the account of their losses; but M. Cardonne (tom. I, pp. 129⁠–⁠131) has given a pure and simple account of all that he could collect from Ibn Halikan, Hidjazi, and an anonymous writer. The texts of the chronicles of France, and lives of saints, are inserted in the Collection of Bouquet (tom. III) and the Annals of Pagi, who (tom. III under the proper years) has restored the chronology, which is anticipated six years in the Annals of Baronius. The Dictionary of Bayle (“Abderame” and “Munuza”) has more merit for lively reflection than original research. ↩
Eginhart, Vita Karoli Magni, c. II, pp. 13⁠–⁠18, edit. Schmink, Utrecht, 1711. Some modern critics accuse the minister of Charlemagne of exaggerating the weakness of the Merovingians; but the general outline is just, and the French reader will forever repeat the beautiful lines of Boileau’s Lutrin. ↩
Mamaccae on the Oyse, between Compiègne and Noyon, which Eginhart calls perparvi reditus villam (see the notes, and the map of ancient France for Dom Bouquet’s Collection). Compendium, or Compiègne, was a palace of more dignity (Hadrianius Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, p. 152), and that laughing philosopher, the Abbé Galliani (Dialogues sur le commerce des Bleds), may truly affirm that it was the residence of the rois très Chrétiens en très chevelus. ↩
Even before that colony, AUC 630 (Velleius Paterculus I 15), in the time of Polybius (Historiae, l. III, p. 265, edit. Jacobus Gronovius), Narbonne was a Celtic town of the first eminence, and one of the most northern places of the known world (d’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, p. 473). ↩
With regard to the sanctuary of St. Martin of Tours, Roderic Ximenes accuses the Saracens of the deed. Turonis civitatem, ecclesiam et palatia vastatione et incendio simili diruit et consumpsit. The continuator of Fredegarius imputes to them no more than the intention. Ad domum beatissimi Martini evertendam destinant. At Carolus, etc. The French annalist was more jealous of the honor of the saint. ↩
Yet I sincerely doubt whether the Oxford mosque would have produced a volume of controversy so elegant and ingenious as the sermons lately preached by Mr. White, the Arabic professor, at Mr. Bampton’s lecture. His observations on the character and religion of Muhammad are always adapted to his argument, and generally founded in truth and reason. He sustains the part of a lively and eloquent advocate; and sometimes rises to the merit of an historian and philosopher. ↩
Gens Austriae membrorum pre-eminentiâ valida, et gens Germana corde et corpore praestantissima, quasi in ictû oculi, manû ferreâ, et pectore arduo, Arabes extinxerunt (Roderici Toletani, c. XIV). ↩
These numbers are stated by Paul Warnefrid, the deacon of Aquileia (De gestis Langobardorum, l. VI, p. 921, edit. Grotius), and Anastasius, the librarian of the Roman church (in Vita Gregorii II), who tells a miraculous story of three consecrated sponges, which rendered invulnerable the French soldiers among whom they had been shared. It should seem that in his letters to the pope Eudes usurped the honor of the victory, for which he is chastised by the French annalists, who, with equal falsehood, accuse him of inviting the Saracens. ↩
This is not quite accurate. Maurontius, the duke of Marseilles, preferred the alliance of the misbelievers to that of the Frank warrior, and handed over Arles, Avignon, and other towns to the lords of Narbonne, who also obtained possession of Lyons and Valence. They were smitten back to Narbonne by Charles the Hammer in AD 737, and yet again in 739. Cp. Weil, op. cit., p. 647. Okba was at this time governor of Spain. For the expedition of Charles in 737, see Continuations Fredegarius 109. —⁠B. ↩
Narbonne and the rest of Septimania was recovered by Pepin, the son of Charles Martel, AD 755 (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. III, p. 300). Thirty-seven years afterwards, it was pillaged by a sudden inroad of the Arabs, who employed the captives in the construction of the mosque of Cordova (De Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. I, p. 354). ↩
This pastoral letter, addressed to Lewis the Germanic, the grandson of Charlemagne, and most probably composed by the pen of the artful Hincmar, is dated in the year 858, and signed by the bishops of the provinces of Rheims and Rouen (Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 741”; Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. X, pp. 514⁠–⁠516). Yet Baronius himself, and the French critics, reject with contempt this episcopal fiction. ↩
The steed and the saddle which had carried any of his wives were instantly killed or burnt, lest they should afterwards be mounted by a male. Twelve hundred mules or camels were required for his kitchen furniture; and the daily consumption amounted to three thousand cakes, a hundred sheep, besides oxen, poultry, etc. (Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 140). ↩
He is called Abdullah or Abul Abbas in the Tarikh al-Tabari. Price vol. I, p. 600. Saffah or Saffauh (the Sanguinary) was a name which be acquired after his bloody reign (vol. II, p. 1). —⁠M. ↩
Al Hemar. He had been governor of Mesopotamia, and the Arabic proverb praises the courage of that warlike breed of asses who never fly from an enemy. The surname of Mervan may justify the comparison of Homer (Iliad XI 557, etc.), and both will silence the moderns, who consider the ass as a stupid and ignoble emblem (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 558). ↩
Four several places, all in Egypt, bore the name of Busir, or Busiris, so famous in Greek fable. The first, where Mervan was slain, was to the west of the Nile, in the province of Fium, or Arsinoe; the second in the Delta, in the Sebennytic nome; the third, near the pyramids; the fourth, which was destroyed by Dioclesian (see here in chapter XIII), in the Thebais. I shall here transcribe a note of the learned and orthodox Michaelis: Videntur in pluribus Aegypti superioris urbibus Busiri Coptoque arma sumpsisse Christiani, libertatemque de religione sentiendi defendisse, sed succubuisse quo in bello Coptus et Busiris diruta, et circa Esnam magna strages edita. Bellum narrant sed causam belli ignorant scriptores Byzantini, alioqui Coptum et Busirim non rebellasse dicturi, sed causam Christianorum suscepturi (Note 211, p. 100). For the geography of the four Busirs, see Abulfeda (Descriptio Aegypti, p. 9, vers. Michaelis, Gottingae, 1776, in quarto), Michaelis (Notes 122⁠–⁠127, pp. 58⁠–⁠63), and d’Anville (Mémoires sur l’Egypte, pp. 85, 147, 205). ↩
See Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, pp. 136⁠–⁠145), Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, p. 392, vers. Pococke), Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 109⁠–⁠121), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 134⁠–⁠140), Roderic of Toledo (Historia Arabum, c. 18, p. 33), Theophanes (Chronographia, pp. 356, 357, who speaks of the Abbassides under the names of Χωρασανῖται and Μαυροφόροι) and the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot, in the articles “Ommiades,” “Abbassides,” “Moervan,” “Ibrahim,” “Saffah,” “Abou Moslem.” ↩
For the revolution of Spain, consult Roderic of Toledo (c. XVIII, p. 34, etc.), the Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis (tom. II, pp. 30, 198), and Cardonne (Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne, tom. I, pp. 180⁠–⁠197, 205, 272, 323, etc.). ↩
I shall not stop to refute the strange errors and fancies of Sir William Temple (his Works, vol. III, pp. 371⁠–⁠374, octavo edition) and Voltaire (Histoire générale, c. XXVIII tom. II, pp. 124, 125, édition de Lausanne) concerning the division of the Saracen empire. The mistakes of Voltaire proceeded from the want of knowledge or reflection; but Sir William was deceived by a Spanish impostor, who has framed an apocryphal history of the conquest of Spain by the Arabs. ↩
The geographer d’Anville (L’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 121⁠–⁠123), and the Orientalist d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 167, 168), may suffice for the knowledge of Baghdad. Our travellers, Pietro della Valle (tom. I, pp. 688⁠–⁠698), Tavernier (tom. I, pp. 230⁠–⁠238), Thévenot (part II, pp. 209⁠–⁠212), Otter (tom. I, pp. 162⁠–⁠168), and Niebuhr (Voyage en Arabie, tom. II, pp. 239⁠–⁠271), have seen only its decay; and the Nubian geographer (p. 204), and the travelling Jew, Benjamin of Tudela (Itinerarium, pp. 112⁠–⁠123, à Constantini l’Empereur, apud Elzeviriana, 1633), are the only writers of my acquaintance who have known Baghdad under the reign of the Abbassides. ↩
The foundations of Baghdad were laid AH 145, AD 762. Mostasem, the last of the Abbassides, was taken and put to death by the Tartars, AH 656, AD 1258, the 20th of February. ↩
Medinat al Salem, Dar al Salem. Urbs pacis, or, as it is more neatly compounded by the Byzantine writers, Εἰρηωόπολις (Irenopolis). There is some dispute concerning the etymology of Baghdad, but the first syllable is allowed to signify a garden in the Persian tongue; the garden of Dad, a Christian hermit, whose cell had been the only habitation on the spot. ↩
Reliquit in aerario sexcenties millies mille stateres, et quater et vicies millies mille aureos aureos. Elmacin, Historia saracenica, p. 126. I have reckoned the gold pieces at eight shillings, and the proportion to the silver as twelve to one. But I will never answer for the numbers of Erpenius; and the Latins are scarcely above the savages in the language of arithmetic. ↩
D’Herbelot, p. 530. Abulfeda, p. 154. Nivem Meccam apportavit, rem ibi aut nunquam aut rarissime visam. ↩
Abulfeda (pp. 184, 189) describes the splendor and liberality of Almamon. Milton has alluded to this Oriental custom:⁠—

Or where the gorgeous East, with richest hand,
Showers on her kings Barbaric pearls and gold.

I have used the modern word lottery to express the Missilia of the Roman emperors, which entitled to some prize the person who caught them, as they were thrown among the crowd. ↩
When Bell of Antermony (Travels from St. Petersburg, vol. I, p. 99) accompanied the Russian ambassador to the audience of the unfortunate Shah Hussein of Persia, two lions were introduced, to denote the power of the king over the fiercest animals. ↩
Abulfeda, p. 237; d’Herbelot, p. 590. This embassy was received at Baghdad AH 305, AD 917. In the passage of Abulfeda, I have used, with some variations, the English translation of the learned and amiable Mr. James Harris of Salisbury (Philological Inquiries in Three Parts, pp. 363, 364). ↩
Cardonne, Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne, tom. I, pp. 330⁠–⁠336. A just idea of the taste and architecture of the Arabians of Spain may be conceived from the description and plates of the Alhambra of Grenada (Swinburne’s Travels Through Spain, pp. 171⁠–⁠188). ↩
Cardonne, tom. I, pp. 329, 330. This confession, the complaints of Solomon of the vanity of this world (read Prior’s verbose but eloquent poem), and the happy ten days of the emperor Seghed (Rambler, No. 204, 205), will be triumphantly quoted by the detractors of human life. Their expectations are commonly immoderate, their estimates are seldom impartial. If I may speak of myself (the only person of whom I can speak with certainty), my happy hours have far exceeded, and far exceed, the scanty numbers of the caliph of Spain; and I shall not scruple to add that many of them are due to the pleasing labor of the present composition. ↩
The Gulistan (p. 239) relates the conversation of Muhammad and a physician (Epistola Renaudot in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. I, p. 814). The prophet himself was skilled in the art of medicine; and Gagnier (La vie de Mahomet, tom. III, pp. 394⁠–⁠405) has given an extract of the aphorisms which are extant under his name. ↩
See their curious architecture in Réaumur (Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des Insectes, tom. V, Mémoire VIII). These hexagons are closed by a pyramid; the angles of the three sides of a similar pyramid, such as would accomplish the given end with the smallest quantity possible of materials, were determined by a mathematician, at 109 degrees 26 minutes for the larger, 70 degrees 34 minutes for the smaller. The actual measure is 109 degrees 28 minutes, 70 degrees 32 minutes. Yet this perfect harmony raises the work at the expense of the artist: the bees are not masters of transcendent geometry. ↩
Saed Ebn Ahmed, cadhi of Toledo, who died AH 462, AD 1069, has furnished Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 160) with this curious passage as well as with the text of Pococke’s Specimen historiae Arabum. A number of literary anecdotes of philosophers, physicians, etc., who have flourished under each caliph, form the principal merit of the Dynasties of Abulpharagius. ↩
These literary anecdotes are borrowed from the Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis (tom. II, pp. 38, 71, 201, 202), Leo Africanus (“De Medicis et Philosophus Arabibus,” in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. XIII, pp. 259⁠–⁠293, particularly p. 274), and Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 274, 275, 536, 537), besides the chronological remarks of Abulpharagius. ↩
The Arabic catalogue of the Escurial will give a just idea of the proportion of the classes. In the library of Cairo, the MSS. of astronomy and medicine amounted to 6,500, with two fair globes, the one of brass, the other of silver (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, p. 417). ↩
As, for instance, the fifth, sixth, and seventh books (the eighth is still wanting) of the Conic Sections of Apollonius Pergaeus, which were printed from the Florence MS. 1661 (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. II, p. 559). Yet the fifth book had been previously restored by the mathematical divination of Viviani (see his Eloge in Fontenelle, tom. V, p. 59, etc.). ↩
The merit of these Arabic versions is freely discussed by Renaudot (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. I, pp. 812⁠–⁠816), and piously defended by Casiri (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, pp. 238⁠–⁠240). Most of the versions of Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, etc., are ascribed to Honain, a physician of the Nestorian sect, who flourished at Baghdad in the court of the caliphs, and died AD 876. He was at the head of a school or manufacture of translations, and the works of his sons and disciples were published under his name. See Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 88, 115, 171⁠–⁠174, and apud Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II, p. 438), d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 456), Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III, p. 164), and Casiri (Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, p. 238, etc., 251, 286⁠–⁠290, 302, 304, etc.). ↩
See Mosheim, Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 181, 214, 236, 257, 315, 388, 396, 438, etc. ↩
The most elegant commentary on the Categories or Predicaments of Aristotle may be found in the Philosophical Arrangements of Mr. James Harris (London, 1775, in octavo), who labored to revive the studies of Grecian literature and philosophy. ↩
Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 81, 222. Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, pp. 370, 371. In quem (says the primate of the Jacobites) si immiserit se lector, oceanum hoc in genere (algebrae) inveniet. The time of Diophantus of Alexandria is unknown, but his six books are still extant, and have been illustrated by the Greek Planudes and the Frenchman Meziriac (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. IV, pp. 12⁠–⁠15). ↩
Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, pp. 210, 211, vers. Reiske) describes this operation according to Ibn Challecan and the best historians. This degree most accurately contains 200,000 royal or Hashemite cubits, which Arabia had derived from the sacred and legal practice both of Palestine and Egypt. This ancient cubit is repeated 400 times in each basis of the great pyramid, and seems to indicate the primitive and universal measures of the East. See the Métrologie of the laborious M. Paucton, pp. 101⁠–⁠195. ↩
See the Astronomical Tables of Ulugh Begh, with the preface of Dr. Hyde, in the first volume of his Syntagma dissertationum, Oxoniae, 1767. ↩
The truth of astrology was allowed by Albumazar, and the best of the Arabian astronomers, who drew their most certain predictions, not from Venus and Mercury, but from Jupiter and the sun (Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 161⁠–⁠163). For the state and science of the Persian astronomers, see Chardin (Voyages en Perse, tom. III, pp. 162⁠–⁠203). ↩
Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, p. 438. The original relates a pleasant tale of an ignorant but harmless practitioner. ↩
In the year 956, Sancho the Fat, king of Leon, was cured by the physicians of Cordova (Mariana, l. VIII c. 7, tom. I, p. 318). ↩
The school of Salerno, and the introduction of the Arabian sciences into Italy, are discussed with learning and judgment by Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. III, pp. 932⁠–⁠940) and Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. II, pp. 119⁠–⁠127). ↩
See a good view of the progress of anatomy in Wotton (Reflections on Ancient and Modern Learning, pp. 208⁠–⁠256). His reputation has been unworthily depreciated by the wits in the controversy of Boyle and Bentley. ↩
Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. I, p. 275. Al Beithar, of Malaga, their greatest botanist, had travelled into Africa, Persia, and India. ↩
Dr. Watson (Elements of Chemistry, vol. I, p. 17, etc.) allows the original merit of the Arabians. Yet he quotes the modest confession of the famous Geber of the ninth century (d’Herbelot, p. 387), that he had drawn most of his science, perhaps the transmutation of metals, from the ancient sages. Whatever might be the origin or extent of their knowledge, the arts of chemistry and alchemy appear to have been known in Egypt at least three hundred years before Muhammad (Wotton’s Reflections on Ancient and Modern Learning, pp. 121⁠–⁠133; Pauw, Recherches philosophiques sur les Égyptiens et les Chinois, tom. I, pp. 376⁠–⁠429).9243 ↩
Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 26, 148) mentions a Syriac version of Homer’s two poems, by Theophilus, a Christian Maronite of Mount Libanus, who professed astronomy at Roha or Edessa towards the end of the eighth century. His work would be a literary curiosity. I have read somewhere, but I do not believe, that Plutarch’s Lives were translated into Turkish for the use of Muhammad the Second. ↩
I have perused with much pleasure Sir William Jones’s Latin Commentary on Asiatic Poetry (London, 1774, in octavo), which was composed in the youth of that wonderful linguist. At present, in the maturity of his taste and judgment, he would perhaps abate of the fervent and even partial praise which he has bestowed on the Orientals. ↩
Among the Arabian philosophers, Averroes has been accused of despising the religions of the Jews, the Christians, and the Muhammadans (see his article in Bayle’s Dictionnaire historique et critique). Each of these sects would agree that in two instances out of three, his contempt was reasonable. ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 546. ↩
Θεόφιλος ἄτοπον κρίνας εἰ τὴν τῶν ὄντων γνῶσιν, δἰ ἣν τὸ Ῥωμαίων γένος θαυμάζεται, ἔκδοτον ποιήσει τοῖς ἔθνεσι, etc.; Cedrenus, p. 548, who relates how manfully the emperor refused a mathematician to the instances and offers of the caliph Almamon. This absurd scruple is expressed almost in the same words by the continuator of Theophanes (Historiae Byzantinae scriptores post Theophanem, p. 118). ↩
See the reign and character of Harun al Rashid, in the Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 431⁠–⁠433, under his proper title; and in the relative articles to which M. d’Herbelot refers. That learned collector has shown much taste in stripping the Oriental chronicles of their instructive and amusing anecdotes. ↩
There seem to be grounds for believing that Harun’s cruelty towards the Barmecides was connected with his incestuous passion for his sister Abbasah. Harun’s fondness for Djafar, one of the Barmecide family, was so extravagant that he was unhappy out of his company; and, in order to reconcile his presence in the harem with Eastern notions of decorum, he made him contract a formal marriage with Abbasah, but under strict injunctions that he was not to exercise the rights of a husband. A mutual passion, however, caused the wedded pair to overstep these commands: a child was the fruit and witness of their stolen interviews; and Harun learned from a slave that he was deceived and disobeyed. After satisfying himself of the truth of this report by the likeness which the child bore to its father, Harun resolved on the destruction of the whole family of the Barmecides. They were treacherously seized and murdered; Djafar was beheaded, and parts of his mutilated body were fixed to the gates and on the bridge of Baghdad. Weil, vol. II, p. 133⁠–⁠139. —⁠S. ↩
For the situation of Racca, the old Nicephorium, consult d’Anville (L’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 24⁠–⁠27). The Arabian Nights represent Harun al Rashid as almost stationary in Baghdad. He respected the royal seat of the Abbassides, but the vices of the inhabitants had driven him from the city (Abulfeda, Annales moslemici, p. 167).9244 ↩
M. de Tournefort, in his coasting voyage from Constantinople to Trebizond, passed a night at Heraclea or Eregri. His eye surveyed the present state, his reading collected the antiquities of the city (Voyage du Levant, tom. III lettre XVI, pp. 23⁠–⁠35). We have a separate history of Heraclea in the fragments of Memnon, which are preserved by Photius. ↩
The wars of Harun al Rashid against the Roman empire are related by Theophanes (pp. 384, 385, 391, 396, 407, 408), Zonaras (tom. II l. XV, pp. 115, 124), Cedrenus (pp. 477, 478), Eutychius (Annales, tom. II, p. 407), Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 136, 151, 152), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 147, 151), and Abulfeda (pp. 156, 166⁠–⁠168). ↩
The authors from whom I have learned the most of the ancient and modern state of Crete are Belon (Observations, etc., c. 3⁠–⁠20, Paris, 1555), Tournefort (Voyage du Levant, tom. I lettre II et III), and Meursius (Creta, in his Works, tom. III, pp. 343⁠–⁠544). Although Crete is styled by Homer πίειρα, by Dionysius λιπαρή τε καὶ εὔβοτος, I cannot conceive that mountainous island to surpass, or even to equal, in fertility the greater part of Spain. ↩
The most authentic and circumstantial intelligence is obtained from the four books of the Continuation of Theophanes, compiled by the pen or the command of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, with the Life of his father Basil the Macedonian (Historiae Byzantinae scriptores post Theophanem, pp. 1⁠–⁠162, à Francisci Combefisii, Paris, 1685). The loss of Crete and Sicily is related, l. II, pp. 46⁠–⁠52. To these we may add the secondary evidence of Joseph Genesius (l. II, p. 21, Venetiis, 1733), George Cedrenus (Historiarum compendium, pp. 506⁠–⁠508), and John Scylitzes Curopalata (apud Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 827,” No. 24, etc.). But the modern Greeks are such notorious plagiaries that I should only quote a plurality of names. ↩
Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 251⁠–⁠256, 268⁠–⁠270) had described the ravages of the Andalusian Arabs in Egypt, but has forgot to connect them with the conquest of Crete. ↩
Δηλοῖ (says the continuator of Theophanes, l. II, p. 51) δὲ ταῦτα σαφέστατα καὶ πλατικώτερον ἡ τότε γραφεῖσα Θεογνώστῳ καὶ εἰς χεῖρας ἐλθοῦσα ἡμῶν. This history of the loss of Sicily is no longer extant. Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. VII, pp. 719, 721, etc.) has added some circumstances from the Italian chronicles. ↩
The splendid and interesting tragedy of Tancrede would adapt itself much better to this epoch than to the date (AD 1005) which Voltaire himself has chosen. But I must gently reproach the poet for infusing into the Greek subjects the spirit of modern knights and ancient republicans. ↩
The narrative or lamentation of Theodosius is transcribed and illustrated by Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. III, p. 719, etc.). Constantine Porphyrogenitus (in Vita Basilii, c. 69, 70, pp. 190⁠–⁠192) mentions the loss of Syracuse and the triumph of the demons. ↩
The extracts from the Arabic histories of Sicily are given in Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, pp. 271⁠–⁠273), and in the first volume of Muratori’s Rerum Italicarum scriptores. M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I, pp. 363, 364) has added some important facts. ↩
One of the most eminent Romans (Gratianus, magister militum et Romani palatii superista) was accused of declaring, Quia Franci nihil nobis boni faciunt, neque adjutorium praebent, sed magis quae nostra sunt violenter tollunt. Quare non advocamus Graecos, et cum eis foedus pacis componentes, Francorum regem et gentem de nostro regno et dominatione expellimus? Anastasius in “Leone IV,” p. 199. ↩
Voltaire (Essai sur l’histoire générale, tom. II c. 38, p. 124) appears to be remarkably struck with the character of Pope Leo IV. I have borrowed his general expression, but the sight of the forum has furnished me with a more distinct and lively image. ↩
De Guignes, Histoire générale des Huns, tom. I, pp. 363, 364. Cardonne, Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne sous la domination des Arabes, tom. II, pp. 24, 25. I observe, and cannot reconcile, the difference of these writers in the succession of the Aglabites. ↩
Beretti (De Italia medii aevi dissertatio chorographica, pp. 106, 108) has illustrated Centumcellae, Leopolis, Civitas Leonina, and the other places of the Roman duchy. ↩
The Arabs and the Greeks are alike silent concerning the invasion of Rome by the Africans. The Latin chronicles do not afford much instruction (see the Annals of Baronius and Pagi). Our authentic and contemporary guide for the popes of the ninth century is Anastasius, librarian of the Roman church. His “Life of Leo IV” contains twenty-four pages (pp. 175⁠–⁠199, edit. Paris); and if a great part consist of superstitious trifles, we must blame or commend his hero, who was much oftener in a church than in a camp. ↩
The same number was applied to the following circumstance in the life of Motassem: he was the eighth of the Abbassides; he reigned eight years, eight months, and eight days; left eight sons, eight daughters, eight thousand slaves, eight millions of gold. ↩
Amorium is seldom mentioned by the old geographers, and totally forgotten in the Roman Itineraries. After the sixth century it became an episcopal see, and at length the metropolis of the new Galatia (Carolo Sancto Paulo, Geographia sacra, p. 234). The city rose again from its ruins, if we should read Ammuria, not Anguria, in the text of the Nubian geographer (p. 236). ↩
In the East he was styled Δυστυχής (Theophanes continuatus, l. III, p. 84); but such was the ignorance of the West that his ambassadors, in public discourse, might boldly narrate, de victoriis, quas adversus exteras bellando gentes coelitus fuerat assecutus (Annales Bertiniani, apud Pagi, tom. III, p. 720). ↩
Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 167, 168) relates one of these singular transactions on the bridge of the river Lamus in Cilicia, the limit of the two empires, and one day’s journey westward of Tarsus (d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, p. 91). Four thousand four hundred and sixty Muslims, eight hundred women and children, one hundred confederates, were exchanged for an equal number of Greeks. They passed each other in the middle of the bridge, and when they reached their respective friends, they shouted Allah Acbar, and Kyrie Eleison. Many of the prisoners of Amorium were probably among them, but in the same year (AH 231), the most illustrious of them, the forty two martyrs, were beheaded by the caliph’s order. ↩
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in Vita Basilii, c. 61, p. 186. These Saracens were indeed treated with peculiar severity as pirates and renegadoes. ↩
For Theophilus, Motassem, and the Amorian war, see the continuator of Theophanes (l. III, pp. 77⁠–⁠84), Genesius (l. III, pp. 24⁠–⁠34), Cedrenus (pp. 528⁠–⁠532), Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 180), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 165, 166), Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, p. 191), d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 639, 640). ↩
M. de Guignes, who sometimes leaps, and sometimes stumbles, in the gulf between Chinese and Muhammadan story, thinks he can see that these Turks are the Hoei-ke, alias the Kao-tche, or high-wagons; that they were divided into fifteen hordes, from China and Siberia to the dominions of the caliphs and Samanides, etc. (Histoire des Huns, tom. III, pp. 1⁠–⁠33, 124⁠–⁠131). ↩
He changed the old name of Sumera, or Samara, into the fanciful title of Ser-men-rai, that which gives pleasure at first sight (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 808; d’Anville, L’Euphrate et le Tigre, pp. 97, 98). ↩
Take a specimen, the death of the caliph Motaz: Correptum pedibus pertrahunt, et sudibus probe permulcant, et spoliatum laceris vestibus in sole collocant, prae cujus acerrimo aestu pedes alternos attollebat et demittebat. Adstantium aliquis misero colaphos continuo ingerebat, quos ille objectis manibus avertere studebat.⁠ ⁠… Quo facto traditus tortori fuit, totoque triduo cibo potuque prohibitus.⁠ ⁠… Suffocatus, etc. (Abulfeda, p. 206). Of the caliph Mohtadi, he says, cervices ipsi perpetuis ictibus contundebant, testiculosque pedibus conculcabant (p. 208). ↩
See under the reigns of Motassem, Motawakkel, Montasser, Mostain, Motaz, Mohtadi, and Motamed, in the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot, and the now familiar annals of Elmacin, Abulpharagius, and Abulfeda. ↩
For the sect of the Carmathians, consult Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 219, 224, 229, 231, 238, 241, 243), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 179⁠–⁠182), Abulfeda (Annales moslemici, pp. 218, 219, etc., 245, 265, 274), and d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 256⁠–⁠258, 635). I find some inconsistencies of theology and chronology, which it would not be easy nor of much importance to reconcile.9245 ↩
Hyde, Syntagma dissertationum, tom. II, p. 57, in Historia shahiludii. ↩
The dynasties of the Arabian empire may be studied in the annals of Elmacin, Abulpharagius, and Abulfeda, under the proper years, in the dictionary of d’Herbelot, under the proper names. The tables of M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I) exhibit a general chronology of the East, interspersed with some historical anecdotes; but his attachment to national blood has sometimes confounded the order of time and place. ↩
The Aglabites and Edrisites are the professed subject of M. de Cardonne (Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne sous la domination des Arabes, tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠63). ↩
To escape the reproach of error, I must criticize the inaccuracies of M. de Guignes (tom. I, p. 359) concerning the Edrisites.
1. The dynasty and city of Fez could not be founded in the year of the Hegira 173, since the founder was a posthumous child of a descendant of Ali, who fled from Mecca in the year 168.
2. This founder, Edris, the son of Edris, instead of living to the improbable age of 120 years, AH 313, died AH 214, in the prime of manhood.
3. The dynasty ended AH 307, twenty-three years sooner than it is fixed by the historian of the Huns. See the accurate Annals of Abulfeda, pp. 158, 159, 185, 238.
↩
The dynasties of the Taherites and Soffarides, with the rise of that of the Samanides, are described in the original history and Latin version of Mirchond; yet the most interesting facts had already been drained by the diligence of M. d’Herbelot. ↩
M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. III, pp. 124⁠–⁠154) has exhausted the Toulunides and Ikshidites of Egypt, and thrown some light on the Carmathians and Hamadanites. ↩
Hic est ultimus chalifah qui multum atque saepius pro concione peroraret.⁠ ⁠… Fuit etiam ultimus qui otium cum eruditis et facetis hominibus fallere hilariterque agere soleret. Ultimus tandem chalifarum cui sumtus, stipendia, reditus, et thesauri, culinae, caeteraque omnis aulica pompa priorum chalifarum ad instar comparata fuerint. Videbimus enim paullo post quam indignis et servilibius ludibriis exagitati, quam ad humilem fortunam altimumque contemptum abjecti fuerint hi quondam potentissimi totius terrarum Orientalium orbis domini. Abulfeda, Annales moslemici, p. 261. I have given this passage as the manner and tone of Abulfeda, but the cast of Latin eloquence belongs more properly to Reiske. The Arabian historian (pp. 255, 257, 261⁠–⁠269, 283, etc.) has supplied me with the most interesting facts of this paragraph. ↩
Their master, on a similar occasion, showed himself of a more indulgent and tolerating spirit. Ahmed Ebn Hanbal, the head of one of the four orthodox sects, was born at Baghdad AH 164, and died there AH 241. He fought and suffered in the dispute concerning the creation of the Koran. ↩
The office of vizier was superseded by the emir al Omra, Imperator Imperatorum, a title first instituted by Radhi, and which merged at length in the Bowides and Seljukides; vectigalibus, et tributis, et curiis per omnes regiones praefecit, jussitque in omnibus suggestis nominis ejus in concionibus mentionem fieri (Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 199). It is likewise mentioned by Elmacin (pp. 254, 255). ↩
Liutprand, whose choleric temper was embittered by his uneasy situation, suggests the names of reproach and contempt more applicable to Nicephorus than the vain titles of the Greeks: Ecce venit stella matutina, surgit Eous, reverberat obtutû solis radios, pallida Saracenorum mors, Nicephorus μέδων. ↩
Notwithstanding the insinuation of Zonaras, καὶ εἰ μή, etc. (tom. II l. XVI, p. 197), it is an undoubted fact that Crete was completely and finally subdued by Nicephorus Phocas (Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. III, pp. 873⁠–⁠875; Meursius, Creta, l. III c. 7, tom. III, pp. 464, 465). ↩
The Acroases of Theodorus, “De expugnatione Cretae,” miserable iambics, relate the whole campaign. Whoever would fairly estimate the merit of the poetic deacon may read the description of the slinging a jackass into the famishing city. The poet is in a transport at the wit of the general, and revels in the luxury of antithesis. Theodori Acroases, lib. III 172, in Niebuhr’s Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. —⁠M. ↩
A Greek life of St. Nicon the Armenian was found in the Sforza library, and translated into Latin by the Jesuit Sirmond for the use of Cardinal Baronius. This contemporary legend casts a ray of light on Crete and Peloponnesus in the 10th century. He found the newly-recovered island, foedis detestandae Agarenorum superstitionis vestigiis adhuc plenam ac refertam⁠ ⁠…, but the victorious missionary, perhaps with some carnal aid, ad baptismum omnes veraeque fidei disciplinam pepulit. Ecclesiis per totam insulam aedificatis, etc. (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 961”). ↩
Elmacin, Historia saracenica, pp. 278, 279. Liutprand was disposed to depreciate the Greek power, yet he owns that Nicephorus led against Assyria an army of eighty thousand men. ↩
Ducenta fere millia hominum numerabat urbs (Abulfeda, Annales moslemici, p. 231) of Mopsuestia, or Masifa, Mampsysta, Mansista, Mamista, as it is corruptly, or perhaps more correctly, styled in the Middle Ages (Wesseling, Intineraria, p. 580). Yet I cannot credit this extreme populousness a few years after the testimony of the emperor Leo, οὐ γὰρ πολυπληθία στρατοῦ τοῖς Κίλιξι βαρβάροις ἐστίν (Tactica, c. XVIII in Meursii, Opera, tom. VI, p. 817). ↩
The text of Leo the deacon, in the corrupt names of Emeta and Myctarsim, reveals the cities of Amida and Martyropolis (Miafarekin; see Abulfeda, Geographia, p. 245, vers. Reiske). Of the former, Leo observes, urbs munita et illustris; of the latter, clara atque conspicua opibusque et pecore, reliquis ejus provinciis urbibus atque oppidis longe praestans. ↩
Ut et Ecbatana pergeret Agarenorumque regiam everteret⁠ ⁠… aiunt enim urbium quae usquam sunt ac toto orbe existunt felicissimam esse auroque ditissimam (Leo Diaconus apud Pagi, tom. IV, p. 34). This splendid description suits only with Baghdad, and cannot possibly apply either to Hamadan, the true Ecbatana (d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, p. 237), or Tauris, which has been commonly mistaken for that city. The name of Ecbatana, in the same indefinite sense, is transferred by a more classic authority (Cicero, Pro lege Manilia, c. 4) to the royal seat of Mithridates, king of Pontus. ↩
See the annals of Elmacin, Abulpharagius, and Abulfeda, from AH 351 to AH 361; and the reigns of Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, in the Chronicles of Zonaras (tom. II l. XVI, p. 199, l. XVII 215) and Cedrenus (Historiarum compendium, pp. 649⁠–⁠684). Their manifold defects are partly supplied by the MS. history of Leo the deacon, which Pagi obtained from the Benedictines, and has inserted almost entire in a Latin version (Critica Baronii, tom. III, p. 873, tom. IV, p. 37).9246 ↩
The epithet of Πορφυρογέννητος, Porphyrogenitus, born in the purple, is elegantly defined by Claudian:⁠—

Ardua privatos nescit fortuna Penates;
Et regnum cum luce dedit. Cognata potestas
Excepit Tyrio venerabile pignus in ostro.

And du Cange, in his Greek and Latin Glossaries, produces many passages expressive of the same idea. ↩
A splendid MS. of Constantine, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, wandered from Constantinople to Buda, Frankfurt, and Leipzig, where it was published in a splendid edition by Leich and Reiske (AD 1751, in folio), with such lavish praise as editors never fail to bestow on the worthy or worthless object of their toil. ↩
See, in the first volume of Banduri’s Imperium orientale, Constantinus, De thematibus, pp. 1⁠–⁠24, De administrando imperio, pp. 45⁠–⁠127, edit. Venetiis. The text of the old edition of Meursius is corrected from a MS. of the royal library of Paris, which Isaac Casaubon had formerly seen (Epistola ad Polybius, p. 10), and the sense is illustrated by two maps of William Deslisle, the prince of geographers till the appearance of the greater d’Anville. ↩
The Tactics of Leo and Constantine are published with the aid of some new MSS. in the great edition of the Works of Meursius, by the learned John Lami (tom. VI, pp. 531⁠–⁠920, 1211⁠–⁠1417, Florentiae 1745), yet the text is still corrupt and mutilated, the version is still obscure and faulty. The Imperial library of Vienna would afford some valuable materials to a new editor (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, pp. 369, 370). ↩
On the subject of the Basilics, Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. XII, pp. 425⁠–⁠514), and Heineccius (Historia juris Romani, pp. 396⁠–⁠399), and Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. I, pp. 450⁠–⁠458), as historical civilians, may be usefully consulted. Forty-one books of this Greek code have been published, with a Latin version, by Charles Annibal Frabrottus (Paris, 1647), in seven tomes in folio; four other books have been since discovered, and are inserted in Gerard Meerman’s Novus thesaurus juris civilis et canonici, tom. V. Of the whole work, the sixty books, John Leunclavius has printed (Basil, 1575) an eclogue or synopsis. The 113 novels, or new laws, of Leo, may be found in the Corpus juris civilis.9247 ↩
I have used the last and best edition of the Geoponics (by Nicolas Niclas, Leipzig, 1781, two vols. in octavo). I read in the preface that the same emperor restored the long-forgotten systems of rhetoric and philosophy; and his two books of Hippiatrica, or Horse-physic, were published at Paris, 1530, in folio (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, pp. 493⁠–⁠500). ↩
Of these fifty-three books, or titles, only two have been preserved and printed, De legationibus (by Fulvius Ursinus, Antwerp, 1582, and Daniel Hoeschelius, Augustae Vindelicorum, 1603) and De virtutibus et vitiis (by Henry Valesius, or de Valois, Paris, 1634). ↩
The life and writings of Simon Metaphrastes are described by Hankius (De Byzantinarum rerum scriptoribus Graecis, pp. 418⁠–⁠460). This biographer of the saints indulged himself in a loose paraphrase of the sense or nonsense of more ancient acts. His Greek rhetoric is again paraphrased in the Latin version of Surius, and scarcely a thread can be now visible of the original texture. ↩
According to the first book of the Cyropaedia, professors of tactics, a small part of the science of war, were already instituted in Persia, by which Greece must be understood. A good edition of all the Scriptores Tactici would be a task not unworthy of a scholar. His industry might discover some new MSS., and his learning might illustrate the military history of the ancients. But this scholar should be likewise a soldier; and alas! Quintus Icilius is no more.9248 ↩
After observing that the demerit of the Cappadocians rose in proportion to their rank and riches, he inserts a more pointed epigram, which is ascribed to Demodocus.

Καππαδόκην ποτ’ ἔχιδνα κακὴ δάκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτή
Κάτθανε, γευσαμένη αἴματος ἰοβόλου.

The sting is precisely the same with the French epigram against Fréron: Un serpent mordit Jean Fréron⁠—Eh bien? Le serpent en mourut. But as the Paris wits are seldom read in the Anthology, I should be curious to learn through what channel it was conveyed for their imitation (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, c. II; Richard Brunck, Analecta veterum poetarum Graecorum, tom. II, p. 56; Joannis Brodaei, Anthologia Graeca, l. II, p. 244). ↩
The Legatio Liutprandi Cremonensis Episcopi ad Nicephorum Phocam is inserted in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I. ↩
See Constantine, De thematibus, in Banduri, tom. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠30, who owns that the word is οὐκ παλαιά. Θέμα is used by Maurice (Strategikon, l. II c. 2) for a legion, from whence the name was easily transferred to its post or province (du Cange, Glossarium Graecitatis, tom. I, pp. 487⁠–⁠488). Some etymologies are attempted for the Opiscian, Optimatian, Thracesian, themes. ↩
Ἅγιος πέλαγος, as it is styled by the modern Greeks, from which the corrupt names of Archipelago, l’Archipel, and the Arches have been transformed by geographers and seamen (d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 281; Analyse de la carte intitulée les côtes de la Grèce et de l’Archipel, p. 60). The numbers of monks or caloyers in all the islands and the adjacent mountain of Athos (Observations de Belon, folio 32, verso), Monte Santo, might justify the epithet of holy, ἅγιος, a slight alteration from the original αἰγαῖος, imposed by the Dorians, who, in their dialect, gave the figurative name of αῖγες, or goats, to the bounding waves (Vossius, apud Cellarius, Geographia antiqua, tom. I, p. 829). ↩
According to the Jewish traveller who had visited Europe and Asia, Constantinople was equalled only by Baghdad, the great city of the Ishmaelites (Voyages de Rabbi Benjamin fils de Jona de Tudele, par Baratier, tom. I c. V, p. 46). ↩
Ἐσθλαβώθη δὲ πᾶσα ἡ χώρα καὶ γέγονε βάρβαρος, says Constantine (De thematibus, l. II c. VI, p. 25), in a style as barbarous as the idea, which he confirms, as usual, by a foolish epigram. The epitomizer of Strabo likewise observes, καὶ νῦν δὲ πᾶσαν Ἤπειρον καὶ Ἑλλάδα σχεδὸν καὶ Μακεδονίαν, καὶ Πελοπόννησον Σκύθαι Σκλάβοι νέμονται (l. VII, p. 98, edit. Hudson, edit. Casaubon 1251); a passage which leads Dodwell a weary dance (Geographiae veteris scriptores Graeci minores, tom. II dissertatio VI, pp. 170⁠–⁠191) to enumerate the inroads of the Sclavi, and to fix the date (AD 980) of this petty geographer. ↩
Strabonis geographica, l. VIII, p. 562. Pausanius, Graeciae descriptio, l. III c. 21, pp. 264, 265. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. IV c. 8. ↩
Constantine, De administrando imperio, l. II c. 50⁠–⁠52. ↩
The rock of Leucate was the southern promontory of his island and diocese. Had he been the exclusive guardian of the Lover’s Leap, so well known to the readers of Ovid (Epistulae Heroidum, “Sappho”) and the Spectator, he might have been the richest prelate of the Greek church. ↩
Leucatensis mihi juravit episcopus, quotannis ecclesiam suam debere Nicephoro aureos centum persolvere, similiter et ceteras plus minusve secundum vires suas (Liutprand in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, p. 489). ↩
See Constantine (in Vita Basilii, c. 74⁠–⁠76, pp. 195, 197, in Historiae Byzantinae scriptores post Theophanem), who allows himself to use many technical or barbarous words: barbarous, says he, πῇ τῶν πολλῶν ἀμαθίᾳ, καλὸν γὰρ ἐπὶ τούτοις κοινολεκτεῖν. Du Cange labors on some; but he was not a weaver. ↩
The manufactures of Palermo, as they are described by Hugo Falcandus (Historia sicula in proem in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, p. 256), is a copy of those of Greece. Without transcribing his declamatory sentences, which I have softened in the text, I shall observe that in this passage the strange word exarentasmata is very properly changed for exanthemata by Carisius, the first editor. Falcandus lived about the year 1190. ↩
Inde ad interiora Graeciae progressi, Corinthum, Thebas, Athenas, antiquâ nobilitate celebres, expugnant; et, maximâ ibidem praedâ direptâ, opifices etiam, qui sericos pannos texere solent, ob ignominiam Imperatoris illius, suique principis gloriam, captivos deducunt. Quos Rogerius, in Palermo Siciliae, metropoli collocans, artem texendi suos edocere praecepit; et exhinc praedicta ars illa, prius a Graecis tantum inter Christianos habita, Romanis patere coepit ingeniis (Otto Frisingensis, Gesta Frederici imperatoris, l. I c. 33, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VI, p. 668). This exception allows the bishop to celebrate Lisbon and Almeria in sericorum pannorum opificio praenobilissimae (in Chronicon, apud Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. IX, p. 415). ↩
Nicetas in Imperii Graeci historia, “Manuel Comnenus,” l. II c. 8, p. 65. He describes these Greeks as skilled εὐητ ρίους ὀθόνας ὑφαίνειν, as ἱστῷ προσανέχοντας τῶν ἑξαμίτων καὶ χρυσοπάστων στολῶν. ↩
Hugo Falcandus styles them nobiles officinas. The Arabs had not introduced silk, though they had planted canes and made sugar in the plain of Palermo. ↩
See the Life of Castruccio Casticani, not by Machiavel, but by his more authentic biographer Nicholas Tegrimi. Muratori, who has inserted it in the eleventh volume of his Rerum Italicarum scriptores, quotes this curious passage in his Italian Antiquities (tom. I dissertatio XXV, p. 378). ↩
From the MS. statutes, as they are quoted by Muratori in his Italian Antiquities (tom. II dissertatio XXV, pp. 46⁠–⁠48). ↩
The broad silk manufacture was established in England in the year 1620 (Anderson’s An Historical and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce, vol. II, p. 4); but it is to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes that we owe the Spitalfields colony. ↩
Voyages de Rabbi Benjamin fils de Jona de Tudele, tom. I c. 5, pp. 44⁠–⁠52. The Hebrew text has been translated into French by that marvellous child Baratier, who has added a volume of crude learning. The errors and fictions of the Jewish rabbi are not a sufficient ground to deny the reality of his travels.9249 ↩
See the continuator of Theophanes (l. IV, p. 107), Cedremis (p. 544), and Zonaras (tom. II l. XVI, p. 157). ↩
Zonaras (tom. II l. XVII, p. 225), instead of pounds, uses the more classic appellation of talents, which, in a literal sense and strict computation, would multiply sixty-fold the treasure of Basil. ↩
For a copious and minute description of the Imperial palace, see the Constantinopolis Christiana (l. II c. 4, pp. 113⁠–⁠123) of du Cange, the Tillemont of the Middle Ages. Never has laborious Germany produced two antiquarians more laborious and accurate than these two natives of lively France. ↩
The Byzantine palace surpasses the Capitol, the palace of Pergamus, the Rufinian wood (φαιδρὸν ἄγαλμα), the temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus, the Pyramids, the Pharus, etc., according to an epigram (Anthologia Graeca, l. IV, pp. 488, 489, Brodaei, apud Wechel) ascribed to Julian, ex-prefect of Egypt. Seventy-one of his epigrams, some lively, are collected in Brunck (Analecta veterum poetarum Graecorum, tom. II, pp. 493⁠–⁠510); but this is wanting. ↩
Constantinopolitanum Palatium non pulchritudine solum, verum etiam fortitudine, omnibus quas unquam videram munitionibus praestat (Liutprand, Historia, l. V c. 9, p. 465). ↩
See the anonymous continuator of Theophanes (pp. 59, 61, 86), whom I have followed in the neat and concise abstract of Le Beau (Histoire du Bas-Empire, tom. XIV, pp. 436, 438). ↩
In aureo triclinio quae praestantior est pars potentissimus (the usurper Romanus) degens caeteras partes (filiis) distribuerat (Liutprand, Historia, l. V c. 9, p. 469). For this last signification of Triclinium (aedificium tria vel plura κλίνη scilicet στέγη complectens) see du Cange (Glossarium Graecitatis et Observations sur Joinville, p. 240) and Reiske (ad Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, p. 7). ↩
In equis vecti (says Benjamin of Tudela) regum filiis videntur persimiles. I prefer the Latin version of Constantine l’Empereur (p. 46) to the French of Baratier (tom. I, p. 49). ↩
See the account of her journey, munificence, and testament in the Life of Basil, by his grandson Constantine (pp. 74⁠–⁠76, pp. 195⁠–⁠197). ↩
Carsamatium (καρξιμάδες, du Cange, Glossarium Graecitatis) Graeci vocant, amputatis virilibus et virgâ, puerum eunuchum quos Verdunenses mercatores ob immensum lucrum facere solent et in Hispaniam ducere (Liutprand, l. VI c. 3, p. 470).⁠—The last abomination of the abominable slave-trade! Yet I am surprised to find in the tenth century such active speculations of commerce in Lorraine. ↩
See the Alexias (l. III, pp. 78, 79) of Anna Comnena, who, except in filial piety, may be compared to Mademoiselle de Montpensier. In her awful reverence for titles and forms, she styles her father Ἐπιστημονάρχης, the inventor of this royal art, the τέχνη τεχνῶν, and ἐπιστήμη ἐπιστημῶν. ↩
Στέμμα, στέφανος, διάδημα; see Reiske, Constantini Porphyrogenneti de cerimoniis, pp. 14, 15. Du Cange has given a learned dissertation on the crowns of Constantinople, Rome, France, etc. (Dissertations sur Joinville XXV, pp. 289⁠–⁠303); but of his thirty-four models none exactly tally with Anne’s description. ↩
Par exstans curis, solo diademate dispar,
Ordine pro rerum vocitatus Cura-Palati,

says the African Corippus (De laudibus Justini, l. I 136), and in the same century (the sixth) Cassiodorus represents him, who, virgâ aureâ decoratus, inter numerosa obsequia primus ante pedes regis incederet (Variarum VII 5). But this great officer (unknown) ἀνεπίγνωστος, exercising no function, νῦν δέ οὐδεμίαν, was cast down by the modern Greeks to the fifteenth rank (Codinus, c. 5, p. 65).9250 ↩
Nicetas (in Imperii Graeci historia, “Manuel Comnenus,” l. VII c. 1) defines him ὡς ἡ Λατίνων φωνὴ Καγκελάριον, ὡς δ’ Ἕλληνες εἴποιεν Λογοθέτην. Yet the epithet μέγας was added by the elder Andronicus (du Cange, tom. I, pp. 822, 823). ↩
From Leo I (AD 470) the Imperial ink, which is still visible on some original acts, was a mixture of vermilion and cinnabar or purple. The emperor’s guardians, who shared in this prerogative, always marked in green ink the indiction and the month. See the Dictionnaire diplomatique (tom. I, pp. 511⁠–⁠513), a valuable abridgment. ↩
The sultan sent a Σιαούς to Alexius (Anna Comnena, l. VI, p. 170; du Cange ad loc.); and Pachymer often speaks of the μέγας τζαούς (l. VII c. 1, l. XII c. 30, l. XIII c. 22). The Chiaoush basha is now at the head of 700 officers (Rycaut’s The Present State of the Ottoman Empire, p. 349, octavo edition). ↩
Tagerman is the Arabic name of an interpreter (d’Herbelot, pp. 854, 855); πρῶτος τῶν ἑρμηνέων οὓς κοινῶς όνομάζουσι δραγομάνους, says Codinus (c. V No. 70, p. 67). See Geoffrey of Villehardouin (No. 96), Busbequius (“Epistola IV,” p. 338), and du Cange (Observations sur Villehardouin, and Glossarium Graecitatis et Glossarium Latinitatis). ↩
Κονόσταυλος, or κοντόσταυλος, a corruption from the Latin Comes stabuli, or the French Connétable. In a military sense, it was used by the Greeks in the eleventh century, at least as early as in France. ↩
It was directly borrowed from the Normans. In the twelth century, Giannone reckons the admiral of Sicily among the great officers. ↩
This sketch of honors and offices is drawn from George Cordinus Curopalata, who survived the taking of Constantinople by the Turks; his elaborate though trifling work (De officiis ecclesiae et aulae Constantinopolitani) has been illustrated by the notes of Goar, and the three books of Gretser, a learned Jesuit. ↩
The respectful salutation of carrying the hand to the mouth, ad os, is the root of the Latin word adoro, adorare. See our learned Selden (vol. III, pp. 143⁠–⁠145, 942), in his Titles of Honor. It seems, from the first book of Herodotus, to be of Persian origin. ↩
The two embassies of Liutprand to Constantinople, all that he saw or suffered in the Greek capital, are pleasantly described by himself (Historia, l. VI c. 1⁠–⁠4, pp. 469⁠–⁠471; Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, pp. 479⁠–⁠489). ↩
Among the amusements of the feast, a boy balanced, on his forehead, a pike, or pole, twenty-four feet long, with a cross bar of two cubits a little below the top. Two boys, naked, though cinctured (campestrati), together and singly, climbed, stood, played, descended, etc., ita me stupidum reddidit; utrum mirabilius nescio (p. 470). At another repast, a homily of Chrysostom on the Acts of the Apostles was read elata voce non Latine (p. 483). ↩
Gala is not improbably derived from Cala, or Caloat, in Arabic, a robe of honor (Reiske, Note in De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, p. 84). ↩
Πολυχρονίζειν is explained by εὐφημίζειν (Codinus, c. 7, du Cange, Glossarium Graecitatis, tom. I, p. 1199). ↩
Κωνσέρβετ Δέους ἠμπέριουμ βέστρουμ⁠—βίκτωρ σῆς σέμπερ⁠—βήβητε Δόμηνι Ἠμπεράτορες ἤν μούλτος ἄννος (De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, c. 75, p. 215.) The want of the Latin V obliged the Greeks to employ their β; nor do they regard quantity. Till he recollected the true language, these strange sentences might puzzle a professor. ↩
βάραγγοι κατὰ τὴν πατρίαν γλῶσσαν καὶ οὖτοι, ἤγουν Ἰγκλινιστὶ πολυχρονίζουσι (Codinus, p. 90). I wish he had preserved the words, however corrupt, of their English acclamation. ↩
For all these ceremonies, see the professed work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, with the notes, or rather dissertations, of his German editors, Leich and Reiske. For the rank of standing courtiers, p. 80, note 23, 62; for the adoration, except on Sundays, pp. 95, 240, note 131; the processions, p. 2, etc., note p. 3, etc.; the acclamations passim, note 25, etc.; the factions and Hippodrome, pp. 177⁠–⁠214, note 9, 93, etc.; the Gothic games, p. 221, note 111; vintage, p. 217, note 109. Much more information is scattered over the work. ↩
Et privato Othoni et nuper eadem dicenti nota adulatio (Tacitus, Historiae I 85). ↩
The thirteenth chapter, De administrando imperio, may be explained and rectified by the Familiae Byzantinae of du Cange. ↩
Sequiturque nefas Aegyptia conjux (Virgil, Aeneid VIII 688). Yet this Egyptian wife was the daughter of a long line of kings. Quid te mutavit (says Antony in a private letter to Augustus)? an quod reginam ineo? Uxor mea est (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 69). Yet I much question (for I cannot stay to inquire) whether the triumvir ever dared to celebrate his marriage either with Roman or Egyptian rites. ↩
Berenicem invitus invitam dimisit (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Titus,” c. 7). Have I observed elsewhere that this Jewish beauty was at this time above fifty years of age? The judicious Racine has most discreetly suppressed both her age and her country. ↩
Constantine was made to praise the εὐγένεια and περιφάνεια of the Franks, with whom he claimed a private and public alliance. The French writers (Isaac Casaubon in Dedicatio, Polybii historiarum) are highly delighted with these compliments. ↩
Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De administrando imperio, c. 36) exhibits a pedigree and life of the illustrious King Hugo (περιβλέπτου ῥῆγος Οὔγωνος). A more correct idea may be formed from the Criticism of Pagi, the Annals of Muratori, and the Abridgment of Saint-Marc, AD 925⁠–⁠946. ↩
After the mention of the three goddesses, Liutprand very naturally adds, et quoniam non rex solus iis abutebatur, earum nati ex incertis patribus originera ducunt (Historia, l. IV c. 6); for the marriage of the younger Bertha see Historia, l. V c. 5; for the incontinence of the elder, dulcis exercipio Hymenaei, l. II c. 15; for the virtues and vices of Hugo, l. III c. 5. Yet it must not be forgot that the bishop of Cremona was a lover of scandal. ↩
Licet illa Imperatrix Graeca sibi et aliis fuisset satis utilis, et optima, etc., is the preamble of an inimical writer, apud Pagi, tom. IV, “AD 989,” No. 3. Her marriage and principal actions may be found in Muratori, Pagi, and Saint-Marc, under the proper years. ↩
Cedrenus, tom. II, p. 699; Zonaras, tom. I, p. 221; Elmacin, Historia saracenica, l. III c. 6; Nestor apud Levesque, tom. II, p. 112; Pagi, Critica Baronii, “AD 987,” No. 6; a singular concourse! Wolodomir and Anne are ranked among the saints of the Russian church. Yet we know his vices, and are ignorant of her virtues. ↩
Henricus primus duxit uxorem Scythicam, Russam, filiam regis Jeroslai. An embassy of bishops was sent into Russia, and the father gratanter filiam cum multis donis misit. This event happened in the year 1051. See the passages of the original chronicles in Bouquet’s Historians of France (tom. XI, pp. 29, 159, 161, 319, 384, 481). Voltaire might wonder at this alliance; but he should not have owned his ignorance of the country, religion, etc., of Jeroslaus⁠—a name so conspicuous in the Russian annals. ↩
A constitution of Leo the Philosopher (LXXVIII), ne senatus consulta amplius fiant, speaks the language of naked despotism, ἐξ οὖ τὸ μόναρχον κράτος τὴν τούτων ἀνῆπται διοίκησιν, καὶ ἄκαιρον καὶ μάταιον τὸ ἄχρηστον μετὰ τῶν χρείαν παρεχομένων συνάπτεσθαι. ↩
Codinus (De officiis, c. XVII, pp. 120, 121) gives an idea of this oath so strong to the church πιστὸς καὶ γνήσιος δοῦλος καὶ υἱὸς τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας, so weak to the people καὶ ἀπέχεσθαι φόνων καὶ ἀκρωτηριασμῶν καὶ ὁμοίων τούτοις κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν. ↩
If we listen to the threats of Nicephorus to the ambassador of Otto: Nec est in mari domino tuo classium numerus. Navigantium fortitudo mihi soli inest, qui eum classibus aggrediar, bello maritimas ejus civitates demoliar; et quae fluminibus sunt vicina redigam in favillam (Liutprand in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 481). He observes in another place, qui caeteris praestant Venetici sunt et Amalphitani. ↩
Nec ipsa capiet eum (the emperor Otto) in quâ ortus est pauper et pellicea Saxonia: pecuniâ quâ pollemus omnes nationes super eum invitabimus; et quasi Keramicum confringemus (Liutprand in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, p. 487). The two books, De administrando imperio, perpetually inculcate the same policy. ↩
The nineteenth chapter of the Tactics of Leo (Meursii, Opera, tom. VI, pp. 825⁠–⁠848), which is given more correct from a manuscript of Gudius, by the laborious Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, pp. 372⁠–⁠379), relates to the Naumachia, or naval war. ↩
Even of fifteen and sixteen rows of oars, in the navy of Demetrius Poliorcetes. These were for real use; the forty rows of Ptolemy Philadelphus were applied to a floating palace, whose tonnage, according to Dr. Arbuthnot (Tables of Ancient Coins, Weights and Measures, pp. 231⁠–⁠236), is compared as 4½ to 1, with an English 100 gun ship. ↩
The Dromones of Leo, etc., are so clearly described with two tier of oars that I must censure the version of Meursius and Fabricius, who pervert the sense by a blind attachment to the classic appellation of Triremes. The Byzantine historians are sometimes guilty of the same inaccuracy. ↩
Constantine Porphyrogenitus in Vita Basilii, c. LXI, p. 185. He calmly praises the stratagem as a βουλὴν συνετὴν καὶ σοφήν; but the sailing round Peloponnesus is described by his terrified fancy as a circumnavigation of a thousand miles. ↩
The continuator of Theophanes (l. IV, pp. 122, 123) names the successive stations, the castle of Lulum near Tarsus, Mount Argaeus, Isamus, Aegilus, the hill of Mamas, Cyrisus, Mocilus, the hill of Auxentius, the sundial of the Pharus of the great palace. He affirms that the news were transmitted ἐν ἀκαρεῖ, in an indivisible moment of time. Miserable amplification, which, by saying too much, says nothing. How much more forcible and instructive would have been the definition of three or six or twelve hours! ↩
See the De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, l. II c. 44, pp. 176⁠–⁠192. A critical reader will discern some inconsistencies in different parts of this account; but they are not more obscure or more stubborn than the establishment and effectives, the present and fit for duty, the rank and file and the private, of a modern return, which retain in proper hands the knowledge of these profitable mysteries. ↩
See the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters, περὶ ὅπλων, περὶ ὁπλίσεως and, περὶ γυμνασίας, in the Tactics of Leo, with the corresponding passages in those of Constantine. ↩
They observe τῆς γὰρ τοξείας παντελῶς ἀμεληθείσης⁠ ⁠… ἐν τοῖς Ῥωμάνοις τὰ πολλὰ νῦν εἴωθε σφάλματα γίνεσθαι (Leo, Tactica, p. 581; Constantine, p. 1216). Yet such were not the maxims of the Greeks and Romans, who despised the loose and distant practice of archery. ↩
Compare the passages of the Tactics, p. 669 and 721, and the twelth with the eighteenth chapter. ↩
In the preface to his Tactics, Leo very freely deplores the loss of discipline and the calamities of the times, and repeats without scruple (Proem, p. 537) the reproaches of ἀμέλεια, ἀταξία, ἀγυμνασία, δειλία, etc., nor does it appear that the same censures were less deserved in the next generation by the disciples of Constantine. ↩
See in the De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae (l. II c. 19, p. 353) the form of the emperor’s trampling on the necks of the captive Saracens, while the singers chanted, “Thou hast made my enemies my footstool!” and the people shouted forty times the kyrie eleison. ↩
Leo observes (Tactica, p. 668) that a fair open battle against any nation whatsoever is ἐπισφαλές and ἐπικίνδυνον; the words are strong and the remark is true; yet if such had been the opinion of the old Romans, Leo had never reigned on the shores of the Thracian Bosphorus. ↩
Zonaras (tom. II l. XVI, pp. 202, 203) and Cedrenus (Historiarum compendium, p. 668), who relate the design of Nicephorus, most unfortunately apply the epithet of γενναίως to the opposition of the patriarch. ↩
The seventeenth chapter of the tactics of the different nations is the most historical and useful of the whole collection of Leo. The manners and arms of the Saracens (Tactica, pp. 809⁠–⁠817, and a fragment from the Medicean MS. in the preface of the sixth volume of Meursius) the Roman emperor was too frequently called upon to study. ↩
Παντὸς δὲ καὶ κακοῦ ἔργου τὸν Θεὸν ἄιτιον ὑποτίθενται, καὶ πολέμοις χαίρειν λέγουσι τὸν Θεὸν τὸν διασκόρπιζοντα ἔθνη τὰ τοὺς πολέμους θέλοντα. Leo, Tactica, p. 809. ↩
Liutprand (pp. 484, 485) relates and interprets the oracles of the Greeks and Saracens, in which, after the fashion of prophecy, the past is clear and historical, the future is dark, enigmatical, and erroneous. From this boundary of light and shade an impartial critic may commonly determine the date of the composition. ↩
The sense of this distinction is expressed by Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 2, 62, 101); but I cannot recollect the passage in which it is conveyed by this lively apothegm. ↩
Ex Francis, quo nomine tam Latinos quam Teutones comprehendit, ludum habuit (Liutprand in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, pp. 483, 484). This extension of the name may be confirmed from Constantine (De administrando imperio, l. II c. 27, 28) and Eutychius (Annales, tom. I, pp. 55, 56), who both lived before the Crusades. The testimonies of Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 69) and Abulfeda (Praefatio ad Geographia) are more recent. ↩
On this subject of ecclesiastical and beneficiary discipline, Father Thomassin (tom. III l. I c. 40, 45⁠–⁠47) may be usefully consulted. A general law of Charlemagne exempted the bishops from personal service; but the opposite practice, which prevailed from the ninth to the fifteenth century, is countenanced by the example or silence of saints and doctors.⁠ ⁠… You justify your cowardice by the holy canons, says Ratherius of Verona; the canons likewise forbid you to whore, and yet⁠— ↩
In the eighteenth chapter of his Tactics, the emperor Leo has fairly stated the military vices and virtues of the Franks (whom Meursius ridiculously translates by Galli) and the Lombards or Langobards. See likewise the twenty-sixth dissertation of Muratori de Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi. ↩
Domini tui milites (says the proud Nicephorus) equitandi ignari pedestris pugnae sunt inscii; scutorum magnitudo, loricarum gravitudo, ensium longitudo galearumque pondus neutrâ parte pugnare eos sinit; ac subridens, impedit, inquit, et eos gastrimargia, hoc est ventris ingluvies, etc. Liutprand in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, p. 480, 481. ↩
In Saxoniâ certe scio⁠ ⁠… decentius ensibus pugnare quam calanis, et prius mortem obire quam hostibus terga dare (Liutprand, p. 482). ↩
Φράγγοι τλίνυν καὶ Λογγίβαρδοι λόγον ἐλευθερίας περὶ πολλοῦ ποιοῦνται, ἀλλ’ οἱ μὲν Λογγίβαρδοι τὸ πλέον τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρετῆς νῦν ἀπώλεσαν. Leo, Tactica, c. 18, p. 805. The emperor Leo died AD 911; an historical poem, which ends in 916, and appears to have been composed in 940, by a native of Venetia, discriminates in these verses the manners of Italy and France:

… Quid inertia bello
Pectora (Ubertus ait) duris praetenditis armis,
O Itali? Potius vobis sacra pocula cordi;
Saepius et stomachum nitidis laxare saginis
Elatasque domos rutilo fulcire metallo.
Non eadem Gallos similis vel cura remordet;
Vicinas quibus est studium devincere terras,
Depressumque larem spoliis hinc inde coactis
Sustentare⁠ ⁠…

Anonymous Carmen “Panegyricum de Laudibus Berengarii Augusti,” l. II in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 393. ↩
Justinian, says the historian Agathias (l. V, p. 157), πρῶτος Ῥωμαίων αὐτοκράτωρ ὀνόματι καὶ πράγματί. Yet the specific title of Emperor of the Romans was not used at Constantinople till it had been claimed by the French and German emperors of old Rome. ↩
Constantine Manasses reprobates this design in his barbarous verse:⁠—

Τῆν πόλιν τὴν βασιλείαν ἀποκοσμῆσαι θέλων,
Καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν χαρίσασθαι τριπεμπέλῳ Ῥώμῃ,
Ὡς εἴτις ἀβροστόλιστον ἀποκοσμήσει νύμφην,
Καὶ γραῦν τινα τρικόρωνον ὠς κόρην ὡραίσει⁠—

and it is confirmed by Theophanes, Zonaras, Cedrenus, and the Historia miscella: voluit in urbem Romam Imperium transferre (l. XIX, p. 157, in tom. I pars I of the Rerum Italicarum scriptores of Muratori). ↩
Paulus Diaconus, l. V c. 11, p. 480. Anastasius in De vitis Romanorum pontificum, in Muratori’s Collection, tom. III pars I, p. 141. ↩
Consult the preface of du Cange (ad Glossarium Graecitatis) and the Novels of Justinian (VII, LXVI). The Greek language was κοινός, the Latin was πάτριος to himself, κυριώτατος to the πολιτείας σχῆμα, the system of government. ↩
Ού μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Λατινικὴ λέξις καὶ φράσις εἰσέτι τοὺς ωόμους τοὺς συνεῖναι ταύτην μὴ δυναμένους ἰσχυρῶς ἀπετείχιζε (Matthaeus Blastares, Historia juris, apud Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. XII, p. 369). The Code and Pandects (the latter by Thalelaeus) were translated in the time of Justinian (pp. 358, 366). Theophilus, one of the original triumvirs, has left an elegant, though diffuse, paraphrase of the Institutes. On the other hand, Julian, antecessor of Constantinople (AD 570), CXX Novellas Graecas eleganti Latinitate donavit (Heineccius, Historia juris Romani, p. 396) for the use of Italy and Africa. ↩
Abulpharagius assigns the seventh Dynasty to the Franks or Romans, the eighth to the Greeks, the ninth to the Arabs. A tempore Augusti Caesaris donec imperaret Tiberius Caesar spatio circiter annorum 600 fuerunt Imperatores Constantinapolitani Patricii, et praecipua pars exercitus Romani; extra quod, conciliarii, scribae et populus, omnes Graeci fuerunt; deinde regnum etiam Graecanicum factum est (p. 96, vers. Pococke). The Christian and ecclesiastical studies of Abulpharagius gave him some advantage over the more ignorant Muslims. ↩
Primus ex Graecorum genere in Imperio confirmatus est; or, according to another MS. of Paulus Diaconus (l. III c. 15, p. 443), in Graecorum Imperio. ↩
Quia linguam, mores, vestesque mutâstis, putavit Sanctissimus Papa (an audacious irony), ita vos (vobis) displicere Romanorum nomen.9251 His nuncios, rogabant Nicephorum Imperatorem Graecorum, ut cum Othone Imperatore Romanorum amicitiam faceret (Liutprand in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, p. 486). ↩
By Laonicus Chalcocondyles, who survived the last siege of Constantinople, the account is thus stated (l. I, p. 3): Constantine transplanted his Latins of Italy to a Greek city of Thrace: they adopted the language and manners of the natives, who were confounded with them under the name of Romans. The kings of Constantinople, says the historian, έπὶ τῷ σφὰς αὐτοὺς σεμνύνεσθαι Ῥωμαίων βασιλεῖς τε καὶ αὐτοκράτορας ἀποκαλεῖν, Ἑλλήνων δὲ βασιλεῖς οὐκέτι οὐδαμῆ ἀξιοῦν. ↩
See du Cange (Constantanopolis Christiana, l. II, pp. 150, 151), who collects the testimonies, not of Theophanes, but at least of Zonaras (tom. II l. XV, p. 104), Cedrenus (p. 454), Michael Glycas (p. 281), Constantine Manasses (p. 87). After refuting the absurd charge against the emperor, Spanheim (Historia imaginum, pp. 99⁠–⁠111), like a true advocate, proceeds to doubt or deny the reality of the fire, and almost of the library. ↩
According to Malchus (apud Zonaras, l. XIV, p. 53) this Homer was burnt in the time of Basiliscus. The MS. might be renewed⁠—but on a serpent’s skin? Most strange and incredible! ↩
The ἀλογία of Zonaras, the ἀργία καὶ ἀμαθία of Cedrenus, are strong words, perhaps not ill suited to those reigns. ↩
See Zonaras (l. XVI, pp. 160, 161) and Cedrenus (pp. 549, 550). Like Friar Bacon, the philosopher Leo has been transformed by ignorance into a conjurer; yet not so undeservedly, if he be the author of the oracles more commonly ascribed to the emperor of the same name. The physics of Leo in MS. are in the library of Vienna (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, p. 366, tom. XII, p. 781). Quiescant! ↩
The ecclesiastical and literary character of Photius is copiously discussed by Hankius (De Byzantinarum rerum scriptoribus Graecis, pp. 269⁠–⁠396) and Fabricius. ↩
Εἰς Ἀσσυρίους can only mean Baghdad, the seat of the caliph; and the relation of his embassy might have been curious and instructive. But how did he procure his books? A library so numerous could neither be found at Baghdad, nor transported with his baggage, nor preserved in his memory. Yet the last, however incredible, seems to be affirmed by Photius himself, ὅσας αὐτῶν ἡ μνήμη διέσωζε. Denis-François Camusat (Histoire critique des journaux, pp. 87⁠–⁠94) gives a good account of the Myriobiblon. ↩
Of these modern Greeks, see the respective articles in the Bibliotheca Graeca of Fabricius⁠—a laborious work, yet susceptible of a better method and many improvements; of Eustathius (tom. I, pp. 289⁠–⁠292, 306⁠–⁠329), of the Pselli (a diatribe of Leo Allatius, ad calcem, tom. V, of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, tom. VI, pp. 486⁠–⁠509), of John Stobaeus (tom. VIII, 665⁠–⁠728), of Suidas (tom. IX, pp. 620⁠–⁠827), John Tzetzes (tom. XII, pp. 245⁠–⁠273). Mr. Harris, in his Philological Arrangements, opus senile, has given a sketch of this Byzantine learning (pp. 287⁠–⁠300). ↩
From obscure and hearsay evidence, Gerard Vossius (De poetis Graecis et Latinis, c. 6) and Leclerc (Bibliothèque choisie, tom. XIX, p. 285) mention a commentary of Michael Psellus on twenty-four plays of Menander, still extant in MS. at Constantinople. Yet such classic studies seem incompatible with the gravity or dullness of a schoolman, who pored over the categories (De psellis, p. 42), and Michael has probably been confounded with Homerus Sellius, who wrote arguments to the comedies of Menander. In the tenth century, Suidas quotes fifty plays, but he often transcribes the old scholiast of Aristophanes. ↩
Anna Comnena may boast of her Greek style (τὸ Ἑλληνιζειν ἐς ἄκρον ἐσπουδακυιᾶ), and Zonaras, her contemporary, but not her flatterer, may add with truth, γλῶτταν εἶχεν ἀκριβῶς Ἀττικίζουσαν. The princess was conversant with the artful dialogues of Plato; and had studied the τετρακτῦς, quadrivium of astrology, geometry, arithmetic, and music (see the preface to the Alexias, with du Cange’s notes). ↩
To censure the Byzantine taste, du Cange (Praefatio Glossarium Graecitatis, p. 17) strings the authorities of Aulus Gellius, Jerome, Petronius, George Hamartolus, Longinus; who give at once the precept and the example. ↩
The versus politici, those common prostitutes, as, from their easiness, they are styled by Leo Allatius, usually consist of fifteen syllables. They are used by Constantine Manasses, John Tzetzes, etc. (du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. III pars I, pp. 345, 346, edit. Basil, 1762). ↩
As St. Bernard of the Latin, so St. John Damascenus in the eighth century is revered as the last father of the Greek, church. ↩
Hume’s Essays, vol. I, p. 125. ↩
The errors and virtues of the Paulicians are weighed, with his usual judgment and candor, by the learned Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae seculum IX, p. 311, etc.). He draws his original intelligence from Photius (Contra Manichaeos, l. I) and Peter Siculus (Historia Manichaeorum). The first of these accounts has not fallen into my hands; the second, which Mosheim prefers, I have read in a Latin version inserted in the Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum (tom. XVI, pp. 754⁠–⁠764), from the edition of the Jesuit Raderus (Ingolstadii, 1604, in quarto).9252 ↩
In the time of Theodoret, the diocese of Cyrrhus, in Syria, contained eight hundred villages. Of these, two were inhabited by Arians and Eunomians, and eight by Marcionites, whom the laborious bishop reconciled to the Catholic church (Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. IV, pp. 81, 82). ↩
Nobis profanis ista (sacra Evangelia) legere non licet sed sacerdotibus duntaxat, was the first scruple of a Catholic when he was advised to read the Bible (Petrus Siculus, p. 761). ↩
In rejecting the second Epistle of St. Peter, the Paulicians are justified by some of the most respectable of the ancients and moderns (see Wetstein ad loc.; Simon, Histoire critique du text du Nouveau Testament, c. 17). They likewise overlooked the Apocalypse (Petrus Siculus, p. 756); but as such neglect is not imputed as a crime, the Greeks of the ninth century must have been careless of the credit and honor of the Revelations. ↩
This contention, which has not escaped the malice of Porphyry, supposes some error and passion in one or both of the apostles. By Chrysostom, Jerome, and Erasmus, it is represented as a sham quarrel, a pious fraud, for the benefit of the Gentiles and the correction of the Jews (Middleton’s Works, vol. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠20). ↩
Those who are curious of this heterodox library may consult the researches of Beausobre (Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, tom. I, pp. 305⁠–⁠437). Even in Africa, St. Austin could describe the Manichaean books, tam multi, tam grandes, tam pretiosi codices (Contra Faustum XIII 14); but he adds, without pity, Incendite omnes illas membranas: and his advice had been rigorously followed. ↩
The six capital errors of the Paulicians are defined by Peter Siculus (p. 756), with much prejudice and passion. ↩
Primum illorum axioma est, duo rerum esse principia; Deum malum et Deum bonum, aliumque hujus mundi conditorem et principem, et alium futuri aevi (Petrus Siculus, p. 765). ↩
Two learned critics, Beausobre (Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, l. I, IV, V, VI) and Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae and De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, seculum I, II, III), have labored to explore and discriminate the various systems of the Gnostics on the subject of the two principles. ↩
The countries between the Euphrates and the Halys were possessed above 350 years by the Medes (Herodotus, l. I c. 103) and Persians; and the kings of Pontus were of the royal race of the Achaemenides (Sallustii Fragment, l. III with the French supplement and notes of the President de Brosses). ↩
Most probably founded by Pompey after the conquest of Pontus. This Colonia, on the Lycus, above Neo-Caesarea, is named by the Turks Coulei-hisar, or Chonac, a populous town in a strong country (d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. II, p. 34; Tournefort, Voyage du Levant, tom. III lettre XXI, p. 293). ↩
The temple of Bellona, at Comana in Pontus, was a powerful and wealthy foundation, and the high priest was respected as the second person in the kingdom. As the sacerdotal office had been occupied by his mother’s family, Strabo (l. XII, pp. 809, 835⁠–⁠837) dwells with peculiar complacency on the temple, the worship, and festival, which was twice celebrated every year. But the Bellona of Pontus had the features and character of the goddess, not of war, but of love. ↩
Gregory, bishop of Neo-Caesarea (AD 240⁠–⁠265), surnamed Thaumaturgus or the Wonder-worker. A hundred years afterwards, the history or romance of his life was composed by Gregory of Nyssa, his namesake and countryman, the brother of the great St. Basil. ↩
Hoc caeterum ad sua egregia facinora, divini atque orthodoxi Imperatores addiderunt, ut Manichaeos Montanosque capitali puniri sententiâ juberent, eorumque libros, quocunque in loco inventi essent, flammis tradi; quod siquis uspiam eosdem occultasse deprehenderetur, hunc eundem mortis poenae addici, ejusque bona in fiscum inferri (Petrus Siculus, p. 759). What more could bigotry and persecution desire? ↩
It should seem that the Paulicians allowed themselves some latitude of equivocation and mental reservation; till the Catholics discovered the pressing questions, which reduced them to the alternative of apostasy or martyrdom (Petrus Siculus, p. 760). ↩
The persecution is told by Petrus Siculus (pp. 579⁠–⁠763) with satisfaction and pleasantry. Justus justa persolvit. Simeon was not τίτος, but κῆτος (the pronunciation of the two vowels must have been nearly the same), a great whale that drowned the mariners who mistook him for an island. See likewise Cedrenus (pp. 432⁠–⁠435). ↩
Petrus Siculus (pp. 763, 764), the continuator of Theophanes (l. IV c. 4, pp. 103, 104), Cedrenus (pp. 541, 542, 545), and Zonaras (tom. II l. XVI, p. 156), describe the revolt and exploits of Carbeas and his Paulicians. ↩
Otter (Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, tom. II) is probably the only Frank who has visited the independent Barbarians of Tephrice, now Divrigni, from whom he fortunately escaped in the train of a Turkish officer. ↩
In the history of Chrysocheir, Genesius (Chronicle, pp. 67⁠–⁠70, edit. Venetiis) has exposed the nakedness of the empire. Constantine Porphyrogenitus (in Vita Basilii, c. 37⁠–⁠43, pp. 166⁠–⁠171) has displayed the glory of his grandfather. Cedrenus (pp. 570⁠–⁠573) is without their passions or their knowledge. ↩
Συναπεμαράνθη πᾶσα ἡ ἀνθοῦσα τῆς Τεφρικῆς εὐανδρία. How elegant is the Greek tongue, even in the mouth of Cedrenus! ↩
Copronymus transported his συγγενεῖς, heretics; and thus ἐπλατύνθη ἡ αἴρεσις Παυλικιανῶν, says Cedrenus (p. 463), who has copied the annals of Theophanes. ↩
Petrus Siculus, who resided nine months at Tephrice (AD 870) for the ransom of captives (p. 764), was informed of their intended mission, and addressed his preservative, the Historia Manichaeorum, to the new archbishop of the Bulgarians (p. 754). ↩
The colony of Paulicians and Jacobites, transplanted by John Zimisces (AD 970) from Armenia to Thrace, is mentioned by Zonaras (tom. II l. XVII, p. 209) and Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. XIV, p. 450, etc.). ↩
The Alexias of Anna Comnena (l. V, p. 131, l. VI, pp. 154, 155, l. XIV, pp. 450⁠–⁠457, with the annotations of du Cange) records the transactions of her apostolic father with the Manichaeans, whose abominable heresy she was desirous of refuting. ↩
Basil, a monk, and the author of the Bogomiles, a sect of Gnostics, who soon vanished (Anna Comnena, Alexias, l. XV, pp. 486⁠–⁠494; Mosheim, Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, p. 420). ↩
Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, p. 267. This passage of our English historian is alleged by du Cange in an excellent note on Villehardouin (No. 208), who found the Paulicians at Philippopolis the friends of the Bulgarians. ↩
See Marsigli, Stato militare dell’ imperio Ottomano, p. 24. ↩
The introduction of the Paulicians into Italy and France is amply discussed by Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. V dissertatio LX, pp. 81⁠–⁠152) and Mosheim (pp. 379⁠–⁠382, 419⁠–⁠422). Yet both have overlooked a curious passage of William the Apulian, who clearly describes them in a battle between the Greeks and Normans, AD 1040 (in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, p. 256):

Cum Graecis aderant quidam, quos pessimus error
Fecerat amentes, et ab ipso nomen habebant.

But he is so ignorant of their doctrine as to make them a kind of Sabellians or Patripassians. ↩
Bulgari, Boulgres, Bougres, a national appellation, has been applied by the French as a term of reproach to usurers and unnatural sinners. The Paterini, or Patelini, has been made to signify a smooth and flattering hypocrite, such as l’Avocat Patelin of that original and pleasant farce (du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis). The Manichaeans were likewise named Cathari or the pure, by corruption, Gazari, etc. ↩
Of the laws, crusade, and persecution against the Albigeois, a just, though general, idea is expressed by Mosheim (pp. 477⁠–⁠481). The detail may be found in the ecclesiastical historians, ancient and modern, Catholics and Protestants; and amongst these Fleury is the most impartial and moderate. ↩
The Acts (Liber sententiarum) of the Inquisition of Toulouse (AD 1307⁠–⁠1323) have been published by Limborch (Amstelaedami, 1692), with a previous History of the Inquisition in general. They deserved a more learned and critical editor. As we must not calumniate even Satan, or the Holy Office, I will observe that, of a list of criminals which fills nineteen folio pages, only fifteen men and four women were delivered to the secular arm.9253 ↩
The popularity of Milner’s History of the Church of Christ with some readers may make it proper to observe that his attempt to exculpate the Paulicians from the charge of Gnosticism or Manicheism is in direct defiance, if not in ignorance, of all the original authorities. Gibbon himself, it appears, was not acquainted with the work of Photius, Contra Manichaeos, the first book of which was edited by Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, pars II, pp. 349, 375, the whole by Wolf, in his Anecdota Graeca, Hamburg, 1722. Compare a very sensible tract, Letter to Rev. S. R. Maitland, by John G. Dowling, M.A., London, 1835. —⁠M. ↩
The opinions and proceedings of the reformers are exposed in the second part of the general history of Mosheim; but the balance, which he has held with so clear an eye, and so steady a hand, begins to incline in favor of his Lutheran brethren. ↩
Under Edward VI our reformation was more bold and perfect: but in the fundamental articles of the church of England a strong and explicit declaration against the real presence was obliterated in the original copy, to please the people, or the Lutherans, or Queen Elizabeth (Gilbert Burnet’s History of the Reformation of the Church of England, vol. II, pp. 82, 128, 302). ↩
“Had it not been for such men as Luther and myself,” said the fanatic Whiston to Halley the philosopher, “you would now be kneeling before an image of St. Winifred.” ↩
The article of “Servet” in the Nouveau dictionnaire critique of Chauffepié is the best account which I have seen of this shameful transaction. See likewise the Abbé d’Artigny, Nouveaux mémoires d’histoire, de critiqúe et de littérature, tom. II, pp. 55⁠–⁠154. ↩
I am more deeply scandalized at the single execution of Servetus, than at the hecatombs which have blazed in the Auto de Fès of Spain and Portugal.
1. The zeal of Calvin seems to have been envenomed by personal malice, and perhaps envy. He accused his adversary before their common enemies, the judges of Vienna, and betrayed, for his destruction, the sacred trust of a private correspondence.
2. The deed of cruelty was not varnished by the pretence of danger to the church or state. In his passage through Geneva, Servetus was a harmless stranger, who neither preached, nor printed, nor made proselytes.
3. A Catholic inquisition yields the same obedience which he requires, but Calvin violated the golden rule of doing as he would be done by: a rule which I read in a moral treatise of Isocrates (in Nicocle, tom. I, p. 93, edit. Battie) four hundred years before the publication of the Gospel.9254 Ἃ πάσχοντες ὑφ’ ἐτέρων ὀργίζεσθε, ταῦτα τοῖς ἄλλοις μὴ ποιεῖτε.
↩
See Burnet, vol. II, pp. 84⁠–⁠86. The sense and humanity of the young king were oppressed by the authority of the primate. ↩
Erasmus may be considered as the father of rational theology. After a slumber of a hundred years, it was revived by the Arminians of Holland, Grotius, Limborch, and Leclerc; in England by Chillingworth, the latitudinarians of Cambridge (Burnet, History of His Own Time, vol. I, pp. 261⁠–⁠268, octavo edition), Tillotson, Clarke, Hoadley, etc. ↩
I am sorry to observe that the three writers of the last age, by whom the rights of toleration have been so nobly defended, Bayle, Leibnitz, and Locke, are all laymen and philosophers. ↩
See the excellent chapter of Sir William Temple on the “Religion of the United Provinces.” I am not satisfied with Grotius (Annales et Historiae de rebus Belgicis, l. I, pp. 13, 14, edit. in duodecimo), who approves the Imperial laws of persecution, and only condemns the bloody tribunal of the inquisition. ↩
Sir William Blackstone (Commentaries, vol. IV, pp. 53, 54) explains the law of England as it was fixed at the Revolution. The exceptions of Papists, and of those who deny the Trinity, would still have a tolerable scope for persecution, if the national spirit were not more effectual than a hundred statutes. ↩
I shall recommend to public animadversion two passages in Dr. Priestley, which betray the ultimate tendency of his opinions. At the first of these (History of the Corruptions of Christianity, vol. I, pp. 275, 276) the priest, at the second (vol. II, p. 484) the magistrate, may tremble! ↩
There is something ludicrous, if it were not offensive, in Gibbon holding up to “public animadversion” the opinions of any believer in Christianity, however imperfect his creed. The observations which the whole of this passage on the effects of the Reformation, in which much truth and justice is mingled with much prejudice, would suggest, could not possibly be compressed into a note; and would indeed embrace the whole religious and irreligious history of the time which has elapsed since Gibbon wrote. —⁠M. ↩
All the passages of the Byzantine history which relate to the Barbarians are compiled, methodized, and transcribed, in a Latin version, by the laborious John Gotthelf Stritter, in his Memoriae populorum, olim ad Danubium, Pontum Euxinum, Paludem Maeotidem, Caucasum, Mare Caspium, et inde magis ad septemtriones incolentium. Petropoli, 1771⁠–⁠1779; in four tomes, or six volumes, in quarto. But the fashion has not enhanced the price of these raw materials. ↩
See here in chapter XXXIX. ↩
Theophanes, pp. 296⁠–⁠299. Anastasius, p. 113. Nicephorus, Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, pp. 22, 23. Theophanes places the old Bulgaria on the banks of the Atell or Volga; but he deprives himself of all geographical credit by discharging that river into the Euxine Sea. ↩
Paulus Diaconus, De gestis Langobardorum, l. V c. 29, pp. 881, 882. The apparent difference between the Lombard historian and the above-mentioned Greeks is easily reconciled by Camillo Pellegrino (De Ducatu Beneventano, dissertatio VII in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores (tom. V, pp. 186, 187) and Beretti (De Italia medii aevi dissertatio chorographica, p. 273, etc.). This Bulgarian colony was planted in a vacant district of Samnium, and learned the Latin without forgetting their native language. ↩
These provinces of the Greek idiom and empire are assigned to the Bulgarian kingdom in the dispute of ecclesiastical jurisdiction between the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople (Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 869,” No. 75). ↩
The situation and royalty of Lychnidus, or Achrida, are clearly expressed in Cedrenus (p. 713). The removal of an archbishop or patriarch from Justinianea prima to Lychnidus, and at length to Ternovo, has produced some perplexity in the ideas or language of the Greeks (Nicephorus Gregoras, l. II c. 2, pp. 14, 15. Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. I l. I c. 19, 23); and a Frenchman (d’Anville) is more accurately skilled in the geography of their own country (Histoire de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXXI). ↩
Chalcocondyles, a competent judge, affirms the identity of the language of the Dalmatians, Bosnians, Serbians, Bulgarians, Poles (De rebus Turcicis, l. X, p. 283), and elsewhere of the Bohemians (l. II, p. 38). The same author has marked the separate idiom of the Hungarians.9255 ↩
This is a mistake. Gibbon has been misled by the present language of the Bulgarians, which is Slavonic, but was not so originally. The authority of Chalcocondyles, whom Gibbon quotes in his note, is of no value for an earlier period, as he lived in the fifteenth century, after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. In a previous chapter (see here in chapter XLII) Gibbon had correctly identified the Bulgarians and the Huns, and had observed, in a note, “I adopt the appellation of Bulgarians from Ennodius, Jornandes, Theophanes, and the Chronicles of Cassiodorus and Marcellinus. The name of Huns is too vague; the tribes of Cutturgurians and Utturgurians are too minute and too harsh.” That the Bulgarians were Huns has been clearly proved by Zeuss, and they consequently belonged to the Turkish, and not the Slavonic race; for there can be no doubt that the Huns were Turks. (See this note.) It may be regarded as a historical fact that the Bulgarians were the remains of the Huns, who, after their defeat on the death of Attila, retreated eastward to the Euxine and the lake Maeotis. The Bulgarians are first mentioned by name by Ennodius, in his panegyrical oration addressed to the Gothic king Theodoric, their conqueror; but he speaks of them as a well-known and terrible nation, not as one which now appeared for the first time. (“Haec est natio, cujus ante te fuit omne quod voluit⁠ ⁠… quae prolixis temporibus solo bella consummavit excursu.⁠ ⁠… His ante mundus pervius esse credebatur.” Ennodius apud Opera varia Sirmond, tom. I, p. 1598, 1599.) In a letter of the gothic king Athalaric, the Bulgarians are plainly identified with the Huns (Cassiodorus, Variarum VIII 10). Procopius never mentions Bulgarians, only Huns; but certain deeds ascribed by Procopius to Huns are attributed by Jornandes and others to Bulgarians. (For the proofs, see Zeuss, p. 711.) Further, Bulgarian, like Hun, was a collective name; and thus we find the same tribes called Bulgarians in one author and Huns in another.

In the sixth century several tribes of the Bulgarians were subject to the Avars; but, in 634, Cubrat, a friend of the Romans, threw off the yoke of the Avars. A few years afterwards (about 670) the Bulgarians appear as enemies of the Romans; and, to the great terror of Constantinople, they crossed the Danube, and, uniting themselves with the Slavonic inhabitants, founded the Bulgarian kingdom between this river and the Haemus. The name of the conquerors still continues, but their language has long given way to that of the Slavonians. A portion, however, of the Bulgarians remained in their earlier abodes, to the eastward; and Theophanes, in a passage quoted by Gibbon (above, this note), correctly places old Bulgaria on the Etel, or Atal, or the Volga, the former being the name of this river in the Tatar languages, while the latter probably comes from the Bulgarians. The Bulgarian kingdom upon the Volga is called by the Russian historians Great Bulgaria, and the Danubian Bulgaria sometimes takes the name of Little Bulgaria. Great Bulgaria extended from the confluence of the Kama and the Volga to the shores of the Euxine and the Caspian. The ruins of its capital city, Bolgari, have been discovered on the banks of the Danube. In the Middle Ages this kingdom became one of considerable importance, and an active commerce was carried on between the east and the north of Europe through the country of the Bulgarians and the rivers which traversed it. In the tenth century the Bulgarians were Muhammadans, and, as we learn from Nestor, attempted to convert the Czar Vladimir of Russia with his people to the religion of the prophet. The Bulgarians are frequently mentioned by the Arabs, who visited their country for the purposes of commerce, and they continued a powerful people till they were overwhelmed by the invasion of the Mongols. See Zeuss, Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme, p. 710, seq.; Prichard, Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind, vol. IV, p. 325, seq.; Shafarik, Slawische Alterthümer, vol. II, p. 152, seq. —⁠S. ↩
See the work of Johann Christoph Jordan, De originibus Sclavicis, Vindobonae, 1745, in four parts, or two volumes in folio. His collections and researches are useful to elucidate the antiquities of Bohemia and the adjacent countries; but his plan is narrow, his style barbarous, his criticism shallow, and the Aulic counsellor is not free from the prejudices of a Bohemian.9256 ↩
This, again, is a mistake. The Wallachians are not akin to the Serbians, Bosnians, and other Slavonic nations. They are a Romance people, speaking a language derived from the Latin, like the French, Italian, and Spanish. They still call themselves Rumanjè, Romans. The name of Wallachians, i.e. Wälschen or Welch, was first given to them by the Germans. —⁠S. ↩
Jordan subscribes to the well-known and probable derivation from Slava, laus, gloria, a word of familiar use in the different dialects and parts of speech, and which forms the termination of the most illustrious names (De originibus Sclavicis, pars I, p. 40, pars IV, pp. 101, 102) ↩
This conversion of a national into an appellative name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the Oriental France, where the princes and bishops were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian (exclaims Jordan), but of Sorabian race. From thence the word was extended to the general use, to the modern languages, and even to the style of the last Byzantines (see the Greek and Latin Glossaries of du Cange). The confusion of the Σέρβλοι, or Serbians, with the Latin Servi, was still more fortunate and familiar (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, c. 32, p. 99). ↩
The emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, most accurate for his own times, most fabulous for preceding ages, describes the Sclavonians of Dalmatia (c. 29⁠–⁠36). ↩
See the anonymous Chronicle of the eleventh century, ascribed to John Sagorninus (pp. 94⁠–⁠102), and that composed in the fourteenth by the Doge Andrew Dandolo (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XII, pp. 227⁠–⁠230): the two oldest monuments of the history of Venice. ↩
The first kingdom of the Bulgarians may be found, under the proper dates, in the annals of Cedrenus and Zonaras. The Byzantine materials are collected by Stritter (Memoriae populorum, tom. II pars II, pp. 441⁠–⁠647); and the series of their kings is disposed and settled by du Cange (Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 305⁠–⁠318). ↩
Simeonem semi-Graecum esse aiebant, eo quod a pueritiâ Byzantii Demosthenis rhetoricam et Aristotelis syllogismos didicerat (Liutprand, l. III c. 8). He says in another place, Simeon, fortis bellator, Bulgariae praeerat; Christianus, sed vicinis Graecis valde inimicus (l. I c. 2). ↩
… Rigidum fera dextera cornu
Dum tenet, infregit, truncâque a fronte revellit.

Ovid (Metamorphoses IX 1⁠–⁠100) has boldly painted the combat of the river god and the hero; the native and the stranger. ↩
It was not on the banks of the Achelous, but at a place of that name in Bulgaria, near Anchialus, that the battle was fought. See Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, vol. I, p. 342, who remarks⁠—“The name Achelous seems to have misled Gibbon into a singular complication of errors. He transports the battle into Greece; calls the Asiatic troops of Phocas Greeks; and grows more poetical than Ovid, whom he quotes.” —⁠S. ↩
The ambassador of Otto was provoked by the Greek excuses, cum Christophori filiam Petrus Bulgarorum Vasileus conjugem duceret, Symphona, id est consonantia scripto juramento firmata sunt, ut omnium gentium Apostolis, id est nunciis, penes nos Bulgarorum Apostoli praeponantur, honorentur, diligantur (Liutprand in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, p. 482). See De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, tom. I, p. 82, tom. II, pp. 429, 430, 434, 435, 443, 444, 446, 447, with the annotations of Reiske. ↩
A bishop of Wurtzburgh submitted this opinion to a reverend abbot; but he more gravely decided that Gog and Magog were the spiritual persecutors of the church; since Gog signifies the root, the pride of the Heresiarchs, and Magog what comes from the root, the propagation of their sects. Yet these men once commanded the respect of mankind (Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XI, p. 594, etc.).9257 ↩
The two national authors, from whom I have derived the most assistance, are George Pray (Dissertationes historico-criticae in annales veteres Hunnorum, Avarum, et Hungarorum, Vindobonae, 1775, in folio) and István Katona (Historia critica regum Hungariae stirpis Arpadianae, Paestini, 1778⁠–⁠1781, five vols. in octavo). The first embraces a large and often conjectural space; the latter, by his learning, judgment, and perspicuity, deserves the name of a critical historian.9258 ↩
The author of this chronicle is styled the notary of King Béla. Katona has assigned him to the twelth century, and defends his character against the hypercriticism of Pray. This rude annalist must have transcribed some historical records, since he could affirm with dignity, rejectis falsis fabulis rusticorum, et garrulo cantu joculatorum. In the fifteenth century, these fables were collected by Thuroczius, and embellished by the Italian Bonfinius. See the Preliminary Discourse in the Historia critica primorum Hungariae Ducum, pp. 7⁠–⁠33. ↩
See Constantine, De administrando imperio, c. 3, 4, 13, 38⁠–⁠42, Katona has nicely fixed the composition of this work to the years 949⁠–⁠951 (pp. 4⁠–⁠7). The critical historian (pp. 34⁠–⁠107) endeavors to prove the existence, and to relate the actions, of a first duke Almus, the father of Arpad, who is tacitly rejected by Constantine. ↩
Pray (Dissertationes et Hungarorum, pp. 37⁠–⁠39, etc.) produces and illustrates the original passages of the Hungarian missionaries, Bonfinius and Aeneas Sylvius. ↩
In the deserts to the southeast of Astrakhan have been found the ruins of a city named Madchar, which proves the residence of the Hungarians or Magiar in those regions. Précis de la géographie universelle par Malte-Brun, vol. I, p. 353. —⁠G.

This is contested by Klaproth in his Travels in the Caucasus and Georgia, c. XXI. Madschar (he states), in old Tartar, means “stone building.” This was a Tartar city mentioned by the Muhammadan writers. —⁠M. ↩
Johann Eberhard Fischer in the Quaestiones Petropolitanae, and Pray, Dissertationes et Hungarorum I, II, III, etc., have drawn up several comparative tables of the Hungarian with the Fennic dialects. The affinity is indeed striking, but the lists are short; the words are purposely chosen; and I read in the learned Bayer (Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae, tom. X, p. 374), that although the Hungarian has adopted many Fennic words (innumeras voces), it essentially differs toto genio et naturâ. ↩
The connection between the Magyar language and that of the Finns is now almost generally admitted. Klaproth, Asia polyglotta, p. 188, etc. Malte Bran, tom. IV, p. 723, etc. —⁠M. ↩
In the region of Turfan, which is clearly and minutely described by the Chinese geographers (Gaubil, Histoire du Gentchiscan, p. 13; de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. II, p. 31, etc.). ↩
Histoire généalogique des Tatars, par Abulghazi Bahadur Khan, partie II, pp. 90⁠–⁠98. ↩
In their journey to Peking, both Isbrand Ives (Harris’s Collection of Voyages and Travels, vol. II, pp. 920, 921) and Bell (Travels from St. Petersburg, vol. I, p. 174) found the Vogulitz in the neighborhood of Tobolsky. By the tortures of the etymological art, Ugur and Vogul are reduced to the same name; the circumjacent mountains really bear the appellation of Ugrian; and of all the Fennic dialects the Vogulian is the nearest to the Hungarian (Fischer, Quaestiones Petropolitanae I, pp. 20⁠–⁠30; Pray, Dissertationes et Hungarorum II, pp. 31⁠–⁠34). ↩
The eight tribes of the Fennic race are described in the curious work of M. Pierre-Charles Levesque (Histoire des différents peuples soumis à la domination des Russes, tom. II, pp. 361⁠–⁠561). ↩
This picture of the Hungarians and Bulgarians is chiefly drawn from the Tactics of Leo, pp. 796⁠–⁠801, and the Latin Annals, which are alleged by Baronius, Pagi, and Muratori, AD 889, etc. ↩
Buffon, Histoire naturelle, tom. V, p. 6, in duodecimo. Gustavus Adolphus attempted, without success, to form a regiment of Laplanders. Grotius says of these Arctic tribes, arma arcus et pharetra, sed adversus feras (Annales, l. IV, p. 236); and attempts, after the manner of Tacitus, to varnish with philosophy their brutal ignorance. ↩
Leo has observed that the government of the Turks was monarchical, and that their punishments were rigorous (Tactica, p. 896, ἀπηνεῖς καὶ βαρείας). Rhegino (in Chronicon, “AD 889”) mentions theft as a capital crime, and his jurisprudence is confirmed by the original code of St. Stephen (AD 1016). If a slave were guilty, he was chastised, for the first time, with the loss of his nose, or a fine of five heifers; for the second, with the loss of his ears, or a similar fine; for the third, with death; which the freeman did not incur till the fourth offence, as his first penalty was the loss of liberty (Katona, Historia regum Hungariae, tom. I, pp. 231, 232). ↩
See Katona, Historia regum Hungariae, pp. 321⁠–⁠352. ↩
Hungarorum gens, cujus omnes fere nationes expertae saevitium, etc., is the preface of Liutprand (l. I c. 2), who frequently expatiated on the calamities of his own times. See l. I c. 5; l. II c. 1, 2, 4⁠–⁠7; l. III c. 1, etc.; l. V c. 8, 15, in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, p. 485. His colors are glaring but his chronology must be rectified by Pagi and Muratori. ↩
The three bloody reigns of Arpad, Zoltan, and Toxus are critically illustrated by Katona (Historia regum Hungariae, etc., pp. 107⁠–⁠499). His diligence has searched both natives and foreigners; yet to the deeds of mischief, or glory, I have been able to add the destruction of Bremen (Adam Bremensis I 43). ↩
Muratori has considered with patriotic care the danger and resources of Modena. The citizens besought St. Geminianus, their patron, to avert, by his intercession, the rabies, flagellum, etc.

Nunc te rogamus, licet servi pessimi,
Ab Ungerorum nos defendas jaculis.

The bishop erected walls for the public defence, not contra dominos serenos (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. I dissertatio I, pp. 21, 22), and the song of the nightly watch is not without elegance or use (tom. III dissertatio XL, p. 709). The Italian annalist has accurately traced the series of their inroads (Annali d’Italia, tom. VII, pp. 365, 367, 393, 401, 437, 440; tom. VIII, pp. 19, 41, 52, etc.). ↩
Both the Hungarian and Russian annals suppose that they besieged, or attacked, or insulted Constantinople (Pray, Dissertationes et Hungarorum X, p. 239; Katona, Historia regum Hungariae, pp. 354⁠–⁠360); and the fact is almost confessed by the Byzantine historians (Leo Grammaticus, p. 506; Cedrenus, tom. II, p. 629), yet, however glorious to the nation, it is denied or doubted by the critical historian, and even by the notary of Béla. Their scepticism is meritorious; they could not safely transcribe or believe the rusticorum fabulas; but Katona might have given due attention to the evidence of Liutprand, Bulgarorum gentem atque Graecorum tributariam fecerant (Historia, l. II c. 4, p. 435). ↩
… λέονθ’ ὤς δηρινθήτην,
Ὥτ’ ὄρεος κορυφῇσι περὶ κταμένης ἐλάφοιο
Ἄμφω πεινάοντε μέγα φρονέοντε μάχεσθον.
Iliad XVI 756.

↩
They are amply and critically discussed by Katona (Historia regum Hungariae, pp. 360⁠–⁠368, 427⁠–⁠470). Liutprand (l. II c. 8, 9) is the best evidence for the former, and Widukind (Res gestae Saxonicae sive annalium libri tres, l. III) of the latter; but the critical historian will not even overlook the horn of a warrior, which is said to be preserved at Jazberin. ↩
Hunc vero triumphum, tam laude quam memoriâ dignum, ad Meresburgum rex in superiori coenaculo domus per ζωγραφίαν, id est, picturam, notari praecepit, adeo ut rem veram potius quam verisimilem videas: a high encomium (Liutprand, l. II c. 9). Another palace in Germany had been painted with holy subjects by the order of Charlemagne; and Muratori may justly affirm, nulla saecula fuere in quibus pictores desiderati fuerint (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. II dissertatio XXIV, pp. 360, 361). Our domestic claims to antiquity of ignorance and original imperfection (Mr. Horace Walpole’s lively words) are of a much more recent date (Anecdotes of Painting in England, vol. I, p. 2, etc.). ↩
See Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 929,” No. 2⁠–⁠5. The lance of Christ is taken from the best evidence, Liutprand (l. IV c. 12), Sigebert, and the Acts of St. Gerard; but the other military relics depend on the faith of the Rerum anglicarum scriptores post Bedam praecipui, l. II c. 8. ↩
Katona, Historia regum Hungariae, p. 500, etc. ↩
Among these colonies we may distinguish:
1. The Chazars, or Cabari, who joined the Hungarians on their march (Constantine, De administrando imperio, c. 39, 40, pp. 108, 109).
2. The Jazyges, Moravians, and Siculi, whom they found in the land; the last were perhaps a remnant of the Huns of Attila, and were entrusted with the guard of the borders.
3. The Russians, who, like the Swiss in France, imparted a general name to the royal porters.
4. The Bulgarians, whose chiefs (AD 956) were invited, cum magnâ multitudine Hismahelitarum. Had any of those Sclavonians embraced the Muhammadan religion?
5. The Bisseni and Cumans, a mixed multitude of Patzinacites, Uzi, Chazars, etc., who had spread to the Lower Danube.
The last colony of 40,000 Cumans, AD 1239, was received and converted by the kings of Hungary, who derived from that tribe a new regal appellation (Pray, Dissertationes et Hungarorum VI, VII, pp. 109⁠–⁠173. Katona, Historia regum Hungariae, pp. 95⁠–⁠99, 259⁠–⁠264, 476, 479⁠–⁠483, etc.). ↩
Christiani autem, quorum pars major populi est, qui ex omni parte mundi illuc tracti sunt captivi, etc. Such was the language of Piligrinus, the first missionary who entered Hungary, AD 973. Pars major is strong. Historia regum Hungariae, p. 517. ↩
The fideles Teutonici of Geisa are authenticated in old charters; and Katona, with his usual industry, has made a fair estimate of these colonies, which had been so loosely magnified by the Italian Ranzanus (Historia regum Hungariae, p. 667⁠–⁠681). ↩
Among the Greeks, this national appellation has a singular form Ῥῶς, as an undeclinable word, of which many fanciful etymologies have been suggested. I have perused, with pleasure and profit, a dissertation “De Origine Russorum” (Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae, tom. VIII, pp. 388⁠–⁠436) by Theophilus Sigefrid Bayer, a learned German, who spent his life and labors in the service of Russia. A geographical tract of d’Anville, L’Empire de Russie, son origine, et ses accroissemens (Paris, 1772, in duodecimo), has likewise been of use.9259 ↩
See the entire passage (dignum, says Bayer, ut aureis in tabulis figatur) in the Annales Bertiniani Francorum (in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, Muratori, tom. II pars I, p. 525), AD 839, twenty-two years before the era of Ruric. In the tenth century, Liutprand (Historia Ottonis, l. V c. 6) speaks of the Russians and Normans as the same Aquilonares homines of a red complexion. ↩
My knowledge of these annals is drawn from M. Levesque, Histoire de Russie. Nestor, the first and best of these ancient annalists, was a monk of Kiev, who died in the beginning of the twelth century; but his Chronicle was obscure till it was published at Petersburgh, 1767, in quarto. Levesque, Histoire de Russie, tom. I, p. 16. William Coxe’s Travels Into Poland, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, vol. II, p. 184.9260 ↩
Theophilus Sigefrid Bayer de Varagis (for the name is differently spelt), in Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae, tom. IV, pp. 275⁠–⁠311. ↩
Yet, as late as the year 1018, Kiev and Russia were still guarded ex fugitivorum servorum robore, confluentium et maxime Danorum. Bayer, who quotes (p. 292) the Chronicle of Dithmar of Merseburgh, observes that it was unusual for the Germans to enlist in a foreign service. ↩
Du Cange has collected from the original authors the state and history of the Varangi at Constantinople (Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis, sub voce “Βάραγγοι”; Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, sub voce “Vagri.” Notis ad Alexias, Annae Comnenae, pp. 256⁠–⁠258; Notes sur Villehardouin, pp. 296⁠–⁠299). See likewise the annotations of Reiske to the De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae of Constantine, tom. II, pp. 149, 150. Saxo Grammaticus affirms that they spoke Danish; but Codinus maintains them till the fifteenth century in the use of their native English: Πολυχρονίζουσι οἱ βάραγγοι κατὰ τὴν πάτριον γλῶσσαν αὐτῶν ἤτοι Ἰγκληνιστί. ↩
The original record of the geography and trade of Russia is produced by the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De administrando imperio, c. 2, pp. 55, 56, c. 9, pp. 59⁠–⁠61, c. 13, pp. 63⁠–⁠67, c. 37, p. 106, c. 42, pp. 112, 113), and illustrated by the diligence of Bayer (“De Geographia Russiae vicinarumque Regionum circiter AUC 948,” in Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae, tom. IX, pp. 367⁠–⁠422, tom. X, pp. 371⁠–⁠421), with the aid of the chronicles and traditions of Russia, Scandinavia, etc. ↩
The haughty proverb, “Who can resist God and the great Novogorod?” is applied by M. Levesque (Histoire de Russie, tom. I, p. 60) even to the times that preceded the reign of Ruric. In the course of his history he frequently celebrates this republic, which was suppressed AD 1475 (tom. II, pp. 252⁠–⁠266). That accurate traveller, Adam Olearius, describes (in 1635) the remains of Novogorod, and the route by sea and land of the Holstein ambassadors (tom. I, pp. 123⁠–⁠129). ↩
In hâc magnâ civitate, quae est caput regni, plus trecentae ecclesiae habentur et nundinae octo, populi etiam ignota manus (Eggehardus ad AD 1018, apud Bayer, tom. IX, p. 412). He likewise quotes (tom. X, p. 397) the words of the Saxon annalist, Cujus (Russiae) metropolis est Chive, aemula sceptri Constantinopolitani, quae est clarissimum decus Graeciae. The fame of Kiev, especially in the eleventh century, had reached the German and the Arabian geographers. ↩
In Odorae ostio quâ Scythicas alluit paludes, nobilissima civitas Julinum, celeberrimam, Barbaris et Graecis qui sunt in circuitu, praestans stationem, est sane maxima omnium quas Europa claudit civitatum (Adam Bremensis, Historia ecclesiastica, p. 19); a strange exaggeration even in the eleventh century. The trade of the Baltic, and the Hanseatic League, are carefully treated in Anderson’s Historical Deduction of Commerce; at least in our language, I am not acquainted with any book so satisfactory.9261 ↩
According to Adam of Bremen (De situ Daniae, p. 58), the old Curland extended eight days’ journey along the coast; and by Peter Teutoburgicus (p. 68, AD 1326) Memel is defined as the common frontier of Russia, Curland, and Prussia. Aurum ibi plurimum (says Adam), divinis auguribus atque necromanticis omnes domus sunt plenae⁠ ⁠… a toto orbe ibi responsa petuntur, maxime ab Hispanis (forsan Zupanis, id est regulis Lettoviae) et Graecis. The name of Greeks was applied to the Russians even before their conversion: an imperfect conversion, if they still consulted the wizards of Curland (Bayer, tom. X, pp. 378, 402, etc.; Grotius, Prolegomena ad Historia Gothorum, p. 99). ↩
Constantine only reckons seven cataracts, of which he gives the Russian and Sclavonic names; but thirteen are enumerated by the Sieur de Beauplan, a French engineer, who had surveyed the course and navigation of the Dnieper or Borysthenes (Description de l’Ukraine, Rouen, 1660, a thin quarto), but the map is unluckily wanting in my copy. ↩
Nestor, apud Levesque, Histoire de Russie, tom. I, pp. 78⁠–⁠80. From the Dnieper, or Borysthenes, the Russians went to Black Bulgaria, Chazaria, and Syria. To Syria, how? where? when? May we not, instead of Συρία read Συανία? The alteration is slight; the position of Suania, between Chazaria and Lazica, is perfectly suitable; and the name was still used in the eleventh century (Cedrenus, tom. II, p. 770). ↩
The wars of the Russians and Greeks in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries are related in the Byzantine annals, especially those of Zonaras and Cedrenus; and all their testimonies are collected in the Memoriae populorum, “Russica” of Stritter, tom. II pars II, pp. 939⁠–⁠1044. ↩
Προσεταιρισάμενος δὲ καὶ συμμαχικὸν οὐκ ὀλίγον ἀπὸ τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν τοῖς προσαρκτίοις τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ νήσοις ἐθνῶν. Cedrenus in Historiarum compendium, p. 758. ↩
See Beauplan (Description de l’Ukraine, pp. 54⁠–⁠61). His descriptions are lively, his plans accurate, and except the circumstances of firearms, we may read old Russians for modern Cosacks. ↩
It is to be lamented that Bayer has only given a “Dissertation de Russorum primâ Expeditione Constantinopolitanâ” (Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae, tom. VI, pp. 265⁠–⁠391). After disentangling some chronological intricacies, he fixes it in the years 864 or 865, a date which might have smoothed some doubts and difficulties in the beginning of M. Levesque’s history. ↩
When Photius wrote his encyclic epistle on the conversion of the Russians, the miracle was not yet sufficiently ripe; he reproaches the nation as εἰς ὠμότητα καὶ μιαιφονίαν πάντας δευτέρους ταττόμενον. ↩
Leo Grammaticus, pp. 463, 464. Constantini Continuator in Historiae Byzantinae scriptores post Theophanem, pp. 121, 122. Symeon Logothetes, pp. 445, 446. Georgius Monachus, pp. 535, 536. Cedrenus, tom. II, p. 551. Zonaras, tom. II, p. 162. ↩
See Nestor and Nicon, in Levesque’s Histoire de Russie, tom. I, pp. 74⁠–⁠80. Katona (Historia regum Hungariae, pp. 75⁠–⁠79) uses his advantage to disprove this Russian victory, which would cloud the siege of Kiev by the Hungarians. ↩
Leo Grammaticus, pp. 506, 507; Incert. Continuator, pp. 263, 264; Symeon Logothetes, pp. 490, 491; Georgius Monachus, pp. 588, 589; Cedrenus, tom. II, p. 629; Zonaras, tom. II, pp. 190, 191; and Liutprand, l. V c. 6, who writes from the narratives of his father-in-law, then ambassador at Constantinople, and corrects the vain exaggeration of the Greeks. ↩
I can only appeal to Cedrenus (tom. II, pp. 758, 759) and Zonaras (tom. II, pp. 253, 254), but they grow more weighty and credible as they draw near to their own times. ↩
Nestor, apud Levesque, Histoire de Russie, tom. I, p. 87. ↩
This brazen statue, which had been brought from Antioch, and was melted down by the Latins, was supposed to represent either Joshua or Bellerophon, an odd dilemma. See Nicetas Choniates (pp. 413, 414), Codinus (Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, p. 24), and the anonymous writer de Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae (Banduri, Imperium orientale, tom. I, pp. 17, 18) who lived about the year 1100. They witness the belief of the prophecy; the rest is immaterial. ↩
The life of Swatoslaus, or Sviatoslaf, or Sphendosthlabus is extracted from the Russian Chronicles by M. Levesque (Histoire de Russie, tom. I, pp. 94⁠–⁠107). ↩
This resemblance may be clearly seen in the ninth book of the Iliad (205⁠–⁠221), in the minute detail of the cookery of Achilles. By such a picture a modern epic poet would disgrace his work and disgust his reader; but the Greek verses are harmonious⁠—a dead language can seldom appear low or familiar; and at the distance of two thousand seven hundred years we are amused with the primitive manners of antiquity. ↩
This singular epithet is derived from the Armenian language, and Τζιμισκῆς is interpreted in Greek by μουζακίτζης, or μοιρακίτζης. As I profess myself equally ignorant of these words, I may be indulged in the question in the play, “Pray, which of you is the interpreter?” From the context they seem to signify Adolescentulus (Leo Diaconus, l. IV MS. apud du Cange, Glossarium Graecitatis, p. 1570).9262 ↩
In the Sclavonic tongue, the name of Peristhlaba implied the great or illustrious city, μεγάλη καὶ οὖσα καὶ λεγομένη says Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. VII, p. 194). From its position between Mount Haemus and the Lower Danube, it appears to fill the ground, or at least the station, of Marcianopolis. The situation of Durostolus, or Dristra, is well known and conspicuous (Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae, tom. IX, pp. 415, 416; d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, pp. 307, 311). ↩
The political management of the Greeks, more especially with the Patzinacites, is explained in the seven first chapters, De administrando imperio. ↩
In the narrative of this war, Leo the Deacon (apud Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. IV, “AD 968⁠–⁠973”) is more authentic and circumstantial than Cedrenus (tom. II, pp. 660⁠–⁠683) and Zonaras (tom. II, pp. 205⁠–⁠214). These declaimers have multiplied to 308,000 and 330,000 men those Russian forces of which the contemporary had given a moderate and consistent account. ↩
Photius, Epistolae II No. 35, p. 58, edit. Montacutium. It was unworthy of the learning of the editor to mistake the Russian nation, τὸ Ῥῶς, for a war-cry of the Bulgarians, nor did it become the enlightened patriarch to accuse the Sclavonian idolaters τῆς Ἐλληνικῆς καὶ άθέου δόξης. They were neither Greeks nor atheists. ↩
M. Levesque has extracted, from old chronicles and modern researches, the most satisfactory account of the religion of the Slavi, and the conversion of Russia (Histoire de Russie, tom. I, pp. 35⁠–⁠54, 59, 92, 93, 113⁠–⁠121, 124⁠–⁠129, 148, 149, etc.). ↩
See the De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, tom. II c. 15, pp. 343⁠–⁠345: the style of Olga, or Elga, is Ἀρχόντισσα Ῥωσίας. For the chief of Barbarians the Greeks whimsically borrowed the title of an Athenian magistrate, with a female termination which would have astonished the ear of Demosthenes. ↩
See an anonymous fragment published by Banduri (Imperium orientale, tom. II, pp. 112, 113, “De Conversione Russorum”). ↩
Cherson, or Corsun, is mentioned by Herberstein (apud Pagi, tom. IV, p. 56) as the place of Wolodomir’s baptism and marriage; and both the tradition and the gates are still preserved at Novogorod. Yet an observing traveller transports the brazen gates from Magdeburgh in Germany (Coxe’s Travels Into Poland, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, vol. I, p. 452); and quotes an inscription, which seems to justify his opinion. The modern reader must not confound this old Cherson of the Tauric or Crimaean peninsula with a new city of the same name, which has arisen near the mouth of the Borysthenes, and was lately honored by the memorable interview of the empress of Russia with the emperor of the West. ↩
Consult the Latin text, or English version, of Mosheim’s excellent General History of the Church, under the first head or section of each of these centuries. ↩
In the year 1000, the ambassadors of St. Stephen received from Pope Silvester the title of King of Hungary, with a diadem of Greek workmanship. It had been designed for the duke of Poland; but the Poles, by their own confession, were yet too barbarous to deserve an angelical and apostolical crown (Katona, Historia critica regum Hungariae stirpis Arpadianae, tom. I, pp. 1⁠–⁠20). ↩
Listen to the exultations of Adam of Bremen (AD 1080), of which the substance is agreeable to truth: Ecce illa ferocissima Danorum, etc., natio⁠ ⁠… jamdudum novit in Dei laudibus Alleluia resonare.⁠ ⁠… Ecce populus ille piraticus⁠ ⁠… suis nunc finibus contentus est. Ecce patria horribilis semper inaccessa propter cultum idolorum⁠ ⁠… praedicatores veritatis ubique certatim admittit, etc., etc. (De situ Daniae, etc., pp. 40, 41, edit. Elzevir: a curious and original prospect of the north of Europe, and the introduction of Christianity). ↩
The great princes removed in 1156 from Kiev, which was ruined by the Tartars in 1240. Moscow became the seat of empire in the fourteenth century. See the first and second volumes of Levesque’s History, and Mr. Coxe’s Travels Into Poland, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, tom. I, p. 241, etc. ↩
The ambassadors of St. Stephen had used the reverential expressions of regnum oblatum, debitam obedientiam, etc., which were most rigorously interpreted by Gregory VII; and the Hungarian Catholics are distressed between the sanctity of the pope and the independence of the crown (Katona, Historia regum Hungariae, tom. I, pp. 20⁠–⁠25, tom. II, pp. 304, 346, 360, etc.). ↩
For the general history of Italy in the ninth and tenth centuries, I may properly refer to the fifth, sixth, and seventh books of Sigonius’ De regno Italiae (in the second volume of his Works, Milan, 1732); the Annals of Baronius, with the Criticism of Pagi; the seventh and eighth books of the Istoria civile del regno di Napoli of Giannone; the seventh and eighth volumes (the octavo edition) of the Annali d’Italia of Muratori, and the second volume of the Abrégé Chronologique of M. de Saint-Marc, a work which, under a superficial title, contains much genuine learning and industry. But my long-accustomed reader will give me credit for saying that I myself have ascended to the fountain head, as often as such ascent could be either profitable or possible; and that I have diligently turned over the originals in the first volumes of Muratori’s great collection of the Rerum Italicarum scriptores. ↩
Camillo Pellegrino, a learned Capuan of the last century, has illustrated the history of the duchy of Beneventum, in his two books Historia principum Langobardorum, in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores of Muratori, tom. II pars I, pp. 221⁠–⁠345, and tom. V, pp. 159⁠–⁠245. ↩
See Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, l. II c. XI in Vita Basilii, c. 55, p. 181. ↩
The original epistle of the emperor Lewis II to the emperor Basil, a curious record of the age, was first published by Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 871,” No. 51⁠–⁠71), from the Vatican MS. of Erchempert, or rather of the anonymous historian of Salerno. ↩
See an excellent dissertation, “De republicâ Amalphitanâ,” in the Appendix (pp. 1⁠–⁠42) of Henry Brenkman’s Historia pandectarum Florentinorum (Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1722, in quarto). ↩
Your master, says Nicephorus, has given aid and protection principibus Capuano et Beneventano, servis meis, quos oppugnare dispono⁠ ⁠… Nova (potius nota) res est quod eorum patres et avi nostro Imperio tributa dederunt (Liutprand, in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, p. 484). Salerno is not mentioned, yet the prince changed his party about the same time, and Camillo Pellegrino (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 285) has nicely discerned this change in the style of the anonymous Chronicle. On the rational ground of history and language, Liutprand (p. 480) had asserted the Latin claim to Apulia and Calabria. ↩
See the Greek and Latin Glossaries of du Cange (“Κατεπάνω,” “catapanus”), and his notes on the Alexias (p. 275). Against the contemporary notion, which derives it from Κατὰ πᾶν, juxta omne, he treats it as a corruption of the Latin capitaneus. Yet M. de Saint-Marc has accurately observed (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. II, p. 924) that in this age the capitanei were not captains, but only nobles of the first rank, the great valvassors of Italy. ↩
Οὐ μόνον διὰ πολέμων ἀκριβῶς ἐκτεταγμένων τὸ τοιοῦτον ὑπήγαγε τὸ ἔθνος (the Lombards), ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀγχινοίᾳ χρησάμενος καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ χρηστότητι, ἐπιεικῶς τε τοῖς προσερχομένοις προσφεπόμενος, καὶ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς πάσης τε δουλείας καὶ τῶν ἄλλων φορολογιῶν χαριζόμενος (Leo, Tactica, c. XV, p. 741). The little Chronicle of Beneventum (tom. II pars I, p. 280) gives a far different character of the Greeks during the five years (AD 891⁠–⁠896) that Leo was master of the city. ↩
Calabriam adeunt, eamque inter se divisam reperientes funditus depopulati sunt (or depopularunt), ita ut deserta sit velut in diluvio. Such is the text of Herempert, or Erchempert, according to the two editions of Carraccioli (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, p. 23) and of Camillo Pellegrino (tom. II pars I, p. 246). Both were extremely scarce when they were reprinted by Muratori. ↩
Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 874,” No. 2) has drawn this story from a MS. of Erchempert, who died at Capua only fifteen years after the event. But the cardinal was deceived by a false title, and we can only quote the anonymous Chronicle of Salerno (“Paralipomena,” c. 110), composed towards the end of the tenth century, and published in the second volume of Muratori’s Collection. See the dissertations of Camillo Pellegrino, tom. II pars I, pp. 231⁠–⁠281, etc. ↩
Constantine Porphyrogenitus (in Vita Basilii, c. 58, p. 183) is the original author of this story. He places it under the reigns of Basil and Lewis II; yet the reduction of Beneventum by the Greeks is dated AD 891, after the decease of both of those princes. ↩
In the year 663, the same tragedy is described by Paul the Deacon (De gestis Langobardorum, l. V c. 7, 8, pp. 870, 871, edit. Grotius), under the walls of the same city of Beneventum. But the actors are different, and the guilt is imputed to the Greeks themselves, which in the Byzantine edition is applied to the Saracens. In the late war in Germany, M. d’Assas, a French officer of the regiment of Auvergne, is said to have devoted himself in a similar manner. His behavior is the more heroic, as mere silence was required by the enemy who had made him prisoner (Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XV, c. 33, tom. IX, p. 172). ↩
Theobald, who is styled Heros by Liutprand, was properly duke of Spoleto and marquis of Camerino, from the year 926 to 935. The title and office of marquis (commander of the march or frontier) was introduced into Italy by the French emperors (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. II, pp. 645⁠–⁠732, etc.). ↩
Liutprand, Historia Ottonis, l. IV c. IV in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I pars I, pp. 453, 454. Should the licentiousness of the tale be questioned, I may exclaim, with poor Sterne, that it is hard if I may not transcribe with caution what a bishop could write without scruple! What if I had translated, ut viris certetis testiculos amputare, in quibus nostri corporis refocillatio, etc.? ↩
The original monuments of the Normans in Italy are collected in the fifth volume of Muratori; and among these we may distinguish the poem of William Appulus (pp. 245⁠–⁠278), and the history of Galfridus (Jeffrey) Malaterra (pp. 537⁠–⁠607). Both were natives of France, but they wrote on the spot, in the age of the first conquerors (before AD 1100), and with the spirit of freemen. It is needless to recapitulate the compilers and critics of Italian history, Sigonius, Baronius, Pagi, Giannone, Muratori, Saint-Marc, etc., whom I have always consulted and never copied.9263 ↩
Some of the first converts were baptized ten or twelve times, for the sake of the white garment usually given at this ceremony. At the funeral of Rollo, the gifts to monasteries for the repose of his soul were accompanied by a sacrifice of one hundred captives. But in a generation or two the national change was pure and general. ↩
The Danish language was still spoken by the Normans of Bayeux on the seacoast, at a time (AD 940) when it was already forgotten at Rouen, in the court and capital. Quem (Richard I) confestim pater Baiocas mittens Botoni militiae suae principi nutriendum tradidit, ut, ibi linguâ eruditus Danicâ, suis exterisque hominibus sciret aperte dare responsa (Wilhelm Gemeticensis, De ducibus Normannis, l. III c. 8, p. 623, edit. Camden). Of the vernacular and favorite idiom of William the Conqueror (AD 1035), Selden (Opera omnia, tom. II, pp. 1640⁠–⁠1656) has given a specimen, obsolete and obscure even to antiquarians and lawyers. ↩
A band of Normans returning from the Holy Land had rescued the city of Salerno from the attack of a numerous fleet of Saracens. Gaimar, the Lombard prince of Salerno, wished to retain them in his service, and take them into his pay. They answered, “We fight for our religion, and not for money.” Gaimar entreated them to send some Norman knights to his court. This seems to have been the origin of the connection of the Normans with Italy. See Histoire des conquêtes des Normands par Gauttier d’Arc, l. I c. I, Paris, 1830. —⁠M. ↩
See Leandro Alberti (Descrizione d’Italia, p. 250) and Baronius (“AD 493,” No. 43). If the archangel inherited the temple and oracle, perhaps the cavern, of old Calchas the soothsayer (Strabonis geographica, l. VI, pp. 435, 436), the Catholics (on this occasion) have surpassed the Greeks in the elegance of their superstition. ↩
Nine out of ten perished in the field. Chronique d’Aimé, tom. I, p. 21, quoted by M. Gauttier d’Arc, p. 42. —⁠M. ↩
See the first book of William Appulus. His words are applicable to every swarm of Barbarians and freebooters:⁠—

Si vicinorum quis pernitiosus ad illos
Confugiebat eum gratanter suscipiebant;
Moribus et linguâ quoscumque venire videbant
Informant propriâ; gens efficiatur ut una.

And elsewhere, of the native adventurers of Normandy:⁠—

Pars parat, exiguae vel opes aderant quia nullae:
Pars, quia de magnis majora subire volebant.

↩
This account is not accurate. After the retreat of the emperor Henry II, the Normans, united under the command of Rainulf, had taken possession of Aversa, then a small castle in the duchy of Naples. They had been masters of it a few years when Pandulf IV, prince of Capua, found means to take Naples by surprise. Sergius, master of the soldiers, and head of the republic, with the principal citizens, abandoned a city in which he could not behold, without horror, the establishment of a foreign dominion: he retired to Aversa; and when, with the assistance of the Greeks and that of the citizens faithful to their country, he had collected money enough to satisfy the rapacity of the Norman adventurers, he advanced at their head to attack the garrison of the prince of Capua, defeated it, and reentered Naples. It was then that he confirmed the Normans in the possession of Aversa and its territory, which he raised into a count’s fief, and granted the investiture to Rainulf. Histoire des républiques italiennes, tom. I, p. 267. —⁠G. ↩
Liutprand, in Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam, p. 485. Pagi has illustrated this event from the MS. history of the deacon Leo (tom. IV, “AD 965,” No. 17⁠–⁠19). ↩
See the Arabian Chronicle of Sicily, apud Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I, p. 253. ↩
Jeffrey Malaterra, who relates the Sicilian war and the conquest of Apulia (l. I c. 7⁠–⁠9, 19). The same events are described by Cedrenus (tom. II, pp. 741⁠–⁠743, 755, 756) and Zonaras (tom. II, pp. 237, 238); and the Greeks are so hardened to disgrace that their narratives are impartial enough. ↩
Cedrenus specifies the τάγμα of the Obsequiem (Phrygia), and the μέρος of the Thracesians (Lydia: consult Constantine, De thematibus I 3, 4, with Delisle’s map), and afterwards names the Pisidians and Lycaonians with the foederati. ↩
Omnes conveniunt; et bis sex nobiliores,
Quos genus et gravitas morum decorabat et aetas,
Elegere duces. Provectis ad comitatum
His alii parent. Comitatus nomen honoris
Quo donantur erat. Hi totas undique terras
Divisere sibi, ni sors inimica repugnet;
Singula proponunt loca quae contingere sorte
Cuique duci debent, et quaeque tributa locorum.

And after speaking of Melphi, William Appulus adds,

Pro numero comitum bis sex statuere plateas,
Atque domus comitum totidem fabricantur in urbe.

Leo Ostiensis (l. II c. 67) enumerates the divisions of the Apulian cities, which it is needless to repeat. ↩
Gulielmus Appulus, l. II c. 12, according to the reference of Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. II, p. 31), which I cannot verify in the original. The Apulian praises indeed his validas vires, probitas animi, and vivida virtus; and declares that, had he lived, no poet could have equalled his merits (l. I, p. 258, l. II, p. 259). He was bewailed by the Normans, quippe qui tanti consilii virum (says Malaterra, l. I c. 12, p. 552), tam armis strenuum, tam sibi munificum, affabilem, morigeratum, ulterius se habere diffidebant. ↩
The gens astutissima, injuriarum ultrix⁠ ⁠… adulari sciens⁠ ⁠… eloquentiis inserviens, of Malaterra (l. I c. 3, p. 550), are expressive of the popular and proverbial character of the Normans. ↩
The hunting and hawking more properly belong to the descendants of the Norwegian sailors; though they might import from Norway and Iceland the finest casts of falcons. ↩
We may compare this portrait with that of William of Malmesbury (De gestis regum Anglorum, l. III, pp. 101, 102), who appreciates, like a philosophic historian, the vices and virtues of the Saxons and Normans. England was assuredly a gainer by the conquest. ↩
The biographer of St. Leo IX pours his holy venom on the Normans. Videns indisciplinatam et alienam gentem Normannorum, crudeli et inauditâ rabie, et plusquam Paganâ impietate, adversus ecclesias Dei insurgere, passim Christianos trucidare, etc. (Wibert, c. 6). The honest Apulian (l. II, p. 259) says calmly of their accuser, Veris commiscens fallacia. ↩
The policy of the Greeks, revolt of Maniaces, etc., must be collected from Cedrenus (tom. II, pp. 757, 758), William Appulus (l. I, pp. 257, 258, l. II, p. 259), and the two Chronicles of Bari, by Lupus Protospata (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, pp. 42⁠–⁠44), and an anonymous writer (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. I, pp. 31⁠–⁠35). This last is a fragment of some value. ↩
Argyrus received, says the anonymous Chronicle of Bari, Imperial letters, Foederatus et Patriciatus, et Catapani et Vestatus. In his Annals, Muratori (tom. VIII, p. 426) very properly reads, or interprets, Sevestatus, the title of Sebastos or Augustus. But in his Antiquities, he was taught by du Cange to make it a palatine office, master of the wardrobe. ↩
A Life of St. Leo IX, deeply tinged with the passions and prejudices of the age, has been composed by Wibert, printed at Paris, 1615, in octavo, and since inserted in the collections of the Bollandists, of Mabillon, and of Muratori. The public and private history of that pope is diligently treated by M. de Saint-Marc (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. II, pp. 140⁠–⁠210, and pp. 25⁠–⁠95, second column). ↩
See the expedition of Leo IX against the Normans. See William Appulus (l. II, pp. 259⁠–⁠261) and Jeffrey Malaterra (l. I c. 13⁠–⁠15, p. 253). They are impartial, as the national is counterbalanced by the clerical prejudice. ↩
Teutonici, quia caesaries et forma decoros
Fecerat egregie proceri corporis illos
Corpora derident Normannica quae breviora
Esse videbantur.

The verses of the Apulian are commonly in this strain, though he heats himself a little in the battle. Two of his similes from hawking and sorcery are descriptive of manners. ↩
Several respectable censures or complaints are produced by M. de Saint-Marc (tom. II, pp. 200⁠–⁠204). As Peter Damianus, the oracle of the times, has denied the popes the right of making war, the hermit (lugens eremi incola) is arraigned by the cardinal, and Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 1053,” No. 10⁠–⁠17) most strenuously asserts the two swords of St. Peter. ↩
The origin and nature of the papal investitures are ably discussed by Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. II, pp. 37⁠–⁠49, 57⁠–⁠66) as a lawyer and antiquarian. Yet he vainly strives to reconcile the duties of patriot and Catholic, adopts an empty distinction of “Ecclesia Romana non dedit, sed accepit,” and shrinks from an honest but dangerous confession of the truth. ↩
The birth, character, and first actions of Robert Guiscard may be found in Jeffrey Malaterra (l. I c. 3, 4, 11, 16⁠–⁠18, 38⁠–⁠40), William Appulus (l. II, pp. 260⁠–⁠262), William Gemeticensis, or of Jumiegès (l. XI c. 30, pp. 663, 664, edit. Camden), and Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. I, pp. 23⁠–⁠27, l. VI, pp. 165, 166), with the annotations of du Cange (Note in Alexias, pp. 230⁠–⁠232, 320), who has swept all the French and Latin chronicles for supplemental intelligence. ↩
Ὁ δὲ Ῥομπέρτος (a Greek corruption) οὖτος ῃν Νορμάννος τὸ γένος, τὴν τύχην ἄσημος⁠ ⁠… Again, ἐξ ἀφανους πάνυ τύχης περιφανές. Αnd elsewhere (l. IV, p. 84), ἀπὸ ἐσχάτης πενίας καὶ τύχης ἀφανοῦς. Anna Comnena was born in the purple; yet her father was no more than a private though illustrious subject, who raised himself to the empire. ↩
Giannone (tom. II, p. 2) forgets all his original authors, and rests this princely descent on the credit of Inveges, an Augustine monk of Palermo in the last century. They continue the succession of dukes from Rollo to William II the Bastard or Conqueror, whom they hold (communemente si tiene) to be the father of Tancred of Hauteville; a most strange and stupendous blunder! The sons of Tancred fought in Apulia, before William II was three years old (AD 1037). ↩
The judgment of du Cange is just and moderate: Certe humilis fuit ac tenuis Roberti familia, si ducalem et regium spectemus apicem, ad quem postea pervenit; quae honesta tamen et praeter nobilium vulgarium statum et conditionem illustris habita est, “quae nec humi reperet nec altum quid tumeret” (William of Malmesbury, De gestis regum Anglorum, l. III, p. 107; Note ad Alexias, p. 230). ↩
I shall quote with pleasure some of the best lines of the Apulian (l. II, p. 270).

Pugnat utrâque manû, nec lancea cassa, nec ensis
Cassus erat, quocunque manu deducere vellet.
Ter dejectus equo, ter viribus ipse resumptis
Major in arma redit; stimulos furor ipse ministrat.
Ut Leo cum frendens, etc.
⋮
Nullus in hoc bello sicuti post bella probatum est
Victor vel victus, tam magnos edidit ictus.

↩
The Norman writers and editors most conversant with their own idiom interpret Guiscard or Wiscard, by Callidus, a cunning man. The root (wise) is familiar to our ear; and in the old word Wiseacre, I can discern something of a similar sense and termination. Τὴν ψυχὴν πανουργότατος is no bad translation of the surname and character of Robert. ↩
The acquisition of the ducal title by Robert Guiscard is a nice and obscure business. With the good advice of Giannone, Muratori, and Saint-Marc, I have endeavored to form a consistent and probable narrative. ↩
Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 1059,” No. 69) has published the original act. He professes to have copied it from the Liber Censuum, a Vatican MS. Yet a Liber Censuum of the twelth century has been printed by Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. V, pp. 851⁠–⁠908); and the names of Vatican and Cardinal awaken the suspicions of a Protestant, and even of a philosopher. ↩
Read the life of Guiscard in the second and third books of the Apulian, the first and second books of Malaterra. ↩
The conquests of Robert Guiscard and Roger I, the exemption of Benevento and the twelve provinces of the kingdom, are fairly exposed by Giannone in the second volume of his Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, l. IX, X, XI and l. XVII, pp. 460⁠–⁠470. This modern division was not established before the time of Frederic II. ↩
Giannone (tom. II, pp. 119⁠–⁠127), Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. III dissertatio XLIV, pp. 935, 936), and Tiraboschi (Storia della letteratura Italiana) have given an historical account of these physicians; their medical knowledge and practice must be left to our physicians. ↩
At the end of the Historia pandectarum Florentinorum of Henrik Brenkman (Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1722, in quarto), the indefatigable author has inserted two dissertations, “De republicâ Amalphitanâ,” and “De Amalphi a Pisanis direptâ,” which are built on the testimonies of 140 writers. Yet he has forgotten two most important passages of the embassy of Liutprand (AD 939), which compare the trade and navigation of Amalphi with that of Venice. ↩
Urbs Latii non est hâc delitiosior urbe,
Frugibus, arboribus, vinoque redundat; et unde
Non tibi poma, nuces, non pulchra palatia desunt,
Non species muliebris abest probitasque virorum.
Gulielmus Appulus, l. III, p. 267.

↩
Muratori carries their antiquity above the year (1066) of the death of Edward the Confessor, the rex Anglorum to whom they are addressed. Nor is this date affected by the opinion, or rather mistake, of Étienne Pasquier (Les recherches de la France, l. VII c. 2) and du Cange (Glossarium Latinitatis). The practice of rhyming, as early as the seventh century, was borrowed from the languages of the North and East (Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. III dissertatio XL, pp. 686⁠–⁠708). ↩
The description of Amalphi, by William the Apulian (l. III, p. 267), contains much truth and some poetry; and the third line may be applied to the sailor’s compass:⁠—

Nulla magis locuples argento, vestibus, auro
Partibus innumeris: hâc plurimus urbe moratur
Nauta maris Caelique vias aperire peritus.
Huc et Alexandri diversa feruntur ab urbe
Regis, et Antiochi. Gens haec freta plurima transit.
His Arabes, Indi, Siculi nascuntur et Afri.
Haec gens est totum prope nobilitata per orbem,
Et mercando ferens, et amans mercata referre.

↩
Amalfi had only one thousand inhabitants at the commencement of the 18th century, when it was visited by Brenkman (Brenkman, “De republicâ Amalphitanâ,” Dissertatio I c. 23). At present it has six or eight thousand, Histoire des républiques italiennes, tom. I, p. 304. —⁠G. ↩
Latrocinio armigerorum suorum in multis sustentabatur, quod quidem ad ejus ignominiam non dicimus; sed ipso ita praecipiente adhuc viliora et reprehensibiliora dicturi sumus ut pluribus patescat, quam laboriose et cum quantâ angustiâ a profundâ paupertate ad summum culmen divitiarum vel honoris attigerit. Such is the preface of Malaterra (l. I c. 25) to the horse-stealing. From the moment (l. I c. 19) that he has mentioned his patron Roger, the elder brother sinks into the second character. Something similar in Velleius Paterculus may be observed of Augustus and Tiberius. ↩
Duo sibi proficua deputans animae scilicet et corporis si terram Idolis deditam ad cultum divinum revocaret (Galfrid Malaterra, l. II c. 1). The conquest of Sicily is related in the three last books, and he himself has given an accurate summary of the chapters (pp. 544⁠–⁠546). ↩
See the word milites in the Latin Glossary of du Cange. ↩
Of odd particulars, I learn from Malaterra that the Arabs had introduced into Sicily the use of camels (l. I c. 33) and of carrier-pigeons (c. 42); and that the bite of the tarantula provokes a windy disposition, quae per anum inhoneste crepitando emergit: a symptom most ridiculously felt by the whole Norman army in their camp near Palermo (c. 36). I shall add an etymology not unworthy of the eleventh century: Messana is divided from Messis, the place from whence the harvests of the isle were sent in tribute to Rome (l. II c. 1). ↩
See the capitulation of Palermo in Malaterra, l. II c. 45, and Giannone, who remarks the general toleration of the Saracens (tom. II, p. 72). ↩
John Leo Afer, “De Medicis et Philosophus Arabibus,” c. 14, apud Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. XIII, pp. 278, 279. This philosopher is named Esseriph Essachalli, and he died in Africa, AH 516, AD 1122. Yet this story bears a strange resemblance to the Sherif al Edrissi, who presented his book (Geographia nubiensis, see preface, pp. 88, 90, 170) to Roger king of Sicily, AH 548, AD 1153 (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 786; Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 188; Pétis de la Croix, Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, pp. 535, 536; Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, tom. II, pp. 9⁠–⁠13), and I am afraid of some mistake. ↩
Malaterra remarks the foundation of the bishoprics (l. IV c. 7) and produces the original of the bull (l. IV c. 29). Giannone gives a rational idea of this privilege, and the tribunal of the monarchy of Sicily (tom. II, pp. 95⁠–⁠102); and Saint-Marc (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. III, pp. 217⁠–⁠301, first column) labors the case with the diligence of a Sicilian lawyer. ↩
In the first expedition of Robert against the Greeks, I follow Anna Comnena (the first, third, fourth, and fifth books of the Alexias), William Appulus (l. IV and V, pp. 270⁠–⁠275), and Jeffrey Malaterra (l. III c. 13, 14, 24⁠–⁠29, 39). Their information is contemporary and authentic, but none of them were eyewitnesses of the war. ↩
One of them was married to Hugh, the son of Azzo, or Axo, a marquis of Lombardy, rich, powerful, and noble (Gulielmus Appulus, l. III, p. 267), in the eleventh century, and whose ancestors in the tenth and ninth are explored by the critical industry of Leibnitz and Muratori. From the two elder sons of the marquis Azzo are derived the illustrious lines of Brunswick and Este. See Muratori, Antichità estensi ed Italiane. ↩
Anna Comnena, somewhat too wantonly, praises and bewails that handsome boy, who, after the rupture of his Barbaric nuptials (l. I, p. 23), was betrothed as her husband; he was ἄγαλμα ϕύσεως⁠ ⁠… Θεοῦ χειρῶν ϕιλοτίμημα⁠ ⁠… χρυσοῦ γένους ἀπορροή, etc. (p. 27.) Elsewhere she describes the red and white of his skin, his hawk’s eyes, etc., l. III, p. 71. ↩
Anna Comnena, l. I, pp. 28, 29; Gulielmus Appulus, l. IV, p. 271; Galfrid Malaterra, l. III c. 13, pp. 579, 580. Malaterra is more cautious in his style; but the Apulian is bold and positive.

… Mentitus se Michaelem
Venerat a Danais quidam seductor ad illum.

As Gregory VII had believed, Baronius, almost alone, recognizes the emperor Michael (“AD 1060,” No. 44). ↩
Ipse armatae militiae non plusquam MCCC milites secum habuisse, ab eis qui eidem negotio interfuerunt attestatur (Malaterra, l. III c. 24, p. 583). These are the same whom the Apulian (l. IV, p. 273) styles the equestris gens ducis, equites de gente ducis. ↩
Εις τριάκοντα χιλιάδας, says Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. I, p. 37), and her account tallies with the number and lading of the ships. Ivit in Dyrrachium cum XV millibus hominum, says the “Breve Chronicon Normannicum” (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, p. 278). I have endeavored to reconcile these reckonings. ↩
The Itinerary of Jerusalem (p. 609, edit. Wesseling) gives a true and reasonable space of a thousand stadia, or one hundred miles, which is strangely doubled by Strabo (l. VI, p. 433) and Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae III 16). ↩
Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae III 6, 16) allows quinquaginta millia for this brevissimus cursus, and agrees with the real distance from Otranto to La Vallona, or Aulon (d’Anville, Analyse de la carte intitulée les côtes de la Grèce et de l’Archipel, pp. 3⁠–⁠6). Hermolaus Barbarus, who substitutes centum (Harduin, Note LXVI in Pliny the Elder, l. III), might have been corrected by every Venetian pilot who had sailed out of the gulf. ↩
Infames scopulos Acroceraunia, Horatius, Carmina I 3. The praecipitem Africum decertantem Aquilonibus, et rabiem Noti and the monstra natantia of the Adriatic, are somewhat enlarged; but Horace trembling for the life of Virgil is an interesting moment in the history of poetry and friendship. ↩
Τῶν δὲ εἰς τὸν πώγωνα αὐτοῦ ἐφυβρισάντων (Alexias, l. IV, p. 106). Yet the Normans shaved, and the Venetians wore their beards; they must have derided the no-beard of Bohemond: a harsh interpretation! (Du Cange, Note ad Alexias, p. 283.) ↩
Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. IX, pp. 136, 137) observes that some authors (Petrus Diaconus, Chronicon Monasterii Casinensis, l. III c. 49) compose the Greek army of 170,000 men, but that the hundred may be struck off, and that Malaterra reckons only 70,000; a slight inattention. The passage to which he alludes is in the Chronicle of Lupus Protospata (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, p. 45). Malaterra (l. IV c. 27) speaks in high, but indefinite, terms of the emperor, cum copiis innumerabilbus; like the Apulian poet (l. IV, p. 272):⁠—

More locustarum montes et plana teguntur.

↩
See William of Malmesbury, De gestis regum Anglorum, l. II, p. 92. Alexius fidem Anglorum suspiciens praecipuis familiaritatibus suis eos applicabat, amorem eorum filio transcribens. Odericus Vitalis (Historia ecclesiastica, l. IV, p. 508, l. VII, p. 641) relates their emigration from England, and their service in Greece. ↩
See the Apulian (l. I, p. 256). The character and the story of these Manichaeans has been the subject of the 54th chapter. ↩
See the simple and masterly narrative of Caesar himself (Commentarii de bello Civili III 41⁠–⁠75). It is a pity that Quintus Icilius (M. Guichard) did not live to analyze these operations, as he has done the campaigns of Africa and Spain. ↩
Πάλλας ἄλλη κἂν μὴ Ἀθήνη, which is very properly translated by the president Cousin (Histoire de Constantinople, tom. IV, p. 131, in duodecimo), qui combattoit comme une Pallas, quoiqu’elle ne fût pas aussi savante que celle d’Athènes. The Grecian goddess was composed of two discordant characters, of Neith, the workwoman of Sais in Egypt, and of a virgin Amazon of the Tritonian Lake in Libya (Antoine Banier, Mythologie et la fable expliqués par l’histoire, tom. IV, pp. 1⁠–⁠31, in duodecimo). ↩
Anna Comnena (l. IV, p. 116) admires, with some degree of terror, her masculine virtues. They were more familiar to the Latins; and though the Apulian (l. IV, p. 273) mentions her presence and her wound, he represents her as far less intrepid.

Uxor in hoc bello Roberti forte sagittâ
Quâdam laesa fuit: quo vulnere territa nullam.
Dum sperabat opem, se poene subegerat hosti.

The last is an unlucky word for a female prisoner. ↩
Ἀπὸ τὴς τοῦ Ῥομπέρτου προηγησαμένης μάχης, γινώσκων τὴν πρώτην κατὰ τῶν έναντίων ἰππασίαν τῶν Κελτῶν ἀνύποιστον (Anna, l. V, p. 133); and elsewhere καὶ γὰρ Κέλτος ἀνὴρ πᾶς ἐποχούμενος μὲν ἀνύποιστος τὴν ὁρμὴν καὶ τὴν θέαν ἐστίν (p. 140). The pedantry of the princess in the choice of classic appellations encouraged du Cange to apply to his countrymen the characters of the ancient Gauls. ↩
Lupus Protospata (tom. III, p. 45) says 6,000; William the Apulian more than 5,000 (l. IV, p. 273). Their modesty is singular and laudable: they might with so little trouble have slain two or three myriads of schismatics and infidels! ↩
The Romans had changed the inauspicious name of Epidamnus to Dyrrachium (Pliny the Elder III 26), and the vulgar corruption of Duracium (see Malaterra) bore some affinity to hardness. One of Robert’s names was Durand, a durando: poor wit! (Albericus Monachus in Chronicon, apud Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. IX, p. 137.) ↩
Βρούχους καὶ ἀκρίδας εἶπεν ἄν τις αὐτοὺς πατέρα καὶ υἰόν (Anna, l. I, p. 35). By these similes, so different from those of Homer, she wishes to inspire contempt as well as horror for the little noxious animal, a conqueror. Most unfortunately, the common sense, or common nonsense, of mankind resists her laudable design. ↩
Prodiit hâc auctor Trojanae cladis Achilles.

The supposition of the Apulian (l. V, p. 275) may be excused by the more classic poetry of Virgil (Aeneid II 197), Larissaeus Achilles, but it is not justified by the geography of Homer. ↩
The τῶν πεδίλων προάλματα, which encumbered the knights on foot, have been ignorantly translated spurs (Anna Comnena, Alexias, l. V, p. 140). Du Cange has explained the true sense by a ridiculous and inconvenient fashion, which lasted from the eleventh to the fifteenth century. These peaks, in the form of a scorpion, were sometimes two feet, and fastened to the knee with a silver chain. ↩
The epistle itself (Alexias, l. III, pp. 93⁠–⁠95) well deserves to be read. There is one expression, ἀστροπέλεκυν δεδεμένον μετὰ χρυσαφίου, which du Cange does not understand. I have endeavored to grope out a tolerable meaning: χρυσάφιον is a golden crown; ἀστροπέλεκυς is explained by Simon Portius (in Dictionarium Latino-Graeco-Barbarum) by κεραυνός, πρηστήρ, a flash of lightning. ↩
For these general events I must refer to the general historians Sigonius, Baronius, Muratori, Mosheim, Saint-Marc, etc. ↩
The lives of Gregory VII are either legends or invectives (Saint-Marc, Abrégé Chronologique, tom. III, p. 235, etc.); and his miraculous or magical performances are alike incredible to a modern reader. He will, as usual, find some instruction in Leclerc (“Vie de Hildebrand,” Bibliothèque ancienne et moderne, tom. VIII), and much amusement in Bayle (Dictionnaire historique et critique, “Grégoire VII”). That pope was undoubtedly a great man, a second Athanasius, in a more fortunate age of the church. May I presume to add that the portrait of Athanasius is one of the passages of my history (see here and following in chapter XXI) with which I am the least dissatisfied?9264 ↩
Anna, with the rancor of a Greek schismatic, calls him κατάπτυστος οὗτος Πάπας (l. I, p. 32), a pope, or priest, worthy to be spit upon; and accuses him of scourging, shaving, and perhaps of castrating the ambassadors of Henry (pp. 31, 33). But this outrage is improbable and doubtful (see the sensible preface of Cousin). ↩
Sic uno tempore victi
Sunt terrae Domini duo: rex Alemannicus iste,
Imperii rector Romani maximus ille.
Alter ad arma ruens armis superatur; et alter
Nominis auditi solâ formidine cessit.

It is singular enough that the Apulian, a Latin, should distinguish the Greek as the ruler of the Roman empire (l. IV, p. 274). ↩
The narrative of Malaterra (l. III c. 37, pp. 587, 588) is authentic, circumstantial, and fair. Dux ignem exclamans urbe incensâ, etc. The Apulian softens the mischief (inde quibusdam aedibus exustis), which is again exaggerated in some partial chronicles (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. IX, p. 147). ↩
After mentioning this devastation, the Jesuit Donatus (Roma vetus ac recens, l. IV c. 8, p. 489) prettily adds, Duraret hodieque in Coelio monte, interque ipsum et capitolium, miserabilis facies prostratae urbis, nisi in hortorum vinetorumque amoenitatem Roma resurrexisset, ut perpetuâ viriditate contegeret vulnera et ruinas suas. ↩
The royalty of Robert, either promised or bestowed by the pope (Anna, l. I, p. 32), is sufficiently confirmed by the Apulian (l. IV, p. 270).

Romani regni sibi promisisse coronam
Papa ferebatur.

Nor can I understand why Gretser, and the other papal advocates, should be displeased with this new instance of apostolic jurisdiction. ↩
See Homer, Iliad II 87, etc. His bees are the image of a disorderly crowd; their discipline and public works seem to be the ideas of a later age (Virgil, Aeneid, l. I). ↩
Gulielmus Appulus, l. V, p. 276. The admirable port of Brundusium was double; the outward harbor was a gulf covered by an island, and narrowing by degrees, till it communicated by a small gullet with the inner harbor, which embraced the city on both sides. Caesar and nature have labored for its ruin; and against such agents, what are the feeble efforts of the Neapolitan government? (Swinburne’s Travels in the Two Sicilies, vol. I, pp. 384⁠–⁠390.) ↩
William of Apulia (l. V, p. 276) describes the victory of the Normans, and forgets the two previous defeats, which are diligently recorded by Anna Comnena (l. VI, pp. 159⁠–⁠161). In her turn, she invents or magnifies a fourth action, to give the Venetians revenge and rewards. Their own feelings were far different, since they deposed their doge, propter excidium stoli (Dandulus in Chronicon in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XII, p. 249). ↩
The most authentic writers, William of Apulia (l. V 277), Jeffrey Malaterra (l. III c. 41, p. 589), and Romuald of Salerno (Chronicon in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VII), are ignorant of this crime so apparent to our countrymen William of Malmesbury (l. III, p. 107) and Roger de Hoveden (p. 710, in Rerum anglicarum scriptores post Bedam praecipui), and the latter can tell how the just Alexius married, crowned, and burnt alive his female accomplice. The English historian is indeed so blind that he ranks Robert Guiscard, or Wiscard, among the knights of Henry I, who ascended the throne fifteen years after the duke of Apulia’s death. ↩
The joyful Anna Comnena scatters some flowers over the grave of an enemy (Alexias, l. V, pp. 162⁠–⁠166); and his best praise is the esteem and envy of William the Conqueror, the sovereign of his family. Graecia (says Malaterra) hostibus recedentibus libera laeta quievit: Apulia tota sive Calabria turbatur. ↩
Urbs Venusina nitet tantis decorata sepulchris,

is one of the last lines of the Apulian’s poem (l. V, p. 278). William of Malmesbury (l. III, p. 107) inserts an epitaph on Guiscard, which is not worth transcribing. ↩
Yet Horace had few obligations to Venusia; he was carried to Rome in his childhood (Sermones I 6); and his repeated allusions to the doubtful limit of Apulia and Lucania (Carmina III 4, Sermones II 1) are unworthy of his age and genius. ↩
See Giannone (tom. II, pp. 88⁠–⁠93) and the historians of the first crusade. ↩
The reign of Roger, and the Norman kings of Sicily, fills books of the Istoria civile of Giannone (tom. II l. XI-XIV, pp. 136⁠–⁠340), and is spread over the ninth and tenth volumes of the Italian Annals of Muratori. In the Bibliothèque Italique (tom. I, pp. 175⁠–⁠222) I find a useful abstract of Capacelatro, a modern Neapolitan, who has composed, in two volumes, the history of his country from Roger I to Frederic II inclusive. ↩
According to the testimony of Philistus and Diodorus, the tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse could maintain a standing force of 10,000 horse, 100,000 foot, and 400 galleys. Compare Hume (Essays, vol. I, pp. 268, 435), and his adversary Wallace (A Dissertation on the Numbers of Mankind, pp. 306, 307). The ruins of Agrigentum are the theme of every traveller, d’Orville, Reidesel, Swinburne, etc. ↩
A contemporary historian of the acts of Roger, from the year 1127 to 1135, founds his title on merit and power, the consent of the barons, and the ancient royalty of Sicily and Palermo, without introducing Pope Anacletus (Alexandri Telesini Coenobii, Abbatis, De rebus gestis Rogerii Siciliae regis, libri IV in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, pp. 607⁠–⁠645). ↩
The kings of France, England, Scotland, Castille, Arragon, Navarre, Sweden, Denmark, and Hungary. The three first were more ancient than Charlemagne; the three next were created by their sword, the three last by their baptism; and of these the king of Hungary alone was honored or debased by a papal crown. ↩
Fazellus, and a crowd of Sicilians, had imagined a more early and independent coronation (AD 1130, May 1), which Giannone unwillingly rejects (tom. II, pp. 137⁠–⁠144). This fiction is disproved by the silence of contemporaries; nor can it be restored by a spurious character of Messina (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. IX, p. 340; Pagi, Critica Baronii, tom. IV, pp. 467, 468). ↩
Roger corrupted the second person of Lothaire’s army, who sounded, or rather cried, a retreat; for the Germans (says Cinnamus, l. III c. I, p. 51) are ignorant of the use of trumpets. Most ignorant himself!9265 ↩
See de Guignes, Histoire générale des Huns, tom. I, pp. 369⁠–⁠373, and Cardonne, Histoire de l’Afrique et de l’Espagne sous la domination des Arabes, tom. II, pp. 70⁠–⁠144. Their common original appears to be al-Nuwayri. ↩
Tripoli (says the Nubian geographer, or more properly the Sherif al Edrisi) urbs fortis, saxeo muro vallata, sita prope littus maris. Hanc expugnavit Rogerius, qui mulieribus captivis ductis, viros peremit. ↩
See the geography of Leo Africanus (in Ramusio, tom. I folio 74 verso, folio 75 recto), and Shaw’s Travels (p. 110), the seventh book of Thuanus, and the eleventh of the Abbé de Vertot. The possession and defence of the place was offered by Charles V and wisely declined by the knights of Malta. ↩
Pagi has accurately marked the African conquests of Roger; and his criticism was supplied by his friend the Abbé de Longuerue with some Arabic memorials (“AD 1147,” No. 26, 27, “AD 1148,” No. 16, “AD 1153,” No. 16). ↩
Appulus et Calaber, Siculus mihi servit et Afer.

A proud inscription, which denotes that the Norman conquerors were still discriminated from their Christian and Muslim subjects. ↩
Hugo Falcandus (Historia sicula, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VII, pp. 270, 271) ascribes these losses to the neglect or treachery of the admiral Majo. ↩
The silence of the Sicilian historians, who end too soon or begin too late, must be supplied by Otto of Freising, a German (Gesta Frederici imperatoris, l. I c. 33, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VI, p. 668), the Venetian Andrew Dandulus (idem, tom. XII, pp. 282, 283), and the Greek writers Cinnamus (l. III c. 2⁠–⁠5) and Nicetas (in Imperii Graeci historia, “Manuel Comnenus,” l. III c. 1⁠–⁠6). ↩
To this imperfect capture and speedy rescue I apply the παρ’ ὀλίγον ἦλθε τοῦ ἁλῶναι of Cinnamus, l. II c. 19, p. 49. Muratori, on tolerable evidence (Annali d’Italia, tom. IX, pp. 420, 421), laughs at the delicacy of the French, who maintain, marisque nullo impediente periculo ad regnum proprium reversum esse: yet I observe that their advocate, du Cange, is less positive as the commentator on Cinnamus than as the editor of Joinville. ↩
In palatium regium sagittas igneas injecit, says Dandulus; but Nicetas (l. II c. 8, p. 66) transforms them into βέλη ἀργεντέους ἔχοντα ἀτρακτοῦς, and adds that Manuel styled this insult παίγνιον and γέλωτα⁠ ⁠… λῃστεύοντα. These arrows, by the compiler, Vincent de Beauvais, are again transmuted into gold. ↩
For the invasion of Italy, which is almost overlooked by Nicetas, see the more polite history of Cinnamus (l. IV c. 1⁠–⁠15, pp. 78⁠–⁠101), who introduces a diffuse narrative by a lofty profession, περὶ τε Σικελίας, καὶ τῆς Ἰταλῶν ἐσκέπτετο γῆς, ὠς καὶ ταύτας Ῥωμαίοις ἀνασώσαιτο, III 5. ↩
The Latin, Otto (Gesta Frederici imperatoris, l. II c. 30, p. 734), attests the forgery; the Greek, Cinnamus (l. IV c. 1, p. 78), claims a promise of restitution from Conrad and Frederic. An act of fraud is always credible when it is told of the Greeks. ↩
Quod Ancontiani Graecum imperium nimis diligerent⁠ ⁠… Veneti speciali odio Anconam oderunt. The cause of love, perhaps of envy, were the beneficia, flumen aureum of the emperor; and the Latin narrative is confirmed by Cinnamus (l. IV c. 14, p. 98). ↩
Muratori mentions the two sieges of Ancona: the first, in 1167, against Frederic I in person (Annali d’Italia, tom. X, p. 39, etc.); the second, in 1173, against his lieutenant Christian, archbishop of Mentz, a man unworthy of his name and office (p. 76, etc.). It is of the second siege that we possess an original narrative, which he has published in his great Collection (tom. VI, pp. 921⁠–⁠946). ↩
We derive this anecdote from an anonymous chronicle of Fossa Nova, published by Muratori (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VII, p. 874). ↩
The Βασίλειον σημεῖον of Cinnamus (l. IV c. 14, p. 99) is susceptible of this double sense. A standard is more Latin, an image more Greek. ↩
Nihilominus quoque petebat, ut quia occasio justa et tempos opportunum et acceptabile se obtulerant, Romani corona imperii a sancto apostolo sibi redderetur; quoniam non ad Frederici Alemanni, sed ad suum jus asseruit pertinere (“Vita Alexandri III” à Cardinal Arragoniae, in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, p. 458). His second embassy was accompanied cum immensâ multitudine pecuniarum. ↩
Nimis alta et perplexa sunt (“Vita Alexandri III,” pp. 460, 461), says the cautious pope. ↩
Μηδὲν μέσον εἶναι μέγων Ῥώμῃ τῇ νεωτέρᾳ πρὸς τὴν πρεσβυτέραν πάλαι ἀποῤῥαγεισῶν (Cinnamus, l. IV c. 14, p. 99). ↩
In his sixth book, Cinnamus describes the Venetian war, which Nicetas has not thought worthy of his attention. The Italian accounts, which do not satisfy our curiosity, are reported by the annalist Muratori, under the years 1171, etc. ↩
This victory is mentioned by Romuald of Salerno (in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VII, p. 198). It is whimsical enough that in the praise of the king of Sicily, Cinnamus (l. IV c. 13, pp. 97, 98) is much warmer and copious than Falcandus (pp. 268, 270). But the Greek is fond of description, and the Latin historian is not fond of William the Bad. ↩
For the epistle of William I see Cinnamus (l. IV c. 15, pp. 101, 102) and Nicetas (l. II c. 8). It is difficult to affirm whether these Greeks deceived themselves or the public in these flattering portraits of the grandeur of the empire. ↩
I can only quote of original evidence, the poor chronicles of Sicard of Cremona (p. 603), and of Fossa Nova (p. 875), as they are published in the seventh tome of Muratori’s historians. The king of Sicily sent his troops contra nequitiam Andronici⁠ ⁠… ad acquirendum imperium Constantinopolim. They were⁠ ⁠… decepti captique, by Isaac. ↩
By the failure of Cinnamus, we are now reduced to Nicetas (in Imperii Graeci historia, “Andronico,” l. I c. 7⁠–⁠9, l. II c. 1, in “Isaac Angelo,” l. I c. 1⁠–⁠4), who now becomes a respectable contemporary. As he survived the emperor and the empire, he is above flattery; but the fall of Constantinople exasperated his prejudices against the Latins. For the honor of learning I shall observe that Homer’s great commentator, Eustathias, archbishop of Thessalonica, refused to desert his flock. ↩
The Historia sicula of Hugo Falcandus, which properly extends from 1154 to 1169, is inserted in the eighth volume of Muratori’s Collection (tom. VII, pp. 259⁠–⁠344), and preceded by a eloquent preface or epistle (pp. 251⁠–⁠258, “De Calamitatibus Siciliae”). Falcandus has been styled the Tacitus of Sicily; and, after a just but immense abatement, from the first to the twelth century, from a senator to a monk, I would not strip him of his title: his narrative is rapid and perspicuous, his style bold and elegant, his observation keen; he had studied mankind, and feels like a man. I can only regret the narrow and barren field on which his labors have been cast. ↩
The laborious Benedictines (L’Art de vérifier les dates, p. 896) are of opinion that the true name of Falcandus is Fulcandus, or Foucault. According to them, Hugues Foucalt, a Frenchman by birth, and at length abbot of St. Denys, had followed into Sicily his patron Stephen de la Perche, uncle to the mother of William II archbishop of Palermo, and great chancellor of the kingdom. Yet Falcandus has all the feelings of a Sicilian; and the title of Alumnus (which he bestows on himself) appears to indicate that he was born, or at least educated, in the island. ↩
Falcandus, p. 303. Richard de St. Germano begins his history from the death and praises of William II. After some unmeaning epithets, he thus continues: Legis et justitiae cultus tempore suo vigebat in regno; suâ erat quilibet sorte contentus (were they mortals?); abique pax, ubique securitas, nec latronum metuebat viator insidias, nec maris nauta offendicula piratarum (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VII, p. 969). ↩
Constantia, primis a cunabulis in deliciarun tuarum affluentiâ diutius educata, tuisque institutis, doctrinus et moribus informata, tandem opibus tuis Barbaros delatura discessit: et nunc cum imgentibus copiis revertitur, ut pulcherrima nutricis ornamenta barbaricâ foeditate contaminet⁠ ⁠… Intuari mihi jam videor turbulentas barbarorum acies⁠ ⁠… civitates opulentas et loca diuturnâ pace florentia, metu concutere, caede vastare, rapinis atterere, et foedare luxuriâ: hinc cives aut gladiis intercepti, aut servitute depressi, virgines constupratae, matronae, etc. ↩
Certe si regem non dubiae virtutis elegerint, nec a Saracenis Christiani dissentiant, poterit rex creatus rebus licet quasi desperatis et perditis subvenire, et incursus hostium, si prudenter egerit, propulsare. ↩
In Apulis, qui, semper novitate gaudentes, novarum rerum studiis aguntur, nihil arbitror spei aut fiduciae reponendum. ↩
Si civium tuorum virtutem et audaciam attendas,⁠ ⁠… muriorum etiam ambitum densis turribus circumseptum. ↩
Cum erudelitate piraticâ Theutonum confligat atrocitas, et inter ambustos lapides, et Aethnae flagrantis incendia, etc. ↩
Eam partem, quam nobilissimarum civitatum fulgor illustrat, quae et toti regno singulari meruit privilegio praeminere, nefarium esset⁠ ⁠… vel barbarorum ingressu pollui. I wish to transcribe his florid, but curious, description, of the palace, city, and luxuriant plain of Palermo. ↩
Vires non suppetunt, et conatus tuos tam inopia civium, quam paucitas bellatorum elidunt. ↩
At vero, quia difficile est Christianos in tanto rerum turbine, sublato regis timore Saracenos non opprimere, si Saraceni injuriis fatigati ab eis coeperint dissidere, et castella forte maritima vel montanas munitiones occupaverint; ut hinc cum Theutonicis summa virtute pugnandum illinc Saracenis crebris insultibus occurrendum, quid putas acturi sunt Siculi inter has depressi angustias, et velut inter malleum et incudem multo cum discrimine constituti? hoc utique agent quod poterunt, ut se Barbaris miscrabili conditione dedentes, in eorum se conferant potestatem. O utinam plebis et procerum, Christianorum et Saracenorum vota conveniant; ut regem sibi concorditer eligentes, barbaros totis viribus, toto conanime, totisque desideriis proturbare contendant. The Normans and Sicilians appear to be confounded. ↩
The testimony of an Englishman, of Roger de Hoveden (p. 689), will lightly weigh against the silence of German and Italian history (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. X, p. 156). The priests and pilgrims, who returned from Rome, exalted, by every tale, the omnipotence of the holy father. ↩
Ego enim in eo cum Teutonicis manere non debeo (Caffari, “Annales Genuenses,” in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VI, pp. 367, 368). ↩
For the Saracens of Sicily and Nocera, see the annals of Muratori (tom. X, p. 149, and AD 1223, 1247), Giannone (tom. II, p. 385), and of the originals, in Muratori’s Collection, Richard de St. Germano (tom. VII, p. 996), Matteo Spinelli de Giovenazzo (tom. VII, p. 1064), Nicholas de Jamsilla (tom. X, p. 494), and Matteo Villani (tom. XIV l. VII, p. 103). The last of these insinuates that, in reducing the Saracens of Nocera, Charles II of Anjou employed rather artifice than violence. ↩
It is remarkable that at the same time the tombs of the Roman emperors, even of Constantine himself, were violated and ransacked by their degenerate successor Alexius Comnenus, in order to enable him to pay the “German” tribute exacted by the menaces of the emperor Henry. See the end of the first book of the Life of Alexius, in Nicetas, p. 632, edit. Bonnae. —⁠M. ↩
Muratori quotes a passage from Arnold of Lubec (l. IV c. 20): Reperit thesauros absconditos, et omnem lapidum pretiosorum et gemmarum gloriam, ita ut oneratis 160 somariis, gloriose ad terram suam redierit. Roger de Hoveden, who mentions the violation of the royal tombs and corpses, computes the spoil of Salerno at 200,000 ounces of gold (p. 746). On these occasions, I am almost tempted to exclaim with the listening maid in La Fontaine, “Je voudrois bien avoir ce qui manque.” ↩
I am indebted for his character and history to d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, “Mahmud,” pp. 533⁠–⁠537), M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. III, pp. 155⁠–⁠173), and our countryman Colonel Alexander Dow (vol. I, pp. 23⁠–⁠83). In the two first volumes of his History of Hindostan, he styles himself the translator of the Persian Ferishta; but in his florid text it is not easy to distinguish the version and the original.9266 ↩
The dynasty of the Samanides continued 125 years, AD 847⁠–⁠999, under ten princes. See their succession and ruin, in the Tables of M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. I, pp. 404⁠–⁠406). They were followed by the Gaznevides, AD 999⁠–⁠1183 (see tom. I, pp. 239, 240). His divisions of nations often disturbs the series of time and place. ↩
Gaznah hortos non habet: est emporium et domicilium mercaturae Indicae. Abulfedae, Geographia, Reiske, tab. XXIII, p. 349; d’Herbelot, p. 364. It has not been visited by any modern traveller. ↩
By the ambassador of the caliph of Baghdad, who employed an Arabian or Chaldaic word that signifies lord and master (d’Herbelot, p. 825). It is interpreted Αὐτοκράτωρ, Βασιλεῦς Βασιλεων, by the Byzantine writers of the eleventh century; and the name (Σουλτανός, Soldanus) is familiarly employed in the Greek and Latin languages, after it had passed from the Gaznevides to the Seljukides, and other emirs of Asia and Egypt. Du Cange (Dissertation XVI, Dissertations sur Joinville, pp. 238⁠–⁠240; Glossarium Graecitatis et Latin) labors to find the title of sultan in the ancient kingdom of Persia; but his proofs are mere shadows; a proper name in the Themes of Constantine (II 11), an anticipation of Zonaras, etc., and a medal of Kai Khosrow, not (as he believes) the Sassanide of the sixth, but the Seljukide of Iconium of the thirteenth century (de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. I, p. 246). ↩
It is uncertain when the title of sultan was first used, but it seems at all events to have been older than the time of Mahmud. It is mentioned by Halebi under the reign of Motawaccel; but according to Ibn Chaldun it was first assumed by the Bowides. Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, vol. II, p. 345, note. —⁠S. ↩
Ferishta (apud Dow, History of Hindostan, vol. I, p. 49) mentions the report of a gun in the Indian army. But, as I am slow in believing this premature (AD 1008) use of artillery, I must desire to scrutinize first the text and then the authority of Ferishta, who lived in the Mogul court in the last century.9267 ↩
Kinnouge, or Canouge (the old Palimbothra9268) is marked in latitude 27° 3′, longitude 80° 13′. See d’Anville (Antiquité Géographique de l’Inde, pp. 60⁠–⁠62), corrected by the local knowledge of Major Rennell (in his excellent Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan, pp. 37⁠–⁠43), 300 jewellers, 30,000 shops for the arreca nut, 60,000 bands of musicians, etc. (Abulfeda, Geographia, tab. XV, p. 274; Dow, vol. I, p. 16) will allow an ample deduction. ↩
The idolaters of Europe, says Ferishta (Dow, vol. I, p. 66). Consult Abulfeda (p. 272) and Rennell’s Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan. ↩
Ferishta says, some “crores of gold.” Dow says, in a note at the bottom of the page, “ten millions,” which is the explanation of the word “crore.” Mr. Gibbon says rashly that the sum offered by the Brahmins was ten millions sterling. Note to James Mill’s History of British India, vol. II, p. 222. Col. Briggs’s translation is “a quantity of gold.”

The treasure found in the temple, “perhaps in the image,” according to Major Price’s authorities, was twenty millions of dinars of gold, above nine millions sterling; but this was a hundredfold the ransom offered by the Brahmins. Price, vol. II, p. 290. —⁠M. ↩
Rather than the idol broker, he chose to be called Mahmud the idol breaker. Price, vol. II, p. 289. —⁠M. ↩
D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 527. Yet these letters, apothegms, etc., are rarely the language of the heart, or the motives of public action. ↩
Compare Price, vol. II, p. 295. —⁠M. ↩
For instance, a ruby of four hundred and fifty miskals (Dow, vol. I, p. 53), or six pounds three ounces: the largest in the treasury of Delhi weighed seventeen miskals (Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, partie II, p. 280). It is true that in the East all colored stones are called rubies (p. 355), and that Tavernier saw three larger and more precious among the jewels de notre grand roi, le plus puissant et plus magnifique de tous les Rois de la terre (p. 376). ↩
Dow, vol. I, p. 65. The sovereign of Kinoge is said to have possessed 2,500 elephants (Abulfeda, Geographia, tab. XV, p. 274). From these Indian stories the reader may correct a note in my first volume; or from that note he may correct these stories. ↩
See a just and natural picture of these pastoral manners, in the history of William, archbishop of Tyre (l. I c. VII in the Gesta Dei per Francos, pp. 633, 634), and a valuable note by the editor of the Histoire généalogique des Tatars, pp. 535⁠–⁠538. ↩
The first emigration of the Turkmans, and doubtful origin of the Seljukians, may be traced in the laborious History of the Huns, by M. de Guignes (tom. I partie I Tables Chronologiques l. V; tom. II l. VII, IX, X) and the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot (pp. 799⁠–⁠802, 897⁠–⁠901), Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 321⁠–⁠333), and Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 221, 222). ↩
Dow, History of Hindostan, vol. I, pp. 89, 95⁠–⁠98. I have copied this passage as a specimen of the Persian manner; but I suspect that by some odd fatality the style of Ferishta has been improved by that of Ossian.9269 ↩
The Zendekan of d’Herbelot (p. 1028), the Dindaka of Dow (vol. I, p. 97), is probably the Dandanekan of Abulfeda (Geographia, p. 345, Reiske), a small town of Chorasan, two days’ journey from Marû, and renowned through the East for the production and manufacture of cotton. ↩
The Byzantine historians (Cedrenus, tom. II, pp. 766, 766; Zonaras, tom. II, p. 255; Nicephorus Bryennius, p. 21) have confounded, in this revolution, the truth of time and place, of names and persons, of causes and events. The ignorance and errors of these Greeks (which I shall not stop to unravel) may inspire some distrust of the story of Cyaxares and Cyrus, as it is told by their most eloquent predecessors. ↩
Willelmus Tyrensis, l. I c. 7, p. 633. The divination by arrows is ancient and famous in the East. ↩
D’Herbelot, p. 801. Yet after the fortune of his posterity, Seljuk became the thirty-fourth in lineal descent from the great Afrasiab, emperor of Touran (p. 800). The Tartar pedigree of the house of Zingis gave a different cast to flattery and fable; and the historian Mirkhond derives the Seljukides from Alankavah, the virgin mother (p. 801, col. 2). If they be the same as the Zalzuts of Abulghazi Bahadur Kahn (Histoire généalogique des Tatars, p. 148), we quote in their favor the most weighty evidence of a Tartar prince himself, the descendant of Zingis, Alankavah, or Alancu, and Oguz Khan. ↩
Seljuk had four sons, Micail, Junus, Arslan or Israil, and Musa. The last two outlived him, but are not distinguished in history. His grandsons, Togrul and Jaafar, mentioned by Gibbon, were the sons of Micail. Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, vol. III, p. 82. —⁠S. ↩
By a slight corruption, Togrul Beg is the Tangroli-pix of the Greeks. His reign and character are faithfully exhibited by d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 1027, 1028) and de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. III, pp. 189⁠–⁠201). ↩
Cedrenus, tom. II, pp. 774, 775. Zonaras, tom. II, p. 257. With their usual knowledge of Oriental affairs, they describe the ambassador as a sherif, who, like the syncellus of the patriarch, was the vicar and successor of the caliph. ↩
From William of Tyre I have borrowed this distinction of Turks and Turkmans, which at least is popular and convenient. The names are the same, and the addition of man is of the same import in the Persic and Teutonic idioms. Few critics will adopt the etymology of James de Vitry (Historia Hierosolymitana, l. I c. 11, p. 1061), of Turcomani, quasi Turci et Comani, a mixed people. ↩
Histoire générale des Huns, tom. III, pp. 165⁠–⁠167. M. de Guignes quotes Abulmahasen, an historian of Egypt. ↩
Consult the Bibliothèque Orientale, in the articles of the “Abbassides,” “Caher,” and “Caiem,” and the annals of Elmacin and Abulpharagius. ↩
For this curious ceremony, I am indebted to M. de Guignes (tom. III, pp. 197, 198), and that learned author is obliged to Bondari, who composed in Arabic the history of the Seljukides, (tom. V, p. 365). I am ignorant of his age, country, and character. ↩
According to von Hammer, “crowns” are incorrect. They are unknown as a symbol of royalty in the East. Von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol. I, p. 567. —⁠M. ↩
Eodem anno (AH 455) obiit princeps Togrulbecus⁠ ⁠… rex fuit clemens, prudens, et peritus regnandi, cujus terror corda mortalium invaserat, ita ut obedirent ei reges atque ad ipsum scriberent. Elmacin, Historia saracenica, p. 342, vers. Erpenii. ↩
Togrul was affianced to the caliph’s daughter, but he died before the marriage was consummated, at the age of sixty. Weil, vol. III, p. 103, sqq. —⁠S. ↩
For these wars of the Turks and Romans, see in general the Byzantine histories of Zonaras and Cedrenus, Scylitzes the continuator of Cedrenus, and Nicephorus Bryennius Caesar. The two first of these were monks, the two latter statesmen; yet such were the Greeks that the difference of style and character is scarcely discernible. For the Orientals, I draw as usual on the wealth of d’Herbelot (see titles of the first Seljukides) and the accuracy of de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. III l. X). ↩
Ἐφέρετο γὰρ ἐν Τούρκοις λόγος, ὡς εἴη πεπρωμένον καταστραφῆναι τὸ Τούρκων γένος ἀπὸ τῆς τοιαύτης δυνάμεως, ὁποίαν ὁ Μακεδὼν Ἀλέξανδρος ἔχων κατεστρέψατο Πέρσας. Cedrenus, tom. II, p. 791. The credulity of the vulgar is always probable; and the Turks had learned from the Arabs the history or legend of Escander Dulcarnein (d’Herbelot, p. 317, etc.). ↩
Οἴ τὴν Ἰβηρίαν καὶ Μεσοποταμίαν, καὶ τὴν παρακειμένην οἰκοῦσιν Ἀρμενίαν καὶ οῖ τὴν Ἰουδαϊκην τοῦ Νεστοριοῦ καὶ τῶν Ἀκεφάλων θρῃσκευουσιν αϊρεσιν (Scylitzes, ad calcem Cedreni, tom. II, p. 834, whose ambiguous construction shall not tempt me to suspect that he confounded the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies). He familiarly talks of the μῆνις, χόλος, ὀργὴ, Θεοῦ, qualities, as I should apprehend, very foreign to the perfect Being; but his bigotry is forced to confess that they were soon afterwards discharged on the orthodox Romans. ↩
Had the name of Georgians been known to the Greeks (Stritter, Memoriae populorum, tom. IV, “Iberica”), I should derive it from their agriculture, as the Σκύθαι γεωργοί of Herodotus (l. IV c. 18, p. 289, edit. Wesseling). But it appears only since the crusades, among the Latins (Jacques à Vitriaco, Historia Hierosolymitana, c. 79, p. 1095) and Orientals (d’Herbelot, p. 407), and was devoutly borrowed from St. George of Cappadocia. ↩
Mosheim, Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, p. 632. See, in Chardin’s Travels (tom. I, pp. 171⁠–⁠174), the manners and religion of this handsome but worthless nation. See the pedigree of their princes from Adam to the present century, in the tables of M. de Guignes (tom. I, pp. 433⁠–⁠438). ↩
This city is mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De administrando imperio, l. II c. 44, p. 119) and the Byzantines of the eleventh century, under the name of Mantzikierte, and by some is confounded with Theodosiopolis; but Delisle, in his notes and maps, has very properly fixed the situation. Abulfeda (Geographia, tab. XVIII, p. 310) describes Malasgerd as a small town, built with black stone, supplied with water, without trees, etc. ↩
The Uzi of the Greeks (Stritter, Memoriae populorum, tom. III, pp. 923⁠–⁠948) are the Gozz of the Orientals (Histoire des Huns, tom. II, p. 522, tom. III, p. 133, etc.). They appear on the Danube and the Volga, and Armenia, Syria, and Chorasan, and the name seems to have been extended to the whole Turkman race. ↩
Urselius (the Russelius of Zonaras) is distinguished by Jeffrey Malaterra (l. I c. 33) among the Norman conquerors of Sicily, and with the surname of Baliol: and our own historians will tell how the Baliols came from Normandy to Durham, built Bernard’s castle on the Tees, married an heiress of Scotland, etc. Du Cange (Note ad Nicephorus Bryennius, l. II No. 4) has labored the subject in honor of the president de Bailleul, whose father had exchanged the sword for the gown. ↩
Elmacin (pp. 343, 344) assigns this probable number, which is reduced by Abulpharagius to 15,000 (p. 227), and by d’Herbelot (p. 102) to 12,000 horse. But the same Elmacin gives 300,000 men to the emperor, of whom Abulpharagius says, Cum centum hominum millibus, multisque equis et magnâ pompâ instructus. The Greeks abstain from any definition of numbers. ↩
The Byzantine writers do not speak so distinctly of the presence of the sultan; he committed his forces to a eunuch, had retired to a distance, etc. Is it ignorance, or jealousy, or truth? ↩
He was the son of Caesar John Ducas, brother of the emperor Constantine (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 165). Nicephorus Bryennius applauds his virtues and extenuates his faults (l. I, pp. 30, 38, l. II, p. 53). Yet he owns his enmity to Romanus, οὐ πάνυ δὲ φιλίως ἔχων πρὸς βασιλέα. Scylitzes speaks more explicitly of his treason. ↩
This circumstance, which we read and doubt in Scylitzes and Constantine Manasses, is more prudently omitted by Nicephorus and Zonaras. ↩
Elmacin gives 1,500,000. Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge vol. I, p. 10. —⁠M. ↩
The ransom and tribute are attested by reason and the Orientals. The other Greeks are modestly silent; but Nicephorus Bryennius dares to affirm that the terms were οὐκ ἀναξίας Ῥωμαίων άρχῆς, and that the emperor would have preferred death to a shameful treaty. ↩
The defeat and captivity of Romanus Diogenes may be found in John Scylitzes ad calcem Cedreni, tom. II, pp. 835⁠–⁠843. Zonaras, tom. II, pp. 281⁠–⁠284. Nicephorus Bryennius, l. I, pp. 25⁠–⁠32. Glycas, pp. 325⁠–⁠327. Constantine Manasses, p. 134. Elmacin, Historia saracenica, p. 343, 344. Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 227. D’Herbelot, pp. 102, 103. De Guignes, tom. III, pp. 207⁠–⁠211. Besides my old acquaintance, Elmacin and Abulpharagius, the historian of the Huns has consulted Abulfeda, and his epitomizer, Benschounah, a Chronicle of the Caliphs, by Soyouthi, Abulmahasen of Egypt, and al-Nuwayri of Africa. ↩
This interesting death is told by d’Herbelot (pp. 103, 104), and M. de Guignes (tom. III, pp. 212, 213) from their Oriental writers; but neither of them have transfused the spirit of Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 344, 345). ↩
A critic of high renown (the late Dr. Johnson), who has severely scrutinized the epitaphs of Pope, might cavil in this sublime inscription at the words “repair to Maru,” since the reader must already be at Maru before he could peruse the inscription. ↩
The Bibliothèque Orientale has given the text of the reign of Malek (pp. 542⁠–⁠544, 654, 655); and the Histoire générale des Huns (tom. III, pp. 214⁠–⁠224) has added the usual measure of repetition, emendation, and supplement. Without those two learned Frenchmen, I should be blind indeed in the Eastern world. ↩
See an excellent discourse at the end of Sir William Jones’s History of the Life of Nadir Shah, and the articles of the poets, Amak, Anvari, Raschidi, etc., in the Bibliothèque Orientale. ↩
His name was Kheder Khan. Four bags were placed round his sofa, and, as he listened to the song, he cast handfuls of gold and silver to the poets (d’Herbelot, p. 107). All this may be true; but I do not understand how he could reign in Transoxiana in the time of Malek Shah, and much less how Kheder could surpass him in power and pomp. I suspect that the beginning, not the end, of the eleventh century is the true era of his reign. ↩
See Chardin, Voyages en Perse, tom. II, p. 235. ↩
The Gelalaean era (Gelaleddin, Glory of the Faith, was one of the names or titles of Malek Shah) is fixed to the fifteenth of March, AH 471, AD 1079. Dr. Hyde has produced the original testimonies of the Persians and Arabians (Historia religionis veterum Persarum, c. 16, pp. 200⁠–⁠211). ↩
He was the first great victim of his enemy, Hassan Sabek, founder of the Assassins. Von Hammer, Die Geschichte der Assassinen, p. 95. —⁠M. ↩
She speaks of this Persian royalty as ἁπάσης κακοδαιμονέστερον πενίας. Anna Comnena was only nine years old at the end of the reign of Malek Shah (AD 1092), and when she speaks of his assassination she confounds the sultan with the vizier (Alexias, l. VI, pp. 177, 178). ↩
See von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol. I, p. 16. The Seljukian dominions were for a time reunited in the person of Sandjar, one of the sons of Malek Shah, who ruled “from Kashgar to Antioch, from the Caspian to the straits of Babelmandeb.” —⁠M. ↩
So obscure that the industry of M. de Guignes could only copy (tom. I, p. 244, tom. III part I, p. 269, etc.) the history, or rather list, of the Seljukides of Kerman, in Bibliothèque Orientale. They were extinguished before the end of the twelth century. ↩
Tavernier, perhaps the only traveller who has visited Kerman, describes the capital as a great ruinous village, twenty-five days’ journey from Ispahan, and twenty-seven from Ormus, in the midst of a fertile country (Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, pp. 107, 110). ↩
It appears from Anna Comnena that the Turks of Asia Minor obeyed the signet and chiauss of the great sultan (Alexias, l. VI, p. 170); and that the two sons of Soliman were detained in his court (p. 180). ↩
This expression is quoted by Pétis de la Croix (Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, p. 160) from some poet, most probably a Persian. ↩
Wilken considers Cutulmish not a Turkish name. Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, vol. I, p. 9. —⁠M. ↩
On the conquest of Asia Minor, M. de Guignes has derived no assistance from the Turkish or Arabian writers, who produce a naked list of the Seljukides of Roum. The Greeks are unwilling to expose their shame, and we must extort some hints from Scylitzes (pp. 860, 863), Nicephorus Bryennius (pp. 88, 91, 92, etc., 103, 104), and Anna Comnena (Alexias, pp. 91, 92, etc., 168, etc.). ↩
Such is the description of Roum by Haiton the Armenian, whose Tartar history may be found in the collections of Ramusio and Bergeron (see Abulfeda, Geographia, climat. XVII, pp. 301⁠–⁠305). ↩
Dicit eos quendam abusione Sodomiticâ intervertisse episcopum (Guibert Abbas, Gesta Dei per Francos, sine orientalium expeditionum, et regnifrancorum Hierosolimitani historia, l. I, p. 468). It is odd enough that we should find a parallel passage of the same people in the present age. “Il n’est point d’horreur que ces Turcs n’ayent commis, et semblables aux soldats effrenεés, qui dans le sac d’une ville, non contens de disposer de tout à leur gré pretendent encore aux succès les moins désirables. Quelque Sipahis ont porté leurs attentats sur la personne du vieux rabbi de la synagogue, et celle de l’Archévêque Grec” (Mémoires du Baron de Tott, tom. II, p. 193). ↩
The emperor, or abbot, describes the scenes of a Turkish camp as if they had been present. Matres correptae in conspectu filiarum multipliciter repetitis diversorum coitibus vexabantur (is that the true reading?), cum filiae assistentes carmina praecinere saltando cogerentur. Mox eadem passio ad filias, etc. ↩
See Antioch, and the death of Soliman, in Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. VI, pp. 168, 169), with the notes of du Cange. ↩
William of Tyre (l. I c. 9, 10, p. 635) gives the most authentic and deplorable account of these Turkish conquests. ↩
In his epistle to the count of Flanders, Alexius seems to fall too low beneath his character and dignity; yet it is approved by du Cange (Note ad Alexias, p. 335, etc.), and paraphrased by the Abbot Guibert, a contemporary historian. The Greek text no longer exists; and each translator and scribe might say with Guibert (p. 475), verbis vestita meis, a privilege of most indefinite latitude. ↩
Our best fund for the history of Jerusalem from Heraclius to the crusades is contained in two large and original passages of William, archbishop of Tyre (l. I c. 1⁠–⁠10, l. XVIII c. 5, 6), the principal author of the Gesta Dei per Francos. M. de Guignes has composed a very learned “Mémoire sur le Commerce des François dans le Levant avant les Croisades,” etc. (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXXVII, pp. 467⁠–⁠500.) ↩
Secundum Dominorum dispositionem plerumque lucida plerumque nubila recepit intervalla, et aegrotantium more temporum praesentium gravabatur aut respirabat qualitate (l. I c. 3, p. 630). The Latinity of William of Tyre is by no means contemptible; but in his account of 490 years, from the loss to the recovery of Jerusalem, he exceeds the true account by thirty years. ↩
For the transactions of Charlemagne with the Holy Land, see Eginhard (Vita Karoli Magni, c. 16, pp. 79⁠–⁠82), Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De administrando imperio, l. II c. 26, p. 80), and Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. III. AD 800, No. 13⁠–⁠15). ↩
The caliph granted his privileges, Amalphitanis viris amicis et utilium introductoribus (Gesta Dei per Francos, p. 934). The trade of Venice to Egypt and Palestine cannot produce so old a title, unless we adopt the laughable translation of a Frenchman who mistook the two factions of the circus (Veneti et Prasini) for the Venetians and Parisians. ↩
An Arabic chronicle of Jerusalem (apud Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. I, p. 628, tom. IV, p. 368) attests the unbelief of the caliph and the historian; yet Cantacuzene presumes to appeal to the Muhammadans themselves for the truth of this perpetual miracle. ↩
In his Dissertations on Ecclesiastical History, the learned Mosheim has separately discussed this pretended miracle (tom. II, pp. 214⁠–⁠306), de lumine sancti sepulchri. ↩
William of Malmesbury (l. IV c. 2, p. 209) quotes the Itinerary of the monk Bernard, an eyewitness, who visited Jerusalem AD 870. The miracle is confirmed by another pilgrim some years older; and Mosheim ascribes the invention to the Franks soon after the decease of Charlemagne. ↩
Our travellers, Sandys (p. 134), Thévenot (pp. 621⁠–⁠627), Maundrell (pp. 94, 95), etc., describe this extravagant farce. The Catholics are puzzled to decide when the miracle ended and the trick began. ↩
The Orientals themselves confess the fraud, and plead necessity and edification (Mémoires du chevalier d’Arvieux, tom. II, p. 140; Joseph Abudacni, Historia Jacobitarum seu Coptorum, c. 20); but I will not attempt, with Mosheim, to explain the mode. Our travellers have failed with the blood of St. Januarius at Naples. ↩
See d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 411), Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 390, 397, 400, 401), Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 321⁠–⁠323), and Marei (pp. 384⁠–⁠386), an historian of Egypt, translated by Reiske from Arabic into German, and verbally interpreted to me by a friend. ↩
The religion of the Druses is concealed by their ignorance and hypocrisy. Their secret doctrines are confined to the elect who profess a contemplative life; and the vulgar Druses, the most indifferent of men, occasionally conform to the worship of the Muhammadans and Christians of their neighborhood. The little that is, or deserves to be, known may be seen in the industrious Niebuhr (Voyage en Arabie, tom. II, pp. 354⁠–⁠357), and the second volume of the recent and instructive Travels of M. de Volney.9270 ↩
See Glaber, l. III c. 7, and the Annals of Baronius and Pagi, AD 1009. ↩
Per idem tempus ex universo orbe tam innumerabilis multitudo coepit confluere ad sepulchrum Salvatoris Hierosolymis, quantum nullus hominum prius sperare poterat. Ordo inferioris plebis⁠ ⁠… mediocres⁠ ⁠… reges et comites⁠ ⁠… praesules⁠ ⁠… mulieres multae nobilis cum pauperioribus⁠ ⁠… Pluribus enim erat mentis desiderium mori priusquam ad propria reverterentur (Glaber, l. IV c. 6; Bouquet, Historians of France, tom. X, p. 50).9271 ↩
Glaber, l. III c. 1. Katona (Historia regum Hungariae, tom. I, pp. 304⁠–⁠311) examines whether St. Stephen founded a monastery at Jerusalem. ↩
Baronius (AD 1064, No. 43⁠–⁠56) has transcribed the greater part of the original narratives of Ingulphus, Marianus, and Lambertus. ↩
See Elmacin (Historia saracenica, pp. 349, 350) and Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 237, vers. Pococke). M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. III part I, pp. 215, 216) adds the testimonies, or rather the names, of Abulfeda and al-Nuwayri. ↩
From the expedition of Isar Atsiz (AH 469, AD 1076), to the expulsion of the Ortokides (AD 1096). Yet William of Tyre (l. I c. 6, p. 633) asserts that Jerusalem was thirty-eight years in the hands of the Turks; and an Arabic chronicle, quoted by Pagi (tom. IV, p. 202) supposes that the city was reduced by a Carizmian general to the obedience of the caliph of Baghdad, AH 463, AD 1070. These early dates are not very compatible with the general history of Asia; and I am sure that, as late as AD 1064, the regnum Babylonicum (of Cairo) still prevailed in Palestine (Baronius, “AD 1064,” No. 56). ↩
De Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. I, pp. 249⁠–⁠252. ↩
Willelmus Tyrensis, l. I c. 8, p. 634, who strives hard to magnify the Christian grievances. The Turks exacted an aureus from each pilgrim! The caphar of the Franks now is fourteen dollars: and Europe does not complain of this voluntary tax. ↩
Whimsical enough is the origin of the name of Picards, and from thence of Picardie, which does not date later than AD 1200. It was an academical joke, an epithet first applied to the quarrelsome humor of those students, in the University of Paris, who came from the frontier of France and Flanders (Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, p. 447; Longuerue, Description de la France, p. 54). ↩
William of Tyre (l. I c. 11, pp. 637, 638) thus describes the hermit: Pusillus, persona contemptibilis, vivacis ingenii, et oculum habeas perspicacem gratumque, et sponte fluens ei non deerat eloquium. See Albert Aquensis, p. 185. Guibert, p. 482. Anna Comnena in Alexias, l. X, p. 284, etc., with du Cange’s Notes, p. 349. ↩
There are differences on this point, and some authors say that his origin was obscure. Joseph François Michaud, Histoire des croisades, vol. I, p. 89, fourth edition. —⁠S. ↩
Wilken considers this as doubtful (vol. I, p. 47). —⁠M. ↩
He had seen the Savior in a vision: a letter had fallen from heaven. Wilken (vol. I, p. 49). —⁠M. ↩
Ultra quinquaginta millia, si me possunt in expeditione pro duce et pontifice habere, armata manû volunt in inimicos Dei insurgere et ad sepulchrum Domini ipso ducente pervenire (Gregorius VII, “Epistola II” 31, in tom. XII, p. 322, concil.). ↩
See the original lives of Urban II by Pandulphus Pisanus and Bernardus Guido, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, pp. 352, 353. ↩
She is known by the different names of Praxes, Eupraecia, Eufrasia, and Adelais; and was the daughter of a Russian prince, and the widow of a Margrave of Brandenburgh. Struvius, Corpus historiae Germanicae, p. 340. ↩
Henricus odio eam coepit habere: ideo incarceravit eam, et concessit ut plerique vim ei inferrent; immo filium hortans ut eam subagitaret (Dodechin, Continuation Marianus Scotus [i.e. the Annales S. Disibodi falsely ascribed to a certain Abbot Dodechin and erroneously supposed to be a continuation of the Chronicle of Marianus Scotus. —⁠B.] apud Baronius, “AD 1093,” No. 4). In the synod of Constance, she is described by Bertholdus, rerum inspector: quae se tantas et tam inauditas fornicationum spurcitias, et a tantis passam fuisse conquesta est, etc.; and again at Placentia: satis misericorditer suscepit, eo quòd ipsam tantas spurcitias non tam commisisse quam invitam pertulisse pro certo cognoverit papa cum sanctâ synodo. Apud Baronius, “AD 1093,” No. 4, “1094,” No. 3. A rare subject for the infallible decision of a pope and council. These abominations are repugnant to every principle of human nature, which is not altered by a dispute about rings and crosiers. Yet it should seem that the wretched woman was tempted by the priests to relate or subscribe some infamous stories of herself and her husband. ↩
See the narrative and acts of the synod of Placentia, Sacrosancta concilia, tom. XII, p. 821, etc. ↩
Guibert, himself a Frenchman, praises the piety and valor of the French nation, the author and example of the crusades: Gens nobilis, prudens, bellicosa, dapsilis et nitida.⁠ ⁠… Quos enim Britones, Anglos, Ligures, si bonis eos moribus videamus, non illico Francos homines appellemus? (p. 478). He owns, however, that the vivacity of the French degenerates into petulance among foreigners (p. 488), and vain loquaciousness (p. 502). ↩
Per viam quam jamdudum Carolus Magnus mirificus rex Francorum aptari fecit usque Constantinopolim (Gesta Francorum, p. 1; Robertus Monachus, Historia Hierosolymitana, l. I, p. 33, etc.). ↩
John Tilpinus, or Turpinus, was archbishop of Rheims, AD 773. After the year 1000, this romance was composed in his name, by a monk of the borders of France and Spain; and such was the idea of ecclesiastical merit that he describes himself as a fighting and drinking priest! Yet the book of lies was pronounced authentic by Pope Calixtus II (AD 1122), and is respectfully quoted by the abbot Suger, in the great Chronicles of St. Denys (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, edit. Mansi, tom. IV, p. 161). ↩
See État de la France, by the Count de Boulainvilliers, tom. I, pp. 180⁠–⁠182, and the second volume of the Observations sur l’histoire de France, by the Abbé de Mably. ↩
In the provinces to the south of the Loire, the first Capetians were scarcely allowed a feudal supremacy. On all sides, Normandy, Bretagne, Aquitain, Burgundy, Lorraine, and Flanders contracted the name and limits of the proper France. See Valesius, Notitia Galliarum. ↩
These counts, a younger branch of the dukes of Aquitain, were at length despoiled of the greatest part of their country by Philip Augustus. The bishops of Clermont gradually became princes of the city. Mélanges tirés d’une grande bibliothèque, tom. XXXVI, p. 288, etc. ↩
See the Acts of the council of Clermont, Sacrosancta concilia, tom. XII, p. 829, etc. ↩
Confluxerunt ad concilium e multis regionibus, viri potentes et honorati, innumeri quamvis cingulo laicalis militiae superbi (Baldric, an eyewitness, pp. 86⁠–⁠88; Robertus Monachus, pp. 31, 32; Willelmus Tyrensis I 14, 15, pp. 639⁠–⁠641; Guibert, pp. 478⁠–⁠480; Fulcherius Carnotensis, p. 382). ↩
The Truce of God (Treva, or Treuga Dei) was first invented in Aquitain, AD 1032; blamed by some bishops as an occasion of perjury, and rejected by the Normans as contrary to their privileges (du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. VI, pp. 682⁠–⁠685.) ↩
Deus vult, Deus vult! was the pure acclamation of the clergy who understood Latin (Robertus Monachus, l. I, p. 32). By the illiterate laity, who spoke the Provincial or Limousin idiom, it was corrupted to Deus lo volt, or Diex el volt. See Chronicon Monasterii Casinensis, l. IV c. 11, p. 497, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. IV, and du Cange (Dissertatio XI, p. 207, Dissertations sur Joinville, and Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. II, p. 690), who, in his preface, produces a very difficult specimen of the dialect of Rovergue, AD 1100, very near, both in time and place, to the council of Clermont (pp. 15, 16). ↩
Most commonly on their shoulders, in gold, or silk, or cloth sewed on their garments. In the first crusade, all were red, in the third, the French alone preserved that color, while green crosses were adopted by the Flemings, and white by the English (du Cange, tom. II, p. 651). Yet in England, the red ever appears the favorite, and as it were, the national, color of our military ensigns and uniforms. ↩
Bongarsius, who has published the original writers of the crusades, adopts, with much complacency, the fanatic title of Guibertus, Gesta Dei per Francos; though some critics propose to read Gesta Diaboli per Francos (Hanoviae, 1611, two vols. in folio). I shall briefly enumerate, as they stand in this collection, the authors whom I have used for the first crusade.

I. Gesta Francorum.

II. Robertus Monachus.

III. Baldricus.

IV. Raimundus de Agiles.

V. Albertus Aquensis.

VI. Fulcherius Carnotensis.

VII. Guibertus.

VIII. Willelmus Tyriensis.

Muratori has given us,

IX. Radulphus Cadomensis, Gesta Tancredi in expoditione Hierosolymitana (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, pp. 285⁠–⁠333), and,

X. Bernardus Thesaurarius, De acquisitione Terrae Sanctae (tom. VII, pp. 664⁠–⁠848).9272

The last of these was unknown to a late French historian, who has given a large and critical list of the writers of the crusades (L’Esprit des croisades, tom. I, pp. 13⁠–⁠141), and most of whose judgments my own experience will allow me to ratify. It was late before I could obtain a sight of the French historians collected by Duchesne.

I. Petri Tudebodi Sacerdotis Sivracensis, Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere (tom. IV, pp. 773⁠–⁠815), has been transfused into the first anonymous writer of Bongarsius.

II. The metrical history of the first Crusade, in VII books (tom. IV, pp. 890⁠–⁠912), is of small value or account. ↩
If the reader will turn to the first scene of the First Part of Henry IV, he will see in the text of Shakespeare the natural feelings of enthusiasm; and in the notes of Dr. Johnson the workings of a bigoted, though vigorous mind, greedy of every pretence to hate and persecute those who dissent from his creed. ↩
The manner in which the war was conducted surely has little relation to the abstract question of the justice or injustice of the war. The most just and necessary war may be conducted with the most prodigal waste of human life, and the wildest fanaticism; the most unjust with the coolest moderation and consummate generalship. The question is, whether the liberties and religion of Europe were in danger from the aggressions of Muhammadanism? If so, it is difficult to limit the right, though it may be proper to question the wisdom, of overwhelming the enemy with the armed population of a whole continent, and repelling, if possible, the invading conqueror into his native deserts. The crusades are monuments of human folly! but to which of the more regular wars of civilized Europe, waged for personal ambition or national jealousy, will our calmer reason appeal as monuments either of human justice or human wisdom? —⁠M. ↩
“God,” says the abbot Guibert, “invented the crusades as a new way for the laity to atone for their sins and to merit salvation.” This extraordinary and characteristic passage must be given entire. “Deus nostro tempore praelia sancta instituit, ut ordo equestris et vulgus oberrans qui vetustae Paganitatis exemplo in mutuas versabatur caedes, novum reperirent salutis promerendae genus, ut nec funditus electâ, ut fieri assolet, monasticâ conversatione, seu religiosâ qualibet professione saeculum relinquere congerentur; sed sub consuetâ licentiâ et habitu ex suo ipsorum officio Dei aliquantenus gratiam consequerentur.” Guibert Abbas, p. 371. See Wilken, vol. I, p. 63. —⁠M. ↩
The sixth Discourse of Fleury on Ecclesiastical History (pp. 223⁠–⁠261) contains an accurate and rational view of the causes and effects of the crusades. ↩
The penance, indulgences, etc., of the Middle Ages are amply discussed by Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. V, dissertatio LXVIII, pp. 709⁠–⁠768), and by M. Chais (Lettres sur les jubilés et les indulgences, tom. II lettres 21 & 22, pp. 478⁠–⁠556), with this difference, that the abuses of superstition are mildly, perhaps faintly, exposed by the learned Italian, and peevishly magnified by the Dutch minister. ↩
Schmidt (Histoire des Allemands, tom. II, pp. 211⁠–⁠220, 452⁠–⁠462) gives an abstract of the Penitential of Rhegino in the ninth, and of Burchard in the tenth, century. In one year, five and thirty murders were perpetrated at Worms. ↩
Till the twelth century, we may support the clear account of XII denarii, or pence, to the solidus, or shilling; and XX solidi to the pound weight of silver, about the pound sterling. Our money is diminished to a third, and the French to a fiftieth, of this primitive standard. ↩
Each century of lashes was sanctified with a recital of a psalm, and the whole Psalter, with the accompaniment of 15,000 stripes, was equivalent to five years. ↩
The Life and Achievements of St. Dominic Loricatus was composed by his friend and admirer, Peter Damianus. See Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XIII, pp. 96⁠–⁠104. Baronius, “AD 1056,” No. 7, who observes, from Damianus, how fashionable, even among ladies of quality (sublimis generis), this expiation (purgatorii genus) was grown. ↩
At a quarter, or even half a rial a lash, Sancho Panza was a cheaper, and possibly not a more dishonest, workman. I remember in Père Labat (Voyages en Espagne et en Italie, tom. VII, pp. 16⁠–⁠29) a very lively picture of the dexterity of one of these artists. ↩
Quicunque pro solâ devotione, non pro honoris vel pecuniae adoptione, ad liberandam ecclesiam Dei Jerusalem profectus fuerit, iter illud pro omni poenitentiâ reputetur. Canones Concilii Claromontensis II, p. 829. Guibert styles it novum salutis genus (p. 471), and is almost philosophical on the subject.9273 ↩
Such at least was the belief of the crusaders, and such is the uniform style of the historians (L’Esprit des croisades, tom. III, p. 477); but the prayer for the repose of their souls is inconsistent in orthodox theology with the merits of martyrdom. ↩
The same hopes were displayed in the letters of the adventurers, ad animandos qui in Franciâ residerant. Hugh de Reiteste could boast that his share amounted to one abbey and ten castles, of the yearly value of 1,500 marks, and that he should acquire a hundred castles by the conquest of Aleppo (Guibert, pp. 554, 555). ↩
In his genuine or fictitious letter to the Count of Flanders, Alexius mingles with the danger of the church, and the relics of saints, the auri et argenti amor, and pulcherrimarum foeminarum voluptas (p. 476); as if, says the indignant Guibert, the Greek women were handsomer than those of France. ↩
See the privileges of the Crucesignati, freedom from debt, usury, injury, secular justice, etc. The pope was their perpetual guardian (du Cange, tom. II, pp. 651, 652). ↩
Guibert (p. 481) paints in lively colors this general emotion. He was one of the few contemporaries who had genius enough to feel the astonishing scenes that were passing before their eyes. Erat itaque videre miraculum, caro omnes emere, atque vili vendere, etc. ↩
Some instances of these stigmata are given in the L’Esprit des croisades (tom. III, p. 169, etc.), from authors whom I have not seen. ↩
Fuit et aliud scelus detestabile in hâc congregatione pedestris populi stulti et vesanae levitatis, anserem quendam divino spiritû asserebant afflatum, et capellam non minus eodem repletam, et has sibi duces secundae viae fecerant, etc. (Albertus Aquensis, l. I c. 31, p. 196). Had these peasants founded an empire, they might have introduced, as in Egypt, the worship of animals, which their philosophic descendants would have glossed over with some specious and subtle allegory.9274 ↩
Benjamin of Tudela describes the state of his Jewish brethren from Cologne along the Rhine: they were rich, generous, learned, hospitable, and lived in the eager hope of the Messiah (Voyages de Rabbi Benjamin, tom. I, pp. 243⁠–⁠245, par Baratier). In seventy years (he wrote about AD 1170) they had recovered from these massacres. ↩
These massacres and depredations on the Jews, which were renewed at each crusade, are coolly related. It is true that St. Bernard (“Epistola 363,” tom. I, p. 329) admonishes the Oriental Franks, non sunt persequendi Judaei, non sunt trucidandi. The contrary doctrine had been preached by a rival monk.9275 ↩
The bishops of Worms, Trèves, Mentz, and Spires opened their palaces as asylums for the Jews of their dioceses. The term “their bishops,” as applied to the Jews, might be misunderstood. —⁠S. ↩
See the contemporary description of Hungary in Otto of Freising, l. II c. 31, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VI, p. 665, 666. ↩
The narrative of the first march is very incorrect. The first party moved under Walter de Pexego and Walter the Penniless: they passed safe through Hungary, the kingdom of Kalmeny, and were attacked in Bulgaria. Peter followed with 40,000 men; passed through Hungary; but seeing the clothes of sixteen crusaders who had been impaled on the walls of Semlin, he attacked and stormed the city. He then marched to Nissa, where, at first, he was hospitably received; but an accidental quarrel taking place, he suffered a great defeat. Wilken, vol. I, pp. 84⁠–⁠86. —⁠M. ↩
The old Hungarians, without excepting Turotzius, are ill-informed of the first crusade, which they involve in a single passage. Katona, like ourselves, can only quote the writers of France; but he compares with local science the ancient and modern geography. Ante portam Cyperon, is Sopron or Poson; Mallevilla, Zemlin; Fluvius Maroe, Savus; Lintax, Leith; Mesebroch, or Merseburg, Ouar, or Moson; Tollenburg, Prague (Historia regum Hungariae, tom. III, pp. 19⁠–⁠53). ↩
Soliman had been killed in 1085, in a battle against Toutouch, brother of Malek Schah, between Appelo and Antioch. It was not Soliman, therefore, but his son David, surnamed Kilidje Arslan, the “Sword of the Lion,” who reigned in Nice. Almost all the occidental authors have fallen into this mistake, which was detected by M. Michaud, Histoire des croisades fourth edit. and Extraits des historiens arabes relatifs aux guerres des croisades, par M. Reinaud, Paris, 1829, p. 3. His kingdom extended from the Orontes to the Euphrates, and as far as the Bosphorus. Kilidje Arslan must uniformly be substituted for Soliman. Marie-Félicité Brosset, note on Le Beau, tom. XV, p. 311. —⁠M. ↩
Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. X, p. 287) describes this ὀστῶν κολωνός as a mountain, ὑψηλὸν καὶ βάθος καὶ πλάτος ἀξιολογώτατον. In the siege of Nice, such were used by the Franks themselves as the materials of a wall. ↩

To save time and space, I shall represent, in a short table, the particular references to the great events of the first crusade.

Author	The Crowd	The Chiefs	The Road to Constantinople	Alexius	Nice and Asia Minor	Edessa	Antioch	The Battle	The Holy Lance	Conquest of Jerusalem
I. Gesta Francorum	p. 1, 2	p. 2	p. 2, 3	p. 4, 5	p. 5⁠–⁠7		p. 9⁠–⁠15	p. 15⁠–⁠22	p. 18⁠–⁠20	p. 26⁠–⁠29
II. Robertus Monachus	p. 33, 34	p. 35, 36	p. 36, 37	p. 37, 38	p. 39⁠–⁠45		p. 45⁠–⁠55	p. 56⁠–⁠66	p. 61, 62	p. 74⁠–⁠81
III. Baldricus	p. 89		p. 91⁠–⁠93	p. 91⁠–⁠94	p. 94⁠–⁠101		p. 101, 111	p. 111⁠–⁠122	p. 116⁠–⁠119	p. 130⁠–⁠138
IV. Raimundus des Agiles			p. 139, 140	p. 140, 141	p. 142		p. 142⁠–⁠149	p. 149⁠–⁠155	p. 150, 152, 156	p. 173⁠–⁠183
V. Albertus Aquensis	l. I c. 7⁠–⁠31		l. II c. 1⁠–⁠8	l. II c. 9⁠–⁠19	l. II c. 20⁠–⁠43 l. III c. 1⁠–⁠4	l. III c. 5⁠–⁠32 l. IV 9, 12 l. V 15⁠–⁠22	l. III c. 33⁠–⁠66 l. IV 1⁠–⁠26	l. IV c. 7⁠–⁠56	l. IV c. 43	l. V c. 45, 46 l. VI c. 1⁠–⁠50
VI. Fulcherius Carnotensis	p. 384		p. 385, 386	p. 386	p. 387, 389	p. 389, 390	p. 390⁠–⁠392	p. 392⁠–⁠395	p. 392	p. 396⁠–⁠400
VII. Guibertus	p. 482, 485		p. 485, 489	p. 485⁠–⁠490	p. 491⁠–⁠493, 498	p. 496, 497	p. 498, 506, 512	p. 512⁠–⁠523	p. 520, 530, 533	p. 523⁠–⁠537
VIII. Willelmus Tyrensis	l. I c. 18⁠–⁠30	l. I c. 17	l. II c. 1⁠–⁠4, 13, 17, 22	l. II c. 5⁠–⁠23	l. III c. 1⁠–⁠12 l. IV c. 13⁠–⁠25	l. IV c. 1⁠–⁠6	l. IV 9⁠–⁠24 l. V 1⁠–⁠23	l. VI c. 1⁠–⁠23	l. VI c. 14	l. VII c. 1⁠–⁠25 l. VIII c. 1⁠–⁠24
IX. Radulphus Cadomensis		c. 1⁠–⁠3, 10	c. 4⁠–⁠7, 17	c. 8⁠–⁠13, 18, 19	c. 14⁠–⁠16, 21⁠–⁠47		c. 48⁠–⁠71	c. 72⁠–⁠91	c. 100⁠–⁠109	c. 111⁠–⁠138
X. Bernardus Thesaurarius	c. 7⁠–⁠11		c. 11⁠–⁠20	c. 11⁠–⁠20	c. 21⁠–⁠25	c. 26	c. 27⁠–⁠38	c. 39⁠–⁠52	c. 45	c. 54⁠–⁠77

↩

The author of the L’Esprit des croisades has doubted, and might have disbelieved, the crusade and tragic death of Prince Sueno, with 1,500 or 15,000 Danes, who was cut off by Sultan Soliman in Cappadocia, but who still lives in the poem of Tasso (tom. IV, pp. 111⁠–⁠115). ↩
The fragments of the kingdoms of Lotharingia, or Lorraine, were broken into the two duchies of the Moselle and of the Meuse: the first has preserved its name, which in the latter has been changed into that of Brabant (Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, pp. 283⁠–⁠288). ↩
See, in the Description de la France, by the Abbé de Longuerue, the articles of Boulogne, part I, p. 54; Brabant, part II, pp. 47, 48; Bouillon, p. 134. On his departure, Godfrey sold or pawned Bouillon to the church for 1,300 marks.9276 ↩
See the family character of Godfrey in William of Tyre, l. IX c. 5⁠–⁠8; his previous design in Guibert (p. 485); his sickness and vow in Bernardus Thesaurarius (c. 78). ↩
Anna Comnena supposes that Hugh was proud of his nobility, riches, and power (l. X, p. 288); the two last articles appear more equivocal; but an εὐγένεια, which seven hundred years ago was famous in the palace of Constantinople, attests the ancient dignity of the Capetian family of France. ↩
Some authors say that he was called great on account of the height of his stature. Michaud, vol. I, p. 173; Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, vol. II, p. 122. —⁠S. ↩
William Gemeticensis, l. VII c. 7, pp. 672, 673, in Camden, De ducibus Normannis. He pawned the duchy for one hundredth part of the present yearly revenue. Ten thousand marks may be equal to five hundred thousand livres, and Normandy annually yields fifty-seven millions to the king (Necker, Administration des Finances, tom. I, p. 287). ↩
His original letter to his wife is inserted in the Spicilegium of Dom. Luc d’Acheri, tom. IV and quoted in the L’Esprit des croisades, tom. I, p. 63. ↩
Unius enim duum, trium seu quatuor oppidorum dominos quis numeret? quorum tanta fuit copia, ut non vix totidem Trojana obsidio coegisse putetur. (Ever the lively and interesting Guibert, p. 486.) ↩
It is singular enough that Raymond of St. Giles, a second character in the genuine history of the crusades, should shine as the first of heroes in the writings of the Greeks (Anna Comnena, Alexias, l. X, XI) and the Arabians (Longueruana, p. 129).9277 ↩
Omnes de Burgundiâ, et Alverniâ, et Vasconiâ, et Gothi (of Languedoc), provinciales appellabantur, caeteri vero Francigenae et hoc in exercitu; inter hostes autem Franci dicebantur. Raymond des Agiles, p. 144. ↩
The town of his birth, or first appanage, was consecrated to St. Aegidius, whose name, as early as the first crusade, was corrupted by the French into St. Gilles, or St. Giles. It is situate in the Lower Languedoc, between Nismes and the Rhône, and still boasts a collegiate church of the foundation of Raymond (Mélanges tirés d’une grande bibliothèque, tom. XXXVII, p. 51). ↩
The mother of Tancred was Emma, sister of the great Robert Guiscard; his father, the Marquis Odo the Good. It is singular enough that the family and country of so illustrious a person should be unknown; but Muratori reasonably conjectures that he was an Italian, and perhaps of the race of the marquises of Montferrat in Piedmont (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. V, pp. 281, 282). ↩
To gratify the childish vanity of the house of Este, Tasso has inserted in his poem, and in the first crusade, a fabulous hero, the brave and amorous Rinaldo (X 75, XVII 66⁠–⁠94). He might borrow his name from a Rinaldo, with the Aquila bianca Estense, who vanquished, as the standard-bearer of the Roman church, the emperor Frederic I (Istoria imperiale di Ricobaldo Ferrarese, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. IX, p. 360; Ariosto, Orlando Furioso III 30). But, 1. The distance of sixty years between the youth of the two Rinaldos destroys their identity. 2. The Storia imperiale is a forgery of the Conte Boyardo, at the end of the fifteenth century (Muratori, pp. 281⁠–⁠289). 3. This Rinaldo and his exploits are not less chimerical than the hero of Tasso (Muratori, Antichità estensi, tom. I, p. 350). ↩
Of the words gentilis, gentilhomme, gentleman, two etymologies are produced: 1. From the Barbarians of the fifth century, the soldiers, and at length the conquerors, of the Roman empire, who were vain of their foreign nobility; and 2. From the sense of the civilians, who consider gentilis as synonymous with ingenuus. Selden inclines to the first but the latter is more pure, as well as probable. ↩
Framea scutoque juvenem ornant. Tacitus, Germania, c. 13. ↩
The athletic exercises, particularly the caestus and pancratium, were condemned by Lycurgus, Philopoemen, and Galen, a lawgiver, a general, and a physician. Against their authority and reasons, the reader may weigh the apology of Lucian, in the character of Solon. See West on the Olympic Games, in his Odes of Pindar, vol. II, pp. 86⁠–⁠96, 243⁠–⁠248. ↩
On the curious subjects of knighthood, knights’ service, nobility, arms, cry of war, banners, and tournaments, an ample fund of information may be sought in Selden (Opera omnia, tom. III part I; Titles of Honor, part II c. 1, 3, 5, 8), du Cange (Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. IV, pp. 398⁠–⁠412, etc.), Dissertations sur Joinville (I, pp. 127⁠–⁠142, VI⁠–⁠XII, pp. 165⁠–⁠222), and M. de Sainte-Palaye (Mémoires sur l’ancienne chevalerie). ↩
Carloman (or Calmany) demanded the brother of Godfrey as hostage but Count Baldwin refused the humiliating submission. Godfrey shamed him into this sacrifice for the common good by offering to surrender himself. Wilken, vol. I, p. 104. —⁠M. ↩
The Familiae Dalmaticae of du Cange are meagre and imperfect; the national historians are recent and fabulous, the Greeks remote and careless. In the year 1104, Coloman reduced the maritime country as far as Trau and Salona (Katona, Historia regum Hungariae, tom. III, pp. 195⁠–⁠207). ↩
Scodras appears in Livy as the capital and fortress of Gentius, king of the Illyrians, arx munitissima, afterwards a Roman colony (Cellarius, tom. I, pp. 393, 394). It is now called Iscodar, or Scutari (d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 164). The sanjiak (now a pasha) of Scutari, or Schendeire, was the eighth under the Beglerbeg of Romania, and furnished 600 soldiers on a revenue of 78,787 rix-dollars (Marsigli, Stato militare dell’ imperio Ottomano, p. 128). ↩
In Pelagoniâ castrum haereticum⁠ ⁠… spoliatum cum suis habitatoribus igne combussere. Nec id eis injuriâ contigit: quia illorum detestabilis sermo et cancer serpebat, jamque circumjacentes regiones suo pravo dogmate foedaverat (Robertus Monachus, pp. 36, 37). After cooly relating the fact, the Archbishop Baldric adds, as a praise, Omnes siquidem illi viatores, Judeos, haereticos, Saracenos aequaliter habent exosos; quos omnes appellant inimicos Dei (p. 92). ↩
Ἀναλαβόμενος ἀπὸ Ῥώμης τὴν χρυσῆν τοῦ Ἁγίου Πέτρου σημαίαν (Alexias, l. X, p. 288). ↩
Ὁ βασιλεὐς τῶν βασιλέων, καὶ ἀρχηγὸς τοῦ φραγγικοῦ στρατεύματος ἅπαντος.9278 This Oriental pomp is extravagant in a count of Vermandois; but the patriot du Cange repeats with much complacency (Note ad Alexias, pp. 352, 353; Dissertatio XXVII Dissertations sur Joinville, p. 315) the passages of Matthew Paris (AD 1254) and Froissard (vol. IV, p. 201), which style the king of France rex regum, and chef de tous les rois Chrétiens. ↩
Hugh was taken at Durazzo, and sent by land to Constantinople. Wilken. —⁠M. ↩
Anna Comnena was born the 1st of December, AD 1083, indiction VII (Alexias, l. VI, pp. 166, 167). At thirteen, the time of the first crusade, she was nubile, and perhaps married to the younger Nicephorus Bryennius, whom she fondly styles τὸν ἐμὸν Καίσαρα (l. X, pp. 295, 296). Some moderns have imagined that her enmity to Bohemond was the fruit of disappointed love. In the transactions of Constantinople and Nice, her partial accounts (Alexias, l. X, XI, pp. 283⁠–⁠317) may be opposed to the partiality of the Latins; but in their subsequent exploits she is brief and ignorant. ↩
In their views of the character and conduct of Alexius, Maimbourg has favored the Catholic Franks, and Voltaire has been partial to the schismatic Greeks. The prejudice of a philosopher is less excusable than that of a Jesuit. ↩
Wilken quotes a remarkable passage of William of Malmesbury as to the secret motives of Urban and of Bohemond in urging the crusade. Illud repositius propositum non ita vulgabatur, quod Boemundi consilio, pene totam Europam in Asiaticam expeditionem moveret, ut in tanto tumultu omnium provinciarum facile obaeratis auxiliaribus, et Urbanus Romam et Boemundus Illyricum et Macedoniam pervaderent. Nam eas terras et quidquid praeterea a Dyrrachio usque ad Thessalonicam protenditur, Guiscardus pater, super Alexium acquisierat; ideirco illas Boemundus suo juri competere clamitabat: inops haereditatis Apuliae, quam genitor Rogerio, minori filio delegaverat. Wilken, vol. II, p. 313. —⁠M. ↩
Between the Black Sea, the Bosphorus, and the river Barbyses, which is deep in summer, and runs fifteen miles through a flat meadow. Its communication with Europe and Constantinople is by the stone bridge of the Blachernoe, which in successive ages was restored by Justinian and Basil (Gyllius, De Bosphoro Thracio, l. II c. 3; du Cange, Constantinopolis Christiana, l. IV c. 2, p, 179). ↩
There are two sorts of adoption, the one by arms, the other by introducing the son between the shirt and skin of his father. Du Cange, Dissertations sur Joinville (Dissertatio XXII, p. 270) supposes Godfrey’s adoption to have been of the latter sort. ↩
After his return, Robert of Flanders became the man of the king of England, for a pension of four hundred marks. See the first act in Thomas Rymer’s Foedera. ↩
Sensit vetus regnandi, falsos in amore, odia non fingere. Tacitus VI 44. ↩
The proud historians of the crusades slide and stumble over this humiliating step. Yet, since the heroes knelt to salute the emperor as he sat motionless on his throne, it is clear that they must have kissed either his feet or knees. It is only singular that Anna should not have amply supplied the silence or ambiguity of the Latins. The abasement of their princes would have added a fine chapter to the De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae. ↩
He called himself Φράγγος καθαρὸς τῶν εὐγενῶν (see Alexias, l. X, p. 301). What a title of noblesse of the eleventh century, if anyone could now prove his inheritance! Anna relates, with visible pleasure, that the swelling Barbarian, Λατῖνος τετυφωμένος, was killed, or wounded, after fighting in the front in the battle of Dorylaeum (l. XI, p. 317). This circumstance may justify the suspicion of du Cange (Note, p. 362) that he was no other than Robert of Paris, of the district most peculiarly styled the Duchy or Island of France (L’Isle de France). ↩
With the same penetration, du Cange discovers his church to be that of St. Drausus, or Drosin, of Soissons, quem duello dimicaturi solent invocare: pugiles qui ad memoriam ejus (his tomb) pernoctant invictos reddit, ut et de Burgundiâ et Italiâ tali necessitate confugiatur ad eum. Joannis Sariberiensis, “Epistola 139.” ↩
There is some diversity on the numbers of his army; but no authority can be compared with that of Ptolemy, who states it at five thousand horse and thirty thousand foot (see Usher’s Annales Veteris Testamenti, p. 152). ↩
Fulcherius Carnotensis, p. 387. He enumerates nineteen nations of different names and languages (p. 389); but I do not clearly apprehend his difference between the Franci and Galli, Itali and Apuli. Elsewhere (p. 385) he contemptuously brands the deserters. ↩
Guibert, p. 556. Yet even his gentle opposition implies an immense multitude. By Urban II, in the fervor of his zeal, it is only rated at 300,000 pilgrims (“Epistola XVI,” Sacrosancta concilia, tom. XII, p. 731). ↩
Alexias, l. X, pp. 283, 305. Her fastidious delicacy complains of their strange and inarticulate names; and indeed there is scarcely one that she has not contrived to disfigure with the proud ignorance so dear and familiar to a polished people. I shall select only one example, Sangeles, for the count of St. Giles.9279 ↩
William of Malmesbury (who wrote about the year 1130) has inserted in his history (l. IV, pp. 130⁠–⁠154) a narrative of the first crusade: but I wish that, instead of listening to the tenue murmur which had passed the British ocean (p. 143), he had confined himself to the numbers, families, and adventures of his countrymen. I find in William Dugdale that an English Norman, Stephen, Earl of Albemarle and Holdernesse, led the rearguard with Duke Robert, at the battle of Antioch (The Baronage of England, part I, p. 61). ↩
Videres Scotorum apud se ferocium alias imbellium cuneos (Guibert, p. 471); the crus intectum, and hispida chlamys, may suit the Highlanders; but the finibus uliginosis may rather apply to the Irish bogs. William of Malmesbury expressly mentions the Welsh and Scots, etc. (l. IV, p. 133), who quitted, the former venationem saltuum, the latter familiaritatem pulicum. ↩
This cannibal hunger, sometimes real, more frequently an artifice or a lie, may be found in Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. X, p. 288), Guibert (p. 546), Radulphus Cadomensis (c. 97). The stratagem is related by the author of the Gesta Francorum, the monk Robert Baldric, and Raymond des Agiles, in the siege and famine of Antioch. ↩
His Mussulman appellation of Soliman is used by the Latins, and his character is highly embellished by Tasso. His Turkish name of Kilidge-Arslan (AH 485⁠–⁠500, AD 1192⁠–⁠1206; see de Guignes’s Tables, tom. I, p. 245) is employed by the Orientals, and with some corruption by the Greeks; but little more than his name can be found in the Muhammadan writers, who are dry and sulky on the subject of the first crusade (de Guignes, tom. III partie II, pp. 10⁠–⁠30).9280 ↩
On the fortifications, engines, and sieges of the Middle Ages, see Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. II dissertatio XXVI, pp. 452⁠–⁠524). The belfredus, from whence our belfrey, was the movable tower of the ancients (du Cange, tom. I, p. 608). ↩
I cannot forbear remarking the resemblance between the siege and lake of Nice, with the operations of Hernan Cortez before Mexico. See Dr. Robertson, History of America, l. V. ↩
Anna Comnena calls it δρᾶμα τὴς παραδοσιὰς. —⁠M. ↩
Mécréant, a word invented by the French crusaders, and confined in that language to its primitive sense. It should seem that the zeal of our ancestors boiled higher, and that they branded every unbeliever as a rascal. A similar prejudice still lurks in the minds of many who think themselves Christians. ↩
Baronius has produced a very doubtful letter to his brother Roger (“AD 1098,” No. 15). The enemies consisted of Medes, Persians, Chaldeans; be it so. The first attack was cum nostro incommodo; true and tender. But why Godfrey of Bouillon and Hugh brothers! Tancred is styled filius; of whom? Certainly not of Roger, nor of Bohemond. ↩
Verumtamen dicunt se esse de Francorum generatione; et quia nullus homo naturaliter debet esse miles nisi Franci et Turci (Gesta Francorum, p. 7). The same community of blood and valor is attested by Archbishop Baldric (p. 99). ↩
Balista, Balestra, Arbalestre. See Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. II, pp. 517⁠–⁠524. Du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. I, pp. 531, 532. In the time of Anna Comnena, this weapon, which she describes under the name of tzangra, was unknown in the East (l. X, p. 291). By a humane inconsistency, the pope strove to prohibit it in Christian wars. ↩
The curious reader may compare the classic learning of Cellarius and the geographical science of d’Anville. William of Tyre is the only historian of the crusades who has any knowledge of antiquity; and M. Otter trod almost in the footsteps of the Franks from Constantinople to Antioch (Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, tom. I, pp. 35⁠–⁠88).9281 ↩
This detached conquest of Edessa is best represented by Fulcherius Carnotensis, or of Chartres (in the collections of Bongarsius, Duchesne, and Martène), the valiant chaplain of Count Baldwin (L’Esprit des croisades, tom. I, pp. 13, 14). In the disputes of that prince with Tancred, his partiality is encountered by the partiality of Radulphus Cadomensis, the soldier and historian of the gallant marquis. ↩
The governor was a Greek prince named Thoros, or Theodore, appointed by the Greek emperor, and who maintained his position by paying a tribute to the Turks. Michaud, vol. I, p. 254, from Matthew of Edessa; cf. Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, vol. III, p. 161, and note. Wilken observes that it is quite uncertain whether Baldwin has any share in the murder of the old prince, and that Gibbon has expressed himself too strongly on the subject. Wilkin, vol. I, p. 169, note. —⁠S. ↩
See de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. I, p. 456. ↩
This bridge was over the Ifrin, not the Orontes, at a distance of three leagues from Antioch. See Wilken, vol. I, p. 172. —⁠M. ↩
For Antioch, see Pococke (Description of the East, vol. II part I, pp. 188⁠–⁠193), Otter (Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, tom. I, p. 81, etc.), the Turkish geographer (in Otter’s notes), the “Index Geographicus” of Schultens (ad calcem Bohadino Sjeddadi, Vita et res Gestae Saladini), and Abulfeda (Tabula Syriae, pp. 115, 116, vers. Reiske). ↩
A friend, who has visited Antioch, informs me that the mountains and the river render a greater number of gates needless and impossible. —⁠S. ↩
Ensem elevat, eumque a sinistrâ parte scapularum, tantâ virtute intorsit, ut quod pectus medium disjunxit spinam et vitalia interrupit; et sic lubricus ensis super crus dextrum integer exivit; sicque caput integrum cum dextrâ parte corporis immersit gurgite, partemque quae equo praesidebat remisit civitati (Robertus Monachus, p. 50). Cujus ense trajectus, Turcus duo factus est Turci: ut inferior alter in urbem equitaret, alter arcitenens in flumine nataret (Radulphus Cadomensis, c. 53, p. 304). Yet he justifies the deed by the stupendis viribus of Godfrey; and William of Tyre covers it by obstupuit populus facti novitate⁠ ⁠… mirabilis (l. V c. 6, p. 701). Yet it must not have appeared incredible to the knights of that age. ↩
See the exploits of Robert, Raymond, and the modest Tancred, who imposed silence on his squire (Radulphus Cadomensis, c. 53). ↩
See the interesting extract from Kemaleddin’s History of Aleppo in Wilken, preface to vol. II, p. 36. Phirouz, or Azzerrad, the breastplate maker, had been pillaged and put to the torture by Bagi-Sejan, the prince of Antioch. —⁠M. ↩
After mentioning the distress and humble petition of the Franks, Abulpharagius adds the haughty reply of Codbuka, or Kerboga, “Non evasuri estis nisi per gladium” (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 242). ↩
In describing the host of Kerboga, most of the Latin historians, the author of the Gesta (p. 17), Robertus Monachus (p. 56), Baldric (p. 111), Fulcherius Carnotensis (p. 392), Guibert (p. 512), William of Tyre (l. VI c. 3, p. 714), Bernard Thesaurarius (c. 39, p. 695), are content with the vague expressions of infinita multitudo, immensum agmen, innumerae copiae or gentes, which correspond with the μετὰ ἀναριθμήτων χιλιάδων of Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. XI, pp. 318⁠–⁠320). The numbers of the Turks are fixed by Albert Aquensis at 200,000 (l. IV c. 10, p. 242), and by Radulphus Cadomensis at 400,000 horse (c. 72, p. 309). ↩
See the tragic and scandalous fate of an archdeacon of royal birth, who was slain by the Turks as he reposed in an orchard, playing at dice with a Syrian concubine. ↩
The value of an ox rose from five solidi (fifteen shillings), at Christmas to two marks (four pounds), and afterwards much higher: a kid or lamb, from one shilling to eighteen of our present money: in the second famine, a loaf of bread, or the head of an animal, sold for a piece of gold. More examples might be produced; but it is the ordinary, not the extraordinary, prices that deserve the notice of the philosopher. ↩
Alli multi, quorum nomina non tenemus; quia, deleta de libro vitae, praesenti operi non sunt inserenda (Willelmus Tyrensis, l. VI c. 5, p. 715). Guibert (pp. 518⁠–⁠523) attempts to excuse Hugh the Great, and even Stephen of Chartres. ↩
Peter fell during the siege; he went afterwards on an embassy to Kerboga. Wilken, vol. I, p. 217. —⁠M. ↩
See the progress of the crusade, the retreat of Alexius, the victory of Antioch, and the conquest of Jerusalem, in the Alexias, l. XI, pp. 317⁠–⁠327. Anna was so prone to exaggeration that she magnifies the exploits of the Latins. ↩
The Muhammadan Aboulmahasen (apud de Guignes, tom. II partie II, p. 95) is more correct in his account of the holy lance than the Christians, Anna Comnena and Abulpharagius: the Greek princess confounds it with the nail of the cross (l. XI, p. 326); the Jacobite primate, with St. Peter’s staff (p. 242). ↩
The real cause of this victory appears to have been the feud in Kerboga’s army. Wilken, vol. II, p. 40. —⁠M. ↩
The twelfth day after. He was much injured, and his flesh torn off from the ardor of pious congratulation with which he was assailed by those who witnessed his escape, unhurt, as it was first supposed. Wilken, vol. I, p. 263. —⁠M. ↩
The two antagonists who express the most intimate knowledge and the strongest conviction of the miracle, and of the fraud, are Raymond des Agiles, and Radulphus Cadomensis, the one attached to the count of Toulouse, the other to the Norman prince. Fulcherius Carnotensis presumes to say, Audite fraudem et non fraudem! and afterwards, Invenit lanceam, fallaciter occultatam forsitan. The rest of the herd are loud and strenuous. ↩
See M. de Guignes (tom. II partie II, p. 223), etc.; and the articles of “Barkidrok,” “Mohammed,” “Sangiar,” in d’Herbelot. ↩
The emir, or sultan, Aphdal recovered Jerusalem and Tyre, AH 489 (Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 478; de Guignes, tom. I, p. 249, from Abulfeda and Ben Schounah). Jerusalem ante adventum vestrum recuperavimus, Turcos ejecimus, say the Fatimite ambassadors. ↩
See the transactions between the caliph of Egypt and the crusaders, in William of Tyre (l. IV c. 24, l. VI c. 19) and Albert Aquensis (l. III c. 59), who are more sensible of their importance than the contemporary writers. ↩
This is not quite correct: he took Marra on his road. His excursions were partly to obtain provisions for the army and fodder for the horses. Wilken, vol. I, p. 226. —⁠M. ↩
Scarcely of Bethlehem, to the south of Jerusalem. —⁠M.

The statement about Bethlehem has been questioned, because this place lies south of Jerusalem: but at the prayer of the Christians of Bethlehem, Tancred took possession of that town with one hundred soldiers, before the siege of Jerusalem. Wilken, vol. I, p. 270; Michaud, vol. I, p. 402. —⁠S. ↩
The greatest part of the march of the Franks is traced, and most accurately traced, in Maundrell’s A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem (pp. 11⁠–⁠67): un des meilleurs morceaux, sans contredit qu’on ait dans ce genre (d’Anville, Dissertation sur l’étendue de l’ancienne Jérusalem, p. 27). ↩
See the masterly description of Tacitus (Historiae V 11⁠–⁠13), who supposes that the Jewish lawgivers had provided for a perpetual state of hostility against the rest of mankind.9282 ↩
The lively scepticism of Voltaire is balanced with sense and erudition by the French author of the L’Esprit des croisades (tom. IV, pp. 386⁠–⁠388), who observes that, according to the Arabians, the inhabitants of Jerusalem must have exceeded 200,000; that in the siege of Titus, Josephus collects 1,300,000 Jews; that they are stated by Tacitus himself at 600,000; and that the largest defalcation that his accepimus can justify will still leave them more numerous than the Roman army. ↩
Maundrell, who diligently perambulated the walls, found a circuit of 4,630 paces, or 4,167 English yards (pp. 109, 110); from an authentic plan, d’Anville concludes a measure nearly similar, of 1,960 French toises (pp. 23⁠–⁠29), in his scarce and valuable tract. For the topography of Jerusalem, see Reland (Palaestina, tom. II, pp. 832⁠–⁠860). ↩
Jerusalem was possessed only of the torrent of Kedron, dry in summer, and of the little spring or brook of Siloe (Reland, tom. I, pp. 294, 300). Both strangers and natives complained of the want of water, which, in time of war, was studiously aggravated. Within the city, Tacitus mentions a perennial fountain, an aqueduct, and cisterns for rain water. The aqueduct was conveyed from the rivulet Tekoe or Etham, which is likewise mentioned by Bohadin (in Vita Saludini, p. 238). ↩
La Gerusalemme liberata, canto XIII. It is pleasant enough to observe how Tasso has copied and embellished the minutest details of the siege.9283 ↩
This does not appear by Wilken’s account (p. 294). They fought in vain the whole of the Thursday. —⁠M. ↩
The massacre lasted a week. It was not the result of the unbridled rage of a victorious soldiery, but the deliberate act of a council of the chiefs. Michaud, vol. I, p. 447, 449. —⁠S. ↩
Besides the Latins, who are not ashamed of the massacre, see Elmacin (Historia saracenica, p. 363), Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 243), and M. de Guignes, tom. II partie II, p. 99, from Aboulmahasen. ↩
The old tower Psephina, in the Middle Ages Neblosa, was named Castellum Pisanum, from the patriarch Daimbert. It is still the citadel, the residence of the Turkish aga, and commands a prospect of the Dead Sea, Judea, and Arabia (d’Anville, pp. 19⁠–⁠23). It was likewise called the Tower of David, πύργος παμμεγεθέστατος. ↩
Hume, in his History of England, vol. I, pp. 311, 312, octavo edition. ↩
Voltaire, in his Essai sur l’histoire générale, tom. II c. 54, pp. 345, 346. ↩
The English ascribe to Robert of Normandy, and the Provincials to Raymond of Toulouse, the glory of refusing the crown; but the honest voice of tradition has preserved the memory of the ambition and revenge (Villehardouin, No. 136) of the count of St. Giles. He died at the siege of Tripoli, which was possessed by his descendants. ↩
Raimond appears to have declined all open pretensions to the crown, though he probably cherished a secret wish to obtain it. His renunciation rests on the authority of four writers⁠—Albert Aquensis, Raimund de Agiles, Guibert, and Anna Comnena; and therefore not solely on the assertion of the Provençals. Wilken, vol. I, p. 302; Michaud, vol. I, p. 456. —⁠S. ↩
See the election, the battle of Ascalon, etc., in William of Tyre, l. IX c. 1⁠–⁠12, and in the conclusion of the Latin historians of the first crusade. ↩
20,000 Franks, 300,000 Mussulmen, according to Wilken (vol. II, p. 9). —⁠M. ↩
Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 479. ↩
Arnulf was first chosen, but illegitimately, and degraded. He was ever after the secret enemy of Daimbert or Dagobert. Wilken, vol. I, p. 306, vol. II, p. 52. —⁠M. ↩
See the claims of the patriarch Daimbert, in William of Tyre (l. IX c. 15⁠–⁠18, X 4, 7, 9), who asserts with marvellous candor the independence of the conquerors and kings of Jerusalem. ↩
Willelmus Tyrensis, l. X 19. The Historia Hierosolymitana of Jacobus à Vitriaco (l. I c. 21⁠–⁠50) and the Liber secretorum fidelium crucis of Marinus Sanutus (l. III pars 1) describe the state and conquests of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. ↩
An actual muster, not including the tribes of Levi and Benjamin, gave David an army of 1,300,000 or 1,574,000 fighting men; which, with the addition of women, children, and slaves, may imply a population of thirteen millions, in a country sixty leagues in length, and thirty broad. The honest and rational Leclerc (Commentary on 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21) aestuat angusto in limite, and mutters his suspicion of a false transcript⁠—a dangerous suspicion!9284 ↩
These sieges are related, each in its proper place, in the great history of William of Tyre, from the ninth to the eighteenth book, and more briefly told by Bernardus Thesaurarius (De acquisitione Terrae Sanctae, c. 89⁠–⁠98, pp. 732⁠–⁠740). Some domestic facts are celebrated in the Chronicles of Pisa, Genoa, and Venice, in the sixth, ninth, and twelth tomes of Muratori. ↩
Quidam populus de insulis occidentis egressus, et maxime de eâ parte quae Norvegia dicitur. William of Tyre (l. XI c. 14, p. 804) marks their course per Britannicum Mare et Calpen to the siege of Sidon. ↩
Benelathir, apud de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. II part II, pp. 150, 151, AD 1127. He must speak of the inland country. ↩
Sanut very sensibly descants on the mischiefs of female succession in a land, hostibus circumdata, ubi cuncta virilia et virtuosa esse deberent. Yet, at the summons and with the approbation of her feudal lord, a noble damsel was obliged to choose a husband and champion (Assises et bons usages du royaume de Jérusalem, c. 242, etc.). See in M. de Guignes (tom. I, pp. 441⁠–⁠471) the accurate and useful tables of these dynasties, which are chiefly drawn from the Lignages d’Outremer. ↩
They were called by derision Poullains, Pallani, and their name is never pronounced without contempt (du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. V, p. 535; and Observations sur Joinville, pp. 84, 85; Jacobus à Vitriaco, Historia Hierosolymitana, l. I c. 67, 72; and Sanut, l. III pars VIII c. 2, p. 182). Illustrium virorum, qui ad Terrae Sanctae⁠ ⁠… liberationem in ipsâ manserunt, degeneres filii⁠ ⁠… in deliciis enutriti, molles et effoeminati, etc. ↩
This authentic detail is extracted from the Assises de Jérusalem (c. 324, 326⁠–⁠331). Sanut (l. III pars VIII c. 1, p. 174) reckons only 518 knights, and 5,775 followers. ↩
The sum total, and the division, ascertain the service of the three great baronies at 100 knights each; and the text of the Assises de Jérusalem, which extends the number to 500, can only be justified by this supposition. ↩
Yet on great emergencies (says Sanut) the barons brought a voluntary aid; decentem comitivam militum juxta statum suum. ↩
William of Tyre (l. XVIII c. 3⁠–⁠5) relates the ignoble origin and early insolence of the Hospitallers, who soon deserted their humble patron, St. John the Eleemosynary, for the more august character of St. John the Baptist (see the ineffectual struggles of Pagi, Critica Baronii, “AD 1099,” No. 14⁠–⁠18). They assumed the profession of arms about the year 1120; the Hospital was mater; the Temple filia; the Teutonic order was founded AD 1190, at the siege of Acre (Mosheim, Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 389, 390). ↩
See St. Bernard de Laude, Novae militiae ad milites templi, composed AD 1132⁠–⁠1136, in Opera, tom. I pars II, pp. 547⁠–⁠563, edit. Mabillon, Venetiis, 1750. Such an encomium, which is thrown away on the dead Templars, would be highly valued by the historians of Malta. ↩
Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, p. 544. He assigns to the Hospitallers 19,000, to the Templars 9,000 maneria, word of much higher import (as du Cange has rightly observed) in the English than in the French idiom. Manor is a lordship, manoir a dwelling. ↩
In the three first books of the Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers, par l’Abbé de Vertot, the reader may amuse himself with a fair, and sometimes flattering, picture of the order, while it was employed for the defence of Palestine. The subsequent books pursue their emigration to Rhodes and Malta. ↩
The Assises de Jérusalem, in old law French, were printed with Beaumanoir’s Coutumes de Beauvoisis (Bourges and Paris, 1690, in folio), and illustrated by Gaspard Thaumas de la Thaumassière, with a comment and glossary. An Italian version had been published in 1535, at Venice, for the use of the kingdom of Cyprus.9285 ↩
A la terre perdue, tout fut perdû, is the vigorous expression of the Assise (c. 281). Yet Jerusalem capitulated with Saladin: the queen and the principal Christians departed in peace; and a code so precious and so portable could not provoke the avarice of the conquerors. I have sometimes suspected the existence of this original copy of the Holy Sepulchre, which might be invented to sanctify and authenticate the traditionary customs of the French in Palestine. ↩
A noble lawyer, Raoul de Tabarie, denied the prayer of King Amauri (AD 1195⁠–⁠1205), that he would commit his knowledge to writing; and frankly declared, que de ce qu’il savoit ne feroit-il ja nul borjois son pareill, ne null sage homme lettré (c. 281). ↩
The compiler of this work, Jean d’Ibelin, was count of Jaffa and Ascalon, Lord of Baruth (Berytus) and Rames, and died AD 1266 (Sanut, l. III pars II c. 5, 8). The family of Ibelin, which descended from a younger brother of a count of Chartres in France, long flourished in Palestine and Cyprus (see the Les Lignages d’Outremer, c. 6, at the end of the Assises de Jérusalem, an original book, which records the pedigrees of the French adventurers). ↩
By sixteen commissioners chosen in the states of the island, the work was finished the 3rd of November, 1369, sealed with four seals, and deposited in the cathedral of Nicosia (see the preface to the Assises de Jérusalem). ↩
The cautious John d’Ibelin argues, rather than affirms, that Tripoli is the fourth barony, and expresses some doubt concerning the right or pretension of the constable and marshal (c. 323). ↩
Entre seignor et homme ne n’a que la foi;⁠ ⁠… mais tant que l’homme doit à son seignor reverence en toutes choses (c. 206). Tous les hommes dudit royaume sont par la dite Assise tenus les uns as autres⁠ ⁠… et en celle manière que le seignor mette main ou face mettre au cors ou au fié d’aucun d’yaus sans esgard et sans connoissans de court, que tous les autres doivent venir devant le seignor, etc. (212). The form of their remonstrances is conceived with the noble simplicity of freedom. ↩
See De l’esprit des loix, l. XXVIII. In the forty years since its publication, no work has been more read and criticized; and the spirit of inquiry which it has excited is not the least of our obligations to the author. ↩
For the intelligence of this obscure and obsolete jurisprudence (c. 80⁠–⁠111) I am deeply indebted to the friendship of a learned lord [Lord Loughborough. —⁠S.], who, with an accurate and discerning eye, has surveyed the philosophic history of law. By his studies, posterity might be enriched; the merit of the orator and the judge can be felt only by his contemporaries. ↩
Louis le Gros, who is considered as the father of this institution in France, did not begin his reign till nine years (AD 1108) after Godfrey of Bouillon (Assises de Jérusalem, c. 2, 324). For its origin and effects, see the judicious remarks of Dr. Robertson (History of Charles V, vol. I, pp. 30⁠–⁠36, 251⁠–⁠265, quarto edition). ↩
Every reader conversant with the historians of the crusades will understand, by the peuple des Suriens, the Oriental Christians, Melchites, Jacobites, or Nestorians, who had all adopted the use of the Arabic language (vol. IV, p. 593). ↩
See the Assises de Jérusalem (310⁠–⁠312). These laws were enacted as late as the year 1350, in the kingdom of Cyprus. In the same century, in the reign of Edward I, I understand, from a late publication (of his Book of Account) that the price of a warhorse was not less exorbitant in England. ↩
Anna Comnena relates her father’s conquests in Asia Minor, Alexias, l. XI, pp. 321⁠–⁠325, l. XIV, p. 419; his Cilician war against Tancred and Bohemond, pp. 328⁠–⁠324; the war of Epirus, with tedious prolixity, l. XII, XIII, pp. 345⁠–⁠406; the death of Bohemond, l. XIV, p. 419. ↩
The kings of Jerusalem submitted, however, to a nominal dependence, and in the dates of their inscriptions (one is still legible in the church of Bethlehem), they respectfully placed before their own the name of the reigning emperor (du Cange, Dissertations sur Joinville XXVII, p. 319). ↩
Anna Comnena adds that, to complete the imitation, he was shut up with a dead cock; and condescends to wonder how the Barbarian could endure the confinement and putrefaction. This absurd tale is unknown to the Latins.9286 ↩
Ἀπὸ Θούλης, in the Byzantine Geography, must mean England; yet we are more credibly informed that our Henry I would not suffer him to levy any troops in his kingdom (du Cange, Note ad Alexias, p. 41). ↩
The copy of the treaty (Alexias, l. XIII, pp. 406⁠–⁠416) is an original and curious piece, which would require, and might afford, a good map of the principality of Antioch. ↩
See in the learned work of M. de Guignes (tom. II part II) the history of the Seljukians of Iconium, Aleppo, and Damascus, as far as it may be collected from the Greeks, Latins, and Arabians. The last are ignorant or regardless of the affairs of Roum. ↩
Iconium is mentioned as a station by Xenophon, and by Strabo with the ambiguous title of Κωμόπολις9287 (Cellarius, tom. II, p. 121). Yet St. Paul found in that place a multitude (πλῆθος) of Jews and Gentiles. Under the corrupt name of Kunijah, it is described as a great city, with a river and garden, three leagues from the mountains, and decorated (I know not why) with Plato’s tomb (Abulfeda, Tabula Syriae XVII, p. 303, vers. Reiske; and the “Index Geographicus” of Schultens from Ibn Said). ↩
For this supplement to the first crusade, see Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. XI, p. 331, etc.) and the eighth book of Albert Aquensis. ↩
For the second crusade of Conrad III and Louis VII see William of Tyre (l. XVI c. 18⁠–⁠19), Otto of Freising (l. I c. 34⁠–⁠45 59, 60), Matthew Paris (Chronica majora, p. 68), Struvius (Corpus historiae Germanicae, pp. 372, 373), Historiae Francorum scriptores à Duchesne, tom. IV; Nicetas, in Imperii Graeci historia, “Manuel Comnenus,” l. I c. 4⁠–⁠6, pp. 41⁠–⁠48; Cinnamus, l. II, pp. 41⁠–⁠49. ↩
For the third crusade, of Frederic Barbarossa, see Nicetas in Imperii Graeci historia, “Isaac Angelus,” l. II c. 3⁠–⁠8, pp. 257⁠–⁠266. Struvius (Corpus historiae Germanicae, p. 414), and two historians, who probably were spectators, Tageno (in Rerum Germanicarum scriptores, Freher, tom. I, pp. 406⁠–⁠416, edit. Struvius), and the Anonymus de expeditione Asiaticâ; Frederic I (in Canisii, Lectiones antiquae, tom. III pars II, pp. 498⁠–⁠526, edit. Basnage). ↩
Anne, who states these later swarms at 40,000 horse and 100,000 foot, calls them Normans, and places at their head two brothers of Flanders. The Greeks were strangely ignorant of the names, families, and possessions of the Latin princes. ↩
It was this army of pilgrims, the first body of which was headed by the archbishop of Milan and Count Albert of Blandras, which set forth on the wild, yet, with a more disciplined army, not impolitic enterprise, of striking at the heart of the Muhammadan power, by attacking the sultan in Baghdad. For their adventures and fate, see Wilken, vol. II, p. 120, etc. or Michaud, book IV. —⁠M. ↩
William of Tyre, and Matthew Paris, reckon 70,000 loricati in each of the armies. ↩
The imperfect enumeration is mentioned by Cinnamus (ἐννενἠκοντα μυπιάδες), and confirmed by Odo de Diogilo apud du Cange ad Cinnamus, with the more precise sum of 900,556. Why must therefore the version and comment suppose the modest and insufficient reckoning of 90,000? Does not Godfrey of Viterbo (Pantheon, p. XIX in Muratori, tom. VII, p. 462) exclaim⁠—

… Numerum si poscere quaeras,
Millia millena militis agmen erat.

↩
This extravagant account is given by Albert of Stade (apud Struvius, p. 414); my calculation is borrowed from Godfrey of Viterbo, Arnold of Lubeck, apud eundem, and Bernard Thesaurarius (c. 169, p. 804). The original writers are silent. The Muhammadans gave him 200,000 or 260,000 men (Bohadin, in Vita Saludini, p. 110). ↩
I must observe that, in the second and third crusades, the subjects of Conrad and Frederic are styled by the Greeks and Orientals Alamanni. The Lechi and Tzechi of Cinnamus are the Poles and Bohemians; and it is for the French that he reserves the ancient appellation of Germans. He likewise names the βρίττιοι, or Βριταννοί.9288 ↩
Nicetas was a child at the second crusade, but in the third he commanded against the Franks the important post of Philippopolis. Cinnamus is infected with national prejudice and pride. ↩
The conduct of the Philadelphians is blamed by Nicetas, while the anonymous German accuses the rudeness of his countrymen (culpâ nostrâ). History would be pleasant, if we were embarrassed only by such contradictions. It is likewise from Nicetas that we learn the pious and humane sorrow of Frederic. ↩
Χθαμαλὴ ἕδρα, which Cinnamus translates into Latin by the word Σελλίον. Du Cange works very hard to save his king and country from such ignominy (Dissertations sur Joinville, dissertatio XXVII, pp. 317⁠–⁠320). Louis afterwards insisted on a meeting in mari ex aequo, not ex equo, according to the laughable readings of some MSS. ↩
Ego Romanorum imperator sum, ille Romaniorum (Anonymus Canisii, p. 512). The public and historical style of the Greeks was Ῥήξ⁠ ⁠… princeps. Yet Cinnamus owns that Ἰμπεράτωρ is synonymous to Βασιλεύς. ↩
In the Epistles of Innocent III (XIII, p. 184), and the History of Bohadin (pp. 129, 130), see the views of a pope and a cadhi on this singular toleration. ↩
This was the design of the pilgrims under the archbishop of Milan. See this note. —⁠M. ↩
This description of the march of the German and French armies is incorrect. Conrad, with half the German forces, took the road to Iconium; whilst the other half, under the command of bishop Otto of Freising, chose the route of Ephesus. Conrad was treacherously misled by the Greek guides into the mountains of Cappadocia, which were occupied by the Turks; and being hemmed in on every side, was compelled to a disastrous retreat, in which he lost the greater part of his troops. The division under Otto met with an almost similar fate. Instructed by their example, Louis avoided both the routes which had proved so fatal to the Germans, and marched by way of Philadelphia and Smyrna, though he was subsequently compelled by the want of provisions to diverge to Demetria and Ephesus. Conrad, who had accompanied him to the latter place, returned thence to Constantinople, at the invitation of Manuel. Louis then proceeded on his way, and it was he, not Conrad, who fought a “glorious,” but not “unsuccessful,” action with the Turks, on the banks of the Meander. In attributing this battle to Conrad, Gibbon was misled by Nicetas. It was on the march from Laodicea to Attalia that the disastrous engagement occurred which is described in the text. Wilken, vol. III, p. 156⁠–⁠184; Michaud, vol. II, p. 193⁠–⁠200. —⁠S. ↩
As counts of Vexin, the kings of France were the vassals and advocates of the monastery of St. Denys. The saint’s peculiar banner, which they received from the abbot, was of a square form, and a red or flaming color. The oriflamme appeared at the head of the French armies from the twelth to the fifteenth century (du Cange, Dissertations sur Joinville, dissertatio XVIII, pp. 244⁠–⁠253). ↩
They descended the heights to a beautiful valley which lay beneath them. The Turks seized the heights which separated the two divisions of the army. The modern historians represent differently the act to which Louis owed his safety, which Gibbon has described by the undignified phrase, “he climbed a tree.” According to Michaud, vol. II, p. 164, the king got upon a rock, with his back against a tree; according to Wilken, vol. III, he dragged himself up to the top of the rock by the roots of a tree, and continued to defend himself till nightfall. —⁠M. ↩
The original French histories of the second crusade are the Gesta Ludovici VII published in the fourth volume of Duchesne’s collection. The same volume contains many original letters of the king, of Suger his minister, etc., the best documents of authentic history. ↩
Terram horroris et salsuginis, terram siccam sterilem, inamoenam. Anonymus Canisii, p. 517. The emphatic language of a sufferer. ↩
Gens innumera, sylvestris, indomita, praedones sine ductore. The sultan of Cogni might sincerely rejoice in their defeat. Anonymus Canisii, pp. 517, 518. ↩
See, in the anonymous writer in the Collection of Canisius, Tageno and Bohadin (Vita Saludini, pp. 119, 120), the ambiguous conduct of Kilidge Arslan, sultan of Cogni, who hated and feared both Saladin and Frederic. ↩
The desire of comparing two great men has tempted many writers to drown Frederic in the river Cydnus, in which Alexander so imprudently bathed (Quintus Curtius, l. III c. 4, 5). But, from the march of the emperor, I rather judge that his Saleph is the Calycadnus, a stream of less fame, but of a longer course.9289 ↩
Marinus Sanutus, AD 1321, lays it down as a precept, Quod stolus ecclesiae per terram nullâtenus est ducenda. He resolves, by the divine aid, the objection, or rather exception, of the first crusade (Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, l. II pars II c. I, p. 37). ↩
The most authentic information of St. Bernard must be drawn from his own writings, published in a correct edition by Père Mabillon, and reprinted at Venice, 1750, in six volumes in folio. Whatever friendship could recollect, or superstition could add, is contained in the two lives, by his disciples, in the sixth volume: whatever learning and criticism could ascertain, may be found in the prefaces of the Benedictine editor. ↩
Gibbon, whose account of the crusades is perhaps the least accurate and satisfactory chapter in his History, has here failed in that lucid arrangement which in general gives perspicuity to his most condensed and crowded narratives. He has unaccountably, and to the great perplexity of the reader, placed the preaching of St. Bernard after the second crusade to which it led. —⁠M. ↩
Clairvaux, surnamed the Valley of Absynth, is situate among the woods near Bar sur Aube in Champagne. St. Bernard would blush at the pomp of the church and monastery; he would ask for the library, and I know not whether he would be much edified by a tun of 800 muids (914¹⁄₇ hogsheads), which almost rivals that of Heidelberg (Mélanges tirés d’une grande bibliothèque, tom. XLVI, pp. 15⁠–⁠20). ↩
The disciples of the saint (Vita prima Bernardi, l. III c. 2, p. 1232; Vita secunda Bernardi, c. 16, No. 45, p. 1383) record a marvellous example of his pious apathy. Juxta lacum etiam Lausannensem totius diei itinere pergens, penitus non attendit aut se videre non vidit. Cum enim vespere facto de eodem lacû socii colloquerentur, interrogabat eos ubi lacus ille esset; et mirati sunt universi. To admire or despise St. Bernard as he ought, the reader, like myself, should have before the windows of his library the beauties of that incomparable landscape. ↩
Otto Frisingensis, l. I c. 4. Bernardi, “Epistola 363” ad Francos Orientales, Sancti Bernardi abbatis primi Clarae-Vallensis opera, tom. I, p. 328. Vita prima Bernardi, l. III c. 4, tom. VI, p. 1235. ↩
Bernard had a nobler object in his expedition into Germany⁠—to arrest the fierce and merciless persecution of the Jews, which was preparing, under the monk Radulph, to renew the frightful scenes which had preceded the first crusade, in the flourishing cities on the banks of the Rhine. The Jews acknowledge the Christian intervention of St. Bernard. See the curious extract from the History of Joseph ben Meir. Wilken, vol. III, p. 1 and p. 63. —⁠M. ↩
Mandastis et obedivi⁠ ⁠… multiplicati sunt super numerum; vacuantur urbes et castella; et pene jam non inveniunt quem apprehendant septem mulieres unum virum; adeo ubique viduae vivis remanent viris. Bernardi, “Epistola 247,” Sancti Bernardi opera, p. 247. We must be careful not to construe pene as a substantive. ↩
Quis ego sum ut disponam acies, ut egrediar ante facies armatorum, aut quid tam remotum a professione meâ, si vires, si peritia, etc. “Epistola 256,” Sancti Bernardi opera, tom. I, p. 259. He speaks with contempt of the hermit Peter, vir quidam, “Epistola 363.” ↩
Sic dicunt forsitan isti, unde scimus quòd a Domino sermo egressus sit? Quae signa tu facis ut credamus tibi? Non est quod ad ista ipse respondeam; parcendum verecundiae meae, responde tu pro me, et pro te ipso, secundum quae vidisti et audisti, et secundum quod te inspiraverit Deus. De consideratione ad Eugenium, l. II c. 1; Sancti Bernardi opera, tom. II, pp. 421⁠–⁠423. ↩
See the testimonies in Vita prima Bernardi, l. IV c. 5, 6. Sancti Bernardi opera, tom. VI, pp. 1258⁠–⁠1261, l. VI c. 1⁠–⁠17, pp. 1286⁠–⁠1314. ↩
Abulmahasen apud de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. II partie II, p. 99. ↩
See his article in the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot, and de Guignes, tom. II partie I, pp. 230⁠–⁠261. Such was his valor that he was styled the second Alexander; and such the extravagant love of his subjects that they prayed for the sultan a year after his decease. Yet Sangiar might have been made prisoner by the Franks, as well as by the Uzes. He reigned near fifty years (AD 1103⁠–⁠1152), and was a munificent patron of Persian poetry. ↩
See the chronology of the Atabeks of Iraq and Syria, in de Guignes, tom. I, p. 254; and the reigns of Zenghi and Noureddin in the same writer (tom. II partie II, pp. 147⁠–⁠221), who uses the Arabic text of Benelathir, Ben Schouna, and Abulfeda; the Bibliothèque Orientale, under the articles “Atabeks” and “Noureddin,” and the Dynasties of Abulpharagius, pp. 250⁠–⁠267, vers. Pococke. ↩
William of Tyre (l. XVI c. 4, 5, 7) describes the loss of Edessa, and the death of Zenghi. The corruption of his name into Sanguin afforded the Latins a comfortable allusion to his sanguinary character and end, fit sanguine sanguinolentus. ↩
On Noureddin’s conquest of Damascus, see extracts from Arabian writers prefixed to the second part of the third volume of Wilken. —⁠M. ↩
Noradinus (says William of Tyre, l. XX 33) maximus nominis et fidei Christianae persecutor; princeps tamen justus, vafer, providus et secundum gentis suae traditiones religiosus. To this Catholic witness we may add the primate of the Jacobites (Abulpharagius, p. 267), quo non alter erat inter reges vitae ratione magis laudabili, aut quae pluribus justitiae experimentis abundaret. The true praise of kings is after their death, and from the mouth of their enemies. ↩
From the ambassador, William of Tyre (l. XIX c. 17, 18) describes the palace of Cairo. In the caliph’s treasure were found a pearl as large as a pigeon’s egg, a ruby weighing seventeen Egyptian drams, an emerald a palm and a half in length, and many vases of crystal and porcelain of China (Renaudot, p. 536). ↩
Mamluc, plural Mamalic, is defined by Pococke (Prolegomena ad Abulpharagius, p. 7), and d’Herbelot (p. 545), servum emptitium, seu qui pretio numerato in domini possessionem cedit. They frequently occur in the wars of Saladin (Bohadin, p. 236, etc.); and it was only the Bahartie Mamalukes that were first introduced into Egypt by his descendants. ↩
Jacobus à Vitriaco (p. 1116) gives the king of Jerusalem no more than 374 knights. Both the Franks and the Muslims report the superior numbers of the enemy; a difference which may be solved by counting or omitting the unwarlike Egyptians. ↩
It was the Alexandria of the Arabs, a middle term in extent and riches between the period of the Greeks and Romans, and that of the Turks (Claude-Étienne Savary, Lettres sur l’Egypte, tom. I, pp. 25, 26). ↩
The treaty stipulated that both the Christians and the Arabs should withdraw from Egypt. Wilken, vol. III part II, p. 113. —⁠M. ↩
The Knights Templars, abhorring the perfidious breach of treaty, partly, perhaps, out of jealousy of the Hospitallers, refused to join in this enterprise. William of Tyre, c. XX, p. 5; Wilken, vol. III part II, p. 117. —⁠M. ↩
For this great revolution of Egypt, see William of Tyre (l. XIX 5⁠–⁠7, 12⁠–⁠31, XX 5⁠–⁠12), Bohadin (in Vita Saludini, pp. 30⁠–⁠39), Abulfeda (in “Excerpta,” Schultens, pp. 1⁠–⁠12), d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, “Adhed,” “Fathemah,” but very incorrect), Renaudot (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, pp. 522⁠–⁠525, 532⁠–⁠537), Vertot (Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers, tom. I, pp. 141⁠–⁠163, in quarto), and M. de Guignes (tom. II partie II, pp. 185⁠–⁠215). ↩
For the Curds, see de Guignes, tom. I partie I, pp. 416, 417, the “Index Geographicus” of Schultens and Tavernier, Les Six Voyages, partie I, pp. 308, 309. The Ayoubites descended from the tribe of the Rawadiaei, one of the noblest; but as they were infected with the heresy of the Metempsychosis, the orthodox sultans insinuated that their descent was only on the mother’s side, and that their ancestor was a stranger who settled among the Curds. ↩
See the fourth book of the Anabasis of Xenophon. The ten thousand suffered more from the arrows of the free Carduchians than from the splendid weakness of the Great King. ↩
We are indebted to the Professor Schultens (Lugduni Batavorum, 1755, in folio) for the richest and most authentic materials, a life of Saladin by his friend and minister the Cadhi Bohadin, and copious extracts from the history of his kinsman, the Prince Abulfeda of Hamah. To these we may add the article of “Salaheddin” in the Bibliothèque Orientale, and all that may be gleaned from the Dynasties of Abulpharagius. ↩
Since Abulfeda was himself an Ayoubite, he may share the praise for imitating, at least tacitly, the modesty of the founder. ↩
Historia Hierosolymitana in the Gesta Dei per Francos, p. 1152. A similar example may be found in Joinville (p. 42, edition du Louvre); but the pious St. Louis refused to dignify infidels with the order of Christian knighthood (du Cange, Observations, p. 70). ↩
In these Arabic titles, religionis must always be understood; Noureddin, lumen r.; Ezzodin, decus; Amadoddin, columen: our hero’s proper name was Joseph, and he was styled Salahoddin, salus; Al Malichus Al Nasirus, rex defensor; Abu Modaffer, pater victoriae. Schultens, Praefatio. ↩
Abulfeda, who descended from a brother of Saladin, observes, from many examples, that the founders of dynasties took the guilt for themselves, and left the reward to their innocent collaterals (“Excerpta,” p. 10). ↩
See his life and character in Renaudot, pp. 537⁠–⁠548. ↩
His civil and religious virtues are celebrated in the first chapter of Bohadin (pp. 4⁠–⁠30), himself an eyewitness and an honest bigot. ↩
In many works, particularly Joseph’s well in the castle of Cairo, the sultan and the patriarch have been confounded by the ignorance of natives and travellers. ↩
Anonymus Canisii, tom. III pars II, p. 504. ↩
Bohadin, pp. 129, 130. ↩
For the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, see William of Tyre, from the ninth to the twenty-second book; Jacob à Vitriaco, Historia Hierosolymitana, l. I; and Sanutus, Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, l. III pars VI⁠–⁠IX. ↩
Templarii ut apes bombabant et Hospitalarii ut venti stridebant, et barones se exitio offerebant, et Turcopuli (the Christian light troops) semet ipsi in ignem injiciebant (Ispahani de Expugnatione kudsiticâ, p. 18, apud Schultens): a specimen of Arabian eloquence, somewhat different from the style of Xenophon! ↩
The Latins affirm, the Arabians insinuate, the treason of Raymond; but, had he really embraced their religion, he would have been a saint and a hero in the eyes of the latter. ↩
Raymond’s advice would have prevented the abandonment of a secure camp abounding with water near Sepphoris. The rash and insolent valor of the master of the order of Knights Templars, which had before exposed the Christians to a fatal defeat at the brook Kishon, forced the feeble king to annul the determination of a council of war, and advance to a camp in an enclosed valley among the mountains, near Hittin, without water. Raymond did not fly till the battle was irretrievably lost, and then the Saracens seem to have opened their ranks to allow him free passage. The charge of suggesting the siege of Tiberias appears ungrounded. Raymond, no doubt, played a double part: he was a man of strong sagacity, who foresaw the desperate nature of the contest with Saladin, endeavored by every means to maintain the treaty, and, though he joined both his arms and his still more valuable counsels to the Christian army, yet kept up a kind of amicable correspondence with the Muhammadans. See Wilken, vol. III part II, p. 276, et seq.; Michaud, vol. II, p. 329, et seq. M. Michaud is still more friendly than Wilken to the memory of Count Raymond, who died suddenly, shortly after the battle of Hittin. He quotes a letter written in the name of Saladin by the caliph Alfdel, to show that Raymond was considered by the Muhammadans their most dangerous and detested enemy. “No person of distinction among the Christians escaped, except the count (of Tripoli) whom God curse. God made him die shortly afterwards, and sent him from the kingdom of death to hell.” —⁠M. ↩
According to the old Arabian custom that, when a prisoner has received meat or drink from his captor, the latter is obliged not only to do him no injury, but even to protect him as a guest. Wilken, vol. III part II, p. 289. —⁠S. ↩
Renaud, Reginald, or Arnold de Châtillon, is celebrated by the Latins in his life and death; but the circumstances of the latter are more distinctly related by Bohadin and Abulfeda; and Joinville (Histoire de St. Louis, p. 70) alludes to the practice of Saladin of never putting to death a prisoner who had tasted his bread and salt. Some of the companions of Arnold had been slaughtered, and almost sacrificed, in a valley of Mecca, ubi sacrificia mactantur (Abulfeda, p. 32). ↩
Vertot, who well describes the loss of the kingdom and city (Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers, tom. I l. II, pp. 226⁠–⁠278), inserts two original epistles of a knight templar. ↩
Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, p. 545. ↩
Saladin, however, before he invested Jerusalem, had twice offered the inhabitants exceedingly favorable conditions, in order to spare a city deemed holy by the Muhammadans themselves. Wilken, vol. III part II, pp. 299, 303. —⁠S. ↩
For the conquest of Jerusalem, Bohadin (pp. 67⁠–⁠75) and Abulfeda (pp. 40⁠–⁠43) are our Muslim witnesses. Of the Christian, Bernard Thesaurarius (c. 151⁠–⁠167) is the most copious and authentic; see likewise Matthew Paris (pp. 120⁠–⁠124). ↩
The sieges of Tyre and Acre are most copiously described by Bernard Thesaurarius (De acquisitione Terrae Sanctae, c. 167⁠–⁠179), the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana (pp. 1150⁠–⁠1172, in Bongarsius), Abulfeda (pp. 43⁠–⁠50), and Bohadin (pp. 75⁠–⁠179). ↩
I have followed a moderate and probable representation of the fact; by Vertot, who adopts without reluctance a romantic tale, the old marquis is actually exposed to the darts of the besieged. ↩
Northmanni et Gothi, et caeteri populi insularum quae inter occidentem et septemtrionem sitae sunt, gentes bellicosae, corporis proceri, mortis intrepidae, bipennibus armatae, navibus rotundis, quae Ysnachiae dicuntur, advectae. ↩
The historian of Jerusalem (p. 1108) adds the nations of the East from the Tigris to India, and the swarthy tribes of Moors and Getulians, so that Asia and Africa fought against Europe. ↩
Bohadin, p. 180; and this massacre is neither denied nor blamed by the Christian historians. Alacriter jussa complentes (the English soldiers), says Galfridus à Vinesauf (l. IV c. 4, p. 346), who fixes at 2,700 the number of victims; who are multiplied to 5,000 by Roger Hoveden (pp. 697, 698). The humanity or avarice of Philip Augustus was persuaded to ransom his prisoners (Jacob à Vitriaco, l. I c. 98, p. 1122). ↩
Bohadin, p. 14. He quotes the judgment of Balianus and the prince of Sidon, and adds, ex illo mundo quasi hominum paucissimi redierunt. Among the Christians who died before St. John d’Acre, I find the English names of de Ferrers, Earl of Derby (Dugdale, The Baronage of England, part I, p. 260), Mowbray (idem, p. 124), de Mandevil, de Fiennes, St. John, Scrope, Bigot, Talbot, etc. ↩
Magnus hic apud eos, interque reges eorum tum virtute tum majestate eminens⁠ ⁠… summus rerum arbiter (Bohadin, p. 159). He does not seem to have known the names either of Philip or Richard. ↩
Rex Angliae, praestrenuus⁠ ⁠… rege Gallorum minor apud eos censebatur ratione regni atque dignitatis; sed tum divitiis florentior, tum bellicâ virtute multo erat celebrior (Bohadin, p. 161). A stranger might admire those riches; the national historians will tell with what lawless and wasteful oppression they were collected. ↩
Joinville, p. 17. Cuides-tu que ce soit le roi Richart? ↩
Yet he was guilty in the opinion of the Muslims, who attest the confession of the assassins that they were sent by the king of England (Bohadin, p. 225); and his only defence is an absurd and palpable forgery (Histoire de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XVI, pp. 155⁠–⁠163), a pretended letter from the prince of the assassins, the Sheich, or old man of the mountain, who justified Richard by assuming to himself the guilt or merit of the murder.9290 ↩
See the distress and pious firmness of Saladin, as they are described by Bohadin (pp. 7⁠–⁠9, 235⁠–⁠237), who himself harangued the defenders of Jerusalem. Their fears were not unknown to the enemy (Jacobus à Vitriaco, l. I c. 100, p. 1123; Vinisauf, l. V c. 50, p. 399). ↩
Yet unless the sultan, or an Ayoubite prince, remained in Jerusalem, nec Curdi Turcis, nec Turci essent obtemperaturi Curdis (Bohadin, p. 236). He draws aside a corner of the political curtain. ↩
Bohadin (p. 237), and even Jeffrey de Vinisauf (l. VI c. 1⁠–⁠8, pp. 403⁠–⁠409), ascribe the retreat to Richard himself; and Jacobus à Vitriaco observes that in his impatience to depart, in alterum virum mutatus est (p. 1123). Yet Joinville, a French knight, accuses the envy of Hugh, duke of Burgundy (p. 116), without supposing, like Matthew Paris, that he was bribed by Saladin. ↩
This celebrated story rests solely upon the authority of Joinville. It is not mentioned by Vinisauf, who, on the contrary, represents Richard as dissuading the crusaders from marching against Jerusalem. According to Joinville, when the retreat had been determined upon, one of Richard’s knights said to him, “Gracious lord, come here and I will show you Jerusalem.” But the king covered his face with his mantle, and answered, “Blessed Lord God, I pray thee not to let me see thy holy city, since I cannot deliver it from the hands of thy enemies.” (“Biau sire Diex, je te pri que tu ne seuffres que je voie ta sainte cité, puisque je ne la puis délivrer des mains de tes ennemis.” Joinville, p. 116.) —⁠S. ↩
The expeditions to Ascalon, Jerusalem, and Jaffa are related by Bohadin (pp. 184⁠–⁠249) and Abulfeda (pp. 51, 52). The author of the Itinerary, or the monk of St. Alban’s, cannot exaggerate the Cadhi’s account of the prowess of Richard (Vinisauf, l. VI c. 14⁠–⁠24, pp. 412⁠–⁠421; Chronica majora, pp. 137⁠–⁠143); and on the whole of this war there is a marvellous agreement between the Christian and Muhammadan writers, who mutually praise the virtues of their enemies. ↩
See the progress of negotiation and hostility in Bohadin (pp. 207⁠–⁠260), who was himself an actor in the treaty. Richard declared his intention of returning with new armies to the conquest of the Holy Land; and Saladin answered the menace with a civil compliment (Vinisauf, l. VI c. 28, p. 423). ↩
The most copious and original account of this holy war is Galfridi à Vinisauf, Itinerarium regis anglorum Richardi et aliorum in terram Hierosolymorum, in six books, published in the second volume of Gale’s Historiae Anglicanae scriptores X (pp. 247⁠–⁠429). Roger Hoveden and Matthew Paris afford likewise many valuable materials; and the former describes with accuracy the discipline and navigation of the English fleet. ↩
Even Vertot (tom. I, p. 251) adopts the foolish notion of the indifference of Saladin, who professed the Koran with his last breath. ↩
See the succession of the Ayoubites, in Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 277, etc.), and the tables of M. de Guignes, L’Art de vérifier les dates, and the Bibliothèque Orientale. ↩
Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. III, pp. 311⁠–⁠374) has copiously treated of the origin, abuses, and restrictions of these tenths. A theory was started, but not pursued, that they were rightfully due to the pope, a tenth of the Levite’s tenth to the high priest (Selden on Tithes; see his Works, vol. III part II, p. 1083). ↩
See the Gesta Innocentii III in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores (tom. III, pp. 486⁠–⁠568). ↩
See the fifth crusade, and the siege of Damietta, in Jacobus à Vitriaco (l. III, pp. 1125⁠–⁠1149, in the Gesta Dei per Francos of Bongarsius), an eyewitness, Bernard Thesaurarius (in Rerum Italicarum scriptores, Muratori, tom. VII, pp. 825⁠–⁠846, c. 190⁠–⁠207), a contemporary, and Sanutus (Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, l. III pars XI c. 4⁠–⁠9), a diligent compiler; and of the Arabians, Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 294), and the Extracts at the end of Joinville (pp. 533, 537, 540, 547, etc.). ↩
To those who took the cross against Mainfroy, the pope (AD 1255) granted plenissimam peccatorum remissionem. Fideles mirabantur quòd tantum eis promitteret pro sanguine Christianorum effundendo quantum pro cruore infidelium aliquando (Matthew Paris, p. 785). A high flight for the reason of the thirteenth century. ↩
This simple idea is agreeable to the good sense of Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, p. 332), and the fine philosophy of Hume (History of England, vol. I, p. 330). ↩
The original materials for the crusade of Frederic II may be drawn from Richard de St. Germano (in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. VII, pp. 1002⁠–⁠1013) and Matthew Paris (pp. 286, 291, 300, 302, 304). The most rational moderns are Fleury (Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XVI), Vertot (Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers, tom. I l. III), Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. II l. XVI), and Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. X). ↩
Poor Muratori knows what to think, but knows not what to say, “Chinò qui il capo,” etc., p. 322. ↩
The clergy artfully confounded the mosque, or church of the temple, with the Holy Sepulchre; and their wilful error has deceived both Vertot and Muratori. ↩
The irruption of the Carizmians, or Corasmins, is related by Matthew Paris (pp. 546, 547), and by Joinville, Nangis, and the Arabians (pp. 111, 112, 191, 192, 528, 530). ↩
They were in alliance with Eyub, sultan of Syria. Wilken vol. VI, p. 630. —⁠M. ↩
Read, if you can, the Life and Miracles of St. Louis, by the confessor of Queen Margaret (pp. 291⁠–⁠523, Joinville, du Louvre). ↩
He believed all that Mother church taught (Joinville, p. 10), but he cautioned Joinville against disputing with infidels. “L’omme lay” (said he in his old language) “quand il ot medire de la loi Crestienne, ne doit pas deffendre la loi Crestienne ne mais que de l’espée, dequoi il doit donner parmi le ventre dedens, tant comme elle y peut entrer” (p. 12). ↩
I have two editions of Joinville: the one (Paris, 1668) most valuable for the observations of du Cange; the other (Paris, au Louvre, 1761) most precious for the pure and authentic text, a MS. of which has been recently discovered. The last edition proves that the history of St. Louis was finished AD 1309, without explaining, or even admiring, the age of the author, which must have exceeded ninety years (Preface, p. XI, Observations de du Cange, p. 17). ↩
Joinville, p. 32; Arabic Extracts, p. 549.9291 ↩
The last editors have enriched their Joinville with large and curious extracts from the Arabic historians, Macrizi, Abulfeda, etc. See likewise Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 322⁠–⁠325), who calls him by the corrupt name of Redefrans. Matthew Paris (pp. 683, 684) has described the rival folly of the French and English who fought and fell at Massoura. ↩
Savary, in his agreeable Lettres sur l’Egypte, has given a description of Damietta (tom. I lettre XXIII, pp. 274⁠–⁠290), and a narrative of the exposition of St. Louis (XXV, pp. 306⁠–⁠350). ↩
For the ransom of St. Louis, a million of byzants was asked and granted; but the sultan’s generosity reduced that sum to 800,000 byzants, which are valued by Joinville at 400,000 French livres of his own time, and expressed by Matthew Paris by 100,000 marks of silver (du Cange, dissertation XX, Dissertations sur Joinville). ↩
The idea of the emirs to choose Louis for their sultan is seriously attested by Joinville (pp. 77, 78), and does not appear to me so absurd as to M. de Voltaire (Essai sur l’histoire générale, tom. II, pp. 386, 387). The Mamalukes themselves were strangers, rebels, and equals; they had felt his valor, they hoped his conversion; and such a motion, which was not seconded, might be made perhaps by a secret Christian in their tumultuous assembly.9292 ↩
See the expedition in the Annals of St. Louis, by William de Nangis, pp. 270⁠–⁠287, and the Arabic Extracts, pp. 545, 555, of the Louvre edition of Joinville. ↩
Voltaire, Essai sur l’histoire générale, tom. II, p. 391. ↩
The chronology of the two dynasties of Mamalukes, the Baharites, Turks or Tartars of Kipzak, and the Borgites, Circassians, is given by Pococke (Prolegomena ad Abulpharagius, pp. 6⁠–⁠31) and de Guignes (tom. I, pp. 264⁠–⁠270); their history from Abulfeda, Macrizi, etc., to the beginning of the fifteenth century, by the same M. de Guignes (tom. IV, pp. 110⁠–⁠328). ↩
Savary, Lettres sur l’Egypte, tom. II lettre XV, pp. 189⁠–⁠208. I much question the authenticity of this copy; yet it is true that Sultan Selim concluded a treaty with the Circassians or Mamalukes of Egypt, and left them in possession of arms, riches, and power. See a new Abrégé de l’histoire ottomane, composed in Egypt, and translated by M. Digeon (tom. I, pp. 55⁠–⁠58, Paris, 1781), a curious, authentic, and national history. ↩
Si totum quo regnum occupârunt tempus respicias, praesertim quod fini propius, reperies illud bellis, pugnis, injuriis, ac rapinis refertum (Al Jannabi, apud Pococke, p. 31). The reign of Mohammed (AD 1311⁠–⁠1341) affords a happy exception (de Guignes, tom. IV, pp. 208⁠–⁠210). ↩
They are now reduced to 8,500; but the expense of each Mamaluke may be rated at a hundred louis, and Egypt groans under the avarice and insolence of these strangers (Voyages de Volney, tom. I, pp. 89⁠–⁠187). ↩
Gibbon colors rather highly the success of Edward. Wilken is more accurate, vol. VII, p. 593, etc. —⁠M. ↩
See Carte’s History of England, vol. II, pp. 165⁠–⁠175, and his original authors, Thomas Wikes and Walter Hemingford (l. III c. 34, 35), in Gale’s Collection (tom. II, pp. 97, 589⁠–⁠592). They are both ignorant of the Princess Eleanor’s piety in sucking the poisoned wound, and saving her husband at the risk of her own life. ↩
The sultan Bibars was concerned in this attempt at assassination. Wilken, vol. VII, p. 602. Ptolemaeus Lucensis is the earliest authority for the devotion of Eleanora. Wilken, vol. VII, p. 605. —⁠M. ↩
Sanutus, Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, l. III pars XII c. 9, and de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. IV, p. 143, from the Arabic historians. ↩
The state of Acre is represented in all the chronicles of the times, and most accurately in John Villani, l. VII c. 144, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XIII, p. 337, 338. ↩
See the final expulsion of the Franks, in Sanutus, l. III pars XII c. 11⁠–⁠22; Abulfeda, Macrizi, etc., in de Guignes, tom. IV, pp. 162, 164; and Vertot, tom. I l. III, pp. 307⁠–⁠428.9293 ↩
In the successive centuries, from the ninth to the eighteenth, Mosheim traces the schism of the Greeks with learning, clearness, and impartiality: the filioque (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, p. 277); Leo III, p. 303; Photius, pp. 307, 308; Michael Cerularius, pp. 370, 371, etc. ↩
Ἄνδρες δυσσεβεῖς καὶ ἀποτροπαῖοι, ἄνδρες ἐκ σκότους ἀναδύντες, τῆς γὰρ Ἑσπερίου μοίρας ὑπῆρχον γεννήματα (Photius, Epistolae, p. 47, edit. Montacutium). The Oriental patriarch continues to apply the images of thunder, earthquake, hail, wild boar, precursors of Antichrist, etc., etc. ↩
The mysterious subject of the procession of the Holy Ghost is discussed in the historical, theological, and controversial sense, or nonsense, by the Jesuit Petavius (Dogmata theologica, tom. II l. VII, pp. 362⁠–⁠440). ↩
Before the shrine of St. Peter he placed two shields of the weight of 94½ pounds of pure silver, on which he inscribed the text of both creeds (utroque symbolo), pro amore et cautelâ orthodoxae fidei (Anastasius in “Leo III” in Muratori, tom. III pars I, p. 208). His language most clearly proves that neither the filioque nor the Athanasian creed were received at Rome about the year 830. ↩
The Missi of Charlemagne pressed him to declare that all who rejected the filioque, or at least the doctrine, must be damned. All, replies the Pope, are not capable of reaching the altiora mysteria qui potuerit, et non voluerit, salvus esse non potest (Sacrosancta concilia, tom. IX, pp. 277⁠–⁠286). The potuerit would leave a large loophole of salvation! ↩
In France, after some harsher laws, the ecclesiastical discipline is now relaxed: milk, cheese, and butter are become a perpetual, and eggs an annual, indulgence in Lent (Histoire de la vie privée des François, tom. II, pp. 27⁠–⁠38). ↩
The original monuments of the schism, of the charges of the Greeks against the Latins, are deposited in the epistles of Photius (“Epistle Encyclica,” pp. 47⁠–⁠61), and of Michael Cerularius (Canisii, Lectiones antiquae, tom. III pars I, pp. 281⁠–⁠324, edit. Basnage, with the prolix answer of Cardinal Humbert). ↩
The tenth volume of the Venice edition of the Councils contains all the acts of the synods, and history of Photius: they are abridged, with a faint tinge of prejudice or prudence, by Dupin and Fleury. ↩
The synod of Constantinople, held in the year 869, is the eighth of the general councils, the last assembly of the East which is recognized by the Roman church. She rejects the synods of Constantinople of the years 867 and 879, which were, however, equally numerous and noisy; but they were favorable to Photius. ↩
See this anathema in the Councils, tom. XI, pp. 1457⁠–⁠1460. ↩
Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. I, pp. 31⁠–⁠33) represents the abhorrence, not only of the church, but of the palace, for Gregory VII, the popes, and the Latin communion. The style of Cinnamus and Nicetas is still more vehement. Yet how calm is the voice of history compared with that of polemics! ↩
His anonymous historian (“De Expeditione Asiaticâ Frederic I” in Canisii, Lectiones antiquae, tom. III pars II, p. 511, edit. Basnage) mentions the sermons of the Greek patriarch, quomodo Graecis injunxerat in remissionem peccatorum peregrinos occidere et delere de terra. Tagino observes (in Rerum Germanicarum scriptores, Freheri, tom. I, p. 409, edit. Struvius), Graeci haereticos nos appellant: clerici et monachi dictis et factis persequuntur. We may add the declaration of the emperor Baldwin fifteen years afterwards: Haec est (gens) quae Latinos omnes non hominum nomine, sed canum dignabatur; quorum sanguinem effundere penè inter merita reputabant (Gesta Innocentii III, c. 92, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, p. 536). There may be some exaggeration, but it was as effectual for the action and reaction of hatred. ↩
See Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. VI, pp. 161, 162), and a remarkable passage of Nicetas (in Imperii Graeci historia, “Manuel Comnenus,” l. V c. 9), who observes of the Venetians, κατὰ σμήνη καὶ φρατρίας τὴν Κωνσταντινούπαλιν τῆς οἰκείας ἠλλάξαντο, etc. ↩
Du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 186, 187. ↩
Nicetas in Imperii Graeci historia, “Manuel Comnenus,” l. VII c. 2. Regnante enim (Manuele)⁠ ⁠… apud eum tantam Latinus populus repererat gratiam ut neglectis Graeculis suis tanquam viris mollibus et effoeminatis⁠ ⁠… solis Latinis grandia committeret negotia⁠ ⁠… erga eos profusâ liberalitate abundabat⁠ ⁠… ex omni orbe ad eum tanquam ad benefactorem nobiles et ignobiles concurrebant. Willelmus Tyrensis XXII c. 10. ↩
The suspicions of the Greeks would have been confirmed, if they had seen the political epistles of Manuel to Pope Alexander III, the enemy of his enemy Frederic I, in which the emperor declares his wish of uniting the Greeks and Latins as one flock under one shepherd, etc. (See Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XV, pp. 187, 213, 243). ↩
See the Greek and Latin narratives in Nicetas (in Imperii Graeci historia, “Alexio Comneno,” c. 10) and William of Tyre (l. XXII c. 10⁠–⁠13): the first, soft and concise; the second, loud, copious, and tragical. ↩
The history of the reign of Isaac Angelus is composed, in three books, by the senator Nicetas (pp. 228⁠–⁠290); and his offices of logothete, or principal secretary, and judge of the veil or palace, could not bribe the impartiality of the historian. He wrote, it is true, after the fall and death of his benefactor. ↩
See Bohadin, Vita et res Gestae Saladini, pp. 129⁠–⁠131, 226, vers. Schultens. The ambassador of Isaac was equally versed in the Greek, French, and Arabic languages: a rare instance in those times. His embassies were received with honor, dismissed without effect, and reported with scandal in the West. ↩
Du Cange, Familiae Dalmaticae, pp. 318⁠–⁠320. The original correspondence of the Bulgarian king and the Roman pontiff is inscribed in the Gesta Innocentii III, c. 66⁠–⁠82, pp. 513⁠–⁠525. ↩
The pope acknowledges his pedigree, a nobili urbis Romae prosapiâ genitores tui originem traxerunt. This tradition, and the strong resemblance of the Latin and Walachian idioms, is explained by M. d’Anville (États de l’Europe, pp. 258⁠–⁠262). The Italian colonies of the Dacia of Trajan were swept away by the tide of emigration from the Danube to the Volga, and brought back by another wave from the Volga to the Danube. Possible, but strange! ↩
This parable is in the best savage style; but I wish the Walach had not introduced the classic name of Mysians, the experiment of the magnet or loadstone, and the passage of an old comic poet (Nicetas in Imperii Graeci historia, “Alexio Comneno,” l. I, pp. 299, 300). ↩
The Latins aggravate the ingratitude of Alexius, by supposing that he had been released by his brother Isaac from Turkish captivity. This pathetic tale had doubtless been repeated at Venice and Zara; but I do not readily discover its grounds in the Greek historians. ↩
See the reign of Alexius Angelus, or Comnenus, in the three books of Nicetas, pp. 291⁠–⁠352. ↩
See Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XVI, p. 26, etc., and Villehardouin, No. 1, with the observations of du Cange, which I always mean to quote with the original text. ↩
The contemporary life of Pope Innocent III, published by Baluze and Muratori (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, pp. 486⁠–⁠568), is most valuable for the important and original documents which are inserted in the text. The bull of the crusade may be read, c. 84, 85. ↩
Por ce que cil pardon, fut issi gran, si s’en esmeurent mult li couers des genz, et mult s’en croisierent, porce que li pardons ere si gran. Villehardouin, No. 1. Our philosophers may refine on the causes of the crusades, but such were the genuine feelings of a French knight. ↩
This number of fiefs (of which 1,800 owed liege homage) was enrolled in the church of St. Stephen at Troyes, and attested, AD 1213, by the marshal and butler of Champagne (du Cange, Observations, p. 254). ↩
Campania⁠ ⁠… militiae privilegio singularius excellit⁠ ⁠… in tyrociniis⁠ ⁠… prolusione armorum, etc. Du Cange, p. 249, from the old Chronicle of Jerusalem, AD 1177⁠–⁠1199. ↩
The name of Villehardouin was taken from a village and castle in the diocese of Troyes, near the river Aube, between Bar and Arcis. The family was ancient and noble; the elder branch of our historian existed after the year 1400; the younger, which acquired the principality of Achaia, merged in the house of Savoy (du Cange, pp. 235⁠–⁠245). ↩
This office was held by his father and his descendants, but du Cange has not hunted it with his usual sagacity. I find that, in the year 1356, it was in the family of Conflans; but these provincial have been long since eclipsed by the national marshals of France. ↩
This language, of which I shall produce some specimens, is explained by Vigenère and du Cange, in a version and glossary. The president de Brosses (Traité de la formation méchanique des langues, tom. II, p. 83) gives it as the example of a language which has ceased to be French, and is understood only by grammarians. ↩
His age, and his own expression, moi qui ceste oeuvre dicta (No. 62, etc.), may justify the suspicion (more probable than Mr. Wood’s on Homer) that he could neither read nor write. Yet Champagne may boast of the two first historians, the noble authors of French prose, Villehardouin and Joinville. ↩
The crusade and reigns of the counts of Flanders, Baldwin and his brother Henry, are the subject of a particular history by the Jesuit Philippe d’Outreman (Constantinopolis Belgica, Turnaci, 1638, in quarto), which I have only seen with the eyes of du Cange. ↩
See here in chapter XXXV. ↩
The foundation and independence of Venice, and Pepin’s invasion, are discussed by Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. III, “AD 81,” No. 4, etc.) and Beretti (De Italia medii aevi dissertatio chorographica, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. X, p. 153). The two critics have a slight bias, the Frenchman adverse, the Italian favorable, to the republic. ↩
When the son of Charlemagne asserted his right of sovereignty, he was answered by the loyal Venetians, ὅτι ἡμεῖς δοῦλοι θέλομεν εἶναι τοῦ Ῥωμαίων βασιλέως (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, pars II c. 28, p. 85); and the report of the ninth establishes the fact of the tenth century, which is confirmed by the embassy of Liutprand of Cremona. The annual tribute, which the emperor allows them to pay to the king of Italy, alleviates, by doubling, their servitude; but the hateful word δοῦλοι must be translated, as in the charter of 827 (Laugier, Histoire de la république de Venise, tom. I, p. 67, etc.), by the softer appellation of subditi, or fideles. ↩
See the twenty-fifth and thirtieth dissertations of the Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi of Muratori. From Anderson’s Historical Deduction of Commerce, I understand that the Venetians did not trade to England before the year 1323. The most flourishing state of their wealth and commerce in the beginning of the fifteenth century is agreeably described by the Abbé Dubos (L’Histoire de la Ligue de Cambray, tom. II, pp. 443⁠–⁠480). ↩
The Venetians have been slow in writing and publishing their history. Their most ancient monuments are:
1. The rude Chronicle (perhaps) of John Sagorninus (Venezia, 1765, in octavo), which represents the state and manners of Venice in the year 1008.
2. The larger history of the doge (1342⁠–⁠1354), Andrew Dandolo, published for the first time in the twelth tom. of Muratori, AD 1728.
The History of Venice by the Abbé Laugier (Paris, 1728), is a work of some merit, which I have chiefly used for the constitutional part.9294 ↩
Henry Dandolo was eighty-four at his election (AD 1192), and ninety-seven at his death (AD 1205). See the Observations sur Villehardouin of du Cange, No. 204. But this extraordinary longevity is not observed by the original writers, nor does there exist another example of a hero near a hundred years of age. Theophrastus might afford an instance of a writer of ninety-nine; but instead of ἐννενήκοντα (Proem ad Characters), I am much inclined to read ἑβδομήκοντα, with his last editor Fischer, and the first thoughts of Casaubon. It is scarcely possible that the powers of the mind and body should support themselves till such a period of life. ↩
The modern Venetians (Laugier, tom. II, p. 119) accuse the emperor Manuel; but the calumny is refuted by Villehardouin and the older writers, who suppose that Dandolo lost his eyes by a wound (No. 34, and du Cange).9295 ↩
See the original treaty in the Chronicle of Andrew Dandolo, pp. 323⁠–⁠326. ↩
A reader of Villehardouin must observe the frequent tears of the marshal and his brother knights. Sachiez que la ot mainte lerme plorée de pitié (No. 17); mult plorant (ibid.); mainte lerme plorée (No. 34); si orent mult pitié et plorerent mult durement (No. 60); i ot mainte lerme plorée de pitié (No. 202). They weep on every occasion of grief, joy, or devotion. ↩
By a victory (AD 1191) over the citizens of Asti, by a crusade to Palestine, and by an embassy from the pope to the German princes (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. X, pp. 163, 202). ↩
See the crusade of the Germans in the Historia Constantinopolitana of Gunther (Canisii, Lectiones antiquae, tom. IV, p. v⁠–⁠viii), who celebrates the pilgrimage of his abbot Martin, one of the preaching rivals of Fulk of Neuilly. His monastery, of the Cistercian order, was situate in the diocese of Basil. ↩
Jadera, now Zara, was a Roman colony, which acknowledged Augustus for its parent. It is now only two miles round, and contains five or six thousand inhabitants; but the fortifications are strong, and it is joined to the mainland by a bridge. See the travels of the two companions, Jacob Spon and George Wheler (Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce, et du Levant, tom. I, pp. 64⁠–⁠70; A Journey Into Greece, pp. 8⁠–⁠14); the last of whom, by mistaking Sestertia for Sestertii, values an arch with statues and columns at twelve pounds. If in his time there were no trees near Zara, the cherry-trees were not yet planted which produce our incomparable marasquin. ↩
Katona (Historia critica regum Hungariae stirpis Arpadianae, tom. IV, pp. 536⁠–⁠558) collects all the facts and testimonies most adverse to the conquerors of Zara. ↩
See the whole transaction, and the sentiments of the pope, in the epistles of Innocent III, Gesta Innocentii III, c. 86⁠–⁠88. ↩
Montfort protested against the siege. Guido, the abbot of Vaux de Sernay, in the name of the pope, interdicted the attack on a Christian city; and the immediate surrender of the town was thus delayed for five days of fruitless resistance. Wilken, vol. V, p. 169. See likewise, at length, the history of the interdict issued by the pope. Ibid. —⁠M. ↩
A modern reader is surprised to hear of the valet de Constantinople, as applied to young Alexius on account of his youth, like the infants of Spain, and the nobilissimus puer of the Romans. The pages and valets of the knights were as noble as themselves (Villehardouin and du Cange, No. 36). ↩
The emperor Isaac is styled by Villehardouin, Sursac (No. 35, etc.), which may be derived from the French Sire, or the Greek Κύρ (κύριος) melted into his proper name; the further corruptions of Tursac and Conserac will instruct us what license may have been used in the old dynasties of Assyria and Egypt. ↩
Reinier and Conrad: the former married Maria, daughter of the emperor Manuel Comnenus; the latter was the husband of Theodora Angela, sister of the emperors Isaac and Alexius. Conrad abandoned the Greek court and princess for the glory of defending Tyre against Saladin (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 187, 203). ↩
Nicetas (in Imperii Graeci historia, “Alexio Comneno,” l. III c. 9) accuses the doge and Venetians as the first authors of the war against Constantinople, and considers only as a κῦμα ὑπὲρ κύματι the arrival and shameful offers of the royal exile.9296 ↩
Villehardouin and Gunther represent the sentiments of the two parties. The abbot Martin left the army at Zara, proceeded to Palestine, was sent ambassador to Constantinople, and became a reluctant witness of the second siege. ↩
The birth and dignity of Andrew Dandolo gave him the motive and the means of searching in the archives of Venice the memorable story of his ancestor. His brevity seems to accuse the copious and more recent narratives of Sanudo (in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XXII), Blondus, Sabellicus, and Rhamnusius. ↩
This description rather belongs to the first setting sail of the expedition from Venice, before the siege of Zara. The armament did not return to Venice. —⁠M. ↩
Villehardouin, No. 62. His feelings and expressions are original: he often weeps, but he rejoices in the glories and perils of war with a spirit unknown to a sedentary writer. ↩
In this voyage, almost all the geographical names are corrupted by the Latins. The modern appellation of Chalcis, and all Euboea, is derived from its Euripus, Evripo, Negri-po, Negropont, which dishonors our maps (d’Anville, Géographie Ancienne, tom. I, p. 263). ↩
Et sachiez que il ni ot si hardi cui le cuer ne fremist (c. 66)⁠ ⁠… Chascuns regardoit ses armes⁠ ⁠… que par tems en arons mestier (c. 67). Such is the honesty of courage. ↩
Eandem urbem plus in solis navibus piscatorum abundare, quam illos in toto navigio. Habebat enim mille et sexcentas piscatorias naves⁠ ⁠… Bellicas autem sive mercatorias habebant infinitae multitudinis et portum tutissimum. Gunther, Historia Constantinopolitana, c. 8, p. 10. ↩
Καθάπερ ἰερῶν ἀλσέων, εἰπεῖν δὲ καὶ θεοφυτεύτων παραδείσων ἐφέιδοντο τουτωνί. Nicetas in Imperii Graeci historia, “Alexio Comneno,” l. III c. 9, p. 348. ↩
From the version of Vignere I adopt the well-sounding word palander, which is still used, I believe, in the Mediterranean. But had I written in French, I should have preserved the original and expressive denomination of vessiers or huissiers, from the huis, or door, which was let down as a drawbridge; but which, at sea, was closed into the side of the ship (see du Cange au Villehardouin, No. 14, and Joinville, pp. 27, 28, edit. du Louvre). ↩
To avoid the vague expressions of followers, etc., I use, after Villehardouin, the word sergeants for all horsemen who were not knights. There were sergeants at arms, and sergeants at law; and if we visit the parade and Westminster Hall, we may observe the strange result of the distinction (du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, “Servientes,” etc., tom. VI, pp. 226⁠–⁠231). ↩
It is needless to observe that on the subject of Galata, the chain, etc., du Cange is accurate and full. Consult likewise the proper chapters of the Constantanopolis Christiana of the same author. The inhabitants of Galata were so vain and ignorant that they applied to themselves St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. ↩
The vessel that broke the chain was named the Eagle, Aquila (Dandolo, Chronicon Venetum, p. 322), which Blondus (De origine et gestis Venetorum) has changed into Aquilo, the north wind. Du Cange (Observations, No. 83) maintains the latter reading; but he had not seen the respectable text of Dandolo; nor did he enough consider the topography of the harbor. The southeast would have been a more effectual wind. [Note to Wilken, vol. V, p. 215. —⁠M.] ↩
Quatre cens mil homes ou plus (Villehardouin, No. 134), must be understood of men of a military age. Le Beau (Histoire du Bas-Empire, tom. XX, p. 417) allows Constantinople a million of inhabitants, of whom 60,000 horse, and an infinite number of foot-soldiers. In its present decay the capital of the Ottoman empire may contain 400,000 souls (Bell’s Travels from St. Petersburg, vol. II, pp. 401, 402); but as the Turks keep no registers, and as circumstances are fallacious, it is impossible to ascertain (Niebuhr, Voyage en Arabie, tom. I, pp. 18, 19) the real populousness of their cities. ↩
On the most correct plans of Constantinople, I know not how to measure more than 4,000 paces. Yet Villehardouin computes the space at three leagues (No. 86). If his eye were not deceived, he must reckon by the old Gallic league of 1,500 paces, which might still be used in Champagne. ↩
The guards, the Varangi, are styled by Villehardouin (No. 89, 95) Englois et Danois avec leurs haches. Whatever had been their origin, a French pilgrim could not be mistaken in the nations of which they were at that time composed. ↩
For the first siege and conquest of Constantinople, we may read the original letter of the crusaders to Innocent III, Gesta Innocentii III, c. 91, pp. 533, 534; Villehardouin, No. 75⁠–⁠99; Nicetas, in Imperii Graeci historia, “Alexio Comneno,” l. III c. 10, pp. 349⁠–⁠352; Dandolo, in Chronicon Venetum, p. 322. Gunther and his abbot Martin were not yet returned from their obstinate pilgrimage to Jerusalem, or St. John d’Acre, where the greatest part of the company had died of the plague. ↩
Compare, in the rude energy of Villehardouin (No. 66, 100), the inside and outside views of Constantinople, and their impression on the minds of the pilgrims: cette ville (says he) que de toutes les autres ére souveraine. See the parallel passages of Fulcherius Carnotensis, Historia Hierosolymitana, l. I c. 4, and Willelmus Tyrensis II 3, XX 26. ↩
As they played at dice, the Latins took off his diadem, and clapped on his head a woollen or hairy cap, τὸ μεγαλοπρεπὲς καὶ παγκλέϊστον κατερρύπαινεν ὄνομα (Nicetas, p. 358). If these merry companions were Venetians, it was the insolence of trade and a commonwealth. ↩
Villehardouin, No. 101. Dandolo, p. 322. The Doge affirms that the Venetians were paid more slowly than the French; but he owns that the histories of the two nations differed on that subject. Had he read Villehardouin? The Greeks complained, however, quod totius Graeciae opes transtulisset (Gunther, Historia Constantinopolitana, c. 13). See the lamentations and invectives of Nicetas (p. 355). ↩
The reign of Alexius Comnenus occupies three books in Nicetas, pp. 291⁠–⁠352. The short restoration of Isaac and his son is despatched in five chapters, pp. 352⁠–⁠362. ↩
When Nicetas reproaches Alexius for his impious league, he bestows the harshest names on the pope’s new religion, μεῖζον καὶ ἀτοπώτατον⁠ ⁠… παρεκτροπὴν πίστεως⁠ ⁠… τῶν τοῦ Πάπα προνομίων καινισμόν⁠ ⁠… μετάθεσίν τε καὶ μεταποίησιν τῶν παλαιῶν Ῥωμαίοις ἐθῶν (p. 348). Such was the sincere language of every Greek to the last gasp of the empire. ↩
Nicetas (p. 355) is positive in the charge, and specifies the Flemings (Φλαμίονες), though he is wrong in supposing it an ancient name. Villehardouin (No. 107) exculpates the barons, and is ignorant (perhaps affectedly ignorant) of the names of the guilty. ↩
Finlay observes that Gibbon has made a mistake in saying that the conflagration lasted eight days and nights, and that Daru and Michaud both repeat the error. He adds that the mistake seems to have arisen from copying Cousin’s French translation of Nicetas:⁠—“Buchon has given additional currency to the blunder, without correction, in his notes to Villehardouin. We possess two contemporary witnesses. Nicetas says the fire continued the first day, all the night, the following day, and the evening (p. 356). Villehardouin says it lasted two days and nights, and extended half a league in front (p. 82, Buchon’s edition). The text of du Cange has une lieue de terre.” Finlay, Medieval Greece and the Empire of Trebizond, p. 98. —⁠S. ↩
Compare the suspicions and complaints of Nicetas (pp. 359⁠–⁠362) with the blunt charges of Baldwin of Flanders (Gesta Innocentii III, c. 92, p. 534), cum patriarcha et mole nobilium, nobis promises perjurus et mendax. ↩
His name was Nicholas Canabus: he deserved the praise of Nicetas, and the vengeance of Mourzoufle (p. 362). ↩
Villehardouin (No. 116) speaks of him as a favorite, without knowing that he was a prince of the blood, Angelus and Ducas. Du Cange, who pries into every corner, believes him to be the son of Isaac Ducas Sebastocrator, and second cousin of young Alexius. ↩
This negotiation, probable in itself, and attested by Nicetas (p. 365), is omitted as scandalous by the delicacy of Dandolo and Villehardouin.9297 ↩
Baldwin mentions both attempts to fire the fleet (Gesta Innocentii III, c. 92, pp. 534, 535); Villehardouin (No. 113⁠–⁠115) only describes the first. It is remarkable that neither of these warriors observe any peculiar properties in the Greek fire. ↩
Du Cange (No. 119) pours forth a torrent of learning on the Gonfanon Imperial. This banner of the Virgin is shown at Venice as a trophy and relic; if it be genuine, the pious doge must have cheated the monks of Citeaux. ↩
Villehardouin (No. 126) confesses that mult ere grant peril; and Guntherus (Historia Constantinopolitana, c. 13) affirms that nulla spes victoriae arridere poterat. Yet the knight despises those who thought of flight, and the monk praises his countrymen who were resolved on death. ↩
There appear to have been only two attacks, viz. April 9th and 12th. During the two intervening days, on which Gibbon describes the attack as “renewed with equal vigor,” the Latins were employed in repairing the damage they had sustained. Michaud, vol. III, p. 242⁠–⁠244; Wilken, vol. V, p. 287⁠–⁠289. —⁠S. ↩
Baldwin and all the writers honor the names of these two galleys, felici auspicio. ↩
Pietro Alberti, a Venetian noble, and Andrew d’Amboise, a French knight. —⁠M. ↩
With an allusion to Homer, Nicetas calls him ἐννέα ὀργυίας, nine orgyae, or eighteen yards high, a stature which would indeed have excused the terror of the Greeks. On this occasion, the historian seems fonder of the marvellous than of his country, or perhaps of truth. Baldwin exclaims in the words of the psalmist, persequitur unus ex nobis centum alienos. ↩
Villehardouin (No. 130) is again ignorant of the authors of this more legitimate fire, which is ascribed by Gunther to a quidam comes Teutonicus (c. 14). They seem ashamed, the incendiaries! ↩
For the second siege and conquest of Constantinople, see Villehardouin (No. 113⁠–⁠132), Baldwin’s second epistle to Innocent III (Gesta Innocentii III, c. 92, pp. 534⁠–⁠537), with the whole reign of Mourzoufle in Nicetas (pp. 363⁠–⁠375); and borrow some hints from Dandolo (Chronicon Venetum, pp. 323⁠–⁠330) and Gunther (Historia Constantinopolitana, c. 14⁠–⁠18), who add the decorations of prophecy and vision. The former produces an oracle of the Erythraean sibyl, of a great armament on the Adriatic, under a blind chief, against Byzantium, etc. Curious enough, were the prediction anterior to the fact. ↩
Ceciderunt tamen eâ die civium quasi duo millia, etc. (Gunther, c. 18). Arithmetic is an excellent touchstone to try the amplifications of passion and rhetoric. ↩
Quidam (says Innocent III, Gesta Innocentii III, c. 94, p. 538) nec religioni, nec aetati, nec sexui pepercerunt; sed fornicationes, adulteria, et incestus in oculis omnium exercentes, non solûm maritatas et viduas, sed et matronas et virgines Deoque dicatas, exposuerunt spurcitiis garcionum. Villehardouin takes no notice of these common incidents. ↩
Nicetas saved, and afterwards married, a noble virgin (p. 380), whom a soldier, ἐπὶ μάρτυσι πολλοῖς ὀνηδὸν ἐπιβρωμώμενος, had almost violated in spite of the ἐντολαί, ἐντάλματα εὖ γεγονότων. ↩
Of the general mass of wealth, Gunther observes, ut de pauperibus et advenis cives ditissimi redderentur (Historia Constantinopolitana, c. 18); Villehardouin (No. 132), that since the creation, ne fu tant gaaignié dans une ville; Baldwin (Gesta Innocentii III, c. 92), ut tantum tota non videatur possidere Latinitas. ↩
According to Finlay (Medieval Greece, p. 106) the whole booty was only 300,000 marks, besides 10,000 horses and mules:⁠—“This sum was divided into two equal parts. The Venetians then received 50,000 marks out of the share of the crusaders, in payment of the debt due to the republic; and the 100,000 marks which remained as the crusading portion was divided in the following manner: each foot-soldier received five marks of silver, each horseman and priest ten, and each knight twenty.” Compare Wilken, vol. V, p. 320. Villehardouin’s account is inconsistent. In No. 134 he says⁠—“Et sachiez que il ne fu mie aporté tot avant, assemblez fu et despartiz des Frans et des Venetiens par moitié si com la compaignie ére juré. Et sachiez quant il orent parti, que il paiérent de la lor partie cinquante mil mars d’argent às Venitiens, et bien departierent cent mil entr’als ensemble par lor gent.” But in No. 135 he says⁠—“Sanz celui qui fu emblez (caché), et sanz la partie des Venitiens, ere vint bien avant cinq cens mil mars d’argent”; with the various reading, “quatre cens mil.” —⁠S. ↩
Villehardouin, No. 133⁠–⁠135. Instead of 400,000, there is a various reading of 500,000. The Venetians had offered to take the whole booty, and to give 400 marks to each knight, 200 to each priest and horseman, and 100 to each foot-soldier: they would have been great losers (Le Beau, Histoire du Bas-Empire, tom. XX, p. 506:⁠—I know not from whence). ↩
At the council of Lyons (AD 1245) the English ambassadors stated the revenue of the crown as below that of the foreign clergy, which amounted to 60,000 marks a year (Matthew Paris, p. 451; Hume’s History of England, vol. II, p. 170). ↩
The disorders of the sack of Constantinople, and his own adventures, are feelingly described by Nicetas, pp. 367⁠–⁠369, and in the Status urbis Constantinopolitana, pp. 375⁠–⁠384. His complaints even of sacrilege are justified by Innocent III (Gesta Innocentii III, c. 92); but Villehardouin does not betray a symptom of pity or remorse. ↩
If I rightly apprehend the Greek of Nicetas’s receipts, their favorite dishes were boiled buttocks of beef, salt pork and peas, and soup made of garlic and sharp or sour herbs (p. 382). ↩
Nicetas uses very harsh expressions, παρ’ ἀγραμμάτοις βαρβάροις, καὶ τέλεον ἀναλφαβήτοις (Fragment, apud Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, p. 414). This reproach, it is true, applies most strongly to their ignorance of Greek and of Homer. In their own language, the Latins of the twelth and thirteenth centuries were not destitute of literature. See Harris’s Philological Inquiries, p. III c. 9⁠–⁠11. ↩
Nicetas was of Chonae in Phrygia (the old Colossae of St. Paul); he raised himself to the honors of senator, judge of the veil, and great logothete; beheld the fall of the empire, retired to Nice, and composed an elaborate history from the death of Alexius Comnenus to the reign of Henry. ↩
A manuscript of Nicetas in the Bodleian library contains this curious fragment on the statues of Constantinople, which fraud, or shame, or rather carelessness, has dropped in the common editions. It is published by Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, pp. 405⁠–⁠416), and immoderately praised by the late ingenious Mr. Harris of Salisbury (Philological Inquiries, p. III c. 5, pp. 301⁠–⁠312). ↩
To illustrate the statue of Hercules, Mr. Harris quotes a Greek epigram, and engraves a beautiful gem, which does not however copy the attitude of the statue. In the latter, Hercules had not his club, and his right leg and arm were extended. ↩
I transcribe these proportions, which appear to me inconsistent with each other, and may possibly show that the boasted taste of Nicetas was no more than affectation and vanity. ↩
Nicetas, in Imperii Graeci historia, “Isaaco Angelo et Alexio,” c. 3, p. 359. The Latin editor very properly observes that the historian, in his bombast style, produces ex pulice elephantem. ↩
In two passages of Nicetas (edit. Paris, p. 360; Fabricius, p. 408), the Latins are branded with the lively reproach of οἱ τοῦ καλοῦ ἀνέραστοι βάρβαροι, and their avarice of brass is clearly expressed. Yet the Venetians had the merit of removing four bronze horses from Constantinople to the place of St. Mark (Sanuto, Vite del Dogi, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XXII, p. 534). ↩
Winckelmann, Histoire de l’art l’antiquité, tom. III, pp. 269, 270. ↩
See the pious robbery of the abbot Martin, who transferred a rich cargo to his monastery of Paris, diocese of Basil (Gunther, Historia Constantinopolitana, c. 19, 23, 24). Yet in secreting this booty the saint incurred an excommunication, and perhaps broke his oath. [Compare Wilken vol. V, p. 308. —⁠M.] ↩
Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XVI, pp. 139⁠–⁠145. ↩
I shall conclude this chapter with the notice of a modern history, which illustrates the taking of Constantinople by the Latins; but which has fallen somewhat late into my hands. Paolo Ramusio, the son of the compiler of Voyages, was directed by the senate of Venice to write the history of the conquest: and this order, which he received in his youth, he executed in a mature age, by an elegant Latin work, De bello Constantinopolitano et imperatoribus Comnenis per Venetos et Gallos restitutis (Venetiis, 1635, in folio). Ramusio, or Rhamnusus, transcribes and translates, sequitur ad unguem, a MS. of Villehardouin, which he possessed; but he enriches his narrative with Greek and Latin materials, and we are indebted to him for a correct state of the fleet, the names of the fifty Venetian nobles who commanded the galleys of the republic, and the patriot opposition of Pantaleon Barbus to the choice of the doge for emperor. ↩
See the original treaty of partition, in the Venetian Chronicle of Andrew Dandolo, pp. 326⁠–⁠330, and the subsequent election in Villehardouin, No. 136⁠–⁠140, with du Cange in his Observations, and the first book of his Histoire de Constantinople sous l’Empire des François. ↩
After mentioning the nomination of the doge by a French elector, his kinsman Andrew Dandolo approves his exclusion, quidam Venetorum fidelis et nobilis senex, usus oratione satis probabili, etc., which has been embroidered by modern writers from Blondus to Le Beau. ↩
Nicetas (p. 384), with the vain ignorance of a Greek, describes the marquis of Montferrat as a maritime power. Λαμπαρδίαν δὲ οἰκεῖσθαι παράλιον. Was he deceived by the Byzantine theme of Lombardy, which extended along the coast of Calabria? ↩
They exacted an oath from Thomas Morosini to appoint no canons of St. Sophia, the lawful electors, except Venetians who had lived ten years at Venice, etc. But the foreign clergy was envious, the pope disapproved this national monopoly, and of the six Latin patriarchs of Constantinople only the first and the last were Venetians. ↩
Nicetas, p. 383. ↩
The epistles of Innocent III are a rich fund for the ecclesiastical and civil institution of the Latin empire of Constantinople; and the most important of these epistles (of which the collection in two vols. in folio is published by Stephen Baluze) are inserted in his Gesta Innocentii III, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I c. 94⁠–⁠105. ↩
In the treaty of partition, most of the names are corrupted by the scribes; they might be restored, and a good map, suited to the last age of the Byzantine empire, would be an improvement of geography. But, alas! d’Anville is no more! ↩
Their style was dominus quartae partis et dimidiae imperii Romani, till Giovanni Dolfino, who was elected Doge in the year of 1356 (Sanuto, pp. 530, 641). For the government of Constantinople, see du Cange, Histoire de Constantinople I 37. ↩
Du Cange (Histoire de Constantinople II 6) has marked the conquests made by the state or nobles of Venice of the islands of Candia, Corfu, Cephalonia, Zante, Naxos, Paros, Melos, Andros, Mycone, Syro, Cea, and Lemnos. ↩
Boniface sold the isle of Candia, August 12, AD 1204. See the act in Sanuto, p. 533; but I cannot understand how it could be his mother’s portion, or how she could be the daughter of an emperor Alexius. ↩
In the year 1212, the doge Peter Zani sent a colony to Candia, drawn from every quarter of Venice. But in their savage manners and frequent rebellions, the Candiots may be compared to the Corsicans under the yoke of Genoa; and when I compare the accounts of Belon and Tournefort, I cannot discern much difference between the Venetian and the Turkish island. ↩
Villehardouin (No. 159, 160, 173⁠–⁠177) and Nicetas (pp. 387⁠–⁠394) describe the expedition into Greece of the marquis Boniface. The Choniate might derive his information from his brother Michael, archbishop of Athens, whom he paints as an orator, a statesman, and a saint. His encomium of Athens, and the description of Tempe, should be published from the Bodleian MS. of Nicetas (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, p. 405), and would have deserved Mr. Harris’s inquiries. ↩
Napoli de Romania, or Nauplia, the ancient seaport of Argos, is still a place of strength and consideration, situate on a rocky peninsula, with a good harbor (Chandler’s Travels in Greece, p. 227). ↩
I have softened the expression of Nicetas, who strives to expose the presumption of the Franks. See De rebus post Constantinopolis expugnatam, pp. 375⁠–⁠384. ↩
A city surrounded by the river Hebrus, and six leagues to the south of Adrianople, received from its double wall the Greek name of Didymoteichos, insensibly corrupted into Demotica and Dimot. I have preferred the more convenient and modern appellation of Demotica. This place was the last Turkish residence of Charles XII. ↩
Their quarrel is told by Villehardouin (No. 146⁠–⁠158) with the spirit of freedom. The merit and reputation of the marshal are so acknowledged by the Greek historian (p. 387), μέγα παρὰ τοῖς Λατίνων δυναμένου στρατεύμασι: unlike some modern heroes, whose exploits are only visible in their own memoirs.9298 ↩
See the fate of Mourzoufle in Nicetas (p. 393), Villehardouin (No. 141⁠–⁠145, 163), and Guntherus (c. 20, 21). Neither the marshal nor the monk afford a grain of pity for a tyrant or rebel, whose punishment, however, was more unexampled than his crime. ↩
The column of Arcadius, which represents in basso-relievo his victories, or those of his father Theodosius, is still extant at Constantinople. It is described and measured, Gyllius (Topographia Constantinopoleos IV 7), Banduri (ad l. I, Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, p. 507, etc.), and Tournefort (Voyage du Levant, tom. II lettre XII, p. 231). [Compare Wilken, note, vol. V, p. 388. —⁠M.] ↩
The nonsense of Gunther and the modern Greeks concerning this columna fatidica is unworthy of notice; but it is singular enough that, fifty years before the Latin conquest, the poet Tzetzes (Chiliades IX 277) relates the dream of a matron, who saw an army in the forum, and a man sitting on the column, clapping his hands and uttering a loud exclamation.9299 ↩
The dynasties of Nice, Trebizond, and Epirus (of which Nicetas saw the origin without much pleasure or hope) are learnedly explored, and clearly represented, in the Familiae Byzantinae of du Cange. ↩
This was a title, not a personal appellation. Joinville speaks of the “Grant Comnenie, et sire de Traffezzontes.” Fallmerayer, p. 82. —⁠M. ↩
Except some facts in Pachymer and Nicephorus Gregoras, which will hereafter be used, the Byzantine writers disdain to speak of the empire of Trebizond, or principality of the Lazi; and among the Latins it is conspicuous only in the romances of the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. Yet the indefatigable du Cange has dug out (Familiae Byzantinae, p. 192) two authentic passages in Vincent of Beauvais (l. XXXI c. 144), and the protonotary Ogerius (apud Luke Wadding, AD 1279, No. 4). ↩
The successor of Alexius was his son-in-law Andronicus I, of the Comnenian family, surnamed Gidon. There were five successions between Alexius and John, according to Fallmerayer, p. 103. The troops of Trebizond fought in the army of Dschelaleddin, the Karismian, against Alai-eddin, the Seljukian sultan of Roum, but as allies rather than vassals, p. 107. It was after the defeat of Dschelaleddin that they furnished their contingent to Alai-eddin. Fallmerayer struggles in vain to mitigate this mark of the subjection of the Comneni to the sultan, p. 116. —⁠M. ↩
On the revolutions of Trebizond under the later empire down to this period, see Fallmerayer, Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt, ch. III. The wife of Manuel fled with her infant sons and her treasure from the relentless enmity of Isaac Angelus. Fallmerayer conjectures that her arrival enabled the Greeks of that region to make head against the formidable Thamar, the Georgian queen of Teflis, p. 42. They gradually formed a dominion on the banks of the Phasis, which the distracted government of the Angeli neglected or were unable to suppress. On the capture of Constantinople by the Latins, Alexius was joined by many noble fugitives from Constantinople. He had always retained the names of Caesar and βασιλεύς. He now fixed the seat of his empire at Trebizond; but he had never abandoned his pretensions to the Byzantine throne, ch. III. Fallmerayer appears to make out a triumphant case as to the assumption of the royal title by Alexius the First. Since the publication of M. Fallmerayer’s work (München, 1827), M. Tafel has published, at the end of the opuscula of Eustathius, a curious chronicle of Trebizond by Michael Panaretas (Frankfurt, 1832). It gives the succession of the emperors, and some other curious circumstances of their wars with the several Muhammadan powers. —⁠M. ↩
The portrait of the French Latins is drawn in Nicetas by the hand of prejudice and resentment: οὐδὲν τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν εἰς Ἄρεος ἔργα παρασυμβεβλῆσθαι σφίσιν ἠνείχοντο, ἀλλ’ οὐδέ τις τῶν χαρίτων ἤ τῶν μουσῶν παρὰ τοῖς βαρβάροις τοῦτοις ἐπεξενίζετο, καὶ παρὰ τοῦτο οἶμαι τὴν φύσιν ἦσαν ἀνήμεροι, καὶ τὸν χόλον εἶχον τοῦ λόγου προτρέχοντα. [P. 791, edit. Bonnae. —⁠M.] ↩
I here begin to use, with freedom and confidence, the eight books of the Histoire de l’Empire Constantinople sous les empereurs François, which du Cange has given as a supplement to Villehardouin; and which, in a barbarous style, deserves the praise of an original and classic work. ↩
In Calo-John’s answer to the Pope, we may find his claims and complaints (Gesta Innocentii III, c. 108, 109): he was cherished at Rome as the prodigal son. ↩
The Comans were a Tartar or Turkman horde, which encamped in the twelth and thirteenth centuries on the verge of Moldavia. The greater part were Pagans, but some were Muhammadans, and the whole horde was converted to Christianity (AD 1370) by Lewis, king of Hungary. ↩
Nicetas, from ignorance or malice, imputes the defeat to the cowardice of Dandolo (p. 383); but Villehardouin shares his own glory with his venerable friend, qui viels home ére et gote ne veoit, mais mult ére sages et preus et vigueros (No. 193).9300 ↩
The truth of geography and the original text of Villehardouin (No. 194), place Rodosto three days’ journey (trois jornées) from Adrianople; but Vigenère, in his version, has most absurdly substituted trois heures; and this error, which is not corrected by du Cange, has entrapped several moderns, whose names I shall spare. ↩
The reign and end of Baldwin are related by Villehardouin and Nicetas (pp. 386⁠–⁠416); and their omissions are supplied by du Cange in his Observations, and to the end of his first book. ↩
After brushing away all doubtful and improbable circumstances, we may prove the death of Baldwin:
1. By the firm belief of the French barons (Villehardouin, No. 230).
2. By the declaration of Calo-John himself, who excuses his not releasing the captive emperor, quia debitum carnis exsolverat cum carcere teneretur (Gesta Innocentii III, c. 109).9301
↩
See the story of this impostor from the French and Flemish writers in du Cange, Histoire de Constantinople III 9; and the ridiculous fables that were believed by the monks of St. Alban’s in Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, pp. 271, 272. ↩
Villehardouin, No. 257. I quote, with regret, this lamentable conclusion, where we lose at once the original history, and the rich illustrations of du Cange. The last pages may derive some light from Henry’s two epistles to Innocent III (Gesta Innocentii III, c. 106, 107). ↩
The marshal was alive in 1212, but he probably died soon afterwards, without returning to France (du Cange, Observations sur Villehardouin, p. 238). His fief of Messinople, the gift of Boniface, was the ancient Maximianopolis, which flourished in the time of Ammianus Marcellinus, among the cities of Thrace (No. 141). ↩
There was no battle. On the advance of the Latins, John suddenly broke up his camp and retreated. The Latins considered this unexpected deliverance almost a miracle. Le Beau suggests the probability that the defection of the Comans, who usually quitted the camp during the heats of summer, may have caused the flight of the Bulgarians. Nicetas, c. 8; Villehardouin, c. 225; Le Beau, vol. XVII, p. 242. —⁠M. ↩
The church of this patron of Thessalonica was served by the canons of the Holy Sepulchre, and contained a divine ointment which distilled daily and stupendous miracles (du Cange, Histoire de Constantinople II 4). ↩
Acropolita (c. 17) observes the persecution of the legate, and the toleration of Henry (Ἔρη,9302 as he calls him) κλυδῶνα καταστόρεσε. ↩
See the reign of Henry, in du Cange (Histoire de Constantinople, l. I c. 35⁠–⁠41, l. II c. 1⁠–⁠22), who is much indebted to the Epistles of the Popes. Le Beau (Histoire du Bas-Empire, tom. XXI, pp. 120⁠–⁠122) has found, perhaps in Doutreman, some laws of Henry, which determined the service of fiefs and the prerogatives of the emperor. ↩
Acropolita (c. 14) affirms that Peter of Courtenay died by the sword (ἔργον μαχαίρας γενέσθαι); but from his dark expressions, I should conclude a previous captivity, ὡς πάντας ἄρδην δεσμώτας ποιῆσαι σὺν πᾶσι σκεύεσι.9303 The Chronicle of Auxerre delays the emperor’s death till the year 1219; and Auxerre is in the neighborhood of Courtenay. ↩
See the reign and death of Peter of Courtenay in du Cange (Histoire de Constantinople, l. II c. 22⁠–⁠28), who feebly strives to excuse the neglect of the emperor by Honorius III. ↩
Marinus Sanutus (Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, l. II pars 4, c. 18, p. 73) is so much delighted with this bloody deed that he has transcribed it in his margin as a bonum exemplum. Yet he acknowledges the damsel for the lawful wife of Robert. ↩
See the reign of Robert in du Cange (Histoire de Constantinople, l. II c. 12). ↩
Rex igitur Franciae, deliberatione habitâ, respondit nuntiis, se daturum hominem Syriae partibus aptum; in armis probum (preux) in bellis securum, in agendis providum, Johannem comitem Brennensem. Sanutus, Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, l. III pars XI c. 4, p. 205. Matthew Paris, p. 159. ↩
Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. II l. XVI, pp. 380⁠–⁠385) discusses the marriage of Frederic II with the daughter of John of Brienne, and the double union of the crowns of Naples and Jerusalem. ↩
Acropolita, c. 27. The historian was at that time a boy, and educated at Constantinople. In 1233, when he was eleven years old, his father broke the Latin chain, left a splendid fortune, and escaped to the Greek court of Nice, where his son was raised to the highest honors. ↩
John de Brienne, elected emperor 1229, wasted two years in preparations, and did not arrive at Constantinople till 1231. Two years more glided away in inglorious inaction; he then made some ineffective warlike expeditions. Constantinople was not besieged till 1234. —⁠M. ↩
Philip Mouskes, bishop of Tournay (AD 1274⁠–⁠1282), has composed a poem, or rather string of verses, in bad old Flemish French, on the Latin emperors of Constantinople, which du Cange has published at the end of Villehardouin; see p. 224 for the prowess of John of Brienne.

N’Aie, Ector, Roll’ ne Ogiers
Ne Judas Machabeus li fiers
Tant ne fit d’armes en estors
Com fist li Rois Jehans cel jors
Et il defors et il dedans
La paru sa force et ses sens
Et li hardiment qu’il avoit.

↩
See the reign of John de Brienne, in du Cange, Histoire de Constantinople, l. II c. 13⁠–⁠26. ↩
See the reign of Baldwin II till his expulsion from Constantinople, in du Cange, Histoire de Constantinople, l. IV c. 1⁠–⁠34, the end l. V c. 1⁠–⁠33. ↩
Matthew Paris relates the two visits of Baldwin II to the English court, pp. 396, 637; his return to Greece armatâ manû, p. 407, his letters of his nomen formidabile, etc., p. 481 (a passage which has escaped du Cange); his expulsion, p. 850. ↩
Louis IX disapproved and stopped the alienation of Courtenay (du Cange, l. IV c. 23). It is now annexed to the royal demesne, but granted for a term (engagé) to the family of Boulainvilliers. Courtenay, in the election of Nemours in the Isle de France, is a town of 900 inhabitants, with the remains of a castle (Mélanges tirés d’une grande bibliothèque, tom. XLV, pp. 74⁠–⁠77). ↩
Joinville, p. 104, edit. du Louvre. A Coman prince, who died without baptism, was buried at the gates of Constantinople with a live retinue of slaves and horses. ↩
Sanutus, Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, l. II pars IV c. 18, p. 73. ↩
Under the words “Perparus,” “Perpera,” “Hyperperum,” du Cange is short and vague: Monetae genus. From a corrupt passage of Guntherus (Histoire de Constantinople, c. 8, p. 10), I guess that the Perpera was the nummus aureus, the fourth part of a mark of silver, or about ten shillings sterling in value. In lead it would be too contemptible. ↩
For the translation of the holy crown, etc., from Constantinople to Paris, see du Cange (Histoire de Constantinople, l. IV c. 11⁠–⁠14, 24, 35) and Fleury (Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XVII, pp. 201⁠–⁠204). ↩
Mélanges tirés d’une grande bibliothèque, tom. XLIII, pp. 201⁠–⁠205. The Lutrin of Boileau exhibits the inside, the soul and manners of the Sainte Chapelle; and many facts relative to the institution are collected and explained by his commentators, Brosset and de Saint-Marc. ↩
It was performed AD 1656, March 24, on the niece of Pascal; and that superior genius, with Arnauld, Nicole, etc., were on the spot to believe and attest a miracle which confounded the Jesuits, and saved Port Royal (Oeuvres de Racine, tom. VI, pp. 176⁠–⁠187, in his eloquent History of Port Royal). ↩
Voltaire (Siècle de Louis XIV, c. 37; Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire, tom. IX, pp. 178, 179) strives to invalidate the fact; but Hume (Essays, vol. II, pp. 483, 484), with more skill and success, seizes the battery, and turns the cannon against his enemies. ↩
The gradual losses of the Latins may be traced in the third fourth, and fifth books of the compilation of du Cange; but of the Greek conquests he has dropped many circumstances, which may be recovered from the larger history of George Acropolita, and the three first books of Nicephorus Gregoras, two writers of the Byzantine series who have had the good fortune to meet with learned editors, Leo Allatius at Rome, and John Boivin in the Academy of Inscriptions of Paris. ↩
George Acropolita, c. 78, pp. 89, 90, edit. Paris. ↩
The Greeks, ashamed of any foreign aid, disguise the alliance and succor of the Genoese; but the fact is proved by the testimony of Giovanni Villani (Nuova cronica, l. VI c. 71, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XIII, pp. 202, 203) and William de Nangis (Annales de St. Louis, p. 248 in the Louvre Joinville), two impartial foreigners; and Urban IV threatened to deprive Genoa of her archbishop. ↩
Some precautions must be used in reconciling the discordant numbers; the 800 soldiers of Nicetas; the 25,000 of Spandugino (apud du Cange, l. V c. 24); the Greeks and Scythians of Acropolita; and the numerous army of Michael, in the Epistles of Pope Urban IV (I 129.) ↩
Θεληματάριοι. They are described and named by Pachymer (l. II c. 14). ↩
It is needless to seek these Comans in the deserts of Tartary, or even of Moldavia. A part of the horde had submitted to John Vataces and was probably settled as a nursery of soldiers on some waste lands of Thrace (Cantacuzenus, l. I c. 2). ↩
According to several authorities, particularly Abulpharagius, Chronicon Syriacum, p. 336, this was a stratagem on the part of the Greeks to weaken the garrison of Constantinople. The Greek commander offered to surrender the town on the appearance of the Venetians. —⁠M. ↩
The loss of Constantinople is briefly told by the Latins; the conquest is described with more satisfaction by the Greeks: by Acropolita (c. 85), Pachymer (l. II c. 26, 27), Nicephorus Gregoras (l. IV c. 1, 2). See du Cange, Histoire de Constantinople, l. V c. 19⁠–⁠27. ↩
See the three last books (l. V⁠–⁠VIII) and the genealogical tables of du Cange. In the year 1382, the titular emperor of Constantinople was James de Baux, duke of Andria in the kingdom of Naples, the son of Margaret, daughter of Catherine de Valois, daughter of Catherine, daughter of Philip, son of Baldwin II (du Cange, l. VIII c. 37, 38). It is uncertain whether he left any posterity. ↩
Abulfeda, who saw the conclusion of the crusades, speaks of the kingdoms of the Franks, and those of the Negroes, as equally unknown (Prolegomena ad Geographia). Had he not disdained the Latin language, how easily might the Syrian prince have found books and interpreters! ↩
A short and superficial account of these versions from Latin into Greek is given by Huet (De interpretatione et de claris interpretibus, pp. 131⁠–⁠135). Maximus Planudes, a monk of Constantinople (AD 1327⁠–⁠1353), has translated Caesar’s Commentaries, the Somnium Scipionis, the Metamorphoses and Heroides of Ovid, etc. (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. X, p. 533). ↩
Windmills, first invented in the dry country of Asia Minor, were used in Normandy as early as the year 1105 (Histoire de la vie privée des François, tom. I, pp. 42, 43; du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. IV, p. 474). ↩
See the complaints of Roger Bacon (Biographia Britannica, vol. I, p. 418, Kippis’s edition). If Bacon himself, or Gerbert, understood some Greek, they were prodigies, and owed nothing to the commerce of the East. ↩
Such was the opinion of the great Leibnitz (Ouvres de Fontenelle, tom. V, p. 458), a master of the history of the Middle Ages. I shall only instance the pedigree of the Carmelites, and the flight of the house of Loretto, which were both derived from Palestine. ↩
If I rank the Saracens with the Barbarians, it is only relative to their wars, or rather inroads, in Italy and France, where their sole purpose was to plunder and destroy. ↩
On this interesting subject, the progress of society in Europe, a strong ray of philosophical light has broke from Scotland in our own times; and it is with private as well as public regard that I repeat the names of Hume, Robertson, and Adam Smith. ↩
On the consequences of the crusades, compare the valuable essay of Heeren, that of M. Choiseul d’Aillecourt, and a chapter of Mr. Forster’s Mahometanism Unveiled. I may admire this gentleman’s learning and industry, without pledging myself to his wild theory of prophetic interpretation. —⁠M. ↩
I have applied, but not confined, myself to A Genealogical History of the Noble and Illustrious Family of Courtenay, by Ezra Cleaveland, tutor to Sir William Courtenay, and Rector of Honiton; Exon, 1735, in folio. The first part is extracted from William of Tyre; the second from Bouchet’s French history; and the third from various memorials, public, provincial, and private, of the Courtenays of Devonshire. The rector of Honiton has more gratitude than industry, and more industry than criticism. ↩
The primitive record of the family is a passage of the continuator of Aimoin, a monk of Fleury, who wrote in the twelth century. See his Chronicle, in the Historians of France (tom. XI, p. 276). ↩
Turbessel, or, as it is now styled Telbesher, is fixed by d’Anville four-and-twenty miles from the great passage over the Euphrates at Zeugma. ↩
His possessions are distinguished in the Assises de Jérusalem (c. 326) among the feudal tenures of the kingdom, which must therefore have been collected between the years 1153 and 1187. His pedigree may be found in the Lignages d’Outremer, c. 16. ↩
The rapine and satisfaction of Reginald de Courtenay are preposterously arranged in the epistles of the abbot and regent Suger (CXIV, CXVI), the best memorials of the age (Duchesne, Historiae Francorum scriptores, tom. IV, p. 530). ↩
In the beginning of the eleventh century, after naming the father and grandfather of Hugh Capet, the monk Glaber is obliged to add, cujus genus valde in-ante reperitur obscurum. Yet we are assured that the great-grandfather of Hugh Capet was Robert the Strong, count of Anjou (AD 863⁠–⁠873), a noble Frank of Neustria, Neustricus⁠ ⁠… generosae stirpis, who was slain in the defence of his country against the Normans, dum patriae fines tuebatur. Beyond Robert, all is conjecture or fable. It is a probable conjecture that the third race descended from the second by Childebrand, the brother of Charles Martel. It is an absurd fable that the second was allied to the first by the marriage of Ansbert, a Roman senator and the ancestor of St. Arnoul, with Blitilde, a daughter of Clotaire I. The Saxon origin of the house of France is an ancient but incredible opinion. See a judicious memoir of M. de Foncemagne (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XX, pp. 548⁠–⁠579). He had promised to declare his own opinion in a second memoir, which has never appeared. ↩
Of the various petitions, apologies, etc., published by the princes of Courtenay, I have seen the three following, all in octavo:
1. De stirpe et origine domus de Courtenay: addita sunt responsa celeberrimorum Europae jurisconsultorum, Paris, 1607.
2. Representation du procedé tenû a l’instance faicte devant le Roy, par Messieurs de Courtenay, pour la conservation de l’honneur et dignité de leur Maison, Branche de la Royalle Maison de France, à Paris, 1613.
3. Representation du subject qui a porté Messieurs de Salles et de Fraville, de la Maison de Courtenay, à se retirer hors du Royaume, 1614.
It was a homicide, for which the Courtenays expected to be pardoned, or tried, as princes of the blood. ↩
The sense of the parliaments is thus expressed by Thuanus: Principis nomen nusquam in Galliâ tributum, nisi iis qui per mares e regibus nostris originem repetunt; qui nunc tantum a Ludovico nono beatae memoriae numerantur; nam Cortinaei et Drocenses, a Ludovico crasso genus ducentes, hodie inter eos minime recensentur⁠—a distinction of expediency rather than justice. The sanctity of Louis IX could not invest him with any special prerogative, and all the descendants of Hugh Capet must be included in his original compact with the French nation. ↩
The last male of the Courtenays was Charles Roger, who died in the year 1730, without leaving any sons. The last female was Helene de Courtenay, who married Louis de Beaufremont. Her title of Princesse du Sang Royal de France was suppressed (February 7th, 1737) by an arrêt of the parliament of Paris. ↩
The singular anecdote to which I allude is related in the Pieces intéressantes et peu connues pour servir à l’histoire et à la littérature (Maestricht, 1786, in four vols. duodecimo); and the unknown editor9304 quotes his author, who had received it from Helene de Courtenay, Marquise de Beaufremont. ↩
Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. I, p. 786. Yet this fable must have been invented before the reign of Edward III. The profuse devotion of the three first generations to Ford Abbey was followed by oppression on one side and ingratitude on the other; and in the sixth generation the monks ceased to register the births, actions, and deaths of their patrons. ↩
In his Britannia, in the list of the earls of Devonshire. His expression, e regio sanguine ortos, credunt, betrays, however, some doubt or suspicion. ↩
In his Baronage, pars I, p. 634, he refers to his own Monasticon. Should he not have corrected the register of Ford Abbey, and annihilated the phantom Florus, by the unquestionable evidence of the French historians? ↩
Besides the third and most valuable book of Cleaveland’s History, I have consulted Dugdale, the father of our genealogical science (The Baronage of England, part I, pp. 634⁠–⁠643). ↩
This great family, de Ripuariis, de Redvers, de Rivers, ended, in Edward the First’s time, in Isabella de Fortibus, a famous and potent dowager, who long survived her brother and husband (Dugdale, The Baronage of England, part I, pp. 254⁠–⁠257). ↩
Cleaveland, p. 142. By some it is assigned to a Rivers, earl of Devon; but the English denotes the fifteenth, rather than the thirteenth century. ↩
Ubi lapsus! Quid feci? a motto which was probably adopted by the Powderham branch, after the loss of the earldom of Devonshire, etc. The primitive arms of the Courtenays were, or, three torteaux, gules, which seem to denote their affinity with Godfrey of Bouillon and the ancient counts of Boulogne. ↩
For the reigns of the Nicene emperors, more especially of John Vataces and his son, their minister, George Acropolita, is the only genuine contemporary; but George Pachymer returned to Constantinople with the Greeks at the age of nineteen (Hankius, De Byzantinarum rerum scriptoribus Graecis, c. 33, 34, pp. 564⁠–⁠578; Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, pp. 448⁠–⁠460). Yet the history of Nicephorus Gregoras, though of the fourteenth century, is a valuable narrative from the taking of Constantinople by the Latins. ↩
Nicephorus Gregoras (l. II c. 1) distinguishes between the ὀξεῖα ὁρμἠ of Lascaris, and the εὐστάθεια of Vataces. The two portraits are in a very good style. ↩
Pachymer, l. I c. 23, 24; Nicephorus Gregorius, l. II c. 6. The reader of the Byzantines must observe how rarely we are indulged with such precious details. ↩
Μόνοι γὰρ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων ὀνομαστότατοι βασιλεὺς καὶ φιλόσοφος (Georgii Acropolitae, c. 32). The emperor, in a familiar conversation, examined and encouraged the studies of his future logothete. ↩
Sister of Manfred, afterwards king of Naples. Nicephorus Gregorius, p. 45. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Acropolita (c. 18, 52), and the two first books of Nicephorus Gregoras. ↩
A Persian saying, that Cyrus was the father and Darius the master, of his subjects, was applied to Vataces and his son. But Pachymer (l. I c. 23) has mistaken the mild Darius for the cruel Cambyses, despot or tyrant of his people. By the institution of taxes, Darius had incurred the less odious, but more contemptible, name of Κάπηλος, merchant or broker (Herodotus III 89). ↩
Acropolita (c. 63) seems to admire his own firmness in sustaining a beating, and not returning to council till he was called. He relates the exploits of Theodore, and his own services, from c. 53 to c. 74 of his History. See the third book of Nicephorus Gregoras. ↩
Pachymer (l. I c. 21) names and discriminates fifteen or twenty Greek families καὶ ὅσοι ἄλλοι, οἶς ἡ μεγαλογενὴς σεῖρα καὶ χρυσῆ συγκεκπότητο. Does he mean, by this decoration, a figurative or a real golden chain? Perhaps both. ↩
The old geographers, with Cellarius and d’Anville, and our travellers, particularly Pococke and Chandler, will teach us to distinguish the two Magnesias of Asia Minor, of the Maeander and of Sipylus. The latter, our present object, is still flourishing for a Turkish city, and lies eight hours, or leagues, to the northeast of Smyrna (Tournefort, Voyage du Levant, tom. III lettre XXII, pp. 365⁠–⁠370; Chandler’s Travels in Asia Minor, p. 267). ↩
See Acropolita (c. 75, 76, etc.), who lived too near the times; Pachymer (l. I c. 13⁠–⁠25); Gregoras (l. III c. 3⁠–⁠5). ↩
The pedigree of Palaeologus is explained by du Cange (Familiae Byzantinae, p. 230, etc.); the events of his private life are related by Pachymer (l. I c. 7⁠–⁠12) and Gregoras (l. II 8, l. III 2, 4, l. IV 1), with visible favor to the father of the reigning dynasty. ↩
Acropolita (c. 50) relates the circumstances of this curious adventure, which seem to have escaped the more recent writers. ↩
Pachymer (l. I c. 12), who speaks with proper contempt of this barbarous trial, affirms that he had seen in his youth many person who had sustained, without injury, the fiery ordeal. As a Greek, he is credulous; but the ingenuity of the Greeks might furnish some remedies of art or fraud against their own superstition or that of their tyrant. ↩
Without comparing Pachymer to Thucydides or Tacitus, I will praise his narrative (l. I c. 13⁠–⁠32, l. II c. 1⁠–⁠9), which pursues the ascent of Palaeologus with eloquence, perspicuity, and tolerable freedom. Acropolita is more cautious, and Gregoras more concise. ↩
The judicial combat was abolished by St. Louis in his own territories; and his example and authority were at length prevalent in France (De l’esprit des loix, l. XXVIII c. 29). ↩
In civil cases, Henry II gave an option to the defendant; Glanville prefers the proof by evidence; and that by judicial combat is reprobated in the Fleta. Yet the trial by battle has never been abrogated in the English law, and it was ordered by the judges as late as the beginning of the last century.9305 ↩
Yet an ingenious friend has urged to me, in mitigation of this practice:
1. That in nations emerging from barbarism, it moderates the license of private war and arbitrary revenge.
2. That it is less absurd than the trials by the ordeal, or boiling water, or the cross, which it has contributed to abolish.
3. That it served at least as a test of personal courage: a quality so seldom united with a base disposition that the danger of a trial might be some check to a malicious prosecutor, and a useful barrier against injustice supported by power.
The gallant and unfortunate earl of Surrey might probably have escaped his unmerited fate, had not his demand of the combat against his accuser been overruled. ↩
The site of Nymphaeum is not clearly defined in ancient or modern geography. But from the last hours of Vataces (Acropolita, c. 52), it is evident the palace and gardens of his favorite residence were in the neighborhood of Smyrna. Nymphaeum might be loosely placed in Lydia (Gregoras, l. VI 6). ↩
This sceptre, the emblem of justice and power, was a long staff, such as was used by the heroes in Homer. By the latter Greeks it was named Dicanice, and the Imperial sceptre was distinguished as usual by the red or purple color. ↩
Acropolita affirms (c. 87) that this bonnet was after the French fashion; but from the ruby at the point or summit, du Cange (Historia de Constantinople, l. V c. 28, 29) believes that it was the high-crowned hat of the Greeks. Could Acropolita mistake the dress of his own court? ↩
See Pachymer (l. II c. 28⁠–⁠33), Acropolita (c. 88), Nicephorus Gregoras (l. IV 7), and for the treatment of the subject Latins, du Cange (l. V c. 30, 31). ↩
This milder invention for extinguishing the sight was tried by the philosopher Democritus on himself, when he sought to withdraw his mind from the visible world: a foolish story! The word abacinare, in Latin and Italian, has furnished du Cange (Glossarium Latinitatis) with an opportunity to review the various modes of blinding; the more violent were scooping, burning with an iron or hot vinegar, and binding the head with a strong cord till the eyes burst from their sockets. Ingenious tyrants! ↩
See the first retreat and restoration of Arsenius, in Pachymer (l. II c. 15, l. III c. 1, 2) and Nicephorus Gregoras (l. III c. 1, l. IV c. 1). Posterity justly accused the ἀφέλεια and ῥᾳθημία of Arsenius, the virtues of a hermit, the vices of a minister (l. XII c. 2). ↩
The crime and excommunication of Michael are fairly told by Pachymer (l. III c. 10, 14, 19, etc.) and Gregoras (l. IV c. 4). His confession and penance restored their freedom. ↩
Except the omission of a prayer for the emperor, the charges against Arsenius were of a different nature: he was accused of having allowed the sultan of Iconium to bathe in vessels signed with the cross, and to have admitted him to the church, though unbaptized, during the service. It was pleaded, in favor of Arsenius, among other proofs of the sultan’s Christianity, that he had offered to eat ham. Pachymer, l. IV c. 6, p. 265. It was after his exile that he was involved in a charge of conspiracy. —⁠M. ↩
Pachymer relates the exile of Arsenius (l. IV c. 1⁠–⁠16); he was one of the commissaries who visited him in the desert island. The last testament of the unforgiving patriarch is still extant (Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. X, p. 95). ↩
Pachymer calls him Germanus. —⁠M. ↩
Pachymer (l. VII c. 22) relates this miraculous trial like a philosopher, and treats with similar contempt a plot of the Arsenites, to hide a revelation in the coffin of some old saint (l. VII c. 13). He compensates this incredulity by an image that weeps, another that bleeds (l. VII c. 30), and the miraculous cures of a deaf and a mute patient (l. XI c. 32). ↩
The story of the Arsenites is spread throughout the thirteen books of Pachymer. Their union and triumph are reserved for Nicephorus Gregoras (l. VII c. 9), who neither loves nor esteems these sectaries. ↩
Of the XIII books of Pachymer, the first six (as the fourth and fifth of Nicephorus Gregoras) contain the reign of Michael, at the time of whose death he was forty years of age. Instead of breaking, like his editor the Père Poussin, his history into two parts, I follow du Cange and Cousin, who number the XIII books in one series. ↩
Du Cange, Historia de Constantinople, l. V c. 33, etc., from the Epistles of Urban IV. ↩
From their mercantile intercourse with the Venetians and Genoese, they branded the Latins as κάπηλοι and βάναυσοι (Pachymer, l. V c. 10). “Some are heretics in name; others, like the Latins, in fact,” said the learned Veccus (l. V c. 12), who soon afterwards became a convert (c. 15, 16) and a patriarch (c. 24). ↩
In this class we may place Pachymer himself, whose copious and candid narrative occupies the fifth and sixth books of his history. Yet the Greek is silent on the council of Lyons, and seems to believe that the popes always resided in Rome and Italy (l. V c. 17, 21). ↩
See the Acts of the Council of Lyons in the year 1274. Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XVIII, pp. 181⁠–⁠199. Dupin, Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. X, p. 135. ↩
This curious instruction, which has been drawn with more or less honesty by Wadding and Leo Allatius from the archives of the Vatican, is given in an abstract or version by Fleury (tom. XVIII, pp. 252⁠–⁠258). ↩
According to Fallmarayer he had always maintained this title. —⁠M. ↩
This frank and authentic confession of Michael’s distress is exhibited in barbarous Latin by Ogerius, who signs himself Protonotarius Interpretum, and transcribed by Wadding from the MSS. of the Vatican (AD 1278, No. 3). His annals of the Franciscan order, the Annales minorum seu trium ordinum a S. Francisco institutorum, in XVII volumes in folio (Rome, 1741), I have now accidentally seen among the waste paper of a bookseller. ↩
See the sixth book of Pachymer, particularly the chapters 1, 11, 16, 18, 24⁠–⁠27. He is the more credible, as he speaks of this persecution with less anger than sorrow. ↩
Pachymer, l. VII c. 1⁠–⁠11, 17. The speech of Andronicus the Elder (lib. XII c. 2) is a curious record, which proves that, if the Greeks were the slaves of the emperor, the emperor was not less the slave of superstition and the clergy. ↩
The best accounts, the nearest the time, the most full and entertaining, of the conquest of Naples by Charles of Anjou, may be found in the Florentine chronicles of Ricordano Malespina (c. 175⁠–⁠193), and Giovanni Villani (l. VII c. 1⁠–⁠10, 25⁠–⁠30), which are published by Muratori in the eighth and thirteenth volumes of the Historians of Italy. In his Annals (tom. XI, pp. 56⁠–⁠72), he has abridged these great events which are likewise described in the Istoria civile del regno di Napoli of Giannone (tom. II l. XIX, tom. III l. XX). ↩
Du Cange, Historia de Constantinople, l. V c. 49⁠–⁠56, l. VI c. 1⁠–⁠13. See Pachymer, l. IV c. 29, l. V c. 7⁠–⁠10, 25, l. VI c. 30, 32, 33, and Nicephorus Gregoras, l. IV 5, l. V 1, 6. ↩
The reader of Herodotus will recollect how miraculously the Assyrian host of Sennacherib was disarmed and destroyed (l. II c. 141). ↩
According to Sabas Malaspina (Historia sicula, l. III c. 16, in Muratori, tom. VIII, p. 832), a zealous Guelph, the subjects of Charles, who had reviled Mainfroy as a wolf, began to regret him as a lamb; and he justifies their discontent by the oppressions of the French government (l. VI c. 2, 7). See the Sicilian manifesto in Nicholas Specialis (l. I c. 11, in Muratori, tom. X, p. 930). ↩
See the character and counsels of Peter, king of Arragon, in Mariana (Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, l. XIV c. 6, tom. II, p. 133). The reader forgives the Jesuit’s defects, in favor always of his style, and often of his sense. ↩
Daughter. See Hallam’s Europe During the Middle Ages, vol. I, p. 517. —⁠M. ↩
After enumerating the sufferings of his country, Nicholas Specialis adds, in the true spirit of Italian jealousy, Quae omnia et graviora quidem, ut arbitror, patienti animo Siculi tolerassent, nisi (quod primum cunctis dominantibus cavendum est) alienas faeminas invasissent (l. I c. 2, p. 924). ↩
The French were long taught to remember this bloody lesson: “If I am provoked,” said Henry the Fourth, “I will breakfast at Milan, and dine at Naples.” “Your majesty,” replied the Spanish ambassador, “may perhaps arrive in Sicily for vespers.” ↩
This revolt, with the subsequent victory, are related by two national writers, Bartholemy à Neocastro (in Muratori, tom. XIII), and Nicholas Specialis (in Muratori, tom. X), the one a contemporary, the other of the next century. The patriot Specialis disclaims the name of rebellion and all previous correspondence with Peter of Arragon (nullo communicato consilio), who happened to be with a fleet and army on the African coast (l. I c. 4, 9). ↩
Nicephorus Gregoras (l. V c. 6) admires the wisdom of Providence in this equal balance of states and princes. For the honor of Palaeologus, I had rather this balance had been observed by an Italian writer. ↩
See the Chronicle of Villani, the eleventh volume of the Annali d’Italia of Muratori, and the twentieth and twenty-first books of the Istoria civile del regno di Napoli of Giannone. ↩
In this motley multitude, the Catalans and Spaniards, the bravest of the soldiery, were styled by themselves and the Greeks Almogavares. Moncada derives their origin from the Goths, and Pachymer (l. XI c. 22) from the Arabs; and, in spite of national and religious pride, I am afraid the latter is in the right. ↩
On Roger de Flor and his companions, see an historical fragment, detailed and interesting, entitled “The Spaniards of the Fourteenth Century,” and inserted in L’Espagne en 1808, a work translated from the German, vol. II, p. 167. This narrative enables us to detect some slight errors which have crept into that of Gibbon. —⁠G. ↩
The troops of Roger de Flor, according to his companion Ramon de Montaner, were 1,500 men at arms, 4,000 Almogavares, and 1,000 other foot, besides the sailors and mariners, vol. II, p. 137. —⁠M. ↩
Ramon de Montaner suppresses the cruelties and oppressions of the Catalans, in which, perhaps, he shared. —⁠M. ↩
Some idea may be formed of the population of these cities, from the 36,000 inhabitants of Tralles, which, in the preceding reign, was rebuilt by the emperor, and ruined by the Turks (Pachymer, l. VI c. 20, 21). ↩
I have collected these pecuniary circumstances from Pachymer (l. XI c. 21; l. XII c. 4, 5, 8, 14, 19), who describes the progressive degradation of the gold coin. Even in the prosperous times of John Ducas Vataces, the byzants were composed in equal proportions of the pure and the baser metal. The poverty of Michael Palaeologus compelled him to strike a new coin, with nine parts, or carats, of gold, and fifteen of copper alloy. After his death the standard rose to ten carats, till in the public distress it was reduced to the moiety. The prince was relieved for a moment, while credit and commerce were forever blasted. In France, the gold coin is of twenty-two carats (one twelfth alloy), and the standard of England and Holland is still higher. ↩
Roger de Flor, according to Ramon de Montaner, was recalled from Natolia on account of the war which had arisen on the death of Asan, king of Bulgaria. Andronicus claimed the kingdom for his nephew, the sons of Asan by his sister. Roger de Flor turned the tide of success in favor of the emperor of Constantinople and made peace. —⁠M. ↩
Andronicus paid the Catalans in the debased money, much to their indignation. —⁠M. ↩
According to Ramon de Montaner, he was murdered by order of Kyr (κύριος) Michael, son of the emperor, p. 170. —⁠M. ↩
Ramon de Montaner describes his sojourn at Gallipoli: Nous étions si riches, que nous ne semions, ni ne labourions, ni ne faisions enver des vins, ni ne cultivions les vignes: et cependant tous les ans nous recueillions tour ce qu’il nous fallait, en vin, froment et avoine, p. 193. This lasted for five merry years. Ramon de Montaner is high authority, for he was “chancelier et maître rational de l’armée” (commissary of rations). He was left governor; all the scribes of the army remained with him, and with their aid he kept the books in which were registered the number of horse and foot employed on each expedition. According to this book the plunder was shared, of which he had a fifth for his trouble, p. 197. —⁠M. ↩
The Catalan war is most copiously related by Pachymer, in the eleventh, twelth, and thirteenth books, till he breaks off in the year 1308. Nicephorus Gregoras (l. VII 3⁠–⁠6) is more concise and complete. Du Cange, who adopts these adventurers as French, has hunted their footsteps with his usual diligence (Historia de Constantinople, l. VI c. 22⁠–⁠46). He quotes an Arragonese history, which I have read with pleasure, and which the Spaniards extol as a model of style and composition (Expedicion de los Catalanes y Aragoneses contra Turcos y Griegos; Barcelona, 1623 in quarto; Madrid, 1777 in octavo). Don Francisco de Moncada, Conde de Ossona, may imitate Caesar or Sallust; he may transcribe the Greek or Italian contemporaries; but he never quotes his authorities, and I cannot discern any national records of the exploits of his countrymen.9306 ↩
See the laborious history of du Cange, whose accurate table of the French dynasties recapitulates the thirty-five passages in which he mentions the dukes of Athens. ↩
He is twice mentioned by Villehardouin with honor (No. 151, 235); and under the first passage du Cange observes all that can be known of his person and family. ↩
From these Latin princes of the fourteenth century, Boccace, Chaucer, and Shakespeare have borrowed their Theseus Duke of Athens. An ignorant age transfers its own language and manners to the most distant times. ↩
The same Constantine gave to Sicily a king, to Russia the magnus dapifer of the empire, to Thebes the primicerius; and these absurd fables are properly lashed by du Cange (ad Nicephorus Gregoras, l. VII c. 5). By the Latins, the lord of Thebes was styled, by corruption, the Megas Kurios, or Grand Sire! ↩
Quodam miraculo, says Alberic. He was probably received by Michael Choniates, the archbishop who had defended Athens against the tyrant Leo Sgurus (Nicetas, Urbs capta, p. 805, edit. Bekker). Michael was the brother of the historian Nicetas; and his encomium of Athens is still extant in MS. in the Bodleian library (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, p. 405).9307 ↩
Otto resigned the government of Athens and Thebes to his nephew Guy (son of his brother Pons de Ray) about the year 1225, and returned to end his days on his own moderate fief in France. Guy was succeeded by his eldest son John, and, on his death without issue, by his second son William. Wiliam died in 1290, and was followed by his son Guy II; after whose death in 1308 it was that Walter de Brienne succeeded to the duchy.

The title borne by Otto was Μεγας Κύριος, Grand Lord, or Sire. In the year 1254, a question having arisen between Guy de la Roche and the prince of Achaia respecting personal homage due by the former, it was referred to Louis XI, and Guy undertook a journey to the court of France. Louis deemed the case of so frivolous a nature that, in order to indemnify Guy for his trouble and expense, he authorized him to assume the title of Duke of Athens, instead of Grand Sire. Finlay, Medieval Greece, p. 159⁠–⁠162. —⁠S. ↩
The modern account of Athens, and the Athenians, is extracted from Spon (Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce, et du Levant, tom. II, pp. 79⁠–⁠199) and Wheler (Journey Into Greece, pp. 337⁠–⁠414), James Stuart (The Antiquities of Athens and Other Monuments of Greece, passim), and Chandler (Travels in Greece, pp. 23⁠–⁠172). The first of these travellers visited Greece in the year 1676; the last, 1765; and ninety years had not produced much difference in the tranquil scene. ↩
The ancients, or at least the Athenians, believed that all the bees in the world had been propagated from Mount Hymettus. They taught that health might be preserved, and life prolonged, by the external use of oil and the internal use of honey (Geoponica, l. XV c. 7, pp. 1089⁠–⁠1094, edit. Niclas). ↩
Du Cange, Glossarium Graecitatis Praefatio, p. 8, who quotes for his author Theodosius Zygomalas, a modern grammarian. Yet Spon (tom. II, p. 194) and Wheler (p. 355), no incompetent judges, entertain a more favorable opinion of the Attic dialect. ↩
Yet we must not accuse them of corrupting the name of Athens, which they still call Athini. From the εἰς τὴν Ἀθήνην, we have formed our own barbarism of Setines.9308 ↩
Andronicus himself will justify our freedom in the invective (Nicephorus Gregoras, l. I c. 1) which he pronounced against historic falsehood. It is true that his censure is more pointedly urged against calumny than against adulation. ↩
For the anathema in the pigeon’s nest, see Pachymer (l. IX c. 24), who relates the general history of Athanasius (l. VIII c. 13⁠–⁠16, 20⁠–⁠24; l. X c. 27⁠–⁠29, 31⁠–⁠36; l. XI c. 1⁠–⁠3, 5, 6; l. XIII c. 8, 10, 23, 35), and is followed by Nicephorus Gregoras (l. VI c. 5, 7; l. VII c. 1, 9), who includes the second retreat of this second Chrysostom. ↩
Pachymer, in seven books, 377 folio pages, describes the first twenty-six years of Andronicus the Elder; and marks the date of his composition by the current news or lie of the day (AD 1308). Either death or disgust prevented him from resuming the pen. ↩
After an interval of twelve years from the conclusion of Pachymer, Cantacuzenus takes up the pen; and his first book (c. 1⁠–⁠59, pp. 9⁠–⁠150) relates the civil war and the eight last years of the elder Andronicus. The ingenious comparison with Moses and Caesar is fancied by his French translator, the president Cousin. ↩
Nicephorus Gregoras more briefly includes the entire life and reign of Andronicus the Elder (l. VI c. 1⁠—X c. 1, pp. 96⁠–⁠291). This is the part of which Cantacuzene complains as a false and malicious representation of his conduct. ↩
He was crowned May 21st, 1295, and died October 12th, 1320 (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 239). His brother Theodore, by a second marriage, inherited the marquisate of Montferrat, apostatized to the religion and manners of the Latins (ὅτι καὶ γνώμῃ καὶ πίστει καὶ σχήματι, καὶ γενείων κουρᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν ἔθεσιν Λατῖνος ἦν ἀκραιφνής, Nicephorus Gregorius, l. IX c. 1), and founded a dynasty of Italian princes, which was extinguished AD 1533 (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 249⁠–⁠253). ↩
We are indebted to Nicephorus Gregoras (l. VIII c. 1) for the knowledge of this tragic adventure; while Cantacuzene more discreetly conceals the vices of Andronicus the Younger, of which he was the witness and perhaps the associate (l. I c. 1, etc.). ↩
His destined heir was Michael Catharus, the bastard of Constantine his second son. In this project of excluding his grandson Andronicus, Nicephorus Gregoras (l. VIII c. 3) agrees with Cantacuzene (l. I c. 1, 2). ↩
The conduct of Cantacuzene, by his own showing, was inexplicable. He was unwilling to dethrone the old emperor, and dissuaded the immediate march on Constantinople. The young Andronicus, he says, entered into his views, and wrote to warn the emperor of his danger when the march was determined. Cantacuzenus, in Noveau Byzantine History Collection, vol. I, p. 104, etc. —⁠M. ↩
See Nicephorus Gregoras, l. VIII c. 6. The younger Andronicus complained that in four years and four months a sum of 350,000 byzants of gold was due to him for the expenses of his household (Cantacuzen, l. I c. 48). Yet he would have remitted the debt, if he might have been allowed to squeeze the farmers of the revenue. ↩
I follow the chronology of Nicephorus Gregoras, who is remarkably exact. It is proved that Cantacuzene has mistaken the dates of his own actions, or rather that his text has been corrupted by ignorant transcribers. ↩
And the washerwomen, according to Nicephorus Gregorius, p. 431. —⁠M. ↩
I have endeavored to reconcile the 24,000 pieces of Cantacuzene9309 (l. II c. 1) with the 10,000 of Nicephorus Gregoras (l. IX c. 2); the one of whom wished to soften, the other to magnify, the hardships of the old emperor. ↩
See Nicephorus Gregoras (l. IX 6⁠–⁠8, 10, 14; l. X c. 1). The historian had tasted of the prosperity, and shared the retreat, of his benefactor; and that friendship, which “waits or to the scaffold or the cell,” should not lightly be accused as “a hireling, a prostitute to praise.”9310 ↩
Prodigies (according to Nicephorus Gregorius, p. 460) announced the departure of the old and imbecile Imperial monk from his earthly prison. —⁠M. ↩
The sole reign of Andronicus the Younger is described by Cantacuzene (l. II c. 1⁠–⁠40, pp. 191⁠–⁠339) and Nicephorus Gregoras (l. IX c. 7⁠—XI c. 11, pp. 262⁠–⁠361). ↩
Agnes, or Irene, was the daughter of Duke Henry the Wonderful, the chief of the house of Brunswick, and the fourth in descent from the famous Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria, and conqueror of the Slavi on the Baltic coast. Her brother Henry was surnamed the Greek, from his two journeys into the East: but these journeys were subsequent to his sister’s marriage; and I am ignorant how Agnes was discovered in the heart of Germany, and recommended to the Byzantine court (Henry Rimius, Memoirs of the House of Brunswick, pp. 126⁠–⁠137). ↩
Henry the Wonderful was the founder of the branch of Grubenhagen, extinct in the year 1596 (Rimius, p. 287). He resided in the castle of Wolfenbüttel, and possessed no more than a sixth part of the allodial estates of Brunswick and Luneburgh, which the Guelph family had saved from the confiscation of their great fiefs. The frequent partitions among brothers had almost ruined the princely houses of Germany, till that just but pernicious law was slowly superseded by the right of primogeniture. The principality of Grubenhagen, one of the last remains of the Hercynian forest, is a woody, mountainous, and barren tract (Busching’s A New System of Geography, vol. VI, pp. 270⁠–⁠286, English translation). ↩
The royal author of the Memoirs of the House of Brandenburgh will teach us how justly, in a much later period, the north of Germany deserved the epithets of poor and barbarous (Essai sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations). In the year 1306, in the woods of Luneburgh, some wild people of the Vened race were allowed to bury alive their infirm and useless parents (Rimius, p. 136). ↩
The assertion of Tacitus that Germany was destitute of the precious metals must be taken, even in his own time, with some limitation (Germania, c. 5, Annales XI 20). According to Jacob Spener (Historia Germaniae universalis et pragmatica, tom. I, p. 351), Argentifodinae in Hercyniis montibus, imperante Othone magno (AD 968) primum apertae, largam etiam opes augendi dederunt copiam; but Rimius (pp. 258, 259) defers till the year 1016 the discovery of the silver mines of Grubenhagen, or the Upper Hartz, which were productive in the beginning of the fourteenth century, and which still yield a considerable revenue to the house of Brunswick. ↩
Cantacuzene has given a most honorable testimony, ἦν δ’ ἐκ Γερμανῶν αὕτη θυγατὴρ δουκὸς ντὶ μπρουζουὶκ (the modern Greeks employ the ντ for the d, and the μπ for the b, and the whole will read, in the Italian idiom, di Brunzuic), τοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἐπιφανεστάτου, καὶ λαμπρότητιπάντας τοὺς ὁμοφύλους ὑπερβάλλοντος τοῦ γένους. The praise is just in itself, and pleasing to an English ear. ↩
Anne, or Jane, was one of the four daughters of Amedée the Great, by a second marriage, and half-sister of his successor, Edward count of Savoy (Anderson’s Tables, p. 650). See Cantacuzene (l. I c. 40⁠–⁠42). ↩
That king, if the fact be true, must have been Charles the Fair, who in five years (1321⁠–⁠1326) was married to three wives (Anderson, p. 628). Anne of Savoy arrived at Constantinople in February, 1326. ↩
The noble race of the Cantacuzeni (illustrious from the eleventh century in the Byzantine annals) was drawn from the Paladins of France, the heroes of those romances which, in the thirteenth century, were translated and read by the Greeks (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 258). ↩
See Cantacuzene (l. III c. 24, 30, 36). ↩
Saserna, in Gaul, and Columella, in Italy or Spain, allow two yoke of oxen, two drivers, and six laborers, for two hundred jugera (125 English acres) of arable land; and three more men must be added if there be much underwood (Columella, De re rustica, l. II c. 13, p. 441, edit. Gesner). ↩
In this enumeration (l. III c. 30) the French translation of the president Cousin is blotted with three palpable and essential errors.
1. He omits the 1,000 yoke of working oxen.
2. He interprets the πεντακόσιαι δισχιλίαις by the number of fifteen hundred.9311
3. He confounds myriads with chiliads, and gives Cantacuzene no more than 5,000 hogs. Put not your trust in translations!
↩
See the regency and reign of John Cantacuzenus, and the whole progress of the civil war, in his own history (l. III c. 1⁠–⁠100, pp. 348⁠–⁠700), and in that of Nicephorus Gregoras (l. XII c. 1⁠—XV c. 9, pp. 353⁠–⁠492). ↩
He assumed the royal privilege of red shoes or buskins; placed on his head a mitre of silk and gold; subscribed his epistles with hyacinth or green ink; and claimed for the new, whatever Constantine had given to the ancient, Rome (Cantacuzenus, l. III c. 36; Nicephorus Gregorius, l. XIV c. 3). ↩
She died there through persecution and neglect. —⁠M. ↩
Nicephorus Gregorius (l. XII c. 5) confesses the innocence and virtues of Cantacuzenus, the guilt and flagitious vices of Apocaucus; nor does he dissemble the motive of his personal and religious enmity to the former; νῶν δὲ διὰ κακίαν ἄλλων αἴτιος ὁ πραότατος τῆς τῶν ὅλων ἔδοξεν εἶναι φθορᾶς.9312 ↩
Cantacuzene asserts that in all the cities the populace were on the side of the empress, the aristocracy on his. The populace took the opportunity of rising and plundering the wealthy as Cantacuzenites, l. III c. 29. Ages of common oppression and ruin had not extinguished these republican factions. —⁠M. ↩
The princes of Serbia (du Cange, Familiae Dalmaticae, etc., c. 2⁠–⁠4, 9) were styled Despots in Greek, and Cral in their native idiom (du Cange, Glossarium Graecitatis, p. 751). That title, the equivalent of king, appears to be of Sclavonic origin, from whence it has been borrowed by the Hungarians, the modern Greeks, and even by the Turks (Leunclavius, Pandectae historiae Turciae, p. 422), who reserve the name of Padishah for the emperor. To obtain the latter instead of the former is the ambition of the French at Constantinople (Avertissement à Histoire de Timur-Bec, p. 39). ↩
Nicephorus Gregorius, l. XII c. 14. It is surprising that Cantacuzene has not inserted this just and lively image in his own writings. ↩
The author does not seem to realize, he certainly has not brought out, the dominant position of Serbia at this time under its king Stephen Dushan, a name which deserves a place in the history of the Fall of the Roman Empire. Serbia was the strongest power in the peninsula under Stephen (1331⁠–⁠1355), and its boundaries extended from the Danube to the Gulf of Arta.

“He was a man of great ambition and was celebrated for his gigantic stature and personal courage. His subjects boasted of his liberality and success in war; his enemies reproached him with faithlessness and cruelty. He had driven his father Stephen VII from the throne, and the old man had been murdered in prison by the rebellious nobles of Serbia, who feared lest a reconciliation should take place with his son. Stephen Dushan passed seven years of his youth at Constantinople, where he became acquainted with all the defects of the Byzantine government and with all the vices of Greek society. The circumstances in which the rival Emperors were placed during the year 1345 were extremely favorable to his ambitious projects, and he seized the opportunity to extend his conquests in every direction. To the east he rendered himself master of the whole valley of the Strymon, took the large and flourishing city of Serres and garrisoned all the fortresses as far as the wall that defended the pass of Christopolis. He extended his dominions along the shores of the Adriatic, and to the south he carried his arms to the Gulf of Ambracia. He subdued the Vallachians of Thessaly, and placed strong garrisons in Achrida, Kastoria, and Joannina. Flushed with victory he at last formed the ambitious scheme of depriving the Greeks of their political and ecclesiastical supremacy in the Eastern Empire and transferring them to the Serbians.”
Finlay, IV, p. 441⁠–⁠2.

In 1346 he was crowned at Skopia as “Tsar of the Serbs and Greeks,” and gave his son the title of Kral; and he raised his archbishop to the rank of Patriarch. The prosperity of his reign is better shown by the growth of trade in the Serbian towns than by the increase of Serbian territory. Moreover Stephen did for Serbia what Yaroslav did for Russia; he drew up a code of laws, which might be quoted to modify Gibbon’s contemptuous references to the Serbians as barbarians. This Zakonik has been repeatedly edited by Shafarik, Franc Miklosich, Stojan Novakovic, and Teodor Zigelj. —⁠B. ↩
Nicephorus says four, p.734. —⁠M. ↩
The two avengers were both Palaeologi, who might resent, with royal indignation, the shame of their chains. The tragedy of Apocaucus may deserve a peculiar reference to Cantacuzene (l. III c. 86) and Nicephorus Gregorius (l. XIV c. 10). ↩
Cantacuzene accuses the patriarch, and spares the empress, the mother of his sovereign (l. III 33, 34), against whom Nicephorus Gregorius expresses a particular animosity (l. XIV 10, 11; XV 5). It is true that they do not speak exactly of the same time. ↩
The traitor and treason are revealed by Nicephorus Gregorius (l. XV c. 8), but the name is more discreetly suppressed by his great accomplice (Cantacuzenus, l. III c. 99). ↩
Nicephorus Gregorius, l. XV 11. There were, however, some true pearls, but very thinly sprinkled. The rest of the stones had only παντοδαπὴν χροιὰν πρὸς τὸ διαυγές. ↩
From his return to Constantinople, Cantacuzene continues his history, and that of the empire, one year beyond the abdication of his son Matthew, AD 1357 (l. IV c. 1⁠–⁠50, pp. 705⁠–⁠911). Nicephorus Gregoras ends with the synod of Constantinople, in the year 1351 (l. XXII c. 3, p. 660; the rest, to the conclusion of the twenty-fourth book, p. 717, is all controversy); and his fourteen last books are still MSS. in the king of France’s library. ↩
The emperor (Cantacuzenus, l. IV c. 1) represents his own virtues, and Nicephorus Gregorius (l. XV c. 11) the complaints of his friends, who suffered by its effects. I have lent them the words of our poor cavaliers after the Restoration. ↩
The awkward apology of Cantacuzene (l. IV c. 39⁠–⁠42), who relates, with visible confusion, his own downfall, may be supplied by the less accurate but more honest narratives of Matthew Villani (l. IV c. 46, in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XIV, p. 268) and Ducas (c. 10, 11). ↩
Cantacuzene, in the year 1375, was honored with a letter from the pope (Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XX, p. 250). His death is placed by a respectable authority on the 20th of November, 1411 (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 260). But if he were of the age of his companion Andronicus the Younger, he must have lived 116 years: a rare instance of longevity, which in so illustrious a person would have attracted universal notice. ↩
His four discourses, or books, were printed at Basil, 1543 (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, p. 473). He composed them to satisfy a proselyte who was assaulted with letters from his friends of Ispahan. Cantacuzene had read the Koran; but I understand from Maracci that he adopts the vulgar prejudices and fables against Muhammad and his religion. ↩
See the Voyages de Bernier, tom. I, p. 127. ↩
Mosheim, Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 522, 523. Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XX, pp. 22, 24, 107⁠–⁠114, etc. The former unfolds the causes with the judgment of a philosopher, the latter transcribes and translates with the prejudices of a Catholic priest. ↩
Basnage (in Canisii, Lectiones antiquae, tom. IV, pp. 363⁠–⁠368) has investigated the character and story of Barlaam. The duplicity of his opinions had inspired some doubts of the identity of his person. See likewise Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. X, pp. 427⁠–⁠432). ↩
See Cantacuzene (l. II c. 39, 40; l. IV c. 3, 23⁠–⁠25) and Nicephorus Gregorius (l. XI c. 10; l. XV 3, 7, etc.), whose last books, from the nineteenth to twenty-fourth, are almost confined to a subject so interesting to the authors. John Boivin (in Vita Nicephori Gregorae), from the unpublished books, and Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. X, pp. 462⁠–⁠473), or rather Montfaucon, from the MSS. of the Coislin library, have added some facts and documents. ↩
Pachymer (l. V c. 10) very properly explains λιζίους (ligios) by ἰδίους. The use of these words in the Greek and Latin of the feudal times may be amply understood from the glossaries of du Cange (Glossarium Graecitatis, pp. 811, 812; Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. IV, pp. 109⁠–⁠111). ↩
The establishment and progress of the Genoese at Pera, or Galata, is described by du Cange (Constantanopolis Christiana, l. I, pp. 68, 69) from the Byzantine historians, Pachymer (l. II c. 35; l. V 10, 30; l. IX 15; l. XII 6, 9), Nicephorus Gregoras (l. V c. 4; l. VI c. 11; l. IX c. 5; l. IX c. 1; l. XV c. 1, 6), and Cantacuzene (l. I c. 12; l. II c. 29, etc.). ↩
Both Pachymer (l. III c. 3⁠–⁠5) and Nicephorus Gregorius (l. IV c. 7) understand and deplore the effects of this dangerous indulgence. Bibars, sultan of Egypt, himself a Tartar, but a devout Mussulman, obtained from the children of Zingis the permission to build a stately mosque in the capital of Crimea (de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. III, p. 343). ↩
Chardin (Voyages en Perse, tom. I, p. 48) was assured at Caffa that these fishes were sometimes twenty-four or twenty-six feet long, weighed eight or nine hundred pounds, and yielded three or four quintals of caviar. The corn of the Bosphorus had supplied the Athenians in the time of Demosthenes. ↩
De Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. III, pp. 343, 344. Delle navigationi e Viaggi di Ramusio, tom. I folio 400. But this land or water carriage could only be practicable when Tartary was united under a wise and powerful monarch. ↩
Nicephorus Gregorius (l. XIII c. 12) is judicious and well informed on the trade and colonies of the Black Sea. Chardin describes the present ruins of Caffa, where, in forty days, he saw above 400 sail employed in the corn and fish trade (Voyages en Perse, tom. I, pp. 46⁠–⁠48). ↩
See Nicephorus Gregorius, l. XVII c. 1. ↩
The events of this war are related by Cantacuzene (l. IV c. 11) with obscurity and confusion, and by Nicephorus Gregorius (l. XVII c. 1⁠–⁠7) in a clear and honest narrative. The priest was less responsible than the prince for the defeat of the fleet. ↩
The second war is darkly told by Cantacuzene (l. IV c. 18, pp. 24, 25, 28⁠–⁠32), who wishes to disguise what he dares not deny. I regret this part of Nicephorus Gregorius, which is still in MS. at Paris.9313 ↩
Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. XII, p. 144) refers to the most ancient chronicles of Venice (Caresinus, the continuator of Andrew Dandulus, tom. XII, pp. 421, 422) and Genoa (George Stella, Annales Genuenses, tom. XVII, pp. 1091, 1092); both which I have diligently consulted in his great Collection of the Historians of Italy. ↩
See the Chronicle of Matteo Villani of Florence, l. II c. 59, 60, pp. 145⁠–⁠147; c. 74, 75, pp. 156, 157, in Muratori’s Collection, tom. XIV. ↩
Cantacuzene praises their bravery, but imputes their losses to their ignorance of the seas: they suffered more by the breakers than by the enemy, vol. III, p. 224. —⁠M. ↩
Cantacuzene says that the Genoese lost twenty-eight ships with their crews, αὔτανδροι; the Venetians and Catalans sixteen, the Imperials none. Cantacuzene accuses Pisani of cowardice in not following up the victory and destroying the Genoese. But Pisani’s conduct, and indeed Cantacuzene’s account of the battle, betray the superiority of the Genoese. —⁠M. ↩
The Abbé de Sade (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, pp. 257⁠–⁠263) translates this letter, which he copied from a MS. in the king of France’s library. Though a servant of the Duke of Milan, Petrarch pours forth his astonishment and grief at the defeat and despair of the Genoese in the following year (pp. 323⁠–⁠332). ↩
Mongol seems to approach the nearest to the proper name of this race. The Chinese call them Mong-kou; the Mondchoux, their neighbors, Monggo or Monggou. They called themselves also Beda. This fact seems to have been proved by M. Schmidt against the French Orientalists. See de Brosset, Note on Le Beau, tom. XXII, p. 402. —⁠M.

The names of Mongols, Tartars, and Turks are frequently used indiscriminately, but it has already been shown that the Mongols and Turks are two distinct races (see this note), and that the Tartars, more properly called the Tatars, were probably a Mongolian tribe, who occupied so conspicuous a place in the army of Zingis Khan that their name became synonymous with that of the Mongols. The Turks are one of the most considerable of the families of the world; and almost all the nomad Asiatic tribes that devastated Europe from the fourth to the twelfth century belonged to this race. The Huns, Avars, Chazars, Bulgarians, Petcheneges, and Comanians were all Turks. The only Asiatic invaders of Europe during this period who did not belong to the Turkish race were the Hungarians or Magyars, and they were a Finnish or Tschudish people. The Mongols, on the contrary, are not mentioned in European history till the time of their national hero Zingis Khan. Unlike the Turks, the Mongols were not a numerous people. The armies of Zingis Khan and his successors were principally composed of Turks whom the Mongols had subdued; and they contained a comparatively small number of Mongols proper. The real Mongolian tribes are still found, with a few outlying exceptions, in the same seats which they occupied in the time of Zingis Khan. They inhabit the country northward of the Great Wall of China, and westward of the Mandshú country; and they extend northward as far as the northern extremity of the lake Baikal, and westward to the frontier of the Turkish Ouigours. The principal outlying exceptions are the Mongolian tribes in Tibet, and the Kalmuks of the Don, the Volga, and the Jaik. The tribes with which Zingis Khan was more immediately connected were called, after his conquests, Niroun or genuine Mongols. The Niroun Mongols dwelt between lake Baikal and the desert of Shamo.

With respect to the orthography of the name, Mongol is more correct than Mogul. The latter is only a Persian and Indian corruption of the true pronunciation. The Chinese write the name Meng-kou, and the Mandshús Monggo, or Mongou. See d’Ohsson, Histoire des Mongols; Rémusat, Recherches sur les langues Tartares; Prichard, Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind, vol. IV, p. 329, seq. —⁠S. ↩
The reader is invited to review chapters XXII to XXVI, and XXXIII to XXXVIII, the manners of pastoral nations, the conquests of Attila and the Huns, which were composed at a time when I entertained the wish, rather than the hope, of concluding my history. ↩
On the traditions of the early life of Zingis, see d’Ohsson, Histoire des Mongols, Paris, 1824; Schmidt, Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen, p. 66, etc., and notes. —⁠M. ↩
The Khans of the Keraites were most probably incapable of reading the pompous epistles composed in their name by the Nestorian missionaries, who endowed them with the fabulous wonders of an Indian kingdom. Perhaps these Tartars (the Presbyter or Priest John) had submitted to the rites of baptism and ordination (Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. III pars II, pp. 487⁠–⁠503). ↩
Since the history and tragedy of Voltaire, Gengis, at least in French, seems to be the more fashionable spelling; but Abulghazi Khan must have known the true name of his ancestor. His etymology appears just: Zin, in the Mogul tongue, signifies great, and gis is the superlative termination (Histoire généalogique des Tatars, part III, pp. 194, 195). From the same idea of magnitude, the appellation of Zingis is bestowed on the ocean. ↩
The name of Moguls has prevailed among the Orientals, and still adheres to the titular sovereign, the Great Mogul of Hindastan.9314 ↩
The Tartars (more properly Tatars) were descended from Tatar Khan, the brother of Mogul Khan (see Abulghazi, part I and II), and once formed a horde of 70,000 families on the borders of Kitay (pp. 103⁠–⁠112). In the great invasion of Europe (AD 1238) they seem to have led the vanguard; and the similitude of the name of Tartarei recommended that of Tartars to the Latins (Matthew Paris, p. 398, etc.).9315 ↩
Before his armies entered Tibet he sent an embassy to Bogdosottnam-Dsimmo, a Lama high priest, with a letter to this effect: “I have chosen thee as high priest for myself and my empire. Repair then to me, and promote the present and future happiness of man: I will be thy supporter and protector: let us establish a system of religion, and unite it with the monarchy,” etc. The high priest accepted the invitation; and the Mongol history literally terms this step the period of the first respect for religion; because the monarch, by his public profession, made it the religion of the state. Klaproth, Travels in the Caucasus and Georgia, ch. 7, English Translation, p. 92. Neither Tchingis nor his son and successor Oegodah had, on account of their continual wars, much leisure for the propagation of the religion of the Lama. By religion they understand a distinct, independent, sacred moral code, which has but one origin, one source, and one object. This notion they universally propagate, and even believe that the brutes, and all created beings, have a religion adapted to their sphere of action. The different forms of the various religions they ascribe to the difference of individuals, nations, and legislators. Never do you hear of their inveighing against any creed, even against the obviously absurd Schaman paganism, or of their persecuting others on that account. They themselves, on the other hand, endure every hardship, and even persecutions, with perfect resignation, and indulgently excuse the follies of others, nay, consider them as a motive for increased ardor in prayer. Ch. IX, p. 109. —⁠M. ↩
A singular conformity may be found between the religious laws of Zingis Khan and of Mr. Locke (“Constitutions of Carolina,” in his Works, vol. IV, p. 535, quarto edition, 1777). ↩
See the notice on Tha-tha-toung-o, the Ouogour minister of Tchingis, in Abel Rémusat’s second series of Recherches Asiatiques, vol. II, p. 61. He taught the son of Tchingis to write: “He was the instructor of the Moguls in writing, of which they were before ignorant”; and hence the application of the Ouigour characters to the Mogul language cannot be placed earlier than the year 1204 or 1205, nor so late as the time of Pâ-sse-pa, who lived under Khubilai. A new alphabet, approaching to that of Tibet, was introduced under Khubilai. —⁠M. ↩
In the year 1294, by the command of Cazan, khan of Persia, the fourth in descent from Zingis. From these traditions, his vizier Fadlallah composed a Mogul history in the Persian language, which has been used by Pétis de la Croix (Histoire du Grand Genghizcan, pp. 537⁠–⁠539). The Histoire généalogique des Tatars (à Leyde, 1726, in duodecimo, two tomes) was translated by the Swedish prisoners in Siberia from the Mogul MS. of Abulgasi Bahadur Khan, a descendant of Zingis, who reigned over the Usbeks of Charasm, or Carizme (AD 1644⁠–⁠1663). He is of most value and credit for the names, pedigrees, and manners of his nation. Of his nine parts, the first descends from Adam to Mogul Khan; the second, from Mogul to Zingis; the third is the life of Zingis; the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh, the general history of his four sons and their posterity; the eighth and ninth, the particular history of the descendants of Sheibani Khan, who reigned in Maurenahar and Charasm. ↩
Histoire de Gentchiscan, et de toute la dinastie des Mongous ses successeurs, conquérans de la Chine; tirée de l’histoire Chinoise, par le R. P. Gaubil, de la compagnie de Jesus, missionaire à Péking; à Paris, 1739, in quarto. This translation is stamped with the Chinese character of domestic accuracy and foreign ignorance. ↩
See the Histoire du grand Genghizcan, premier empereur des anciens Moguls et Tartares, par M. Pétis de la Croix, à Paris, 1710, in duodecimo; a work of ten years’ labor, chiefly drawn from the Persian writers, among whom Nisavi, the secretary of Sultan Gelaleddin, has the merit and prejudices of a contemporary. A slight air of romance is the fault of the originals, or the compiler. See likewise the articles of “Genghizcan,” “Mohammed,” “Gelaleddin,” etc., in the Bibliothèque Orientale of d’Herbelot.9316 ↩
Haithonus, or Aithonus, an Armenian prince, and afterwards a monk of Premontré (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. I, p. 34), dictated in the French language his book De Tartaris, his old fellow-soldiers. It was immediately translated into Latin, and is inserted in the Novus orbis regionum ac insularum veteribus incognitarum of Simon Grynaeus (Basil, 1555, in folio).9317 ↩
Zingis Khan, and his first successors, occupy the conclusion of the ninth Dynasty of Abulpharagius (vers. Pococke, Oxoniae 1663, in quarto); and his tenth Dynasty is that of the Moguls of Persia. Assemani (Bibliotheca orientalis, tom. II) has extracted some facts from his Syriac writings, and the lives of the Jacobite maphrians, or primates of the East. ↩
Among the Arabians, in language and religion, we may distinguish Abulfeda, sultan of Hamah in Syria, who fought in person, under the Mamaluke standard, against the Moguls. ↩
Nicephorus Gregoras (l. II c. 5, 6) has felt the necessity of connecting the Scythian and Byzantine histories. He describes with truth and elegance the settlement and manners of the Moguls of Persia, but he is ignorant of their origin, and corrupts the names of Zingis and his sons. ↩
M. Levesque (Histoire de Russie, tom. II) has described the conquest of Russia by the Tartars, from the patriarch Nicon and the old chronicles. ↩
For Poland, I am content with the “Sarmatia Asiana et Europea” of Matthew à Michou, or De Michoviâ, a canon and physician of Krakow (AD 1506), inserted in the Novus orbis regionum ac insularum veteribus incognitarum of Grynaeus. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. V, p. 56. ↩
I should quote Thuroczius, the oldest general historian (pars II c. 74, p. 150) in the first volume of the Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, did not the same volume contain the original narrative of a contemporary, an eyewitness, and a sufferer (M. Rogerii, Hungari, “Varadiensis Capituli Canonici, Carmen miserabile, seu Historia super Destructione Regni Hungariae Temporibus Belae IV Regis per Tartaros facta,” pp. 292⁠–⁠321); the best picture that I have ever seen of all the circumstances of a Barbaric invasion. ↩
Matthew Paris has represented, from authentic documents, the danger and distress of Europe (consult the word “Tartari” in his copious Index). From motives of zeal and curiosity, the court of the great khan in the thirteenth century was visited by two friars, John de Plano Carpini, and William Rubruquis, and by Marco Polo, a Venetian gentleman. The Latin relations of the two former are inserted in the first volume of Hackluyt; the Italian original or version of the third (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. II, p. 198, tom. V, p. 25) may be found in the second tome of Ramusio. ↩
In his great History of the Huns, M. de Guignes has most amply treated of Zingis Khan and his successors. See tom. III l. XV⁠–⁠XIX, and in the collateral articles of the Seljukians of Roum, tom. II l. XI, the Carizmians, l. XIV, and the Mamalukes, tom. IV l. XXI; consult likewise the tables of the first volume. He is ever learned and accurate; yet I am only indebted to him for a general view, and some passages of Abulfeda, which are still latent in the Arabic text.9318 ↩
More properly Yen-king, an ancient city, whose ruins still appear some furlongs to the southeast of the modern Peking, which was built by Cublai Khan (Gaubel, p. 146). Pe-king and Nan-king are vague titles, the courts of the north and of the south. The identity and change of names perplex the most skilful readers of the Chinese geography (p. 177).9319 ↩
See the particular account of this transaction, from the Kholauesut el Akbaur, in Price, vol. II, p. 402. —⁠M. ↩
M. de Voltaire, Essai sur l’histoire générale, tom. III c. 60, p. 8. His account of Zingis and the Moguls contains, as usual, much general sense and truth, with some particular errors. ↩
Everywhere they massacred all classes, except the artisans, whom they made slaves. Histoire des Mongols. —⁠M. ↩
Their first duty, which he bequeathed to them, was to massacre the king of Tangcoute and all the inhabitants of Ninhia, the surrender of the city being already agreed upon, Histoire des Mongols, vol. I, p. 286. —⁠M. ↩
Zagatai gave his name to his dominions of Maurenahar, or Transoxiana; and the Moguls of Hindostan, who emigrated from that country, are styled Zagatais by the Persians. This certain etymology, and the similar example of Uzbek, Nogai, etc., may warn us not absolutely to reject the derivations of a national, from a personal, name.9320 ↩
In Marco Polo, and the Oriental geographers, the names of Cathay and Mangi distinguish the northern and southern empires, which, from AD 1234 to 1279, were those of the Great Khan, and of the Chinese. The search of Cathay, after China had been found, excited and misled our navigators of the sixteenth century, in their attempts to discover the northeast passage. ↩
I depend on the knowledge and fidelity of the Père Gaubil, who translates the Chinese text of the annals of the Moguls or Yuen (pp. 71, 93, 153); but I am ignorant at what time these annals were composed and published. The two uncles of Marco Polo, who served as engineers at the siege of Siengyangfou,9321 (l. II 61, in Ramusio, tom. II; see Gaubil, pp. 155, 157) must have felt and related the effects of this destructive powder, and their silence is a weighty, and almost decisive objection. I entertain a suspicion that their recent discovery was carried from Europe to China by the caravans of the fifteenth century, and falsely adopted as an old national discovery before the arrival of the Portuguese and Jesuits in the sixteenth. Yet the Père Gaubil affirms that the use of gunpowder has been known to the Chinese above 1,600 years.9322 ↩
See the curious account of the expedition of Holagou, translated from the Chinese, by M. Abel Rémusat, Mélanges asiatiques second ser. tom. I, p. 171. —⁠M. ↩
All that can be known of the Assassins of Persia and Syria is poured from the copious, and even profuse, erudition of M. Falconet, in two Mémoires read before the Academy of Inscriptions (tom. XVII, pp. 127⁠–⁠170).9323 ↩
The Ishmaelians of Syria, 40,000 Assassins, had acquired or founded ten castles in the hills above Tortosa. About the year 1280, they were extirpated by the Mamalukes. ↩
Compare von Hammer, Die Geschichte der Assassinen, pp. 283, 307; Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, vol. VII, p. 406; Price, Chronological Retrospect, vol. II, pp. 217⁠–⁠223. —⁠M. ↩
As a proof of the ignorance of the Chinese in foreign transactions, I must observe that some of their historians extend the conquest of Zingis himself to Medina, the country of Muhammad (Gaubil, p. 42). ↩
Compare Wilken, vol. VII, p. 410. —⁠M. ↩
On the friendly relations of the Armenians with the Mongols see Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, vol. VII, p. 402. They eagerly desired an alliance against the Muhammadan powers. —⁠M. ↩
Trebizond escaped, apparently by the dexterous politics of the sovereign, but it acknowledged the Mogul supremacy. Falmerayer, p. 172. —⁠M. ↩
See the curious extracts from the Muhammadan writers, Histoire des Mongols, p. 707. —⁠M. ↩
The Dashté Kipzak, or plain of Kipzak, extends on either side of the Volga, in a boundless space towards the Jaik and Borysthenes, and is supposed to contain the primitive name and nation of the Cossacks. ↩
Olmutz was gallantly and successfully defended by Stenberg, Histoire des Mongols, p. 396. —⁠M. ↩
In the year 1238, the inhabitants of Gothia (Sweden) and Frise were prevented, by their fear of the Tartars, from sending, as usual, their ships to the herring fishery on the coast of England; and as there was no exportation, forty or fifty of these fish were sold for a shilling (Matthew Paris, p. 396). It is whimsical enough that the orders of a Mogul khan, who reigned on the borders of China, should have lowered the price of herrings in the English market. ↩
I shall copy his characteristic or flattering epithets of the different countries of Europe: Furens ac fervens ad arma Germania, strenuae militiae genitrix et alumna Francia, bellicosa et audax Hispania, virtuosa viris et classe munita fertilis Anglia, impetuosis bellatoribus referta Alemannia, navalis Dacia, indomita Italia, pacis ignara Burgundia, inquieta Apulia, cum maris Graeci, Adriatici et Tyrrheni insulis pyraticis et invictis, Cretâ, Cypro, Siciliâ, cum Oceano conterterminis insulis, et regionibus, cruenta Hybernia, cum agili Wallia palustris Scotia, glacialis Norwegia, suam electam militiam sub vexillo Crucis destinabunt, etc. (Matthew Paris, p. 498). ↩
He was recalled by the death of Octai. —⁠M. ↩
See Carpin’s relation in Hackluyt, vol. I, p. 30. The pedigree of the khans of Siberia is given by Abulghazi (part VIII, pp. 485⁠–⁠495). Have the Russians found no Tartar chronicles at Tobolskoi?9324 ↩
The map of d’Anville and the Chinese Itineraries (De Guignes, tom. I part II, p. 57) seem to mark the position of Holin, or Caracorum, about six hundred miles to the northwest of Peking. The distance between Selinginsky and Peking is near 2000 Russian versts, between 1300 and 1400 English miles (Bell’s Travels from St. Petersburg, vol. II, p. 67). ↩
Rubruquis found at Caracorum his countryman Guillaume Boucher, orfevre de Paris, who had executed for the khan a silver tree supported by four lions, and ejecting four different liquors. Abulghazi (part IV, p. 366) mentions the painters of Kitay or China. ↩
See the interesting sketch of the life of this minister (Yelin-Thsouthsai) in the second volume of the second series of Recherches Asiatiques, par Abel Rémusat, p. 64. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Histoire des Mongols, p. 616. —⁠M. ↩
The attachment of the khans, and the hatred of the mandarins, to the bonzes and lamas (Du Halde, Description de l’empire de la Chine, tom. I, pp. 502, 503) seems to represent them as the priests of the same god, of the Indian “Fo,” whose worship prevails among the sects of Hindostan Siam, Tibet, China, and Japan. But this mysterious subject is still lost in a cloud, which the researchers of our Asiatic Society may gradually dispel. ↩
Some repulse of the Moguls in Hungary (Matthew Paris, pp. 545, 546) might propagate and color the report of the union and victory of the kings of the Franks on the confines of Bulgaria. Abulpharagius (Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, p. 310), after forty years beyond the Tigris, might be easily deceived. ↩
See Pachymer, l. III c. 25, and l. IX c. 26, 27; and the false alarm at Nice, l. III c. 27. Nicephorus Gregoras, l. IV c. 6. ↩
G. Acropolita, pp. 36, 37. Nicephorus Gregorius, l. II c. 6, l. IV c. 5. ↩
Abulpharagius, who wrote in the year 1284, declares that the Moguls, since the fabulous defeat of Batou, had not attacked either the Franks or Greeks; and of this he is a competent witness. Hayton likewise, the Armenian prince, celebrates their friendship for himself and his nation. ↩
Pachymer gives a splendid character of Cazan Khan, the rival of Cyrus and Alexander (l. XII c. 1). In the conclusion of his history (l. XIII c. 36) he hopes much from the arrival of 30,000 Tochars, or Tartars, who were ordered by the successor of Cazan to restrain the Turks of Bithynia, AD 1308. ↩
The origin of the Ottoman dynasty is illustrated by the critical learning of M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. IV, pp. 329⁠–⁠337) and d’Anville (L’Empire Turc, pp. 14⁠–⁠22), two inhabitants of Paris, from whom the Orientals may learn the history and geography of their own country.9325 ↩
See Pachymer, l. X c. 25, 26, l. XIII c. 33, 34, 36; and concerning the guard of the mountains, l. I c. 3⁠–⁠6; Nicephorus Gregoras, l. VII c. 1; and the first book of Laonicus Chalcondyles, the Athenian. ↩
I am ignorant whether the Turks have any writers older than Muhammad II,9326 nor can I reach beyond a meagre chronicle (Annales Turcici, ad annum 1550) translated by John Gaudier, and published by Leunclavius (ad calcem Laonicus Chalcondyles, pp. 311⁠–⁠350), with copious pandects, or commentaries. The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire (AD 1300⁠–⁠1683) was translated into English from the Latin MS. of Demetrius Cantemir, prince of Moldavia (London, 1734, in folio). The author is guilty of strange blunders in Oriental history; but he was conversant with the language, the annals, and institutions of the Turks. Cantemir partly draws his materials from the “Synopsis of Saadi Effendi of Larissa,” dedicated in the year 1696 to Sultan Mustapha, and a valuable abridgment of the original historians. In one of the Ramblers, Dr. Johnson praises Knolles (The Generall Historie of the Turkes, London, 1603) as the first of historians, unhappy only in the choice of his subject. Yet I much doubt whether a partial and verbose compilation from Latin writers, thirteen hundred folio pages of speeches and battles, can either instruct or amuse an enlightened age, which requires from the historian some tincture of philosophy and criticism. ↩
Von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol. I, p. 82. —⁠M. ↩
Von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol. I, p. 91. —⁠M. ↩
Cantacuzene, though he relates the battle and heroic flight of the younger Andronicus (l. II c. 6⁠–⁠8), dissembles by his silence the loss of Prusa, Nice, and Nicomedia, which are fairly confessed by Nicephorus Gregoras (l. VIII 15; IX 9, 13; XI 6). It appears that Nice was taken by Orchan in 1330, and Nicomedia in 1339, which are somewhat different from the Turkish dates. ↩
For the conquests of Orchan over the ten pashalics or kingdoms of the Seljukians in Asia Minor, see von Hammer, vol. I, p. 112. —⁠M. ↩
The partition of the Turkish emirs is extracted from two contemporaries, the Greek Nicephorus Gregoras (l. VII 1) and the Arabian Marakeschi (de Guignes, tom. II partie II, pp. 76, 77). See likewise the first book of Laonicus Chalcondyles. ↩
Pachymer, l. XIII c. 13. ↩
See the Travels of Wheler and Spon, of Pococke and Chandler, and more particularly Thomas Smith’s Survey of the Seven Churches of Asia, pp. 205⁠–⁠276. The more pious antiquaries labor to reconcile the promises and threats of the author of the Revelations with the present state of the seven cities. Perhaps it would be more prudent to confine his predictions to the characters and events of his own times. ↩
Consult the fourth book of the Histoire de Malthe, par l’Abbé de Vertot. That pleasing writer betrays his ignorance in supposing that Othman, a freebooter of the Bithynian hills, could besiege Rhodes by sea and land. ↩
Nicephorus Gregoras has expatiated with pleasure on this amiable character (l. XII 7; XIII 4, 10; XIV 1, 9; XVI 6). Cantacuzene speaks with honor and esteem of his ally (l. III c. 56, 57, 63, 64, 66⁠–⁠68, 86, 89, 95, 96); but he seems ignorant of his own sentimental passion for the Turk, and indirectly denies the possibility of such unnatural friendship (l. IV c. 40). ↩
After the conquest of Smyrna by the Latins, the defence of this fortress was imposed by Pope Gregory XI on the knights of Rhodes (see Vertot, l. V). ↩
See Cantacuzenus, l. III c. 95. Nicephorus Gregoras, who, for the light of Mount Tabor, brands the emperor with the names of tyrant and Herod, excuses, rather than blames, this Turkish marriage, and alleges the passion and power of Orchan, ἐγγύτατος, καὶ τῇ δυνάμει τοὺς κατ’ αύτὸν ἤδη Περσικοὺς (Turkish) ὑπεραίρων Σατράπας (l. XV 5). He afterwards celebrates his kingdom and armies. See his reign in Cantemir, pp. 24⁠–⁠30. ↩
The most lively and concise picture of this captivity may be found in the history of Ducas (c. 8), who fairly describes what Cantacuzene confesses with a guilty blush! ↩
In this passage, and the first conquests in Europe, Cantemir (p. 27, etc.) gives a miserable idea of his Turkish guides; nor am I much better satisfied with Chalcondyles (l. I, p. 12, etc.). They forget to consult the most authentic record, the fourth book of Cantacuzene. I likewise regret the last books, which are still manuscript, of Nicephorus Gregoras.9327 ↩
In the 75th year of his age, the 35th of his reign. Von Hammer. —⁠M. ↩
After the conclusion of Cantacuzene and Gregoras, there follows a dark interval of a hundred years. George Phranza, Michael Ducas, and Laonicus Chalcondyles, all three wrote after the taking of Constantinople. ↩
See Cantemir, pp. 37⁠–⁠41, with his own large and curious annotations. ↩
White and black face are common and proverbial expressions of praise and reproach in the Turkish language. Hic niger est, hunc tu Romane caveto, was likewise a Latin sentence. ↩
According to von Hammer, vol. I, p. 90, Gibbon and the European writers assign too late a date to this enrolment of the Janizaries. It took place not in the reign of Amurath, but in that of his predecessor Orchan. —⁠M. ↩
Ducas has related this as a deliberate act of self-devotion on the part of a Serbian noble, who pretended to desert, and stabbed Amurath during a conference which he had requested. The Italian translator of Ducas, published by Bekker in the new edition of the Byzantines, has still further heightened the romance. See likewise in von Hammer (Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol. I, p. 138) the popular Serbian account, which resembles that of Ducas, and may have been the source of that of his Italian translator. The Turkish account agrees more nearly with Gibbon; but the Serbian (Milosch Kohilovisch), while he lay among the heap of the dead, pretended to have some secret to impart to Amurath, and stabbed him while he leaned over to listen. —⁠M. ↩
See the life and death of Morad, or Amurath I, in Cantemir (pp. 33⁠–⁠45), the first book of Chalcondyles, and the Annales Turcici of Leunclavius. According to another story, the sultan was stabbed by a Croat in his tent: and this accident was alleged to Busbequius (“Epistola I,” p. 98) as an excuse for the unworthy precaution of pinioning, as it were, between two attendants, an ambassador’s arms when he is introduced to the royal presence. ↩
The reign of Bajazet I, or Ilderim Bayazid, is contained in Cantemir (p. 46), the second book of Chalcondyles, and the Annales Turcici. The surname of Ilderim, or lightning, is an example that the conquerors and poets of every age have felt the truth of a system which derives the sublime from the principle of terror. ↩
Cantemir, who celebrates the victories of the great Stephen over the Turks (p. 47), had composed the ancient and modern state of his principality of Moldavia, which has been long promised, and is still unpublished. ↩
Leunclavius, Annales Turcici, pp. 318, 319. The venality of the cadhis has long been an object of scandal and satire; and if we distrust the observations of our travellers, we may consult the feeling of the Turks themselves (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, pp. 216, 217, 229, 230). ↩
The fact, which is attested by the Arabic history of Ben Schounah, a contemporary Syrian (de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, tom. IV, p. 336), destroys the testimony of Saad Effendi and Cantemir (pp. 14, 15), of the election of Othman to the dignity of sultan. ↩
See the Rerum Hungaricarum decades (Dec. III l. II, p. 379) of Bonfinius, an Italian, who, in the fifteenth century, was invited into Hungary to compose an eloquent history of that kingdom. Yet, if it be extant and accessible, I should give the preference to some homely chronicle of the time and country. ↩
I should not complain of the labor of this work, if my materials were always derived from such books as the Chronicle of honest Froissard (vol. IV c. 67, 72, 74, 79⁠–⁠83, 85, 87, 89), who read little, inquired much, and believed all. The original Mémoires of the Maréchal de Boucicaut (Partie I c. 22⁠–⁠28) add some facts, but they are dry and deficient, if compared with the pleasant garrulity of Froissard. ↩
An accurate memoir on the life of Enguerrand VII, Sire de Coucy, has been given by the Baron de Zurlauben (Histoire de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXV) His rank and possessions were equally considerable in France and England; and, in 1375, he led an army of adventurers into Switzerland, to recover a large patrimony which he claimed in right of his grandmother, the daughter of the emperor Albert I of Austria (Sinner, Voyage historique et littéraire dans la Suisse occidentale, tom. I, pp. 118⁠–⁠124). ↩
That military office, so respectable at present, was still more conspicuous when it was divided between two persons (Daniel, Histoire de la milice françoise, tom. II, p. 5). One of these, the marshal of the crusade, was the famous Boucicault, who afterwards defended Constantinople, governed Genoa, invaded the coast of Asia, and died in the field of Azincour. ↩
Daru, Histoire de la république de Venise, vol. II, p. 104, makes the whole French army amount to 10,000 men, of whom 1,000 were knights. The curious volume of Schiltberger, a German of Munich, who was taken prisoner in the battle (edit. Munich, 1813), and which von Hammer receives as authentic, gives the whole number at 6,000. See Schiltberger, Reise in den Orient und wunderbare Begebenheiten, and von Hammer, note, p. 610. —⁠M. ↩
According to Schiltberger there were only twelve French lords granted to the prayer of the “duke of Burgundy,” and “Herr Stephan Synther, and Johann von Bodem.” Schiltberger, p. 13. —⁠M. ↩
For this odious fact, the Abbé de Vertot quotes the Histoire anonyme de St. Denys, l. XVI c. 10, 11 (L’Ordre de Malthe, tom. II, p. 310). ↩
See Schiltberger’s very graphic account of the massacre. He was led out to be slaughtered in cold blood with the rest of the Christian prisoners, amounting to 10,000. He was spared at the intercession of the son of Bajazet, with a few others, on account of their extreme youth. No one under 20 years of age was put to death. The “duke of Burgundy” was obliged to be a spectator of this butchery, which lasted from early in the morning till four o’clock p.m. It ceased only at the supplication of the leaders of Bajazet’s army. Schiltberger, p. 14. —⁠M. ↩
Sherefeddin Ali (Histoire de Timur-Bec, l. V c. 13) allows Bajazet a round number of 12,000 officers and servants of the chase. A part of his spoils was afterwards displayed in a hunting-match of Timour: 1. Hounds with satin housings; 2. Leopards with collars set with jewels; 3. Grecian greyhounds; and 4. dogs from Europe, as strong as African lions (idem, l. VI c. 15). Bajazet was particularly fond of flying his hawks at cranes (Chalcondyles, l. II, p. 35). ↩
For the reigns of John Palaeologus and his son Manuel, from 1354 to 1402, see Ducas, c. 9⁠–⁠15, Phranza, l. I c. 16⁠–⁠21, and the first and second books of Chalcondyles, whose proper subject is drowned in a sea of episode. ↩
According to von Hammer it was the power of Bajazet, vol. I, p. 218. —⁠M. ↩
Cantemir, pp. 50⁠–⁠53. Of the Greeks, Ducas alone (c. 13, 15) acknowledges the Turkish cadhi at Constantinople. Yet even Ducas dissembles the mosque. ↩
Mémoires du bon messire Jean le Maingre, dit Boucicaut, maréchal de France, partie I c. 30⁠–⁠35. ↩
These journals were communicated to Sherefeddin, or Cherefeddin Ali, a native of Yezd, who composed in the Persian language a history of Timour Beg, which has been translated into French by M. Pétis de la Croix (Paris, 1722, in four vols. duodecimo), and has always been my faithful guide. His geography and chronology are wonderfully accurate; and he may be trusted for public facts, though he servilely praises the virtue and fortune of the hero. Timour’s attention to procure intelligence from his own and foreign countries may be seen in the Institutes Political and Military, pp. 215, 217, 349, 351. ↩
These commentaries are yet unknown in Europe: but Mr. White gives some hope that they may be imported and translated by his friend Major William Davy, who had read in the East this “minute and faithful narrative of an interesting and eventful period.”9328 ↩
I am ignorant whether the original Institutions, in the Turki or Mogul language, be still extant. The Persic version, with an English translation and most valuable index, was published (Oxford, 1783, in quarto) by the joint labors of Major Davy and Mr. White, the Arabic professor. This work has been since translated from the Persic into French (Paris, 1787), by M. Louis-Mathieu Langlès, a learned Orientalist, who has added the Life of Timour and many curious notes. ↩
Shah Allum, the present Mogul, reads, values, but cannot imitate the institutions of his great ancestor. The English translator relies on their internal evidence; but if any suspicions should arise of fraud and fiction, they will not be dispelled by Major Davy’s letter. The Orientals have never cultivated the art of criticism; the patronage of a prince, less honorable perhaps, is not less lucrative than that of a bookseller; nor can it be deemed incredible that a Persian, the real author, should renounce the credit, to raise the value and price, of the work. ↩
The original of the tale is found in the following work, which is much esteemed for its florid elegance of style: Ahmedis Arabsiadae vitae et rerum gestarum Timuri. Arabice et Latine. Edidit Samuel Henricus Manger. Franequer, 1767, two tom. in quarto. This Syrian author is ever a malicious and often an ignorant enemy; the very titles of his chapters are injurious; as how the wicked, as how the impious, as how the viper, etc. The copious article of “Timur,” in Bibliothèque Orientale, is of a mixed nature, as d’Herbelot indifferently draws his materials (pp. 877⁠–⁠888) from Khondemir, Ebn Schounah, and the Lebtarikh. ↩
Demir or Timour signifies in the Turkish language, iron; and Beg is the appellation of a lord or prince. By the change of a letter or accent it is changed into Lenc, or Lame; and a European corruption confounds the two words in the name of Tamerlane.9329 ↩
He was lamed by a wound at the siege of the capital of Sistan. Sherefeddin, lib. III c. 17, p. 136. See von Hammer, vol. I, p. 260. —⁠M. ↩
In the memoirs, the title Gurgân is in one place (p. 23) interpreted the son-in-law; in another (p. 28) as Kurkan, great prince, generalissimo, and prime minister of Jagtai. —⁠M. ↩
After relating some false and foolish tales of Timour Lenc, Arabshah is compelled to speak truth, and to own him for a kinsman of Zingis, per mulieres (as he peevishly adds), laqueos Satanae (pars I c. I, p. 25). The testimony of Abulghazi Khan (partie II c. 5, partie V c. 4) is clear, unquestionable, and decisive. ↩
According to one of the pedigrees, the fourth ancestor of Zingis, and the ninth of Timour, were brothers; and they agreed that the posterity of the elder should succeed to the dignity of Khan, and that the descendants of the younger should fill the office of their minister and general. This tradition was at least convenient to justify the first steps of Timour’s ambition (Institutions, pp. 24, 25, from the MS. fragments of Timour’s History). ↩
See the preface of Sherefeddin, and Abulfeda’s Geography (“Chorasmiae,” etc., Descriptio, pp. 60, 61), in the third volume of Hudson’s Minor Greek Geographers. ↩
See his nativity in Dr. Hyde (Syntagma dissertationum, tom. II, p. 466), as it was cast by the astrologers of his grandson Ulugh Beg. He was born, AD 1336, April 9, 11:57 p.m., lat. 36. I know not whether they can prove the great conjunction of the planets from whence, like other conquerors and prophets, Timour derived the surname of Saheb Keran, or master of the conjunctions (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 878). ↩
In the Institutions of Timour, these subjects of the Khan of Kashgar are most improperly styled Ouzbegs, or Usbeks, a name which belongs to another branch and country of Tartars (Abulghazi, partie V c. V; partie VII c. 5). Could I be sure that this word is in the Turkish original, I would boldly pronounce that the Institutions were framed a century after the death of Timour, since the establishment of the Usbeks in Transoxiana.9330 ↩
He was twenty-seven before he served his first wars under the emir Houssein, who ruled over Khorasan and Mawerainnehr. Von Hammer, vol. I, p. 262. Neither of these statements agrees with the Memoirs. At twelve he was a boy. “I fancied that I perceived in myself all the signs of greatness and wisdom, and whoever came to visit me, I received with great hauteur and dignity.” At seventeen he undertook the management of the flocks and herds of the family (p. 24). At nineteen he became religious, and “left off playing chess,” made a kind of Buddhist vow never to injure living thing and felt his foot paralyzed from having accidentally trod upon an ant (p. 30). At twenty, thoughts of rebellion and greatness rose in his mind; at twenty-one, he seems to have performed his first feat of arms. He was a practiced warrior when he served, in his twenty-seventh year, under Emir Houssein. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Memoirs, page 61. The imprisonment is there stated at fifty-three days. “At this time I made a vow to God that I would never keep any person, whether guilty or innocent, for any length of time, in prison or in chains,” p. 63. —⁠M. ↩
Timour, on one occasion, sent him this message: “He who wishes to embrace the bride of royalty must kiss her across the edge of the sharp sword,” p. 83. The scene of the trial of Houssein, the resistance of Timour gradually becoming more feeble, the vengeance of the chiefs becoming proportionably more determined, is strikingly portrayed. Memoirs, p. 130. —⁠M. ↩
The first book of Sherefeddin is employed on the private life of the hero; and he himself, or his secretary (Institutions, pp. 3⁠–⁠77), enlarges with pleasure on the thirteen designs and enterprises which most truly constitute his personal merit. It even shines through the dark coloring of Arabshah (partie I c. 1⁠–⁠12). ↩
The conquests of Persia, Tartary, and India are represented in the second and third books of Sherefeddin, and by Arabshah (c. 13⁠–⁠55). Consult the excellent indexes to the Institutions.9331 ↩
The reverence of the Tartars for the mysterious number of nine is declared by Abulghazi Khan, who, for that reason, divides his Genealogical History of the Tartars into nine parts. ↩
According to Arabshah (partie I c. 28, p. 183), the coward Timour ran away to his tent, and hid himself from the pursuit of Shah Mansour under the women’s garments. Perhaps Sherefeddin (l. III c. 25) has magnified his courage. ↩
The history of Ormuz is not unlike that of Tyre. The old city, on the continent, was destroyed by the Tartars, and renewed in a neighboring island without fresh water or vegetation. The kings of Ormuz, rich in the Indian trade and the pearl fishery, possessed large territories both in Persia and Arabia; but they were at first the tributaries of the sultans of Kerman, and at last were delivered (AD 1505) by the Portuguese tyrants from the tyranny of their own viziers (Marco Polo, l. I c. 15, 16, folio 7, 8; Abulfeda, Geographia, tabul. XI, pp. 261, 262; an original “Chronicle” of Ormuz, in Texeira, or Stevens’s History of Persia, pp. 376⁠–⁠416, and the Itineraries inserted in the first volume of Ramusio; of Ludovico Barthema (1503), folio 167; of Andrea Corsali (1517) folio 202, 203; and of Odoardo Barbessa (in 1516), folio 313⁠–⁠318). ↩
Arabshah had travelled into Kipzak, and acquired a singular knowledge of the geography, cities, and revolutions, of that northern region (partie I c. 45⁠–⁠49). ↩
Institutes Political and Military of Timour, pp. 123, 125. Mr. White, the editor, bestows some animadversion on the superficial account of Sherefeddin (l. III c. 12⁠–⁠14), who was ignorant of the designs of Timour, and the true springs of action. ↩
The furs of Russia are more credible than the ingots. But the linen of Antioch has never been famous; and Antioch was in ruins. I suspect that it was some manufacture of Europe, which the Hanse merchants had imported by the way of Novogorod. ↩
M. Levesque (Histoire de Russie, tom. II, p. 247; Vie de Timour, pp. 64⁠–⁠67, before the French version of the Institutions) has corrected the error of Sherefeddin, and marked the true limit of Timour’s conquests. His arguments are superfluous, and a simple appeal to the Russian annals is sufficient to prove that Moscow, which six years before had been taken by Toctamish, escaped the arms of a more formidable invader. ↩
An Egyptian consul from Grand Cairo is mentioned in Barbaro’s voyage to Tana in 1436, after the city had been rebuilt (Ramusio, tom. II folio 92). ↩
The sack of Azoph is described by Sherefeddin (l. III c. 55), and much more particularly by the author of an Italian chronicle (Andreas de Redusiis de Quero, in Chronicon Tarvisinum, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XIX, pp. 802⁠–⁠805). He had conversed with the Mianis, two Venetian brothers, one of whom had been sent a deputy to the camp of Timour, and the other had lost at Azoph three sons and 12,000 ducats. ↩
Sherefeddin only says (l. III c. 13) that the rays of the setting, and those of the rising, sun were scarcely separated by any interval: a problem which may be solved in the latitude of Moscow (the 56th degree), with the aid of the Aurora Borealis and a long summer twilight. But a day of forty days (Khondemir apud d’Herbelot, p. 880) would rigorously confine us within the polar circle. ↩
For the Indian war, see the Institutions (pp. 129⁠–⁠139), the fourth book of Sherefeddin, and the history of Ferishta (in Dow, vol. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠20), which throws a general light on the affairs of Hindostan. ↩
Gibbon (observes M. von Hammer) is mistaken in the correspondence of the ninety-two squadrons of his army with the ninety-two names of God: the names of God are ninety-nine, and Allah is the hundredth, p. 286, note. But Gibbon speaks of the names or epithets of Muhammad, not of God. —⁠M. ↩
The rivers of the Punjab, the five eastern branches of the Indus, have been laid down for the first time with truth and accuracy in Major Rennell’s incomparable map of Hindostan. In his critical Memoir he illustrates with judgment and learning the marches of Alexander and Timour.9332 ↩
They took, on their march, 100,000 slaves, Guebers: they were all murdered. Von Hammer, vol. I, p. 286. They are called idolaters. Briggs’s Ferishta, vol. I, p. 491. —⁠M. ↩
See a curious passage on the destruction of the Hindu idols, Memoirs, p. 15. —⁠M. ↩
Consult the very striking description of the Cow’s Mouth by Captain J. A. Hodgson, Asiatick Researches, vol. XIV, p. 117. “A most wonderful scene. The B’hagirat’ha or Ganges issues from under a very low arch at the foot of the grand snow bed. My guide, an illiterate mountaineer compared the pendent icicles to Mahádéva’s hair.” (Compare Poems, Quarterly Review, vol. XIV, p. 37, and at the end of my translation of Nala.) “Hindus of research may formerly have been here; and if so, I cannot think of any place to which they might more aptly give the name of a cow’s mouth than to this extraordinary débouché.” —⁠M. ↩
The two great rivers, the Ganges and Burrampooter, rise in Tibet, from the opposite ridges of the same hills, separate from each other to the distance of 1,200 miles, and, after a winding course of 2,000 miles, again meet in one point near the Gulf of Bengal. Yet so capricious is fame that the Burrampooter is a late discovery, while his brother Ganges has been the theme of ancient and modern story. Coupele, the scene of Timour’s last victory, must be situate near Loldong, 1,100 miles from Calcutta; and, in 1774, a British camp! (Rennell’s Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan, pp. 7, 59, 90, 91, 99.) ↩
See the Institutions, p. 141, to the end of the first book, and Sherefeddin (l. V c. 1⁠–⁠16), to the entrance of Timour into Syria. ↩
We have three copies of these hostile epistles in the Institutions (p. 147), in Sherefeddin (l. V c. 14), and in Arabshah (tom. II c. 19, pp. 183⁠–⁠201), which agree with each other in the spirit and substance, rather than in the style. It is probable that they have been translated, with various latitude, from the Turkish original into the Arabic and Persian tongues.9333 ↩
The Mogul emir distinguishes himself and his countrymen by the name of Turks, and stigmatizes the race and nation of Bajazet with the less honorable epithet of Turkmans. Yet I do not understand how the Ottomans could be descended from a Turkman sailor; those inland shepherds were so remote from the sea and all maritime affairs.9334 ↩
According to the Koran (c. II, p. 27, and Sale’s Discourses, p. 134), Mussulman who had thrice divorced his wife (who had thrice repeated the words of a divorce), could not take her again, till after she had been married to, and repudiated by, another husband; an ignominious transaction, which it is needless to aggravate by supposing that the first husband must see her enjoyed by a second before his face (Rycaut’s The Present State of the Ottoman Empire, l. II c. 21). ↩
The common delicacy of the Orientals, in never speaking of their women, is ascribed in a much higher degree by Arabshah to the Turkish nations; and it is remarkable enough that Chalcondyles (l. II, p. 55) had some knowledge of the prejudice and the insult.9335 ↩
Still worse barbarities were perpetrated on these brave men. Von Hammer, vol. I, p. 295. —⁠M. ↩
For the style of the Moguls, see the Institutions (pp. 131, 147), and for the Persians, the Bibliothèque Orientale (p. 882); but I do not find that the title of Caesar has been applied by the Arabians, or assumed by the Ottomans themselves. ↩
See the reigns of Barkok and Pharadge, in M. de Guignes (tom. IV l. XXII), who from the Arabic texts of Aboulmahasen, Ebn Schounah, and Aintabi has added some facts to our common stock of materials. ↩
For these recent and domestic transactions, Arabshah, though a partial, is a credible, witness (tom. I c. 64⁠–⁠68; tom. II c. 1⁠–⁠14). Timour must have been odious to a Syrian; but the notoriety of facts would have obliged him, in some measure, to respect his enemy and himself. His bitters may correct the luscious sweets of Sherefeddin (l. V c. 17⁠–⁠29). ↩
These interesting conversations appear to have been copied by Arabshah (tom. I c. 68, pp. 625⁠–⁠645) from the cadhi and historian Ebn Schounah, a principal actor. Yet how could he be alive seventy-five years afterwards (d’Herbelot, p. 792)? ↩
The marches and occupations of Timour between the Syrian and Ottoman wars are represented by Sherefeddin (l. V c. 29⁠–⁠43) and Arabshah (tom. II c. 15⁠–⁠18). ↩
This number of 800,000 was extracted by Arabshah, or rather by Ebn Schounah, ex rationario Timuri, on the faith of a Carizmian officer (tom. I c. 68, p. 617); and it is remarkable enough that a Greek historian (Phranza, l. I c. 29) adds no more than 20,000 men. Poggius reckons 1,000,000; another Latin contemporary (Chronicon Tarvisinum, apud Muratori, tom. XIX, p. 800) 1,100,000; and the enormous sum of 1,600,000 is attested by a German soldier who was present at the battle of Angora (Leunclavius ad Chalcondyles, l. III, p. 82). Timour, in his Institutions, has not deigned to calculate his troops, his subjects, or his revenues. ↩
A wide latitude of non-effectives was allowed by the Great Mogul for his own pride and the benefit of his officers. Bernier’s patron was Penge-Hazari, commander of 5,000 horse, of which he maintained no more than 500 (Voyages, tom. I, pp. 288, 289). ↩
Timour himself fixes at 400,000 men the Ottoman army (Institutions, p. 153), which is reduced to 150,000 by Phranza (l. I c. 29), and swelled by the German soldier to 1,400,000. It is evident that the Moguls were the more numerous. ↩
It may not be useless to mark the distances between Angora and the neighboring cities, by the journeys of the caravans, each of twenty or twenty-five miles; to Smyrna 20, to Kiotahia 10, to Bursa 10, to Caesarea 8, to Sinope 10, to Nicomedia 9, to Constantinople 12 or 13 (see Tournefort, Voyage au Levant, tom. II lettre XXI). ↩
See the Systems of Tactics in the Institutions, which the English editors have illustrated with elaborate plans (pp. 373⁠–⁠407). ↩
The sultan himself (says Timour) must then put the foot of courage into the stirrup of patience. A Tartar metaphor, which is lost in the English, but preserved in the French, version of the Institutes (pp. 156, 157). ↩
The Greek fire, on Timour’s side, is attested by Sherefeddin (l. V c. 47); but Voltaire’s strange suspicion that some cannon, inscribed with strange characters, must have been sent by that monarch to Delhi is refuted by the universal silence of contemporaries. ↩
See von Hammer, vol. I, p. 310, for the singular hints which were conveyed to him of the wisdom of unlocking his hoarded treasures. —⁠M. ↩
Timour has dissembled this secret and important negotiation with the Tartars, which is indisputably proved by the joint evidence of the Arabian (tom. I c. 47, p. 391), Turkish (Annales Turcici, Leunclavius, p. 321), and Persian historians (Khondemir, apud d’Herbelot, p. 882). ↩
For the war of Anatolia, or Roum, I add some hints in the Institutions to the copious narratives of Sherefeddin (l. V c. 44⁠–⁠65) and Arabshah (tom. II c. 20⁠–⁠35). On this part only of Timour’s history it is lawful to quote the Turks (Cantemir, pp. 53⁠–⁠55; Annales Turcici Leunclavius, pp. 320⁠–⁠322), and the Greeks (Phranza, l. I c. 29; Ducas, c. 15⁠–⁠17; Chalcondyles, l. III) ↩
The scepticism of Voltaire (Essai sur l’histoire générale, c. 88) is ready on this, as on every occasion, to reject a popular tale, and to diminish the magnitude of vice and virtue; and on most occasions his incredulity is reasonable. ↩
See the History of Sherefeddin (l. V c. 49, 52, 53, 59, 60). This work was finished at Shiraz, in the year 1424, and dedicated to Sultan Ibrahim, the son of Sharokh, the son of Timour, who reigned in Farsistan in his father’s lifetime. ↩
After the perusal of Khondemir, Ebn Schounah, etc., the learned d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 882) may affirm that this fable is not mentioned in the most authentic histories; but his denial of the visible testimony of Arabshah leaves some room to suspect his accuracy. ↩
Et fut lui-même (Bajazet) pris, et mené en prison, en laquelle mourut de dure mort! Mémoires de Boucicaut, partie I c. 37. These memoirs were composed while the marshal was still governor of Genoa, from whence he was expelled in the year 1409 by a popular insurrection (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. XII, pp. 473, 474). ↩
The reader will find a satisfactory account of the life and writings of Poggius in the Poggiana, an entertaining work of M. Jacques Lenfant, and in the Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis of Fabricius (tom. V, pp. 305⁠–⁠308). Poggius was born in the year 1380, and died in 1459. ↩
The dialogue De varietate fortunae (of which a complete and elegant edition has been published at Paris in 1723, in quarto), was composed a short time before the death of Pope Martin V (p. 5), and consequently about the end of the year 1430. ↩
See a splendid and eloquent encomium of Tamerlane, pp. 36⁠–⁠39, ipse enim novi (says Poggius) qui fuere in ejus castris.⁠ ⁠… Regem vivum cepit, caveâque in modum ferae inclusum per omnem Asian circumtulit egregium admirandumque spectaculum fortunae. ↩
The Chronicon Tarvisinum (in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XIX, p. 800), and the Annales estenses (tom. XVIII, p. 974). The two authors, Andrea de Redusiis de Quero and James de Delayto, were both contemporaries, and both chancellors, the one of Trevigi, the other of Ferrara. The evidence of the former is the most positive. ↩
See Arabshah, tom. II c. 28, 34. He travelled in regiones Rumaeas, AH 839 (AD 1435, July 27), tom. II c. 2, p. 13. ↩
Busbequius in De legatione Turcicâ, “Epistola I,” p. 52. Yet his respectable authority is somewhat shaken by the subsequent marriages of Amurath II with a Serbian, and of Muhammad II with an Asiatic, princess (Cantemir, pp. 83, 93). ↩
See the testimony of George Phranza (l. I c. 29), and his life in Hankius (De Byzantinarum rerum scriptoribus Graecis pars I c. 40). Chalcondyles and Ducas speak in general terms of Bajazet’s chains. ↩
Annales Turcici, Leunclavius, p. 321; Pococke, Prolegomena ad Abulpharagius, Historia compendiosa dynastiarum; Cantemir, p. 55.9336 ↩
A Sapor, king of Persia, had been made prisoner, and enclosed in the figure of a cow’s hide, by Maximian or Galerius Caesar. Such is the fable related by Eutychius (Annales, tom. I, p. 421, vers. Pococke). The recollection of the true history (see here in chapter XIII) will teach us to appreciate the knowledge of the Orientals of the ages which precede the Hegira. ↩
Von Hammer’s explanation of this contested point is both simple and satisfactory. It originates in a mistake in the meaning of the Turkish word kafe, which means a covered litter or palanquin drawn by two horses, and is generally used to convey the harem of an Eastern monarch. In such a litter, with the latticework made of iron, Bajazet either chose or was constrained to travel. This was either mistaken for, or transformed by ignorant relaters into, a cage. The European Schiltberger, the two oldest of the Turkish historians, and the most valuable of the later compilers, Seadeddin, describe this litter. Seadeddin discusses the question with some degree of historical criticism, and ascribes the choice of such a vehicle to the indignant state of Bajazet’s mind, which would not brook the sight of his Tartar conquerors. Von Hammer, p. 320. —⁠M. ↩
Arabshah (tom. II c. 25) describes, like a curious traveller, the straits of Gallipoli and Constantinople. To acquire a just idea of these events, I have compared the narratives and prejudices of the Moguls, Turks, Greeks, and Arabians. The Spanish ambassador mentions this hostile union of the Christians and Ottomans (Vie de Timour, p. 96). ↩
Since the name of Caesar had been transferred to the sultans of Roum, the Greek princes of Constantinople (Sherefeddin, l. V c. 54) were confounded with the Christian lords of Gallipoli, Thessalonica, etc. under the title of “Tekkur,” which is derived by corruption from the genitive τοῦ κυρίου (Cantemir, p. 51). ↩
See Sherefeddin, l. V c. 4, who marks, in a just itinerary, the road to China, which Arabshah (tom. II c. 33) paints in vague and rhetorical colors. ↩
Synopsis Historia Tartaro-Sinica, pp. 74⁠–⁠76 (in the fourth part of the Relations de Thévenot), Du Halde, Description de l’empire de la Chine (tom. I, pp. 507, 508, folio edition); and for the chronology of the Chinese emperors, de Guignes, Histoire des Huns (tom. I, pp. 71, 72). ↩
For the return, triumph, and death of Timour, see Sherefeddin (l. VI c. 1⁠–⁠30) and Arabshah (tom. II c. 36⁠–⁠47). ↩
Sherefeddin (l. VI c. 24) mentions the ambassadors of one of the most potent sovereigns of Europe. We know that it was Henry III, king of Castile; and the curious relation of his two embassies is still extant (Mariana, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, l. XIX c. 11, tom. II, pp. 329, 330; Avertissement à Histoire de Timur-Bec, pp. 28⁠–⁠33). There appears likewise to have been some correspondence between the Mogul emperor and the court of Charles VII, king of France (Histoire de France, par Velly et Villaret, tom. XII, p. 336). ↩
See the translation of the Persian account of their embassy, a curious and original piece (in the fourth part of the Relations de Thévenot). They presented the emperor of China with an old horse which Timour had formerly rode. It was in the year 1419 that they departed from the court of Herat, to which place they returned in 1422 from Peking. ↩
From Arabshah, tom. II c. 96. The bright or softer colors are borrowed from Sherefeddin, d’Herbelot, and the Institutions. ↩
His new system was multiplied from 32 pieces and 64 squares to 56 pieces and 110 or 130 squares. But, except in his court, the old game has been thought sufficiently elaborate. The Mogul emperor was rather pleased than hurt with the victory of a subject; a chess player will feel the value of this encomium! ↩
See Sherefeddin, l. V c. 15, 25. Arabshah (tom. II c. 96, pp. 801, 803) approves the impiety of Timour and the Moguls, who almost preferred to the Koran the Yacsa, or Law of Zingis (cui Deus maledicat): nor will he believe that Sharokh had abolished the use and authority of that Pagan code. ↩
Besides the bloody passages of this narrative, I must refer to an anticipation in the third volume of the Decline and Fall, which in a single note accumulates nearly 300,000 heads of the monuments of his cruelty. Except in Rowe’s play on the fifth of November, I did not expect to hear of Timour’s amiable moderation (White’s preface, p. 7). Yet I can excuse a generous enthusiasm in the reader, and still more in the editor, of the Institutions. ↩
Consult the last chapters of Sherefeddin and Arabshah, and M. de Guignes (Histoire des Huns, tom. IV l. XX), James Fraser’s History of Nadir Shah (pp. 1⁠–⁠62). The story of Timour’s descendants is imperfectly told; and the second and third parts of Sherefeddin are unknown. ↩
Shah Allum, the present Mogul, is in the fourteenth degree from Timour, by Miran Shah, his third son. See the second volume of Dow’s History of Hindostan. ↩
The civil wars, from the death of Bajazet to that of Mustapha, are related, according to the Turks, by Demetrius Cantemir (pp. 58⁠–⁠82). Of the Greeks, Chalcondyles (l. IV and V), Phranza (l. I c. 30⁠–⁠32), and Ducas (c. 18⁠–⁠27), the last is the most copious and best informed. ↩
Arabshah (tom. II c. 26), whose testimony on this occasion is weighty and valuable. The existence of Isa (unknown to the Turks) is likewise confirmed by Sherefeddin (l. V c. 57). ↩
He escaped from the bath and fled towards Constantinople. Five brothers from a village, Dugundschi, whose inhabitants had suffered severely from the exactions of his officers, recognized and followed him. Soliman shot two of them, the others discharged their arrows in their turn, the sultan fell, and his head was cut off. Von Hammer, vol. I, p. 349. —⁠M. ↩
Arabshah, loc. cit. Abulfeda, Geographia, tab. XVII, p. 302; Augerius Busbequius, “Epistola I,” pp. 96, 97, in Itinera Constantinopolitanum et Amasianum. ↩
See his nine battles. Von Hammer, p. 339. —⁠M. ↩
The virtues of Ibrahim are praised by a contemporary Greek (Ducas, c. 25). His descendants are the sole nobles in Turkey; they content themselves with the administration of his pious foundations, are excused from public offices, and receive two annual visits from the sultan (Cantemir, p. 76). ↩
See Pachymer (l. V c. 29), Nicephorus Gregoras (l. II c. 1), Sherefeddin (l. V c. 57), and Ducas (c. 25). The last of these, a curious and careful observer, is entitled, from his birth and station, to particular credit in all that concerns Ionia and the islands. Among the nations that resorted to New Phocaea he mentions the English (Ἰγγλῆνοι); an early evidence of Mediterranean trade. ↩
For the spirit of navigation and freedom of ancient Phocaea, or rather the Phocaeans, consult the first book of Herodotus, and the Geographical Index of his last and learned French translator, M. Larcher (tom. VII, p. 299). ↩
Phocaea is not enumerated by Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historiae XXXV 52) among the places productive of alum; he reckons Egypt as the first, and for the second the isle of Melos, whose alum mines are described by Tournefort (tom. I lettre IV), a traveller and a naturalist. After the loss of Phocaea, the Genoese, in 1459, found that useful mineral in the isle of Ischia (Ismael Boulliaud, ad Ducam, c. 25). ↩
The writer who has the most abused this fabulous generosity is our ingenious Sir William Temple (his Works, vol. III, pp. 349, 350, octavo edition), that lover of exotic virtue. After the conquest of Russia, etc., and the passage of the Danube, his Tartar hero relieves, visits, admires, and refuses the city of Constantine. His flattering pencil deviates in every line from the truth of history; yet his pleasing fictions are more excusable than the gross errors of Cantemir. ↩
For the reigns of Manuel and John, of Muhammad I and Amurath II, see the Othman history of Cantemir (pp. 70⁠–⁠95), and the three Greeks, Chalcondyles, Phranza, and Ducas, who is still superior to his rivals. ↩
The Turkish asper (from the Greek ἄσπρος) is, or was, a piece of white or silver money, at present much debased, but which was formerly equivalent to the 54th part, at least, of a Venetian ducat or sequin; and the 300,000 aspers, a princely allowance or royal tribute, may be computed at £2,500 sterling (Leunclavius, Pandectae historiae Turciae, pp. 406⁠–⁠408).9337 ↩
For the siege of Constantinople in 1422, see the particular and contemporary narrative of John Cananus, published by Leo Allatius, at the end of his edition of Acropolita (pp. 188⁠–⁠199). ↩
Cantemir, p. 80. Cananus, who describes Seid Bechar without naming him, supposes that the friend of Muhammad assumed in his amours the privilege of a prophet, and that the fairest of the Greek nuns were promised to the saint and his disciples. ↩
For this miraculous apparition, Cananus appeals to the Mussulman saint; but who will bear testimony for Seid Bechar? ↩
See Ricaut (l. I c. 13). The Turkish sultans assume the title of Khan. Yet Abulghazi is ignorant of his Ottoman cousins. ↩
The third grand vizier of the name of Kiuperli, who was slain at the battle of Salankanen in 1691 (Cantemir, p. 382), presumed to say that all the successors of Soliman had been fools or tyrants, and that it was time to abolish the race (Marsigli, Stato militare dell’ imperio Ottomano, p. 28). This political heretic was a good Whig, and justified, against the French ambassador, the revolution of England (Vincent Mignot, Histoire de l’empire Ottoman, tom. III, p. 434). His presumption condemns the singular exception of continuing offices in the same family. ↩
Chalcondyles (l. V) and Ducas (c. 23) exhibit the rude lineaments of the Ottoman policy, and the transmutation of Christian children into Turkish soldiers. ↩
This sketch of the Turkish education and discipline is chiefly borrowed from Paul Ricaut’s History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire, the Stato militare dell’ imperio Ottomano of Count Marsigli (in Haya, 1732, in folio), and a description of the Seraglio, approved by Mr. Greaves himself, a curious traveller, and inserted in the second volume of his works. ↩
From the series of 115 viziers, till the siege of Vienna (Marsigli, p. 13), their place may be valued at three years and a half purchase. ↩
See the entertaining and judicious letters of Busbequius. ↩
The first and second volumes of Dr. Watson’s Chemical Essays contain two valuable discourses on the discovery and composition of gunpowder. ↩
On this subject, modern testimonies cannot be trusted. The original passages are collected by du Cange (Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. I, p. 675, “Bombarda”). But in the early doubtful twilight, the name, sound, fire, and effect, that seem to express our artillery, may be fairly interpreted of the old engines and the Greek fire. For the English cannon at Crecy, the authority of John Villani (Nuova cronica, l. XII c. 65) must be weighed against the silence of Froissard. Yet Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. II Dissertatio XXVI, pp. 514, 515) has produced a decisive passage from Petrarch (De remediis utriusque fortunae), who, before the year 1344, execrates this terrestrial thunder, nuper rara, nunc communis.9338 ↩
The Turkish cannon, which Ducas (c. 30) first introduces before Belgrade (AD 1436), is mentioned by Chalcondyles (l. V, p. 123) in 1422, at the siege of Constantinople. ↩
This curious instruction was transcribed (I believe) from the Vatican archives by Odoricus Raynaldus, in his Continuation of the Annals of Baronius (Romae, 1646⁠–⁠1677, in 10 volumes in folio). I have contented myself with the Abbé Fleury (Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XX, pp. 1⁠–⁠8), whose abstracts I have always found to be clear, accurate, and impartial. ↩
The ambiguity of this title is happy or ingenious; and moderator, as synonymous to rector, gubernator, is a word of classical, and even Ciceronian, Latinity, which may be found, not in the Glossary of du Cange, but in the Thesaurus of Robert Stephens. ↩
The first epistle (sine titulo) of Petrarch exposes the danger of the bark, and the incapacity of the pilot. Haec inter, vino madidus, aevo gravis, ac soporifero rore perfusus, jamjam nutitat, dormitat, jam somno praeceps, atque (utinam solus) ruit.⁠ ⁠… Heu quanto felicius patrio terram sulcasset aratro, quam scalmum piscatorium ascendisset! This satire engages his biographer to weigh the virtues and vices of Benedict XII, which have been exaggerated by Guelphs and Ghibelines, by Papists and Protestants (see Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, p. 259; II note XV, pp. 13⁠–⁠16). He gave occasion to the saying, Bibamus papaliter. ↩
See the original Lives of Clement VI in Muratori (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars II, pp. 550⁠–⁠589); Matteo Villani (Nuova cronica, l. III c. 43, in Muratori, tom. XIV, p. 186), who styles him, molto cavallaresco, poco religioso; Fleury (Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XX, p. 126); and the Vie de Pétrarque (tom. II, pp. 42⁠–⁠45). The Abbé de Sade treats him with the most indulgence; but he is a gentleman as well as a priest. ↩
Her name (most probably corrupted) was Zampea. She had accompanied and alone remained with her mistress at Constantinople, where her prudence, erudition, and politeness deserved the praises of the Greeks themselves (Cantacuzene, l. I c. 42). ↩
See this whole negotiation in Cantacuzene (l. IV c. 9), who, amidst the praises and virtues which he bestows on himself, reveals the uneasiness of a guilty conscience. ↩
See this ignominious treaty in Fleury (Histoire Ecclésiastique, pp. 151⁠–⁠154), from Raynaldus, who drew it from the Vatican archives. It was not worth the trouble of a pious forgery. ↩
See the two first original Lives of Urban V (in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars II, pp. 623, 635), and the Annales ecclesiastici of Spondanus (tom. I, p. 573, “AD 1369,” No. 7), and Raynaldus (Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XX, pp. 223, 224). Yet, from some variations, I suspect the papal writers of slightly magnifying the genuflections of Palaeologus. ↩
Paullo minus quam si fuisset Imperator Romanorum. Yet his title of Imperator Graecorum was no longer disputed (Vita Urban V, p. 623). ↩
It was confined to the successors of Charlemagne, and to them only on Christmas Day. On all other festivals, these Imperial deacons were content to serve the pope, as he said Mass, with the book and the corporale. Yet the Abbé de Sade generously thinks that the merits of Charles IV might have entitled him, though not on the proper day (AD 1368, November 1), to the whole privilege. He seems to affix a just value on the privilege and the man (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, p. 735). ↩
Through some Italian corruptions, the etymology of Falcone in bosco (Matteo Villani, l. XI c. 79, in Muratori, tom. XIV, p. 746) suggests the English word Hawkwood, the true name of our adventurous countryman (Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana inter Anglica Hibernica, Normannica, Cambrica, a veteribus scripta, Camdeni, p. 184). After two and twenty victories and one defeat, he died, in 1394, General of the Florentines, and was buried with such honors as the republic has not paid to Dante or Petrarch (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. XII, pp. 212⁠–⁠371). ↩
This torrent of English (by birth or service) overflowed from France into Italy after the peace of Bretigny in 1630. Yet the exclamation of Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. XII, p. 197) is rather true than civil “Ci mancava ancor questo, che dopo essere calpestrata l’Italia da tanti masnadieri Tedeschi ed Ungheri, venissero fin dall’ Inghliterra nuovi cani a finire di divorarla.” ↩
Chalcondyles, l. I, pp. 25, 26. The Greek supposes his journey to the king of France, which is sufficiently refuted by the silence of the national historians. Nor am I much more inclined to believe that Palaeologus departed from Italy, valde bene consolatus et contentus (Vita Urban V, p. 623). ↩
His return in 1370, and the coronation of Manuel, Sept. 25, 1373 (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, p. 241), leaves some intermediate era for the conspiracy and punishment of Andronicus. ↩
Mémoires de Boucicaut, partie I c. 35, 36. ↩
His journey into the west of Europe is slightly, and I believe reluctantly, noticed by Chalcondyles (l. II c. 44⁠–⁠50) and Ducas (c. 14). ↩
Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. XII, p. 406. John Galeazzo was the first and most powerful duke of Milan. His connection with Bajazet is attested by Froissard; and he contributed to save and deliver the French captives of Nicopolis. ↩
For the reception of Manuel at Paris, see Spondanus (Annales ecclesiastici, tom. I, pp. 676, 677, “AD 1400,” No. 5), who quotes Juvenal des Ursins and the monk of St. Denys; and Villaret (Histoire de France, tom. XII, pp. 331⁠–⁠334), who quotes nobody, according to the last fashion of the French writers. ↩
A short note of Manuel in England is extracted by Dr. Hody from a MS. at Lambeth (De Graecis illustribus, p. 14), Constantinopolitanus Imperator, diu variisque et horrendis Paganorum insultibus coarctatus, ut pro eisdem resistentiam triumphalem perquireret, Anglorum Regem visitare decrevit, etc. Rex (says Walsingham, p. 364) nobili apparatû⁠ ⁠… suscepit (ut decuit) tantum Heroa, duxitque Londonias, et per multos dies exhibuit gloriose, pro expensis hospitii sui solvens, et eum respiciens tanto fastigio donativis. He repeats the same in his Ypodigma neustriae (p. 556). ↩
Shakespeare begins and ends the play of Henry IV with that prince’s vow of a crusade, and his belief that he should die in Jerusalem. ↩
This fact is preserved in the Historia politica, AD 1391⁠–⁠1478, published by Martin Crusius (Turco-Graecia, pp. 1⁠–⁠43). The image of Christ which the Greek emperor refused to worship was probably a work of sculpture. ↩
The Greek and Turkish history of Laonicus Chalcondyles ends with the winter of 1463, and the abrupt conclusion seems to mark that he laid down his pen in the same year. We know that he was an Athenian, and that some contemporaries of the same name contributed to the revival of the Greek language in Italy. But in his numerous digressions the modest historian has never introduced himself; and his editor Leunclavius, as well as Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, p. 474), seems ignorant of his life and character. For his descriptions of Germany, France, and England, see l. II, pp. 36, 37, 44⁠–⁠50. ↩
I shall not animadvert on the geographical errors of Chalcondyles. In this instance, he perhaps followed and mistook Herodotus (l. II c. 33), whose text may be explained (Histoire d’Hérodote par M. Larcher, tom. II, pp. 219, 220), or whose ignorance may be excused. Had these modern Greeks never read Strabo, or any of their lesser geographers? ↩
A citizen of new Rome, while new Rome survived, would have scorned to dignify the German Ῥήξ with titles of Βασιλεύς or Αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων; but all pride was extinct in the bosom of Chalcondyles; and he describes the Byzantine prince and his subject by the proper, though humble, names of Ἔλληνες and Βασιλεὺς ἑλλήνων. ↩
Most of the old romances were translated in the fourteenth century into French prose, and soon became the favorite amusement of the knights and ladies in the court of Charles VI. If a Greek believed in the exploits of Rowland and Oliver, he may surely be excused, since the monks of St. Denys, the national historians, have inserted the fables of Archbishop Turpin in their Chronicles of France. ↩
Λονδύνη⁠ ⁠… δέ τε πόλις δυνάμει τε προέχουσα τῶν ἐν τῇ νήσῳ ταύτῃ πασῶν πόλεων, ὅλβῳ τε καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ εὐδαιμονίᾳ οὐδεμιᾶς τῶν πρὸς ἑσπέραν λειπομένη. Even since the time of FitzStephen (the twelth century), London appears to have maintained this preeminence of wealth and magnitude; and her gradual increase has at least kept pace with the general improvement of Europe. ↩
If the double sense of the verb κύω (osculor, and in utero gero) be equivocal, the context and pious horror of Chalcondyles can leave no doubt of his meaning and mistake (p. 49).9339 ↩
Erasmus (“Epistola Fausto Andrelino”) has a pretty passage on the English fashion of kissing strangers on their arrival and departure, from whence, however, he draws no scandalous inferences. ↩
Perhaps we may apply this remark to the community of wives among the old Britons, as it is supposed by Caesar and Dion (Dion Cassius, l. LXII tom. II, p. 1007), with Reimar’s judicious annotation. The “Arreoy” of Otaheite, so certain at first, is become less visible and scandalous, in proportion as we have studied the manners of that gentle and amorous people. ↩
See Jacques Lenfant, Histoire du Concile de Constance, tom. II, p. 576; and for the ecclesiastical history of the times, the Annales ecclesiastici of Spondanus; the Bibliothèque ecclésiastique of Dupin, tom. XII; and twenty-first and twenty-second volumes of the History, or rather the Continuation, of Fleury. ↩
From his early youth, George Phranza, or Phranzes, was employed in the service of the state and palace; and Hankius (De Byzantinarum rerum scriptoribus Graecis, pars I c. 40) has collected his life from his own writings. He was no more than four and twenty years of age at the death of Manuel, who recommended him in the strongest terms to his successor: Imprimis vero hunc Phranzen tibi commendo, qui ministravit mihi fideliter et diligenter (Phranzes, l. II c. I). Yet the emperor John was cold, and he preferred the service of the despots of Peloponnesus. ↩
See Phranzes, l. II c. 13. While so many manuscripts of the Greek original are extant in the libraries of Rome, Milan, the Escurial, etc., it is a matter of shame and reproach that we should be reduced to the Latin version, or abstract, of James Pontanus, ad calcem Theophylact Simocattae (Ingolstadt, 1604), so deficient in accuracy and elegance (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. VI, pp. 615⁠–⁠620).9340 ↩
See du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 243⁠–⁠248. ↩
The exact measure of the Hexamilion, from sea to sea, was 3,800 orgyiae, or toises, of six Greek feet (Phranzes, l. I c. 38), which would produce a Greek mile, still smaller than that of 660 French toises, which is assigned by d’Anville as still in use in Turkey. Five miles are commonly reckoned for the breadth of the isthmus. See the Travels of Spon, Wheler and Chandler. ↩
The first objection of the Jews is on the death of Christ: if it were voluntary, Christ was a suicide; which the emperor parries with a mystery. They then dispute on the conception of the Virgin, the sense of the prophecies, etc. (Phranzes, l. II c. 12, a whole chapter). ↩
In the treatise “Delle Materie Beneficiarie” of Fra Paolo Sarpi (in the fourth volume of the last, and best, edition of his works), the papal system is deeply studied and freely described. Should Rome and her religion be annihilated, this golden volume may still survive, a philosophical history and a salutary warning. ↩
Pope John XXII (in 1334) left behind him, at Avignon, eighteen millions of gold florins, and the value of seven millions more in plate and jewels. See the Chronicle of John Villani (l. XI c. 20, in Muratori’s Collection, tom. XIII, p. 765), whose brother received the account from the papal treasurers. A treasure of six or eight millions sterling in the fourteenth century is enormous, and almost incredible. ↩
A learned and liberal Protestant, M. Lenfant, has given a fair history of the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, in six volumes in quarto; but the last part is the most hasty and imperfect, except in the account of the troubles of Bohemia. ↩
The original acts or minutes of the council of Basil are preserved in the public library, in twelve volumes in folio. Basil was a free city, conveniently situate on the Rhine, and guarded by the arms of the neighboring and confederate Swiss. In 1459, the university was founded by Pope Pius II (Aeneas Sylvius), who had been secretary to the council. But what is a council, or a university, to the presses of Froben and the studies of Erasmus? ↩
This Turkish embassy, attested only by Crantzius, is related with some doubt by the annalist Spondanus, “AD 1433,” No. 25, tom. I, p. 824. ↩
Syropulus, p. 19. In this list, the Greeks appear to have exceeded the real numbers of the clergy and laity which afterwards attended the emperor and patriarch, but which are not clearly specified by the great ecclesiarch. The 75,000 florins which they asked in this negotiation of the pope (p. 9), were more than they could hope or want. ↩
I use indifferently the words “ducat” and “florin,” which derive their names, the former from the dukes of Milan, the latter from the republic of Florence. These gold pieces, the first that were coined in Italy, perhaps in the Latin world, may be compared, in weight and value, to one third of the English guinea. ↩
At the end of the Latin version of Phranzes, we read a long Greek epistle or declamation of George of Trebizond, who advises the emperor to prefer Eugenius and Italy. He treats with contempt the schismatic assembly of Basil, the Barbarians of Gaul and Germany, who had conspired to transport the chair of St. Peter beyond the Alps; οἵ ἄθλιοι (says he) σὲ καὶ τὴν μετὰ σοῦ σύνοδον ἔξω τῶν Ἡρακλείων στηλῶν καὶ μέρα Γαδήρων ἐξάξουσι. Was Constantinople unprovided with a map? ↩
Syropulus (pp. 26⁠–⁠31) attests his own indignation, and that of his countrymen; and the Basil deputies, who excused the rash declaration, could neither deny nor alter an act of the council. ↩
Condolmieri, the pope’s nephew and admiral, expressly declared, ὅτι ὁρισμὸν ἔχει παρὰ τοῦ Πάπα ἵνα πολεμήσῃ ὅπου ἂν εἥρᾗ τὰ κάτεργα τῆς Συνόδου, καὶ εἰ δυνήθῃ καταδύσῃ καὶ ἀφανίσηῃ. The naval orders of the synod were less peremptory, and, till the hostile squadrons appeared, both parties tried to conceal their quarrel from the Greeks. ↩
Syropulus mentions the hopes of Palaeologus (p. 36), and the last advice of Sigismond (p. 57). At Corfu, the Greek emperor was informed of his friend’s death; had he known it sooner, he would have returned home (p. 79). ↩
Phranzes himself, though from different motives, was of the advice of Amurath (l. II c. 13). Utinam ne synodus ista unquam fuisset, si tantes offensiones et detrimenta paritura erat. This Turkish embassy is likewise mentioned by Syropulus (p. 58); and Amurath kept his word. He might threaten (pp. 125, 219), but he never attacked, the city. ↩
The reader will smile at the simplicity with which he imparted these hopes to his favorites: τοιαύτην πληροφορίαν σχήσειν ἤλπιζε καὶ διὰ τοῦ Πάπα ἐθάρρει ἐλευθερῶσσαι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀποτεθείσης αὐτοῦ δοθλείας παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέω (p. 92). Yet it would have been difficult for him to have practiced the lessons of Gregory VII. ↩
The Christian name of Sylvester is borrowed from the Latin calendar. In modern Greek, πουλος, as a diminutive, is added to the end of words: nor can any reasoning of Creyghton, the editor, excuse his changing into Sguropulus (Sguros, fuscus) the Syropulus of his own manuscript, whose name is subscribed with his own hand in the acts of the council of Florence. Why might not the author be of Syrian extraction? ↩
From the conclusion of the history, I should fix the date to the year 1444, four years after the synod, when the great ecclesiarch had abdicated his office (sectio XII, pp. 330⁠–⁠350). His passions were cooled by time and retirement; and, although Syropulus is often partial, he is never intemperate. ↩
Vera historia unionis non verae inter Graecos et Latinos (Hagae-Comitis, 1660, in folio), was first published with a loose and florid version, by Robert Creyghton, chaplain to Charles II in his exile. The zeal of the editor has prefixed a polemic title, for the beginning of the original is wanting. Syropulus may be ranked with the best of the Byzantine writers for the merit of his narration, and even of his style; but he is excluded from the orthodox collections of the councils. ↩
Syropulus (p. 63) simply expresses his intention: ἴν’ οὕτω πομπάων ἐν Ἰτάλοις μέγας βασιλεύς παρ’ ἐκείνων νομίζοιτο; and the Latin of Creyghton may afford a specimen of his florid paraphrase. Ut pompâ circumductus noster Imperator Italiae populis aliquis deauratus Jupiter crederetur, aut Croesus ex opulentâ Lydiâ. ↩
Although I cannot stop to quote Syropulus for every fact, I will observe that the navigation of the Greeks from Constantinople to Venice and Ferrara is contained in the fourth section (pp. 67⁠–⁠100), and that the historian has the uncommon talent of placing each scene before the reader’s eye. ↩
At the time of the synod, Phranzes was in Peloponnesus; but he received from the despot Demetrius a faithful account of the honorable reception of the emperor and patriarch, both at Venice and Ferrara (Dux⁠ ⁠… sedentem Imperatorem adorat), which are more slightly mentioned by the Latins (l. II c. 14⁠–⁠16). ↩
The astonishment of a Greek prince and a French ambassador (Mémoires de Philippe de Comines, l. VII c. 18) at the sight of Venice abundantly proves that in the fifteenth century it was the first and most splendid of the Christian cities. For the spoils of Constantinople at Venice, see Syropulus (p. 87). ↩
Nicholas III of Este reigned forty-eight years (AD 1393⁠–⁠1441), and was lord of Ferrara, Modena, Reggio, Parma, Rovigo, and Commachio. See his life in Muratori (Antichità estensi, tom. II, pp. 159⁠–⁠201). ↩
The Latin vulgar was provoked to laughter at the strange dresses of the Greeks, and especially the length of their garments, their sleeves, and their beards; nor was the emperor distinguished, except by the purple color, and his diadem or tiara, with a jewel on the top (Hody, De Graecis illustribus, p. 31). Yet another spectator confesses that the Greek fashion was piu grave e piu degna than the Italian. (Vespasiano in Vita Eugenio IV in Muratori, tom. XXV, p. 261.) ↩
For the emperor’s hunting, see Syropulus (pp. 143, 144, 191). The pope had sent him eleven miserable hawks: but he bought a strong and swift horse that came from Russia. The name of Janizaries may surprise; but the name, rather than the institution, had passed from the Ottoman to the Byzantine court, and is often used in the last age of the empire. ↩
The Greeks obtained, with much difficulty, that, instead of provisions, money should be distributed, four florins per month to the persons of honorable rank, and three florins to their servants, with an addition of thirty more to the emperor, twenty-five to the patriarch, and twenty to the prince or despot Demetrius. The payment of the first month amounted to 691 florins, a sum which will not allow us to reckon above 200 Greeks of every condition (Syropulus, pp. 104, 105). On the 20th October, 1438, there was an arrear of four months; in April, 1439, of three; and of five and a half in July, at the time of the union (pp. 172, 225, 271). ↩
Syropulus (pp. 141, 142, 204, 221) deplores the imprisonment of the Greeks, and the tyranny of the emperor and patriarch. ↩
The wars of Italy are most clearly represented in the thirteenth volume of the Annali d’Italia of Muratori. The schismatic Greek, Syropulus (p. 145), appears to have exaggerated the fear and disorder of the pope in his retreat from Ferrara to Florence, which is proved by the acts to have been somewhat more decent and deliberate. ↩
Syropulus is pleased to reckon seven hundred prelates in the council of Basil. The error is manifest, and perhaps voluntary. That extravagant number could not be supplied by all the ecclesiastics of every degree who were present at the council, nor by all the absent bishops of the West, who, expressly or tacitly, might adhere to its decrees. ↩
The Greeks, who disliked the union, were unwilling to sally from this strong fortress (pp. 178, 193, 195, 202, of Syropulus). The shame of the Latins was aggravated by their producing an old MS. of the second council of Nice, with filioque in the Nicene creed. A palpable forgery! (p. 173). ↩
Ὡς έγὼ (said an eminent Greek) ὄταν εἰς ναὸν εἰσέλθω Λατίνων οὐ προσκυνῶ τινα τῶν ἐκεῖσε ἁγίων, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ γνωρίζω τινά (Syropulus, p. 109). See the perplexity of the Greeks (pp. 217, 218, 252, 253, 273). ↩
See the polite altercation of Marc and Bessarion in Syropulus (p. 257), who never dissembles the vices of his own party, and fairly praises the virtues of the Latins. ↩
For the poverty of the Greek bishops, see a remarkable passage of Ducas (c. 31). One had possessed, for his whole property, three old gowns, etc. By teaching one-and-twenty years in his monastery, Bessarion himself had collected forty gold florins; but of these, the archbishop had expended twenty-eight in his voyage from Peloponnesus, and the remainder at Constantinople (Syropulus, p. 127). ↩
Syropulus denies that the Greeks received any money before they had subscribed the art of union (p. 283); yet he relates some suspicious circumstances; and their bribery and corruption are positively affirmed by the historian Ducas. ↩
The Greeks most piteously express their own fears of exile and perpetual slavery (Syropulus, p. 196); and they were strongly moved by the emperor’s threats (p. 260). ↩
I had forgot another popular and orthodox protester: a favorite hound, who usually lay quiet on the foot-cloth of the emperor’s throne; but who barked most furiously while the act of union was reading, without being silenced by the soothing or the lashes of the royal attendants (Syropulus, pp. 265, 266). ↩
From the original Lives of the Popes, in Muratori’s Collection (tom. III pars II, tom. XXV), the manners of Eugenius IV appear to have been decent, and even exemplary. His situation, exposed to the world and to his enemies, was a restraint, and is a pledge. ↩
Syropulus, rather than subscribe, would have assisted, as the least evil, at the ceremony of the union. He was compelled to do both; and the great ecclesiarch poorly excuses his submission to the emperor (pp. 290⁠–⁠292). ↩
None of these original acts of union can at present be produced. Of the ten MSS. that are preserved (five at Rome, and the remainder at Florence, Bologna, Venice, Paris, and London), nine have been examined by an accurate critic (M. de Brequigny), who condemns them for the variety and imperfections of the Greek signatures. Yet several of these may be esteemed as authentic copies, which were subscribed at Florence before (26th of August, 1439) the final separation of the pope and emperor (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XLIII, pp. 287⁠–⁠311). ↩
Ἡμῖν δὲ ὡς ἄσημοι ἐδόκουν φῶναι (Syropulus, p. 297). ↩
In their return, the Greeks conversed at Bologna with the ambassadors of England; and after some questions and answers, these impartial strangers laughed at the pretended union of Florence (Syropulus, p. 307). ↩
So nugatory, or rather so fabulous, are these reunions of the Nestorians, Jacobites, etc., that I have turned over, without success, the Bibliotheca orientalis of Assemani, a faithful slave of the Vatican. ↩
Ripaille is situate near Thonon in Savoy, on the southern side of the lake of Geneva. It is now a Carthusian abbey; and Mr. Addison (Remarks on Several Parts of Italy, vol. II, pp. 147, 148, of Baskerville’s edition of his works) has celebrated the place and the founder. Aeneas Sylvius, and the fathers of Basil, applaud the austere life of the ducal hermit; but the French and Italian proverbs most unluckily attest the popular opinion of his luxury. ↩
In this account of the councils of Basil, Ferrara, and Florence, I have consulted the original acts, which fill the seventeenth and eighteenth tomes of the edition of Venice, and are closed by the perspicuous, though partial, history of Augustin Patricius, an Italian of the fifteenth century. They are digested and abridged by Dupin (Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. XII), and the continuator of Fleury (tom. XXII); and the respect of the Gallican church for the adverse parties confines their members to an awkward moderation. ↩
In the first attempt, Meursius collected 3,600 Graeco-Barbarous words, to which, in a second edition, he subjoined 1,800 more: yet what plenteous gleanings did he leave to Portius, du Cange, Fabrotti, the Bollandists, etc.! (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. X, p. 101, etc.) Some Persic words may be found in Xenophon, and some Latin ones in Plutarch; and such is the inevitable effect of war and commerce; but the form and substance of the language were not affected by this slight alloy. ↩
The life of Francis Philelphus, a sophist, proud, restless, and rapacious, has been diligently composed by Lancelot (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. X, pp. 691⁠–⁠751), and Tiraboschi (Storia della letteratura Italiana, tom. VII, pp. 282⁠–⁠294), for the most part from his own letters. His elaborate writings, and those of his contemporaries, are forgotten; but their familiar epistles still describe the men and the times. ↩
He married, and had perhaps debauched, the daughter of John, and the granddaughter of Manuel, Chrysoloras. She was young, beautiful, and wealthy; and her noble family was allied to the Dorias of Genoa and the emperors of Constantinople. ↩
Graeci quibus lingua depravata non sit⁠ ⁠… ita loquuntur vulgo hâc etiam tempestate ut Aristophanes comicus, aut Euripides tragicus, ut oratores omnes, ut historiographi, ut philosophi⁠ ⁠… litterati autem homines et doctius et emendatius.⁠ ⁠… Nam viri aulici veterem sermonis dignitatem atque elegantiam retinebant in primisque ipsae nobiles mulieres; quibus cum nullum esset omnino cum viris peregrinis commercium, merus ille ac purus Graecorum sermo servabatur intactus (Philelphus, Epistola ad anno 1451, apud Hodius, pp. 188, 189). He observes in another passage, uxor illa mea Theodora locutione erat admodum moderatâ et suavi et maxime Atticâ. ↩
Philelphus, absurdly enough, derives this Greek or Oriental jealousy from the manners of ancient Rome. ↩
See the state of learning in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in the learned and judicious Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 434⁠–⁠440, 490⁠–⁠494). ↩
At the end of the fifteenth century, there existed in Europe about fifty universities, and of these the foundation of ten or twelve is prior to the year 1300. They were crowded in proportion to their scarcity. Bologna contained 10,000 students, chiefly of the civil law. In the year 1357, the number at Oxford had decreased from 30,000 to 6,000 scholars (Henry’s History of Great Britain, vol. IV, p. 478). Yet even this decrease is much superior to the present list of the members of the university. ↩
Of those writers who professedly treat of the restoration of the Greek learning in Italy, the two principal are Hodius, Dr. Humphrey Hody (De Graecis illustribus linguae Graecae literarumque humaniorum instauratoribus; Londini, 1742, in large octavo), and Tiraboschi (Storia della letteratura Italiana, tom. V, pp. 364⁠–⁠377, tom. VII, pp. 112⁠–⁠143). The Oxford professor is a laborious scholar, but the librarian of Modena enjoys the superiority of a modern and national historian. ↩
In Calabria quae olim magna Graecia dicebatur, coloniis Graecis repleta, remansit quaedam linguae veteris cognitio (Hodius, p. 2). If it were eradicated by the Romans, it was revived and perpetuated by the monks of St. Basil, who possessed seven convents at Rossano alone (Giannone, Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. I, p. 520). ↩
Ii Barbari (says Petrarch, the French and Germans) vix, non dicam libros sed nomen Homeri audiverunt. Perhaps, in that respect, the thirteenth century was less happy than the age of Charlemagne. ↩
See the character of Barlaam, in Boccace, Genealogia Deorum gentilium, l. XV c. 6. ↩
Cantacuzene, l. II c. 36. ↩
For the connection of Petrarch and Barlaam, and the two interviews at Avignon in 1339, and at Naples in 1342, see the excellent Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, pp. 406⁠–⁠410, tom. II, pp. 75⁠–⁠77. ↩
The bishopric to which Barlaam retired was the old Locri, in the Middle Ages Sancta Cyriaca, and by corruption Hieracium, Gerace (De Italia Medii Aevi dissertatio chorographica, p. 312). The dives opum of the Norman times soon lapsed into poverty, since even the church was poor; yet the town still contains 3,000 inhabitants (Swinburne, p. 340). ↩
I will transcribe a passage from this epistle of Petrarch (Epistolae familiares IX 2): Donasti Homerum non in alienum sermonem violento alveo derivatum, sed ex ipsis Graeci eloquii scatebris, et qualis divino illi profluxit ingenio.⁠ ⁠… Sine tuâ voce Homerus tuus apud me mutus, immo vero ego apud illum surdus sum. Gaudeo tamen vel adspectû solo, ac saepe illum amplexus atque suspirans dico, O magne vir, etc. ↩
For the life and writings of Boccace, who was born in 1313, and died in 1375, Fabricius (Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. I, p. 248, etc.) and Tiraboschi (tom. V, pp. 83, 439⁠–⁠451) may be consulted. The editions, versions, imitations of his novels are innumerable. Yet he was ashamed to communicate that trifling and perhaps scandalous work to Petrarch his respectable friend, in whose letters and memoirs he conspicuously appears. ↩
This translation of Homer was by Pilatus, not by Boccacio. See Hallam, Introduction to the Literature of Europe, vol. I, p. 132. —⁠M. ↩
Boccace indulges an honest vanity: Ostentationis causâ Graeca carmina adscripsi⁠ ⁠… jure utor meo; meum est hoc decus, mea gloria scilicet inter Etruscos Graecis uti carminibus. Nonne ego fui qui Leontium Pilatum, etc. (Genealogia Deorum gentilium, l. XV c. 7, a work which, though now forgotten, has run through thirteen or fourteen editions). ↩
Leontius, or Leo Pilatus, is sufficiently made known by Hody (pp. 2⁠–⁠11), and the Abbé de Sade (Vie de Pétrarque, tom. III, pp. 625⁠–⁠634, 670⁠–⁠673), who has very happily caught the lively and dramatic manner of his original. ↩
Dr. Hody (p. 54) is angry with Leonard Aretin, Guarinus, Paulus Jovius, etc., for affirming that the Greek letters were restored in Italy post septingentos annos; as if, says he, they had flourished till the end of the seventh century. These writers most probably reckoned from the last period of the exarchate; and the presence of the Greek magistrates and troops at Ravenna and Rome must have preserved, in some degree, the use of their native tongue. ↩
See the article of Emanuel, or Manuel Chrysoloras, in Hody (pp. 12⁠–⁠54) and Tiraboschi (tom. VII, pp. 113⁠–⁠118). The precise date of his arrival floats between the years 1390 and 1400, and is only confined by the reign of Boniface IX. ↩
The name of “Aretinus” has been assumed by five or six natives of “Arezzo” in Tuscany, of whom the most famous and the most worthless lived in the sixteenth century. Leonardus Brunus Aretinus, the disciple of Chrysoloras, was a linguist, an orator, and an historian, the secretary of four successive popes, and the chancellor of the republic of Florence, where he died AD 1444, at the age of seventy-five (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. I, p. 190, etc.; Tiraboschi, tom. VII, pp. 33⁠–⁠38). ↩
See the passage in Leonardo Aretino, Rerum suo tempore in Italia gestarum commentarius, apud Hodius, pp. 28⁠–⁠30. ↩
In this domestic discipline, Petrarch, who loved the youth, often complains of the eager curiosity, restless temper, and proud feelings, which announce the genius and glory of a riper age (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, pp. 700⁠–⁠709). ↩
Hinc Graecae Latinaeque scholae exortae sunt, Guarino Philelpho, Leonardo Aretino, Caroloque, ac plerisque aliis tanquam ex equo Trojano prodeuntibus, quorum emulatione multa ingenia deinceps ad laudem excitata sunt (Platina in Vitae Pontificum, “Bonifacio IX”). Another Italian writer adds the names of Paulus Petrus Vergerius, Omnibonus, Vincentius, Poggius, Franciscus Barbarus, etc. But I question whether a rigid chronology would allow Chrysoloras all these eminent scholars (Hodius, pp. 25⁠–⁠27, etc.). ↩
See in Hody the article of Bessarion (pp. 136⁠–⁠177). Theodore Gaza, George of Trebizond, and the rest of the Greeks whom I have named or omitted, are inserted in their proper chapters of his learned work. See likewise Tiraboschi, in the first and second parts of the sixth tome. ↩
The cardinals knocked at his door, but his conclavist refused to interrupt the studies of Bessarion: “Nicholas,” said he, “thy respect has cost thee a hat, and me the tiara.”9341 ↩
Such as George of Trebizond, Theodore Gaza, Argyropulus, Andronicus of Thessalonica, Philelphus, Poggius, Blondus, Nicholas Perrot, Valla, Campanus, Platina, etc. Viri (says Hody, with the pious zeal of a scholar) nullo aevo perituri (p. 156). ↩
He was born before the taking of Constantinople, but his honorable life was stretched far into the sixteenth century (AD 1535). Leo X and Francis I were his noblest patrons, under whose auspices he founded the Greek colleges of Rome and Paris (Hody, pp. 247⁠–⁠275). He left posterity in France; but the counts de Vintimille, and their numerous branches, derive the name of Lascaris from a doubtful marriage, in the thirteenth century, with the daughter of a Greek emperor (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 224⁠–⁠230). ↩
Two of his epigrams against Virgil, and three against Tully, are preserved and refuted by Franciscus Floridus, who can find no better names than Graeculus ineptus et impudens (Hody, p. 274). In our own times, an English critic has accused the Aeneid of containing multa languida, nugatoria, spiritû et majestate carminis heroici defecta; many such verses as he, the said Jeremiah Markland, would have been ashamed of owning (praefatio ad Statii Sylvas, pp. 21, 22). ↩
Emanuel Chrysoloras, and his colleagues, are accused of ignorance, envy, or avarice (Sylloge, etc., tom. II, p. 235). The modern Greeks pronounce the β as a V consonant, and confound three vowels (η ι υ), and several diphthongs. Such was the vulgar pronunciation which the stern Gardiner maintained by penal statutes in the University of Cambridge; but the monosyllable βη represented to an Attic ear the bleating of sheep; and a bellwether is better evidence than a bishop or a chancellor. The treatises of those scholars, particularly Erasmus, who asserted a more classical pronunciation, are collected in the Sylloge of Havercamp (two vols. in octavo, Lugduni Batavorum, 1736, 1740); but it is difficult to paint sounds by words; and in their reference to modern use they can be understood only by their respective countrymen. We may observe that our peculiar pronunciation of the θ to th is approved by Erasmus (tom. II, p. 130). ↩
George Gemistus Pletho, a various and voluminous writer, the master of Bessarion and all the Platonists of the times. He visited Italy in his old age, and soon returned to end his days in Peloponnesus. See the curious Diatribe of Leo Allatius de Georgiis, in Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. X, pp. 739⁠–⁠756). ↩
The state of the Platonic philosophy in Italy is illustrated by Boivin (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. II, pp. 715⁠–⁠729) and Tiraboschi (tom. VI parte I, pp. 259⁠–⁠288). ↩
See the life of Nicholas V by two contemporary authors, Janottus Manettus (tom. III pars II, pp. 905⁠–⁠962), and Vespasian of Florence (tom. XXV, pp. 267⁠–⁠290), in the Collection of Muratori; and consult Tiraboschi (tom. VI parte I, pp. 46⁠–⁠52, 109), and Hody in the articles of Theodore Gaza, George of Trebizond, etc. ↩
Lord Bolingbroke observes, with truth and spirit, that the popes, in this instance, were worse politicians than the muftis, and that the charm which had bound mankind for so many ages was broken by the magicians themselves (Letters on the Study and Use of History, l. VI, pp. 165, 166, octavo edition, 1779). ↩
See the literary history of Cosmo and Lorenzo of Medicis, in Tiraboschi (tom. VI parte I l. I c. 2), who bestows a due measure of praise on Alphonso of Arragon, king of Naples, the dukes of Milan, Ferrara, Urbino, etc. The republic of Venice has deserved the least from the gratitude of scholars. ↩
Tiraboschi (tom. VI parte I, p. 104), from the preface of Janus Lascaris to the Greek Anthology, printed at Florence, 1494. Latebant (says Aldus in his preface to the Greek orators, apud Hodius, p. 249) in Atho Thraciae monte. Eas Lascaris⁠ ⁠… in Italiam reportavit. Miserat enim ipsum Laurentius ille Medices in Graeciam ad inquirendos simul, et quantovis emendos pretio bonos libros. It is remarkable enough that the research was facilitated by Sultan Bajazet II. ↩
The Greek language was introduced into the University of Oxford in the last years of the fifteenth century, by Grocyn, Linacer, and Latimer, who had all studied at Florence under Demetrius Chalcocondyles. See Dr. Samuel Knight’s curious Life of Erasmus. Although a stout academical patriot, he is forced to acknowledge that Erasmus learned Greek at Oxford and taught it at Cambridge. ↩
The jealous Italians were desirous of keeping a monopoly of Greek learning. When Aldus was about to publish the Greek scholiasts on Sophocles and Euripides, Cave (said they), cave hoc facias, ne Barbari istis adjuti domi maneant, et pauciores in Italiam ventitent (Dr. Knight, in his Life of Erasmus, p. 365, from Beatus Rhenanus). ↩
The press of Aldus Manutius, a Roman, was established at Venice about the year 1494. He printed above sixty considerable works of Greek literature, almost all for the first time; several containing different treatises and authors, and of several authors two, three, or four editions (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. XIII, p. 605, etc.). Yet his glory must not tempt us to forget that the first Greek book, the Grammar of Constantine Lascaris, was printed at Milan in 1476; and that the Florence Homer of 1488 displays all the luxury of the typographical art. See the Annales typographici of Mattaire and the Bibliographie instructive of De Bure, a knowing bookseller of Paris. ↩
I will select three singular examples of this classic enthusiasm.
1. At the synod of Florence, Gemistus Pletho said in familiar conversation to George of Trebizond, that in a short time mankind would unanimously renounce the Gospel and the Koran for a religion similar to that of the Gentiles (Leo Allatius, apud Fabricius, tom. X, p. 751).
2. Paul II persecuted the Roman academy which had been founded by Pomponius Laetus; and the principal members were accused of heresy, impiety, and paganism (Tiraboschi, tom. VI parte I, pp. 81, 82).
3. In the next century, some scholars and poets in France celebrated the success of Jodelle’s tragedy of Cleopatra by a festival of Bacchus, and, as it is said, by the sacrifice of a goat (Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, “Jodelle”; Fontenelle, tom. III, pp. 56⁠–⁠61). Yet the spirit of bigotry might often discern a serious impiety in the sportive play of fancy and learning.
↩
The survivor Boccace died in the year 1375; and we cannot place before 1480 the composition of the Morgante maggiore of Pulci, and the Orlando innamorato of Boyardo (Tiraboschi, tom. VI parte II, pp. 174⁠–⁠177). ↩
The epistle of Emanuel Chrysoloras to the emperor John Palaeologus will not offend the eye or ear of a classical student (ad calcem Codini, De antiquitatibus Constantinopolitanis, pp. 107⁠–⁠126). The superscription suggests a chronological remark that John Palaeologus II was associated in the empire before the year 1414, the date of Chrysoloras’s death. A still earlier date, at least 1408, is deduced from the age of his youngest sons Demetrius and Thomas, who were both porphyrogeniti (du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae, pp. 244, 247). ↩
Somebody observed that the city of Athens might be circumnavigated (τις εἶπεν τὴν πόλιν τῶν Ἀθηναίων δύνασθαι καὶ παραπλεῖν καὶ περιπλεῖν). But what may be true in a rhetorical sense of Constantinople cannot be applied to the situation of Athens, five miles from the sea, and not intersected or surrounded by any navigable streams. ↩
Nicephorus Gregoras has described the Colossus of Justinian (l. VII 12); but his measures are false and inconsistent. The editor, Boivin, consulted his friend Girardon; and the sculptor gave him the true proportions of an equestrian statue. That of Justinian was still visible to Petrus Gyllius, not on the column, but in the outward court of the seraglio; and he was at Constantinople when it was melted down and cast into a brass cannon (Topographia Constantinopoleos, l. II c. 17). ↩
See the decay and repairs of St. Sophia, in Nicephorus Gregoras (l. VII 12; l. XV 2). The building was propped by Andronicus in 1317, the eastern hemisphere fell in 1345. The Greeks, in their pompous rhetoric, exalt the beauty and holiness of the church, an earthly heaven, the abode of angels, and of God himself, etc. ↩
The genuine and original narrative of Syropulus (pp. 312⁠–⁠351) opens the schism from the first office of the Greeks at Venice to the general opposition at Constantinople of the clergy and people. ↩
On the schism of Constantinople, see Phranza (l. II c. 17), Laonicus Chalcondyles (l. VI, pp. 155, 156), and Ducas (c. 31); the last of whom writes with truth and freedom. Among the moderns we may distinguish the continuator of Fleury (tom. XXII, p. 338, etc., 401, 420, etc.), and Spondanus (AD 1440⁠–⁠50). The sense of the latter is drowned in prejudice and passion, as soon as Rome and religion are concerned. ↩
Isidore was metropolitan of Kiev, but the Greeks subject to Poland have removed that see from the ruins of Kiev to Lemberg or Leopold (Herbestein, in Ramusio, tom. II, p. 127). On the other hand, the Russians transferred their spiritual obedience to the archbishop, who became, in 1588, the patriarch of Moscow (Levesque, Histoire de Russie, tom. III, pp. 188, 190, from a Greek MS. at Turin, Iter et labores Archiepiscopi Arsenii). ↩
The curious narrative of Levesque (Histoire de Russie, tom. II, pp. 242⁠–⁠247) is extracted from the patriarchal archives. The scenes of Ferrara and Florence are described by ignorance and passion; but the Russians are credible in the account of their own prejudices. ↩
The Shamanism, the ancient religion of the Samanaeans and Gymnosophists, has been driven by the more popular Bramins from India into the northern deserts; the naked philosophers were compelled to wrap themselves in fur; but they insensibly sunk into wizards and physicians. The Mordvans and Tcheremisses in the European Russia adhere to this religion, which is formed on the earthly model of one King or God, his ministers or angels, and the rebellious spirits who oppose his government. As these tribes of the Volga have no images, they might more justly retort on the Latin missionaries the name of Idolaters (Levesque, Histoire des différents peuples soumis à la domination des Russes, tom. I, pp. 194⁠–⁠237, 423⁠–⁠460). ↩
Spondanus, Annales ecclesiastici, tom. II, “AD 1451,” No. 13. The epistle of the Greeks, with a Latin version, is extant in the college library at Prague. ↩
See the siege and massacre at Thessalonica. Von Hammer vol. I, p. 433. —⁠M. ↩
See Cantemir, History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire, p. 94. Murad, or Morad, may be more correct; but I have preferred the popular name to that obscure diligence which is rarely successful in translating an Oriental into the Roman alphabet. ↩
See Chalcondyles (l. VII, pp. 186, 198), Ducas (c. 33), and Marinus Barletius (in Historia de vita et gestis Scanderbeg epirotarum principis, pp. 145, 146). In his good faith towards the garrison of Sfetigrade he was a lesson and example to his son Muhammad. ↩
Voltaire (Essai sur l’histoire générale, c. 89, pp. 283, 284) admires le Philosophe Turc; would he have bestowed the same praise on a Christian prince for retiring to a monastery? In his way, Voltaire was a bigot, an intolerant bigot. ↩
See the articles “Dervische,” “Fakir,” “Nasser,” “Rohbaniat,” in d’Herbelot’s Bibliothèque Orientale. Yet the subject is superficially treated from the Persian and Arabian writers. It is among the Turks that these orders have principally flourished. ↩
Gibbon has fallen into a remarkable error. The unmonastic retreat of Amurath was that of an epicurean rather than of a dervish; more like that of Sardanapalus than of Charles the Fifth. Profane, not divine, love was its chief occupation: the only dance, that described by Horace as belonging to the country, motus doceri gaudet Ionicos. See von Hammer, note, p. 652. —⁠M. ↩
Ricaut (in The History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 242⁠–⁠268) affords much information, which he drew from his personal conversation with the heads of the dervishes, most of whom ascribed their origin to the time of Orchan. He does not mention the “Zichidoe” of Chalcondyles (l. VII, p. 286), among whom Amurath retired; the “Seids” of that author are the descendants of Muhammad. ↩
In the year 1431, Germany raised 40,000 horse, men-at-arms, against the Hussites of Bohemia (Lenfant, Histoire de la guerre des Hussites et du Concile de Basle, tom. I, p. 318). At the siege of Nuys, on the Rhine, in 1474, the princes, prelates, and cities sent their respective quotas; and the bishop of Munster (qui n’est pas des plus grands) furnished 1,400 horse, 6,000 foot, all in green, with 1,200 wagons. The united armies of the king of England and the duke of Burgundy scarcely equalled one third of this German host (Mémoires de Philippe de Comines, l. IV c. 2). At present, six or seven hundred thousand men are maintained in constant pay and admirable discipline by the powers of Germany. ↩
It was not till the year 1444 that France and England could agree on a truce of some months. (See Rymer’s Foedera, and the chronicles of both nations.) ↩
In the Hungarian crusade, Spondanus (Annales ecclesiastici, “AD 1443, 1444”) has been my leading guide. He has diligently read, and critically compared, the Greek and Turkish materials, the historians of Hungary, Poland, and the West. His narrative is perspicuous, and where he can be free from a religious bias, the judgment of Spondanus is not contemptible. ↩
I have curtailed the harsh letter (Wladislaus) which most writers affix to his name, either in compliance with the Polish pronunciation, or to distinguish him from his rival the infant Ladislaus of Austria. Their competition for the crown of Hungary is described by Callimachus (l. I, II, pp. 447⁠–⁠486), Bonfinius (Rerum Hungaricarum decades III, l. IV), Spondanus, and Lenfant. ↩
The Greek historians, Phranza, Chalcondyles, and Ducas, do not ascribe to their prince a very active part in this crusade, which he seems to have promoted by his wishes and injured by his fears. ↩
Cantemir (p. 88) ascribes to his policy the original plan, and transcribes his animating epistle to the king of Hungary. But the Muhammadan powers are seldom informed of the state of Christendom; and the situation and correspondence of the knights of Rhodes must connect them with the sultan of Caramania. ↩
In their letters to the emperor Frederic III the Hungarians slay 30,000 Turks in one battle, but the modest Julian reduces the slaughter to 6,000 or even 2,000 infidels (Aeneas Sylvius in Europe, c. 5, and Epistolae 44, 81, apud Spondanus). ↩
See the origin of the Turkish war, and the first expedition of Ladislaus, in the fifth and sixth books of the third decad of Bonfinius, who, in his division and style, copies Livy with tolerable success. Callimachus (l. II, pp. 487⁠–⁠496) is still more pure and authentic. ↩
I do not pretend to warrant the literal accuracy of Julian’s speech, which is variously worded by Callimachus (l. III, pp. 505⁠–⁠507), Bonfinius (Rerum Hungaricarum decades III, l. VI, pp. 457, 458), and other historians, who might indulge their own eloquence, while they represent one of the orators of the age. But they all agree in the advice and arguments for perjury, which in the field of controversy are fiercely attacked by the Protestants and feebly defended by the Catholics. The latter are discouraged by the misfortune of Varna. ↩
Varna, under the Grecian name of Odessus, was a colony of the Milesians, which they denominated from the hero Ulysses (Cellarius, tom. I, p. 374; D’Anville, tom. I, p. 312). According to Arrian’s “Periplus of the Euxine” (pp. 24, 25, in the first volume of Hudson’s Geographers), it was situate 1,740 stadia, or furlongs, from the mouth of the Danube, 2,140 from Byzantium, and 360 to the north of a ridge or promontory of Mount Haemus, which advances into the sea. ↩
Some Christian writers affirm that he drew from his bosom the host or wafer on which the treaty had not been sworn. The Muslims suppose, with more simplicity, an appeal to God and his prophet Jesus, which is likewise insinuated by Callimachus (l. III, p. 516, Spondanus, “AD 1444,” No. 8). ↩
A critic will always distrust these spolia opima of a victorious general, so difficult for valor to obtain, so easy for flattery to invent (Cantemir, pp. 90, 91). Callimachus (l. III, p. 517) more simply and probably affirms, supervenientibus Janizaris, telorum multitudine, non jam confossus est, quam obrutus. ↩
Compare von Hammer, p. 463. —⁠M. ↩
Besides some valuable hints from Aeneas Sylvius, which are diligently collected by Spondanus, our best authorities are three historians of the fifteenth century, Philippus Callimachus (De rebus gestis a Vladislao Polonorum atque Hungarorum rege, libri III in Matthias Bel, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, tom. I, pp. 433⁠–⁠518), Bonfinius (Rerum Hungaricarum decades III, l. V, pp. 460⁠–⁠467), and Chalcondyles (l. VII, pp. 165⁠–⁠179). The two first were Italians, but they passed their lives in Poland and Hungary (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. I, p. 324; Vossius, De historicis Latinis, l. III c. 8, 11; Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, “Bonfinius”). A small tract of Faelix Petancius, chancellor of Segnia (ad calcem Johannes Cuspinianus, De Caesaribus et Imperatoribus, pp. 716⁠–⁠722), represents the theatre of the war in the fifteenth century. ↩
M. Lenfant has described the origin (Histoire du Concile de Basle, tom. I, p. 247, etc.) and Bohemian campaign (p. 315, etc.) of Cardinal Julian. His services at Basil and Ferrara, and his unfortunate end, are occasionally related by Spondanus and the continuator of Fleury. ↩
Syropulus honorably praises the talent of an enemy (p. 117): τοιαῦτά τινα εἶπεν ὁ Ἰουλιανός, πεπλατυσμένως ἄγαν καὶ λογικῶς, καὶ μετ’ ἐπιστήμης καὶ δεινότητος ῥητορικῆς. ↩
See Bonfinius, Rerum Hungaricarum decades III, l. IV, p. 423. Could the Italian historian pronounce, or the king of Hungary hear, without a blush, the absurd flattery which confounded the name of a Walachian village with the casual though glorious epithet of a single branch of the Valerian family at Rome? ↩
Philip de Comines (Mémoires, l. VI c. 13), from the tradition of the times, mentions him with high encomiums, but under the whimsical name of the Chevalier Blanc de Valaigne (Valachia). The Greek Chalcondyles, and the Turkish annals of Leunclavius, presume to accuse his fidelity or valor. ↩
See Bonfinius (Rerum Hungaricarum decades III, l. VIII, p. 492) and Spondanus (“AD 1456,” No. 1⁠–⁠7). Huniades shared the glory of the defence of Belgrade with Capistran, a Franciscan friar; and in their respective narratives neither the saint nor the hero condescend to take notice of his rival’s merit. ↩
See Bonfinius, Rerum Hungaricarum decades III, l. VIII⁠–⁠Rerum Hungaricarum decades IV, l. VIII. The observations of Spondanus on the life and character of Matthias Corvinus are curious and critical (“AD 1464,” No. 1; “AD 1475,” No. 6; “AD 1476,” No. 14⁠–⁠16; “AD 1490,” No. 4, 5). Italian fame was the object of his vanity. His actions are celebrated in the Epitome rerum Hungaricarum (pp. 322⁠–⁠412) of Peter Ranzanus, a Sicilian. His wise and facetious sayings are registered by Galestus Martius of Narni (528⁠–⁠568); and we have a particular narrative of his wedding and coronation. These three tracts are all contained in the first vol. of Bel’s Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum. ↩
They are ranked by Sir William Temple, in his pleasing “Essay on Heroic Virtue” (Works, vol. III, p. 385), among the seven chiefs who have deserved, without wearing, a royal crown; Belisarius, Narses, Gonsalvo of Cordova, William first prince of Orange, Alexander duke of Parma, John Huniades, and George Castriot, or Scanderbeg. ↩
I could wish for some simple authentic memoirs of a friend of Scanderbeg, which would introduce me to the man, the time, and the place. In the old and national history of Marinus Barletius, a priest of Scodra (De vita moribus ac rebus praecipue adversus Turcas, gestis, Georgii Castrioti, libri XIII, p. 367, Argentorati, 1537, in folio), his gaudy and cumbersome robes are stuck with many false jewels. See likewise Chalcondyles, l. VII, p. 185; l. VIII, p. 229. ↩
His circumcision, education, etc., are marked by Marinus with brevity and reluctance (l. I, pp. 6, 7). ↩
Since Scanderbeg died AD 1466, in the sixty-third year of his age (Marinus, l. XIII, p. 370), he was born in 1403; since he was torn from his parents by the Turks when he was novennis (Marinus, l. I, pp. 1, 6), that event must have happened in 1412, nine years before the accession of Amurath II, who must have inherited, not acquired, the Albanian slave. Spondanus has remarked this inconsistency, “AD 1431,” No. 31; “AD 1443,” No. 14. ↩
His revenue and forces are luckily given by Marinus (l. II, p. 44). ↩
There were two Dibras, the upper and lower, the Bulgarian and Albanian: the former, 70 miles from Croya (l. I, p. 17), was contiguous to the fortress of Sfetigrade, whose inhabitants refused to drink from a well into which a dead dog had traitorously been cast (l. V, pp. 139, 140). We want a good map of Epirus. ↩
Compare the Turkish narrative of Cantemir (p. 92) with the pompous and prolix declamation in the fourth, fifth, and sixth books of the Albanian priest, who has been copied by the tribe of strangers and moderns. ↩
In honor of his hero, Barletius (l. VI, pp. 188⁠–⁠192) kills the sultan, by disease indeed, under the walls of Croya. But this audacious fiction is disproved by the Greeks and Turks, who agree in the time and manner of Amurath’s death at Adrianople. ↩
See the marvels of his Calabrian expedition in the ninth and tenth books of Marinus Barletius, which may be rectified by the testimony or silence of Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. XIII, p. 291), and his original authors (Giovanni Simonetta, De rebus Francisci Sfortiae, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XXI, p. 728, et alios). The Albanian cavalry, under the name of “Stradiots,” soon became famous in the wars of Italy (Mémoires de Philippe de Comines, l. VIII c. 5). ↩
Spondanus, from the best evidence and the most rational criticism, has reduced the giant Scanderbeg to the human size (“AD 1461,” No. 20; “AD 1463,” No. 9; “AD 1465,” No. 12, 13; “AD 1467,” No. 1). His own letter to the pope, and the testimony of Phranza (l. III c. 28), a refugee in the neighboring isle of Corfu, demonstrate his last distress, which is awkwardly concealed by Marinus Barletius (l. X). ↩
See the family of the Castriots in du Cange (Familiae Dalmaticae, etc., XVIII, pp. 348⁠–⁠350). ↩
This colony of Albanese is mentioned by Mr. Swinburne (Travels Into the Two Sicilies, vol. I, pp. 350⁠–⁠354). ↩
The Chronology of Phranza is clear and authentic; but instead of four years and seven months, Spondanus (“AD 1445,” No. 7) assigns seven or eight years to the reign of the last Constantine, which he deduces from a spurious epistle of Eugenius IV to the king of Aethiopia. ↩
Phranza (l. III c. 1⁠–⁠6) deserves credit and esteem. ↩
Suppose him to have been captured in 1394, in Timour’s first war in Georgia (Sherefeddin, l. III c. 50): he might follow his Tartar master into Hindostan in 1398, and from thence sail to the spice islands. ↩
The happy and pious Indians lived a hundred and fifty years, and enjoyed the most perfect productions of the vegetable and mineral kingdoms. The animals were on a large scale: dragons seventy cubits, ants (the formica Indica) nine inches long, sheep like elephants, elephants like sheep. Quidlibet audendi, etc. ↩
He sailed in a country vessel from the spice islands to one of the ports of the exterior India; invenitque navem grandem Ibericam quâ in Portugalliam est delatus. This passage, composed in 1477 (Phranza, l. III c. 30), twenty years before the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope, is spurious or wonderful. But this new geography is sullied by the old and incompatible error which places the source of the Nile in India. ↩
Cantemir (p. 83), who styles her the daughter of Lazarus Ogli, and the Helen of the Serbians, places her marriage with Amurath in the year 1424. It will not easily be believed that in six and twenty years’ cohabitation the sultan corpus ejus non tetigit. After the taking of Constantinople, she fled to Muhammad II (Phranza, l. III c. 22). ↩
The classical reader will recollect the offers of Agamemnon (Iliad IX 144) and the general practice of antiquity. ↩
Cantacuzene (I am ignorant of his relation to the emperor of that name) was a great domestic, a firm assertor of the Greek creed, and a brother of the queen of Serbia, whom he visited with the character of ambassador (Syropulus, pp. 37, 38, 45). ↩
For the character of Muhammad II it is dangerous to trust either the Turks or the Christians. The most moderate picture appears to be drawn by Phranza (l. I c. 33), whose resentment had cooled in age and solitude; see likewise Spondanus (“AD 1451,” No. 11), and the continuator of Fleury (tom. XXII, p. 552), the Elogia virorum illustrium of Paulus Jovius (l. III, pp. 164⁠–⁠166), and the Dictionnaire de Bayle (tom. III, pp. 273⁠–⁠279). ↩
Cantemir (p. 115), and the mosques which he founded, attest his public regard for religion. Muhammad freely disputed with the patriarch Gennadius on the two religions (Spondanus, “AD 1453,” No. 22). ↩
Quinque linguas praeter suam noverat, Graecam, Latinam, Chaldaicam, Persicam. The Latin translator of Phranza has dropped the Arabic, which the Koran must recommend to every Mussulman.9342 ↩
Philelphus, by a Latin ode, requested and obtained the liberty of his wife’s mother and sisters from the conqueror of Constantinople. It was delivered into the sultan’s hands by the envoys of the duke of Milan. Philelphus himself was suspected of a design of retiring to Constantinople; yet the orator often sounded the trumpet of holy war (see his “Life” by M. Lancelot, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. X, pp. 718, 724, etc.). ↩
Robert Valturio published at Verona, in 1483, his twelve books De re militari, in which he first mentions the use of bombs. By his patron Sigismund Malatesta, prince of Rimini, it had been addressed with a Latin epistle to Muhammad II. ↩
According to Phranza, he assiduously studied the lives and actions of Alexander, Augustus, Constantine, and Theodosius. I have read somewhere that Plutarch’s Lives were translated by his orders into the Turkish language. If the sultan himself understood Greek, it must have been for the benefit of his subjects. Yet these Lives are a school of freedom as well as of valor.9343 ↩
The famous Gentile Bellino, whom he had invited from Venice, was dismissed with a chain and collar of gold, and a purse of 3,000 ducats. With Voltaire I laugh at the foolish story of a slave purposely beheaded to instruct the painter in the action of the muscles. ↩
This story, the subject of Johnson’s Irene, is rejected by M. von Hammer, vol. II, p. 208. The German historian’s general estimate of Muhammad’s character agrees in its more marked features with Gibbon’s. —⁠M. ↩
These Imperial drunkards were Soliman I, Selim II, and Amurath IV (Cantemir, p. 61). The sophis of Persia can produce a more regular succession; and in the last age our European travellers were the witnesses and companions of their revels. ↩
Calapin, one of these royal infants, was saved from his cruel brother, and baptized at Rome under the name of Callistus Othomannus. The emperor Frederic III presented him with an estate in Austria, where he ended his life; and Cuspinian, who in his youth conversed with the aged prince at Vienna, applauds his piety and wisdom (De Caesaribus, pp. 672, 673). ↩
Ahmed, the son of a Greek princess, was the object of his especial jealousy. Von Hammer, p. 501. —⁠M. ↩
The Janizaries obtained, for the first time, a gift on the accession of a new sovereign. Von Hammer, p. 504. —⁠M. ↩
See the accession of Muhammad II in Ducas (c. 33), Phranza (l. I c. 33, l. III c. 2), Chalcondyles (l. VII, p. 199), and Cantemir (p. 96). ↩
Before I enter on the siege of Constantinople, I shall observe that, except the short hints of Cantemir and Leunclavius, I have not been able to obtain any Turkish account of this conquest; such an account as we possess of the siege of Rhodes by Soliman II (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVI, pp. 723⁠–⁠769). I must therefore depend on the Greeks, whose prejudices, in some degree, are subdued by their distress. Our standard texts are those of Ducas (c. 34⁠–⁠42), Phranza (l. III c. 7⁠–⁠20), Chalcondyles (l. VIII, pp. 201⁠–⁠214), and Leonardus Chiensis (Historia captae à Turca Constantinopolis, Norimberghae, 1544, in quarto, 20 leaves). The last of these narratives is the earliest in date, since it was composed in the isle of Chios, the 16th of August, 1453, only seventy-nine days after the loss of the city, and in the first confusion of ideas and passions. Some hints may be added from an epistle of Cardinal Isidore (in Farragine rerum Turcicarum, ad calcem Chalcondyles, Clauseri, Basil, 1556) to Pope Nicholas V, and a tract of Theodosius Zygomala, which he addressed in the year 1581 to Martin Crusius (Turco-Graecia, l. I, pp. 74⁠–⁠98, Basil, 1584). The various facts and materials are briefly though critically reviewed by Spondanus (“AD 1453,” No. 1⁠–⁠27). The hearsay relations of Monstrelet and the distant Latins I shall take leave to disregard.9344 ↩
The situation of the fortress, and the topography of the Bosphorus, are best learned from Petrus Gyllius (De Bosphoro Thracio, l. II c. 13), Leunclavius (Pandectae historiae Turciae, p. 445), and Tournefort (Voyage dans le Levant, tom. II lettre XV, pp. 443, 444); but I must regret the map or plan which Tournefort sent to the French minister of the marine. The reader may turn back to here and following in chapter XVII. ↩
The opprobrious name which the Turks bestow on the infidels is expressed Καβουρφ by Ducas, and Giaour by Leunclavius and the moderns. The former term is derived by du Cange (Glossarium Graecitatis, tom. I, p. 530) from καβουρον, in vulgar Greek a tortoise, as denoting a retrograde motion from the faith. But alas! Gabour is no more than Gheber, which was transferred from the Persian to the Turkish language, from the worshippers of fire to those of the crucifix (d’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 375). ↩
Phranza does justice to his master’s sense and courage: Calliditatem hominis non ignorans Imperator prior arma movere constituit, and stigmatizes the folly of the cum sacri tum profani proceres, which he had heard, amentes spe vanâ pasci. Ducas was not a privy counsellor. ↩
Instead of this clear and consistent account, the Turkish Annals (Cantemir, p. 97) revived the foolish tale of the ox’s hide, and Dido’s stratagem in the foundation of Carthage. These annals (unless we are swayed by an anti-Christian prejudice) are far less valuable than the Greek historians. ↩
In the dimensions of this fortress, the old castle of Europe, Phranza does not exactly agree with Chalcondyles, whose description has been verified on the spot by his editor Leunclavius. ↩
Among these were some pages of Muhammad, so conscious of his inexorable rigor that they begged to lose their heads in the city unless they could return before sunset. ↩
This was from a model cannon cast by Urban the Hungarian. See below. Von Hammer, p. 510. —⁠M. ↩
Ducas, c. 35. Phranza (l. III c. 3), who had sailed in his vessel, commemorates the Venetian pilot as a martyr. ↩
Auctum est Palaeologorum genus, et Imperii successor, parvaeque Romanorum scintillae haeres natus, Andreas, etc. (Phranza, l. III c. 7). The strong expression was inspired by his feelings. ↩
Cantemir, pp. 97, 98. The sultan was either doubtful of his conquest or ignorant of the superior merits of Constantinople. A city or a kingdom may sometimes be ruined by the Imperial fortune of their sovereign. ↩
Σύντροφος, by the president Cousin, is translated père nourricier, most correctly indeed from the Latin version; but in his haste he has overlooked the note by which Ishmael Boillaud (ad Ducam, c. 35) acknowledges and rectifies his own error. ↩
The Oriental custom of never appearing without gifts before a sovereign or a superior is of high antiquity, and seems analogous with the idea of sacrifice, still more ancient and universal. See the examples of such Persian gifts, Aelian, Varia historia, l. I c. 31⁠–⁠33. ↩
The Lala of the Turks (Cantemir, p. 34) and the Tata of the Greeks (Ducas, c. 35) are derived from the natural language of children; and it may be observed that all such primitive words which denote their parents are the simple repetition of one syllable, composed of a labial or a dental consonant and an open vowel (de Brosses, Méchanique des langues, tom. I, pp. 231⁠–⁠247). ↩
Gibbon has written Dane by mistake for Dace, or Dacian. Δάξ τὸ γένος. Chalcondyles, von Hammer, p. 510. —⁠M. ↩
The Attic talent weighed about sixty minae, or avoirdupois pounds (see Hooper on Ancient Weights and Measures, etc.); but among the modern Greeks that classic appellation was extended to a weight of one hundred or one hundred and twenty-five pounds (du Cange, “τάλαντον”). Leonardus Chiensis measured the ball or stone of the second cannon Lapidem, qui palmis undecim ex meis ambibat in gyro. ↩
1,200, according to Leonardus Chiensis. Von Hammer states that he had himself seen the great cannon of the Dardanelles, in which a tailor, who had run away from his creditors, had concealed himself several days. Von Hammer had measured balls twelve spans round. Note, p. 666. —⁠M. ↩
See Voltaire (Essai sur l’histoire générale, c. XCI, pp. 294, 295). He was ambitious of universal monarchy; and the poet frequently aspires to the name and style of an astronomer, a chemist, etc. ↩
The Baron de Tott (tom. III, pp. 85⁠–⁠89), who fortified the Dardanelles against the Russians, describes in a lively, and even comic, strain his own prowess and the consternation of the Turks. But that adventurous traveller does not possess the art of gaining our confidence. ↩
See the curious Christian and Muhammadan predictions of the fall of Constantinople, von Hammer, p. 518. —⁠M. ↩
Non audivit, indignum ducens, says the honest Antoninus; but as the Roman court was afterwards grieved and ashamed, we find the more courtly expression of Platina, in animo fuisse pontifici juvare Graecos, and the positive assertion of Aeneas Sylvius, structam classem, etc. (Spondanus, “AD 1453,” No. 3). ↩
Antoninus in Proem⁠—Epistola Cardinal Isidore apud Spondanus; and Dr. Johnson, in the tragedy of Irene, has happily seized this characteristic circumstance:⁠—

The groaning Greeks dig up the golden caverns,
The accumulated wealth of hoarding ages;
That wealth which, granted to their weeping prince,
Had ranged embattled nations at their gates.

↩
The palatine troops are styled Capiculi, the provincials, Seratculi; and most of the names and institutions of the Turkish militia existed before the Canon Nameh of Soliman II, from which, and his own experience, Count Marsigli has composed his military state of the Ottoman empire. ↩
The observation of Philelphus is approved by Cuspinian in the year 1508 (De Caesaribus, in Epilogus De militiâ Turcicâ, p. 697). Marsigli proves that the effective armies of the Turks are much less numerous than they appear. In the army that besieged Constantinople, Leonardus Chiensis reckons no more than 15,000 Janizaries. ↩
Ego, eidem (Imperator) tabellas extribui non absque dolore et moestitiâ, mansitque apud nos duos aliis occultus numerus (Phranza, l. III c. 8). With some indulgence for national prejudices, we cannot desire a more authentic witness, not only of public facts, but of private counsels. ↩
In Spondanus, the narrative of the union is not only partial but imperfect. The bishop of Pamiers died in 1642, and the history of Ducas, which represents these scenes (c. 36, 37) with such truth and spirit, was not printed till the year 1649. ↩
Phranza, one of the conforming Greeks, acknowledges that the measure was adopted only propter spem auxilii; he affirms with pleasure that those who refused to perform their devotions in St. Sophia, extra culpam et in pace essent (l. III c. 20). ↩
His primitive and secular name was George Scholarius, which he changed for that of Gennadius, either when he became a monk or a patriarch. His defence, at Florence, of the same union which he so furiously attacked at Constantinople, has tempted Leo Allatius (Diatribe De georgiis, in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, tom. X, pp. 760⁠–⁠786) to divide him into two men; but Renaudot (pp. 343⁠–⁠383) has restored the identity of his person, and the duplicity of his character. ↩
Φακιόλιον, καλύπτρα, may be fairly translated a cardinal’s hat. The difference of the Greek and Latin habits embittered the schism. ↩
We are obliged to reduce the Greek miles to the smallest measure which is preserved in the versts of Russia, of 547 French toises, and of 104⅖ to a degree. The six miles of Phranza do not exceed four English miles (d’Anville, Traité des mesures itinéraires, pp. 61, 123, etc.). ↩
At indies doctiores nostri facti paravere contra hostes machinamenta, quae tamen avare dabantur. Pulvis erat nitri modica exigua; tela modica; bombardae, si aderant incommoditate loci primum hostes offendere, maceriebus alveisque tectos, non poterant. Nam siquae magnae erant, ne murus concuteretur noster, quiescebant. This passage of Leonardus Chiensis is curious and important. ↩
According to Chalcondyles and Phranza, the great cannon burst: an incident which, according to Ducas, was prevented by the artist’s skill. It is evident that they do not speak of the same gun.9345 ↩
Near a hundred years after the siege of Constantinople, the French and English fleets in the Channel were proud of firing 300 shots in an engagement of two hours (Mémoires de Mess. Martin du Bellay, l. X, in the Collection Générale, tom. XXI, p. 239). ↩
The founder of the gun. Von Hammer, p. 526. —⁠M. ↩
I have selected some curious facts, without striving to emulate the bloody and obstinate eloquence of the Abbé de Vertot, in his prolix descriptions of the sieges of Rhodes, Malta, etc. But that agreeable historian had a turn for romance, and as he wrote to please the Order, he had adopted the same spirit of enthusiasm and chivalry. ↩
The first theory of mines with gunpowder appears in 1480, in a MS. of George of Sienna (Tiraboschi, tom. VI parte I, p. 324). They were first practiced by Sarzanella, in 1487; but the honor and improvement in 1503 is ascribed to Peter of Navarre, who used them with success in the wars of Italy (Histoire de la ligue fait à Cambray, tom. II, pp. 93⁠–⁠97). ↩
The battering-ram, according to von Hammer (p. 670), was not used. —⁠M. ↩
It is singular that the Greeks should not agree in the number of these illustrious vessels; the five of Ducas, the four of Phranza and Leonardus, and the two of Chalcondyles, must be extended to the smaller, or confined to the larger, size. Voltaire, in giving one of these ships to Frederic III, confounds the emperors of the East and West. ↩
In bold defiance, or rather in gross ignorance, of language and geography, the president Cousin detains them in Chios with a south, and wafts them to Constantinople with a north, wind. ↩
The perpetual decay and weakness of the Turkish navy may be observed in Ricaut (History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 372⁠–⁠378), Thévenot (Voyages, partie I, pp. 229⁠–⁠242), and Tott (Mémoires du Baron de Tott, tom. III); the last of whom is always solicitous to amuse and amaze his reader. ↩
I must confess that I have before my eyes the living picture which Thucydides (l. VII c. 71) has drawn of the passions and gestures of the Athenians in a naval engagement in the great harbor of Syracuse. ↩
According to Ducas, one of the Afabi beat out his eye with a stone. Compare von Hammer. —⁠M. ↩
According to the exaggeration or corrupt text of Ducas (c. 38), this golden bar was of the enormous or incredible weight of 500 librae, or pounds. Boulliaud’s reading of 500 drachms, or five pounds, is sufficient to exercise the arm of Muhammad and bruise the back of his admiral. ↩
Ducas, who confesses himself ill-informed of the affairs of Hungary, assigns a motive of superstition, a fatal belief that Constantinople would be the term of the Turkish conquests. See Phranza (l. III c. 20) and Spondanus. ↩
Six miles. Von Hammer. —⁠M. ↩
The unanimous testimony of the four Greeks is confirmed by Cantemir (p. 96) from the Turkish annals; but I could wish to contract the distance of ten9346 miles, and to prolong the term of one night. ↩
Phranza relates two examples of a similar transportation over the six miles of the isthmus of Corinth: the one fabulous, of Augustus after the battle of Actium; the other true, of Nicetas, a Greek general in the tenth century. To these he might have added a bold enterprise of Hannibal, to introduce his vessels into the harbor of Tarentum (Polybius, l. VIII, p. 749, edit. Jacobus Gronovius).9347 ↩
A Greek of Candia, who had served the Venetians in a similar undertaking (Spondanus, “AD 1438,” No. 37), might possibly be the adviser and agent of Muhammad. ↩
I particularly allude to our own embarkations on the lakes of Canada in the years 1776 and 1777, so great in the labor, so fruitless in the event. ↩
They were betrayed, according to some accounts, by the Genoese of Galata. Von Hammer, p. 536. —⁠M. ↩
Chalcondyles and Ducas differ in the time and circumstances of the negotiation; and as it was neither glorious nor salutary, the faithful Phranza spares his prince even the thought of a surrender. ↩
These wings (Chalcondyles, l. VIII, p. 208) are no more than an Oriental figure; but in the tragedy of Irene, Muhammad’s passion soars above sense and reason:⁠—

Should the fierce North, upon his frozen wings,
Bear him aloft above the wondering clouds,
And seat him in the Pleiads’ golden chariot⁠—
Then should my fury drag him down to tortures.

Besides the extravagance of the rant, I must observe:
1. That the operation of the winds must be confined to the lower region of the air.
2. That the name, etymology, and fable of the Pleiads are purely Greek (Scholiast ad Homer, XVIII 686; Eudocia in Ioniâ, p. 399; Apollodore, l. III c. 10; Heyne, p. 229, Note 682), and had no affinity with the astronomy of the East (Hyde ad Ulugbeg, Tabul. in Syntagma dissertationum, tom. I, pp. 40, 42; Goguet, De l’origine des loix, des arts et des sciences, tom. VI, pp. 73⁠–⁠78; Antoine Court de Gebelin, Histoire du calendrier, p. 73), which Muhammad had studied.
3. The golden chariot does not exist either in science or fiction; but I much fear Dr. Johnson has confounded the Pleiads with the great bear or wagon, the zodiac with a northern constellation:⁠—
  
  Ἅρκτον θ’ ἣν καὶ ἄμαξαν ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν.
  Iliad VI 487
↩
Phranza quarrels with these Muslim acclamations, not for the name of God, but for that of the prophet: the pious zeal of Voltaire is excessive, and even ridiculous. ↩
The picture is heightened by the addition of the wailing cries of Kyrie eleeson, which were heard from the dark interior of the city. Von Hammer, p. 539. —⁠M. ↩
I am afraid that this discourse was composed by Phranza himself; and it smells so grossly of the sermon and the convent that I almost doubt whether it was pronounced by Constantine. Leonardus assigns him another speech, in which he addresses himself more respectfully to the Latin auxiliaries. ↩
This abasement, which devotion has sometimes extorted from dying princes, is an improvement of the gospel doctrine of the forgiveness of injuries; it is more easy to forgive 490 times than once to ask pardon of an inferior. ↩
Compare the very curious Armenian elegy on the fall of Constantinople, translated by M. Boré, in the Journal Asiatique for March, 1835; and by M. Brosset, in the new edition of Le Beau (tom. XXI, p. 308). The author thus ends his poem: “I, Abraham, loaded with sins, have composed this elegy with the most lively sorrow; for I have seen Constantinople in the days of its glory.” —⁠M. ↩
Besides the 10,000 guards, and the sailors and the marines, Ducas numbers in this general assault 250,000 Turks, both horse and foot. ↩
In the severe censure of the flight of Justiniani, Phranza expresses his own feelings and those of the public. For some private reasons, he is treated with more lenity and respect by Ducas; but the words of Leonardus Chiensis express his strong and recent indignation, gloriae salutis suique oblitus. In the whole series of their Eastern policy, his countrymen, the Genoese, were always suspected, and often guilty.9348 ↩
In this account of the last conflict Gibbon has omitted a highly important fact which hastened the capture of the city. This fact is not mentioned by Phrantzes; it rests on the authority of Ducas (p. 280⁠–⁠5) and is confirmed by a short statement of Critobulus (I 60 ad fin.). North of the Porta Charseae, south of the Porta Caligaria, in a transverse wall which connects the inner and outer Theodosian walls, there is a small postern (found by M. Paspates) which is called the Kerkoporta by Ducas (wrongly?), and was always kept shut, but had been opened by Giustiniani’s orders for the purpose of a possible sortie. Some of the Greeks who were fighting in the space between the inner and the outer wall, pressed by the enemy, retreated through the Kerkoporta, and fifty Turks followed them, as they neglected to shut the gate. More Turks soon pressed in, and others mounted the walls, captured the tower close to the gate, and set up the Ottoman standards on the walls. The retreat of the Greeks, who were outside the inner wall, by the Kerkoporta was now cut off, and seeing the flags of the foe on the battlements they thronged back through the Porta Charseae, which was then left undefended, so that the Turks could enter by this gate too. The Turks who thus penetrated seem to have betaken themselves at first to the harbour side of the city, and some time elapsed before the combatants at the Gate of St. Romanus, where the fight was raging most hotly, learned what had happened. Phrantzes (without explaining) describes the arrival of the tidings (p. 285). A cry was heard on the harbour side: “The fort is taken, the standards of the foe are on the towers!” Then Constantine spurred his horse into the thick of the fray. —⁠B. ↩
Ducas kills him with two blows of Turkish soldiers; Chalcondyles wounds him in the shoulder, and then tramples him in the gate. The grief of Phranza carrying him among the enemy escapes from the precise image of his death; but we may, without flattery, apply these noble lines of Dryden:⁠—

As to Sebastian, let them search the field;
And, where they find a mountain of the slain,
Send one to climb, and looking down beneath,
There they will find him at his manly length,
With his face up to heaven, in that red monument
Which his good sword had digg’d.

↩
Spondanus (“AD 1453,” No. 10), who has hopes of his salvation, wishes to absolve this demand from the guilt of suicide. ↩
Leonardus Chiensis very properly observes that the Turks, had they known the emperor, would have labored to save and secure a captive so acceptable to the sultan. ↩
Cantemir, p. 96. The Christian ships in the mouth of the harbor had flanked and retarded this naval attack. ↩
Chalcondyles most absurdly supposes that Constantinople was sacked by the Asiatics in revenge for the ancient calamities of Troy; and the grammarians of the fifteenth century are happy to melt down the uncouth appellation of Turks into the more classical name of “Teucri.” ↩
When Cyrus suppressed Babylon during the celebration of a festival, so vast was the city, and so careless were the inhabitants, that much time elapsed before the distant quarters knew that they were captives. Herodotus (l. I c. 191), and Usher (Annales Veteris Testamenti, p. 78), who has quoted from the prophet Jeremiah a passage of similar import. ↩
This refers to an expression in Ducas, who, to heighten the effect of his description, speaks of the “sweet morning sleep resting on the eyes of youths and maidens,” p. 288, edit. Bekker. —⁠M. ↩
This lively description is extracted from Ducas (c. 39), who two years afterwards was sent ambassador from the prince of Lesbos to the sultan (c. 44). Till Lesbos was subdued in 1463 (Phranza, l. III c. 27), that island must have been full of the fugitives of Constantinople, who delighted to repeat, perhaps to adorn, the tale of their misery. ↩
See Phranza, l. III c. 20, 21. His expressions are positive: Ameras suâ manû jugulavit⁠ ⁠… volebat enim eo turpiter et nefarie abuti. Me miserum et infelicem! Yet he could only learn from report the bloody or impure scenes that were acted in the dark recesses of the seraglio. ↩
See Tiraboschi (tom. VI parte I, p. 290) and Lancelot (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. X, p. 718). I should be curious to learn how he could praise the public enemy, whom he so often reviles as the most corrupt and inhuman of tyrants. ↩
The Commentaries of Pius II suppose that he craftily placed his cardinal’s hat on the head of a corpse, which was cut off and exposed in triumph, while the legate himself was bought and delivered as a captive of no value. The great Belgic Chronicle adorns his escape with new adventures, which he suppressed (says Spondanus, “AD 1453,” No. 15) in his own letters, lest he should lose the merit and reward of suffering for Christ.9349 ↩
Busbequius expatiates with pleasure and applause on the rights of war and the use of slavery among the ancients and the Turks (De legatione Turcicâ, “Epistola III,” p. 161). ↩
This sum is specified in a marginal note of Leunclavius (Chalcondyles, l. VIII, p. 211), but in the distribution to Venice, Genoa, Florence, and Ancona, of 50, 20, and 15,000 ducats, I suspect that a figure has been dropped. Even with the restitution, the foreign property would scarcely exceed one fourth. ↩
See the enthusiastic praises and lamentations of Phranza (l. III c. 17). ↩
See Ducas (c. 43), and an epistle, July 15th, 1453, from Laurus Quirinus to Pope Nicholas V (Hody, De Graecis illustribus, p. 192, from a MS. in the Cotton library). ↩
The Julian Calendar, which reckons the days and hours from midnight, was used at Constantinople. But Ducas seems to understand the natural hours from sunrise. ↩
See the Turkish Annals, p. 329, and the Pandects of Leunclavius, p. 448. ↩
I have had occasion (here in chapter XVII) to mention this curious relic of Grecian antiquity. ↩
Von Hammer passes over this circumstance, which is treated by Dr. Clarke (Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa, vol. II, p. 58, quarto edition) as a fiction of Thévenot. Chishull states that the monument was broken by some attendants of the Polish ambassador. —⁠M. ↩
We are obliged to Cantemir (p. 102) for the Turkish account of the conversion of St. Sophia, so bitterly deplored by Phranza and Ducas. It is amusing enough to observe in what opposite lights the same object appears to a Mussulman and a Christian eye. ↩
This distich, which Cantemir gives in the original, derives new beauties from the application. It was thus that Scipio repeated, in the sack of Carthage, the famous prophecy of Homer. The same generous feeling carried the mind of the conqueror to the past or the future. ↩
I cannot believe, with Ducas (see Spondanus, “AD 1453,” No. 13) that Muhammad sent round Persia, Arabia, etc., the head of the Greek emperor; he would surely content himself with a trophy less inhuman. ↩
Phranza was the personal enemy of the great duke; nor could time, or death, or his own retreat to a monastery extort a feeling of sympathy or forgiveness. Ducas is inclined to praise and pity the martyr; Chalcondyles is neuter; but we are indebted to him for the hint of the Greek conspiracy. ↩
Von Hammer relates this undoubtingly, apparently on good authority, p. 559. —⁠M. ↩
For the restitution of Constantinople and the Turkish foundations, see Cantemir (pp. 102⁠–⁠109), Ducas (c. 42), with Thévenot, Tournefort, and the rest of our modern travellers. From a gigantic picture of the greatness, population, etc., of Constantinople and the Ottoman empire (Abrégé de l’histoire ottomane, tom. I, pp. 16⁠–⁠21), we may learn that in the year 1586 the Muslims were less numerous in the capital than the Christians or even the Jews. ↩
The “Turbé,” or sepulchral monument of Abu Ayub, is described and engraved in the Tableau générale de l’Empire othoman (Paris, 1787, in large folio), a work of less use, perhaps, than magnificence (tom. I, pp. 305, 306). ↩
Phranza (l. III c. 19) relates the ceremony, which has possibly been adorned in the Greek reports to each other, and to the Latins. The fact is confirmed by Emanuel Malaxus, who wrote, in vulgar Greek, the History of the Patriarchs After the Taking of Constantinople, inserted in the Turco-Graecia of Crusius (l. V, pp. 106⁠–⁠184). But the most patient reader will not believe that Muhammad adopted the Catholic form, “Sancta Trinitas quae mihi donavit imperium te in patriarcham novae Romae deligit.” ↩
From the Turco-Graecia of Crusius, etc., Spondanus (“AD 1453,” No. 21, “AD 1458,” No. 16) describes the slavery and domestic quarrels of the Greek church. The patriarch who succeeded Gennadius threw himself in despair into a well. ↩
Cantemir (pp. 101⁠–⁠105) insists on the unanimous consent of the Turkish historians, ancient as well as modern, and argues that they would not have violated the truth to diminish their national glory, since it is esteemed more honorable to take a city by force than by composition. But:
1. I doubt this consent, since he quotes no particular historian, and the Turkish Annals of Leunclavius affirm, without exception, that Muhammad took Constantinople per vim (p. 329).
2. The same argument may be turned in favor of the Greeks of the times, who would not have forgotten this honorable and salutary treaty.
Voltaire, as usual, prefers the Turks to the Christians. ↩
For the genealogy and fall of the Comneni of Trebizond, see du Cange (Familiae Byzantinae, p. 195); for the last Palaeologi, the same accurate antiquarian (pp. 244, 247, 248). The Palaeologi of Montferrat were not extinct till the next century; but they had forgotten their Greek origin and kindred. ↩
In the worthless story of the disputes and misfortunes of the two brothers, Phranza (l. III c. 21⁠–⁠30) is too partial on the side of Thomas, Ducas (c. 44, 45) is too brief, and Chalcondyles (l. VIII, IX, X) too diffuse and digressive. ↩
Kalo-Johannes, the predecessor of David his brother, the last emperor of Trebizond, had attempted to organize a confederacy against Muhammad; it comprehended Hassan Bei, sultan of Mesopotamia, the Christian princes of Georgia and Iberia, the emir of Sinope, and the sultan of Caramania. The negotiations were interrupted by his sudden death, AD 1458. Fallmerayer, pp. 257⁠–⁠260. —⁠M. ↩
See the loss or conquest of Trebizond in Chalcondyles (l. IX, pp. 263⁠–⁠266), Ducas (c. 45), Phranza (l. III c. 27), and Cantemir (p. 107). ↩
Though Tournefort (tom. III lettre XVII, p. 179) speaks of Trebizond as mal peuplée, Peysonnel, the latest and most accurate observer, can find 100,000 inhabitants (Traité sur le commerce de la Mer Noire, tom. II, p. 72, and for the province, pp. 53⁠–⁠90). Its prosperity and trade are perpetually disturbed by the factious quarrels of two odas of Janizaries, in one which 30,000 Lazi are commonly enrolled (Mémoires du Baron de Tott, tom. III, pp. 16, 17). ↩
According to the Georgian account of these transactions (translated by M. Brosset, additions to Le Beau, vol. XXI, p. 325), the emperor of Trebizond humbly entreated the sultan to have the goodness to marry one of his daughters. —⁠M. ↩
Ismael Beg, prince of Sinope or Sinople, was possessed (chiefly from his copper mines) of a revenue of 200,000 ducats (Chalcondyles, l. IX, pp. 258, 259). Peysonnel (Traité sur le commerce de la Mer Noire, tom. II, p. 100) ascribes to the modern city 60,000 inhabitants. This account seems enormous; yet it is by trading with a people that we become acquainted with their wealth and numbers. ↩
M. Boissonade has published, in the fifth volume of his Anecdota Graeca (pp. 387, 401), a very interesting letter from George Amiroutzes, protovestiarius of Trebizond, to Bessarion, describing the surrender of Trebizond and the fate of its chief inhabitants. —⁠M. ↩
See in von Hammer, vol. II, p. 60, the striking account of the mother, the empress Helena the Cantacuzene, who, in defiance of the edict, like that of Creon in the Greek tragedy, dug the grave for her murdered children with her own hand, and sank into it herself. —⁠M. ↩
Spondanus (from Gobelin, Pii secunda commentarii, l. V) relates the arrival and reception of the despot Thomas at Rome (“AD 1461,” No. 3). ↩
By an act dated AD 1494, Sept. 6, and lately transmitted from the archives of the Capitol to the royal library of Paris, the despot Andrew Palaeologus, reserving the Morea, and stipulating some private advantages, conveys to Charles VIII, king of France, the empires of Constantinople and Trebizond (Spondanus, “AD 1495,” No. 2). M. Étienne Lauréault de Foncemagne (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XVII, pp. 539⁠–⁠578) has bestowed a dissertation on his national title, of which he had obtained a copy from Rome. ↩
See Philippe de Comines (l. VII c. 14), who reckons with pleasure the number of Greeks who were prepared to rise, sixty miles of an easy navigation, eighteen days’ journey from Valona to Constantinople, etc. On this occasion the Turkish empire was saved by the policy of Venice. ↩
See the original feast in Olivier de la Marche (Mémoires, partie I c. 29, 30), with the abstract and observations of M. de Sainte-Palaye (Mémoires sur l’ancienne chevalerie, tom. I partie III, pp. 182⁠–⁠185). The peacock and the pheasant were distinguished as royal birds. ↩
It was found by an actual enumeration that Sweden, Gothland, and Finland contained 1,800,000 fighting men, and consequently were far more populous than at present. ↩
In the year 1454, Spondanus has given, from Aeneas Sylvius, a view of the state of Europe, enriched with his own observations. That valuable annalist, and the Italian Muratori, will continue the series of events from the year 1453 to 1481, the end of Muhammad’s life, and of this chapter. ↩
Besides the two annalists, the reader may consult Giannone (Istoria civile del regno di Napoli, tom. III, pp. 449⁠–⁠455) for the Turkish invasion of the kingdom of Naples. For the reign and conquests of Muhammad II, I have occasionally used the Memorie istoriche de monarchi Ottomanni di Giovanni Sagredo (Venezia, 1677, in quarto). In peace and war, the Turks have ever engaged the attention of the republic of Venice. All her despatches and archives were open to a procurator of St. Mark, and Sagredo is not contemptible either in sense or style. Yet he too bitterly hates the infidels: he is ignorant of their language and manners; and his narrative, which allows only seventy pages to Muhammad II (pp. 69⁠–⁠140), becomes more copious and authentic as he approaches the years 1640 and 1644, the term of the historic labors of John Sagredo. ↩
As I am now taking an everlasting farewell of the Greek empire, I shall briefly mention the great collection of Byzantine writers whose names and testimonies have been successively repeated in this work. The Greek presses of Aldus and the Italians were confined to the classics of a better age; and the first rude editions of Procopius, Agathias, Cedrenus, Zonaras, etc., were published by the learned diligence of the Germans. The whole Byzantine series (36 volumes in folio) has gradually issued (AD 1648, etc.) from the royal press of the Louvre, with some collateral aid from Rome and Leipzig; but the Venetian edition (AD 1729), though cheaper and more copious, is not less inferior in correctness than in magnificence to that of Paris. The merits of the French editors are various; but the value of Anna Comnena, Cinnamus, Villehardouin, etc. is enhanced by the historical notes of Charles de Fresne du Cange. His supplemental works, the Greek Glossary, the Constantinopolis Christiana, the Familiae Byzantinae, diffuse a steady light over the darkness of the Lower Empire.9350 ↩
The Abbé Dubos, who, with less genius than his successor Montesquieu, has asserted and magnified the influence of climate, objects to himself the degeneracy of the Romans and Batavians. To the first of these examples he replies:
1. That the change is less real than apparent, and that the modern Romans prudently conceal in themselves the virtues of their ancestors.
2. That the air, the soil, and the climate of Rome have suffered a great and visible alteration (Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, part II sect. 16).9351
↩
The reader has been so long absent from Rome, that I would advise him to recollect or review the 49th chapter of this History. ↩
The coronation of the German emperors at Rome, more especially in the eleventh century, is best represented from the original monuments by Muratori (Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. I, dissertatio II, p. 99, etc.) and Cenni (Monumenta dominationis pontificiae, tom. II, dissertatio VI, p. 261), the latter of whom I only know from the copious extract of Schmidt (Histoire des Allemands, tom. III, pp. 255⁠–⁠266). ↩
Exercitui Romano et Teutonico! The latter was both seen and felt; but the former was no more than magni nominis umbra. ↩
Muratori has given the series of the papal coins (Antiquitates, tom. II, dissertatio XXVII, pp. 548⁠–⁠554). He finds only two more early than the year 800; fifty are still extant from Leo III to Leo IX with the addition of the reigning emperor; none remain of Gregory VII or Urban II; but in those of Paschal II he seems to have renounced this badge of dependence. ↩
See du Cange, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, tom. VI, pp. 364, 365, “Staffa.” This homage was paid by kings to archbishops, and by vassals to their lords (Schmidt, tom. III, p. 262); and it was the nicest policy of Rome to confound the marks of filial and of feudal subjection. ↩
The appeals from all the churches to the Roman pontiff are deplored by the zeal of St. Bernard (De consideratione ad Eugenium, l. III tom. II, pp. 431⁠–⁠442, edit. Mabillon, Venetiis, 1750) and the judgment of Fleury (Discours sur l’histoire ecclésiastique IV et VII) But the saint, who believed in the false decretals, condemns only the abuse of these appeals; the more enlightened historian investigates the origin, and rejects the principles, of this new jurisprudence. ↩
Germanici⁠ ⁠… summarii non levatis sarcinis onusti nihilominus repatriant inviti. Nova res! quando hactenus aurum Roma refudit? Et nunc Romanorum consilio id usurpatum non credimus (Bernard, De consideratione ad Eugenium, l. III c. 3, p. 437). The first words of the passage are obscure, and probably corrupt. ↩
Quand les sauvages de la Louisiane veulent avoir du fruit, ils coupent l’arbre au pied et cueillent le fruit. Voilà le gouvernement despotique (De l’esprit des loix, l. V c. 13); and passion and ignorance are always despotic. ↩
In a free conversation with his countryman Adrian IV, John of Salisbury accuses the avarice of the pope and clergy: Provinciarum diripiunt spolia, ac si thesauros Croesi studeant reparare. Sed recte cum eis agit Altissimus, quoniam et ipsi aliis et saepe vilissimis hominibus dati sunt in direptionem (Policraticus, sive de nugis caeurialium, l. VI c. 24, p. 387). In the next page, he blames the rashness and infidelity of the Romans, whom their bishops vainly strove to conciliate by gifts instead of virtues. It is pity that this miscellaneous writer has not given us less morality and erudition, and more pictures of himself and the times. ↩
Hume’s History of England, vol. I, p. 419. The same writer has given us, from FitzStephen, a singular act of cruelty perpetrated on the clergy by Geoffrey, the father of Henry II. “When he was master of Normandy, the chapter of Seez presumed, without his consent, to proceed to the election of a bishop; upon which he ordered all of them, with the bishop elect, to be castrated, and made all their testicles be brought him in a platter.” Of the pain and danger they might justly complain; yet, since they had vowed chastity, he deprived them of a superfluous treasure. ↩
From Leo IX and Gregory VII an authentic and contemporary series of the lives of the popes by the Cardinal of Arragon, Pandulphus Pisanus, Bernard Guido, etc., is inserted in the Italian Historians of Muratori (tom. III pars I, pp. 277⁠–⁠685), and has been always before my eyes. ↩
The dates of years in the contents may throughout this chapter be understood as tacit references to the Annals of Muratori, my ordinary and excellent guide. He uses, and indeed quotes, with the freedom of a master, his great Collection of the Italian Historians, in XXVIII volumes; and as that treasure is in my library, I have thought it an amusement, if not a duty, to consult the originals. ↩
I cannot refrain from transcribing the high-colored words of Pandulphus Pisanus (p. 384): Hoc audiens inimicus pacis atque turbator jam fatus Centius Frajapane, more draconis immanissimi sibilans, et ab imis pectoribus trahens longa suspiria, accinctus retro gladio sine more cucurrit, valvas ac fores confregit. Ecclesiam furibundus introiit, inde custode remoto papam per gulam accepit, distraxit pugnis calcibusque percussit, et tanquam brutum animal intra limen ecclesiae acriter calcaribus cruentavit; et latro tantum dominum per capillos et brachia, Jesû bono interim dormiente, detraxit, ad domum usque deduxit, inibi catenavit et inclusit. ↩
Ego coram Deo et Ecclesiâ dico, si unquam possibile esset, mallem unum imperatorem quam tot dominos (Vita Gelasius II, p. 398). ↩
Quid tam notum seculis quam protervia et cervicositas Romanorum? Gens insueta paci, tumultui assueta, gens immitis et intractabilis usque adhuc, subdi nescia, nisi cum non valet resistere (De consideratione ad Eugenium, l. IV c. 2, p. 441). The saint takes breath, and then begins again: Hi, invisi terrae et caelo, utrique injecere manus, etc. (p. 443). ↩
As a Roman citizen, Petrarch takes leave to observe that Bernard, though a saint, was a man; that he might be provoked by resentment, and possibly repent of his hasty passion, etc. (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, p. 330). ↩
Baronius, in his index to the twelth volume of his Annals, has found a fair and easy excuse. He makes two heads, of Romani Catholici and Schismatici: to the former he applies all the good, to the latter all the evil, that is told of the city. ↩
The heresies of the twelth century may be found in Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 419⁠–⁠427), who entertains a favorable opinion of Arnold of Brescia. In chapter LIV I have described the sect of the Paulicians, and followed their migration from Armenia to Thrace and Bulgaria, Italy and France. ↩
The original pictures of Arnold of Brescia are drawn by Otto bishop of Freising (Chronica de duabus civitatibus, l. VII c. 31, Gesta Frederici imperatoris, l. I c. 27, l. II c. 21), and in the third book of the Ligurinus, a poem of Gunthur, who flourished AD 1200, in the monastery of Paris near Basil (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. III, pp. 174, 175). The long passage that relates to Arnold is produced by Guilliman (De rebus Helvetiorum, l. III c. 5, p. 108).9352 ↩
The wicked wit of Bayle was amused in composing, with much levity and learning, the articles of “Abelard,” “Foulkes,” “Heloise,” in his Dictionnaire historique et critique. The dispute of Abelard and St. Bernard, of scholastic and positive divinity, is well understood by Mosheim (Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 412⁠–⁠415). ↩
… Damnatus ab illo
Praesule, qui numeros vetitum contingere nostros
Nomen ad innocuâ ducit laudabile vitâ.

We may applaud the dexterity and correctness of Ligurinus, who turns the unpoetical name of Innocent II into a compliment. ↩
A Roman inscription of Statio Turicensis has been found at Zurich (d’Anville, Notice de l’ancienne Gaule, pp. 642⁠–⁠644); but it is without sufficient warrant that the city and canton have usurped and even monopolized the names of Tigurum and Pagus Tigurinus. ↩
Guilliman (De rebus Helvetiorum, l. III c. 5, p. 106) recapitulates the donation (AD 833) of the emperor Lewis the Pious to his daughter the abbess Hildegardis. Curtim nostram Turegum in ducatû Alamanniae in pago Durgaugensi, with villages, woods, meadows, waters, slaves, churches, etc., a noble gift. Charles the Bald gave the jus monetae, the city was walled under Otto I, and the line of the bishop of Freising,

“Nobile Turegum multarum copia rerum,”

is repeated with pleasure by the antiquaries of Zurich. ↩
Bernard, Epistola CXCV, CXCVI, tom. I, pp. 187⁠–⁠190. Amidst his invectives, he drops a precious acknowledgment, qui, utinam quam sanae esset doctrinae quam districtae est vitae. He owns that Arnold would be a valuable acquisition for the church. ↩
He advised the Romans,

Consiliis armisque sua moderamina summa
Arbitrio tractare suo: nil juris in hâc re
Pontifici summo, modicum concedere regi
Suadebat populo. Sic laesâ stultus utrâque
Majestate, reum geminae se fecerat aulae.

Nor is the poetry of Gunther different from the prose of Otto. ↩
See Baronius (“AD 1148,” No. 38, 39) from the Vatican MSS. He loudly condemns Arnold (“AD 1141,” No. 3) as the father of the political heretics whose influence then hurt him in France. ↩
The English reader may consult the Biographia Britannica, “Adrian IV,” but our own writers have added nothing to the fame or merits of their countryman. ↩
Besides the historian and poet already quoted, the last adventures of Arnold are related by the biographer of Adrian IV (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, pp. 441, 442.) ↩
Du Cange (Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, “Decarchones,” tom. II, p. 726) gives me a quotation from Blondus (Historiarum ab inclinatone Romanorum imperii decades II, l. II): Duo consules ex nobilitate quotannis fiebant, qui ad vetustum consulum exemplar summae rerum praeessent. And in Sigonius (De regno Italiae, l. VI, Opera omnia, tom. II, p. 400) I read of the consuls and tribunes of the tenth century. Both Blondus, and even Sigonius, too freely copied the classic method of supplying from reason or fancy the deficiency of records. ↩
In the panegyric of Berengarius (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II pars I, p. 408), a Roman is mentioned as consulis natus in the beginning of the tenth century. Muratori (Dissertatio V) discovers, in the years 952 and 956, Gratianus in Dei nomine consul et dux, Georgius consul et dux; and in 1015, Romanus, brother of Gregory VIII, proudly, but vaguely, styles himself consul et dux et omnium Roma norum senator. ↩
As late as the tenth century, the Greek emperors conferred on the dukes of Venice, Naples, Amalphi, etc., the title of ὔπατος, or consuls (see Chronicon Sagornini, passim); and the successors of Charlemagne would not abdicate any of their prerogative. But in general the names of consul and senator, which may be found among the French and Germans, signify no more than count and lord (“Signeur,” Du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis). The monkish writers are often ambitious of fine classic words. ↩
The most constitutional form is a diploma of Otto III (AD 998), consulibus senatûs populique Romani; but the act is probably spurious. At the coronation of Henry I, AD 1014, the historian Dithmar (apud Muratori, dissertatio XXIII) describes him, a senatoribus duodecim vallatum, quorum sex rasi barbâ, alii prolixâ, mystice incedebant cum baculis. The senate is mentioned in the panegyric of Berengarius (p. 406). ↩
In ancient Rome the equestrian order was not ranked with the senate and people as a third branch of the republic till the consulship of Cicero, who assumes the merit of the establishment (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXIII 3; Beaufort, La République romaine, tom. I, pp. 144⁠–⁠155). ↩
The republican plan of Arnold of Brescia is thus stated by Gunther:⁠—

Quin etiam titulos urbis renovare vetustos;
Nomine plebeio secernere nomen equestre,
Jura tribunorum, sanctum reparare senatum,
Et senio fessas mutasque reponere leges.
Lapsa ruinosis, et adhuc pendentia muris
Reddere primaevo Capitolia prisca nitori.

But of these reformations, some were no more than ideas, others no more than words. ↩
After many disputes among the antiquaries of Rome, it seems determined that the summit of the Capitoline hill next the river is strictly the Mons Tarpeius, the Arx; and that on the other summit, the church and convent of Araceli, the barefoot friars of St. Francis occupy the temple of Jupiter (Nardini, Roma antica, l. V c. 11⁠–⁠16).9353 ↩
Tacitus, Historiae III 69, 70. ↩
This partition of the noble and baser metals between the emperor and senate must, however, be adopted, not as a positive fact, but as the probable opinion of the best antiquaries,9354 (see the Science des médailles of the Père Joubert, tom. II, pp. 208⁠–⁠211, in the improved and scarce edition of the Baron de la Bastie). ↩
In his twenty-seventh dissertation on the Antiquities of Italy (tom. II, pp. 559⁠–⁠569), Muratori exhibits a series of the senatorian coins, which bore the obscure names of “Affortiati,” “Infortiati,” “Provisini,” “Paparini.” During this period, all the popes, without excepting Boniface VIII, abstained from the right of coining, which was resumed by his successor Benedict XI and regularly exercised in the court of Avignon. ↩
A German historian, Gerard of Reicherspeg (in Baluze miscellanées, tom. V, p. 64, apud Schmidt, Histoire des Allemands, tom. III, p. 265), thus describes the constitution of Rome in the eleventh century: Grandiora urbis et orbis negotia spectant ad Romanum pontificem itemque ad Romanum Imperatorem, sive illius vicarium urbis praefectum, qui de suâ dignitate respicit utrumque, videlicet dominum papam cui facit hominum, et dominum imperatorem a quo accipit suae potestatis insigne, scilicet gladium exertum. ↩
The words of a contemporary writer (Pandulphus Pisanus in Vita Paschalis II, pp. 357, 358) describe the election and oath of the prefect in 1118, inconsultis patribus⁠ ⁠… loca praefectoria⁠ ⁠… Laudes praefectoriae⁠ ⁠… comitiorum applausum⁠ ⁠… juraturum populo in ambonem sublevant⁠ ⁠… confirmari eum in urbe praefectum petunt. ↩
Urbis praefectum ad ligiam fidelitatem recepit, et per mantum quod illi donavit de praefecturâ eum publice investivit, qui usque ad id tempus juramento fidelitatis imperatori fuit obligatus et ab eo praefecturae tenuit honorem (Gesta Innocentii III in Muratori, tom. III pars I, p. 487). ↩
See Otto Frisingensis, Chronica de duabus civitatibus VII 31, Gesta Frederici imperatoris, l. I c. 27. ↩
Our countryman, Roger Hoveden, speaks of the single senators, of the Capuzzi family, etc., quorum temporibus melius regebatur Roma quam nunc (AD 1194) est temporibus LVI senatorum (du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. VI, p. 191, “Senatores”). ↩
Muratori (Dissertatio XLII tom. III, pp. 785⁠–⁠788) has published an original treaty: Concordia inter Dominum nostrum papam Clementem III et senatores populi Romani super regalibus et aliis dignitatibus urbis, etc., anno 44^o senatûs. The senate speaks, and speaks with authority: Reddimus ad praesens⁠ ⁠… habebimus⁠ ⁠… dabitis presbetria⁠ ⁠… jurabimus pacem et fidelitatem, etc. A chartula de Tenementis Tusculani, dated in the 47th year of the same era, and confirmed decreto amplissimi ordinis senatûs, acclamatione populum Romanarum publice Capitolio consistentis. It is there we find the difference of senatores consiliarii and simple senators (Muratori, dissertatio XLII tom. III, pp. 787⁠–⁠789). ↩
Muratori (Dissertatio XLV tom. IV, pp. 64⁠–⁠92) has fully explained this mode of government; and the “Occulus Pastoralis,” which he has given at the end, is a treatise or sermon on the duties of these foreign magistrates. ↩
In the Latin writers, at least of the silver age, the title of “Potestas” was transferred from the office to the magistrate:⁠—

Hujus qui trahitur praetextam sumere mavis;
An Fidenarum Gabiorumque esse Potestas.
Juvenal, Satires X 99.11

↩
See the life and death of Brancaleone, in the Chronica majora of Matthew Paris, pp. 741, 757, 792, 797, 799, 810, 823, 833, 836, 840. The multitude of pilgrims and suitors connected Rome and St. Albans; and the resentment of the English clergy prompted them to rejoice whenever the popes were humbled and oppressed. ↩
Matthew Paris thus ends his account: Caput vero ipsius Brancaleonis in vase pretioso super marmoream columnam collocatum, in signum sui valoris et probitatis, quasi reliquias, superstitiose nimis et pompose sustulerunt. Fuerat enim superborum potentum et malefactorum urbis malleus et extirpator, et populi protector et defensor veritatis et justitiae imitator et amator (p. 840). A biographer of Innocent IV (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, pp. 591, 592) draws a less favorable portrait of this Ghibeline senator. ↩
The election of Charles of Anjou to the office of perpetual senator of Rome is mentioned by the historians in the eighth volume of the Collection of Muratori, by Nicholas de Jamsilla (p. 592), the monk of Padua (p. 724), Sabas Malaspina (l. II c. 9, p. 808), and Ricordano Malespini (c. 177, p. 999). ↩
The high-sounding bull of Nicholas III, which founds his temporal sovereignty on the donation of Constantine, is still extant; and as it has been inserted by Boniface VIII in the Sexte of the Decretals, it must be received by the Catholics, or at least by the Papists, as a sacred and perpetual law. ↩
I am indebted to Fleury (Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XVIII, p. 306) for an extract of this Roman act which he has taken from the Ecclesiastical Annals of Odericus Raynaldus, “AD 1281,” No. 14, 15. ↩
These letters and speeches are preserved by Otto, Bishop of Freising (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. V, pp. 186, 187), perhaps the noblest of historians; he was son of Leopold, marquis of Austria; his mother, Agnes, was daughter of the emperor Henry IV, and he was half-brother and uncle to Conrad III and Frederic I. He has left, in seven books, a Chronicle of the times; in two, the Gesta Frederici imperatoris, the last of which is inserted in the sixth volume of Muratori’s Historians. ↩
We desire (said the ignorant Romans) to restore the empire in eum statum, quo fuit tempore Constantini et Justiniani, qui totum orbem vigore senatûs et populi Romani suis tenuere manibus. ↩
Otto Frisingensis, Gesta Frederici imperatoris, l. I c. 28, pp. 662⁠–⁠664. ↩
Hospes eras, civem feci. Advena fuisti ex Transalpinis partibus principem constitui. ↩
Non cessit nobis nudum imperium, virtute sua amictum venit, ornamenta sua secum traxit. Penes nos sunt consules tui, etc. Cicero or Livy would not have rejected these images, the eloquence of a Barbarian born and educated in the Hercynian forest. ↩
Otto of Freising, who surely understood the language of the court and diet of Germany, speaks of the Franks in the twelth century as the reigning nation (Proceres Franci, equites Franci, manus Francorum); he adds, however, the epithet of Teutonici. ↩
Otto Frisingensis, Gesta Frederici imperatoris, l. II c. 22, pp. 720⁠–⁠733. These original and authentic acts I have translated and abridged with freedom, yet with fidelity. ↩
From the chronicles of Ricobaldo and Francis Pipin, Muratori (Dissertatio XXVI tom. II, p. 492) has translated this curious fact, with the doggerel verses that accompanied the gift:⁠—

Ave decus orbis, ave! victus tibi destinor, ave!
Currus ab Augusto Frederico Caesare justo.
Vae Mediolanum! jam sentis spernere vanum
Imperii vires, proprias tibi tollere vires.
Ergo triumphorum urbs potes memor esse priorum
Quos tibi mittebant reges qui bella gerebant.

Ne si dee tacere (I now use the Italian Dissertations, tom. I, p. 444) che nell’ anno 1727, una copia desso Caroccio in marmo dianzi ignoto si scopri, nel campidoglio, presso alle carcere di quel luogo, dove Sisto V l’avea falto rinchiudere. Stava esso posto sopra quatro colonne di marmo fino colla sequente inscrizione, etc.; to the same purpose as the old inscription. ↩
The decline of the Imperial arms and authority in Italy is related with impartial learning in the Annals of Muratori (tom. X, XI, XII); and the reader may compare his narrative with the Histoire des Allemands (tom. III, IV) by Schmidt, who has deserved the esteem of his countrymen. ↩
Tibur nunc suburbanum, et aestivae Praeneste deliciae, nuncupatis in Capitolio votis petebantur. The whole passage of Florus (l. I c. 11) may be read with pleasure, and has deserved the praise of a man of genius (Ouvres de Montesquieu, tom. III, pp. 634, 635, quarto edition). ↩
Ne a feritate Romanorum, sicut fuerant Hostienses, Portuenses, Tusculanenses, Albanenses, Labicenses, et nuper Tiburtini destruerentur (Matthew Paris, p. 757). These events are marked in the Annals and Index (the eighteenth volume) of Muratori. ↩
For the state or ruin of these suburban cities, the banks of the Tiber, etc., see the lively picture of the Père Labat (Voyages en Espagne et en Italie), who had long resided in the neighborhood of Rome, and the more accurate description of which Père Eschinard (Roma, 1750, in octavo) has added to the topographical map of Cingolani. ↩
Labat (tom. III, p. 233) mentions a recent decree of the Roman government, which has severely mortified the pride and poverty of Tivoli: in civitate Tiburtinâ non vivitur civiliter. ↩
I depart from my usual method, of quoting only by the date the Annals of Muratori, in consideration of the critical balance in which he has weighed nine contemporary writers who mention the battle of Tusculum (tom. X, pp. 42⁠–⁠44). ↩
Matthew Paris, p. 345. This bishop of Winchester was Peter de Rupibus, who occupied the see thirty-two years (AD 1206⁠–⁠1238), and is described, by the English historian, as a soldier and a statesman. (pp. 178, 399.) ↩
See Mosheim, Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, pp. 401, 403. Alexander himself had nearly been the victim of a contested election; and the doubtful merits of Innocent had only preponderated by the weight of genius and learning which St. Bernard cast into the scale (see his life and writings). ↩
The origin, titles, importance, dress, precedency, etc., of the Roman cardinals, are very ably discussed by Thomassin (Discipline de l’église, tom. I, pp. 1262⁠–⁠1287); but their purple is now much faded. The sacred college was raised to the definite number of seventy-two, to represent, under his vicar, the disciples of Christ. ↩
See the bull of Gregory X, approbante sacro concilio, in the Sexte of the Canon Law (l. I tit. 6, c. 3), a supplement to the Decretals, which Boniface VIII promulgated at Rome in 1298, and addressed in all the universities of Europe. ↩
The genius of Cardinal de Retz had a right to paint a conclave (of 1665), in which he was a spectator and an actor (Mémoires, tom. IV, pp. 15⁠–⁠57); but I am at a loss to appreciate the knowledge or authority of an anonymous Italian, whose history (Conclavi de’ pontifici romani, in quarto, 1667) has been continued since the reign of Alexander VII. The accidental form of the work furnishes a lesson, though not an antidote, to ambition. From a labyrinth of intrigues, we emerge to the adoration of the successful candidate; but the next page opens with his funeral. ↩
The expressions of Cardinal de Retz are positive and picturesque: On y vécut toujours ensemble avec le même respect, et la même civilité que l’on observe dans le cabinet des rois, avec la même politesse qu’on avoit dans la cour de Henri III, avec la même familiarité que l’on voit dans les collèges; avec la même modestie, qui se remarque dans les noviciats; et avec la même charité, du moins en apparence, qui pourroit être entre des frères parfaitement unis. ↩
Richiesti per bando (says John Villani) sanatori di Roma, e 52 del popolo, et capitani de’ 25, e consoli (consoli?) et 13 buone huomini, uno per rione. Our knowledge is too imperfect to pronounce how much of this constitution was temporary, and how much ordinary and permanent. Yet it is faintly illustrated by the ancient statutes of Rome. ↩
Villani (l. X c. 68⁠–⁠71, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XIII, pp. 641⁠–⁠645) relates this law, and the whole transaction, with much less abhorrence than the prudent Muratori. Anyone conversant with the darker ages must have observed how much the sense (I mean the nonsense) of superstition is fluctuating and inconsistent. ↩
In the first volume of the Popes of Avignon, see the second original “Life of John XXII,” pp. 142⁠–⁠145, the confession of the antipope, pp. 145⁠–⁠152, and the laborious notes of Baluze, pp. 714, 715. ↩
Romani autem non valentes nec volentes ultra suam celare cupiditatem gravissimam, contra papam movere coeperunt questionem, exigentes ab eo urgentissime omnia quae subierant per ejus absentiam damna et jacturas, videlicet in hispitiis locandis, in mercimoniis, in usuris, in redditibus, in provisionibus, et in aliis modis innumerabilibus. Quòd cum audisset papa, praecordialiter ingemuit, et se comperiens muscipulatum, etc., Matthew Paris, p. 757. For the ordinary history of the popes, their life and death, their residence and absence, it is enough to refer to the ecclesiastical annalists, Spondanus and Fleury. ↩
Besides the general historians of the church of Italy and of France, we possess a valuable treatise composed by a learned friend of Thuanus, which his last and best editors have published in the appendix (Histoire du différend d’entre le pape Boniface VIII et Philippe le Bel, par Pierre du Puis, tom. VII partie XI, pp. 61⁠–⁠82.) ↩
It is difficult to know whether Labat (tom. IV, pp. 53⁠–⁠57) be in jest or in earnest when he supposes that Anagni still feels the weight of this curse, and that the cornfields, or vineyards, or olive-trees are annually blasted by Nature, the obsequious handmaid of the popes. ↩
See, in the Chronicle of Giovanni Villani (l. VIII c. 63, 64, 80, in Muratori, tom. XIII), the imprisonment of Boniface VIII and the election of Clement V, the last of which, like most anecdotes, is embarrassed with some difficulties. ↩
The original lives of the eight popes of Avignon, Clement V, John XXII, Benedict XII, Clement VI, Innocent VI, Urban V, Gregory XI, and Clement VII, are published by Stephen Baluze (Vitae Paparum Avenionensium; Paris, 1693, two vols. in quarto), with copious and elaborate notes, and a second volume of acts and documents. With the true zeal of an editor and a patriot, he devoutly justifies or excuses the characters of his countrymen. ↩
The exile of Avignon is compared by the Italians with Babylon and the Babylonish captivity. Such furious metaphors, more suitable to the ardor of Petrarch than to the judgment of Muratori, are gravely refuted in Baluze’s preface. The Abbé de Sade is distracted between the love of Petrarch and of his country. Yet he modestly pleads that many of the local inconveniences of Avignon are now removed; and many of the vices against which the poet declaims had been imported with the Roman court by the strangers of Italy (tom. I, pp. 23⁠–⁠28). ↩
The comtat Venaissin was ceded to the popes in 1273 by Philip III, king of France, after he had inherited the dominions of the count of Toulouse. Forty years before the heresy of Count Raymond had given them a pretence of seizure, and they derived some obscure claim from the eleventh century to some lands citra Rhodanum (Valesius, Notitia Galliarum, pp. 495, 610; Longuerue, Description de la France, tom. I, pp. 376⁠–⁠381). ↩
If a possession of four centuries were not itself a title, such objections might annul the bargain; but the purchase money must be refunded, for indeed it was paid. Civitatem Avenionem emit⁠ ⁠… per ejusmodi venditionem pecuniâ redundates, etc. (Secunda vita Clementis VI in Baluzius, tom. I, p. 272; Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars II, p. 565). The only temptation for Jane and her second husband was ready money, and without it they could not have returned to the throne of Naples. ↩
Clement V immediately promoted ten cardinals, nine French and one English (“Vita quarta,” p. 63, et Baluzius, p. 625, etc.). In 1331, the pope refused two candidates recommended by the king of France, quod XX Cardinales, de quibus XVII de regno Franciae originem traxisse noscuntur in memorato collegio existant (Thomassin, Discipline de l’église, tom. I, p. 1281). ↩
Our primitive account is from Cardinal James Caietan (Maximâ bibliothecâ veterum patrum, tom. XXV); and I am at a loss to determine whether the nephew of Boniface VIII be a fool or a knave: the uncle is a much clearer character. ↩
See John Villani (l. VIII c. 36) in the twelth, and the Chronicon Astense in the eleventh, volume (pp. 191, 192) of Muratori’s Collection. Papa innumerabilem pecuniam ab eisdem accepit, nam duo clerici, cum rastris, etc. ↩
The two bulls of Boniface VIII and Clement VI are inserted in the Corpus juris canonici, (“Extravagante Communes,” l. V tit. IX c. 1, 2.) ↩
The sabbatic years and jubilees of the Mosaic law (Carolus Sigonius, De republicâ Hebraeorum, Opera omnia, tom. IV l. III c. 14, 15, pp. 151, 152), the suspension of all care and labor, the periodical release of lands, debts, servitude, etc., may seem a noble idea, but the execution would be impracticable in a profane republic; and I should be glad to learn that this ruinous festival was observed by the Jewish people. ↩
See the Chronicle of Matteo Villani (l. I c. 56), in the fourteenth vol. of Muratori, and the Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, pp. 75⁠–⁠89. ↩
The subject is exhausted by M. Chais, a French minister at the Hague, in his Lettres historiques et dogmatiques sur les jubilés et les indulgences; la Haye, 1751, three vols. in duodecimo: an elaborate and pleasing work, had not the author preferred the character of a polemic to that of a philosopher. ↩
Muratori (Dissertatio XLVII) alleges the Annals of Florence, Padua, Genoa, etc., the analogy of the rest, the evidence of Otto of Freising (Gesta Frederici imperatoris, l. II c. 13), and the submission of the marquis of Este. ↩
As early as the year 824, the emperor Lothaire I found it expedient to interrogate the Roman people, to learn from each individual by what national law he chose to be governed (Muratori, dissertatio XXII). ↩
Petrarch attacks these foreigners, the tyrants of Rome, in a declamation or epistle, full of bold truths and absurd pedantry, in which he applies the maxims, and even prejudices, of the old republic to the state of the fourteenth century (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, pp. 157⁠–⁠169). ↩
The origin and adventures of the Jewish family are noticed by Pagi (Critica Baronii, tom. IV, p. 435, “AD 1124,” No. 3, 4), who draws his information from the Chronici Maurigniacensis, and Arnulfus Sagiensis, “De Schismate Orto Post Honorii II Papae Decessum” (in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, pp. 423⁠–⁠432). The fact must in some degree be true; yet I could wish that it had been coolly related, before it was turned into a reproach against the antipope. ↩
Muratori has given two dissertations (XLI and XLII) to the names, surnames, and families of Italy. Some nobles, who glory in their domestic fables, may be offended with his firm and temperate criticism; yet surely some ounces of pure gold are of more value than many pounds of base metal. ↩
The cardinal of St. George, in his poetical, or rather metrical history of the election and coronation of Boniface VIII (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, p. 641, etc.), describes the state and families of Rome at the coronation of Boniface VIII (AD 1295).

Interea titulis redimiti sanguine et armis
Illustresque viri Romanâ a stirpe trahentes
Nomen in emeritos tantae virtutis honores
Insulerant sese medios festumque colebant
Auratâ fulgente togâ, sociante catervâ.
Ex ipsis devota domus praestantis ab Ursâ
Ecclesiae, vultumque gerens demissius altum
Festa Columna jocis, necnon Sabellia mitis;
Stephanides senior, Comites, Annibalica proles,
Praefectusque urbis magnum sine viribus nomen.
(l. II c. 5, 100, pp. 647, 648.)

The ancient statutes of Rome (l. III c. 59, pp. 174, 175) distinguish eleven families of barons, who are obliged to swear in concilio communi, before the senator, that they would not harbor or protect any malefactors, outlaws, etc.⁠—a feeble security! ↩
It is pity that the Colonna themselves have not favored the world with a complete and critical history of their illustrious house. I adhere to Muratori (Dissertatio XLII tom. III, pp. 647, 648). ↩
Pandulphus Pisanus in Vita Paschalis II in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, p. 335. The family has still great possessions in the Campagna of Rome; but they have alienated to the Rospigliosi this original fief of Colonna (Eschinard, pp. 258, 259). ↩
Te longinqua dedit tellus et pascua Rheni,

says Petrarch; and, in 1417, a duke of Guelders and Juliers acknowledges (Lenfant, Histoire du Concile de Constance, tom. II, p. 539) his descent from the ancestors of Martin V (Otho Colonna): but the royal author of the Memoirs of the House of Brandenburgh observes that the sceptre in his arms has been confounded with the column. To maintain the Roman origin of the Colonna, it was ingeniously supposed (Diario di Lodovico Monaldeschi, in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XII, p. 533) that a cousin of the emperor Nero escaped from the city and founded Mentz in Germany. ↩
I cannot overlook the Roman triumph of ovation on Marce Antonio Colonna, who had commanded the pope’s galleys at the naval victory of Lepanto (Thuanus, Historiarum sui temporis, l. VII, tom. III, pp. 55, 56; Muret, “Oratio X,” Opera, tom. I, pp. 180⁠–⁠190). ↩
Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. X, pp. 216, 220. ↩
Petrarch’s attachment to the Colonna has authorized the Abbé de Sade to expatiate on the state of the family in the fourteenth century, the persecution of Boniface VIII, the character of Stephen and his sons, their quarrels with the Ursini, etc. (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, pp. 98⁠–⁠110, 146⁠–⁠148, 174⁠–⁠176, 222⁠–⁠230, 275⁠–⁠280). His criticism often rectifies the hearsay stories of Villani, and the errors of the less diligent moderns. I understand the branch of Stephen to be now extinct. ↩
Alexander III had declared the Colonna who adhered to the emperor Frederic I incapable of holding any ecclesiastical benefice (Villani, l. V c. 1); and the last stains of annual excommunication were purified by Sixtus V (Vita di Sisto V, tom. III, p. 416). Treason, sacrilege, and proscription are often the best titles of ancient nobility. ↩
… Vallis te proxima misit,
Appenninigenae quâ prata virentia sylvae
Spoletana metunt armenta gregesque protervi.

Monaldeschi (tom. XII Rerum Italicarum scriptores, p. 533) gives the Ursini a French origin, which may be remotely true. ↩
In the metrical life of Celestine V by the cardinal of St. George (Muratori, tom. III pars I, p. 613, etc.), we find a luminous and not inelegant passage (l. I c. 3, p. 203, etc.):⁠—

… genuit quem nobilis Ursae (Ursi?)
Progenies, Romana domus, veterataque magnis
Fascibus in clero, pompasque experta senatûs,

Bellorumque manû grandi stipata parentum
Cardineos apices necnon fastigia dudum
Papatûs iterata tenens.

Muratori (Dissertatio XLII tom. III) observes that the first Ursini pontificate of Celestine III was unknown; he is inclined to read Ursi progenies. ↩
Filii Ursi, quondam Coelestini papae nepotes, de bonis ecclesiae Romanae ditati (Vita Innocenti III in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I). The partial prodigality of Nicholas III is more conspicuous in Villani and Muratori. Yet the Ursini would disdain the nephews of a modern pope. ↩
In his fifty-first Dissertation on the Italian Antiquities, Muratori explains the factions of the Guelphs and Ghibelines. ↩
Petrarch (tom. I, pp. 222⁠–⁠230) has celebrated this victory according to the Colonna; but two contemporaries, a Florentine (Giovanni Villani, l. X c. 220) and a Roman (Ludovico Monaldeschi, pp. 532⁠–⁠534), are less favorable to their arms. ↩
The Abbé de Sade (tom. I notes, pp. 61⁠–⁠66) has applied the sixth Canzone of Petrarch, Spirto Gentil, etc., to Stephen Colonna the Younger.

Orsi, lupi, leoni, aquile e serpi
Ad una gran marmorea colonna
Fanno noja sovente e à se danno.

↩
The Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque (Amsterdam, 1764, 1767, three vols. in quarto), form a copious, original, and entertaining work, a labor of love, composed from the accurate study of Petrarch and his contemporaries; but the hero is too often lost in the general history of the age, and the author too often languishes in the affectation of politeness and gallantry. In the preface to his first volume, he enumerates and weighs twenty Italian biographers, who have professedly treated of the same subject. ↩
The allegorical interpretation prevailed in the fifteenth century; but the wise commentators were not agreed whether they should understand by Laura, religion, or virtue, or the blessed Virgin, or ⸻. See the prefaces to the first and second volume. ↩
Laure de Noves, born about the year 1307, was married in January 1325 to Hugues de Sade, a noble citizen of Avignon, whose jealousy was not the effect of love, since he married a second wife within seven months of her death, which happened the 6th of April, 1348, precisely one and twenty years after Petrarch had seen and loved her. ↩
Corpus crebris partubus exhaustum; from one of these is issued, in the tenth degree, the Abbé de Sade, the fond and grateful biographer of Petrarch; and this domestic motive most probably suggested the idea of his work, and urged him to inquire into every circumstance that could affect the history and character of his grandmother (see particularly tom. I, pp. 122⁠–⁠133, notes pp. 7⁠–⁠58; tom. II, pp. 455⁠–⁠495, notes pp. 76⁠–⁠82). ↩
Vaucluse, so familiar to our English travellers, is described from the writings of Petrarch, and the local knowledge of his biographer (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, pp. 340⁠–⁠359). It was, in truth, the retreat of a hermit; and the moderns are much mistaken if they place Laura and a happy lover in the grotto. ↩
Of 1,250 pages, in a close print, at Basil in the sixteenth century, but without the date of the year. The Abbé de Sade calls aloud for a new edition of Petrarch’s Latin works; but I much doubt whether it would redound to the profit of the bookseller, or the amusement of the public. ↩
Consult Selden’s Titles of Honor, in his Works (vol. III, pp. 457⁠–⁠466). A hundred years before Petrarch, St. Francis received the visit of a poet, qui ab imperatore fuerat coronatus et exinde rex versuum dictus. ↩
From Augustus to Louis, the muse has too often been false and venal; but I much doubt whether any age or court can produce a similar establishment of a stipendiary poet, who in every reign, and at all events, is bound to furnish twice a year a measure of praise and verse, such as may be sung in the chapel, and, I believe, in the presence of the sovereign. I speak the more freely, as the best time for abolishing this ridiculous custom is while the prince is a man of virtue and the poet a man of genius. ↩
Isocrates (in Panegyricus, tom. I, pp. 116, 117, edit. Battie, Cantabrigiae, 1729) claims for his native Athens the glory of first instituting and recommending the ἀγῶνας⁠—καὶ τὰ ἆθλα μέγιστα⁠—μὴ μόνον τάχους καὶ ῥώμης, ἀλλὰ καὶ λόγων καὶ γνώμης. The example of the Panathenaea was imitated at Delphi; but the Olympic games were ignorant of a musical crown, till it was extorted by the vain tyranny of Nero (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Nero,” c. 23; Philostratus apud Casaubon ad loc.; Dion Cassius or Xiphilin, l. LXIII, pp. 1032, 1041; John Potter’s The Antiquities of Greece, vol. I, pp. 445, 450). ↩
The Capitoline games (certamen quinquenale, musicum, equestre, gymnicum) were instituted by Domitian (Suetonius, c. 4) in the year of Christ 86 (Censorinus, De die natali, c. 18, p. 100, edit. Havercamp), and were not abolished in the fourth century (Ausonius de Professoribus Burdegalensis V). If the crown were given to superior merit, the exclusion of Statius (Capitolia nostrae inficiata lyrae, Silvae, l. III v. 31) may do honor to the games of the Capitol; but the Latin poets who lived before Domitian were crowned only in the public opinion. ↩
Petrarch and the senators of Rome were ignorant that the laurel was not the Capitoline, but the Delphic crown (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, p. 39; Histoire critique de la République des lettres, tom. I, pp. 150⁠–⁠220). The victors in the Capitol were crowned with a garland of oak leaves (Martial, l. IV, “Epigram 54”). ↩
The pious grandson of Laura has labored, and not without success, to vindicate her immaculate chastity against the censures of the grave and the sneers of the profane (tom. II notes, pp. 76⁠–⁠82). ↩
The whole process of Petrarch’s coronation is accurately described by the Abbé de Sade (tom. I, pp. 425⁠–⁠435; tom. II, pp. 1⁠–⁠6, notes, pp. 1⁠–⁠13), from his own writings, and the Roman Diary of Ludovico Monaldeschi, without mixing in this authentic narrative the more recent fables of Sannuccio Delbene. ↩
The original act is printed among the “Pièces Justificatives” in the Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, pp. 50⁠–⁠53. ↩
To find the proofs of his enthusiasm for Rome, I need only request that the reader would open, by chance, either Petrarch or his French biographer. The latter has described the poet’s first visit to Rome (tom. I, pp. 323⁠–⁠335). But in the place of much idle rhetoric and morality, Petrarch might have amused the present and future age with an original account of the city and his coronation. ↩
It has been treated by the pen of a Jesuit, the Père de Cerceau, whose posthumous work (Conjuration de Nicolas Gabrini, dit de Rienzi, Tyran de Rome, en 1347) was published at Paris, 1748, in duodecimo. I am indebted to him for some facts and documents in John Hocsemius, canon of Liège, a contemporary historian (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. III, p. 273; tom. IV, p. 85). ↩
The Abbé de Sade, who so freely expatiates on the history of the fourteenth century, might treat, as his proper subject, a revolution in which the heart of Petrarch was so deeply engaged (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. II, pp. 50, 51, 320⁠–⁠417, notes, pp. 70⁠–⁠76; tom. III, pp. 221⁠–⁠243, 366⁠–⁠375). Not an idea or a fact in the writings of Petrarch has probably escaped him. ↩
Giovanni Villani, l. XII c. 89, 104, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XIII, pp. 969, 970, 981⁠–⁠983. ↩
In his third volume of Italian antiquities (pp. 249⁠–⁠548), Muratori has inserted the Historiae Romanae fragmenta ab anno Christi 1327 usque ad 1354 Neapolitana, in the original dialect of Rome or Naples in the fourteenth century, and a Latin version for the benefit of strangers. It contains the most particular and authentic life of Cola (Nicholas) di Rienzi, which had been printed at Bracciano, 1627, in quarto, under the name of Tomaso Fortifiocca, who is only mentioned in this work as having been punished by the tribune for forgery. Human nature is scarcely capable of such sublime or stupid impartiality; but whosoever is the author of these Fragments, he wrote on the spot and at the time, and paints, without design or art, the manners of Rome and the character of the tribune.9355 ↩
The first and splendid period of Rienzi, his tribunitian government, is contained in the eighteenth chapter of the Fragments (pp. 399⁠–⁠479), which, in the new division, forms the second book of the history in XXXVIII smaller chapters or sections. ↩
But see in Dr. Papencordt’s work, and in Rienzi’s own words, his claim to be a bastard son of the emperor Henry the Seventh, whose intrigue with his mother Rienzi relates with a sort of proud shamelessness. Compare account by the editor of Dr. Papencordt’s work in Quarterly Review, vol. LXIX. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The reader may be pleased with a specimen of the original idiom: Fò da soa juventutine nutricato di latte de eloquentia, bono gramatico, megliore rettuorico, autorista bravo. Deh como et quanto era veloce leitore! moito usava Tito Livio, Seneca, et Tullio, et Balerio Massimo, moito li dilettava le magnificentie di Julio Cesare raccontare. Tutta la die se speculava negl’ intagli di marmo lequali iaccio intorno Roma. Non era altri che esso, che sapesse lejere li antichi pataffii. Tutte scritture antiche vulgarizzava; quesse fiure di marmo justamente interpretava. Oh come spesso diceva, “Dove suono quelli buoni Romani? dove ene loro somma justitia? poleramme trovare in tempo che quessi fiuriano!” ↩
Sir J. Hobhouse published (in his Historical Illustrations of the Fourth Canto of “Childe Harold”) Rienzi’s joyful letter to the people of Rome, on the apparently favorable termination of this mission. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Petrarch compares the jealousy of the Romans with the easy temper of the husbands of Avignon (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, p. 330). ↩
All this Rienzi, writing at a later period to the archbishop of Prague, attributed to the criminal abandonment of his flock by the supreme pontiff. See Urkunden, apud Papencordt, p. XLIV; Quarterly Review, p. 355. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The fragments of the Lex Regia may be found in the Inscriptions of Gruter, tom. I, p. 242, and at the end of the Tacitus of Ernesti, with some learned notes of the editor, tom. II. ↩
I cannot overlook a stupendous and laughable blunder of Rienzi. The Lex Regia empowers Vespasian to enlarge the Pomoerium, a word familiar to every antiquary. It was not so to the tribune; he confounds it with pomarium, an orchard, translates lo Jardino de Roma cioene Italia, and is copied by the less excusable ignorance of the Latin translator (p. 406) and the French historian (p. 33). Even the learning of Muratori has slumbered over the passage. ↩
Priori (Bruto) tamen similior, juvenis uterque, longe ingenio quam cujus simulationem induerat, ut sub hoc obtentû liberator ille populi Romani aperiretur tempore suo⁠ ⁠… Ille regibus, hic tyrannis contemptus (Opera, p. 536).9356 ↩
Et ego, Deo semper auctore, ipsa die pristinâ (leg. primâ) Tribunatus, quae quidem dignitas a tempore deflorati Imperii, et per annos V^o et ultra sub tyrannicâ occupatione vacavit, ipsos omnes potentes indifferenter Deum at justitiam odientes, a meâ, ymo a Dei facie fugiendo vehementi Spiritu dissipavi, et nullo effuso cruore trementes expuli, sine ictu remanente Romane terre facie renovatâ. Libellus tribuni ad Caesarem, p. XXXIV. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
In one MS. I read (l. II c. 4, p. 409) perfumante quatro solli, in another, quatro florini, an important variety, since the florin was worth ten Roman solidi (Muratori, dissertatio XXVIII). The former reading would give us a population of 25,000, the latter of 250,000, families; and I much fear that the former is more consistent with the decay of Rome and her territory. ↩
Johannes Hocsemius, p. 498, apud Jean-Antoine du Cerceau, Histoire de Rienzi, p. 194. The fifteen tribunitian laws may be found in the Roman historian (whom for brevity I shall name) Fortifiocca, l. II c. 4. ↩
Fortifiocca, l. II c. 11. From the account of this shipwreck, we learn some circumstances of the trade and navigation of the age.
1. The ship was built and freighted at Naples for the ports of Marseilles and Avignon.
2. The sailors were of Naples and the isle of Oenaria, less skilful than those of Sicily and Genoa.
3. The navigation from Marseilles was a coasting voyage to the mouth of the Tiber, where they took shelter in a storm, but, instead of finding the current, unfortunately ran on a shoal; the vessel was stranded, the mariners escaped.
4. The cargo, which was pillaged, consisted of the revenue of Provence for the royal treasury, many bags of pepper and cinnamon, and bales of French cloth, to the value of 20,000 florins; a rich prize.
↩
It was thus that Oliver Cromwell’s old acquaintance, who remembered his vulgar and ungracious entrance into the House of Commons, were astonished at the ease and majesty of the Protector on his throne (see William Harris’s An Historical and Critical Account of the Life of Cromwell, pp. 27⁠–⁠34, from Clarendon, Warwick, Whitelocke, Waller, etc.). The consciousness of merit and power will sometimes elevate the manners to the station. ↩
See the causes, circumstances, and effects of the death of Andrew, in Giannone (tom. III l. XXIII, pp. 220⁠–⁠229), and the Life of Petrarch (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. II, pp. 143⁠–⁠148, 245⁠–⁠250, 375⁠–⁠379, notes, pp. 21⁠–⁠37.) The Abbé de Sade wishes to extenuate her guilt. ↩
The advocate who pleaded against Jane could add nothing to the logical force and brevity of his master’s epistle. Johanna! inordinata vita praecedens, retentio potestatis in regno, neglecta vindicta, vir alter susceptus, et excusatio subsequens, necis viri tui te probant fuisse participem et consortem. Jane of Naples and Mary of Scotland have a singular conformity. ↩
In his letter to the archbishop of Prague, Rienzi thus describes the effect of his elevation on Italy and on the world: “Did I not restore real peace among the cities which were distracted by factions? did I not cause all the citizens, exiled by party violence, with their wretched wives and children, to be readmitted? had I not begun to extinguish the factious names (scismatica nomina) of Guelf and Ghibelline, for which countless thousands had perished body and soul, under the eyes of their pastors, by the reduction of the city of Rome and all Italy into one amicable, peaceful, holy, and united confederacy? the consecrated standards and banners having been by me collected and blended together, and, in witness to our holy association and perfect union, offered up in the presence of the ambassadors of all the cities of Italy, on the day of the assumption of our Blessed Lady.” P. XLVII.

In the Libellus ad Caesarem: “I received the homage and submission of all the sovereigns of Apulia, the barons and counts, and almost all the people of Italy. I was honored by solemn embassies and letters by the emperor of Constantinople and the king of England. The queen of Naples submitted herself and her kingdom to the protection of the tribune. The king of Hungary, by two solemn embassies, brought his cause against his queen and his nobles before my tribunal; and I venture to say further, that the fame of the tribune alarmed the sultan of Babylon. When the Christian pilgrims to the sepulchre of our Lord related to the Christian and Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem all the yet unheard of and wonderful circumstances of the reformation in Rome, both Jews and Christians celebrated the event with unusual festivities. When the sultan inquired the cause of these rejoicings, and received this intelligence about Rome, he ordered all the havens and cities on the coast to be fortified and put in a state of defence.” P. XXXV. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
See the “Epistola Hortatoria de Capessenda Republica,” from Petrarch to Nicholas Rienzi (Opera, pp. 535⁠–⁠540), and the fifth eclogue or pastoral, a perpetual and obscure allegory. ↩
“An illustrious female writer has drawn, with a single stroke, the character of Rienzi, Crescentius, and Arnold of Brescia, the fond restorers of Roman liberty: ‘Qui ont pris les souvenirs pour les espérances.’ ” Corinne, tom. I, p. 159. “Could Tacitus have excelled this?” Hallam, vol. I, p. 418. —⁠M. ↩
In his Roman questions, Plutarch (Opuscula varia, tom. I, pp. 505, 506, edit. Graecorum, Henricus Stephanus) states, on the most constitutional principles, the simple greatness of the tribunes, who were not properly magistrates, but a check on magistracy. It was their duty and interest ὁμοιοῦσθαι σχήματι, καὶ στολῇ καὶ διαίτῃ τοῖς ἐπιτυγχάνουσι τῶν πολιτῶν⁠ ⁠… καταπατεῖσθαι δεῖ (a saying of C. Curio) καὶ μὴ σεμνὸν εἶναι τῇ δημάρχου ὄψει⁠ ⁠… ὅσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον ἐκταπεινοῦται τῷ σώματι, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον αὔξεται τῇ δυνάμει, etc. Rienzi, and Petrarch himself, were incapable perhaps of reading a Greek philosopher; but they might have imbibed the same modest doctrines from their favorite Latins, Livy and Valerius Maximus. ↩
I could not express in English the forcible though barbarous title of Zelator Italiae, which Rienzi assumed. ↩
Era bell’ homo (l. II c. 1, p. 399). It is remarkable that the riso sarcastico of the Bracciano edition is wanting in the Roman MS. from which Muratori has given the text. In his second reign, when he is painted almost as a monster, Rienzi travea una ventresca tonna trionfale, a modo de uno Abbate Asiano, or Asinino (l. III c. 18, p. 523). ↩
Strange as it may seem, this festival was not without a precedent. In the year 1327, two barons, a Colonna and an Ursini, the usual balance, were created knights by the Roman people: their bath was of rose-water, their beds were decked with royal magnificence, and they were served at St. Maria of Araceli in the Capitol by the twenty-eight buoni huomini. They afterwards received from Robert, king of Naples, the sword of chivalry (Historiae Romanae, l. I c. 2, p. 259). ↩
All parties believed in the leprosy and bath of Constantine (Petrarch, Epistolae familiares VI 2), and Rienzi justified his own conduct by observing to the court of Avignon that a vase which had been used by a pagan could not be profaned by a pious Christian. Yet this crime is specified in the bull of excommunication (Hocsemius, apud du Cerceau, pp. 189, 190). ↩
This verbal summons of Pope Clement VI, which rests on the authority of the Roman historian and a Vatican MS., is disputed by the biographer of Petrarch (tom. II, notes pp. 70⁠–⁠76), with arguments rather of decency than of weight. The court of Avignon might not choose to agitate this delicate question. ↩
The summons of the two rival emperors, a monument of freedom and folly, is extant in Hocsemius (Cerçeau, pp. 163⁠–⁠166). ↩
It is singular that the Roman historian should have overlooked this sevenfold coronation, which is sufficiently proved by internal evidence, and the testimony of Hocsemius, and even of Rienzi (Cerçeau, pp. 167⁠–⁠170, 229). ↩
It was on this occasion that he made the profane comparison between himself and our Lord; and the striking circumstance took place which he relates in his letter to the archbishop of Prague. In the midst of all the wild and joyous exultation of the people, one of his most zealous supporters, a monk, who was in high repute for his sanctity, stood apart in a corner of the church and wept bitterly! A domestic chaplain of Rienzi’s inquired the cause of his grief. “Now,” replied the man of God, “is thy master cast down from heaven⁠—never saw I man so proud. By the aid of the Holy Ghost he has driven the tyrants from the city without drawing a sword; the cities and the sovereigns of Italy have submitted to his power. Why is he so arrogant and ungrateful towards the Most High? Why does he seek earthly and transitory rewards for his labors, and in his wanton speech liken himself to the Creator? Tell thy master that he can only atone for this offence by tears of penitence.” In the evening the chaplain communicated this solemn rebuke to the Τribune: it appalled him for the time, but was soon forgotten in the tumult and hurry of business. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Puoi se faceva stare denante a se, mentre sedeva, li baroni tutti in piedi ritti co le vraccia piecate, e co li capucci tratti. Deh como stavano paurosi! (Historiae Romanae, l. II c. 20, p. 439.) He saw them, and we see them. ↩
The original letter, in which Rienzi justifies his treatment of the Colonna (Hocsemius, apud du Cerceau, pp. 222⁠–⁠229), displays, in genuine colors, the mixture of the knave and the madman. ↩
Rienzi, in the above-mentioned letter, ascribes to St. Martin the tribune, Boniface VIII the enemy of Colonna, himself, and the Roman people, the glory of the day, which Villani likewise (l. XII, c. 104) describes as a regular battle. The disorderly skirmish, the flight of the Romans, and the cowardice of Rienzi are painted in the simple and minute narrative of Fortifiocca, or the anonymous citizen (l. I c. 34⁠–⁠37). ↩
In describing the fall of the Colonna, I speak only of the family of Stephen the Elder, who is often confounded by the Père du Cerceau with his son. That family was extinguished, but the house has been perpetuated in the collateral branches, of which I have not a very accurate knowledge. Circumspice (says Petrarch) familiae tuae statum, Columniensium domos: solito pauciores habeat columnas. Quid ad rem? modo fundamentum stabile, solidumque permaneat. ↩
The convent of St. Silvester was founded, endowed, and protected by the Colonna cardinals, for the daughters of the family who embraced a monastic life, and who, in the year 1318, were twelve in number. The others were allowed to marry with their kinsmen in the fourth degree, and the dispensation was justified by the small number and close alliances of the noble families of Rome (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, p. 110, tom. II, p. 401). ↩
Petrarch wrote a stiff and pedantic letter of consolation (Epistolae familiares, l. VII, “Epistola 13,” pp. 682, 683). The friend was lost in the patriot. Nulla toto orbe principum familia carior; carior tamen respublica, carior Roma, carior Italia.

Je rends grâces aux Dieux de n’être pas Romain.

↩
This council and opposition is obscurely mentioned by Pollistore, a contemporary writer, who has preserved some curious and original facts (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XXV c. 31, pp. 798⁠–⁠804). ↩
The briefs and bulls of Clement VI against Rienzi are translated by the Père du Cerceau (pp. 196, 232), from the Ecclesiastical Annals of Odericus Raynaldus (“AD 1347,” No. 15, 17, 21, etc.), who found them in the archives of the Vatican. ↩
Matteo Villani describes the origin, character, and death of this count of Minorbino, a man da natura inconstante e senza fede, whose grandfather, a crafty notary, was enriched and ennobled by the spoils of the Saracens of Nocera (l. VII c. 102, 103). See his imprisonment, and the efforts of Petrarch, tom. II, pp. 149⁠–⁠151. ↩
The troubles of Rome, from the departure to the return of Rienzi, are related by Matteo Villani (l. II c. 47; l. III c. 33, 57, 78) and Thomas Fortifiocca (l. III c. 1⁠–⁠4). I have slightly passed over these secondary characters, who imitated the original tribune. ↩
These visions, of which the friends and enemies of Rienzi seem alike ignorant, are surely magnified by the zeal of Pollistore, a Dominican inquisitor (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XXV c. 36, p. 819). Had the tribune taught that Christ was succeeded by the Holy Ghost, that the tyranny of the pope would be abolished, he might have been convicted of heresy and treason without offending the Roman people.9357 ↩
The astonishment, the envy almost, of Petrarch is a proof, if not of the truth of this incredible fact, at least of his own veracity. The Abbé de Sade (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, p. 242) quotes the sixth epistle of the thirteenth book of Petrarch, but it is of the royal MS. which he consulted, and not of the ordinary Basil edition (p. 920). ↩
Aegidius or Giles Albornoz, a noble Spaniard, archbishop of Toledo, and cardinal legate in Italy (AD 1353⁠–⁠1367), restored, by his arms and counsels, the temporal dominion of the popes. His life has been separately written by Sepulveda; but Dryden could not reasonably suppose that his name, or that of Wolsey, had reached the ears of the Mufti in Don Sebastian. ↩
From Matteo Villani and Fortifiocca, the Père du Cerceau (pp. 344⁠–⁠394) has extracted the life and death of the Chevalier Montreal, the life of a robber, and the death of a hero. At the head of a free company, the first that desolated Italy, he became rich and formidable; he had money in all the banks, 60,000 ducats in Padua alone. ↩
The exile, second government, and death of Rienzi are minutely related by the anonymous Roman who appears neither his friend nor his enemy (l. III c. 12⁠–⁠25). Petrarch, who loved the tribune, was indifferent to the fate of the senator. ↩
The hopes and the disappointment of Petrarch are agreeably described in his own words by the French biographer (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, pp. 375⁠–⁠413); but the deep though secret wound was the coronation of Zanubi, the poet-laureate, by Charles IV. ↩
See, in his accurate and amusing biographer, the application of Petrarch and Rome to Benedict XII in the year 1334 (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, pp. 261⁠–⁠265), to Clement VI in 1342 (tom. II, pp. 45⁠–⁠47), and to Urban V in 1366 (tom. III, pp. 677⁠–⁠691); his praise (pp. 711⁠–⁠715) and excuse (p. 771) of the last of these pontiffs. His angry controversy on the respective merits of France and Italy may be found, Opera, pp. 1068⁠–⁠1085. ↩
Squalida sed quoniam facies, neglectaque cultû
Caesaries; multisque malis lassata senectus
Eripuit solitam effigiem: vetus accipe nomen;
Roma vocor.
(Carmina, l. 2, p. 77.)

He spins this allegory beyond all measure or patience. The epistles to Urban V in prose are more simple and persuasive (Senilium, l. VII, pp. 811⁠–⁠827; l. IX, “Epistola I,” pp. 844⁠–⁠854). ↩
I have not leisure to expatiate on the legends of St. Bridget or St. Catherine, the last of which might furnish some amusing stories. Their effect on the mind of Gregory XI is attested by the last solemn words of the dying pope, who admonished the assistants, ut caverent ab hominibus, sive viris, sive mulieribus, sub specie religionis loquentibus visiones sui capitis, quia per tales ipse seductus, etc. (Baluze, Note ad Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, tom. I, p. 1223). ↩
This predatory expedition is related by Froissard (Chronique, tom. I, p. 230), and in the life of Du Guesclin (Collection générale des mémoires historiques, tom. IV c. 16, pp. 107⁠–⁠113). As early as the year 1361, the court of Avignon had been molested by similar freebooters, who afterwards passed the Alps (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. III, pp. 563⁠–⁠569). ↩
Fleury alleges, from the annals of Odericus Raynaldus, the original treaty which was signed the 21st of December, 1376 between Gregory XI and the Romans (Histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. XX, p. 275). ↩
The first crown or regnum (du Cange, Glossarium Latinitatis, tom. V, p. 702) on the episcopal mitre of the popes is ascribed to the gift of Constantine or Clovis. The second was added by Boniface VIII as the emblem, not only of a spiritual, but of a temporal, kingdom. The three states of the church are represented by the triple crown which was introduced by John XXII or Benedict XII (Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, pp. 258, 259). ↩
Baluze (Note ad Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, tom. I, pp. 1194, 1195) produces the original evidence which attests the threats of the Roman ambassadors, and the resignation of the abbot of Mount Cassin, qui, ultro se offerens, respondit se civem Romanum esse, et illud velle quod ipsi vellent. ↩
The return of the popes from Avignon to Rome, and their reception by the people, are related in the original lives of Urban V and Gregory XI, in Baluze (Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, tom. I, pp. 363⁠–⁠486) and Muratori (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, pp. 610⁠–⁠712). In the disputes of the schism, every circumstance was severely though partially scrutinized, more especially in the great inquest which decided the obedience of Castile, and to which Baluze, in his notes, so often and so largely appeals, from a MS. volume in the Harley library (p. 1281, etc.). ↩
Can the death of a good man be esteemed a punishment by those who believe in the immortality of the soul? They betray the instability of their faith. Yet, as a mere philosopher, I cannot agree with the Greeks, ὃν οἱ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν ἀποθνῇσκει νέος (Brunck, Gnomici poetae Graeci, p. 231). See in Herodotus (l. I c. 31) the moral and pleasing tale of the Argive youths. ↩
In the first book of the Histoire du Concile de Pise, M. Lenfant has abridged and compared the original narratives of the adherents of Urban and Clement, of the Italians and Germans, the French and Spaniards. The latter appear to be the most active and loquacious, and every fact and word in the original Lives of Gregory XI and Clement VII are supported in the notes of their editor Baluze. ↩
The ordinal numbers of the popes seems to decide the question against Clement VII and Benedict XIII, who are boldly stigmatized as antipopes by the Italians, while the French are content with authorities and reasons to plead the cause of doubt and toleration (Baluze in Praefatio). It is singular, or rather it is not singular, that saints, visions, and miracles should be common to both parties. ↩
Baluze strenuously labors (Notes, pp. 1271⁠–⁠1280) to justify the pure and pious motives of Charles V, king of France: he refused to hear the arguments of Urban; but were not the Urbanists equally deaf to the reasons of Clement, etc.? ↩
An epistle, or declamation, in the name of Edward III (Baluze, Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, tom. I, p. 553), displays the zeal of the English nation against the Clementines. Nor was their zeal confined to words; the bishop of Norwich led a crusade of 60,000 bigots beyond sea (Hume’s History of England, vol. III, pp. 57, 58). ↩
Besides the general historians, the diaries of Delphinus Gentilis, Peter Antonius, and Stephen Infessura, in the great Collection of Muratori, represent the state and misfortunes of Rome. ↩
It is supposed by Giannone (tom. III, p. 292) that he styled himself Rex Romae, a title unknown to the world since the expulsion of Tarquin. But a nearer inspection has justified the reading of Rex Ramae, of Rama, an obscure kingdom annexed to the crown of Hungary. ↩
The leading and decisive part which France assumed in the schism is stated by Peter du Puis in a separate history, extracted from authentic records, and inserted in the seventh volume of the last and best edition of his friend Thuanus (tom. XI, pp. 110⁠–⁠184). ↩
Of this measure, John Gerson, a stout doctor, was the author or the champion. The proceedings of the university of Paris and the Gallican church were often prompted by his advice, and are copiously displayed in his theological writings, of which Leclerc (Bibliothèque choisie, tom. X, pp. 1⁠–⁠78) has given a valuable extract. John Gerson acted an important part in the councils of Pisa and Constance. ↩
Leonardus Brunus Aretinus, one of the revivers of classic learning in Italy, who, after serving many years as secretary in the Roman court, retired to the honorable office of chancellor of the republic of Florence (Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, tom. I, p. 290). Lenfant has given the version of this curious epistle (Histoire du Concile de Pise, tom. I, pp. 192⁠–⁠195). ↩
I cannot overlook this great national cause, which was vigorously maintained by the English ambassadors against those of France. The latter contended that Christendom was essentially distributed into the four great nations and votes of Italy, Germany, France, and Spain; and that the lesser kingdoms (such as England, Denmark, Portugal, etc.) were comprehended under one or other of these great divisions. The English asserted that the British islands, of which they were the head, should be considered as a fifth and coordinate nation with an equal vote; and every argument of truth or fable was introduced to exalt the dignity of their country. Including England, Scotland, Wales, the four kingdoms of Ireland, and the Orkneys, the British Islands are decorated with eight royal crowns, and discriminated by four or five languages, English, Welsh, Cornish, Scotch, Irish, etc. The greater island, from north to south, measures 800 miles, or 40 days’ journey; and England alone contains 32 counties and 52,000 parish churches (a bold account!) besides cathedrals, colleges, priories, and hospitals. They celebrate the mission of St. Joseph of Arimathea, the birth of Constantine, and the legatine powers of the two primates, without forgetting the testimony of Bartholomey de Glanville (AD 1360), who reckons only four Christian kingdoms, 1. of Rome, 2. of Constantinople, 3. of Ireland, which had been transferred to the English monarchs, and 4. of Spain. Our countrymen prevailed in the council, but the victories of Henry V added much weight to their arguments. The adverse pleadings were found at Constance by Sir Robert Wingfield, ambassador of Henry VIII to the emperor Maximilian I and by him printed in 1517 at Louvain. From a Leipzig MS. they are more correctly published in the Collection of Hermann von der Hardt, tom. V; but I have only seen Lenfant’s abstract of these acts (Histoire du Concile de Constance, tom. II, pp. 447, 453, etc.). ↩
The histories of the three successive councils, Pisa, Constance, and Basil, have been written with a tolerable degree of candor, industry, and elegance, by a Protestant minister, M. Lenfant, who retired from France to Berlin. They form six volumes in quarto; and as Basil is the worst, so Constance is the best part of the Collection. ↩
See the twenty-seventh dissertation of the Antiquities of Muratori, and the first Instruction of the Science des médailles of the Père Joubert and the Baron de la Bastie. The metallic history of Martin V and his successors has been composed by two monks, Moulinet a Frenchman, and Filippo Bonanni an Italian; but I understand that the first part of the series is restored from more recent coins. ↩
Besides the Lives of Eugenius IV (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, p. 869, and tom. XXV, p. 256), the diaries of Paul Petroni and Stephen Infessura are the best original evidence for the revolt of the Romans against Eugenius IV. The former, who lived at the time and on the spot, speaks the language of a citizen equally afraid of priestly and popular tyranny. ↩
The coronation of Frederic III is described by Lenfant (Histoire du Concile de Basle, tom. II, pp. 276⁠–⁠288), from Aeneas Sylvius, a spectator and actor in that splendid scene. ↩
The oath of fidelity imposed on the emperor by the pope is recorded and sanctified in the Clementines (l. II tit. IX); and Aeneas Sylvius, who objects to this new demand, could not foresee that in a few years he should ascend the throne and imbibe the maxims of Boniface VIII. ↩
Lo senatore di Roma, vestito di brocarto con quella beretta, e con quelle maniche, et ornamenti di pelle, co’ quali va alle feste di Testaccio e Nagone, might escape the eye of Aeneas Sylvius, but he is viewed with admiration and complacency by the Roman citizen (Diario della città di Roma di Stephano Infessura, p. 1133). ↩
See, in the statutes of Rome, the “senator and three judges” (l. I c. 3⁠–⁠14), the “conservators” (l. I c. 15⁠–⁠17, l. III c. 4), the “caporioni” (l. I c. 18, l. III c. 8), the “secret council” (l. III c. 2), the “common council” (l. III c. 3). The title of “feuds,” “defiances,” “acts of violence,” etc., is spread through many a chapter (c. 14⁠–⁠40) of the second book. ↩
Statuta almae urbis Romae, auctoritate S.D.N. D. Gregorii papae XIII Pont. Max. a senatu populoque Romano reformata, et editu, Romae, 1580, in folio. The obsolete, repugnant statutes of antiquity were confounded in five books, and Lucas Paetus, a lawyer and antiquarian, was appointed to act as the modern Tribonian. Yet I regret the old code, with the rugged crust of freedom and barbarism. ↩
In my time (1765) and in M. Grosley’s (Observations sur l’Italie, tom. II, p. 361), the senator of Rome was M. Bielke, a noble Swede, and a proselyte to the Catholic faith. The pope’s right to appoint the senator and the conservator is implied rather than affirmed in the statutes. ↩
Besides the curious though concise narrative of Machiavel (Istorie Fiorentine, l. VI Opere, tom. I, pp. 210, 211, edit. Londra, 1747, in quarto), the Porcarian conspiracy is related in the Diary of Stephen Infessura (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars II, pp. 1134, 1135), and in a separate tract by Leo Baptista Alberti (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XXV, pp. 609⁠–⁠614). It is amusing to compare the style and sentiments of the courtier and citizen. Facinus profecto quo⁠ ⁠… neque periculo horribilius, neque audaciâ detestabilius, neque crudelitate tetrius, a quoquam perditissimo uspiam excogitatum sit.⁠ ⁠… Perdette la vita quell’ huomo da bene, e amatore dello bene e libertà di Roma. ↩
The disorders of Rome, which were much inflamed by the partiality of Sixtus IV, are exposed in the diaries of two spectators, Stephen Infessura and an anonymous citizen. See the troubles of the year 1484, and the death of the protonotary Colonna, in tom. III pars II, pp. 1083, 1158. ↩
Est toute la terre de l’église troublée pour cette partialité (des Colonnes et des Ursins) come nous dirions Luce et Grammont, ou en Hollande Houc et Caballan; et quand ce ne seroit ce différend la terre de l’église seroit la plus heureuse habitation pour les sujets qui soit dans toute le monde (car ils ne payent ni tailles ni guères autres choses), et seroient toujours bien conduits (car toujours les papes sont sages et bien conselliés); mais très souvent en advient de grands et cruels meurtres et pilleries. ↩
By the economy of Sixtus V the revenue of the ecclesiastical state was raised to two millions and a half of Roman crowns (Vita, tom. II, pp. 291⁠–⁠296); and so regular was the military establishment that in one month Clement VIII could invade the duchy of Ferrara with three thousand horse and twenty thousand foot (tom. III, p. 64). Since that time (AD 1597), the papal arms are happily rusted: but the revenue must have gained some nominal increase.9358 ↩
More especially by Guicciardini and Machiavel; in the General History of the former, in the Florentine Histories, The Prince, and the political discourses of the latter. These, with their worthy successors, Fra Paolo Sarpi and Davila, were justly esteemed the first historians of modern languages, till, in the present age, Scotland arose to dispute the prize with Italy herself. ↩
In the history of the Gothic siege, I have compared the Barbarians with the subjects of Charles V (see here in chapter XXXI): an anticipation which, like that of the Tartar conquests, I indulged with the less scruple, as I could scarcely hope to reach the conclusion of my work. ↩
The ambitious and feeble hostilities of the Caraffa pope, Paul IV, may be seen in Thuanus (l. XVI⁠–⁠XVIII) and Giannone (tom. IV, pp. 149⁠–⁠163). Those Catholic bigots, Philip II and the duke of Alva, presumed to separate the Roman prince from the vicar of Christ; yet the holy character, which would have sanctified his victory, was decently applied to protect his defeat.9359 ↩
This gradual change of manners and expense is admirably explained by Dr. Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, vol. I, pp. 495⁠–⁠504), who proves, perhaps too severely, that the most salutary effects have flowed from the meanest and most selfish causes. ↩
Mr. Hume (History of England, vol. I, p. 389) too hastily concludes that, if the civil and ecclesiastical powers be united in the same person, it is of little moment whether he be styled prince or prelate, since the temporal character will always predominate. ↩
A Protestant may disdain the unworthy preference of St. Francis or St. Dominic, but he will not rashly condemn the zeal or judgment of Sixtus V, who placed the statues of the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul on the vacant columns of Trajan and Antonine. ↩
A wandering Italian, Gregorio Leti, has given the Vita di Sisto V (Amstelaedamo, 1721, three vols. in duodecimo), a copious and amusing work, but which does not command our absolute confidence. Yet the character of the man, and the principal facts, are supported by the annals of Spondanus and Muratori (AD 1585⁠–⁠1590), and the contemporary history of the great Thuanus (l. LXXXII c. 1, 2; l. LXXXIV c. 10; l. C c. 8).9360 ↩
These privileged places, the quartieri or franchises, were adopted from the Roman nobles by the foreign ministers. Julius II had once abolished the abominandum et detestandum franchitiarum hujusmodi nomen; and after Sixtus V they again revived. I cannot discern either the justice or magnanimity of Louis XIV who, in 1687, sent his ambassador, the marquis de Lavardin, to Rome, with an armed force of a thousand officers, guards, and domestics, to maintain this iniquitous claim, and insult Pope Innocent XI in the heart of his capital (Vita di Sisto V, tom. III, pp. 260⁠–⁠278; Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. XV, pp. 494⁠–⁠496; and Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XIV, tom. I c. 14, pp. 58, 59). ↩
This outrage produced a decree, which was inscribed on marble and placed in the Capitol. It is expressed in a style of manly simplicity and freedom: Si quis, sive privatus, sive magistratum gerens de collocandâ vivo pontifici statuâ mentionem facere ausit, legitimo S.P.Q.R. decreto in perpetuum infamis et publicorum munerum expers esto. MDXC mense Augusto (Vita di Sisto V, tom. III, p. 469). I believe that this decree is still observed, and I know that every monarch who deserves a statue should himself impose the prohibition. ↩
The histories of the church, Italy, and Christendom have contributed to the chapter which I now conclude. In the original Lives of the Popes, we often discover the city and republic of Rome; and the events of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are preserved in the rude and domestic chronicles which I have carefully inspected, and shall recapitulate in the order of time.

1. Monaldeschi (Ludovici Boncomitis) Fragmenta Annalium Romanorum AD 1328, in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores of Muratori, tom. XII, p. 525. N.B. The credit of this fragment is somewhat hurt by a singular interpolation, in which the author relates his own death at the age of 115 years.

2. “Fragmenta Historiae Romanae” (vulgo Thomas Fortifioccae), in Romana dialecto vulgari (AD 1327⁠–⁠1354, in Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, tom. III, pp. 247⁠–⁠548); the authentic groundwork of the history of Rienzi.

3. Delphini (gentilis) diarium Romanum (AD 1370⁠–⁠1410), in the Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars II, p. 846.

4. Antonii (Petri), Diario Romano (AD 1404⁠–⁠1417), tom. XXIV, p. 969.

5. Petroni (Pauli), Miscellanea historica Romani (AD 1433⁠–⁠1446), tom. XXIV, p. 1101.

6. Volaterrani (Jacobi), Diarium Romanum (AD 1472⁠–⁠1484), tom. XXIII, p. 81.

7. Anonymi, Diarium urbis Romae (AD 1481⁠–⁠1492), tom. III pars II, p. 1069.

8. Infessurae (Stephani), Diarium urbis Romae (AD 1294, or 1378⁠–⁠1494), tom. III pars II, p. 1109.

9. Historia arcana sive de vita Alexandri VI Papae seu excerpta ex diario Johannis Burcardi (AD 1492⁠–⁠1503), edita à Godefridi Guilielmi Leibnizio, Hanover, 1697, in quarto. The large and valuable Journal of Burcard might be completed from the MSS. in different libraries of Italy and France (M. de Foncemagne, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XVII, pp. 597⁠–⁠606).

Except the last, all these fragments and diaries are inserted in the Collections of Muratori, my guide and master in the history of Italy. His country and the public are indebted to him for the following works on that subject:

1. Rerum Italicarum scriptores (AD 500⁠–⁠1500), quorum potissima pars nunc primum in lucem prodit, etc., twenty-eight vols. in folio, Milan, 1723⁠–⁠1738, 1751. A volume of chronological and alphabetical tables is still wanting as a key to this great work, which is yet in a disorderly and defective state.

2. Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, six vols. in folio, Milan, 1738⁠–⁠1743, in LXXV curious dissertations on the manners, government, religion, etc., of the Italians of the darker ages, with a large supplement of charters, chronicles, etc.

3. Dissertazioni sopra le antichità Italiane, three vols. in quarto, Milano, 1751, a free version by the author, which may be quoted with the same confidence as the Latin text of the Antiquities.

4. Annali d’Italia, eighteen vols. in octavo, Milan, 1753⁠–⁠1756, a dry, though accurate and useful, abridgment of the history of Italy, from the birth of Christ to the middle of the eighteenth century.

5. Dell’ antichità estense ed Italiane, two vols. in folio, Modena, 1717, 1740. In the history of this illustrious race, the parent of our Brunswick kings, the critic is not seduced by the loyalty or gratitude of the subject. In all his works, Muratori approves himself a diligent and laborious writer, who aspires above the prejudices of a Catholic priest. He was born in the year 1672, and died in the year 1750, after passing near sixty years in the libraries of Milan and Modena (Vita del proposto Ludovico Antonio Muratori, by his nephew and successor Giovanni Francesco Soli Muratori Venezia, 1756, in quarto). ↩
It should be Pope Martin the Fifth. See Gibbon’s own note; and Hobhouse, Historical Illustrations of the Fourth Canto of “Childe Harold”, p. 155. —⁠M. ↩
I have already (this note and this note, on ch. LXV) mentioned the age, character, and writings of Poggius; and particularly noticed the date of this elegant moral lecture on the varieties of fortune. ↩
Consedimus in ipsis Tarpeiae arcis ruinis, pone ingens portae cujusdam, ut puto, templi, marmoreum limen, plurimasque passim confractas columnas, unde magnâ ex parte prospectus urbis patet (p. 5). ↩
Aeneid VIII 97⁠–⁠369. This ancient picture, so artfully introduced, and so exquisitely finished, must have been highly interesting to an inhabitant of Rome; and our early studies allow us to sympathize in the feelings of a Roman. ↩
Capitolium adeo⁠ ⁠… immutatum ut vineae in senatorum subsellia successerint, stercorum ac purgamentorum receptaculum factum. Respice ad Palatinum montem⁠ ⁠… vasta rudera⁠ ⁠… caeteros colles perlustra omnia vacua aedificiis, ruinis vineisque oppleta conspicies (Poggius, De varietate fortunae, p. 21). ↩
See Poggius, pp. 8⁠–⁠22. ↩
It has been proved only quite recently (by excavations in 1895) that the baths of Titus and Trajan were distinct; it was not a case of baths built by Titus and restored or improved by Trajan. The Propylaea of the Thermae of Titus have been found on the north side of the Coliseum; the baths of Trajan were to the northeast, almost adjoining. See Rodolfo Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries, p. 365⁠–⁠6. On the Aventine there were other large Baths, the Thermae Decianae. See Lanciani, idem, p. 544⁠–⁠6. —⁠B. ↩
One was in the Via Nomentana; est alter praeterea Gallieno principi dicatus, ut superscriptio indicat, Viâ Nomentana. Hobhouse, p. 154. Poggio likewise mentions the building which Gibbon ambiguously says he “might have overlooked.” —⁠M. ↩
“Liber de Mirabilibus Romae,” ex Registro Nicolai Cardinalis de Arragoniâ, in Bibliothecâ St. Isidori Armario IV, No. 69. This treatise, with some short but pertinent notes, has been published by Montfaucon (Diarium Italicum, pp. 283⁠–⁠301), who thus delivers his own critical opinion: Scriptor xiii^mi circiter saeculi, ut ibidem notatur; antiquariae rei imperitus et, ut ab illo aevo, nugis et anilibus fabellis refertus: sed, quia monumenta, quae iis temporibus Romae supererant pro modulo recenset, non parum inde lucis mutuabitur qui Romanis antiquitatibus indagandis operam navabit (p. 283). ↩
The Père Mabillon (Veterum analectorum, tom. IV, p. 502) has published an anonymous pilgrim of the ninth century, who, in his visit round the churches and holy places of Rome, touches on several buildings, especially porticos, which had disappeared before the thirteenth century. ↩
On the Septizonium, see the Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque (tom. I, p. 325), Donatus (p. 338), and Nardini (pp. 117, 414). ↩
The age of the pyramids is remote and unknown, since Diodorus Siculus (tom. I l. I c. 44, p. 72) is unable to decide whether they were constructed 1,000 or 3,400 years before the 180th Olympiad. Sir John Marsham’s contracted scale of the Egyptian dynasties would fix them about 2,000 years before Christ (Canon chronicus, p. 47). ↩
See the speech of Glaucus in the Iliad (VI 146). This natural but melancholy image is peculiar to Homer. ↩
The learning and criticism of M. des Vignoles (Histoire critique de la République des lettres, tom. VIII, pp. 74⁠–⁠118; IX, pp. 172⁠–⁠187) dates the fire of Rome from AD 64, July 19, and the subsequent persecution of the Christians from November 15 of the same year. ↩
Quippe in regiones quatuordecim Roma dividitur, quarum quatuor integrae manebant, tres solo tenus dejectae: septem reliquis pauca testorum vestigia supererant, lacera et semiusta. Among the old relics that were irreparably lost, Tacitus enumerates the temple of the moon of Servius Tullius; the fane and altar consecrated by Evander praesenti Herculi; the temple of Jupiter Stator, a vow of Romulus; the palace of Numa; the temple of Vesta, cum Penatibus populi Romani. He then deplores the opes tot victoriis quaesitae et Graecarum artium decora⁠ ⁠… multa quae seniores meminerant, quae reparari nequibant (Annales XV 40, 41). ↩
AUC 507, repentina subversio ipsius Romae praevenit triumphum Romanorum⁠ ⁠… diversae ignium aquarumque clades pene absumsere urbem Nam Tiberis insolitis auctus imbribus et ultra opinionem, vel diuturnitate vel magnitudine redundans, omnia Romae aedificia in plano posita delevit. Diversae qualitates locorum ad unam convenere perniciem: quoniam et quae segnior inundatio tenuit madefacta dissolvit, et quae cursus torrentis invenit impulsa dejecit (Orosius, Historia adversus Paganos, l. IV c. 11, p. 244, edit. Havercamp). Yet we may observe that it is the plan and study of the Christian apologist to magnify the calamities of the pagan world. ↩
Vidimus flavum Tiberim, retortis
Littore Etrusco violenter undis,
Ire dejectum monumenta Regis
Templaque Vestae.
(Horatius, Carmina I 2.)

If the palace of Numa and temple of Vesta were thrown down in Horace’s time, what was consumed of those buildings by Nero’s fire could hardly deserve the epithets of vetustissima or incorrupta. ↩
Ad coercendas inundationes alveum Tiberis laxavit, ac repurgavit, completum olim ruderibus, et aedificiorum prolapsionibus coarctatum (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Augustus,” c. 30). ↩
Tacitus (Annales I 79) reports the petitions of the different towns of Italy to the senate against the measure; and we may applaud the progress of reason. On a similar occasion local interests would undoubtedly be consulted; but an English House of Commons would reject with contempt the arguments of superstition, “that nature had assigned to the rivers their proper course,” etc. ↩
See the Époques de la nature of the eloquent and philosophic Buffon. His picture of Guyana in South America is that of a new and savage land, in which the waters are abandoned to themselves without being regulated by human industry (pp. 212, 561, quarto edition). ↩
In his Travels in Italy, Mr. Addison (his Works, vol. II, p. 98, Baskerville’s edition) has observed this curious and unquestionable fact. ↩
Yet, in modern times, the Tiber has sometimes damaged the city; and in the years 1530, 1557, 1598, the Annals of Muratori record three mischievous and memorable inundations (tom. XIV, pp. 268, 429; tom. XV, p. 99, etc.).9361 ↩
I take this opportunity of declaring that in the course of twelve years I have forgotten, or renounced, the flight of Odin from Azoph to Sweden, which I never very seriously believed (see here in chapter X). The Goths are apparently Germans; but all beyond Caesar and Tacitus is darkness or fable in the antiquities of Germany. ↩
See here in chapter XXXI. ↩
See here in chapter XXXVI. ↩
See here and following in chapter XXIX. ↩
See here in chapter XLIII. ↩
See here and following in chapter XXVIII. ↩
Eodem tempore petiit a Phocate principe templum, quod appellatur Pantheon, in quo fecit ecclesiam Sanctae Mariae semper Virginis, et omnium martyrum; in quâ ecclesiae princeps multa bona obtulit (Anastasius vel potius Liber pontificalis in “Bonifacio IV,” in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I, p. 135). According to the anonymous writer in Montfaucon, the Pantheon had been vowed by Agrippa to Cybele and Neptune, and was dedicated by Boniface IV on the calends of November to the Virgin, quae est mater omnium sanctorum (pp. 297, 298). ↩
The popes, under the dominion of the emperor and of the exarchs, according to Feas’s just observation, did not possess the power of disposing of the buildings and monuments of the city according to their own will. Bunsen and Platner, vol. I, p. 241. —⁠M. ↩
Flaminius Vacca (apud Montfaucon, pp. 155, 156; his Memoir is likewise printed, p. 21, at the end of the Roma antica of Nardini) and several Romans, doctrinâ graves, were persuaded that the Goths buried their treasures at Rome, and bequeathed the secret marks filiis nepotibusque. He relates some anecdotes to prove that, in his own time, these places were visited and rifled by the Transalpine pilgrims, the heirs of the Gothic conquerors. ↩
Omnia quae erant in aere ad ornatum civitatis deposuit, sed et ecclesiam B. Mariae ad martyres quae de tegulis aereis cooperta discooperuit (Anastasius in Liber pontificalis, “Vitalianus,” p. 141). The base and sacrilegious Greek had not even the poor pretence of plundering a heathen temple; the Pantheon was already a Catholic church. ↩
For the spoils of Ravenna (musiva atque marmora) see the original grant of Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne (Codex Carolinus, “Epistola LXVII” in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars II, p. 223). ↩
I shall quote the authentic testimony of the Saxon poet (AD 887⁠–⁠899), De rebus gestis Caroli Magni, l. V 437⁠–⁠440, in the Historians of France (tom. V, p. 180).

Ad quae marmoreas praestabat Roma columnas,
Quasdam praecipuas pulchra Ravenna dedit.
De tam longinquâ poterit regione vetustas
Illius ornatum, Francia, ferre tibi.

And I shall add from the Chronicle of Sigebert (Historians of France, tom. V, p. 378), extruxit etiam Aquisgrani basilicam plurimae pulchritudinis, ad cujus structuram a Roma et Ravennâ columnas et marmora devehi fecit. ↩
I cannot refuse to transcribe a long passage of Petrarch (Opera omnia, pp. 536, 537 in “Epistolâ hortatoriâ ad Nicolaum Laurentium”), it is so strong and full to the point: Nec pudor aut pietas continuit quominus impii spoliata Dei templa, occupatas arces, opes publicas, regiones urbis, atque honores magistratûum inter se divisos; (habeant?) quam unâ in re, turbulenti ac seditiosi homines et totius reliquae vitae consiliis et rationibus discordes, inhumani foederis stupendâ societate convenirent, in pontes et moenia atque immeritos lapides desaevirent. Denique post vi vel senio collapsa palatia, quae quondam ingentes tenuerunt viri, post diruptos arcus triumphales (unde majores horum forsitan corruerunt), de ipsius vetustatis ac propriae impietatis fragminibus vilem quaestum turpi mercimonio captare non puduit. Itaque nunc, heu dolor! heu scelus indignum! de vestris marmoreis columnis, de liminibus templorum (ad quae nuper ex orbe toto concursus devotissimus fiebat), de imaginibus sepulchrorum sub quibus patrum vestrorum venerabilis civis (cinis?) erat, ut reliquas sileam, desidiosa Neapolis adornatur. Sic paullatim ruinae ipsae deficiunt. Yet King Robert was the friend of Petrarch. ↩
Yet Charlemagne washed and swam at Aix la Chapelle with a hundred of his courtiers (Eginhart, c. 22, pp. 108, 109), and Muratori describes, as late as the year 814, the public baths which were built at Spoleto in Italy (Annali d’Italia, tom. VI, p. 416). ↩
See the Annals of Italy, “AD 988.” For this and the preceding fact, Muratori himself is indebted to the Benedictine history of Père Mabillon. ↩
Vita di Sisto V, da Gregorio Leti, tom. III, p. 50. ↩
From the quotations in Bunsen’s dissertation, it may be suspected that this slow but continual process of destruction was the most fatal. Ancient Rome was considered a quarry from which the church, the castle of the baron, or even the hovel of the peasant, might be repaired. —⁠M. ↩
Porticus aedis Concordiae, quam cum primum ad urbem accessi vidi fere integram opere marmoreo admodum specioso: Romani postmodum ad calcem aedem totam et porticûs partem disjectis columnis sunt demoliti (p. 12). The temple of Concord was therefore not destroyed by a sedition in the thirteenth century, as I have read in a MS. treatise del’ Governo civile di Rome, lent me formerly at Rome, and ascribed (I believe falsely) to the celebrated Gravina. Poggius likewise affirms that the sepulchre of Caecilia Metella was burnt for lime (pp. 19, 20). ↩
Composed by Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope Pius II, and published by Mabillon from a MS. of the Queen of Sweden (Museum Italicum, tom. I, p. 97).

Oblectat me, Roma, tuas spectare ruinas:
Ex cujus lapsû gloria prisca patet.
Sed tuus hic populus muris defossa vetustis
Calcis in obsequium marmora dura coquit.
Impia tercentum si sic gens egerit annos
Nullum hinc indicium nobilitatis erit.

↩
Vagabamur pariter in illâ urbe tam magnâ; quae, cum propter spatium vacua videretur, populum habet immensum (Opera omnia, p. 605; Epistolae familiares II 14). ↩
These states of the population of Rome at different periods are derived from an ingenious treatise of the physician Giovanni Lancisi, Dissertatio de nativis, deque adventitiis Romani coeli qualitatibus (p. 122). ↩
All the facts that relate to the towers at Rome, and in other free cities of Italy, may be found in the laborious and entertaining compilation of Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, dissertatio XXVI (tom. II, pp. 493⁠–⁠496, of the Latin, tom. I, p. 446, of the Italian, work). ↩
As for instance, templum Jani nunc dicitur, turris Centii Frangipanis; et sane Jano impositae turris lateritiae conspicua hodieque vestigia supersunt (Montfaucon, Diarium Italicum, p. 186). The anonymous writer (p. 285) enumerates, arcus Titi, turris Cartularia; arcus Julii Caesaris et Senatorum, turres de Bratis; arcus Antonini, turris de Cosectis, etc. ↩
Hadriani molem⁠ ⁠… magna ex parte Romanorum injuria⁠ ⁠… disturbavit; quod certe funditus evertissent, si eorum manibus pervia, absumptis grandibus saxis, reliqua moles exstisset (Poggius, De varietate fortunae, p. 12). ↩
Against the emperor Henry IV (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. IX, p. 147). ↩
I must copy an important passage of Montfaucon: Turris ingens rotunda⁠ ⁠… Caeciliae Metellae⁠ ⁠… sepulchrum erat, cujus muri tam solidi, ut spatium per quam minimum intus vacuum supersit; et Torre di Bove dicitur, a boum capitibus muro inscriptis. Huic sequiori aevo, tempore intestinorum bellorum, ceu urbecula adjuncta fuit, cujus moenia et turres etiamnum visuntur; ita ut sepulchrum Metellae quasi arx oppiduli fuerit. Ferventibus in urbe partibus, cum Ursini atque Columnenses mutuis cladibus perniciem inferrent civitati, in utriusve partis ditionem cederet magni momenti erat (p. 142). ↩
This is inaccurately expressed. The sepulchre is still standing. See Hobhouse, p. 204. —⁠M. ↩
See the testimonies of Donatus, Nardini, and Montfaucon. In the Savelli palace, the remains of the theatre of Marcellus are still great and conspicuous. ↩
James, cardinal of St. George, ad velum aureum, in his metrical life of Pope Celestin V (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. I pars III, p. 621; l. I c. 1, ver. 132, etc.).

Hoc dixisse sat est, Romam caruisee Senatû
Mensibus exactis heu sex; belloque vocatum (vocatos)
In scelus, in socios fraternaque vulnera patres;
Tormentis jecisse viros immania saxa;
Perfodisse domus trabibus, fecisse ruinas
Ignibus; incensas turres, obscuraque fumo
Lumina vicino, quo sit spoliata supellex.

↩
Muratori (Dissertazioni sopra le antichità Italiane, tom. I, pp. 427⁠–⁠431) finds that stone bullets of two or three hundred pounds’ weight were not uncommon; and they are sometimes computed at XII or XVIII cantari of Genoa, each cantaro weighing 150 pounds. ↩
The sixth law of the Visconti prohibits this common and mischievous practice; and strictly enjoins that the houses of banished citizens should be preserved pro communi utilitate (Gualvaneus de la Flamma, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XII, p. 1041). ↩
Petrarch thus addresses his friend, who, with shame and tears, had shown him the moenia, lacerae specimen miserable Romae, and declared his own intention of restoring them (Carmina Latina, l. II, “Epistola Paulo Annibalensi,” XII, pp. 97, 98).

Nec te parva manet servatis fama ruinis
Quanta quod integrae fuit olim gloria Romae
Reliquiae testantur adhuc; quas longior aetas
Frangere non valuit; non vis aut ira cruenti
Hostis, ab egregiis franguntur civibus, heu! heu!
… Quod ille nequivit (Hannibal)
Perficit hic aries.

↩
Bunsen has shown that the hostile attacks of the emperor Henry the Fourth, but more particularly that of Robert Guiscard, who burned down whole districts, inflicted the worst damage on the ancient city. Vol. I, p. 247. —⁠M. ↩
The fourth part of the Verona illustrata of the Marquis Maffei professedly treats of amphitheatres, particularly those of Rome and Verona, of their dimensions, wooden galleries, etc. It is from magnitude that he derives the name of “Colosseum,” or “Coliseum”: since the same appellation was applied to the amphitheatre of Capua, without the aid of a colossal statue; since that of Nero was erected in the court (in atrio) of his palace, and not in the Coliseum (pars IV, pp. 15⁠–⁠19, l. I c. 4). ↩
Joseph Maria Suarés, a learned bishop, and the author of a history of Praeneste, has composed a separate dissertation on the seven or eight probable causes of these holes, which has been since reprinted in the Roman Thesaurus of Albert-Henri de Sallengre. Montfaucon (Diarium Italicum, p. 233) pronounces the rapine of the Barbarians to be the unam germanamque causam foraminum.9362 ↩
Donatus, De Roma antiquâ, p. 285.9363 ↩
Quamdiu stabit Colyseus, stabit et Roma; quando cadet Colyseus, cadet Roma; quando cadet Roma, cadet et mundus (Beda in “Excerptis seu Collectaneis” apud du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, tom. II, p. 407, edit. Basil). This saying must be ascribed to the Anglo-Saxon pilgrims who visited Rome before the year 735, the era of Bede’s death; for I do not believe that our venerable monk ever passed the sea. ↩
I cannot recover, in Muratori’s original Lives of the Popes (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. III pars I), the passage that attests this hostile partition, which must be applied to the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelth century.9364 ↩
Although the structure of the Circus Agonalis be destroyed, it still retains its form and name (Agona, Nagona, Navona): and the interior space affords a sufficient level for the purpose of racing. But the Monte Testaceo, that strange pile of broken pottery, seems only adapted for the annual practice of hurling from top to bottom some wagon-loads of live hogs for the diversion of the populace (Statuta almae urbis Romae, p. 186). ↩
See the Statuta almae urbis Romae, l. III c. 87⁠–⁠89, pp. 185, 186. I have already given an idea of this municipal code. The races of Nagona and Monte Testaceo are likewise mentioned in the Diary of Peter Antonius from 1404 to 1417 (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XXIV, p. 1124). ↩
The Pallium, which Ménage so foolishly derives from Palmarium, is an easy extension of the idea and the words from the robe or cloak to the materials, and from thence to their application as a prize (Muratori, dissertatio XXXIII). ↩
For these expenses, the Jews of Rome paid each year 1,130 florins, of which the odd thirty represented the pieces of silver for which Judas had betrayed his master to their ancestors. There was a footrace of Jewish as well as of Christian youths (Statuta almae urbis Romae, l. III c. 87⁠–⁠89, pp. 185, 186). ↩
This extraordinary bull-feast in the Coliseum is described, from tradition rather than memory, by Ludovico Buonconte Monaldesco, on the most ancient fragments of Roman annals (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. XII, pp. 535, 536); and however fanciful they may seem, they are deeply marked with the colors of truth and nature. ↩
Muratori has given a separate dissertation (the twenty-ninth) to the games of the Italians in the Middle Ages. ↩
In a concise but instructive memoir, the Abbé Barthélemy (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXVIII, p. 585) has mentioned this agreement of the factions of the fourteenth century de Tiburtino faciendo in the Coliseum, from an original act in the archives of Rome. ↩
Coliseum⁠ ⁠… ob stultitiam Romanorum majori ex parte ad calcem deletum, says the indignant Poggius (p. 17): but his expression, too strong for the present age, must be very tenderly applied to the fifteenth century. ↩
Of the Olivetan monks. Montfaucon (p. 142) affirms this fact from the memorials of Flaminius Vacca (No. 72). They still hoped, on some future occasion, to revive and vindicate their grant. ↩
After measuring the priscus amphitheatri gyrus, Montfaucon (p. 142) only adds that it was entire under Paul III; tacendo clamat. Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. XIV, p. 371) more freely reports the guilt of the Farnese Pope and the indignation of the Roman people. Against the nephews of Urban VIII I have no other evidence than the vulgar saying, “Quod non fecerunt Barbari, fecere Barberini,” which was perhaps suggested by the resemblance of the words. ↩
As an antiquarian and a priest, Montfaucon thus deprecates the ruin of the Coliseum: Quòd si non suopte merito atque pulchritudine dignum fuisset quod improbas arceret manus, indigna res utique in locum tot martyrum cruore sacrum tantopere saevitum esse. ↩
Yet the Statutes of Rome (l. III c. 81, p. 182) impose a fine of 500 aurei on whosoever shall demolish any ancient edifice, ne ruinis civitas deformetur, et ut antiqua aedificia decorem urbis perpetuo representent. ↩
In his first visit to Rome (AD 1337; see Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, tom. I, p. 322, etc.), Petrarch is struck mute miraculo rerum tantarum, et stuporis mole obrutus.⁠ ⁠… Praesentia vero, mirum dictû nihil imminuit: vere major fuit Roma majoresque sunt reliquiae quam rebar. Jam non orbem ab hâc urbe domitum, sed tam sero domitum, miror (Opera, p. 605; Epistolae familiares II 14; Joanni Columnae). ↩
He excepts and praises the rare knowledge of John Colonna. Qui enim hodie magis ignari rerum Romanarum, quam Romani cives? Invitus dico, nusquam minus Roma cognoscitur quam Romae. ↩
After the description of the Capitol, he adds, statuae erant quot sunt mundi provinciae; et habebat quaelibet tintinnabulum ad collum. Et erant ita per magicam artem dispositae, ut quando aliqua regio Romano Imperio rebellis erat, statim imago illius provinciae vertebat se contra illam; unde tintinnabulum resonabat quod pendebat ad collum; tuncque vates Capitolii qui erant custodes senatui, etc. He mentions an example of the Saxons and Suevi, who, after they had been subdued by Agrippa, again rebelled; tintinnabulum sonuit; sacerdos qui erat in speculo in hebdomadâ senatoribus nuntiavit: Agrippa marched back and reduced the ⸻ Persians (Anonymus in Montfaucon, pp. 297, 298). ↩
The same writer affirms that Virgil captus a Romanis invisibiliter exiit, ivitque Neapolim. A Roman magician, in the eleventh century, is introduced by William of Malmesbury (De gestis regum Anglorum, l. II, p. 86); and in the time of Flaminius Vacca (No. 81, 103) it was the vulgar belief that the strangers (the Goths) invoked the demons for the discovery of hidden treasures. ↩
Anonymus, p. 289. Montfaucon (p. 191) justly observes that, if Alexander be represented, these statues cannot be the work of Phidias (Olympiad LXXXIII), or Praxiteles (Olympiad CIV), who lived before that conqueror (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae XXXIV 19). ↩
William of Malmesbury (l. II, pp. 86, 87) relates a marvellous discovery (AD 1046) of Pallas the son of Evander, who had been slain by Turnus: the perpetual light in his sepulchre, a Latin epitaph, the corpse, yet entire, of a young giant, the enormous wound in his breast (pectus perforat ingens), etc. If this fable rests on the slightest foundation, we may pity the bodies, as well as the statues, that were exposed to the air in a barbarous age. ↩
Prope porticum Minervae, statua est recubantis, cujus caput integrâ effigie tantae magnitudinis, ut signa omnia excedat. Quidam ad plantandas arbores scrobes faciens detexit. Ad hoc visendum cum plures in dies magis concurrerent, strepitum adeuentium fastidiumque pertaesus, horti patronus congestâ humo texit (Poggius, De varietate fortunae, p. 12). ↩
See the memorials of Flaminius Vacca, No. 57, pp. 11, 12, at the end of the Roma antica of Nardini (1704, in quarto). ↩
In the year 1709, the inhabitants of Rome (without including eight or ten thousand Jews), amounted to 138,568 souls (Labat, Voyages en Espagne et en Italie, tom. III, pp. 217, 218). In 1740 they had increased to 146,080; and in 1765, I left them, without the Jews, 161,899. I am ignorant whether they have since continued in a progressive state. ↩
The Père Montfaucon distributes his own observations into twenty days; he should have styled them weeks, or months, of his visits to the different parts of the city (Diarium Italicum, c. 8⁠–⁠20, pp. 104⁠–⁠301). That learned Benedictine reviews the topographers of ancient Rome; the first efforts of Blondus, Fulvius, Martianus, and Faunus, the superior labors of Pyrrhus Ligorius, had his learning been equal to his labors; the writings of Onuphrius Panvinius, qui omnes obscuravit, and the recent but imperfect books of Donatus and Nardini. Yet Montfaucon still sighs for a more complete plan and description of the old city, which must be attained by the three following methods:
1. The measurement of the space and intervals of the ruins.
2. The study of inscriptions, and the places where they were found.
3. The investigation of all the acts, charters, diaries of the Middle Ages, which name any spot or building of Rome.
The laborious work, such as Montfaucon desired, must be promoted by princely or public munificence; but the great modern plan of Nolli (AD 1748) would furnish a solid and accurate basis for the ancient topography of Rome. ↩
It is the city of Merab that the Arabs say was the residence of Belkis, queen of Saba, who desired to see Solomon. A dam, by which the waters collected in its neighborhood were kept back, having been swept away, the sudden inundation destroyed this city, of which, nevertheless, vestiges remain. It bordered on a country called Adramout, where a particular aromatic plant grows: it is for this reason that we read, in the history of the Roman expedition, that they were arrived within three days’ journey of the spice country. —⁠G.

Compare Conrad Malte-Brun, Géographie universelle, English translation, vol. II, p. 215. The period of this flood has been copiously discussed by Reiske (De Arabum epocha vetustissima, ruptura catarrhactae Merabensis). Add Carolus Theodorus Johannsen, Historia Yemanae, p. 282. Bonn, 1828; and see this note of Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
Two, according to Strabo. The detailed account of Strabo makes the invaders fail before Marsuabae: this cannot be the same place as Mariaba. Ukert observes that Aelius Gallus would not have failed for want of water before Mariaba. (See M. Guizot’s previous note.) “Either, therefore, they were different places, or Strabo is mistaken.” (Friedrich Ukert, Geographie der Griechen und Römer, vol. I, p. 181.) Strabo, indeed, mentions Mariaba distinct from Marsuabae. Gibbon has followed Pliny the Elder in reckoning Mariaba among the conquests of Gallus. There can be little doubt that he is wrong, as Gallus did not approach the capital of Sabaea. Compare the note of the Oxford editor of Strabo. —⁠M. ↩
Agricola fortified the line from Dumbarton to Edinburgh, consequently within Scotland. The emperor Hadrian, during his residence in Britain about the year 121, caused a rampart of earth to be raised between Newcastle and Carlisle. Antoninus Pius, having gained new victories over the Caledonians, by the ability of his general, Lollius Urbicus, caused a new rampart of earth to be constructed between Edinburgh and Dumbarton. Lastly, Septimius Severus caused a wall of stone to be built parallel to the rampart of Hadrian, and on the same locality. See John Warburton’s Vallum Romanum, or the History and Antiquities of the Roman Wall. London, 1751, quarto. —⁠W.

See likewise a good note on the Roman wall in John Lingard’s History of England, vol. I, p. 40, quarto edition. —⁠M. ↩
The turn of Gibbon’s sentence is Augustine’s: “Plus Hadrianum regem hominum, quam regem Deorum timuisse videatur.” —⁠M. ↩
The journeys of Hadrian are traced in a note on Soluet’s translation of Hegewisch, Essai sur l’époque de histoire romaine la plus heureuse pour genre humain, Paris, 1834, p. 123. —⁠M. ↩
On the uncertainty of all these estimates, and the difficulty of fixing the relative value of brass and silver, compare Barthold Georg Niebuhr, vol. I, p. 473, etc., English trans., p. 452. According to Niebuhr, the relative disproportion in value between the two metals arose, in a great degree, from the abundance of brass or copper. —⁠M.

Compare also Adolphe Dureau de La Malle, Économie politique des Romains, especially l. L c. IX. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
See also Dion Cassius XL c. 18. —⁠M. ↩
I am not aware of the existence, at present, of such a work; but the profound observations of the late William von Humboldt, in the introduction to his posthumously published “Essay on the Language of the Island of Java” (uber die Kawi-sprache, Berlin, 1836), may cause regret that this task was not completed by that accomplished and universal scholar. —⁠M. ↩
See also Josephus, De bello Judaico III vi 2. —⁠M. ↩
These details are not altogether accurate. Although, in the latter days of the republic, and under the first emperors, the young Roman nobles obtained the command of a squadron or a cohort with greater facility than in the former times, they never obtained it without passing through a tolerably long military service. Usually they served first in the praetorian cohort, which was entrusted with the guard of the general: they were received into the companionship (contubernium) of some superior officer, and were there formed for duty. Thus Julius Caesar, though sprung from a great family, served first as contubernalis under the praetor, Marcus Thermus, and later under Servilius the Isaurian. (Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, “Julius Caesar” 2, 5. Plutarch in Parallel Lives, p. 516, edit. Froben.) The example of Horace, which Gibbon adduces to prove that young knights were made tribunes immediately on entering the service, proves nothing. In the first place, Horace was not a knight; he was the son of a freedman of Venusia, in Apulia, who exercised the humble office of coactor exauctionum (collector of payments at auctions) (Satires I vi 45, or 86). Moreover, when the poet was made tribune, Brutus, whose army was nearly entirely composed of Orientals, gave this title to all the Romans of consideration who joined him. The emperors were still less difficult in their choice; the number of tribunes was augmented; the title and honors were conferred on persons whom they wished to attack to the court. Augustus conferred on the sons of senators, sometimes the tribunate, sometimes the command of a squadron. Claudius gave to the knights who entered into the service, first the command of a cohort of auxiliaries, later that of a squadron, and at length, for the first time, the tribunate. (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Claudius” with the notes of Ernesti.) The abuses that arose caused by the edict of Hadrian, which fixed the age at which that honor could be attained. (Aelius Spartianus in “Hadrian,” etc.) This edict was subsequently obeyed; for the emperor Valerian, in a letter addressed to Mulvius Gallicanus, praetorian prefect, excuses himself for having violated it in favor of the young Probus, afterwards emperor, on whom he had conferred the tribunate at an earlier age on account of his rare talents (Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, “Probus” IV). —⁠W. and G.

Agricola, though already invested with the title of tribune, was contubernalis in Britain with Suetonius Paulinus. Tacitus, Agricola V. —⁠M. ↩
Or Liburnian, according to Niebuhr. Vol. I, p. 172. —⁠M. ↩
Add Niebuhr, vol. I, and Karl Otfried Müller, Die Etrusker, which contains much that is known, and much that is conjectured, about this remarkable people. Also Guiseppe Micali, Storia degli antichi popoli Italiani, Florence, 1832. —⁠M. ↩
The Hyphasis is one of the five rivers which join the Indus or the Sind, after having traversed the province of the Pendj-ab⁠—a name which in Persian, signifies five rivers. —⁠G.

The five rivers were:
1. The Hydaspes, now the Chelum, Behni, or Bedusta (Sanskrit, Vitashâ, Arrow-swift).
2. The Acesines, the Chenab (Sanskrit, Chandrabhága, Moon-gift).
3. Hydraotes, the Ravey, or Iraoty (Sanskrit, Irâvatî).
4. Hyphasis, the Beyah (Sanskrit, Vepâsà, Fetterless).
5. The Satadru (Sanskrit, the Hundred Streamed), the Sutledj, known first to the Greeks in the time of Ptolemy.
James Rennell, William Vincent, Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients in the Indian Ocean book 2. Christian Lassen, Commentatio geographica historica de Pentapotamia Indica, Horace Wilson’s A Dictionary in Sanskrit and English, and the valuable memoir of Lieut. Burnes, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, vol. III, p. 2, with the travels of that very able writer. Compare Gibbon’s own note. —⁠M. substituted for G. ↩
M. Benjamin Constant, in his very learned and eloquent work, De la religion considérée dans sa source, ses formes et son développement, with the two additional volumes, Du polythéisme romain, has considered the whole history of polytheism in a tone of philosophy, which, without subscribing to all his opinions, we may be permitted to admire.

“The boasted tolerance of polytheism did not rest upon the respect due from society to the freedom of individual opinion. The polytheistic nations, tolerant as they were towards each other, as separate states, were not the less ignorant of the eternal principle, the only basis of enlightened toleration, that everyone has a right to worship God in the manner which seems to him the best. Citizens, on the contrary, were bound to conform to the religion of the state; they had not the liberty to adopt a foreign religion, though that religion might be legally recognized in their own city for the strangers who were its votaries.”
⁠—De la Religion V 184. Du polythéisme romain II 308.

At this time the growing religious indifference, and the general administration of the empire by Romans, who, being strangers, would do no more than protect, not enlist themselves in the cause of the local superstitions, had introduced great laxity. But intolerance was clearly the theory both of the Greek and Roman law. The subject is more fully considered in another place. —⁠M. ↩
There is a curious coincidence between Gibbon’s expressions and those of the newly-recovered De re publica of Cicero, though the argument is rather the converse, lib. I c. 36. “Sive haec ad utilitatem vitae constitute sint a principibus rerum publicarum, ut rex putaretur unus esse in coelo, qui nutu, ut ait Homerus, totum Olympum converteret, idemque et rex et patos haberetur omnium.” —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon here blends into one, two events, distant a hundred and sixty-six years from each other. It was in the year of Rome 535 that the senate, having ordered the destruction of the temples of Isis and Serapis, no workman would lend his hand; and the consul, Lucius Aemilius Paulus, himself (Valerius Maximus, l. 3) seized the axe, to give the first blow. Gibbon attributes this circumstance to the second demolition, which took place in the year 701, and which he considers as the first. —⁠W. ↩
See, in the pictures from the walls of Pompeii, the representation of an Isiac temple and worship. Vestiges of Egyptian worship have been traced in Gaul, and, I am informed, recently in Britain in excavations at York. —⁠M. ↩
Democratic states, observes Denina (Delle rivoluzioni d’Italia, l. II c. 1), are most jealous of communicating the privileges of citizenship; monarchies or oligarchies willingly multiply the numbers of their free subjects. The most remarkable accessions to the strength of Rome, by the aggregation of conquered and foreign nations, took place under the regal and patrician⁠—we may add, the Imperial government. —⁠M. ↩
On the number of citizens in Athens, compare August Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens (English Translation), p. 45, et seq. Henry Fynes Clinton, Essay in Fasti Hellenici, vol. I 381. —⁠M. ↩
All these questions are placed in an entirely new point of view by Barthold Niebuhr (Römische Geschichte, vol. I, p. 464). He rejects the census of Servius Tullius as unhistoric (vol. III, p. 78, et seq.), and he establishes the principle that the census comprehended all the confederate cities which had the right of Isopolity. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Denina, Delle rivoluzioni d’Italia, l. II c. 6, p. 100, quarto edition. —M. ↩
Mr. Hallam contests this assertion as regards Britain. “Nor did the Romans ever establish their language⁠—I know not whether they wished to do so⁠—in this island, as we perceive by that stubborn British tongue which has survived two conquests.” In his note, Mr. Henry Hallam examines the passage from Tacitus (Agricola XXI) to which Gibbon refers. It merely asserts the progress of Latin studies among the higher orders. (View of the State of Europe During the Middle Ages III 314.) Probably it was a kind of court language and that of public affairs, and prevailed in the Roman colonies. —⁠M. ↩
Causes seem to have been pleaded, even in the senate, in both languages. Valerius Maximus, l. II c. 2, n. 2. Dion, l. LVII c. 15. —⁠M. ↩
Above 100,000 prisoners were taken in the Jewish war. —⁠G. History of the Jews III 71.

According to a tradition preserved by St. Jerome, after the insurrection in the time of Hadrian, they were sold as cheap as horses. Ibid. 124. Compare William Blair on Roman Slavery, p. 19. —⁠M., and Dureau de La Malle, Économie politique des Romains, l. I c. 15.

But I cannot think that this writer has made out his case as to the common price of an agricultural slave being from 2,000 to 2,500 francs (£80 to £100). He has overlooked the passages which show the ordinary prices (e.g. Horace, Satires II vii 45), and argued from extraordinary and exceptional cases. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The remarkable speech of Cassius shows the proud yet apprehensive feelings of the Roman aristocracy on this subject. —⁠M. ↩

The present population of Europe is estimated at 227,700,000. Malte-Brun, Géographie, Trans. edit. 1832. See details in the different volumes. Another authority (Almanach de Götha), quoted in a recent English publication, gives the following details:⁠—

Country	Population
France	32,897,521
Germany (including Hungary, Prussian and Austrian Poland)	56,136,213
Italy	20,548,616
Great Britain and Ireland	24,062,947
Spain	13,953,959
Portugal	3,144,000
Russia, including Poland	44,220,600
Krakow	128,480
Turkey (including Pashalic of Dschesair)	9,545,300
Greece	637,700
Ionian Islands	208,100
Sweden and Norway	3,914,963
Denmark	2,012,998
Belgium	3,533,538
Holland	2,444,550
Switzerland	1,985,000
Total	219,374,485

Since the publication of my first annotated edition of Gibbon, the subject of the population of the Roman empire has been investigated by two writers of great industry and learning; Mons. Dureau de La Malle, in his Économie politique des Romains, liv. II c. 1 to 8, and M. Karl Zumpt, in a dissertation printed in the Transactions of the Berlin Academy, 1840. M. Dureau de La Malle confines his inquiry almost entirely to the city of Rome, and Roman Italy. Zumpt examines at greater length the axiom, which he supposes to have been assumed by Gibbon as unquestionable, “that Italy and the Roman world was never so populous as in the time of the Antonines.” Though this probably was Gibbon’s opinion, he has not stated it so peremptorily as asserted by M. Zumpt. It had before been expressly laid down by Hume, and his statement was controverted by Wallace and by Malthus. Gibbon says (here in chapter II) that there is no reason to believe the country (of Italy) less populous in the age of the Antonines than in that of Romulus; and Zumpt acknowledges that we have no satisfactory knowledge of the state of Italy at that early age. Zumpt, in my opinion with some reason, takes the period just before the first Punic war as that in which Roman Italy (all south of the Rubicon) was most populous. From that time, the numbers began to diminish, at first from the enormous waste of life out of the free population in the foreign, and afterwards in the civil, wars; from the cultivation of the soil by slaves; towards the close of the republic, from the repugnance to marriage, which resisted alike the dread of legal punishment and the offer of legal immunity and privilege; and from the depravity of manners, which interfered with the procreation, the birth, and the rearing of children. The arguments and the authorities of Zumpt are equally conclusive as to the decline of population in Greece. Still the details, which he himself adduces as to the prosperity and populousness of Asia Minor, and the whole of the Roman East, with the advancement of the European provinces, especially Gaul, Spain, and Britain, in civilization, and therefore in populousness (for I have no confidence in the vast numbers sometimes assigned to the barbarous inhabitants of these countries), may, I think, fairly compensate for any deduction to be made from Gibbon’s general estimate on account of Greece and Italy. Gibbon himself acknowledges his own estimate to be vague and conjectural; and I may venture to recommend the dissertation of Zumpt as deserving respectful consideration. —⁠M. 1845 ↩

Without doubt no reliance can be placed on this passage of Josephus. The historian makes Agrippa give advice to the Jews as to the power of the Romans; and the speech is full of declamation which can furnish no conclusions to history. While enumerating the nations subject to the Romans, he speaks of the Gauls as submitting to 1,200 soldiers (which is false, as there were eight legions in Gaul, Tacitus IV 5), while there are nearly twelve hundred cities. —⁠G.

Josephus (infra) places these eight legions on the Rhine, as Tacitus does. —⁠M. ↩
A courier is mentioned in Robert Walpole’s Travels in Various Countries of the East II 335, who was to travel from Aleppo to Constantinople, more than 700 miles, in eight days, an unusually short journey. —⁠M. ↩
Pliny the Elder says Puteoli, which seems to have been the usual landing place from the East. See the voyages of St. Paul, Acts 28:13, and of Josephus, Vita, c. 3. —⁠M. ↩
Strabo only says that the grape does not ripen, ἡ ἄμπελος οὐ ραδιως τελεος φορεὶ. Attempts had been made in the time of Augustus to naturalize the vine in the north of Gaul; but the cold was too great. Diodorus Siculus, edit. Rhodoman, p. 304. —⁠W.

Diodorus (lib. V 26) gives a curious picture of the Italian traders bartering, with the savages of Gaul, a cask of wine for a slave. —⁠M.

It appears from the newly discovered treatise of Cicero, De re publica, that there was a law of the republic prohibiting the culture of the vine and olive beyond the Alps, in order to keep up the value of those in Italy. Nos justissimi homines, qui transalpinas gentes oleam et vitem serere non sinimus, quo pluris sint nostra oliveta nostraeque vineae., Lib. III 9. The restrictive law of Domitian was veiled under the decent pretext of encouraging the cultivation of grain. Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, “Domitian” VII. It was repealed by Probus. Vopiscus, Historia Augusta, “Probus” 18. —⁠M. ↩
This is proved by a passage of Pliny the Elder, where he speaks of a certain kind of grape (vitis picata, vinum picatum) which grows naturally in the district of Vienne, and had recently been transplanted into the country of the Arverni (Auvergne), of the Helvii (the Vivarais), the Sequani (Burgundy and Franche Compté). Pliny the Elder wrote AD 77. Naturalis historiae XIV 1. —⁠W. ↩
Vespasian first gave a salary to professors: he assigned to each professor of rhetoric, Greek and Roman, centena sestertia. (Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Vespasian” 18). Hadrian and the Antonines, though still liberal, were less profuse. —⁠G. from W.

Suetonius wrote annua centena, L. 807, 5, 10. —⁠M. ↩
Dion says twenty-five (or three) (LV 23). The united triumvirs had but forty-three. (Appian, De bello Civili IV 3.) The testimony of Orosius is of little value when more certain may be had. —⁠W.

But all the legions, doubtless, submitted to Augustus after the battle of Actium. —⁠M. ↩
It is also in the editions of Tacitus by Ryck (Annales, pp. 420, 421), and Ernesti (Excursus, ad lib., IV 6); but this fragment contains so many inconsistencies, both in matter and form, that its authenticity may be doubted. —⁠W. ↩
The emperor Caligula made the attempt: he restored the Comitia to the people, but, in a short time, took them away again. Suetonius in De vita Caesarum, “Caio,” c. 16. Dion Cassius LIX 9, 20. Nevertheless, at the time of Dion, they preserved still the form of the Comitia. Dion Cassius LVIII 20. —⁠W. ↩
The good princes were not those who alone obtained the honors of an apotheosis; it was conferred on many tyrants. See an excellent treatise of Schaepflin, “De Consecratione Imperatorum Romanorum,” in his Commentationes historicae et criticae. Bale, 1741, p. 184. —⁠W. ↩
In a very ingenious essay, Gibbon has ventured to call in question the preeminent virtue of Brutus. Miscellaneous Works IV 95. —⁠M. ↩
This panegyric on the soldiery is rather too liberal. Claudius was obliged to purchase their consent to his coronation: the presents which he made, and those which the praetorians received on other occasions, considerably embarrassed the finances. Moreover, this formidable guard favored, in general, the cruelties of the tyrants. The distant revolts were more frequent than Gibbon thinks: already, under Tiberius, the legions of Germany would have seditiously constrained Germanicus to assume the Imperial purple. On the revolt of Claudius Civilis, under Vespasian, the legions of Gaul murdered their general, and offered their assistance to the Gauls who were in insurrection. Julius Sabinus made himself be proclaimed emperor, etc. The wars, the merit, and the severe discipline of Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines, established, for some time, a greater degree of subordination. —⁠W. ↩
Gibbon attributes to Antoninus Pius a merit which he either did not possess, or was not in a situation to display.
1. He was adopted only on the condition that he would adopt in his turn Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.
2. His two sons died children, and one of them, Marcus Galerius, alone, appears to have survived, for a few years, his father’s coronation.
Gibbon is also mistaken when he says (note 42) that “without the help of medals and inscriptions, we should be ignorant that Antoninus had two sons.” Capitolinus says expressly (c. 1), Filii mares duo, duae-faeminae; we only owe their names to the medals. Antoine Pagi, Critica historico-chronologica in Annales ecclesiasticos eminent et reverend Caesaris cardinalis Baronii I 33, edit. Paris. —⁠W. ↩
See one of the newly discovered passages of Dion Cassius. Marcus wrote to the senate, who urged the execution of the partisans of Cassius, in these words: “I entreat and beseech you to preserve my reign unstained by senatorial blood. None of your order must perish either by your desire or mine.” Angelo Mai, Fragmenta Vaticana II, p. 224. —⁠M. ↩
It was Tiberius, not Augustus, who first took in this sense the words crimen laesae majestatis. Bachii, Divus Trajanus, sive de legibus Trajani imperatoris commentarius 27. —⁠W. ↩
Gibbon praises Dion for the moderation with which he speaks of Perennis: he follows, nevertheless, in his own narrative, Herodian and Lampridius. Dion speaks of Perennis not only with moderation, but with admiration; he represents him as a great man, virtuous in his life, and blameless in his death: perhaps he may be suspected of partiality; but it is singular that Gibbon, having adopted from Herodian and Lampridius their judgment on this minister, follows Dion’s improbable account of his death. What likelihood, in fact, that fifteen hundred men should have traversed Gaul and Italy, and have arrived at Rome without any understanding with the Praetorians, or without detection or opposition from Perennis, the Praetorian prefect? Gibbon, foreseeing, perhaps, this difficulty, has added that the military deputation inflamed the divisions of the guards; but Dion says expressly that they did not reach Rome, but that the emperor went out to meet them: he even reproaches him for not having opposed them with the guards, who were superior in number. Herodian relates that Commodus, having learned from a soldier the ambitious designs of Perennis and his son, caused them to be attacked and massacred by night. —⁠G. from W.

Dion’s narrative is remarkably circumstantial, and his authority higher than either of the other writers. He hints that Cleander, a new favorite, had already undermined the influence of Perennis. —⁠M. ↩
M. Guizot denies that Lampridius means Cleander as prefect a pugione. The Libertinus seems to me to mean him. —⁠M. ↩
It seems to me there is none. The passage of Herodian is clear, and designates the city cohorts. Compare Dion, p. 797. —⁠W. ↩
The naturalists of our days have been more fortunate. London probably now contains more specimens of this animal than have been seen in Europe since the fall of the Roman empire, unless in the pleasure gardens of the emperor Frederic II, in Sicily, which possessed several. Frederic’s collections of wild beasts were exhibited, for the popular amusement, in many parts of Italy. Friedrich von Raumer, Geschichte der Hohenstaufen und ihrer Zeit V iii, p. 571. Gibbon, moreover, is mistaken, as a giraffe was presented to Lorenzo de Medici, either by the sultan of Egypt, or the king of Tunis. Contemporary authorities are quoted in the old work, Conrad Gesner, Historiae animalium, “De Quadrupedibus,” p. 162. —⁠M. ↩
Not on both these hills: neither Donatus nor Nardini justify this position (Whitaker’s Review, p. 13). At the northern extremity of this hill (the Viminal) are some considerable remains of a walled enclosure which bears all the appearance of a Roman camp, and therefore is generally thought to correspond with the Castra Praetoria. John Cramer’s Ancient Italy I 890. —⁠M. ↩
A new fragment of Dion shows some shrewdness in the character of Julian. When the senate voted him a golden statue, he preferred one of brass, as more lasting. He “had always observed,” he said, “that the statues of former emperors were soon destroyed. Those of brass alone remained.” The indignant historian adds that he was wrong. The virtue of sovereigns alone preserves their images; the brazen statue of Julian was broken to pieces at his death. Mai, Fragmenta Vaticana, p. 226. —⁠M. ↩
The contradiction, as M. Guizot observed, is irreconcilable. He quotes both passages: in one Julianus is represented as a miser, in the other as a voluptuary. In the one he refuses to eat till the body of Pertinax has been buried; in the other he gluts himself with every luxury almost in the sight of his headless remains. —⁠M. ↩
Carnuntum, opposite to the mouth of the Morava: its position is doubtful, either Petronel or Haimburg. A little intermediate village seems to indicate by its name (Altenburg) the site of an old town. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne. Sabaria, now Sarvar. —⁠G.

Compare this note. —⁠M. ↩
These elephants were kept for processions, perhaps for the games. See Herodian, l. II, p. 81. —⁠M. ↩
Quae ad speculum dicunt fieri in quo pueri praeligatis oculis, incantato vertice, respicere dicuntur.⁠ ⁠… Tuncque puer vidisse dicitur et adventum Severi et Juliani decessionem. This seems to have been a practice somewhat similar to that of which our recent Egyptian travellers relate such extraordinary circumstances. See also Apuleius, Oratio de Magiâ. —⁠M. ↩
Lord Byron wrote, no doubt, from a reminiscence of that passage:

“It is possible to be a very great man, and to be still very inferior to Julius Caesar, the most complete character, so Lord Bacon thought, of all antiquity. Nature seems incapable of such extraordinary combinations as composed his versatile capacity, which was the wonder even of the Romans themselves. The first general; the only triumphant politician; inferior to none in point of eloquence; comparable to any in the attainments of wisdom, in an age made up of the greatest commanders, statesmen, orators, and philosophers, that ever appeared in the world; an author who composed a perfect specimen of military annals in his travelling carriage; at one time in a controversy with Cato, at another writing a treatise on punning, and collecting a set of good sayings; fighting and making love at the same moment, and willing to abandon both his empire and his mistress for a sight of the fountains of the Nile. Such did Julius Caesar appear to his contemporaries, and to those of the subsequent ages who were the most inclined to deplore and execrate his fatal genius.”
Note 47 to Canto IV of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage.

—⁠M. ↩
There is no contradiction between the relation of Dion and that of Spartianus and the modern Greeks. Dion does not say that Severus destroyed Byzantium, but that he deprived it of its franchises and privileges, stripped the inhabitants of their property, razed the fortifications, and subjected the city to the jurisdiction of Perinthus. Therefore, when Spartian, Suidas, Cedrenus, say that Severus and his son Antoninus restored to Byzantium its rights and franchises, ordered temples to be built, etc., this is easily reconciled with the relation of Dion. Perhaps the latter mentioned it in some of the fragments of his history which have been lost. As to Herodian, his expressions are evidently exaggerated, and he has been guilty of so many inaccuracies in the history of Severus that we have a right to suppose one in this passage. —⁠G. from W.

Wenck and M. Guizot have omitted to cite Zosimus, who mentions a particular portico built by Severus, and called, apparently, by his name. Zosimus, Historia nova II c. XXX, pp. 151, 153, edit. Heyne. —⁠M. ↩
The historical authority of Macpherson’s Ossian has not increased since Gibbon wrote. We may, indeed, consider it exploded. Mr. Whitaker, in a letter to Gibbon (Miscellaneous Works, vol. II, p. 100), attempts, not very successfully, to weaken this objection of the historian. —⁠M. ↩
M. Guizot is indignant at this “cold” observation of Gibbon on the noble character of Thrasea; but he admits that his virtue was useless to the public, and unseasonable amidst the vices of his age. —⁠M. ↩
After these massacres, Caracalla also deprived the Alexandrians of their spectacles and public feasts; he divided the city into two parts by a wall, with towers at intervals, to prevent the peaceful communications of the citizens. Thus was treated the unhappy Alexandria, says Dion, by the savage beast of Ausonia. This, in fact, was the epithet which the oracle had applied to him; it is said, indeed, that he was much pleased with the name and often boasted of it. Dion LXXVII, p. 1307. —⁠G. ↩
Valois and Reimar have explained in a very simple and probable manner this passage of Dion, which Gibbon seems to me not to have understood. Ο αὐτὸς τοῖς ατρατίωταις ἆθλα τῆς στρατείς, τοῖς μὲν ἐν τῶ δορυφορικῶ τεταγυένοις ίς χιλίας διακόσιας δπεντήκοντα, τοῖν δὲ πεντακισχίλιας λαμβάνειν. He ordered that the soldiers should receive, as the reward of their services, the Praetorians 1,250 drachms, the other 5,000 drachms. Valois thinks that the numbers have been transposed, and that Caracalla added 5,000 drachms to the donations made to the Praetorians, 1,250 to those of the legionaries. The Praetorians, in fact, always received more than the others. The error of Gibbon arose from his considering that this referred to the annual pay of the soldiers, while it relates to the sum they received as a reward for their services on their discharge: ἆθλα τῆς στρατείς means recompense for service. Augustus had settled that the Praetorians, after sixteen campaigns, should receive 5,000 drachms: the legionaries received only 3,000 after twenty years. Caracalla added 5,000 drachms to the donative of the Praetorians, 1,250 to that of the legionaries. Gibbon appears to have been mistaken both in confounding this donative on discharge with the annual pay, and in not paying attention to the remark of Valois on the transposition of the numbers in the text. —⁠G. ↩
The name of Elagabalus has been disfigured in various ways. Herodian calls him Ελαιαγάβαλος; Lampridius, and the more modern writers, make him Heliogabalus. Dion calls him Elegabalus; but Elagabalus was the true name, as it appears on the medals. (Joseph Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, tom. VII, p. 250.) As to its etymology, that which Gibbon adduces is given by Bochart, Chanaan II 5; but Salmasius, on better grounds (note in Lampridius in “Elagabalus”), derives the name of Elagabalus from the idol of that god, represented by Herodian and the medals in the form of a mountain (gibel in Hebrew), or great stone cut to a point, with marks which represent the sun. As it was not permitted at Hierapolis, in Syria, to make statues of the sun and moon, because, it was said, they are themselves sufficiently visible, the sun was represented at Emesa in the form of a great stone, which, as it appeared, had fallen from heaven. Spanheim, Caesars, notes, p. 46. —⁠G.

The name of Elagabalus, in “nummis rarius legetur.” Johann Rasche, Lexicon universae rei nummariae. Rasche quotes two. —⁠M. ↩
This opinion of Valsecchi has been triumphantly contested by Eckhel, who has shown the impossibility of reconciling it with the medals of Elagabalus, and has given the most satisfactory explanation of the five tribunates of that emperor. He ascended the throne and received the tribunitian power the 16th of May, in the year of Rome 971; and on the 1st January of the next year, 972, he began a new tribunate, according to the custom established by preceding emperors. During the years 972⁠–⁠974, he enjoyed the tribunate, and commenced his fifth in the year 975, during which he was killed on the 10th March. Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum VIII 430 etc. —⁠G. ↩
See the interesting account of the site and ruins of Veii in Sir William Gell’s Topography of Rome and Its Vicinity V ii, p. 303. —⁠M. ↩
If Justus Lipsius has exaggerated the revenue of the Roman empire, Gibbon, on the other hand, has underrated it. He fixes it at fifteen or twenty millions of our money. But if we take only, on a moderate calculation, the taxes in the provinces which he has already cited, they will amount, considering the augmentations made by Augustus, to nearly that sum. There remain, also, the provinces of Italy, of Rhaetia, of Noricum, Pannonia, and Greece, etc., etc. Let us pay attention, besides, to the prodigious expenditure of some emperors (Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, “Vespasian” 16); we shall see that such a revenue could not be sufficient. The authors of the Universal History, part XII, assign forty millions sterling as the sum to about which the public revenue might amount. —⁠G. from W. ↩
The customs (portoria) existed in the times of the ancient kings of Rome. They were suppressed in Italy, AUC 694, by the Praetor, Cecilius Matellus Nepos. Augustus only reestablished them. See previous note. —⁠W. ↩
In the Pandects, l. 39, t. 14, “De Publican.” Compare Cicero, In verrem, c. 72⁠–⁠74. —⁠W. ↩
Dion neither mentions this proposition nor the capitation. He only says that the emperor imposed a tax upon landed property, and sent everywhere men employed to make a survey, without fixing how much, and for how much each was to pay. The senators then preferred giving their assent to the tax on legacies and inheritances. —⁠W. ↩
If we may believe Syncellus and Zonaras, it was Maximin himself who ordered her death. —⁠G. ↩
Eckhel has more recently treated these chronological questions with a perspicuity which gives great probability to his conclusions. Setting aside all the historians, whose contradictions are irreconcilable, he has only consulted the medals, and has arranged the events before us in the following order:⁠—

Maximin, AUC 990, after having conquered the Germans, reenters Pannonia, establishes his winter quarters at Sirmium, and prepares himself to make war against the people of the North. In the year 991, in the calends of January, commences his fourth tribunate. The Gordians are chosen emperors in Africa, probably at the beginning of the month of March. The senate confirms this election with joy, and declares Maximin the enemy of Rome. Five days after he had heard of this revolt, Maximin sets out from Sirmium on his march to Italy. These events took place about the beginning of April; a little after, the Gordians are slain in Africa by Capellianus, procurator of Mauritania. The senate, in its alarm, names as emperors Balbus and Maximus Pupianus, and entrusts the latter with the war against Maximin. Maximin is stopped on his road near Aquileia, by the want of provisions, and by the melting of the snows: he begins the siege of Aquileia at the end of April. Pupianus assembles his army at Ravenna. Maximin and his son are assassinated by the soldiers enraged at the resistance of Aquileia; and this was probably in the middle of May. Pupianus returns to Rome, and assumes the government with Balbinus; they are assassinated towards the end of July. Gordian the younger ascends the throne. Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum VII 295. —⁠G. ↩
This conjecture of Gibbon is without foundation. Many passages in the work of Quintus Curtius clearly place him at an earlier period. Thus, in speaking of the Parthians, he says, Hinc in Parthicum perventum est; tunc ignobilem gentem: nunc caput omnium qui post Euphratem et Tigrim amnes siti Rubro mari terminantur. The Parthian empire had this extent only in the first age of the vulgar era; to that age, therefore, must be assigned the date of Quintus Curtius. Although the critics (says M. Guillaume de Sainte-Croix) have multiplied conjectures on this subject, most of them have ended by adopting the opinion which places Quintus Curtius under the reign of Claudius. See Justus Lipsius, ad Annales Tacitus II 20. Michel le Tellier, Praefatio in Curtius. Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs I, p. 251. Dubos, Réflexions sur la poésie, Partie 2. Girolamo Tiraboschi, Storia della letteratura Italiana II 149. Examen critique des anciens historiens d’Alexandre-le-Grand, second edition, pp. 104, 849, 850. —⁠G.

This interminable question seems as much perplexed as ever. The first argument of M. Guizot is a strong one, except that Parthian is often used by later writers for Persian. Cunzius, in his preface to an edition published at Helmstadt (1802), maintains the opinion of Bagnolo, which assigns Quintus Curtius to the time of Constantine the Great. Schmieder, in his edition, Göttingen 1803, sums up in this sentence, aetatem Curtii ignorari palam est. —⁠M. ↩
Now Kerkesia; placed in the angle formed by the juncture of the Chaboras, or al Khabour, with the Euphrates. This situation appeared so advantageous to Diocletian that he raised fortifications to make it the bulwark of the empire on the side of Mesopotamia. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne II 196. —⁠G.

It is the Carchemish of the Old Testament, 2 Chronicles 35:20. Jeremiah 46:2. —⁠M. ↩
Now Bosra. It was once the metropolis of a province named Arabia, and the chief city of Auranitis, of which the name is preserved in Beled Hauran, the limits of which meet the desert. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne II 188. According to Victor (in Caesar), Philip was a native of Trachonitis, another province of Arabia. —⁠G. ↩
Wenck endeavors to reconcile these discrepancies. He supposes that Gordian was led away, and died a natural death in prison. This is directly contrary to the statement of Capitolinus and of Zosimus, whom he adduces in support of his theory. He is more successful in his precedents of usurpers deifying the victims of their ambition. Sit divus, dummodo non sit vivus. —⁠M. ↩
There are three leading theories concerning the age of Zoroaster:
1. That which assigns him to an age of great and almost indefinite antiquity⁠—it is that of Moyle, adopted by Gibbon, Volney, Recherches sur l’histoire II 2. Johann Rhode, also (Die heilige Sage und das gesammte Religionssystem), in a very ingenious and ably-developed theory, throws the Bactrian prophet far back into antiquity.
2. Foucher (Mémoires de l’Académie XXVII 253), Thomas Christian Tychsen (in Communications Göttingen Society II 112), Heeren (Ideen über die Politik I 459), and recently Holty, identify the Gushtasp of the Persian mythological history with Cyaxares the First, the king of the Medes, and consider the religion to be Median in its origin. M. Guizot considers this opinion most probable, note in loc.
3. Hyde, Prideaux, Abraham Anquetil-DuPerron, Johann Friedrich Kleuker, Johann Gottfried Herder, Goerres (Mythen-Geschichte), von Hammer (Wiener Jahrbücher der Literatur, vol. IX), Malcolm (I 528), Joseph-Daniel Guigniaut (Religions de l’antiquité second part, vol. III), Klaproth (Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 21), make Gushtasp Darius Hystaspes, and Zoroaster his contemporary. The silence of Herodotus appears the great objection to this theory. Some writers, as M. Foucher (resting, as M. Guizot observes, on the doubtful authority of Pliny the Elder), make more than one Zoroaster, and so attempt to reconcile the conflicting theories.
—⁠M. ↩
Zend signifies life, living. The word means either the collection of the canonical books of the followers of Zoroaster, or the language itself in which they are written. They are the books that contain the word of life, whether the language was originally called Zend, or whether it was so called from the contents of the books. Avesta means word, oracle, revelation; this term is not the title of a particular work, but of the collection of the books of Zoroaster, as the revelation of Ormuzd. This collection is sometimes called Zendavesta, sometimes briefly Zend.

The Zend was the ancient language of Media, as is proved by its affinity with the dialects of Armenia and Georgia; it was already a dead language under the Arsacides in the country which was the scene of the events recorded in the Zendavesta. Some critics, among others Richardson and Sir William Jones, have called in question the antiquity of these books. The former pretended that Zend had never been a written or spoken language, but had been invented in the later times by the Magi, for the purposes of their art; but Kleuker, in the dissertations which he added to those of Anquetil and the Abbé Foucher, has proved that the Zend was a living and spoken language. —⁠G.

Sir William Jones appears to have abandoned his doubts, on discovering the affinity between the Zend and the Sanskrit. Since the time of Kleuker, this question has been investigated by many learned scholars. Sir William Jones, Leyden (Asiatick Researches X 283), and Mr. William Erskine (Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay II 299), consider it a derivative from the Sanskrit. The antiquity of the Zendavesta has likewise been asserted by Rask, the great Danish linguist, who, according to Malcolm, brought back from the East fresh transcripts and additions to those published by Anquetil. According to Rask, the Zend and Sanskrit are sister dialects; the one the parent of the Persian, the other of the Indian family of languages. —⁠G. and M.

But the subject is more satisfactorily illustrated in Franz Bopp’s Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, and German languages, Berlin, 1833⁠–⁠5. According to Bopp, the Zend is, in some respects, of more remarkable structure than the Sanskrit. Parts of the Zendavesta have been published in the original, by M. Bournouf, at Paris, and M. Olshausen, in Hamburg. —⁠M.

The Pehlvi was the language of the countries bordering on Assyria, and probably of Assyria itself. Pehlvi signifies valor, heroism; the Pehlvi, therefore, was the language of the ancient heroes and kings of Persia, the valiant. [Mr. Erskine prefers the derivation from Pehla, a border. —⁠M.] It contains a number of Aramaic roots. Anquetil considered it formed from the Zend. Kleuker does not adopt this opinion. The Pehlvi, he says, is much more flowing, and less overcharged with vowels, than the Zend. The books of Zoroaster, first written in Zend, were afterwards translated into Pehlvi and Parsi. The Pehlvi had fallen into disuse under the dynasty of the Sassanides, but the learned still wrote it. The Parsi, the dialect of Pars or Farristan, was then the prevailing dialect. Kleuker, Anhang zum Zend Avesta, 2, II part I, p. 158, part II 31. —⁠G.

Mr. Erskine (Bombay Transactions) considers the existing Zendavesta to have been compiled in the time of Ardeschir Babegan. —⁠M. ↩
It is to be regretted that Gibbon followed the post-Muhammadan Sadder of Hyde. —⁠M. ↩
The pyraea, or fire temples of the Zoroastrians (observes Kleuker, Persica, p. 16), were only to be found in Media or Aderbidjan, provinces into which Herodotus did not penetrate. —⁠M. ↩
Zoroaster exacted much less ceremonial observance, than at a later period, the priests of his doctrines. This is the progress of all religions: the worship, simple in its origin, is gradually overloaded with minute superstitions. The maxim of the Zendavesta, on the relative merit of sowing the earth and of prayers, quoted below by Gibbon, proves that Zoroaster did not attach too much importance to these observances. Thus it is not from the Zendavesta that Gibbon derives the proof of his allegation, but from the Sadder, a much later work. —⁠G. ↩
Hume’s comparison is rather between theism and polytheism. In India, in Greece, and in modern Europe, philosophic religion has looked down with contemptuous toleration on the superstitions of the vulgar. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Gibbon’s note here. —⁠M. ↩
See Guizot’s note here. According to the Persian authorities, Ardeschir extended his conquests to the Euphrates. Malcolm I 71. —⁠M. ↩
Modern geologists have rejected this theory of the depression of the Baltic as inconsistent with recent observation. The considerable changes which have taken place on its shores, Mr. Charles Lyell, from actual observation, now decidedly attributes to the regular and uniform elevation of the land. ⁠Lyell’s Principles of Geology, b. II c. 17. —⁠M. ↩
The Danube is constantly frozen over. At Pest the bridge is usually taken up, and the traffic and communication between the two banks carried on over the ice. The Rhine is likewise in many parts passable at least two years out of five. Winter campaigns are so unusual, in modern warfare, that I recollect but one instance of an army crossing either river on the ice. In the thirty years’ war (1635), Jan van Werth, an Imperialist partisan, crossed the Rhine from Heidelberg on the ice with 5,000 men, and surprised Spiers. Pichegru’s memorable campaign (1794⁠–⁠5), when the freezing of the Meuse and Waal opened Holland to his conquests, and his cavalry and artillery attacked the ships frozen in, on the Zuyder Zee, was in a winter of unprecedented severity. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The passage of Caesar, “parvis renonum tegumentis utuntur,” is obscure, observes Luden (Geschichte des Teutschen Volkes), and insufficient to prove the reindeer to have existed in Germany. It is supported, however, by a fragment of Sallust. Germani intectum rhenonibus corpus tegunt. —⁠M.

It has been suggested to me that Caesar (as old Gesner supposed) meant the reindeer in the following description. Est bos cervi figurâ cujus a mediâ fronte inter aures unum cornu existit, excelsius magisque directum (divaricatum, qu?) his quae nobis nota sunt cornibus. Ab ejus summo, sicut palmae, rami quam latè diffunduntur. De bello Gallico VI 26. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The Gothini, who must not be confounded with the Gothi, a Suevian tribe. In the time of Caesar many other tribes of Gaulish origin dwelt along the course of the Danube, who could not long resist the attacks of the Suevi. The Helvetians, who dwelt on the borders of the Black Forest, between the Maine and the Danube, had been expelled long before the time of Caesar. He mentions also the Volci Tectosagi, who came from Languedoc and settled round the Black Forest. The Boii, who had penetrated into that forest, and also have left traces of their name in Bohemia, were subdued in the first century by the Marcomanni. The Boii settled in Noricum, were mingled afterwards with the Lombards, and received the name of Boio Arii (Bavaria) or Boiovarii: var, in some German dialects, appearing to mean remains, descendants. Compare Malte-Brun, Géographie universelle, vol. I, p. 410, edit. 1832. —⁠M. ↩
The obscure subject of the Runic characters has exercised the industry and ingenuity of the modern scholars of the north. There are three distinct theories; one, maintained by Schlözer (Allgemeine nordische Geschichte, p. 481, etc.), who considers their sixteen letters to be a corruption of the Roman alphabet, post-Christian in their date, and Schlözer would attribute their introduction into the north to the Alemanni. The second, that of Friedrich Schlegel (Geschichte der alten und neuen Literatur: Vorlesungen, gehalten zu Wien im Fahre 1812), supposes that these characters were left on the coasts of the Mediterranean and Northern Seas by the Phoenicians, preserved by the priestly castes, and employed for purposes of magic. Their common origin from the Phoenician would account for heir similarity to the Roman letters. The last, to which we incline, claims much higher and more venerable antiquity for the Runic, and supposes them to have been the original characters of the Indo-Teutonic tribes, brought from the East, and preserved among the different races of that stock. See Über deutsche Runen, von Wilhelm Carl Grimm, 1821. A memoir by Dr. Gustav Thomod Legis, Fundgruben des alten Nordens. Foreign Quarterly Review, vol. IX, p. 438. —⁠M. ↩
It is a wise observation of Malthus, that these nations “were not populous in proportion to the land they occupied, but to the food they produced. They were prolific from their pure morals and constitutions, but their institutions were not calculated to produce food for those whom they brought into being.” —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The Suiones and the Sitones are the ancient inhabitants of Scandinavia; their name may be traced in that of Sweden; they did not belong to the race of the Suevi, but that of the non-Suevi or Cimbri, whom the Suevi, in very remote times, drove back part to the west, part to the north; they were afterwards mingled with Suevian tribes, among others the Goths, who have traces of their name and power in the isle of Gothland. —⁠G. ↩
The ancient Germans had shapeless idols, and, when they began to build more settled habitations, they raised also temples, such as that to the goddess Teufana, who presided over divination. See Adelung, History of the Ancient Germans, p. 296. —⁠G. ↩
The mark-mannen, the March-men or borderers. There seems little doubt that this was an appellation, rather than a proper name, of a part of the great Suevian or Teutonic race. —⁠M. ↩
This number, though too positively stated, is probably not far wrong, as an average estimate. On the subject of Athenian population, see Sainte-Croix, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions XLVIII. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens I 47, English translation. Fynes Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. I, p. 381. The latter author estimates the citizens of Sparta at 33,000. —⁠M. ↩
A curious letter may be consulted on this subject from the Swede, Ihre, counsellor in the Chancery of Upsal, printed at Upsal by Edman, in 1772, and translated into German by M. Schlözer. Göttingen, printed for Dietericht, 1779. —⁠G.

Gibbon, at a later period of his work, recanted his opinion of the truth of this expedition of Odin. The Asiatic origin of the Goths is almost certain from the affinity of their language to the Sanskrit and Persian; but their northern migration must have taken place long before the period of history. The transformation of the deity Odin into a warrior chieftain, and the whole legend of his establishment in Scandinavia, is probably a theory of the northern writers, when all mythology was reduced to hero-worship. —⁠M. ↩
It was not in Scandinavia that the Goths were divided into Ostrogoths and Visigoths; that division took place after their irruption into Dacia in the third century; those who came from Mecklenburgh and Pomerania were called Visigoths; those who came from the south of Prussia, and the northwest of Poland, called themselves Ostrogoths. Adelung, History of the Ancient Germans, p. 202. Gatterer, Abriss der Universalhistorie 431. —⁠G. ↩
They formed the great Sclavonian nation. —⁠G. ↩
Luden has observed that Jornandes mentions two passages over the Danube; this relates to the second irruption into Maesia. Geschichte des Teutschen Volkes II, p. 448. —⁠M. ↩
Now Philippopolis or Philiba; its situation among the hills caused it to be also called Trimontium. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne I 295. —⁠G. ↩
M. Eckhel, Keeper of the Cabinet of Medals, and Professor of Antiquities at Vienna, lately deceased, has supplied this want by his excellent work, Doctrina numorum veterum, conscripta a Josepho Eckhel, eight vol. in quarto, Vindobona, 1797. —⁠G.

Captain William Henry Smyth has likewise printed (privately) a valuable Descriptive Catologue of a series of Large Brass Medals of this period. Bedford, 1834. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Pityus is Pitchinda, according to d’Anville, II 115. [Rather Soukoun. —⁠M.] Dioscurias is Iskuriah. —⁠G. ↩
Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer (Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt, p. 6, etc.) assigns a very ancient date to the first (Pelasgic) foundation of Trapezus (Trebizond). —⁠M. ↩
According to a new fragment of Dexippus, published by Mai, he had 2,000 men. He took up a strong position in a mountainous and woods district, and kept up a harassing warfare. He expresses a hope of being speedily joined by the Imperial fleet. Dexippus in Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae à Niebuhr, pp. 26, 28. —⁠M. ↩
St. Paul’s Cathedral is 500 feet. James Dallaway, Comparative Remarks on Architecture. —⁠M. ↩
Christian Gottlob Heyne, in his note on Zosimus, contests this opinion of Gibbon; and observes that the testimony of Ammianus is in fact by no means clear or decisive. Gallienus and Valerian reigned together. Zosimus, in a second passage, l. III 32, distinctly places this event before the capture of Valerian. —⁠M. ↩
Malcolm appears to write from Persian authorities, I 76. —⁠M. ↩
Compare a dissertation of Johann Manso on the thirty tyrants at the end of his Leben Constantius des Grossen, Breslau, 1817. —⁠M. ↩
The hostility between the Jewish and Grecian part of the population, afterwards between the two former and the Christian, were unfailing causes of tumult, sedition, and massacre. In no place were the religious disputes, after the establishment of Christianity, more frequent or more sanguinary. See Philo, De legatione. History of Jews II 171, III 111, 198. Gibbon, ↩
The expression is curious, “terram matrem deosque inferos precaretur, sedes impias uti Gallieno darent.” —⁠M. ↩
But compare Gibbon’s note here. —⁠M. ↩
The medals which bear the name of Lollianus are considered forgeries, except one in the museum of the Prince of Waldeck; there are many extant bearing the name of Laelianus, which appears to have been that of the competitor of Posthumus. Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, tom. VII 449. —⁠G. ↩
Tadmor, or Palmyra, was probably at a very early period the connecting link between the commerce of Tyre and Babylon. Heeren, Ideen über die Politik, vol. I part II, p. 125. Tadmor was probably built by Solomon as a commercial station. History of the Jews, vol. I, p. 271. —⁠M. ↩
Klaproth’s theory on the origin of such traditions is at least recommended by its ingenuity. The males of a tribe having gone out on a marauding expedition, and having been cut off to a man, the females may have endeavored, for a time, to maintain their independence in their camp village, till their children grew up. Travels in the Caucasus and Georgia, ch. XXX, English translation. —⁠M. ↩
Luden (vol. II 501) supposes that these Δογίωναι have been erroneously identified with the Lygii of Tacitus. Perhaps one fertile source of mistakes has been that the Romans have turned appellations into national names. Malte-Brun observes of the Lygii, “that their name appears Sclavonian, and signifies ‘inhabitants of plains’; they are probably the Liéches of the Middle Ages, and the ancestors of the Poles. We find among the Arii the worship of the two twin gods known in the Sclavian mythology.” Malte-Brun, vol. I, p. 278 (edit. 1831). —⁠M.

But compare Paul Joseph Shafarik, Slawische alterthümer I, p. 406. They were of German or Keltish descent, occupying the Wendish (or Slavian) district, Luhy. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Cornelius de Pauw is well known to have been the author of this work, as of the Recherches philosophiques sur les Américains before quoted. The judgment of M. Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat on this writer is in a very different, I fear a juster tone. Quand au lieu de rechercher, d’examiner, d’étudier, on se borne, comme cet écrivain, à juger à prononcer, à decider, sans connoître ni l’histoire, ni les langues, sans recourir aux sources, sans même se douter de leur existence, on peut en imposer pendant quelque temps à des lecteurs prévenus ou peu instruits; mais le mépris qui ne manque guère de succéder à cet engouement fait bientôt justice de ces assertions hazardées, et elles retombent dans l’oubli d’autant plus promptement, qu’elles ont été posées avec plus de confiance ou de témérité. Recherches sur les langues tartares, p. 231. —⁠M. ↩
The manner in which his life was saved by the Chief Pontiff from a conspiracy of his nobles is as remarkable as his saying. “By the advice (of the Pontiff) all the nobles absented themselves from court. The king wandered through his palace alone. He saw no one; all was silence around. He became alarmed and distressed. At last the Chief Pontiff appeared, and bowed his head in apparent misery, but spoke not a word. The king entreated him to declare what had happened. The virtuous man boldly related all that had passed, and conjured Bahram, in the name of his glorious ancestors, to change his conduct and save himself from destruction. The king was much moved, professed himself most penitent, and said he was resolved his future life should prove his sincerity. The overjoyed High Priest, delighted at this success, made a signal, at which all the nobles and attendants were in an instant, as if by magic, in their usual places. The monarch now perceived that only one opinion prevailed on his past conduct. He repeated therefore to his nobles all he had said to the Chief Pontiff, and his future reign was unstained by cruelty or oppression.” Malcolm’s History of Persia I 79. —⁠M. ↩
Niebuhr, in the new edition of the Byzantine Historians (vol. X) has boldly assigned the Philopatris to the tenth century, and to the reign of Nicephorus Phocas. An opinion so decisively pronounced by Niebuhr and favorably received by Carl Benedict Hase, the learned editor of Leo Diaconus, commands respectful consideration. But the whole tone of the work appears to me altogether inconsistent with any period in which philosophy did not stand, as it were, on some ground of equality with Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity is sarcastically introduced rather as the strange doctrine of a new religion, than the established tenet of a faith universally prevalent. The argument, adopted from Solinus, concerning the formula of the procession of the Holy Ghost, is utterly worthless, as it is a mere quotation in the words of the Gospel of St. John 15:26. The only argument of any value is the historic one, from the allusion to the recent violation of many virgins in the Island of Crete. But neither is the language of Niebuhr quite accurate, nor his reference to the Acroases of Theodosius satisfactory. When, then, could this occurrence take place? Why not in the devastation of the island by the Gothic pirates, during the reign of Claudius? Historiae Augustae in “Claudius,” p. 814, edit. Van Lugduni Batavorum, 1661. —⁠M. ↩
Kullicza. Eton Atlas. —⁠M. ↩
Eckhel concurs in this view, VIII, p. 15. —⁠M. ↩
According to Aurelius Victor and other authorities, Thrace belonged to the division of Galerius. See Tillemont IV 36. But the laws of Diocletian are in general dated in Illyria or Thrace. —⁠M. ↩
The Menapians were settled between the Scheldt and the Meuse in the northern part of Brabant. D’Anville, Géographie Ancienne I 93. —⁠G. ↩
Compare, on the epoch of the final extirpation of the rites of Paganism from the isle of Philae (Elephantine), which subsisted till the edict of Theodosius, in the sixth century, a dissertation of M. Jean-Antoine Letronne, on certain Greek inscriptions. The dissertation contains some very interesting observations on the conduct and policy of Diocletian in Egypt. Matériaux pour l’histoire du christianisme en Égypte, en Nubie et en Abyssinie, Paris, 1832. —⁠M. ↩
Os patulum signifies merely a large and widely opening mouth. Ovid (Metamorphoses XV 513) says, speaking of the monster who attacked Hippolytus, patulo partem maris evomit ore. Probably a wide mouth was a common defect among the Armenian women. —⁠G. ↩
See Saint-Martin, Mémoires sur l’Arménie I 304. —⁠M. ↩
The Chinese Annals mention, under the ninth year of Yan-hi, which corresponds with the year 166 JC, an embassy which arrived from Ta-thsin, and was sent by a prince called An-thun, who can be no other than Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who then ruled over the Romans. Saint-Martin, Mémoires sur l’Arménie II 30. See also Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 69. The embassy came by Jy-nan, Tonquiu. —⁠M. ↩
The Siounikh of the Armenian writers. Saint-Martin, Mémoires sur l’Arménie I 142. —⁠M. ↩
There are here several errors. Gibbon has confounded the streams, and the towns which they pass. The Aboras, or rather the Chaboras, the Araxes of Xenophon, has its source above Ras-Ain or Re-Saina (Theodosiopolis), about twenty-seven leagues from the Tigris; it receives the waters of the Mygdonius or Saocoras, about thirty-three leagues below Nisibis, at a town now called Al Nahraim; it does not pass under the walls of Singara; it is the Saocoras that washes the walls of that town; the latter river has its source near Nisibis, at five leagues from the Tigris. See d’Anville, l’Euphrate et le Tigre 46, 49, 50, and the map.

To the east of the Tigris is another less considerable river, named also the Chaboras, which d’Anville calls the Centrites, Khabour, Nicephorius, without quoting the authorities on which he gives those names. Gibbon did not mean to speak of this river, which does not pass by Singara, and does not fall into the Euphrates. See Johann Michaelis, Supplementa ad lexica Hebraica, third part, pp. 664, 665. —⁠G. ↩
In the time of the republic, says Dietrich Hegewisch, when the consuls, the praetors, and the other magistrates appeared in public to perform the functions of their office, their dignity was announced both by the symbols which use had consecrated, and the brilliant cortège by which they were accompanied. But this dignity belonged to the office, not to the individual; this pomp belonged to the magistrate, not to the man.⁠ ⁠… The consul, followed, in the comitia, by all the senate, the praetors, the quaestors, the aediles, the lictors, the apparitors, and the heralds, on reentering his house, was served only by freedmen and by his slaves. The first emperors went no further. Tiberius had, for his personal attendance, only a moderate number of slaves, and a few freedmen. (Tacitus, Annales IV 7.) But in proportion as the republican forms disappeared, one after another, the inclination of the emperors to environ themselves with personal pomp displayed itself more and more.⁠ ⁠… The magnificence and the ceremonial of the East were entirely introduced by Diocletian, and were consecrated by Constantine to the Imperial use. Thenceforth the palace, the court, the table, all the personal attendance, distinguished the emperor from his subjects, still more than his superior dignity. The organization which Diocletian gave to his new court attached less honor and distinction to rank than to services performed towards the members of the Imperial family. Hegewisch, Essai historique sur les finances Romaines.

Few historians have characterized, in a more philosophic manner, the influence of a new institution. —⁠G.

It is singular that the son of a slave reduced the haughty aristocracy of Rome to the offices of servitude. —⁠M. ↩
Constantine (“Oratio ad Sanctorum,” c. 401) more than insinuated that derangement of mind, connected with the conflagration of the palace at Nicomedia by lightning, was the cause of his abdication. But Heinichen, in a very sensible note on this passage in Eusebius, while he admits that his long illness might produce a temporary depression of spirits, triumphantly appeals to the philosophical conduct of Diocletian in his retreat, and the influence which he still retained on public affairs. —⁠M. ↩
This attack upon Lactantius is unfounded. Lactantius was so far from having been an obscure rhetorician, that he had taught rhetoric publicly, and with the greatest success, first in Africa, and afterwards in Nicomedia. His reputation obtained him the esteem of Constantine, who invited him to his court, and entrusted to him the education of his son Crispus. The facts which he relates took place during his own time; he cannot be accused of dishonesty or imposture. Satis me vixisse arbitrabor et officium hominis implesse si labor meus aliquos homines, ab erroribus liberatos, ad iter coeleste direxerit. De opificio Dei, cap. 20.

The eloquence of Lactantius has caused him to be called the Christian Cicero. Anonymous Gentleman. —⁠G.

Yet no unprejudiced person can read this coarse and particular private conversation of the two emperors, without assenting to the justice of Gibbon’s severe sentence. But the authorship of the treatise is by no means certain. The fame of Lactantius for eloquence, as well as for truth, would suffer no loss if it should be adjudged to some more “obscure rhetorician.” Manso, in his Leben Constantius des Grossen, concurs on this point with Gibbon. Beylage IV. —⁠M. ↩
Zosimus is not the only writer who tells this story. The younger Victor confirms it. Ad frustrandos insequentes, publica jumenta, quaqua iter ageret, interficiens. Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus, says the same thing. —⁠G.

As also the Anonymus Valesianus. Manso (Leben Constantius des Grossen), p. 18, observes that the story has been exaggerated; he took this precaution during the first stage of his journey. —⁠M. ↩
Manso justly observes that two totally different narratives might be formed, almost upon equal authority. Beylage IV. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Manso, Beylage IV, p. 302. Gibbon’s account is at least as probable as that of his critic. —⁠M. ↩
Yet some pagan authors relate and confirm them. Aurelius Victor, speaking of Maximin, says, cumque specie officii, dolis compositis, Constantinum generum tentaret acerbe, jure tamen interierat. Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus I, p. 623. Eutropius also says, inde ad Gallias profectus est (Maximianus) dolo composito tamquam a filio esset expulsus, ut Constantino genero jungeretur; moliens tamen Constantinum, repertâ occasione, interficere, poenas dedit justissimo exitu. Eutropius X, p. 661 (Anonymous Gentleman). —⁠G.

These writers hardly confirm more than Gibbon admits; he denies the repeated clemency of Constantine, and the reiterated treasons of Maximian. Compare Manso, p. 302. —⁠M. ↩
The dissertation of Messrs. Henry Cramer and John Wickham has clearly shown that the Little St. Bernard must claim the honor of Hannibal’s passage. A tract by Mr. Henry Long (London, 1831) has added some sensible corrections re Hannibal’s march to the Alps. —⁠M. ↩
Manso (Beylage VI) examines the question, and adduces two manifest allusions to the bridge, from the Life of Constantine by Praxagoras, and from Libanius. Is it not very probable that such a bridge was thrown over the river to facilitate the advance, and to secure the retreat, of the army of Maxentius? In case of defeat, orders were given for destroying it, in order to check the pursuit; it broke down accidentally, or in the confusion was destroyed, as has not unfrequently been the case, before the proper time. —⁠M. ↩
This may refer to the son or sons of Maxentius. —⁠M. ↩
Other medals are extant, the legends of which commemorate the success of Constantine over the Sarmatians and other barbarous nations, Sarmatia devicta. Victoria Gothica. Debellatori gentium barbarorum. Exuperator omnium gentium. Saint-Martin, note on Le Beau, I 148. —⁠M. ↩
It is diametrically opposed to its spirit and to its letter, see, among other passages, Deuteronomy 5:18, 19 (God) “loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment. Love ye, therefore, the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Compare Leviticus 23:25. Juvenal is a satirist, whose strong expressions can hardly be received as historic evidence; and he wrote after the horrible cruelties of the Romans, which, during and after the war, might give some cause for the complete isolation of the Jew from the rest of the world. The Jew was a bigot, but his religion was not the only source of his bigotry. After how many centuries of mutual wrong and hatred, which had still further estranged the Jew from mankind, did Maimonides write? —⁠M. ↩
The Herodians were probably more of a political party than a religious sect, though Gibbon is most likely right as to their occasional conformity. See History of the Jews II 108. —⁠M. ↩
The edicts of Julius Caesar, and of some of the cities in Asia Minor (Krebs, Decretal Pro Judaeis), in favor of the nation in general, or of the Asiatic Jews, speak a different language. —⁠M. ↩
This was during the government of Pontius Pilate. (History of the Jews II 156.) Probably in part to avoid this collision, the Roman governor, in general, resided at Caesarea. —⁠M. ↩
Among a rude and barbarous people, religious impressions are easily made, and are as soon effaced. The ignorance which multiplies imaginary wonders would weaken or destroy the effect of real miracle. At the period of the Jewish history, referred to in the passage from Numbers, their fears predominated over their faith⁠—the fears of an unwarlike people, just rescued from debasing slavery, and commanded to attack a fierce, a well-armed, a gigantic, and a far more numerous race, the inhabitants of Canaan. As to the frequent apostasy of the Jews, their religion was beyond their state of civilization. Nor is it uncommon for a people to cling with passionate attachment to that of which, at first, they could not appreciate the value. Patriotism and national pride will contend, even to death, for political rights which have been forced upon a reluctant people. The Christian may at least retort, with justice, that the great sign of his religion, the resurrection of Jesus, was most ardently believed and most resolutely asserted by the eyewitnesses of the fact. —⁠M. ↩
The opinion of Leclerc is generally admitted; but Neander has suggested some good reasons for supposing that this term only applied to poverty of condition. The obscure history of their tenets and divisions is clearly and rationally traced in his History of the Church, vol. I part II, p. 612, etc., German edition. —⁠M. ↩
Justin Martyr makes an important distinction, which Gibbon has neglected to notice.⁠ ⁠… There were some who were not content with observing the Mosaic law themselves, but enforced the same observance, as necessary to salvation, upon the heathen converts, and refused all social intercourse with them if they did not conform to the law. Justin Martyr himself freely admits those who kept the law themselves to Christian communion, though he acknowledges that some, not the Church, thought otherwise; of the other party, he himself thought less favorably⁠—ὀμοιῶς καὶ τούτοῦς οὔκ ἀτοδεχόμαι. The former by some are considered the Nazarenes, the latter the Ebionites. —⁠G. and M. ↩
Few writers have suspected Tacitus of partiality towards the Jews. The whole later history of the Jews illustrates as well their strong feelings of humanity to their brethren, as their hostility to the rest of mankind. The character and the position of Josephus with the Roman authorities must be kept in mind during the perusal of his History. Perhaps he has not exaggerated the ferocity and fanaticism of the Jews at that time; but insurrectionary warfare is not the best school for the humaner virtues, and much must be allowed for the grinding tyranny of the later Roman governors. See History of the Jews II 254. —⁠M. ↩
Dr. Burnet apologized for the levity with which he had conducted some of his arguments, by the excuse that he wrote in a learned language for scholars alone, not for the vulgar. Whatever may be thought of his success in tracing an Eastern allegory in the first chapters of Genesis, his other works prove him to have been a man of great genius, and of sincere piety. —⁠M. ↩
The assertion of Hegesippus is not so positive: it is sufficient to read the whole passage in Eusebius to see that the former part is modified by the latter. Hegesippus adds that up to this period the church had remained pure and immaculate as a virgin. Those who labored to corrupt the doctrines of the gospel worked as yet in obscurity —⁠G. ↩
The Histoire critique du gnosticisme of M. Jacques Matter is at once the fairest and most complete account of these sects. —⁠M. ↩
Bishop Pearson has attempted very happily to explain this “singularity.” The first Christians were acquainted with a number of sayings of Jesus Christ, which are not related in our Gospels, and indeed have never been written. Why might not St. Ignatius, who had lived with the apostles or their disciples, repeat in other words that which St. Luke has related, particularly at a time when, being in prison, he could not have the Gospels at hand? John Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, pp. 2, 9; p. 396, in tom. II, Patres apostoli, edit. Coteler. —⁠G. ↩
The exaggerated and declamatory opinions of Tertullian ought not to be taken as the general sentiment of the early Christians. Gibbon has too often allowed himself to consider the peculiar notions of certain Fathers of the Church as inherent in Christianity. This is not accurate. —⁠G. ↩
All this scrupulous nicety is at variance with the decision of St. Paul about meat offered to idols, 1 Corinthians 10:21⁠–⁠32. —⁠M. ↩
The soldier did not tear off his crown to throw it down with contempt; he did not even throw it away; he held it in his hand, while others wore it on their heads. Solus libero capite, ornamento in manu otioso. —⁠G. ↩
Tertullian does not expressly name the two emperors, Severus and Caracalla: he speaks only of two emperors, and of a long peace which the church had enjoyed. It is generally agreed that Tertullian became a Montanist about the year 200: his work, De coronâ militis, appears to have been written, at the earliest, about the year 202 before the persecution of Severus: it may be maintained, then, that it is subsequent to the Montanism of the author. See Mosheim, Disquisitio de apoleticus Tertullianus, p. 53. Bibliothèque Raisonnée, Amsterdam, tom. X part II, p. 292. William Cave’s Historia literaria, pp. 92, 93. —⁠G.

The state of Tertullian’s opinions at the particular period is almost an idle question. “The fiery African” is not at any time to be considered a fair representative of Christianity. —⁠M. ↩
The hypothesis of Warburton concerning this remarkable fact, which, as far as the Law of Moses, is unquestionable, made few disciples; and it is difficult to suppose that it could be intended by the author himself for more than a display of intellectual strength. Modern writers have accounted in various ways for the silence of the Hebrew legislator on the immortality of the soul. According to Michaelis, “Moses wrote as an historian and as a lawgiver; he regulated the ecclesiastical discipline, rather than the religious belief of his people; and the sanctions of the law being temporal, he had no occasion, and as a civil legislator could not with propriety, threaten punishments in another world.” See Michaelis, Laws of Moses, art. 272, vol. IV, p. 209, English translation; and Syntagma commentationum, p. 80, quoted by Guizot. M. Guizot adds, the “ingenious conjecture of a philosophic theologian,” which approximates to an opinion long entertained by the Editor. That writer believes that, in the state of civilization at the time of the legislator, this doctrine, become popular among the Jews, would necessarily have given birth to a multitude of idolatrous superstitions which he wished to prevent. His primary object was to establish a firm theocracy, to make his people the conservators of the doctrine of the Divine Unity, the basis upon which Christianity was hereafter to rest. He carefully excluded everything which could obscure or weaken that doctrine. Other nations had strangely abused their notions on the immortality of the soul; Moses wished to prevent this abuse: hence he forbade the Jews from consulting necromancers (those who evoke the spirits of the dead). Deuteronomy 18:11. Those who reflect on the state of the Pagans and the Jews, and on the facility with which idolatry crept in on every side, will not be astonished that Moses has not developed a doctrine of which the influence might be more pernicious than useful to his people. Oratio festa de vitae immortalis spe firmata per resurrectionem Christi, etc., auctor Philipp Albert Stapfer, pp. 12, 13, 20; Bernae, 1787.

Moses, as well from the intimations scattered in his writings, the passage relating to the translation of Enoch (Genesis 5:24), the prohibition of necromancy (Michaelis believes him to be the author of the Book of Job, though this opinion is in general rejected; other learned writers consider this book to be coeval with and known to Moses), as from his long residence in Egypt, and his acquaintance with Egyptian wisdom, could not be ignorant of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. But this doctrine, if popularly known among the Jews, must have been purely Egyptian, and, as so, intimately connected with the whole religious system of that country. It was no doubt moulded up with the tenet of the transmigration of the soul, perhaps with notions analogous to the emanation system of India, in which the human soul was an efflux from, or indeed a part of, the Deity. The Mosaic religion drew a wide and impassable interval between the Creator and created human beings: in this it differed from the Egyptian and all the Eastern religions. As then the immortality of the soul was thus inseparably blended with those foreign religions which were altogether to be effaced from the minds of the people, and by no means necessary for the establishment of the theocracy, Moses maintained silence on this point, and a purer notion of it was left to be developed at a more favorable period in the history of man. —⁠M. ↩
Some modern theologians explain it without discovering either allegory or deception. They say that Jesus Christ, after having proclaimed the ruin of Jerusalem and of the Temple, speaks of his second coming, and the signs which were to precede it; but those who believed that the moment was near deceived themselves as to the sense of two words, an error which still subsists in our versions of the Gospel according to St. Matthew 24:29, 34. In verse 29, we read, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened,” etc. The Greek word εὐθέως signifies all at once, suddenly, not immediately; so that it signifies only the sudden appearance of the signs which Jesus Christ announces, not the shortness of the interval which was to separate them from the “days of tribulation,” of which he was speaking. The verse 34 is this: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things shall be fulfilled.” Jesus, speaking to his disciples, uses these words, αὐτη γενεὰ, which the translators have rendered by “this generation,” but which means the race, the filiation of my disciples; that is, he speaks of a class of men, not of a generation. The true sense then, according to these learned men, is, In truth I tell you that this race of men, of which you are the commencement, shall not pass away till this shall take place; that is to say, the succession of Christians shall not cease till his coming. See Commentary of M. Paulus on the New Testament, edit. 1802, tom. III, pp. 445, 446. —⁠G.

Others, as Johann Georg Rosenmüller and Christian Kuinoel, in loc., confine this passage to a highly figurative description of the ruins of the Jewish city and polity. —⁠M. ↩
In fact it is purely Jewish. See Mosheim, De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum II 8. John Lightfoot’s Works, octavo edition, vol. III, p. 37. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, ch. 38. —⁠M. ↩
Most of the more learned modern English Protestants, Dr. Hales, Mr. Faber, Dr. Russel, as well as the Continental writers, adopt the larger chronology. There is little doubt that the narrower system was framed by the Jews of Tiberias; it was clearly neither that of St. Paul, nor of Josephus, nor of the Samaritan Text. It is greatly to be regretted that the chronology of the earlier Scriptures should ever have been made a religious question. —⁠M. ↩
The Millennium is described in what once stood as the Forty-First Article of the English Church (see Jeremy Collier, Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, for Articles of Edward VI) as “a fable of Jewish dotage.” The whole of these gross and earthly images may be traced in the works which treat on the Jewish traditions, in Lightfoot, Johann Christian Schoettgen, and Johann Andreas Eisenmenger; Das entdeckte Judenthum, t. II 809; and briefly in Bertholdt I c. 38, 39. —⁠M. ↩
The exclusion of the Apocalypse is not improbably assigned to its obvious unfitness to be read in churches. It is to be feared that a history of the interpretation of the Apocalypse would not give a very favorable view either of the wisdom or the charity of the successive ages of Christianity. Johann Jakob Wetstein’s interpretation, differently modified, is adopted by most Continental scholars. —⁠M. ↩
Lactantius had a notion of a great Asiatic empire, which was previously to rise on the ruins of the Roman: quod Romanum nomen (horret animus dicere, sed dicam, quia futurum est) tolletur de terrâ, et imperium in Asiam revertetur. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon should have noticed the distinct and remarkable passage from Chrysostom, quoted by Middleton (Works, vol. I, p. 105), in which he affirms the long discontinuance of miracles as a notorious fact. —⁠M. ↩
This passage of Irenaeus contains no allusion to the gift of tongues; it is merely an apology for a rude and unpolished Greek style, which could not be expected from one who passed his life in a remote and barbarous province, and was continually obliged to speak the Celtic language. —⁠M. ↩
Except in the life of Pachomius, an Egyptian monk of the fourth century (see Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastical History I, p. 368, edit. 1805), and the latter (not earlier) lives of Xavier, there is no claim laid to the gift of tongues since the time of Irenaeus; and of this claim, Xavier’s own letters are profoundly silent. See John Douglas’s Criterion, p. 76. edit. 1807. —⁠M. ↩
But by Protestants neither of the most enlightened ages nor most reasoning minds. —⁠M. ↩
It is difficult to answer Middleton’s objection to this statement of Irenaeus: “It is very strange that from the time of the apostles there is not a single instance of this miracle to be found in the three first centuries; except a single case, slightly intimated in Eusebius, from the Works of Papias; which he seems to rank among the other fabulous stories delivered by that weak man.” Middleton, Works, vol. I, p. 59. Bishop Douglas (Criterion, p. 389) would consider Irenaeus to speak of what had “been performed formerly,” not in his own time. —⁠M. ↩
A candid sceptic might discern some impropriety in the bishop being called upon to perform a miracle on demand. —⁠M. ↩
Yet many Protestant divines will now without reluctance confine miracles to the time of the apostles, or at least to the first century. —⁠M. ↩
All this appears to proceed on the principle that any distinct line can be drawn in an unphilosophic age between wonders and miracles, or between what piety, from their unexpected and extraordinary nature, the marvellous concurrence of secondary causes to some remarkable end, may consider providential interpositions, and miracles strictly so called, in which the laws of nature are suspended or violated. It is impossible to assign, on one side, limits to human credulity, on the other, to the influence of the imagination on the bodily frame; but some of the miracles recorded in the Gospels are such palpable impossibilities, according to the known laws and operations of nature, that if recorded on sufficient evidence, and the evidence we believe to be that of eyewitnesses, we cannot reject them, without either asserting, with Hume, that no evidence can prove a miracle, or that the Author of Nature has no power of suspending its ordinary laws. But which of the post-apostolic miracles will bear this test? —⁠M. ↩
Tertullian says positively no Christian, nemo illic Christianus; for the rest, the limitation which he himself subjoins, and which Gibbon quotes in the foregoing note, diminishes the force of this assertion, and appears to prove that at least he knew none such. —⁠G.

Is not the sense of Tertullian rather, if guilty of any other offence, he has thereby ceased to be a Christian? —⁠M. ↩
But these were Gnostic or Manichean opinions. Beausobre distinctly describes Autustine’s bias to his recent escape from Manicheism; and adds that he afterwards changed his views. —⁠M. ↩
There is nothing which ought to astonish us in the refusal of the primitive Christians to take part in public affairs; it was the natural consequence of the contrariety of their principles to the customs, laws, and active life of the Pagan world. As Christians, they could not enter into the senate, which, according to Gibbon himself, always assembled in a temple or consecrated place, and where each senator, before he took his seat, made a libation of a few drops of wine, and burnt incense on the altar; as Christians, they could not assist at festivals and banquets, which always terminated with libations, etc.; finally, as “the innumerable deities and rites of polytheism were closely interwoven with every circumstance of public and private life,” the Christians could not participate in them without incurring, according to their principles, the guilt of impiety. It was then much less by an effect of their doctrine than by the consequence of their situation that they stood aloof from public business. Whenever this situation offered no impediment, they showed as much activity as the Pagans. Proinde, says Justin Martyr (Apologeticus, c. 17), nos solum Deum adoramus, et vobis in rebus aliis laeti inservimus. —⁠G.

This latter passage, M. Guizot quotes in Latin; if he had consulted the original, he would have found it to be altogether irrelevant: it merely relates to the payment of taxes. —⁠M.

Tertullian does not suggest to the soldiers the expedient of deserting; he says that they ought to be constantly on their guard to do nothing during their service contrary to the law of God, and to resolve to suffer martyrdom rather than submit to a base compliance, or openly to renounce the service. (De coronâ militis II, p. 127.) He does not positively decide that the military service is not permitted to Christians; he ends, indeed, by saying, Puta denique licere militiam usque ad causam coronae. —⁠G.

M. Guizot is, I think, again unfortunate in his defence of Tertullian. That father says that many Christian soldiers had deserted, aut deserendum statim sit, ut a multis actum. The latter sentence, Puta, etc., etc., is a concession for the sake of argument: what follows is more to the purpose. —⁠M.

Many other passages of Tertullian prove that the army was full of Christians: Hesterni sumus et vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa. (Apologeticus, c. 37.) Navigamus et nos vobiscum et militamus. (c. 42.) Origen, in truth, appears to have maintained a more rigid opinion (Contra Celsum, l. VIII); but he has often renounced this exaggerated severity, perhaps necessary to produce great results, and he speaks of the profession of arms as an honorable one. (l. IV c. 218). —⁠G.

On these points Christian opinion, it should seem, was much divided. Tertullian, when he wrote the De coronâ militis, was evidently inclining to more ascetic opinions, and Origen was of the same class. See Neander, vol. I part II, p. 305, edit. 1828. —⁠M. ↩
The first ministers established in the church were the deacons, appointed at Jerusalem, seven in number; they were charged with the distribution of the alms; even females had a share in this employment. After the deacons came the elders or priests (πρεσβύτεροι), charged with the maintenance of order and decorum in the community, and to act everywhere in its name. The bishops were afterwards charged to watch over the faith and the instruction of the disciples: the apostles themselves appointed several bishops. Tertullian (“Adversus Marium,” c. V), Clement of Alexandria, and many fathers of the second and third century, do not permit us to doubt this fact. The equality of rank between these different functionaries did not prevent their functions being, even in their origin, distinct; they became subsequently still more so. See Planck, Geschichte der Christlichen-kirchlichen Gesellschafts-verfassung, vol. I, p. 24. —⁠G.

On this extremely obscure subject, which has been so much perplexed by passion and interest, it is impossible to justify any opinion without entering into long and controversial details. It must be admitted, in opposition to Planck, that in the New Testament, the words πρεσβυτερος and επισκόπος are sometimes indiscriminately used. (Acts 20:17, compare with Titus 1:5, 7; Philippians 1:1.) But it is as clear that as soon as we can discern the form of church government, at the period closely bordering upon, if not within, the apostolic age, it appears with a bishop at the head of each community, holding some superiority over the presbyters. Whether he was, as Gibbon from Mosheim supposes, merely an elective head of the college of Presbyters (for this we have, in fact, no valid authority), or whether his distinct functions were established on apostolic authority, is still contested. The universal submission to this episcopacy, in every part of the Christian world, appears to me strongly to favor the latter view. —⁠M. ↩
This expression was employed by the earlier Christian writers in the sense used by St. Peter, 1 Peter 2:9. It was the sanctity and virtue, not the power of the priesthood, in which all Christians were to be equally distinguished. —⁠M. ↩
It is quite clear that, strictly speaking, the church of Rome was not founded by either of these apostles. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans proves undeniably the flourishing state of the church before his visit to the city; and many Roman Catholic writers have given up the impracticable task of reconciling with chronology any visit of St. Peter to Rome before the end of the reign of Claudius, or the beginning of that of Nero. —⁠M. ↩
It is exact in Syro-Chaldaic, the language in which it was spoken by Jesus Christ. (St. Matthew 16:17.) Peter was called Cephas; and cepha signifies base, foundation, rock. —⁠G. ↩
This is not the general judgment on Mosheim’s learned dissertation. There is no trace in the latter part of the New Testament of this community of goods, and many distinct proofs of the contrary. All exhortations to almsgiving would have been unmeaning if property had been in common. —⁠M. ↩
Poponarii, rather victuallers. —⁠M. ↩
Strong reasons appear to confirm this testimony. Papias, contemporary of the Apostle St. John, says positively that Matthew had written the discourses of Jesus Christ in Hebrew, and that each interpreted them as he could. This Hebrew was the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, then in use at Jerusalem: Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, confirm this statement. Jesus Christ preached himself in Syro-Chaldaic, as is proved by many words which he used, and which the Evangelists have taken the pains to translate. St. Paul, addressing the Jews, used the same language: Acts 21:40, 22:2, 26:14. The opinions of some critics prove nothing against such undeniable testimonies. Moreover, their principal objection is that St. Matthew quotes the Old Testament according to the Greek version of the LXX, which is inaccurate; for of ten quotations found in his Gospel, seven are evidently taken from the Hebrew text; the three others offer little that differ: moreover, the latter are not literal quotations. St. Jerome says positively, that, according to a copy which he had seen in the library of Caesarea, the quotations were made in Hebrew (in De viris illustribus). More modern critics, among others Michaelis, do not entertain a doubt on the subject. The Greek version appears to have been made in the time of the apostles, as St. Jerome and St. Augustus affirm, perhaps by one of them. —⁠G.

Among modern critics, Dr. Hug has asserted the Greek original of St. Matthew, but the general opinion of the most learned biblical writers supports the view of M. Guizot. —⁠M. ↩
This question has, it is well known, been most elaborately discussed since the time of Gibbon. The preface to the translation of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s version of St. Luke contains a very able summary of the various theories. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon forgot the conclusion of this story, that Gregory left only seventeen heathens in his diocese. The antithesis is suspicious, and both numbers may have been chosen to magnify the spiritual fame of the wonder-worker. —⁠M. ↩
The statements of Chrysostom with regard to the population of Antioch, whatever may be their accuracy, are perfectly consistent. In one passage he reckons the population at 200,000. In a second the Christians at 100,000. In a third he states that the Christians formed more than half the population. Gibbon has neglected to notice the first passage, and has drawn his estimate of the population of Antioch from other sources. The 3,000 maintained by alms were widows and virgins alone. —⁠M. ↩
Mons. Saint-Martin has shown that Armenia was the first nation that embraced Christianity. Mémoires sur l’Arménie, vol. I, p. 306, and notes to Le Beau. Gibbon, indeed, had expressed his intention of withdrawing the words “of Armenia” from the text of future editions. (Vindication, Works IV 577.) He was bitterly taunted by Richard Porson for neglecting or declining to fulfil his promise. Preface to Letters to Travis. —⁠M. ↩
Origen states in reply that he knows of none who had altered the Gospels except the Marcionites, the Valentinians, and perhaps some followers of Lucanus. —⁠M. ↩
According to some learned theologians, a misunderstanding of the text in the Gospel has given rise to this mistake, which has employed and wearied so many laborious commentators, though Origen had already taken the pains to preinform them. The expression σκὸτος έγένετο does not mean, they assert, an eclipse, but any kind of obscurity occasioned in the atmosphere, whether by clouds or any other cause. As this obscuration of the sun rarely took place in Palestine, where in the middle of April the sky was usually clear, it assumed, in the eyes of the Jews and Christians, an importance conformable to the received notion, that the sun concealed at midday was a sinister presage. See Amos 8:9, 10. The word σκὸτος is often taken in this sense by contemporary writers; the Apocalypse says, ὲσκὸτίσθη δ ἢλιος, the sun was concealed, when speaking of an obscuration caused by smoke and dust (Revelation 9:2). Moreover, the Hebrew word ophal, which in the LXX answers to the Greek σκὸτος, signifies any darkness; and the Evangelists, who have modelled the sense of their expressions by those of the LXX, must have taken it in the same latitude. This darkening of the sky usually precedes earthquakes (Matthew 27:51). The Heathen authors furnish us a number of examples, of which a miraculous explanation was given at the time. See Ovid II v. 33, l. XV v. 785. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiae, l. II c. 30. Wetstein has collected all these examples in his edition of the New Testament.

We need not, then, be astonished at the silence of the Pagan authors concerning a phenomenon which did not extend beyond Jerusalem, and which might have nothing contrary to the laws of nature; although the Christians and the Jews may have regarded it as a sinister presage. See Michaelis, Notes on New Testament, v. I, p. 290. Paulus, Commentary on New Testament III, p. 760. —⁠G. ↩
Some commentators, among them Reimar, in his notes on Dion Cassius, think that the hatred of the Romans against the Jews has led the historian to exaggerate the cruelties committed by the latter. Dion Cassius LXVIII, p. 1146. —⁠G. ↩
The false Josephus is a romancer of very modern date, though some of these legends are probably more ancient. It may be worth considering whether many of the stories in the Talmud are not history in a figurative disguise, adopted from prudence. The Jews might dare to say many things of Rome, under the significant appellation of Edom, which they feared to utter publicly. Later and more ignorant ages took literally, and perhaps embellished, what was intelligible among the generation to which it was addressed. History of the Jews III 131.

The false Josephus has the inauguration of the emperor, with the seven electors and apparently the pope assisting at the coronation! Pref. page XXVI. —⁠M. ↩
The greater part of the Augustan History is dedicated to Diocletian. This may account for the silence of its authors concerning Christianity. The notices that occur are almost all in the Lives composed under the reign of Constantine. It may fairly be concluded, from the language which he puts into the mouth of Maecenas, that Dion was an enemy to all innovations in religion. (See Gibbon’s note here.) In fact, when the silence of Pagan historians is noticed, it should be remembered how meagre and mutilated are all the extant histories of the period. —⁠M. ↩
The modern editor of Eusebius, Heinichen, has adopted, and ably supported, a notion which had before suggested itself to the editor, that this passage is not altogether a forgery, but interpolated with many additional clauses. Heinichen has endeavored to disengage the original text from the foreign and more recent matter. —⁠M. ↩
The perusal of this passage of Tacitus alone is sufficient, as I have already said, to show that the Christian sect was not so obscure as not already to have been repressed (repressa), and that it did not pass for innocent in the eyes of the Romans. —⁠G. ↩
Yet the humane Pliny put two female attendants, probably deaconesses, to the torture, in order to ascertain the real nature of these suspicious meetings: necessarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantor quid asset veri et per tormenta quaerere. —⁠M. ↩
Professor Tobias Gottfried Hegelmayer has proved the authenticity of the edict of Antoninus, in his Commentatio historico theologica in edictum imperatoris Antonini, Tübingen, 1777, in quarto. —⁠G.

Neander doubts its authenticity (vol. I, p. 152). In my opinion, the internal evidence is decisive against it. —⁠M. ↩
Pliny’s test was the worship of the gods, offerings to the statue of the emperor, and blaspheming Christ⁠—praeterea maledicerent Christo. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon altogether forgets that Trajan fully approved of the course pursued by Pliny the Younger. That course was to order all who persevered in their faith to be led to execution: perseverantes duci jussi. —⁠M. ↩
The acts of Ignatius are generally received as authentic, as are seven of his letters. Eusebius and St. Jerome mention them: there are two editions; in one, the letters are longer, and many passages appear to have been interpolated; the other edition is that which contains the real letters of St. Ignatius; such at least is the opinion of the wisest and most enlightened critics. (See Lardner, The Credibility of the Gospel History.) Gottfried Less, Über die Religion: ihre Geschichte, Wahl und Bestätigung V 1, p. 529. James Usher, Dissertatio de Ignatii epistolae. Pearson, Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii. It should be remarked that it was under the reign of Trajan that the bishop Ignatius was carried from Antioch to Rome, to be exposed to the lions in the amphitheatre, the year of J. C. 107, according to some; of 116, according to others. —⁠G. ↩
The words that follow should be quoted. “God not permitting that all this class of men should be exterminated”; which appears to indicate that Origen thought the number put to death inconsiderable only when compared to the numbers who had survived. Besides this, he is speaking of the state of the religion under Caracalla, Elagabalus, Alexander Severus, and Philip, who had not persecuted the Christians. It was during the reign of the latter that Origen wrote his books against Celsus. —⁠G. ↩
Gibbon ought to have said, was falsely accused of robbery, for so it is in the Greek text. This Christian, named Nemesion, falsely accused of robbery before the centurion, was acquitted of a crime altogether foreign to his character (ἀλλοτριωτάτην), but he was led before the governor as guilty of being a Christian, and the governor inflicted upon him a double torture. (Eusebius, l. VI c. 41.) It must be added that Saint Dionysius only makes particular mention of the principal martyrs [this is very doubtful. —⁠M.], and that he says, in general, that the fury of the Pagans against the Christians gave to Alexandria the appearance of a city taken by storm. [This refers to plunder and ill usage, not to actual slaughter. —⁠M.] Finally it should be observed that Origen wrote before the persecution of the emperor Decius. —⁠G. ↩
M. de. Tillemont, as an honest writer, explains the difficulties which he felt about the text of Pontius, and concludes by distinctly stating that without doubt there is some mistake, and that Pontius must have meant only Africa Minor or Carthage; for St. Cyprian, in his 58th (69th) letter addressed to Pupianus, speaks expressly of many bishops his colleagues, qui proscripti sunt, vel apprehensi in carcere et catenis fuerunt; aut qui in exilium relegati, illustri itinere ad Dominum profecti sunt; aut qui quibusdam locis animadversi, coelestes coronas de Domini clarificatione sumpserunt. —⁠G. ↩
M. Guizot denies that the letters of Cyprian, to which he refers, bear out the statement in the text. I cannot scruple to admit the accuracy of Gibbon’s quotation. To take only the fifth letter, we find this passage: Doleo enim quando audio quosdam improbè et insolenter discurrere, et ad ineptias vel ad discordias vacare, Christi membra et jam Christum confessa per concubitus illicitos inquinari, nec a diaconis aut presbyteris regi posse, sed id agere ut per paucorum pravos et malos mores, multorum et bonorum confessorum gloria honesta maculetur. Gibbon’s misrepresentation lies in the ambiguous expression “too often.” Were the epistles arranged in a different manner in the edition consulted by M. Guizot? —⁠M. ↩
The 15th chapter of the 10th book of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius treats principally of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, and mentions some other martyrs. A single example of weakness is related; it is that of a Phrygian named Quintus, who, appalled at the sight of the wild beasts and the tortures, renounced his faith. This example proves little against the mass of Christians, and this chapter of Eusebius furnished much stronger evidence of their courage than of their timidity. —⁠G.

This Quintus had, however, rashly and of his own accord appeared before the tribunal; and the church of Smyrna condemn “his indiscreet ardor,” coupled as it was with weakness in the hour of trial. —⁠M. ↩
The examples drawn by the historian from Justin Martyr and Cyprian relate altogether to particular cases, and prove nothing as to the general practice adopted towards the accused; it is evident, on the contrary, from the same apology of St. Justin, that they hardly ever obtained delay. “A man named Lucius, himself a Christian, present at an unjust sentence passed against a Christian by the judge Urbicus, asked him why he thus punished a man who was neither adulterer nor robber, nor guilty of any other crime but that of avowing himself a Christian.” Urbicus answered only in these words: “Thou also hast the appearance of being a Christian.” “Yes, without doubt,” replied Lucius. The judge ordered that he should be put to death on the instant. A third, who came up, was condemned to be beaten with rods. Here, then, are three examples where no delay was granted. [Surely these acts of a single passionate and irritated judge prove the general practice as little as those quoted by Gibbon. —⁠M.] There exist a multitude of others, such as those of Ptolemy, Marcellus, etc. Justin expressly charges the judges with ordering the accused to be executed without hearing the cause. The words of St. Cyprian are as particular, and simply say that he had appointed a day by which the Christians must have renounced their faith; those who had not done it by that time were condemned. —⁠G.

This confirms the statement in the text. —⁠M. ↩
If this be the case, Dion Cassius must have known the Christians; they must have been the subject of his particular attention, since the author supposes that he wished his master to profit by these “counsels of persecution.” How are we to reconcile this necessary consequence with what Gibbon has said of the ignorance of Dion Cassius even of the name of the Christians (in this note)? [Gibbon speaks of Dion’s silence, not of his ignorance. —⁠M.] The supposition in this note is supported by no proof; it is probable that Dion Cassius has often designated the Christians by the name of Jews. See Dion Cassius, l. LXVII c. 14, LXVIII 1. —⁠G.

On this point I should adopt the view of Gibbon rather than that of M. Guizot. —⁠M. ↩
Dr. Lardner has detailed, with his usual impartiality, all that has come down to us relating to the persecution of Aurelian, and concludes by saying, “Upon more carefully examining the words of Eusebius, and observing the accounts of other authors, learned men have generally, and, as I think, very judiciously, determined that Aurelian not only intended, but did actually persecute: but his persecution was short, he having died soon after the publication of his edicts.” Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, c. XXXVI.

Basnage positively pronounces the same opinion: Non intentatum modo, sed executum quoque brevissimo tempore mandatum, nobis infixum est in aniasis. Basnage, Annales 275, No. 2 and compare Pagi, Annales 272, Nos. 4, 12, 27. —⁠G. ↩
On the era of martyrs, see the very curious dissertations of Mons. Letronne on some recently discovered inscriptions in Egypt and Nubis, p. 102, etc. —⁠M. ↩
On the extraordinary progress of the Mithraic rites in the West, see De Guigniaud’s translation of Creuzer, vol. I, p. 365, and Note 9, tom. I part 2, p. 738, etc. —⁠M. ↩
M. Guizot here justly observes that it was the necessity of sacrificing to the gods which induced Marcellus to act in this manner. —⁠M. ↩
Lactantius, who was subsequently chosen by Constantine to educate Crispus, might easily have learned these details from Constantine himself, already of sufficient age to interest himself in the affairs of the government, and in a position to obtain the best information. —⁠G.

This assumes the doubtful point of the authorship of the treatise. —⁠M. ↩
This disregard consisted in the Christians fasting and praying instead of participating in the banquets and sacrifices which she celebrated with the Pagans. Dapibus sacrificabat poene quotidiè, ac vicariis suis epulis exhibebat. Christiani abstinebant, et illâ cum gentibus epulante, jejuniis hi et orationibus insistebant; hinc concepit odium adversus eos. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 11. —⁠G. ↩
As the history of these times affords us no example of any attempts made by the Christians against their persecutors, we have no reason, not the slightest probability, to attribute to them the fire in the palace; and the authority of Constantine and Lactantius remains to explain it. M. de Tillemont has shown how they can be reconciled. Histoire des empereurs, “Vie de Diocletian,” XIX. —⁠G.

Had it been done by a Christian, it would probably have been a fanatic, who would have avowed and gloried in it. Tillemont’s supposition that the fire was first caused by lightning, and fed and increased by the malice of Galerius, seems singularly improbable. —⁠M. ↩
Universum populum. Lactantius, Institutiones divinae V 11. —⁠G. ↩
M. Guizot suggests the powerful eunuchs of the palace, Dorotheus, Gorgonius, and Andrew, admitted by Gibbon himself to have been put to death, ↩
M. Guizot directly contradicts this statement of Gibbon, and appeals to Eusebius. Maxentius, who assumed the power in Italy, pretended at first to be a Christian (καθυπεκρίνατο), to gain the favor of the Roman people; he ordered his ministers to cease to persecute the Christians, affecting a hypocritical piety, in order to appear more mild than his predecessors; but his actions soon proved that he was very different from what they had at first hoped. The actions of Maxentius were those of a lascivious and cruel tyrant, but not those of a persecutor: the Christians, like the rest of his subjects, suffered from his vices, but they were not oppressed as a sect. Christian females were exposed to his lusts, as well as to the brutal violence of his colleague Maximian, but they were not selected as Christians. —⁠M. ↩
The words of Optatus are, Profectus (Româ) causam dixit; jussus est reverti Carthaginem; perhaps, in pleading his cause, he exculpated himself, since he received an order to return to Carthage. —⁠G. ↩
We are ignorant whether Aglae and Boniface were Christians at the time of their unlawful connection. See Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, Note on the Persecution of Domitian, tom. V note 82. M. de Tillemont proves also that the history is doubtful. —⁠G.

Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes) calls the story of Aglae and Boniface as of equal authority with our popular histories of Whittington and Hickathrift. Disquisitions Concerning the Antiquities of the Christian Church II 64. —⁠M. ↩
But Gibbon has answered this by his just observation that it is not in the language of edicts and manifestos that we should search⁠ ⁠… for the secret motives of princes. —⁠M. ↩
It is easy to reconcile them; it is sufficient to quote the entire text of Lactantius: Nam cum clementiam specie tenus profiteretur, occidi servos Dei vetuit, debilitari jussit. Itaque confessoribus effodiebantur oculi, amputabantur manus, nares vel auriculae desecabantur. Haec ille moliens Constantini litteris deterretur. Dissimulavit ergo, et tamen, si quis inciderit, mari occultè mergebatur. This detail of torments inflicted on the Christians easily reconciles Lactantius and Eusebius. Those who died in consequence of their tortures, those who were plunged into the sea, might well pass for martyrs. The mutilation of the words of Lactantius has alone given rise to the apparent contradiction. —⁠G.

Eusebius, ch. VI, relates the public martyrdom of the aged bishop of Emesa, with two others, who were thrown to the wild beasts; the beheading of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, with several others; and the death of Lucian, presbyter of Antioch, who was carried to Numidia, and put to death in prison. The contradiction is direct and undeniable, for although Eusebius may have misplaced the former martyrdoms, it may be doubted whether the authority of Maximin extended to Nicomedia till after the death of Galerius. The last edict of toleration issued by Maximin, and published by Eusebius himself, Historia ecclesiastica IX 9, confirms the statement of Lactantius. —⁠M. ↩
Historical criticism does not consist in rejecting indiscriminately all the facts which do not agree with a particular system, as Gibbon does in this chapter, in which, except at the last extremity, he will not consent to believe a martyrdom. Authorities are to be weighed, not excluded from examination. Now, the Pagan historians justify in many places the details which have been transmitted to us by the historians of the church concerning the tortures endured by the Christians. Celsus reproaches the Christians with holding their assemblies in secret, on account of the fear inspired by their sufferings, “for when you are arrested,” he says, “you are dragged to punishment; and, before you are put to death, you have to suffer all kinds of tortures.” Origen, Contra Celsum, l. I, II, VI, VIII, passim. Libanius, the panegyrist of Julian, says, while speaking of the Christians, “Those who followed a corrupt religion were in continual apprehensions; they feared lest Julian should invent tortures still more refined than those to which they had been exposed before, as mutilation, burning alive, etc.; for the emperors had inflicted upon them all these barbarities.” Libanius, “Oratio Parentalis” in Julian apud Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, No. 9, No. 58, p. 283. —⁠G. ↩
M. Guizot states that the acts of Tarachus and his companion contain nothing that appears dictated by violent feelings (sentiment outré). Nothing can be more painful than the constant attempt of Gibbon, throughout this discussion, to find some flaw in the virtue and heroism of the martyrs, some extenuation for the cruelty of the persecutors. But truth must not be sacrificed even to well-grounded moral indignation. Though the language of these martyrs is in great part that of calm defiance, of noble firmness, yet there are many expressions which betray “resentment and contempt.” “Children of Satan, worshippers of Devils,” is their common appellation of the heathen. One of them calls the judge ἀναιδέστατε; another θηρίων ἀωαιδέστατε τύραννε: one curses, and declares that he will curse the Emperors, ὔβρίσα, καὶ ὐβρίσω λοιμοίς ὄντας καὶ αίμοπότας, as pestilential and bloodthirsty tyrants, whom God will soon visit in his wrath. On the other hand, though at first they speak the milder language of persuasion, the cold barbarity of the judges and officers might surely have called forth one sentence of abhorrence from Gibbon. On the first unsatisfactory answer, “Break his jaw,” is the order of the judge. They direct and witness the most excruciating tortures; the people, as M. Guizot observes, were so much revolted by the cruelty of Maximus, that when the martyrs appeared in the amphitheatre, fear seized on all hearts, and general murmurs against the unjust judge rank through the assembly. It is singular, at least, that Gibbon should have quoted “as probably authentic,” acts so much embellished with miracle as these of Tarachus are, particularly towards the end. —⁠M. ↩
Scarcely were the authorities informed of this, than the president of the province, a man, says Eusebius, harsh and cruel, banished the confessors, some to Cyprus, others to different parts of Palestine, and ordered them to be tormented by being set to the most painful labors. Four of them, whom he required to abjure their faith, and refused, were burnt alive. Eusebius, De martyribus Palestinae, c. XIII. —⁠G.

Two of these were bishops; a fifth, Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, was the last martyr; another, named John, was blinded, but used to officiate and recite from memory long passages of the sacred writings. —⁠M. ↩
Those who will take the trouble to consult the text will see that if the word ὑπομείναντας could be taken for the expectation of punishment, the passage could have no sense, and become absurd. —⁠G.

The many (πλείους) he speaks of as suffering together in one day; ἀθροως κατὰ μιαν ἑμεραν. The fact seems to be that religious persecution always raged in Egypt with greater violence than elsewhere. —⁠M. ↩
The practical illustration of the possibility of Leander’s feat by Lord Byron and other English swimmers is too well known to need particular reference. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Walpole’s Memoirs Relating to European and Asiatic Turkey, vol. I, p. 101. Dr. Edward Daniel Clarke adopted Mr. Walpole’s interpretation of πλάτυς Ἑλλήσποντος, the salt Hellespont. But the old interpretation is more graphic and Homeric. Clarke’s Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa II 70. —⁠M. ↩
On this column (says M. von Hammer) Constantine, with singular shamelessness, placed his own statue with the attributes of Apollo and Christ. He substituted the nails of the Passion for the rays of the sun. Such is the direct testimony of the author of the Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, apud Banduri. Constantine was replaced by the “great and religious” Julian; Julian, by Theodosius. AD 1412, the key stone was loosened by an earthquake. The statue fell in the reign of Alexius Comnenus, and was replaced by the cross. The Palladium was said to be buried under the pillar. Von Hammer, Constantinopolis und der Bosporos I 162. —⁠M. ↩
See this note for Dr. Clarke’s rejection of Thévenot’s authority. Von Hammer, however, repeats the story of Thévenot without questioning its authenticity. —⁠M. ↩
Yet, for his age, the description of the statues of Hecuba and of Homer are by no means without merit. See Anthologia Palatina (edit. Jacobs) I 37. —⁠M. ↩
At Rome the poorer citizens who received these gratuities were inscribed in a register; they had only a personal right. Constantine attached the right to the houses in his new capital, to engage the lower classes of the people to build their houses with expedition. Codex Theodosianus, l. XIV —⁠G. ↩
“This right” (the Jus Italicum), “which by most writers is referred without foundation to the personal condition of the citizens, properly related to the city as a whole, and contained two parts. First, the Roman or quiritarian property in the soil (commercium), and its capability of mancipation, usucaption, and vindication; moreover, as an inseparable consequence of this, exemption from land-tax. Then, secondly, a free constitution in the Italian form, with Duumvirs, Quinquennales, and Aediles, and especially with Jurisdiction.” Savigny, Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter, b. I, p. 51. —⁠M. ↩
Constantin, qui remplaca le grand Patriciat par une noblesse titrée, et qui changea avec d’autres institutions la nature de la société Latine, est le véritable fondateur de la royauté moderne, dans ce qu’elle conserva de Romain. Chateaubriand, Études Historiques Preface, I 151. Manso (Leben Constantius des Grossen), p. 153, etc., has given a lucid view of the dignities and duties of the officers in the Imperial court. —⁠M. ↩
It does not appear that the establishment of the indiction is to be attributed to Constantine; it existed before he had been created Augustus at Rome, and the remission granted by him to the city of Autun is the proof. He would not have ventured while only Caesar, and under the necessity of courting popular favor, to establish such an odious impost. Aurelius Victor and Lactantius agree in designating Diocletian as the author of this despotic institution. Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus, c. 39. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, c. 7. —⁠G. ↩
The Decurions were charged with assessing, according to the census of property prepared by the tabularii, the payment due from each proprietor. This odious office was authoritatively imposed on the richest citizens of each town; they had no salary, and all their compensation was to be exempt from certain corporal punishments, in case they should have incurred them. The Decurionate was the ruin of all the rich. Hence they tried every way of avoiding this dangerous honor; they concealed themselves, they entered into military service; but their efforts were unavailing; they were seized, they were compelled to become Decurions, and the dread inspired by this title was termed Impiety. —⁠G.

The Decurions were mutually responsible; they were obliged to undertake for pieces of ground abandoned by their owners on account of the pressure of the taxes, and, finally, to make up all deficiencies. Savigny, Geschichte des römischen Rechts I 25. —⁠M. ↩
See, likewise, a dissertation of M. Letronne, Considérations générales sur l’évaluation des monnaies Grecques et Romaines, Paris, 1817. —⁠M. ↩
On no subject has so much valuable information been collected since the time of Gibbon as the statistics of the different countries of Europe, but much is still wanting as to our own. —⁠M. ↩
In this passage of Eumenius, Savigny supposes the original number to have been 32,000: 7,000 being discharged, there remained 25,000 liable to the tribute. See Mem. quoted above. —⁠M. ↩
This custom is of still earlier date, the Romans had borrowed it from Greece. Who is not acquainted with the famous oration of Demosthenes for the golden crown, which his citizens wished to bestow, and Aeschines to deprive him of? —⁠G. ↩
This conjecture is very doubtful. The obscurity of the law quoted from the Theodosian code scarcely allows any inference, and there is extant but one medal which can be attributed to a Helena, wife of Crispus. See Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, tom. VIII, pp. 102 and 145. —⁠G. ↩
Hannibalianus is always designated in these authors by the title of king. There still exist medals struck to his honor, on which the same title is found, Fl. Hannibaliano Regi. See Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, tom. VIII, p. 104. Armeniam nationesque circum socias habebat, says Aurelius Victor, p. 225. The writer means the Lesser Armenia. Though it is not possible to question a fact supported by such respectable authorities, Gibbon considers it inexplicable and incredible. It is a strange abuse of the privilege of doubting to refuse all belief in a fact of such little importance in itself, and attested thus formally by contemporary authors and public monuments. Saint-Martin, note to Le Beau, I 341. —⁠M. ↩
I have already noticed the confusion which must necessarily arise in history when names purely geographical, as this of Sarmatia, are taken for historical names belonging to a single nation. We perceive it here: it has forced Gibbon to suppose, without any reason but the necessity of extricating himself from his perplexity that the Sarmatians had taken a king from among the Vandals; a supposition entirely contrary to the usages of Barbarians. Dacia, at this period, was occupied, not by Sarmatians, who have never formed a distinct race, but by Vandals, whom the ancients have often confounded under the general term Sarmatians. See Gatterer’s Versuch einer allgemeinen WeltGeschichte, p. 464. —⁠G. ↩
Gibbon has confounded the inhabitants of the city of Cherson, the ancient Chersonesus, with the people of the Chersonesus Taurica. If he had read with more attention the chapter of Constantius Porphyrogenitus from which this narrative is derived, he would have seen that the author clearly distinguishes the republic of Cherson from the rest of the Tauric Peninsula, then possessed by the kings of the Cimmerian Bosphorus, and that the city of Cherson alone furnished succors to the Romans. The English historian is also mistaken in saying that the Stephanephoros of the Chersonites was a perpetual magistrate; since it is easy to discover from the great number of Stephanephoroi mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus that they were annual magistrates, like almost all those which governed the Grecian republics. Saint-Martin, note to Le Beau, I 326. —⁠M. ↩
Compare, on this very obscure but remarkable war, Manso, Leben Constantius des Grossen, p. 195. —⁠M. ↩
The authority of Philostorgius is so suspicious as not to be sufficient to establish this fact, which Gibbon has inserted in his history as certain, while in the note he appears to doubt it. —⁠G. ↩
The author of the Zenut-ul-Tarikh states that the lady herself affirmed her belief of this from the extraordinary liveliness of the infant, and its lying on the right side. Those who are sage on such subjects must determine what right she had to be positive from these symptoms. Malcolm, History of Persia I 83. —⁠M. ↩
Constantine had endeavored to allay the fury of the persecutions, which, at the instigation of the Magi and the Jews, Sapor had commenced against the Christians. Eusebius, De vita Constantini. History of the Church, Theodoret I 25. Sozomen II c. 8, 15. —⁠M. ↩
“Gibbon has endeavored, in his History, to make use of the information furnished by Moses of Chorene, the only Armenian historian then translated into Latin. Gibbon has not perceived all the chronological difficulties which occur in the narrative of that writer. He has not thought of all the critical discussions which his text ought to undergo before it can be combined with the relations of the western writers. From want of this attention, Gibbon has made the facts which he has drawn from this source more erroneous than they are in the original. This judgment applies to all which the English historian has derived from the Armenian author. I have made the History of Moses a subject of particular attention; and it is with confidence that I offer the results, which I insert here, and which will appear in the course of my notes. In order to form a judgment of the difference which exists between me and Gibbon, I will content myself with remarking that throughout he has committed an anachronism of thirty years, from whence it follows that he assigns to the reign of Constantius many events which took place during that of Constantine. He could not therefore discern the true connection which exists between the Roman history and that of Armenia, or form a correct notion of the reasons which induced Constantine, at the close of his life, to make war upon the Persians, or of the motives which detained Constantius so long in the East; he does not even mention them.” Saint-Martin, note on Le Beau, I, p. 406.

I have inserted M. Saint-Martin’s observations, but I must add that the chronology which he proposes is not generally received by Armenian scholars, nor, I believe, by Professor Neumann. —⁠M. ↩
The Persian historians, or romancers, do not mention the battle of Singara, but make the captive Shahpour escape, defeat, and take prisoner the Roman emperor. The Roman captives were forced to repair all the ravages they had committed, even to replanting the smallest trees. Malcolm I 85. —⁠M. ↩
The Itinerary of Antoninus (p. 357, edit. Wesseling) places Mons Seleucus twenty-four miles from Vapinicum (Gap), and twenty-six from Lucus (le Luc), on the road to Die (Dea Vocontiorum). The situation answers to Mont Saléon, a little place on the right of the small river Buech, which falls into the Durance. Roman antiquities have been found in this place. Saint-Martin, Note to Le Beau, II 47. —⁠M. ↩
Gallus and Julian were not sons of the same mother. Their father, Julius Constantius, had had Gallus by his first wife, named Galla; Julian was the son of Basilina, whom he had espoused in a second marriage. Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs. Vie de Constantin, art. 3. —⁠G. ↩
It is doubtful whether the obelisk transported by Constantius to Rome now exists. Even from the text of Ammianus, it is uncertain whether the interpretation of Hermapion refers to the older obelisk (obelisco incisus est veteri quem videmus in Circo), raised, as he himself states, in the Circus Maximus, long before, by Augustus, or to the one brought by Constantius. The obelisk in the square before the church of St. John Lateran is ascribed, not to Rameses the Great, but to Thoutmos II. Champollion, I Lettre à M. de Blacas, p. 32. —⁠M. ↩
In my Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur l’Arménie, l. I, pp. 166, 173, I conceive that I have proved this city, still called by the Armenians Dirkranagerd, the city of Tigranes, to be the same with the famous Tigranocerta, of which the situation was unknown. Saint-Martin I 432. On the siege of Amida, see Saint-Martin’s Notes, II 290. Faustus of Byzantium, nearly a contemporary (Armenian), states that the Persians, on becoming masters of it, destroyed 40,000 houses; though Ammianus describes the city as of no great extent (civitatis ambitum non nimium amplae). Besides the ordinary population, and those who took refuge from the country, it contained 20,000 soldiers. Saint-Martin II 290. This interpretation is extremely doubtful. Wagner (note on Ammianus) considers the whole population to amount only to 20,000. —⁠M. ↩
Klaproth considers the real Albanians the same with the ancient Alani, and quotes a passage of the emperor Julian in support of his opinion. They are the Ossetae, now inhabiting part of Caucasus. Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, pp. 179, 180. —⁠M.

The Vertae are still unknown. It is possible that the Chionites are the same as the Huns. These people were already known; and we find from Armenian authors that they were making, at this period, incursions into Asia. They were often at war with the Persians. The name was perhaps pronounced differently in the East and in the West, and this prevents us from recognizing it. Saint-Martin II 177. —⁠M. ↩
The Christian bishop of Bezabde went to the camp of the king of Persia, to persuade him to check the waste of human blood. Ammianus Marcellinus XX 7. —⁠M. ↩
Saint-Martin doubts whether it lay so much to the south. “The word Birtha means in Syriac a castle or fortress, and might be applied to many places.” Notes on Le Beau, vol. ii, p. 344. —⁠M. ↩
The late editor (Wagner) has nothing better to suggest, and laments, with Gibbon, the silence of Ernesti. —⁠M. ↩
Barbatio seems to have allowed himself to be surprised and defeated. —⁠M. ↩
A newly discovered fragment of Eunapius, whom Zosimus probably transcribed, illustrates this transaction. “Julian commanded the Romans to abstain from all hostile measures against the Salians, neither to waste or ravage their own country, for he called every country their own which was surrendered without resistance or toil on the part of the conquerors.” Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio II 256, and Eunapius in Niebuhr, Historiae Byzantinae, p. 86. —⁠M. ↩
Tricesimae, Kellen, Mannert, quoted by Wagner. Heraclea, perhaps Erkelens in the district of Juliers. Saint-Martin II 311. —⁠M. ↩
Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, vol. VIII. —⁠M. ↩
The great difficulty in resolving it into a natural phenomenon arises from the inscription; even the most heated or awestruck imagination would hardly discover distinct and legible letters in a solar halo. But the inscription may have been a later embellishment, or an interpretation of the meaning which the sign was construed to convey. Compare Heinichen, Excursus in loc. Eusebii, and the authors quoted. —⁠M. ↩
The first Excursus of Heinichen (in Vita Constantini, p. 507) contains a full summary of the opinions and arguments of the later writers who have discussed this interminable subject. As to his conversion, where interest and inclination, state policy, and, if not a sincere conviction of its truth, at least a respect, an esteem, an awe of Christianity, thus coincided, Constantine himself would probably have been unable to trace the actual history of the workings of his own mind, or to assign its real influence to each concurrent motive. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Heinichen, Excursus IV et V, where these questions are examined with candor and acuteness, and with constant reference to the opinions of more modern writers. —⁠M. ↩
This passage of Chrysostom, though not in his more forcible manner, is not quite fairly represented. He is stronger in other places, in Acts, “Homilia XXIII,” and “Homilia I”; compare likewise the sermon of Gregory of Nyssa on this subject, and Gregory Nazianzen. After all, to those who believed in the efficacy of baptism, what argument could be more conclusive than the danger of dying without it? “Oratio XL.” —⁠M. ↩
Heyne, in a valuable note on this passage of Zosimus, has shown decisively that this malicious way of accounting for the conversion of Constantine was not an invention of Zosimus. It appears to have been the current calumny, eagerly adopted and propagated by the exasperated Pagan party. Reitemeier, a later editor of Zosimus, whose notes are retained in the recent edition in the collection of the Byzantine historians, has a disquisition on the passage as candid, but not more conclusive, than some which have preceded him. —⁠M. ↩
See the dissertation of M. Letronne on this question. He conceives that Theophilus was born in the island of Dahlak, in the Arabian Gulf. His embassy was to Abyssinia rather than to India. Letronne, Matériaux pour l’histoire du christianisme en Égypte, en Nubie et en Abyssinie, Paris, 1832. Third Dissert. —⁠M. ↩
This freedom was extremely limited, and soon annihilated: already, from the third century, the deacons were no longer nominated by the members of the community, but by the bishops. Although it appears, by the letters of Cyprian, that even in his time no priest could be elected without the consent of the community (Epistolae 68), that election was far from being altogether free. The bishop proposed to his parishioners the candidate whom he had chosen, and they were permitted to make such objections as might be suggested by his conduct and morals (St. Cyprian, Epistolae 33). They lost this last right towards the middle of the fourth century. —⁠G. ↩
The statement of Planck is more consistent with history: “From the middle of the fourth century, the bishops of some of the larger churches, particularly those of the Imperial residence, were almost always chosen under the influence of the court, and often directly and immediately nominated by the emperor.” Planck, Geschichte der Christlichen-kirchlichen Gesellschafts-verfassung, vol. I, p. 263. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Planck (vol. I, p. 348). This century, the third, first brought forth the monks, and the monks, or the spirit of monkery, the celibacy of the clergy. Planck likewise observes that from the history of Eusebius alone names of married bishops and presbyters may be adduced by dozens. —⁠M. ↩
The philosophy of Plato was not the only source of that professed in the school of Alexandria. That city, in which Greek, Jewish, and Egyptian men of letters were assembled, was the scene of a strange fusion of the system of these three people. The Greeks brought a Platonism, already much changed; the Jews, who had acquired at Babylon a great number of Oriental notions, and whose theological opinions had undergone great changes by this intercourse, endeavored to reconcile Platonism with their new doctrine, and disfigured it entirely; lastly, the Egyptians, who were not willing to abandon notions for which the Greeks themselves entertained respect, endeavored on their side to reconcile their own with those of their neighbors. It is in Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon that we trace the influence of Oriental philosophy rather than that of Platonism. We find in these books, and in those of the later prophets, as in Ezekiel, notions unknown to the Jews before the Babylonian captivity, of which we do not discover the germ in Plato, but which are manifestly derived from the Orientals. Thus God represented under the image of light, and the principle of evil under that of darkness; the history of the good and bad angels; paradise and hell, etc., are doctrines of which the origin, or at least the positive determination, can only be referred to the Oriental philosophy. Plato supposed matter eternal; the Orientals and the Jews considered it as a creation of God, who alone was eternal. It is impossible to explain the philosophy of the Alexandrian school solely by the blending of the Jewish theology with the Greek philosophy. The Oriental philosophy, however little it may be known, is recognized at every instant. Thus, according to the Zend Avesta, it is by the Word (Honover) more ancient than the world that Ormuzd created the universe. This word is the logos of Philo, consequently very different from that of Plato. I have shown that Plato never personified the logos as the ideal archetype of the world: Philo ventured this personification. The Deity, according to him, has a double logos; the first (λόγος ενδιάθετος) is the ideal archetype of the world, the ideal world, the firstborn of the Deity; the second (λόγος προφόρικος) is the word itself of God, personified under the image of a being acting to create the sensible world, and to make it like to the ideal world: it is the second-born of God. Following out his imaginations, Philo went so far as to personify anew the ideal world, under the image of a celestial man (ὀυράνιος ἄνφρσπος), the primitive type of man, and the sensible world under the image of another man less perfect than the celestial man. Certain notions of the Oriental philosophy may have given rise to this strange abuse of allegory, which it is sufficient to relate, to show what alterations Platonism had already undergone, and what was their source. Philo, moreover, of all the Jews of Alexandria, is the one whose Platonism is the most pure. (See Buhle, Introduction to History of Modern Philosophy. Michaelis, Introduction to New Testament in German, part II, p. 973.) It is from this mixture of Orientalism, Platonism, and Judaism that Gnosticism arose, which has produced so many theological and philosophical extravagancies, and in which Oriental notions evidently predominate. —⁠G. ↩
Tertullian is here arguing against the Patripassians; those who asserted that the Father was born of the Virgin, died, and was buried. —⁠M. ↩
A short discussion on the sense in which St. John has used the word Logos will prove that he has not borrowed it from the philosophy of Plato. The evangelist adopts this word without previous explanation, as a term with which his contemporaries were already familiar, and which they could at once comprehend. To know the sense which he gave to it, we must inquire that which it generally bore in his time. We find two: the one attached to the word logos by the Jews of Palestine, the other by the school of Alexandria, particularly by Philo. The Jews had feared at all times to pronounce the name of Jehovah; they had formed a habit of designating God by one of his attributes; they called him sometimes Wisdom, sometimes the Word. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made. (Psalm 33:6). Accustomed to allegories, they often addressed themselves to this attribute of the Deity as a real being. Solomon makes Wisdom say, “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” (Proverbs 8:22, 23). Their residence in Persia only increased this inclination to sustained allegories. In the Ecclesiasticus of the son of Sirach, and the Book of Wisdom, we find allegorical descriptions of Wisdom like the following: “I came out of the mouth of the Most High; I covered the earth as a cloud;⁠ ⁠… I alone compassed the circuit of heaven, and walked in the bottom of the deep⁠ ⁠… The Creator created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never fail.” (Ecclesiasticus 24:35⁠–⁠39). See also the Wisdom of Solomon 7:9. [The latter book is clearly Alexandrian. —⁠M.] We see from this that the Jews understood from the Hebrew and Chaldaic words which signify Wisdom, the Word, and which were translated into Greek by σοφία, λόγος, a simple attribute of the Deity, allegorically personified, but of which they did not make a real particular being, separate from the Deity.

The school of Alexandria, on the contrary, and Philo among the rest, mingling Greek with Jewish and Oriental notions, and abandoning himself to his inclination to mysticism, personified the logos, and represented it (see this note) as a distinct being, created by God, and intermediate between God and man. This is the second logos of Philo (λόγος προφόρικος), that which acts from the beginning of the world, alone in its kind (μονογένης), creator of the sensible world (κόσμος αισθητὸς), formed by God according to the ideal world (κασμος κόητος) which he had in himself, and which was the first logos (ὁ ἀνωτάτω), the firstborn (ὁ πρισβύτερος) of the Deity. The logos taken in this sense, then, was a created being, but, anterior to the creation of the world, near to God, and charged with his revelations to mankind.

Which of these two senses is that which St. John intended to assign to the word logos in the first chapter of his Gospel, and in all his writings?

St. John was a Jew, born and educated in Palestine; he had no knowledge, at least very little, of the philosophy of the Greeks, and that of the Grecizing Jews: he would naturally, then, attach to the word logos the sense attached to it by the Jews of Palestine. If, in fact, we compare the attributes which he assigns to the logos with those which are assigned to it in Proverbs, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus, we shall see that they are the same. The Word was in the world, and the world was made by him; in him was life, and the life was the light of men (John 1:10⁠–⁠14). It is impossible not to trace in this chapter the ideas which the Jews had formed of the allegorized logos. The evangelist afterwards really personifies that which his predecessors have personified only poetically; for he affirms that the Word became flesh (John 5:14). It was to prove this that he wrote. Closely examined, the ideas which he gives of the logos cannot agree with those of Philo and the school of Alexandria; they correspond, on the contrary, with those of the Jews of Palestine. Perhaps St. John, employing a well-known term to explain a doctrine which was yet unknown, has slightly altered the sense; it is this alteration which we appear to discover on comparing different passages of his writings.

It is worthy of remark that the Jews of Palestine, who did not perceive this alteration, could find nothing extraordinary in what St. John said of the Logos; at least they comprehended it without difficulty, while the Greeks and Grecizing Jews, on their part, brought to it prejudices and preconceptions easily reconciled with those of the evangelist, who did not expressly contradict them. This circumstance must have much favored the progress of Christianity. Thus the fathers of the church in the two first centuries and later, formed almost all in the school of Alexandria, gave to the Logos of St. John a sense nearly similar to that which it received from Philo. Their doctrine approached very near to that which in the fourth century the council of Nice condemned in the person of Arius. —⁠G.

Guizot has forgotten the long residence of St. John at Ephesus, the centre of the mingling opinions of the East and West, which were gradually growing up into Gnosticism. (See Matter, Histoire critique du gnosticisme, vol. I, p. 154.) St. John’s sense of the Logos seems as far removed from the simple allegory ascribed to the Palestinian Jews as from the Oriental impersonation of the Alexandrian. The simple truth may be that St. John took the familiar term, and, as it were, infused into it the peculiar and Christian sense in which it is used in his writings. —⁠M. ↩
The greater part of the Docetae rejected the true divinity of Jesus Christ, as well as his human nature. They belonged to the Gnostics, whom some philosophers, in whose party Gibbon has enlisted, make to derive their opinions from those of Plato. These philosophers did not consider that Platonism had undergone continual alterations, and that those who gave it some analogy with the notions of the Gnostics were later in their origin than most of the sects comprehended under this name. Mosheim has proved (in his Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae, s. I, p. 136, sqq. and p. 339, sqq.) that the Oriental philosophy, combined with the cabalistical philosophy of the Jews, had given birth to Gnosticism. The relations which exist between this doctrine and the records which remain to us of that of the Orientals, the Chaldean and Persian, have been the source of the errors of the Gnostic Christians, who wished to reconcile their ancient notions with their new belief. It is on this account that, denying the human nature of Christ, they also denied his intimate union with God, and took him for one of the substances (aeons) created by God. As they believed in the eternity of matter, and considered it to be the principle of evil, in opposition to the Deity, the first cause and principle of good, they were unwilling to admit that one of the pure substances, one of the aeons which came forth from God, had, by partaking in the material nature, allied himself to the principle of evil; and this was their motive for rejecting the real humanity of Jesus Christ. See Christian Wilhelm Franz Walch, History of Heresies in German, t. I, p. 217, sqq. Brucker, Historia critica philosophiae II, p. 639. —⁠G. ↩
The name of Docetae was given to these sectaries only in the course of the second century: this name did not designate a sect, properly so called; it applied to all the sects who taught the non-reality of the material body of Christ; of this number were the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Ophites, the Marcionites (against whom Tertullian wrote his book, De carne Christi), and other Gnostics. In truth, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, l. III c. 13, p. 552) makes express mention of a sect of Docetae, and even names as one of its heads a certain Cassianus; but everything leads us to believe that it was not a distinct sect. Philastrius (Adversus omnes haereses, c. 31) reproaches Saturninus with being a Docete. Irenaeus (Adversus haereses, c. 23) makes the same reproach against Basilides. Epiphanius and Philastrius, who have treated in detail on each particular heresy, do not specially name that of the Docetae. Serapion, bishop of Antioch (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, l. VI c. 12), and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, l. VII, p. 900), appear to be the first who have used the generic name. It is not found in any earlier record, though the error which it points out existed even in the time of the Apostles. See Walch, History of Heresies, t. I, p. 283. Tillemont, Mem. pour servir à la Historia ecclesiastica II, p. 50. Johann Franz Buddeus, Ecclesia apostolica, c. 5 § 7. —⁠G. ↩
Dr. Burton’s work on the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene fathers must be consulted by those who wish to obtain clear notions on this subject. —⁠M. ↩
Heinichen (Excursus XI) quotes with approbation the term “golden words,” applied by Ziegler to this moderate and tolerant letter of Constantine. May an English clergyman venture to express his regret that “the fine gold so soon became dim” in the Christian church? —⁠M. ↩
This grave charge, if made (and it rests entirely on the authority of Sozomen), seems to have been silently dropped by the parties themselves: it is never alluded to in the subsequent investigations. From Sozomen himself, who gives the unfavorable report of the commission of inquiry sent to Egypt concerning the cup, it does not appear that they noticed this accusation of personal violence. —⁠M. ↩
I cannot quite comprehend the ground of Gibbon’s doubts. Athanasius distinctly asserts the fact of their retractation. (Athanasius, Opera I, p. 139, edit. Benedicti.) The epistles are apparently translations from the Latin, if, in fact, more than the substance of the epistles. That to Athanasius is brief, almost abrupt. Their retractation is likewise mentioned in the address of the orthodox bishops of Rimini to Constantius. Athanasius, “De Synodis,” Opera, tom. I, p. 723. —⁠M. ↩
Arius appears to have been the first who availed himself of this means of impressing his doctrines on the popular ear: he composed songs for sailors, millers, and travellers, and set them to common airs; “beguiling the ignorant, by the sweetness of his music, into the impiety of his doctrines.” Philostorgius II 2. Arian singers used to parade the streets of Constantinople by night, till Chrysostom arrayed against them a band of orthodox choristers. Sozomen VIII 8. —⁠M. ↩
The murder of Hermogenes took place at the first expulsion of Paul from the see of Constantinople. —⁠M. ↩
The philosophers retaliated on the courtiers. Marius (says Eunapius in a newly-discovered fragment) was wont to call his antagonist Sylla a beast half lion and half fox. Constantius had nothing of the lion, but was surrounded by a whole litter of foxes. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio II 238. Niebuhr, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, p. 66. —⁠M. ↩
The late editor of Ammianus attempts to vindicate his author from the charge of inaccuracy. “It is clear from the whole course of the narrative that Constantius entertained this design of demanding his troops from Julian, immediately after the taking of Amida, in the autumn of the preceding year, and had transmitted his orders into Gaul before it was known that Lupicinus had gone into Britain with the Herulians and Batavians.” Wagner, note to Ammianus Marcellinus XX 4. But it seems also clear that the troops were in winter quarters (hiemabant) when the orders arrived. Ammianus can scarcely be acquitted of incorrectness in his language at least. —⁠M. ↩
Wagner thinks this sudden change of sentiment altogether a fiction of the attendant courtiers and chiefs of the army, who up to this time had been hostile to Julian. Note in loc. Ammianus. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbonus secundum habet pro numero, quod tamen est viri agnomen. Wagner, notâ in loc. Ammianus. It is not a mistake; it is rather an error in taste. Wagner inclines to transfer the chief guilt to Arbetio. —⁠M. ↩
It is very questionable whether Julian meant to insinuate this charge. He compares the conduct of the “Galilaeans” in looking after the poor for the sake of proselytising to that of kidnappers who inveigle children by giving them a cake; the simile does not seem to be applied literally to the Christians. —⁠B. ↩
Eunapius wrote a continuation of the History of Dexippus. Some valuable fragments of this work have been recovered by M. Mai, and reprinted in Niebuhr’s edition of the Byzantine Historians. —⁠M. ↩
Much curious information on this subject is collected in the first chapter of Friedrich Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge. —⁠M. ↩
Lord Mahon, in a memoir read before the Society of Antiquaries (Feb. 1831), has traced, in a brief but interesting manner, the singular adventures of the “true” cross. It is curious to inquire what authority we have, except of late tradition, for the Hill of Calvary. There is none in the sacred writings; the uniform use of the common word τὄπος, instead of any word expressing assent or acclivity, is against the notion. —⁠M. ↩
According to the historian Kotobeddym, quoted by Burckhardt (Travels in Arabia, p. 276), the Khalif Mokteder sacrificed during his pilgrimage to Mecca, in the year of the Hejira 350, forty thousand camels and cows, and fifty thousand sheep. Barthema describes thirty thousand oxen slain, and their carcasses given to the poor. Quarterly Review XIII, p.39. —⁠M. ↩
It is a fact now popularly known, that, when mines which have been long closed are opened, one of two things takes place: either the torches are extinguished and the men fall first into a swoon and soon die; or, if the air is inflammable, a little flame is seen to flicker round the lamp, which spreads and multiplies till the conflagration becomes general, is followed by an explosion, and kills all who are in the way. —⁠G. ↩
Gibbon has forgotten Basnage, to whom Warburton replied. —⁠M. ↩
Socrates, however, implies that, on the death of Julian, they were contemptuously thrown aside by the Christians. τῶν δὲ οἴ πόνοι ἐν ἰσῳ τοῦ μη γραφῆναι λογίζονται. Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica III 16. —⁠M. ↩
The history of the remains of Babylas is told, accurately for the most part, by Tillemont, and has been fully discussed by Bishop Lightfoot (in Apostolic Fathers, part II vol. I, p. 41, sqq.), who uncovers a nest of errors in the account of Gibbon. (1) From Sozomen V 20, it is clear that persecutions intervened between the procession and the outbreak of the fire. Consequently Tillemont and Gibbon are wrong in stating that the fire broke out “during the night which terminated this indiscreet procession”⁠—a false inference from Ammianus XXII 13 (Lightfoot, p. 43, n. 5). (2) Gibbon seems to confound Theodorus, a young man mentioned by Rufinus, X 36 (to whom he was known), and Socrates, l. III c. 19, with the presbyter and martyr Theodoret put to death by Julian’s uncle, Count Julian (Sozomen V 8; Ruinart, Acta primorum martyrum sincera, p. 605, sqq.). (3) Ammian’s expression levissimus rumor relates not to the charge against Christians, but to the story that the fire was accidentally caused by the philosopher Asclepiades. Gibbon wrongly connected hac ex causa with the preceding sentence: Ammianus XXII 13, 3. (4) Babylas, removed by Julian’s orders, was placed in his former martyrium within the city (Chrysostom, I, p. 564⁠–⁠565); soon afterwards a splendid church was built in his honor, outside the city on the other side of the Orontes, and his bones were placed in it, during the bishopric of Meletius, who died AD 381 (Chrysostom, “De Hieromartyrem Babylas,” p. 535). Gibbon apparently confounds the martyrium in Daphne with this new church, when he says, “A magnificent church was erected over his remains.” (5) “The church of St. Babylas was subsequently demolished” is inconsistent with Chrysostom’s statement (p. 565) that the martyrium in Daphne was left standing after the fire. —⁠B. ↩
The late Dr. Milner (the Roman Catholic bishop) wrote a tract to vindicate the existence and the orthodoxy of the tutelar saint of England. He succeeds, I think, in tracing the worship of St. George up to a period which makes it improbable that so notorious an Arian could be palmed upon the Catholic church as a saint and a martyr. The Acts rejected by Gelasius may have been of Arian origin, and designed to ingraft the story of their hero on the obscure adventures of some earlier saint. See An Historical and Critical Inquiry Into the Existence and Character of Saint George, in a letter to the Earl of Leicester, by the Rev. John Milner, F.S.A., London 1792. —⁠M. ↩
The sentence in the text is from “Epistle LI,” addressed to the people of Alexandria. —⁠M. ↩
See also Casaubon, De satyrica Graecorum et Romanarum satira, with Rambach’s observations. —⁠M. ↩
The name of Diva gens, or Divorum regio according to the probable conjecture of M. Letronne (Trois, Mémoires de l’Académie, p. 127), was applied by the ancients to the whole eastern coast of the Indian Peninsula, from Ceylon to the Ganges. The name may be traced in Dévipatnam, Dévidan, Dévicotta, Divinelly, the point of Divy.

M. Letronne, p.121, considers the freedman with his embassy from Ceylon to have been an impostor. —⁠M. ↩
Djisr Manbedj is the same with the ancient Zeugma. Saint-Martin III 58. —⁠M. ↩
On an inedited medal in the collection of the late M. Tochon, of the Academy of Inscriptions, it is read Xappan. Saint-Martin. III 80. —⁠M. ↩
Arsaces Tiranus, or Diran, had ceased to reign twenty-five years before, in 337. The intermediate changes in Armenia, and the character of this Arsaces, the son of Diran, are traced by M. Saint-Martin, at considerable length, in his supplement to Le Beau, II 208⁠–⁠242. As long as his Grecian queen Olympias maintained her influence, Arsaces was faithful to the Roman and Christian alliance. On the accession of Julian, the same influence made his fidelity to waver; but Olympias having been poisoned in the sacramental bread by the agency of Pharandsem, the former wife of Arsaces, another change took place in Armenian politics unfavorable to the Christian interest. The patriarch Narses retired from the impious court to a safe seclusion. Yet Pharandsem was equally hostile to the Persian influence, and Arsaces began to support with vigor the cause of Julian. He made an inroad into the Persian dominions with a body of Huns and Alans as auxiliaries; wasted Aderbidgan; and Sapor, who had been defeated near Tauriz, was engaged in making head against his troops in Persarmenia, at the time of the death of Julian. Such is M. Saint-Martin’s view (III 276, et sqq.), which rests on the Armenian historians, Faustus of Byzantium, and Mesrob the biographer of the Partriarch Narses. In the History of Armenia by Father Michael Chamitch, and translated by Avdall, Tiran is still king of Armenia at the time of Julian’s death. Father Chamitch follows Moses of Chorene, the authority of Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
Saint-Martin considers it genuine: the Armenian writers mention such a letter, III 37. —⁠M. ↩
Saint-Martin conceives that he was an elder brother by another mother who had several children, II 24. —⁠M. ↩
Rodosaces-malek is king. Saint-Martin considers that Gibbon has fallen into an error in bringing the tribe of Gassan to the Euphrates. In Ammianus it is Assan. M. Saint-Martin would read Massanitarum, the same with the Mauzanitae of Malalas. —⁠M. ↩
It is evident that Gibbon has mistaken the sense of Libanius; his words can only apply to a commander of a detachment and not to so eminent a person as the Prefect of the East. Saint-Martin III 313. —⁠M. ↩
A very remarkable fragment of Eunapius describes, not without spirit, the struggle between the terror of the army on account of their perilous situation, and their grief for the death of Julian. “Even the vulgar felt that they would soon provide a general, but such a general as Julian they would never find, even though a god in the form of man⁠—πλάστος θεὸς. Julian, who, with a mind equal to the divinity, triumphed over the evil propensities of human nature⁠—⁠ ⁠… who held commerce with immaterial beings while yet in the material body⁠—who condescended to rule because a ruler was necessary to the welfare of mankind.” Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio II 261. Eunapius in Niebuhr, 69. The πλάστος θεὸς, to which Julian is thus advantageously compared, is manifestly, as M. Mai observes, a bitter sneer at the Incarnate Deity of the Christians. The fragment is followed by an indignant comment by some Christian writer. Ibid. —⁠M. ↩
Sermanray, called by the Arabs Samira, where d’Anville placed Samara, is too much to the south, and is a modern town built by Caliph Motasen. Serra-man-rai means, in Arabic, it rejoices everyone who sees it. Saint-Martin III 133. —⁠M. ↩
Yet this appears to be the case (in modern maps): the march is the difficulty. —⁠M. ↩
Hatra, now Kadhr. Ur, Kasr or Skervidgi. Thilsaphata is unknown. —⁠M. ↩
Dadastana is supposed to be Castabat. —⁠M. ↩
Symmachus, in a fragment of an oration published by M. Mai, describes Valentinian as born among the snows of Illyria, and habituated to military labor amid the heat and dust of Libya: genitus in frigoribus, educatus is solibus. Symmachi octo orationum fragmenta, edit. Niebuhr, p. 5. —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus and Zosimus place the last battle at Nacolia in Phrygia; Ammianus altogether omits the former battle near Thyatira. Procopius was on his march (iter tendebat) towards Lycia. See Wagner’s note, in loc. —⁠M. ↩
Symmachus joins with Themistius in praising the clemency of Valens. Sic victoriae moderatus est, quasi contra se nemo pugnavit. Symmachus oratios, p. 12. —⁠M. ↩
Ammianus does not say that they were worshipped as martyrs. Quorum memoriam apud Mediolanum colentes nunc usque Christiani, loculos ubi sepulti sunt, ad innocentes appellant. Wagner’s note in loc. Yet if the next paragraph refers to that transaction, which is not quite clear, Gibbon is right. —⁠M. ↩
Comme il s’était prescrit pour règle de ne point se mêler de disputes de religion, son histoire est presque entièrement degagée des affaires ecclésiastiques. Le Beau III 214. —⁠M. ↩
“This explanation,” says Mr. Malthus, “only removes the difficulty a little farther off. It makes the earth rest upon the tortoise, but does not tell us on what the tortoise rests. We may still ask what northern reservoir supplied this incessant stream of daring adventurers. Montesquieu’s solution of the problem will, I think, hardly be admitted (Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, c. 16, p. 187).⁠ ⁠… The whole difficulty, however, is at once removed if we apply to the German nations, at that time, a fact which is so generally known to have occurred in America, and suppose that, when not checked by wars and famine, they increased at a rate that would double their numbers in twenty-five or thirty years. The propriety and even the necessity of applying this rate of increase to the inhabitants of ancient Germany will strikingly appear from that most valuable picture of their manners which has been left us by Tacitus (Tacitus, De moribus Germanorum, c. 16⁠–⁠20).⁠ ⁠… With these manners, and a habit of enterprise and emigration, which would naturally remove all fears about providing for a family, it is difficult to conceive a society with a stronger principle of increase in it, and we see at once that prolific source of armies and colonies against which the force of the Roman empire so long struggled with difficulty, and under which it ultimately sunk. It is not probable that, for two periods together, or even for one, the population within the confines of Germany ever doubled itself in twenty-five years. Their perpetual wars, the rude state of agriculture, and particularly the very strange custom adopted by most of the tribes of marking their barriers by extensive deserts, would prevent any very great actual increase of numbers. At no one period could the country be called well peopled, though it was often redundant in population.⁠ ⁠… Instead of clearing their forests, draining their swamps, and rendering their soil fit to support an extended population, they found it more congenial to their martial habits and impatient dispositions to go in quest of food, of plunder, or of glory, into other countries.” Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population I, p. 128. —⁠G. ↩
This controversy has not slumbered since the days of Gibbon. We have strenuous advocates of the Phoenician origin of the Irish; and each of the old theories, with several new ones, maintains its partisans. It would require several pages fairly to bring down the dispute to our own days, and perhaps we should be no nearer to any satisfactory theory than Gibbon was. —⁠M. ↩
See Dr. Samuel Parr’s Works, vol. III, p. 93, where he questions the propriety of Gibbon’s translation of this passage. The learned doctor approves of the version proposed by a Mr. Gaches, who would make out that it was the delicate parts of the swine and the cattle which were eaten by these ancestors of the Scotch nation. I confess that even to acquit them of this charge, I cannot agree to the new version, which, in my opinion, is directly contrary both to the meaning of the words and the general sense of the passage. But I would suggest, did Jerome, as a boy, accompany these savages in any of their hunting expeditions? If he did not, how could he be an eyewitness of this practice? The Attacotti in Gaul must have been in the service of Rome. Were they permitted to indulge these cannibal propensities at the expense, not of the flocks, but of the shepherds of the provinces? These sanguinary trophies of plunder would scarcely have been publicly exhibited in a Roman city or a Roman camp. I must leave the hereditary pride of our northern neighbors at issue with the veracity of St. Jerome. —⁠M. ↩
The martial tribes in chain armor, discovered by Denham, are Muhammadan; the great question of the inferiority of the African tribes in their mental faculties will probably be experimentally resolved before the close of the century; but the slave trade still continues, and will, it is to be feared, till the spirit of gain is subdued by the spirit of Christian humanity. —⁠M. ↩
The statement of Ammianus is more brief and succinct, but harmonizes with the more complicated history developed by M. Saint-Martin from the Armenian writers, and from Procopius, who wrote, as he states, from Armenian authorities. —⁠M. ↩
Saint-Martin agrees with Gibbon that it was the same fortress with Ardis. Note, p. 373. —⁠M. ↩
An error according to Saint-Martin, 273. —⁠M. ↩
On the war of Sapor with the Bactrians, which diverted his attention from Armenia, see Saint-Martin III 387. —⁠M. ↩
This note is a tissue of mistakes. Tiridates and Para are two totally different persons. Tiridates was the father of Gnel, first husband of Pharandsem, the mother of Para. Saint-Martin IV 27. —⁠M. ↩
M. Saint-Martin (III 246) denies that there is any authority for these numbers. —⁠M. ↩
The Moguls (Mongols), according to M. Klaproth, are a tribe of the Tatar nation. Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 154. —⁠M. ↩
Thomas Gray. —⁠M. ↩
Of the various works published since the time of Gibbon, which throw light on the nomadic population of Central Asia, may be particularly remarked the Travels and Dissertations of Peter Pallas; and above all, the very curious work of Benjamin Bergmann, Nomadische Streifereien, Riga, 1805. —⁠M. ↩
The differences between the various pastoral tribes and nations comprehended by the ancients under the vague name of Scythians, and by Gibbon under that of Tartars, have received some, and still, perhaps, may receive more light from the comparisons of their dialects and languages by modern scholars. —⁠M. ↩
Ferdowsi is yet imperfectly known to European readers. An abstract of the whole poem has been published by Joseph Goerres in German, under the title Das Heldenbuch des Iran. In English, an abstract with poetical translations, by Mr. Atkinson, has appeared, under the auspices of the Oriental Fund. But to translate a poet a man must be a poet. The best account of the poem is in an article by von Hammer in the Wiener Jahrbücher, 1820: or perhaps in a masterly article in Cochrane’s Foreign Quarterly Review, No. 1, 1835. A splendid and critical edition of the whole work has been published by a very learned English Orientalist, Captain Turner Macan, at the expense of the king of Oude. As to the number of 60,000 couplets, Captain Macan (Preface, p. 39) states that he never saw a MS. containing more than 56,685, including doubtful and spurious passages and episodes. —⁠M. ↩
The later studies of Sir William Jones were more in unison with the wishes of the public, thus expressed by Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
The theory of de Guignes on the early history of the Huns is, in general, rejected by modern writers. De Guignes advanced no valid proof of the identity of the Hioung-nou of the Chinese writers with the Huns, except the similarity of name.

Schlözer (Allgemeine nordische Geschichte, p. 252), Klaproth (Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 246), Saint-Martin IV 61, and Abel-Rémusat (Recherches sur les langues Tartares, Discours Préliminaire XLVI and p. 328; though in the latter passage he considers the theory of de Guignes not absolutely disproved), concur in considering the Huns as belonging to the Finnish stock, distinct from the Moguls, the Mandscheus, and the Turks. The Hiong-nou, according to Klaproth, were Turks. The names of the Hunnish chiefs could not be pronounced by a Turk; and, according to the same author, the Hioung-nou, which is explained in Chinese as detestable slaves, as early as the year 91 J. C., were dispersed by the Chinese, and assumed the name of Yue-po or Yue-pan. M. Saint-Martin does not consider it impossible that the appellation of Hioung-nou may have belonged to the Huns. But all agree in considering the Madjar or Magyar of modern Hungary the descendants of the Huns. Their language (compare Gibbon’s note here) is nearly related to the Lapponian and Vogoul. The noble forms of the modern Hungarians, so strongly contrasted with the hideous pictures which the fears and the hatred of the Romans give of the Huns, M. Klaproth accounts for by the intermingling with other races, Turkish and Slavonian. The present state of the question is thus stated in the last edition of Malte-Brun, and a new and ingenious hypothesis suggested to resolve all the difficulties of the question.

Were the Huns Finns? This obscure question has not been debated till very recently, and is yet very far from being decided. We are of opinion that it will be so hereafter in the same manner as that with regard to the Scythians. We shall trace in the portrait of Attila a dominant tribe of Mongols or Kalmucks, with all the hereditary ugliness of that race; but in the mass of the Hunnish army and nation will be recognized the Chuni and the Ounni of the Greek Geography, the Kuns of the Hungarians, the European Huns, and a race in close relationship with the Flemish stock. Malte-Brun, VI, p. 94. This theory is more fully and ably developed, p. 743. Whoever has seen the emperor of Austria’s Hungarian guard will not readily admit their descent from the Huns described by Sidonius Appolinaris. —⁠M. ↩
On the Ouigour or Igour characters, see the work of M. Abel-Rémusat, Recherches sur les langues Tartares. He conceives the Ouigour alphabet of sixteen letters to have been formed from the Syriac, and introduced by the Nestorian Christians. Ch. II. —⁠M. ↩
See on the origin of the Russ, Schlözer, Allgemeine nordische Geschichte, p. 222. —⁠M. ↩
A new passage from the history of Eunapius is nearer to the truth. “It appeared to our commanders a legitimate source of gain to be bribed by the Barbarians: κἐρδος αὐτοις ἐδόκει γνήσιον τὸ δωροδοκεῖσθαι παρὰ τῶν πολεμίων.” Edit. Niebuhr, p. 82. —⁠M. ↩
It is rather Horburg, on the right bank of the River Ill, opposite to Colmar. From Schöpflin, Alsatia illustrata. Saint-Martin IV 121. —⁠M. ↩
Compare fragment of Eunapius. Mai, 272, in Niebuhr, p. 77. —⁠M. ↩
Add a hostile fragment of Eunapius. Mai, p. 273, in Niebuhr, p. 178. —⁠M. ↩
Le Beau contests the reading in the Chronicle of Prosper upon which this charge rests. Le Beau IV 232. —⁠M. ↩
According to Pacatus, the Count Vallio, who commanded the army, was carried to Châlons to be burnt alive; but Maximus, dreading the imputation of cruelty, caused him to be secretly strangled by his Bretons. Macedonius also, master of the offices, suffered the death which he merited. Le Beau IV 244. —⁠M. ↩
Mr. Beugnot has made it doubtful whether Symmachus was more than Pontifex Major. Destruction du Paganisme, vol. I, p. 459. —⁠M. ↩
See in Reiske’s edition of Libanius, tom. II, p. 155. Sacrifice was prohibited by Valens, but not the offering of incense. —⁠M. ↩
Libanius appears to be the best authority for the East, where, under Theodosius, the work of devastation was carried on with very different degrees of violence, according to the temper of the local authorities and of the clergy, and more especially the neighborhood of the more fanatical monks. Neander well observes that the prohibition of sacrifice would be easily misinterpreted into an authority for the destruction of the buildings in which sacrifices were performed (Geschichte der christlichen Religion II, p. 156). An abuse of this kind led to this remarkable oration of Libanius. Neander, however, justly doubts whether this bold vindication, or at least exculpation, of Paganism was ever delivered before, or even placed in the hands of the Christian emperor. —⁠M. ↩
Consult Le dieu Sérapis et son origine, par J. D. Guigniaut (the translator of Creuzer’s Symbolik und Mythologie), Paris, 1828; and in the fifth volume of Bournouf’s translation of Tacitus. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Wilkinson’s The Topography of Thebes and General View of Egypt, p. 313. —⁠M. ↩
Yet Augustine, with laudable inconsistency, disapproved of the forcible demolition of the temples. “Let us first extirpate the idolatry of the hearts of the heathen, and they will either themselves invite us or anticipate us in the execution of this good work.” Tom. V s. 62. Compare Neander, II 169, and, in p. 155, a beautiful passage from Chrysostom against all violent means of propagating Christianity. —⁠M. ↩
I have inserted some lines omitted by Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
Heyne in his “Disquisitio in Zosimum Ejusque Fidem,” places Zosimus towards the close of the fifth century. Zosimus historiae Graece et Latine, C. G. Heynii, p. XVII. —⁠M. ↩
The statement of Gibbon is much too strongly worded. M. Beugnot has traced the vestiges of Paganism in the West, after this period, in monuments and inscriptions, with curious industry. Compare likewise note, p. 608, on the more tardy progress of Christianity in the rural districts. —⁠M. ↩
The expression is curious: Τοιαύτας αὐτῶ τὰς πὐλας ἀπὲδειξε τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ἤτε τῶν τὰ φαιὰ ἱμάτια ἐχόντων, ἀκωλύτως προσπαρεισελθόντων, ἀσέβεια. Vitas Sophistarum et fragmenta historiarum, “Maximus,” tom. I, p. 53, edit. Boissonade. —⁠M. ↩
The god of war and of hospitality with the Vends and all the Sclavonian races of Germany bore the name of Radegast, apparently the same with Rhadagaisus. His principal temple was at Rhetra in Mecklenburg. It was adorned with great magnificence. The statue of the god was of gold. Saint-Martin V 255. A statue of Radegast, of much coarser materials, and of the rudest workmanship, was discovered between 1760 and 1770, with those of other Wendish deities, on the supposed site of Rhetra. The names of the gods were cut upon them in Runic characters. See the very curious volume on these antiquities, Die gottesdienstliche Alterthümer der Obotriten, Masch and Wogen, Berlin, 1771. —⁠M. ↩
Ὀπτιμάτοι is merely the Latin translation of the word κεφαλαιῶται. It is not quite clear whether Gibbon derived his expression, “glittered in the van,” from translating the word “leaders.” —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon, by translating this passage of Olympiodorus as if it had been good Greek, has probably fallen into an error: οὒ καταπολεμήσας Στελίχων Ῥοδογαίσον προσηταιρίσατο. The natural order of the words is as Gibbon translates it; but προσηταιρίσατο, it is almost clear, refers to the Gothic chiefs, “whom Stilicho, after he had defeated Radagaisus, attached to his army.” So in the version corrected by Classen for Niebuhr’s edition of the Byzantines, p. 450. —⁠M. ↩
Considering the vow which he was universally believed to have made, to destroy Rome, and to sacrifice the senators on the altars, and that he is said to have immolated his prisoners to his gods, the execution of Radagaisus, if, as it appears, he was taken in arms, cannot deserve Gibbon’s severe condemnation. Mr. William Herbert (notes to his poem of Attila, p. 317) justly observes that “Stilicho had probably authority for hanging him on the first tree.” Marcellinus, adds Mr. Herbert, attributes the execution to the Gothic chiefs, Huldin and Sarus. —⁠M. ↩
From Cicero’s twelth Philippic, c. 14. —⁠M. ↩
One particular in the extorted praise of Zosimus deserved the notice of the historian, as strongly opposed to the former imputations of Zosimus himself, and indicative of the corrupt practices of a declining age. “He had never bartered promotion in the army for bribes, nor peculated in the supplies of provisions for the army.” L. V c. XXXIV. —⁠M. ↩
M. Beugnot has pointed out one remarkable characteristic of Claudian’s poetry, and of the times⁠—his extraordinary religious indifference. Here is a poet writing at the actual crisis of the complete triumph of the new religion, the visible extinction of the old; if we may so speak, a strictly historical poet, whose works, excepting his mythological poem on the rape of Proserpine, are confined to temporary subjects, and to the politics of his own eventful day; yet, excepting in one or two small and indifferent pieces, manifestly written by a Christian, and interpolated among his poems, there is no allusion whatever to the great religious strife. No one would know the existence of Christianity at that period of the world by reading the works of Claudian. His panegyric and his satire preserve the same religious impartiality; award their most lavish praise or their bitterest invective on Christian or Pagan; he insults the fall of Eugenius, and glories in the victories of Theodosius. Under the child⁠—and Honorius never became more than a child⁠—Christianity continued to inflict wounds more and more deadly on expiring Paganism. Are the gods of Olympus agitated with apprehension at the birth of this new enemy? They are introduced as rejoicing at his appearance, and promising long years of glory. The whole prophetic choir of Paganism, all the oracles throughout the world, are summoned to predict the felicity of his reign. His birth is compared to that of Apollo, but the narrow limits of an island must not confine the new deity⁠—

… Non littora nostro
Sufficerent angusta Deo.

Augury and divination, the shrines of Ammon and of Delphi, the Persian Magi and the Etruscan seers, the Chaldean astrologers, the Sibyl herself, are described as still discharging their prophetic functions, and celebrating the natal day of this Christian prince. They are noble lines, as well as curious illustrations of the times:

… Quae tunc documenta futuri?
Quae voces avium? quanti per inane volatus?
Quis vatum discursus erat? Tibi corniger Ammon,
Et dudum taciti rupêre silentia Delphi.
Te Persae cecinêre Magi, te sensit Etruscus
Augur, et inspectis Babylonius horruit astris;
Chaldaei stupuêre senes, Cumanaque rursus
Itonuit rupes, rabidae delubra Sibyllae.
Claudian, “IV Consulatu Honorii” 141.

From the Quarterly Review of Beugnot, Histoire de la destruction du paganisme, Quarterly Review, vol. LVII, p. 61. —⁠M. ↩
The discovery of glass in such common use at Pompeii spoils the argument of Arbuthnot. See Sir William Gell’s Pompeiana, second ser., p. 98. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Lyell’s Principles of Geology II 72. —⁠M. ↩
Is it not the dormouse? —⁠M. ↩
On this curious question of the knowledge of conducting lightning, processed by the ancients, consult Eusèbe Salverte, Des sciences occultes, l. XXIV, Paris, 1829. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Sir William Gell, Topography of Rome and Its Vicinity, vol. II, p. 134. —⁠M. ↩
Immanuel Bekker in his Photius reads σκόκοις, but in the new edition of the Byzantines, he retains σάκκοις, which is translated Scutis, as if they protected him with their shields in order to take him alive. Photius, edit. Bekker, p. 58. —⁠M. ↩
The first mention of Pharamond is in the Gesta Francorum assigned to about the year 720. Saint-Martin IV 469. The modern French writers in general subscribe to the opinion of Thierry: Faramond fils de Markomir, quo que son nom soit bien germanique, et son regne possible, ne figure pas dans les histoires les plus dignes de foi. Augustine Thierry, Lettres sur l’histoire de France, p. 90. —⁠M. ↩
See Mémoires de Gallet sur l’Origine des Bretons, quoted by Pierre, comte Daru, Histoire de Bretagne I, p. 57. According to the opinion of these authors, the government of Armorica was monarchical from the period of its independence of the Roman empire. —⁠M. ↩
The names may be found in Whitaker’s History of Manchester, vol. II 330, 379. Turner, History of the Anglo-Saxons I 216. —⁠M. ↩
A fragment of Eunapius confirms this account. “Thus having deprived this great person of his life⁠—a eunuch, a man, a slave, a consul, a minister of the bedchamber, one bred in camps.” Mai, p. 283, in Niebuhr, p. 87. —⁠M. ↩
Tillemont argues strongly for the number of thirty-six. —⁠M. ↩
See Saint-Martin’s article on “Jezdegerd,” in the Biographie universelle de Michaud. —⁠M. ↩
The heathen Eunapius gives a frightful picture of the venality and injustice of the court of Pulcheria. Fragment Eunapius in Mai II 293, in Neibuhr, p. 97. —⁠M. ↩
Five hundred and eighty. Saint-Martin VI 29. He places this event AD 429. —⁠M. ↩
According to M. Saint-Martin VI 32, Vagharschah, or Valarsaces, was appointed king by his brother Mithridates the Great, king of Parthia. —⁠M. ↩
Lord Mahon, The Life of Belisarius, p. 133, mentions one of Belisarius on the authority of Cedrenus. —⁠M. ↩
Johann Mailáth (in his Geschichte der Magyaren) considers the question of the origin of the Magyars as still undecided. The old Hungarian chronicles unanimously derived them from the Huns of Attila. See this note. The later opinion, adopted by Schlözer, Belnay, and Dankowsky, ascribes them, from their language, to the Finnish race. Ignaz Fessler, in his History of Hungary, agrees with Gibbon in supposing them Turks. Mailáth has inserted an ingenious dissertation of Fejer, which attempts to connect them with the Parthians. Vol. I, Anmerkungen, p. 50. —⁠M. ↩
Compare the life of this remarkable man, translated from the Chinese by M. Abel-Rémusat, Nouveaux mélanges asiatiques, t. II, p. 64. —⁠M. ↩
Niebuhr concurs in this opinion. “Life of Priscus” in the new edition of the Byzantine historians. —⁠M. ↩
M. Saint-Martin considers the narrative of Priscus, the only authority of M. Du Buat and of Gibbon, too vague to fix the position of Attila’s camp. “It is worthy of remark that, in the Hungarian traditions collected by Thurocz, l. 2, c. 17, precisely on the left branch of the Danube, where Attila’s residence was situated, in the same parallel stands the present city of Buda, in Hungarian Buduvur. It is for this reason that this city has retained for a long time among the Germans of Hungary the name of Etzelnburgh or Etzela-burgh, i.e., the city of Attila. The distance of Buda from the place where Priscus crossed the Danube, on his way from Naissus, is equal to that which he traversed to reach the residence of the king of the Huns. I see no good reason for not acceding to the relations of the Hungarian historians.” Saint-Martin VI 191. —⁠M. ↩
Might not the execution of Chrysaphius have been a sacrifice to avert the anger of Attila, whose assassination the eunuch had attempted to contrive? —⁠M. ↩
The relationship of Meroveus to Clodion is extremely doubtful. By some he is called an illegitimate son; by others, merely of his race. Gregorii Turonici, l. II c. 9, in Sismondi, Histoire des Français I 177. See Mezeray, I. —⁠M. ↩
Compare the curious Latin poems on the destruction of Aquileia, published by M. Endlicher in his valuable catalogue of Latin MSS. in the library of Vienna, p. 298, etc.

Repleta quondam domibus sublimibus, ornatis mire, niveis, marmoreis,
Nunc ferax frugum metiris funiculo ruricolarum.

The monkish poet has his consolation in Attila’s sufferings in soul and body.

Vindictam tamen non evasit impius destructor tuus Attila sevissimus,
Nunc igni simul gehennae et vermilibus excruciatur.
P. 290.

—⁠M. ↩
Gibbon has made a singular mistake: the Mincius flows out of the Bonacus at Peschiera, not into it. The interview is likewise placed at Ponte Molino, and at Governolo, at the conflux of the Mincio and the Po. Gonzaga, bishop of Mantua, erected a tablet in the year 1616, in the church of the latter place, commemorative of the event. Descrizione di Verona é della sua provincia, c. 11, p. 126. —⁠M. ↩
Compare likewise the newly-discovered work of Joannes Lydus, De magistratibus reipublicae Romanae, edit. Hase, Paris, 1812 (and in the new collection of the Byzantines), l. III c. 43. Lydus states the expenditure at 65,000 lbs. of gold, 700,000 of silver. But Lydus exaggerates the fleet to the incredible number of 10,000 long ships (Liburnae), and the troops to 400,000 men. Lydus describes this fatal measure, of which he charges the blame on Basiliscus, as the shipwreck of the state. From that time all the revenues of the empire were anticipated, and the finances fell into inextricable confusion. —⁠M. ↩
According to Saint-Martin there is no foundation for this conjecture, VII 5. —⁠M. ↩
Manso observes that Odoacer never called himself king of Italy, did not assume the purple, and no coins are extant with his name. Geschichte des ost-gothischen Reiches, p. 36. —⁠M. ↩
The emperor Valens, in particular, promulgates a law contra ignavise quosdam sectatores, qui desertis civitatum muneribus, captant solitudines secreta, et specie religionis cum coetibus monachorum congregantur, Codex Theodosianus, l. XII tit. I leg. 63. —⁠G. ↩
The Codex Argenteus, found in the sixteenth century at Wenden, near Cologne, and now preserved at Upsal, contains almost the entire four Gospels. The best edition is that of Johann Christian Zahn, Weissenfels, 1805. In 1762 Knettel discovered and published from a Palimpsest MS. four chapters of the Epistle to the Romans: they were reprinted at Upsal, 1763. M. Mai has since that time discovered further fragments, and other remains of Moeso-Gothic literature, from a Palimpsest at Milan. See Ulphilae partium ineditarum in Ambrosianis Palimpsestis ab Angelo Maio repertarum specimen, Milan, quarto, 1819. —⁠M. ↩
These names appear to have been introduced by the Donatists. —⁠M. ↩
This controversy has continued to be agitated, but with declining interest even in the more religious part of the community, and may now be considered to have terminated in an almost general acquiescence of the learned to the conclusions of Porson in his Letters to Travis. See the pamphlets of the late Bishop of Salisbury and of Crito Cantabrigiensis, Dr. Turton of Cambridge. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Milman, History of the Jews III 256, 266. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Henry Hallam’s View of the State of Europe During the Middle Ages, vol. I, p. 2, and Daru, Histoire de Bretagne, vol. I, p. 129. —⁠M. ↩
The relative antiquity of the two copies of the Salic law has been contested with great learning and ingenuity. The work of M. Tileman Dothias Wiarda, History and Explanation of the Salic Law, Bremen, 1808, asserts that what is called the Lex Antiqua, or Vetustior, in which many German words are mingled with the Latin, has no claim to superior antiquity, and may be suspected to be more modern. M. Wiarda has been opposed by M. Fuerbach, who maintains the higher age of the “ancient” Code, which has been greatly corrupted by the transcribers. See Guizot, Cours d’histoire moderne, vol. I sect. 9; and the preface to the useful republication of five of the different texts of the Salic law, with that of the Ripuarian in parallel columns. By E. A. I. Laspeyres, Halle, 1833. —⁠M. ↩
It is the object of the important work of M. Savigny, Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter, to show the perpetuity of the Roman law from the fifth to the twelfth century. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon appears to have doubted the evidence on which this “liberty of choice” rested. His doubts have been confirmed by the researches of M. Savigny, who has not only confuted but traced with convincing sagacity the origin and progress of this error. As a general principle, though liable to some exceptions, each lived according to his native law. Geschichte des römischen Rechts, vol. I, pp. 123⁠–⁠138. —⁠M. ↩
This constitution of Lothaire at first related only to the duchy of Rome; it afterwards found its way into the Lombard code. Savigny, p. 138. —⁠M. ↩
The question of the scabini is treated at considerable length by Savigny. He questions the existence of the scabini anterior to Charlemagne. Before this time the decision was by an open court of the freemen, the boni homoines. Geschichte des römischen Rechts, vol. I, p. 195, et seq. —⁠M. ↩
Sismondi supposes that the Barbarians, if a farm were conveniently situated, would show no great respect for the laws of property; but in general there would have been vacant land enough for the lots assigned to old or worn-out warriors (Histoire des Français, vol. I, p. 196). —⁠M. ↩
No solution seems more probable than that the ancient lawgivers of the Salic Franks prohibited females from inheriting the lands assigned to the nation upon its conquest of Gaul, both in compliance with their ancient usages, and in order to secure the military service of every proprietor. But lands subsequently acquired by purchase or other means, though equally bound to the public defence, were relieved from the severity of this rule, and presumed not to belong to the class of Sallic. Hallam’s Europe During the Middle Ages, vol. I, p. 145. Compare Sismondi, vol. I, p. 196. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Hallam, vol. I, p. 216. —⁠M. ↩
Add the Anglo-Saxon History of Mr. Sharon Turner, and Sir Francis Palgrave’s sketch of the Early History of England. —⁠M. ↩
Sir Francis Palgrave (The History of England, p. 36) is inclined to resolve the whole of these stories, as Niebuhr the older Roman history, into poetry. To the editor they appeared, in early youth, so essentially poetic as to justify the rash attempt to embody them in an epic poem called “Samor,” commenced at Eton, and finished before he had arrived at the maturer taste of manhood. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Gallet, Mémoires de la société d’histoire et d’archéologie de Bretagne, and Daru, Histoire de Bretagne. These authors appear to me to establish the point of the independence of Bretagne at the time that the insular Britons took refuge in their country, and that the greater part landed as fugitives rather than as conquerors. I observe that M. Joseph Martin Lappenberg (Geschichte von England, vol. I, p. 56) supposes the settlement of a military colony formed of British soldiers (Milites limitanei, laeti), during the usurpation of Maximus (381, 388), who gave their name and peculiar civilization to Bretagne. M. Lappenberg expresses his surprise that Gibbon here rejects the authority which he follows elsewhere. —⁠M. ↩
I presume that Gibbon means Llywarch Hen, or the Aged.⁠—The Elegies of this Welsh prince and bard have been published by Mr. Owen; in whose works and in the Myvyrian Archaeology of Wales slumbers much curious information on the subject of Welsh tradition and poetry. But the Welsh antiquarians have never obtained a hearing from the public; they have had no Macpherson to compensate for his corruption of their poetic legends by forcing them into popularity.⁠—See also Mr. Sharon Turner’s “Essay on the Welsh Bards.” —⁠M. ↩
These valuable dissertations should not now be read without the notes and preliminary essay of the late editor, Mr. Price, which, in point of taste and fullness of information, are worthy of accompanying and completing those of Warton. —⁠M. ↩
Dr. Prichard’s very curious researches, which connect the Celtic, as well as the Teutonic, languages with the Indo-European class, make it still more difficult to decide between the Celtic or Teutonic origin of English words.⁠—See Prichard on The Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, Oxford, 1831. —⁠M. ↩
Amala was a name of hereditary sanctity and honor among the Ostrogoths. It enters into the names of Amalaberga, Amala suintha (swinthei means strength), Amalafred, Amalarich. In the poem of the Nibelungen, written three hundred years later, the Ostrogoths are called the Amilungen. According to Wachter it means unstained, from the privative a, and malo a stain. It is pure Sanskrit, Amala, immaculatus. August Wilhelm Schlegel, Indische Bibliothek 1, p. 233. —⁠M. ↩
Le Beau and his commentator, M. Saint-Martin, support, though with no very satisfactory evidence, the opposite opinion. But Lord Mahon (The Life of Belisarius, p. 19) urges the much stronger argument, the Byzantine education of Theodroic. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon here assumes that the mother of Theodoric was the concubine of Theodemir, which he leaves doubtful in the text. —⁠M. ↩
The authority of Sigonius would scarcely have weighed with Gibbon except for an indecent anecdote. I have a recollection of a similar story in some of the Italian wars. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Manso, Geschichte des ost-gothischen Reiches, p. 114. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Manso, Geschichte des ost-gothischen Reiches, Beylage VI. Malte-Brun brings them from Scandinavia: their names, the only remains of their language, are Gothic.

“They fought almost naked, like the Icelandic Berserkirs their bravery was like madness: few in number, they were mostly of royal blood. What ferocity, what unrestrained license, sullied their victories! The Goth respects the church, the priests, the senate; the Heruli mangle all in a general massacre: there is no pity for age, no refuge for chastity. Among themselves there is the same ferocity: the sick and the aged are put to death, at their own request, during a solemn festival; the widow ends her days by hanging herself upon the tree which shadows her husband’s tomb. All these circumstances, so striking to a mind familiar with Scandinavian history, lead us to discover among the Heruli not so much a nation as a confederacy of princes and nobles, bound by an oath to live and die together with their arms in their hands. Their name, sometimes written Heruli or Eruli, sometimes Aeruli, signified, according to an ancient author (Isidorus Hispalensis in Glossarium, p. 24, ad calcem Lexicon Philologicum II, Martini), nobles, and appears to correspond better with the Scandinavian word îarl or earl, than with any of those numerous derivations proposed by etymologists.”
Malte-Brun, vol. I, p. 400 (edit. 1831).

Of all the Barbarians who threw themselves on the ruins of the Roman empire, it is most difficult to trace the origin of the Heruli. They seem never to have been very powerful as a nation, and branches of them are found in countries very remote from each other. In my opinion they belong to the Gothic race, and have a close affinity with the Scyrri or Hirri. They were possibly a division of that nation. They are often mingled and confounded with the Alani. Though brave and formidable, they were never numerous, nor did they found any state.⁠—Saint-Martin, vol. VI, p. 375. —⁠M.

Shafarik considers them descendants of the Hirri, of which Heruli is a diminutive.⁠—Slawische alterthümer I 436. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
See Manso, 92. Savigny, vol. II, p. 164, et seq. —⁠M. ↩
See Niebuhr, vol. I, p. 402. These stupendous works are among the most striking confirmations of Niebuhr’s views of the early Roman history; at least they appear to justify his strong sentence⁠—“These works and the building of the Capitol attest with unquestionable evidence that the Rome of the later kings was the chief city of a great state.”⁠—Page 410. —⁠M. ↩
Mr. Hallam (vol. III, p. 432) observes that “the image of Theodoric’s palace” is represented in Maffei, not from a coin, but from a seal. Compare Jean Baptiste d’Agincourt (Storia dell’arte, Italian Translation, Arcitecttura, Plate XVII No. 2, and Pittura, Plate XVI No. 15), where there is likewise an engraving from a mosaic in the church of St. Apollinaris in Ravenna, representing a building ascribed to Theodoric in that city. Neither of these, as Mr. Hallam justly observes, in the least approximates to what is called the Gothic style. They are evidently the degenerate Roman architecture, and more resemble the early attempts of our architects to get back from our national Gothic into a classical Greek style. One of them calls to mind Inigo Jones’s inner quadrangle in St. John’s College Oxford. Compare Hallam and d’Agincourt, vol. I, pp. 140⁠–⁠145. —⁠M. ↩
The inscription commemorative of the draining of the Pomptine marshes may be found in many works: in Gruter, Inscriptiones, Ant. Heidelberg, p. 152, No. 8; with variations, in Nicola Maria Nicolai, De’ bonificamenti delle Terre Pontine, p. 103; in Sartorius, in his prize essay on the reign of Theodoric; and Manso, Beylage XI. —⁠M. ↩
He recommended the same toleration to the emperor Justin. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon translated vitro, marble; under the impression, no doubt, that glass was unknown. —⁠M. ↩
Madame du Deffand. This witticism referred to the miracle of St. Denis. —⁠G. ↩
The Mausoleum of Theodoric, now Sante Maria della Rotonda, is engraved in d’Agincourt, Histoire de l’art, p. XVIII of the Architectural Prints. —⁠M. ↩
It is whimsical enough that, in our own days, we should have, even in jest, a claimant to lineal descent from the godlike swineherd, not in the person of a German baron, but in that of a professor of the Ionian University. Constantine Koliades, or some malicious wit under this name, has written a tall folio to prove Ulysses to be Homer, and himself the descendant, the heir(?), of the Eumaeus of the Odyssey. —⁠M. ↩
Dindorf, in his preface to the new edition of Malalas, p. VI, concurs with this opinion of Gibbon, which was also that of Reiske, as to the age of the chronicler. —⁠M. ↩
Procopius forms a part of the new Byzantine collection under the superintendence of Dindorf. —⁠M. ↩
The recent extraordinary discoveries in Egyptian antiquities strongly confirm the high notion of the early Egyptian civilization, and imperatively demand a longer period for their development. As to the common Hebrew chronology, as far as such a subject is capable of demonstration, it appears to me to have been framed, with a particular view, by the Jews of Tiberias. It was not the chronology of the Samaritans, not that of the LXX, not that of Josephus, not that of St. Paul. —⁠M. ↩
See Saint-Martin, Mémoires sur l’Arménie, vol. II, p. 41. —⁠M. ↩
An abstract of the various opinions of the learned modern writers, Gosselin, Mannert, Lelewel, Malte-Brun, Heeren, and La Treille, on the Serica and the Thinae of the ancients, may be found in the new edition of Malte-Brun, vol. VI, pp. 368, 383. —⁠M. ↩
The work of Lydus, De magistratibus (published by Hase at Paris, 1812, and reprinted in the new edition of the Byzantine Historians), was written during the reign of Justinian. This work of Lydus throws no great light on the earlier history of the Roman magistracy, but gives some curious details of the changes and retrenchments in the offices of state which took place at this time. The personal history of the author, with the account of his early and rapid advancement, and the emoluments of the posts which he successively held, with the bitter disappointment which he expresses at finding himself, at the height of his ambition, in an unpaid place, is an excellent illustration of this statement. Gibbon has before (this note and this note) traced the progress of a Roman citizen to the highest honors of the state under the empire; the steps by which Lydus reached his humbler eminence may likewise throw light on the civil service at this period. He was first received into the office of the Praetorian prefect; became a notary in that office, and made in one year 1,000 golden solidi, and that without extortion. His place and the influence of his relatives obtained him a wife with 400 pounds of gold for her dowry. He became chief chartularius, with an annual stipend of twenty-four solidi, and considerable emoluments for all the various services which he performed. He rose to an Augustalis, and finally to the dignity of Corniculus, the highest, and at one time the most lucrative office in the department. But the Praetorian prefect had gradually been deprived of his powers and his honors. He lost the superintendence of the supply and manufacture of arms; the uncontrolled charge of the public posts; the levying of the troops; the command of the army in war when the emperors ceased nominally to command in person, but really through the Praetorian prefect; that of the household troops, which fell to the magister aulae. At length the office was so completely stripped of its power as to be virtually abolished (see De magistratibus, l. III c. 40, p. 220, etc.). This diminution of the office of the prefect destroyed the emoluments of his subordinate officers, and Lydus not only drew no revenue from his dignity, but expended upon it all the gains of his former services.

Lydus gravely refers this calamitous and, as he considers it, fatal degradation of the Praetorian office, to the alteration in the style of the official documents from Latin to Greek; and refers to a prophecy of a certain Fonteius, which connected the ruin of the Roman empire with its abandonment of its language. Lydus chiefly owed his promotion to his knowledge of Latin! —⁠M. ↩
Lydus gives a high character of Phocas, his successor, tom. III c. 78, p. 288. —⁠M. ↩
History of Jews, vol. I, p. 257. —⁠M. ↩
M. von Hammer (in a review of Lord Mahon’s Life of Belisarius in the Wiener Jahrbücher) shows that the name of Belisarius is a Sclavonic word, Beli-tzar, the White Prince, and that the place of his birth was a village of Illyria, which still bears the name of Germany. —⁠M. ↩
Lord Mahon (Life of Belisarius, p.88) suggests some valid reasons for reading Catana, the ancient name of Catania. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Lord Mahon, p. 120. I conceive Gibbon to be right. —⁠M. ↩
Rosenmüller, arguing from the difference of style from that of the greater part of the book of Proverbs, and from its nearer approximation to the Aramaic dialect than any book of the Old Testament, assigns the Ecclesiastes to some period between Nehemiah and Alexander the Great. Scholia in Vetus Testamentum IX. Prooemium ad Ecclesiastes, p. 19. —⁠M. ↩
The Wendish population of Brandenburgh are now better known, but the Wends are clearly of the Sclavonian race; the Vandals most probably Teutonic, and nearly allied to the Goths. —⁠M. ↩
It has been supposed the Procopius is the only, or at least the most ancient, author who has spoken of this strange inscription, of which one may be tempted to attribute the invention to Procopius himself. Yet it is mentioned in the Armenian history of Moses of Chorene (l. I c. 18), who lived and wrote more than a century before Procopius. This is sufficient to show that an earlier date must be assigned to this tradition. The same inscription is mentioned by Suidas (sub voce Χανάαν), no doubt from Procopius. According to most of the Arabian writers, who adopted a nearly similar tradition, the indigenes of Northern Africa were the people of Palestine expelled by David, who passed into Africa, under the guidance of Goliath, whom they call Djalout. It is impossible to admit traditions which bear a character so fabulous. Saint-Martin, vol. XI, p. 324.⁠—Unless my memory greatly deceives me, I have read in the works of Lightfoot a similar Jewish tradition, but I have mislaid the reference, and cannot recover the passage. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Maltret’s note, in the edition of Dindorf: the ninth is the day according to his reading. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Gibbon, this note, this note, and ↩
Donatus and Nardini suppose that Hadrian’s tomb was fortified by Honorius; it was united to the wall by men of old (παλαιοὶ ἄνθρωπαι, Procopius, l. I c. 25). Gibbon has mistaken the breadth for the height above the walls. Hobhouse, Historical Illustrations of the Fourth Canto of “Childe Harold”, p. 302. —⁠M. ↩
Procopius says distinctly that Milan was the second city of the West. Which did Gibbon suppose could compete with it, Ravenna or Naples? In the next page he calls it the second. —⁠M. ↩
The malice of court scandal is proverbially inventive; and of such scandal the Anecdota may be an embellished record. —⁠M. ↩
See Malte-Brun, vol. I, p. 402. —⁠M. ↩
The Bulgarians are first mentioned among the writers of the West in the Panegyric on Theodoric by Ennodius, Bishop of Pavia. Though they perhaps took part in the conquests of the Huns, they did not advance to the Danube till after the dismemberment of that monarchy on the death of Attila. But the Bulgarians are mentioned much earlier by the Armenian writers. Above 600 years before Christ, a tribe of Bulgarians, driven from their native possessions beyond the Caspian, occupied a part of Armenia, north of the Araxes. They were of the Finnish race; part of the nation, in the fifth century, moved westward, and reached the modern Bulgaria; part remained along the Volga, which is called Etel, Etil, or Athil, in all the Tartar languages, but from the Bulgarians, the Volga. The power of the eastern Bulgarians was broken by Batou, son of Tchingiz Khan; that of the western will appear in the course of the history. From Saint-Martin, vol. VII, p. 141. Malte-Brun, on the contrary, conceives that the Bulgarians took their name from the river. According to the Byzantine historians they were a branch of the Ougres (Johann Erich Thunmann, History of the People to the East of Europe), but they have more resemblance to the Turks. Their first country, Great Bulgaria, was washed by the Volga. Some remains of their capital are still shown near Kasan. They afterwards dwelt in Kuban, and finally on the Danube, where they subdued (about the year 500) the Slavo-Serbians established on the Lower Danube. Conquered in their turn by the Avars, they freed themselves from that yoke in 635; their empire then comprised the Cutturgurians, the remains of the Huns established on the Palus Maeotis. The Danubian Bulgaria, a dismemberment of this vast state, was long formidable to the Byzantine empire. Malte-Brun, Précis de la géographie universelle, vol. I, p. 419. —⁠M.

According to Shafarik, the Danubian Bulgaria was peopled by a Slavo-Bulgarian race. The Slavish population was conquered by the Bulgarians (of Uralian and Finnish descent), and incorporated with them. This mingled race are the Bulgarians bordering on the Byzantine empire. Shafarik II 152, et seq. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
M. Klaproth (Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 274) supposes this river to be an eastern affluent of the Volga, the Kama, which, from the color of its waters, might be called black. M. Abel-Rémusat (Recherches sur les langues Tartares, vol. I, p. 320) and M. Saint-Martin (vol. IX, p. 373) consider it the Volga, which is called Atel or Etel by all the Turkish tribes. It is called Attilas by Menander, and Ettilia by the monk Ruysbroek (1253). See Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 247. This geography is much more clear and simple than that adopted by Gibbon from de Guignes, or suggested from Bell. —⁠M. ↩
Modern discoveries give no confirmation to this suspicion. The character of Indian science, as well as of their literature and mythology, indicates an original source. Grecian art may have occasionally found its way into India. One or two of the sculptures in Col. Tod’s account of the Jain temples, if correct, show a finer outline, and purer sense of beauty, than appears native to India, where the monstrous always predominated over simple nature. —⁠M. ↩
Mazdak was an Archimagus, born, according to Mirkhond (translated by De Sacy, p. 353, and Malcolm, vol. I, p. 104), at Istakhar or Persepolis, according to an inedited and anonymous history (the Modjmal-alte-warikh in the Royal Library at Paris, quoted by Saint-Martin, vol. VII, p. 322) at Nischapour in Chorasan: his father’s name was Bamdadam. He announced himself as a reformer of Zoroastrianism, and carried the doctrine of the two principles to a much greater height. He preached the absolute indifference of human action, perfect equality of rank, community of property and of women, marriages between the nearest kindred: he interdicted the use of animal food, proscribed the killing of animals for food, enforced a vegetable diet. See Saint-Martin, vol. VII, p. 322. Malcolm, vol. I, p. 104. Mirkhond translated by De Sacy. It is remarkable that the doctrine of Mazdak spread into the West. Two inscriptions found in Cyrene, in 1823, and explained by M. Gesenius, and by M. Hamaker of Leyden, prove clearly that his doctrines had been eagerly embraced by the remains of the ancient Gnostics; and Mazdak was enrolled with Thoth, Saturn, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Epicurus, John, and Christ, as the teachers of true Gnostic wisdom. See Saint-Martin, vol. VII, p. 338. Gesenius, De inscriptione Phoenicio-Graecâ in Cyrenaicâ nuper repertâ, Halle, 1825. Hendrik Arent Hamaker, Lettre à M. Raoul-Rochette, Leyden, 1825. —⁠M. ↩
The oldest Indian collection extant is the Panchatantra (the five collections), analyzed by Mr. Wilson in the Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society. It was translated into Persian by Barsuyah, the physician of Nushirvan, under the name of the Fables of Bidpai (Vidyâpriya, the Friend of Knowledge, or, as the Oriental writers understand it, the Friend of Medicine). It was translated into Arabic by Abdolla Ibn Mokaffa, under the name of Kalila and Dimnah. From the Arabic it passed into the European languages. Compare Wilson, in Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society I 52. Bohlen, Das alte Indien II, p. 386. Silvestre de Sacy, Mémoire sur Calila et Dimnah. —⁠M. ↩
The orations in the third book of Agathias are not judicial, nor delivered before the Roman tribunal: it is a deliberative debate among the Colchians on the expediency of adhering to the Roman, or embracing the Persian, alliance. —⁠M. ↩
Mr. Salt (Voyage to Abyssinia, vol. II, p. 458) considers them to be distinct from the Arabs⁠—“in feature, color, habit, and manners.” —⁠M. ↩
According to Johannsen (Historia Yemanae, Praefatio, p. 89), Dunaan (Dsu Nowas) massacred 20,000 Christians, and threw them into a pit, where they were burned. They are called in the Koran the companions of the pit (socii foveae). —⁠M. ↩
Lord Valentia’s and Mr. Salt’s A Voyage to Abyssinia give a high notion of the ruins of Axum. —⁠M. ↩
To the authors who have illustrated the obscure history of the Jewish and Abyssinian kingdoms in Homeritis may be added Schultens, Historia imperii vetustissimi Joctanidarum; Walch, “Historia rerum in Homerite gestarum,” in the fourth vol. of the Göttingen Transactions; Salt’s A Voyage to Abyssinia, vol. II, p. 446, etc.: Sylvestre de Sacy, vol. I Académie des Inscriptions; Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten; Johannsen, Historia Yemanae; Saint-Martin’s notes to Le Beau, tom. VII, p. 42. —⁠M. ↩
On the site of Dodona compare Walpole’s Travels in Various Countries of the East, vol. II, p. 473; Col. Leake’s Travels in Northern Greece, vol. IV, p. 168; and a dissertation by the present bishop of Lichfield (Dr. Samuel Butler) in the appendix to Thomas Smart Hughes’s Travels in Sicily, Greece and Albania, vol. I, p. 511. —⁠M. ↩
Lord Mahon supposes them both to have been Persarmenians. Note, p. 256. —⁠M. ↩
The Lombards were still at war with the Gepidae. See Procopius, De bello Gothico, lib. IV, p. 25. —⁠M. ↩
Not in the epigram, but in the previous observations. —⁠M. ↩
Denina considers that greater evil was inflicted upon Italy by the Grecian conquest than by any other invasion. Révolutions d’Italia, t. I l. V, p. 247. —⁠M. ↩
Some words, “the acts of,” or “the crimes of,” appear to have fallen from the text. The omission is in all the editions I have consulted. —⁠M. ↩
I know not where Gibbon found Tzetzes to be a monk; I suppose he considered his bad verses a proof of his monachism. Compare the preface of Nikolaus Gerbelius in Gottlieb Kiesling’s edition of Tzetzes. —⁠M. ↩
Lord Mahon abandons the statue as altogether irreconcilable with the state of the arts at this period (p. 472). —⁠M. ↩
See Lydus de Ostentis, particularly c. 15, in which the author begins to show the signification of comets according to the part of the heavens in which they appear, and what fortunes they prognosticate to the Roman empire and their Persian enemies. The chapter, however, is imperfect. (Edit. Neibuhr, p. 290.) —⁠M. ↩
Compare Charles Daubeny on earthquakes, and Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. II, p. 161, et seq. —⁠M. ↩
The example of Gibbon has been followed by M. Hugo and other civilians. —⁠M. ↩
Although the restoration of the Roman law, introduced by the revival of this study in Italy, is one of the most important branches of history, it had been treated but imperfectly when Gibbon wrote his work. That of Arthur Duck is but an insignificant performance. But the researches of the learned have thrown much light upon the matter. The Sarti, the Tiraboschi, the Fantuzzi, the Savioli, had made some very interesting inquiries; but it was reserved for M. de Savigny, in a work entitled The History of the Roman Law During the Middle Ages, to cast the strongest light on this part of history. He demonstrates incontestably the preservation of the Roman law from Justinian to the time of the Glossators, who, by their indefatigable zeal, propagated the study of the Roman jurisprudence in all the countries of Europe. It is much to be desired that the author should continue this interesting work, and that the learned should engage in the inquiry in what manner the Roman law introduced itself into their respective countries, and the authority which it progressively acquired. For Belgium, there exists on this subject (proposed by the Academy of Brussels in 1781) a Collection of Memoirs, printed at Brussels in quarto, 1783, among which should be distinguished those of M. de Berg. M. Berriat Saint Prix has given us hopes of the speedy appearance of a work in which he will discuss this question, especially in relation to France. M. Spangenberg, in his Introduction to the Study of the Corpus Juris Civilis, Hanover, 1817, one vol. octavo, pp. 86, 116, gives us a general sketch of the history of the Roman law in different parts of Europe. We cannot avoid mentioning an elementary work by M. Hugo, in which he treats of the History of the Roman Law from Justinian to the Present Time, second edit. Berlin, 1818. —⁠W. ↩
Though there have always been many detractors of the Roman law, no sect of Anti-Tribonians has ever existed under that name, as Gibbon seems to suppose. —⁠W. ↩
Our author, who was not a lawyer, was necessarily obliged to content himself with following the opinions of those writers who were then of the greatest authority; but as Heineccius, notwithstanding his high reputation for the study of the Roman law, knew nothing of the subject on which he treated but what he had learned from the compilations of various authors, it happened that in following the sometimes rash opinions of these guides, Gibbon has fallen into many errors, which we shall endeavor in succession to correct.

The work of Bach on the History of the Roman Jurisprudence, with which Gibbon was not acquainted, is far superior to that of Heineccius; and since that time we have new obligations to the modern historic civilians, whose indefatigable researches have greatly enlarged the sphere of our knowledge in this important branch of history. We want a pen like that of Gibbon to give to the more accurate notions which we have acquired since his time the brilliancy, the vigor, and the animation which Gibbon has bestowed on the opinions of Heineccius and his contemporaries. —⁠W. ↩
M. Warnkönig refers to the work of Beaufort, on the Uncertainty of the Five First Ages of the Roman History, with which Gibbon was probably acquainted, to Niebuhr, and to the less known volume of Wachsmuth, Die äitere Geschichte des römischen Staats. To these I would add A. W. Schlegel’s Review of Niebuhr, and my friend Dr. Thomas Arnold’s recently published volume, of which the chapter on the Law of the XII Tables appears to me one of the most valuable, if not the most valuable, chapter. —⁠M. ↩
Whoever is acquainted with the real notions of the Romans on the jus naturale, gentium et civile, cannot but disapprove of this explanation which has no relation to them, and might be taken for a pleasantry. It is certainly unnecessary to increase the confusion which already prevails among modern writers on the true sense of these ideas. Hugo. —⁠W. ↩
Niebuhr considers the Jus papirianum, adduced by Verrius Fiaccus, to be of undoubted authenticity. Römische Geschichte, l. 257. —⁠M.

Compare this with the work of M. Hugo. —⁠W. ↩
The Eugubine Tables have exercised the ingenuity of the Italian and German critics; it seems admitted (K. O. Müller, Die Etrusker II 313) that they are Tuscan. See the works of Lanzi, Passeri, Dempster, and K. O. Müller. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Niebuhr, 355, note 720. —⁠M.

It is a more important question whether the twelve tables in fact include laws imported from Greece. The negative opinion maintained by our author is now almost universally adopted, particularly by MM. Niebuhr, Hugo, and others. See my Institutiones juris Romani privati, Leodii, 1819, pp. 311, 312. —⁠W.

Dr. Arnold, p. 255, seems to incline to the opposite opinion. Compare some just and sensible observations in the Appendix to Mr. Travers Twiss’s An Epitome of Niebuhr’s History of Rome, p. 347, Oxford, 1836. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Niebuhr II 209. —⁠M.

See the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions XXII, p. 48. It would be difficult to disprove that a certain Hermodorus had some share in framing the Laws of the Twelve Tables. Pomponius even says that this Hermodorus was the author of the last two tables. Pliny the Elder calls him the Interpreter of the Decemvirs, which may lead us to suppose that he labored with them in drawing up that law. But it is astonishing that in his dissertation (“De Hermodoro vero XII Tabularum Auctore,” Annales academiae Groninganae anni 1817, 1818), M. Seerp Gratama has ventured to advance two propositions entirely devoid of proof: “Decem priores tabulas ab ipsis Romanis non esse profectas, tota confirmat Decemviratûs Historia,” et “Hermodorum legum decemviralium veri nominis auctorem esse, qui eas composuerit suis ordinibus, disposuerit, suaque fecerit auctoritate, ut a decemviris reciperentur.” This truly was an age in which the Roman Patricians would allow their laws to be dictated by a foreign exile! Mr. Gratama does not attempt to prove the authenticity of the supposititious letter of Heraclitus. He contents himself with expressing his astonishment that M. Bonamy (as well as Gibbon) will not receive it as genuine. —⁠W. ↩
Compare Niebuhr throughout. Niebuhr has written a dissertation (Kleine historische und philologische Schriften I, p. 438), arguing from this prediction, and on the other conclusive grounds, that the Lycophron, the author of the Cassandra, is not the Alexandrian poet. He had been anticipated in this sagacious criticism, as he afterwards discovered, by a writer of no less distinction than Charles James Fox.⁠—Letters to Wakefield. And likewise by the author of the extraordinary translation of this poem, that most promising scholar, Philip Yorke, Lord Royston. See the Remains of Lord Royston, by the Rev. Henry Pepys, London, 1838. —⁠M. ↩
Are not the same points of similarity discovered in the legislation of all nations in the infancy of their civilization? —⁠W. ↩
The wish expressed by Warnkönig, that the text and the conjectural emendations on the fragments of the XII tables should be submitted to rigid criticism, has been fulfilled by Heinrich Eduard Dirksen, Uebersicht der bisherigen Versuche zur Kritik und Herstellung des Textes der Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente, Leipzig, 1824. —⁠M. ↩
From the context of the phrase in Tacitus, “Nam secutae leges etsi alquando in maleficos ex delicto; saepius tamen dissensione ordinum⁠ ⁠… latae sunt” it is clear that Gibbon has rendered this sentence incorrectly. Hugo, History of the Roman Law, p. 62. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Niebuhr, English translation, vol. I, p. 448, etc. —⁠M. ↩
This error of Gibbon has been long detected. The senate, under Tiberius, did indeed elect the magistrates, who before that emperor were elected in the comitia. But we find laws enacted by the people during his reign, and that of Claudius. For example: the Julia-Norbana, Vellea, and Claudia de tutelâ foeminarum. Compare the Histoire du droit romain, by M. Hugo, vol. II, pp. 55, 57. The comitia ceased imperceptibly as the republic gradually expired. —⁠W. ↩
The author adopts the opinion that under the emperors alone the senate had a share in the legislative power. They had nevertheless participated in it under the Republic, since senatus-consulta relating to civil rights have been preserved which are much earlier than the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius. It is true that under the emperors the senate exercised this right more frequently, and that the assemblies of the people had become much more rare, though in law they were still permitted, in the time of Ulpian. (See the fragments of Ulpian.) Bach has clearly demonstrated that the senate had the same power in the time of the Republic. It is natural that the senatus-consulta should have been more frequent under the emperors, because they employed those means of flattering the pride of the senators, by granting them the right of deliberating on all affairs which did not entrench on the imperial power. Compare the discussions of M. Hugo, vol. I, p. 284, et seq. —⁠W. ↩
The author here follows the opinion of Heineccius, who, according to the idea of his master Thomasius, was unwilling to suppose that magistrates exercising a judicial could share in the legislative power. For this reason he represents the edicts of the praetors as absurd. (See his work, Historia juris Romani 69, 74.) But Heineccius had altogether a false notion of this important institution of the Romans, to which we owe in a great degree the perfection of their jurisprudence. Heineccius, therefore, in his own days, had many opponents of his system, among others the celebrated Ritter, professor at Wittemberg, who contested it in notes appended to the work of Heineccius, and retained in all subsequent editions of that book. After Ritter, the learned Bach undertook to vindicate the edicts of the praetors in his Historia jurisprudentiae Romanae, edit. 6, pp. 218, 224. But it remained for a civilian of our own days to throw light on the spirit and true character of this institution. M. Hugo has completely demonstrated that the praetorian edicts furnished the salutary means of perpetually harmonizing the legislation with the spirit of the times. The praetors were the true organs of public opinion. It was not according to their caprice that they framed their regulations, but according to the manners and to the opinions of the great civil lawyers of their day. We know from Cicero himself that it was esteemed a great honor among the Romans to publish an edict, well conceived and well drawn. The most distinguished lawyers of Rome were invited by the praetor to assist in framing this annual law, which, according to its principle, was only a declaration which the praetor made to the public, to announce the manner in which he would judge, and to guard against every charge of partiality. Those who had reason to fear his opinions might delay their cause till the following year.

The praetor was responsible for all the faults which he committed. The tribunes could lodge an accusation against the praetor who issued a partial edict. He was bound strictly to follow and to observe the regulations published by him at the commencement of his year of office, according to the Cornelian law, by which these edicts were called perpetual, and he could make no change in a regulation once published. The praetor was obliged to submit to his own edict, and to judge his own affairs according to its provisions. These magistrates had no power of departing from the fundamental laws, or the laws of the Twelve Tables. The people held them in such consideration that they rarely enacted laws contrary to their provisions; but as some provisions were found inefficient, others opposed to the manners of the people and to the spirit of subsequent ages, the praetors, still maintaining respect for the laws, endeavored to bring them into accordance with the necessities of the existing time, by such fictions as best suited the nature of the case. In what legislation do we not find these fictions, which even yet exist, absurd and ridiculous as they are, among the ancient laws of modern nations? These always variable edicts at length comprehended the whole of the Roman legislature, and became the subject of the commentaries of the most celebrated lawyers. They must therefore be considered as the basis of all the Roman jurisprudence comprehended in the Digest of Justinian.

It is in this sense that M. Schrader has written on this important institution, proposing it for imitation as far as may be consistent with our manners, and agreeable to our political institutions, in order to avoid immature legislation becoming a permanent evil. See the History of the Roman Law by M. Hugo, vol. I, p. 296, etc., vol. II, p. 30 et seq., 78 et seq., and the note in my elementary book on the Institutes, p. 313. With regard to the works best suited to give information on the framing and the form of these edicts, see Christian Gottlieb Haubold, Institutiones juris Romani literariae, tom. I, pp. 321, 368.

All that Heineccius says about the usurpation of the right of making these edicts by the praetors is false, and contrary to all historical testimony. A multitude of authorities proves that the magistrates were under an obligation to publish these edicts. —⁠W.

With the utmost deference for these excellent civilians, I cannot but consider this confusion of the judicial and legislative authority as a very perilous constitutional precedent. It might answer among a people so singularly trained as the Romans were by habit and national character in reverence for legal institutions, so as to be an aristocracy, if not a people, of legislators; but in most nations the investiture of a magistrate in such authority, leaving to his sole judgment the lawyers he might consult, and the view of public opinion which he might take, would be a very insufficient guaranty for right legislation. —⁠M. ↩
This restoration was only the commencement of a work found among the papers of Heineccius, and published after his death. —⁠G. ↩
Gibbon has here fallen into an error, with Heineccius and almost the whole literary world, concerning the real meaning of what is called the perpetual edict of Hadrian. Since the Cornelian law, the edicts were perpetual, but only in this sense, that the praetor could not change them during the year of his magistracy. And although it appears that under Hadrian the civilian Julianus made, or assisted in making, a complete collection of the edicts (which certainly had been done likewise before Hadrian, for example, by Ofilius, qui diligenter edictum composuit), we have no sufficient proof to admit the common opinion that the praetorian edict was declared perpetually unalterable by Hadrian. The writers on law subsequent to Hadrian (and among the rest Pomponius, in his Summary of the Roman Jurisprudence) speak of the edict as it existed in the time of Cicero. They would not certainly have passed over in silence so remarkable a change in the most important source of the civil law. M. Hugo has conclusively shown that the various passages in authors like Eutropius are not sufficient to establish the opinion introduced by Heineccius. Compare Hugo, vol. II, p. 78. A new proof of this is found in the Institutes of Gaius, who, in the first books of his work, expresses himself in the same manner, without mentioning any change made by Hadrian. Nevertheless, if it had taken place, he must have noticed it, as he does, l. I § 7, the responsa prudentum, on the occasion of a rescript of Hadrian. There is no lacuna in the text. Why then should Gaius maintain silence concerning an innovation so much more important than that of which he speaks? After all, this question becomes of slight interest, since, in fact, we find no change in the perpetual edict inserted in the Digest, from the time of Hadrian to the end of that epoch, except that made by Julian (compare Hugo, l. C). The later lawyers appear to follow, in their commentaries, the same text as their predecessors. It is natural to suppose that, after the labors of so many men distinguished in jurisprudence, the framing of the edict must have attained such perfection that it would have been difficult to have made any innovation. We nowhere find that the jurists of the Pandects disputed concerning the words, or the drawing up of the edict.

What difference would, in fact, result from this with regard to our codes and our modern legislation? Compare the learned dissertation of M. Friedrich August Biener, De salvii Juliani Meritis in edictum praetorium recte aestimandis, Lipsiae, 1809, quarto. —⁠W. ↩
This is again an error which Gibbon shares with Heineccius and the generality of authors. It arises from having mistaken the insignificant edict of Hadrian, inserted in the Code of Justinian (lib. VI tit. XXIII c. 11), for the first constitutio principis, without attending to the fact that the Pandects contain so many constitutions of the emperors from Julius Caesar (see l. I Digest 29, 1). M. Hugo justly observes that the acta of Sylla, approved by the senate, were the same thing with the constitutions of those who after him usurped the sovereign power. Moreover, we find that Pliny the Elder, and other ancient authors, report a multitude of rescripts of the emperors from the time of Augustus. See Hugo, Histoire du droit romain, vol. II, pp. 24⁠–⁠27. —⁠W. ↩
Yet a century before, Domitian was called not only by Martial but even in public documents, Dominus et Deus Noster. Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, “Domitian,” c. 13. Hugo. —⁠W. ↩
Gaius (see this note) asserts that the Imperial edict or rescript has, and always had, the force of law, because the Imperial authority rests upon law. Constitutio principis est, quod imperator decreto vel edicto, vel epistola constituit, nec unquam dubitatum, quin id legis vicem obtineat, cum ipse imperator per legem imperium accipiat. Gaius, 6 Gaii institutiones I 2. —⁠M. ↩
In this passage the author has endeavored to collect all the examples of judicial formularies which he could find. That which he adduces as the form of cretio haereditatis is absolutely false. It is sufficient to glance at the passage in Cicero which he cites to see that it has no relation to it. The author appeals to the opinion of Schulting, who, in the passage quoted, himself protests against the ridiculous and absurd interpretation of the passage in Cicero, and observes that Graevius had already well explained the real sense. See in Gaius the form of cretio haereditatis. Gaii institutiones, l. II, p. 166. —⁠W. ↩
Nothing more is known of this ceremony; nevertheless we find that already in his own days Gaius turned it into ridicule. He says (lib. III § 192, 193), prohibiti actio quadrupli ex edicto praetoris introducta est; lex autem eo nomine nullam poenam constituit. Hoc solum praecepit, ut qui quaerere velit, nudus quaerat, linteo cinctus, lancem habens; qui si quid invenerit, jubet id lex furtum manifestum esse. Quid sit autem linteum, quaesitum est. Sed verius est consuti genus esse, quo necessariae partes tegerentur. Quare lex tota ridicula est. Nam qui vestitum quaerere prohibet, is et nudum quaerere prohibiturus est; eo magis, quod ita quaesita res inventa majori poenae subjicatur. Deinde quod lancem sive ideo haberi jubeat, ut manibus occupatis nihil subjiciatur, sive ideo, ut quod invenerit, ibi imponat, neutrum eorum procedit, si id quod quaeratur, ejus magnitudinis aut naturae sit ut neque subjici, neque ibi imponi possit. Certe non dubitatur, cujuscunque materiae sit ea lanx, satis legi fieri. We see moreover, from this passage, that the basin, as most authors, resting on the authority of Festus, have supposed, was not used to cover the figure. —⁠W.

Gibbon says the face, though equally inaccurately. This passage of Gaius, I must observe, as well as others in M. Warnkönig’s work, is very inaccurately printed. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon had conceived opinions too decided against the forms of procedure in use among the Romans. Yet it is on these solemn forms that the certainty of laws has been founded among all nations. Those of the Romans were very intimately allied with the ancient religion, and must of necessity have disappeared as Rome attained a higher degree of civilization. Have not modern nations, even the most civilized, overloaded their laws with a thousand forms, often absurd, almost always trivial? How many examples are afforded by the English law! See, on the nature of these forms, the work of M. de Savigny on the Vocation of Our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence, Heidelberg, 1814, pp. 9, 10. —⁠W.

This work of M. Savigny has been translated into English by Mr. Abraham Hayward. —⁠M. ↩
It is particularly in this division of the history of the Roman jurisprudence into epochs that Gibbon displays his profound knowledge of the laws of this people. M. Hugo, adopting this division, prefaced these three periods with the history of the times anterior to the Law of the Twelve Tables, which are, as it were, the infancy of the Roman law. —⁠W. ↩
Gibbon had entirely misunderstood this phrase of Cicero. It was only since his time that the real meaning of the author was apprehended. Cicero, in enumerating the qualifications of Trebatius, says, Accedit etiam, quod familiam ducit in jure civili, singularis memoria, summa scientia, which means that Trebatius possessed a still further most important qualification for a student of civil law, a remarkable memory, etc. This explanation, already conjectured by Gilles Ménage, Juris civilis amoenitates, c. 14, is found in the dictionary of Immanuel Scheller, v. “Familia,” and in the History of the Roman Law by M. Hugo. Many authors have asserted, without any proof sufficient to warrant the conjecture, that Trebatius was of the school of Epicurus. —⁠W. ↩
The work of Gaius, subsequent to the time of Hadrian, furnishes us with some information on this subject. The disputes which rose between these two sects appear to have been very numerous. Gaius avows himself a disciple of Sabinus and of Caius. Compare Hugo, vol. II, p. 106. —⁠W. ↩
This word has never existed. Cujacius is the author of it, who read the words terris condi in Servius ad Virgilus as herciscundi, to which he gave an erroneous interpretation. —⁠W. ↩
We possess (since 1824) some interesting information as to the framing of the Theodosian Code, and its ratification at Rome, in the year 438. M. Closius, now professor at Dorpat in Russia, and M. Peyron, member of the Academy of Turin, have discovered, the one at Milan, the other at Turin, a great part of the five first books of the Code which were wanting, and besides this, the reports (gesta) of the sitting of the senate at Rome, in which the Code was published, in the year after the marriage of Valentinian III. Among these pieces are the constitutions which nominate commissioners for the formation of the Code; and though there are many points of considerable obscurity in these documents, they communicate many facts relative to this legislation.

1. That Theodosius designed a great reform in the legislation; to add to the Gregorian and Hermogenian codes all the new constitutions from Constantine to his own day; and to frame a second code for common use, with extracts from the three codes, and from the works of the civil lawyers. All laws either abrogated or fallen into disuse were to be noted under their proper heads.

2. An Ordinance was issued in 429 to form a commission for this purpose of nine persons, of which Antiochus, as quaestor and prefectus, was president. A second commission of sixteen members was issued in 435 under the same president.

3. A code, which we possess under the name of Codex Theodosianus, was finished in 438, published in the East, in an ordinance addressed to the Praetorian prefect, Florentinus, and intended to be published in the West.

4. Before it was published in the West, Valentinian submitted it to the senate. There is a report of the proceedings of the senate, which closed with loud acclamations and gratulations.⁠—From Warnkönig, Histoire du droit romain, p. 169.⁠—Wenck has published this work, Codicis Theodosiani libri priores, Leipzig, 1825. —⁠M. ↩
Walther Clossius of Tübingen communicated to M. Warnkönig the two following constitutions of the emperor Constantine, which he discovered in the Ambrosian library at Milan:⁠—

1. Impererium Constantinus Aug. ad Maximium Praef. Praetorio.

Perpetuas prudentum contentiones eruere cupientes, Ulpiani ac Pauli, in Papinianum notas, qui dum ingenii laudem sectantur, non tam corrigere eum quam depravere maluerunt, aboleri praecepimus. Dat. IIII Kalend. Oct. Const. Cons. et Crispi (321).

Idem. Aug. ad Maximium Praef. Praet.

Universa, quae scriptura Pauli continentur, recepta auctoritate firmanda sunt, et omni veneratione celebranda. Ideoque sententiarum libros plenissimâ luce et perfectissimâ elocutione et justissimâ juris ratione succinctos in judiciis prolatos valere minimiè dubitatur. Dat. V Kalend. Oct. Treviris Constantino et Maximo Conss. (327). —⁠W. ↩
The word Πάνδεκται was formerly in common use. See the preface to Aulus Gellius. —⁠W. ↩
Gibbon is mistaken with regard to Valla, who, though he inveighs against the barbarous style of the civilians of his own day, lavishes the highest praise on the admirable purity of the language of the ancient writers on civil law. (M. Warnkönig quotes a long passage of Valla in justification of this observation.) Since his time this truth has been recognized by men of the highest eminence, such as Erasmus, David Hume and Runkhenius. —⁠W. ↩
Seditiosum in the language of Justinian means not seditious, but disputed. —⁠W. ↩
Savigny (vol. III, pp. 83, 89) examines and rejects the whole story. See likewise Hallam, vol. III, p. 514. —⁠M. ↩
The newly-discovered Institutes of Gaius name one nation in which the same power was vested in the parent. Nec me praeterit Galatarum gentem credere, in potestate parentum liberos esse. Gaii institutiones, edit. 1824, p. 257. —⁠M. ↩
All this is in strict accordance with the Roman character. —⁠W. ↩
The son of a family sold by his father did not become in every respect a slave; he was statu liber, that is to say, on paying the price for which he was sold, he became entirely free. See Hugo, Histoire du droit romain, § 61. —⁠W. ↩
But these had nothing to do with the question of a divorce made by judicial authority. —⁠Hugo ↩
On the duo jugera, compare Niebuhr, vol. I, p. 337. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon acknowledges, in the preceding note, the obscurity of his views with regard to the res mancipi. The interpreters who preceded him are not agreed on this point, one of the most difficult in the ancient Roman law. The conclusions of Hume, of which the author here speaks, are grounded on false assumptions. Gibbon had conceived very inaccurate notions of property among the Romans, and those of many authors in the present day are not less erroneous. We think it right, in this place, to develop the system of property among the Romans, as the result of the study of the extant original authorities on the ancient law, and as it has been demonstrated, recognized, and adopted by the most learned expositors of the Roman law. Besides the authorities formerly known, such as the Fragments of Ulpian, t. XIX and t. I § 16; Theophilus, Paraphrasis Graeca institutionum Caesarearum I 5 § 4; may be consulted the Institutes of Gaius I § 54, and II § 40, et seq.

The Roman laws protected all property acquired in a lawful manner. They imposed on those who had invaded it the obligation of making restitution and reparation of all damage caused by that invasion; they punished it, moreover, in many cases, by a pecuniary fine. But they did not always grant a recovery against the third person, who had become bona fide possessed of the property. He who had obtained possession of a thing belonging to another, knowing nothing of the prior rights of that person, maintained the possession. The law had expressly determined those cases in which it permitted property to be reclaimed from an innocent possessor. In these cases possession had the characters of absolute proprietorship, called mancipium, jus Quiritium. To possess this right, it was not sufficient to have entered into possession of the thing in any manner; the acquisition was bound to have that character of publicity which was given by the observation of solemn forms, prescribed by the laws, or the uninterrupted exercise of proprietorship during a certain time: the Roman citizen alone could acquire this proprietorship. Every other kind of possession, which might be named imperfect proprietorship, was called “in bonis habere.” It was not till after the time of Cicero that the general name of Dominium was given to all proprietorship.

It was then the publicity which constituted the distinctive character of absolute dominion. This publicity was grounded on the mode of acquisition, which the moderns have called Civil (Modi adquirendi Civiles). These modes of acquisition were:
1. Mancipium or mancipatio, which was nothing but the solemn delivering over of the thing in the presence of a determinate number of witnesses and a public officer; it was from this probably that proprietorship was named.
2. In jure cessio, which was a solemn delivering over before the praetor.
3. Adjudicatio, made by a judge, in a case of partition.
4. Lex, which comprehended modes of acquiring in particular cases determined by law; probably the law of the XII tables; for instance, the sub corona emptio and the legatum.
5. Usus, called afterwards usacapio, and by the moderns prescription. This was only a year for movables; two years for things not movable. Its primary object was altogether different from that of prescription in the present day. It was originally introduced in order to transform the simple possession of a thing (in bonis habere) into Roman proprietorship. The public and uninterrupted possession of a thing, enjoyed for the space of one or two years, was sufficient to make known to the inhabitants of the city of Rome to whom the thing belonged. This last mode of acquisition completed the system of civil acquisitions, by legalizing, as it were, every other kind of acquisition which was not conferred, from the commencement, by the Jus Quiritium. V. Ulpian, Fragmenta I § 16. Gaius, II § 14. We believe, according to Gaius, § 43, that this usucaption was extended to the case where a thing had been acquired from a person not the real proprietor; and that according to the time prescribed, it gave to the possessor the Roman proprietorship. But this does not appear to have been the original design of this Institution. Caeterum etiam earum rerum usucapio nobis competit, quae non a domino nobis tradita fuerint, si modo eas bona fide acceperimus. Gaius, l. II § 43.
As to things of smaller value, or those which it was difficult to distinguish from each other, the solemnities of which we speak were not requisite to obtain legal proprietorship. In this case simple delivery was sufficient.

In proportion to the aggrandizement of the republic, this latter principle became more important from the increase of the commerce and wealth of the state. It was necessary to know what were those things of which absolute property might be acquired by simple delivery, and what, on the contrary, those, the acquisition of which must be sanctioned by these solemnities. This question was necessarily to be decided by a general rule; and it is this rule which establishes the distinction between res mancipi and nec mancipi, a distinction about which the opinions of modern civilians differ so much that there are above ten conflicting systems on the subject. The system which accords best with a sound interpretation of the Roman laws is that proposed by M. Trekel of Hamburg, and still further developed by M. Hugo, who has extracted it in the Magazine of Civil Law, vol. II, p. 7. This is the system now almost universally adopted. Res mancipi (by contraction for mancipii) were things of which the absolute property (Jus Quiritium) might be acquired only by the solemnities mentioned above, at least by that of mancipation, which was, without doubt, the most easy and the most usual. Gaius, II § 25. As for other things, the acquisition of which was not subject to these forms in order to confer absolute right, they were called res nec mancipi. See Ulpian, Fragmenta XIX § 1, 3, 7.

Ulpian and Varro enumerate the different kinds of res mancipi. Their enumerations do not quite agree; and various methods of reconciling them have been attempted. The authority of Ulpian, however, who wrote as a civilian, ought to have the greater weight on this subject.

But why are these things alone res mancipi? This is one of the questions which have been most frequently agitated, and on which the opinions of civilians are most divided. M. Hugo has resolved it in the most natural and satisfactory manner. “All things which were easily known individually, which were of great value, with which the Romans were acquainted, and which they highly appreciated, were res mancipi. Of old mancipation or some other solemn form was required for the acquisition of these things, an account of their importance. Mancipation served to prove their acquisition, because they were easily distinguished one from the other.” On this great historical discussion consult the Magazine of Civil Law by M. Hugo, vol. II, pp. 37, 38; the dissertation of M. J. M. Zachariae, De rebus mancipi et nec mancipi conjecturae, p. 11, Lipsiae, 1807; the History of Civil Law by M. Hugo; and my Institutiones juris Romani privati, pp. 108, 110.

As a general rule, it may be said that all things are res nec mancipi; the res mancipi are the exception to this principle.

The praetors changed the system of property by allowing a person who had a thing in bonis the right to recover before the prescribed term of usucaption had conferred absolute proprietorship. (Pauliana in rem actio.) Justinian went still further, in times when there was no longer any distinction between a Roman citizen and a stranger. He granted the right of recovering all things which had been acquired, whether by what were called civil or natural modes of acquisition, Codex, l. VII t. 25, 31. And he so altered the theory of Gaius in his Institutes II 1, that no trace remains of the doctrine taught by that civilian. —⁠W. ↩
Gibbon has singular notions on the provisions of Novella CXV, No. 3, 4, which probably he did not clearly understand. —⁠W. ↩
It is not at all applicable to the Roman system of contracts, even if it were allowed to be good. —⁠M. ↩
Simple agreements (pacta) formed as valid an obligation as a solemn contract. Only an action, or the right to a direct judicial prosecution, was not permitted in every case of compact. In all other respects, the judge was bound to maintain an agreement made by pactum. The stipulation was a form common to every kind of agreement, by which the right of action was given to this. —⁠W. ↩
This is erroneously called “benefits.” Gibbon enumerates various kinds of contracts, of which some alone are properly called benefits. —⁠W. ↩
The real nature of the foenus unciarium has been proved: it amounted in a year of twelve months to ten percent. See, in the Magazine of Civil Law, by M. Hugo, vol. V, pp. 180, 184, an article of M. Schrader, following up the conjectures of Niebuhr, The History of Rome, tom. II, p. 431. —⁠W.

Compare a very clear account of this question in the appendix to Mr. Travers Twiss’s Epitome of Niebuhr, vol. II, p. 257. —⁠M. ↩
Compare the admirable sketch of the degeneracy of the Latin language and the formation of the Italian in Hallam, Europe During the Middle Ages, vol. III, pp. 317, 329. —⁠M. ↩
See Johann Beckmann, A History of Inventions and Discoveries, vol. I, p. 319. —⁠M. ↩
It certainly appears difficult to extract a prediction of the perpetual independence of the Arabs from the text in Genesis, which would have received an ample fulfilment during centuries of uninvaded freedom. But the disputants appear to forget the inseparable connection in the prediction between the wild, the Bedouin habits of the Ishmaelites, with their national independence. The stationary and civilized descendant of Ishmael forfeited, as it were, his birthright, and ceased to be a genuine son of the “wild man.” The phrase, “dwelling in the presence of his brethren,” is interpreted by Rosenmüller (in loc.) and others, according to the Hebrew geography, “to the east” of his brethren, the legitimate race of Abraham. —⁠M. ↩
Abrahah, according to some accounts, was succeeded by his son Taksoum, who reigned seventeen years; his brother Mascouh, who was slain in battle against the Persians, twelve. But this chronology is irreconcilable with the Arabian conquests of Nushirvan the Great. Either Seif, or his son Maadi Karb, was the native prince placed on the throne by the Persians. Saint-Martin, vol. X, p. 78. See likewise Johannsen, Historia Yemanae. —⁠M. ↩
Yet Theophylact seems to have seized the opportunity to indulge his propensity for writing orations; and the orations read rather like those of a Grecian sophist than of an Eastern assembly. —⁠M. ↩
Malcolm concurs in ascribing his death to Bundawee (Bindoes), vol. I, p. 123. The Eastern writers generally impute the crime to the uncle. Saint-Martin, vol. X, p. 300. —⁠M. ↩
Saint-Martin thinks that they were first written in Syriac, and then translated into the bad Greek in which they appear, vol. X, p. 334. —⁠M. ↩
Compare M. von Hammer’s preface to, and poem of, Shirin, in which he gives an account of the various Persian poems, of which he has endeavored to extract the essence in his own work. —⁠M. ↩
Compare throughout Schlözer, Allgemeine nordische Geschichte, pp. 362⁠–⁠372. —⁠M. ↩
D’Anville (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, tom. XXXII, p. 560) labored to prove the identity of these two cities; but, according to M. Saint-Martin, vol. XI, p. 97, not with perfect success. Ourmiah, called Ariema in the ancient Pehlvi books, is considered, both by the followers of Zoroaster and by the Muhammadans, as his birthplace. It is situated in the southern part of Aderbidjan. —⁠M. ↩
Now the Sihan. —⁠M. ↩
Moses of Chorene speaks of an invasion of Armenia by the Khazars in the second century, l. II c. 62. M. Saint-Martin suspects them to be the same with the Hunnish nation of the Acatires or Agazzires. They are called by the Greek historians Eastern Turks; like the Madjars and other Hunnish or Finnish tribes, they had probably received some admixture from the genuine Turkish races. Ibn Hankal (Oriental Geography) says that their language was like the Bulgarian, and considers them a people of Finnish or Hunnish race. Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, pp. 268⁠–⁠273. Abel-Rémusat, Recherches sur les langues Tartares, tom. I, pp. 315, 316. Saint-Martin, vol. XI, p. 115. —⁠M. ↩
The Muhammadans show no more charity towards the memory of Khosrow or Khosrow Parviz. All his reverses are ascribed to the just indignation of God upon a monarch who had dared with impious and accursed hands to tear the letter of the Holy Prophet Mohammed. Compare this note. —⁠M. ↩
M. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, vol. I, pars 2, p. 223, has added some lines, but no clear sense can be made out of the fragment. —⁠M. ↩
See on this passage Bishop John Kaye, Justin Martyr, p. 25. —⁠M. ↩
Most of the modern writers who have closely examined this subject, and who will not be suspected of any theological bias⁠—Rosenmüller on Isaiah 9:5 and on Psalm 45:7, and Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, c. XX⁠—rightly ascribe much higher notions of the Messiah to the Jews. In fact, the dispute seems to rest on the notion that there was a definite and authorized notion of the Messiah among the Jews, whereas it was probably so vague as to admit every shade of difference, from the vulgar expectation of a mere temporal king, to the philosophic notion of an emanation from the Deity. —⁠M. ↩
The distinct allusion to the facts related in the two first chapters of the Gospel, in a work evidently written about the end of the reign of Nero, the Ascensio Isaiae, edited by Archbishop Lawrence, seems convincing evidence that they are integral parts of the authentic Christian history. —⁠M. ↩
Surely the extinction of the Judaeo-Christian community related from Mosheim by Gibbon himself (here in c. XV) accounts both simply and naturally for the loss of a composition which had become of no use⁠—nor does it follow that the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew is unauthorized. —⁠M. ↩
Johann Jakob Griesbach asserts that all the Greek MSS., all the translators, and all the Greek fathers, support the common reading.⁠—Novum Testamentum Graece, in loc. —⁠M. ↩
It should be οζ. Griesbach, in loc. The weight of authority is so much against the common reading in both these points, that they are no longer urged by prudent controversialists. Would Gibbon’s deference for the first of philosophers have extended to all his theological conclusions? —⁠M. ↩
1. The Oasis of Sivah has been visited by Mons. Drovetti and Mr. Browne.
2. The little Oasis, that of El Kassar, was visited and described by Belzoni.
3. The great Oasis, and its splendid ruins, have been well described in the travels of Sir A. Edmonstone. To these must be added another western Oasis, also visited by Sir A. Edmonstone.
—⁠M. ↩
The extent to which Nestorian Christianity prevailed among the Tartar tribes is one of the most curious questions in Oriental history. M. Schmidt (Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen, notes, p. 383) appears to question the Christianity of Ong Khagan and his Keraite subjects. —⁠M. ↩
This famous monument, the authenticity of which many have attempted to impeach, rather from hatred to the Jesuits, by whom it was made known, than by a candid examination of its contents, is now generally considered above all suspicion. The Chinese text and the facts which it relates are equally strong proofs of its authenticity. This monument was raised as a memorial of the establishment of Christianity in China. It is dated the year 1092 of the era of the Greeks, or the Seleucidae, AD 781, in the time of the Nestorian patriarch Anan-jesu. It was raised by Iezdbouzid, priest and chorepiscopus of Chumdan, that is, of the capital of the Chinese empire, and the son of a priest who came from Balkh in Tokharistan. Among the various arguments which may be urged in favor of the authenticity of this monument, and which has not yet been advanced, may be reckoned the name of the priest by whom it was raised. The name is Persian, and at the time the monument was discovered it would have been impossible to have imagined it; for there was no work extant from whence the knowledge of it could be derived. I do not believe that, even since this period, any book has been published in which it can be found a second time. It is very celebrated amongst the Armenians, and is derived from a martyr, a Persian by birth, of the royal race, who perished towards the middle of the seventh century, and rendered his name celebrated among the Christian nations of the East. Saint-Martin, vol. I, p. 69. M. Rémusat has also strongly expressed his conviction of the authenticity of this monument. Mélanges asiatiques, partie I, p. 33. Abraham d’Ohson, in his History of the Mongols, concurs in this view. Yet M. Schmidt (Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen, p. 384) denies that there is any satisfactory proof that such a monument was ever found in China, or that it was not manufactured in Europe. But if the Jesuits had attempted such a forgery, would it not have been more adapted to further their peculiar views? —⁠M. ↩
The St. Thomé Christians had excited great interest in the ardent mind of the admirable Bishop Heber. See his curious and to his friends highly characteristic letter to Mar Athanasius, Appendix to Journal. The arguments of his friend and coadjutor, Mr. Thomas Robinson (The Last Days of Bishop Heber), have not convinced me that the Christianity of India is older than the Nestorian dispersion. —⁠M. ↩
Compare, on the Mardaites, Anquetil du Perron, in the fiftieth volume of the Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions; and Friedrich Schlosser, Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser, p. 100. —⁠M. ↩
Of the oldest and best looking trees, I counted eleven or twelve; twenty-five very large ones; and about fifty of middling size; and more than three hundred smaller and young ones. Burckhardt’s Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, p. 19. —⁠M. ↩
The travels of Bruce, illustrated by those of Mr. Salt, and the narrative of Nathaniel Pearce, have brought us again acquainted with this remote region. Whatever may be their speculative opinions, the barbarous manners of the Aethiopians seem to be gaining more and more the ascendency over the practice of Christianity. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Schlosser, Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser, Frankfurt am Main, 1812⁠—a book of research and impartiality. —⁠M. ↩
The letters CONOB, which frequently appear on the Byzantine coins, and which have given rise to much dispute, have been satisfactorily explained by Pinder and Friedländer, Die Münzen Justinians, mit sechs Kupfertafeln, Berlin, 1843. That the letters con should be separated from ob, and that they signify Constantinople, seems clear from the epigraphs aquob, tesob, and trob, which indicate respectively the towns of Aquileia, Thessalonica, and Trèves. The above-mentioned writers suppose that ob are the Greek numerals, and that they consequently indicate the number 72. In the time of Augustus 40 gold coins (aurei or solidi) were equal to a pound; but as these coins were gradually struck lighter and lighter, it was at length enacted by Valentinian I in AD 367 that henceforth 72 solidi should be coined out of a pound of gold; and accordingly we find conob for the first time on the coins of this emperor. —⁠S. ↩
In fact, it was a sudden onset of the Gascons, assisted by the Basque mountaineers, and possibly a few Navarrese. —⁠M. ↩
This point has been contested; but Mr. Hallam and Monsieur Sismondi concur with Gibbon. See Europe During the Middle Ages III 330; Histoire de François, tom. II, p. 318. The sensible observations of the latter are quoted in the Quarterly Review, vol. XLVIII, p. 451. Fleury, I may add, quotes from Mabillon a remarkable evidence that Charlemagne “had a mark to himself like an honest, plain-dealing man.” Ibid. —⁠M. ↩
Von Raumer has traced the fortunes of the Swabian house in one of the ablest historical works of modern times. He may be compared with the spirited and independent Sismondi. —⁠M. ↩
For the rise and progress of the Hanseatic League, consult the authoritative history by Sartorius, Geschichte des Hanseatischen Bundes, 3 Theile, Göttingen, 1802. New and improved edition by Lappenberg, Elamburg, 1830. The original Hanseatic League comprehended Cologne and many of the great cities in the Netherlands and on the Rhine. —⁠M. ↩
Of modern travellers may be mentioned the adventurer who called himself Ali Bey; but above all, the intelligent, the enterprising, the accurate Burckhardt. —⁠M. ↩
A brilliant passage in the geographical poem of Dionysius Periegetes embodies the notions of the ancients on the wealth and fertility of Yemen. Greek mythology, and the traditions of the “gorgeous east,” of India as well as Arabia, are mingled together in indiscriminate splendor. Compare on the southern coast of Arabia the recent travels of Lieut. James Wellsted. —⁠M. ↩
See this note to ch. I. The destruction of Meriaba by the Romans is doubtful. The town never recovered the inundation which took place from the bursting of a large reservoir of water⁠—an event of great importance in the Arabian annals, and discussed at considerable length by modern Orientalists. —⁠M. ↩
Even in the time of Gibbon, Mecca had not been so inaccessible to Europeans. It had been visited by Ludovico Barthema, and by one Joseph Pitts of Exeter, who was taken prisoner by the Moors, and forcibly converted to Muhammadanism. His volume is a curious though plain account of his sufferings and travels. Since that time Mecca has been entered, and the ceremonies witnessed, by Dr. Ulrich Seetzen, whose papers were unfortunately lost; by the Spaniard who called himself Ali Bey; and, lastly, by Burckhardt, whose description leaves nothing wanting to satisfy the curiosity. —⁠M. ↩
See this note to ch. XLVI. The latter point is probably the least contestable of the three. —⁠M. ↩
On the ruins of Petra, see the travels of Messrs. Irby and Mangles, and of Leon de Laborde. —⁠M. ↩
Niebuhr’s, notwithstanding the multitude of later travellers, maintains its ground as the classical work on Arabia. —⁠M. ↩
Compare the Historia Yemanae, published by Johannsen at Bonn, 1828, particularly the translator’s preface. —⁠M. ↩
Dr. Clarke (Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa, vol. II, p. 491), after expressing contemptuous pity for Gibbon’s ignorance, derives the word from Zara, Zaara, Sara, the Desert, whence Saraceni, the children of the Desert. Jules de Marlès adopts the derivation from Sarrik, a robber (Histoire de la domination des Arabes et des Maures, vol. I, p. 36), Saint-Martin from Scharkiou, or Sharkün, Eastern, vol. XI, p. 55. —⁠M. ↩
See likewise the curious romance of Antar, the most vivid and authentic picture of Arabian manners. —⁠M. ↩
This origin of the Hycsos, though probable, is by no means so certain; there is some reason for supposing them Scythians. —⁠M. ↩
Compare the Arabic proverbs translated by Burckhardt. London, 1830. —⁠M. ↩
See the translation of the amusing Persian romance of Hatim Tai, by Duncan Forbes, Esq., among the works published by the Oriental Translation Fund. —⁠M. ↩
Mr. Charles Forster (Historical Geography of Arabia, vol. II, p. 118, et seq.) has raised an objection, as I think, fatal to this hypothesis of Gibbon. The temple, situated in the country of the Banizomeneis, was not between the Thamudites and the Sabaeans, but higher up than the coast inhabited by the former. Mr. Forster would place it as far north as Moilah. I am not quite satisfied that this will agree with the whole description of Diodorus. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The Codex Nasiraeus, their sacred book, has been published by Norberg, whose researches contain almost all that is known of this singular people. But their origin is almost as obscure as ever: if ancient, their creed has been so corrupted with mysticism and Muhammadanism that its native lineaments are very indistinct. —⁠M. ↩
The most orthodox Muhammadans only reckon back the ancestry of the prophet for twenty generations, to Adnan. Gustav Weil, Mohammed der Prophet, p. 1. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Dr. Weil says that the smallpox broke out in the army of Abrahah, but he does not give his authority, p. 10. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The date of the birth of Muhammad is not yet fixed with precision. It is only known from Oriental authors that he was born on a Monday, the 10th Reby 1st, the third month of the Muhammadan year; the year 40 or 42 of Khosrow Nushirvan, king of Persia; the year 881 of the Seleucidan era; the year 1316 of the era of Nabonassar. This leaves the point undecided between the years 569⁠–⁠571, of Jesus Christ. See the Memoir of M. Silvestre de Sacy, on divers events in the history of the Arabs before Muhammad, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions, vol. XLVII, pp. 527, 531. Saint-Martin, vol. XI, p. 59. —⁠M.

Dr. Weil decides on AD 571. Muhammad died in 632, aged 63; but the Arabs reckoned his life by lunar years, which reduces his life nearly to 61 (p. 21). —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Compare, likewise, the new life of Muhammad (Mohammed der Prophet) by Dr. Weil (Stuttgart, 1843). Dr. Weil has a new tradition that Muhammad was at one time a shepherd. This assimilation to the life of Moses, instead of giving probability to the story, as Dr. Weil suggests, makes it more suspicious. Note, p. 34. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Silvester de Sacy (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions L, p. 295) has observed that the text of the 96th Sura implies that Muhammad could read; the tradition alone denies it, and, according to Dr. Weil (p. 46), there is another reading of the tradition that “he could not read well.” Dr. Weil is not quite so successful in explaining away Sura XXIX. It means, he thinks, that he had not read any books, from which he could have borrowed. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
The whole book has since been recovered in the Ethiopic language⁠—and has been edited and translated by Archbishop Lawrence, Oxford, 1881. —⁠M. ↩
Compare von Hammer, Die Geschichte der Assassinen, p. 11. —⁠M. ↩
The age of the book of Job is still and probably will still be disputed. Rosenmüller thus states his own opinion: “Certe serioribus reipublicae temporibus assignandum esse librum, suadere videtur ad Chaldaismum vergens sermo.” Yet the observations of Johann Gottfried Ludwig Kosegarten, which Rosenmüller has given in a note, and common reason suggest that this Chaldaism may be the native form of a much earlier dialect; or the Chaldaic may have adopted the poetical archaisms of a dialect differing from but not less ancient than the Hebrew. See Rosenmüller, Prolegomena on Job, p. 41. The poetry appears to me to belong to a much earlier period. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Hamaker, Notes to Ince ti auctoris liber de expugnatione Memphides et Alexandriae, p. 62. —⁠M. ↩
A new Life, by Dr. Weil (Stuttgart, 1843), has added some few traditions unknown in Europe. Of Dr. Weil’s Arabic scholarship, which professes to correct many errors in Gagnier, in Maracci, and in M. von Hammer, I am no judge. But it is remarkable that he does not seem acquainted with the passage of Tabari, translated by Colonel Vans Kennedy in the Bombay Transactions (vol. III), the earliest and most important addition made to the traditionary life of Muhammad. I am inclined to think Colonel Vans Kennedy’s appreciation of the prophet’s character, which may be overlooked in a criticism on Voltaire’s Mahomet, the most just which I have ever read. The work of Dr. Weil appears to me most valuable in its dissection and chronological view of the Koran. —⁠M. 1845

The original materials for a life of Muhammad are⁠—I. The Koran. II. The traditions of Muhammad’s followers. III. Some poetical works. IV. The earliest Arabian biographies of the prophet.

I. The Koran, respecting the general integrity and authenticity of which Oriental scholars are agreed, is the great storehouse for the opinions and character of Muhammad; but the events of his outward life, and their connection, are derived almost entirely from tradition.

II. After Muhammad’s death, such of his followers as had been much about his person (Ashâb, “companions”) were surrounded by pupils who had not seen and conversed with him, but who were desirous of acquiring information from those who had enjoyed that advantage. This second generation, who were called Tabiys (Tabiûn, “successors”), transmitted in turn to others the information thus acquired. Great care was employed in comparing and sifting these traditions, which were derived from various and often distant sources; and, as a guarantee of authenticity, the name of the person on whose authority they rested was transmitted along with them. It is possible that some of them may have been committed to writing in Muhammad’s lifetime; but the first formal collection of them was made about a century after his death, by command of the caliph Omar II. They multiplied rapidly; and it is said that the books of the historian Bokhâri⁠—who died only about two centuries after Muhammad⁠—which consisted chiefly of these traditions, filled six hundred boxes, each a load for two men. The most important among these collections are the six canonical ones of the Sunnies and four of the Shiahs. The former were compiled under the influence of the Abasside Mâmûn. The Shiahs were somewhat later, and are far less trustworthy than the Sunnies, being composed with the party view of supporting the claims of Ali and his descendants to supreme power.

III. Some extant Arabic poems were probably composed by Muhammad’s contemporaries. They are of much value, as adding confirmation to the corresponding traditions; but there are no facts in the prophet’s life the proof of which depends upon these historical remains. Although, therefore, they are valuable because confirmatory of tradition, their practical bearing upon the biographical elements of the prophet’s life is not of so much interest as might have been expected. They deserve, indeed, deep attention, as the earliest literary remains of a period which contained the germ of such mighty events, but they give us little new insight into the history or character of Muhammad. (Calcutta Review, No. XXXVII, p. 66.)

IV. It seems that regular biographies of Muhammad began to be composed towards the end of the first or early in the second century of the Hegira; but the earliest biographical writers, whose works are extant more or less in their original state, are: 1. Ibn Ishâc; 2. Ibn Hishâm; 3. Wâckidi and his secretary; 4. Tabari.
1. Ibn Ishâc, a Tabiy, died AH 141 (AD 768). His work, which was composed for the caliph Al Mansûr, enjoys a high reputation among the Muslims; and its statements have been incorporated into most of the subsequent biographies of the prophet. Dr. Sprenger, however (p. 69), though hardly, perhaps, on sufficient grounds, regards him as little trustworthy, and doubts whether his book has come down to us in its original form.
2. Ibn Ishâc was succeeded by Ibn Hishâm (died AH 213⁠—AD 828), whose work, still extant, is founded on that of his predecessor, but bears the reputation of being still less trustworthy.
3. Wâckidi, born at Medina about AH 129, compiled several books relating to Muhammad, but no work of his has come down to us in its original form. The fruits of his researches were, however, collected into fifteen large quarto volumes by his secretary Mohammed Ibn Saad. The first of these, containing the Sirat or biography of Muhammad, including accounts of his companions, has been preserved in its genuine form, and is one of the best sources of information respecting the prophet. This valuable work was discovered by Dr. Sprenger at Cawnpore. Dr. Sprenger observes that “this is by far the best biography of the Arabic prophet, but, being rare, it has never been used by a European scholar. The veracity and knowledge of the author have never been impugned by his contemporaries, nor by good early writers.” It is generally quoted under the name of “Wâckidi,” probably for the sake of brevity. The carefully collected traditions of Wâckidi must not be confounded with the romances of the eighth century which bear the same name, and which form the basis of Ockley’s work.
4. Tabari, the most celebrated of all the Arabic historians, died AH 310 (AD 929). A short account of this writer is given by Gibbon himself (this note in ch. LI). Tabari wrote an account both of Muhammad’s life and of the progress of Islam. The latter has long been known; and a portion of it, in the original Arabic, was published, with a Latin translation, by Kosegarten in 1831. But the earlier part, relating to Muhammad, could be read only in an untrustworthy Persian translation even so late as 1851, when Dr. Sprenger published his Life of Mohammad. It has, however, been subsequently discovered in the original language by that gentleman during his mission by the Indian Government to search the native libraries of Lucknow. To Dr. Sprenger, therefore, belongs the honor of having discovered two of the most valuable works respecting the history of Muhammad.
But even the most authentic traditions respecting Muhammad have been corrupted by superstition, faction, and other causes; and it is hardly necessary to say that a European writer must exercise the most careful and discriminating criticism in the use of them. Inattention to this point is the defect of Gagnier’s otherwise excellent work.

The later Arabic biographers of Muhammad are entitled to no credit as independent authorities. They could add no true information, but they often add many spurious traditions and fabricated stories of later days. Hence such a writer as Abulfeda, whom Gibbon frequently quotes, is of no value as an authority.

The best recent biographies of Muhammad by Europeans are Dr. Sprenger’s Life of Mohammad from original sources, Allahabad, 1851, and Dr. Weil’s Mohammed der Prophet, Stuttgart, 1843. Dr. Sprenger’s Life (part I) only goes down to the flight from Mecca, but it is a very valuable contribution to Oriental literature. —⁠S. ↩
Chronologists dispute between the 15th and 16th of July. Saint-Martin inclines to the 18th, ch. XI, p. 70. —⁠M. ↩
Dr. Weil has added some curious circumstances, which he gives as on good traditional authority, on the rescue of Muhammad. The prophet was attacked by Ubeijj Ibn Challaf, whom he struck on the neck with a mortal wound. This was the only time, it is added, that Muhammad personally engaged in battle (p. 128). —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Dr. Weil believes in the epilepsy, and adduces strong evidence for it; and surely it may be believed, in perfect charity; and that the prophet’s visions were connected, as they appear to have been, with these fits. I have little doubt that he saw and believed these visions, and visions they were. Weil, p. 43. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
According to the testimony of all the Eastern authors, Muhammad died on Monday the 12th Reby 1st, in the year 11 of the Hegira, which answers in reality to the 8th June, 632, of Jesus Christ. We find in Ockley (History of the Saracens) that it was on Monday the 6th June, 682. This is a mistake; for the 6th June of that year was a Saturday, not a Monday; the 8th June, therefore, was a Monday. It is easy to discover that the lunar year in his calculation has been confounded with the solar. Saint-Martin vol. XI, p. 186. —⁠M. ↩
The Rezont Uzzuffa (Price, p. 105) has a strange account of an embassy to Yezdegerd. The Oriental historians take great delight in these embassies, which give them an opportunity of displaying their Asiatic eloquence. —⁠M. ↩
Ockley (History of the Saracens, vol. I, p. 230) translates in the same manner three thousand million of ducats. See Forster’s Mahometanism Unveiled, vol. II, p. 462; who makes this innocent doubt of Gibbon, in which, as to the amount of the plunder, I venture to concur, a grave charge of inaccuracy and disrespect to the memory of Erpenius.

The Persian authorities of Price (p. 122) make the booty worth three hundred and thirty millions sterling! —⁠M. ↩
The best modern account is that of Claudius Rich, Esq., Two Memoirs of Babylon, London, 1818. —⁠M. ↩
Malcolm vol. I, p. 141. —⁠M. ↩
It should be remembered that the Oxus or Amu Darya (which now, like the Jaxartes or Syr Darya, flows into the Aral) then flowed into the Caspian. The course changed about AD 1573. Recently there have been thoughts of diverting it into its old course. —⁠B. ↩
M. Hamaker has clearly shown that neither of these works can be inscribed to Al Wakidi: they are not older than the end of the eleventh century or later than the middle of the fourteenth. Praefatio in Ince ti auctoris liber de expugnatione Memphides et Alexandriae, c. IX, X. —⁠M. ↩
Several modern travellers (Mr. Fazakerley, in Walpole’s Travels in Various Countries of the East, vol. II 371) give very amusing accounts of the terms on which the monks of Mount Sinai live with the neighboring Bedouins. Such, probably, was their relative state in older times, wherever the Arab retained his Bedouin habits. —⁠M. ↩
This history is now considered not to be the genuine work of Al Wakidi. Saint-Martin, vol. X, p. 213. According to Ockley’s translation of the articles of Jerusalem, the Christians “were not to ring, but only toll their bells.” History of the Saracens, vol. I, p. 220. —⁠M. ↩
Vardan is an Armenian name. M. Saint-Martin conjectures that he was of the Mamigonian race; vol. XI, p. 205. —⁠M. ↩
M. Saint-Martin gives Tuesday, the 23rd August, 634, as the most probable date of the death of Abubeker, “without being confident that it was also the date of the taking of Damascus, which nevertheless must have been conquered by the Arabs about the same time.” It appears evident from the testimony of all the Arabian authors that the news of the capture of Damascus, conquered under the reign of Abubeker, was not known in Arabia till that of Omar (vol. XI, p. 218). —⁠M.

According to Dr. Weil, the chronology of these events is as follows:⁠—The battle of Aiznadin was fought on the 30th July, 634 (not 633, as mentioned by Gibbon). This was followed by the battle of the Yermuk, which was about coincident with Abu Bekr’s death⁠—the latter event having taken place on the 22nd August, 634 (not the 23rd, as hitherto recorded by all European writers), and the battle on the following day. Damascus was captured in January, 635. Clinton (Fasti Romani, vol. II, p. 173), following Ockley, places the capture of Damascus on the same day as Abu Bekr died.

It will be observed that Gibbon places the battle of the Yermuk two years after the fall of Damascus, viz. in November, 636 (infra, p. 317). In this he seems to have followed Theophanes, who placed that event two years too late. That author himself, however, mentions (vol. I, p. 518) that the siege of Damascus was a consequence of the battle of the Yermuk, which latter event he places on Tuesday, the 23rd of July or August, the MSS. varying between Ιουλίον and Λους. But we know from Musulman writers that the battle in question about coincided with Abu Bekr’s death; and the 23rd of August, 634, was really a Tuesday, while the 23rd of July was a Saturday; and in 635 and 636 neither the 23rd July nor 23rd August fell on a Tuesday. The error of Theophanes arose as follows:⁠—he rightly places Muhammad’s death in the Fourth Indiction, which commences with September, 631; but he begins the reign of Abu Bekr with the following year, assigns to it a period of two years and a half, and places Omar’s accession in the year 6126, instead of 6125, which begins with September, 634. To complete his error, following apparently other Arabian traditions which place the battle of the Yermuk in the 15th year of the Hegira, he places that event at the end of Omar’s reign, instead of the beginning. Weil, vol. I, p. 40, note; and p. 45⁠–⁠48, and notes. —⁠S. ↩
It has been published in Arabic by M. Ewald, Saint-Martin, vol. XI, p. 268; but its authenticity is doubted. —⁠M. ↩
Some words have accidentally fallen out in this passage after κτέννουσι and are preserved in the translation of Anastasius: et hunc ab Africa pellunt (de Boor supplies καὶ τοῦτον Ἀφρικῦς ἀπε ἀπελαύνουσιν). This implies that Gregory was not slain; cp. this note above. —⁠B. ↩
Compare the valuable work of José Conde, Historia de la Dominación de los Árabes en España, Madrid, 1820. —⁠M. ↩
Whatever the real age of the Zendavesta, published by Anquetil du Perron, whether of the time of Ardeschir Babeghan, according to Mr. Erskine, or of much higher antiquity, it may be considered, I conceive, both a “pure and a free,” though imperfect, description of Zoroastrianism; particularly with the illustrations of the original translator, and of the German Kleuker. —⁠M. ↩
Theophanes gives 672⁠–⁠3 as the year of Moawiyah’s preparation of the expedition, 673⁠–⁠4 as that of his investment of Constantinople. It seems safest to follow Theophanes here; the Arabic authors say little or nothing of an event which was disgraceful in Muhammadan history. But we cannot accept his statement that the siege lasted seven years; in fact he contradicts it himself, since he places the peace in the fifth year after the beginning of the siege. We have no means of determining with certainty the true duration. Nicephorus (p. 32, edit. de Boor) states that the war lasted seven years, and though he evidently identifies the war with the siege, we may perhaps find here the clue to the solution. The war seems to have begun soon after the accession of Constantine (εὐθύς, Nicephorus, ibid.); and perhaps its beginning was dated from the occupation of Cyzicus by Phadalas in 670⁠–⁠1 (Theophanes, AM 6162), and peace was made in 677⁠–⁠8. Thus we get seven years for the duration of the war (671⁠–⁠7), and perhaps three for the siege (674⁠–⁠6). —⁠B. ↩
Up to this time the Arabs had used the Roman or the Persian coins, or had minted others which resembled them. Nevertheless, it has been admitted of late years that the Arabians, before this epoch, had caused coin to be minted, on which, preserving the Roman or the Persian dies, they added Arabian names or inscriptions. Some of these exist in different collections. We learn from Makrizi, an Arabian author of great learning and judgment, that in the year 18 of the Hegira, under the caliphate of Omar, the Arabs had coined money of this description. The same author informs us that the caliph Abdalmalek caused coins to be struck representing himself with a sword by his side. These types, so contrary to the notions of the Arabs, were disapproved by the most influential persons of the time, and the caliph substituted for them, after the year 76 of the Hegira, the Muhammadan coins with which we are acquainted. Consult on the question of Arabic numismatics the works of Jacob Adler, of Christian Fraehn, of Carlo Castiglione, and of William Marsden, who have treated at length this interesting point of historic antiquities. See also, in the Journal Asiatique, tom. II, p. 257, et seq., a paper of M. Silvestre de Sacy, entitled “Des Monnaies des Khalifes, Avant l’An 75 de l’Hégire.” See also the translation of a German paper on the Arabic medals of the Khosrow by M. Fraehn, in the same Journal Asiatique, tom. IV, pp. 331⁠–⁠347. Saint-Martin, vol. XII, p. 19. —⁠M. ↩
Compare, on the introduction of the Arabic numerals, Hallam’s Introduction to the Literature of Europe, p. 150, note, and the authors quoted therein. —⁠M. ↩
The Tarikh al-Tabari ascribes the death of Soliman to a pleurisy. The same gross gluttony in which Soliman indulged, though not fatal to the life, interfered with the military duties, of his brother Moslemah. Price, vol. I, p. 511. —⁠M. ↩
It is remarkable that the Syrian historian Michel gives the name of naphtha to the newly-invented Greek fire, which seems to indicate that this substance formed the base of the destructive compound. Saint-Martin, tom. XI, p. 420. —⁠M. ↩
Mr. William Whewell (History of the Inductive Sciences, vol. I, p. 336) rejects the claim of the Arabians as inventors of the science of chemistry. “The formation and realization of the notions of analysis and affinity were important steps in chemical science; which, as I shall hereafter endeavor to show, it remained for the chemists of Europe to make at a much later period.” —⁠M. ↩
Weil attributes his withdrawing from Baghdad to the unpopularity which he acquired by the murder of the Barmecides. Vol. II, p. 144. —⁠S. ↩
Compare von Hammer, Die Geschichte der Assassinen, p. 44, etc. —⁠M. ↩
The whole original work of Leo the Deacon has been published by Hase, and is inserted in the new edition of the Byzantine historians. M. Lassen has added to the Arabian authorities of this period some extracts from Kemaleddin’s account of the treaty for the surrender of Aleppo. —⁠M. ↩
As Gibbon has not given an account of the Byzantine law in any part of his work, a brief history of its sources may be stated in this place, more especially as the labors of modern scholars have thrown new light upon the subject. Although the compilation of Justinian was mainly intended for people who spoke Greek, the emperor restricted its use by promulgating it in the Latin language, which was unintelligible to the greater part of his subjects. This defect was remedied to a great extent by a Greek school of jurists, which had flourished even before his reign, and who translated the Corpus juris into the Greek language. The consequence was that the original was soon disused throughout the Eastern empire, and that Greek translations of the Institutions, the Pandects, and the Code usurped their place. These translations, however, were not stamped by any official authority; and in the times of confusion which followed the reign of Heraclius even the translations were neglected, and their place was supplied by the writings of commentators, who had published abridgments of the laws. Leo III, the Isaurian, attempted to remedy this evil by publishing a Greek Manual of Law, which became the primary authority in all the courts of the empire. This Manual, which was revised by Constantine Copronymus, the son of Leo, bore the title of Ecloga (Ἐκλογὴ τῶν νόμων), and is still extant in many manuscripts, which till a recent time were erroneously supposed to be the Prochiron, or Manual of Basil, Constantine, and Leo, of which we shall speak presently. The Ecloga of Leo and Constantine Copronymus contains eighteen titles, and adopts an order entirely different from that of the Institutions of Justinian. It omits entirely several very important matters, such as servitudes and the different modes of acquiring property. Its authority was abrogated by Basil I, who severely censures it on account of its imperfections, and declares it to be an insult to the earlier legislators. It was not, however, entirely disused, since the MSS. which contain it are all later than the ninth century.

A more complete reform in the Byzantine law was effected by Basil I. His legislation was comprised in three works: 1. Prochiron (πρόχειρος νόμος), a manual intended to serve as an introduction to the science. 2. Basilica (τὰ βασιλικά), a revision of the ancient laws. 3. Epanogoge (Ἐπαναγογὴ νόμων), a second edition of the Prochiron Manual published after the Basilica.

The Prochiron is issued in the names of Basil, and of his two sons, Constantine and Leo, and was probably published in AD 870. It contains forty titles. The former half of the work is executed in an entirely different manner from the latter. In the first twenty titles the same plan has been followed as in the Basilica; the extracts from the Institutions are first given, and these are followed successively by extracts from the Pandects, Code, Novellae of Justinian, and then by the Novellae of subsequent emperors; but in the last twenty titles this well-arranged plan is abandoned, from a determination to hurry the work to a conclusion. The Ecloga of Leo, which Basil so strongly condemns, now becomes the basis of his work; the extracts from the Institutions and the Novellae are very numerous, while the Pandects and the Code are almost entirely neglected. A complete edition of the Prochiron was published for the first time by Karl Eduard Zachariae in 1837.

The Basilica contains a complete code of Byzantine law. It was originally published by Basil about 884, under the title of the Revision of the Old Laws (Ἀνακάθαρσις τῶν παλαιῶν νόμων). It was divided into forty books, although Basil in his Prochiron had announced that the new Code would consist of sixty books. This Code, however, was again revised and enlarged by Leo the Philosopher, and was published in his own name and that of his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus between 905 and 911. It is this new and revised Code in sixty books which we now possess under the title of Basilica or Imperial laws. The earlier code of Basil has entirely disappeared. The Basilica, like the compilation of Justinian, is a collection all the authorities of Byzantine law. It is compiled from the Greek translations of Justinian’s laws, and from the Greek commentaries on them, which had received the sanction of the Byzantine legal schools. It was not a new translation of the Latin text of Justinian, but it employed the Greek texts which had been in existence for more than three centuries. Each of the sixty books is distributed into titles, which are again subdivided into chapters and paragraphs. Each title contains, with more or less accuracy, all the laws relating to this subject in the Institutions, the Pandects, the Code, and the Novellae, and thus presents in one place the enactments upon a subject previously dispersed in four collections. The Basilica does not contain everything which is found in the Corpus juris, but it contains numerous fragments of the opinions of the ancient jurists and of imperial constitutions which are not in the compilation of Justinian. There is no complete MS. of the Basilica. The best edition is by Heimbach, in five volumes quarto, Leipzig, 1833, seq.

The publication of the Basilica led to the gradual disuse of the original compilations of Justinian in the East. But the Roman law was thus more firmly established in Eastern Europe and Western Asia. The Basilica continued to be the law of the Byzantine empire till its conquest by the Turks, and has been declared to be the law of the new kingdom of Greece.

The best histories of the Byzantine law are by Karl Eduard Zachariae, Historiae juris Graeco-Romani delineatio, and by Jean-Anselme-Bernard Montreuil, Histoire du droit byzantin, Paris, three volumes octavo, 1843⁠–⁠1846. See also Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, vol. I, p. 280, seq. —⁠S. ↩
M. Guichard, author of Mémoires militaires sur les Grecs et les Romains. See Gibbon’s “Extraits Raisonnees de mes Lectures,” Miscellaneous Works, vol. V, p. 219. —⁠M. ↩
I am inclined, with Arthur Buegnot (Les Juifs d’Occident, part III, p. 101, et sqq.) and Jost (Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. VI Anhang, p. 376) to consider this work a mere compilation, and to doubt the reality of the travels. —⁠M. ↩
It is not correct to say that the place of the Curopalates was taken by the protovestiaros. This office of Curopalates still existed, but his functions and the entire responsibility of the care of the palace were devolved upon the Great Papias (ὁ μέγας παπίας), who was always a eunuch and held the rank of protospathar. He was a very important official, and had an assistant (also a eunuch) called “the Second” (ὁ δεύτερος). Under him were all the palace servants: 1. the diaetarii, attendants attached to the various rooms; 2. The lûstai, bath-attendants; 3. the lamplighters (κανδηλάπται); 4. the stove-heaters (καμηνάδες, καλδάριοι); 5. the horologoi, who looked after the palace clocks, and 6. the mysterious ζαράβαι. Under the Second, who was specially concerned with the wardrobe, were the vestitores, etc. The protovestiarios is totally distinct. He was a sort of chamberlain, next in rank apparently to the Praepositus sacri cubiculi, and holding an office of great trust. Bieliaiev (to whom we owe a valuable essay on all these offices in Byzantina, I, p. 145, sqq.) conjectures that the duty of the Protovestiary was to take care of a private treasury (in which not only ornaments but money was kept) in the Imperial bedchamber (p. 176⁠–⁠7). As for the Curopalates he still remained one of the highest dignitaries, though it is not clear what duties he performed. Probably his post was honorary. In rank he was the highest person at court next to the nobilissimus, who came immediately after the Caesar (Philotheus, apud Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, II 52, p. 711). Only six persons were deemed worthy of sitting at the same table as the Emperor and Empress, namely, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Caesar, the Nobilissimus, the Curopalates, the Basileopator (cp. here in chapter XLVIII), and the Zostê patricia or highest maid of honor. See Philotheus, idem, p. 726. —⁠B. ↩
Sicut et vestem. These words follow in the text of Liutprand (apud Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, tom. II, p. 486, to which Gibbon refers). But with some inaccuracy or confusion, which rarely occurs in Gibbon’s references, the rest of the quotation, which as it stands is unintelligible, does not appear. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Hallam’s Europe During the Middle Ages, pp. 461⁠–⁠471. Mr. Hallam justly observes that this chapter “appears to be accurate as well as luminous, and is at least far superior to any modern work on the subject.” —⁠M. ↩
Dr. Samuel Roffey Maitland, in his Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine, and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses, remarks (p. 217, note) that Gibbon ought to have said thirty-two men and eight women. He imagines that Gibbon was misled by the fact that the index-maker most commonly (but by no means always) states the nature of the sentence passed on each person. From the book, however, it appears that forty persons were delivered to the secular arm, viz. twenty-nine Albigenses, seven Waldenses, and four Beguins. —⁠S. ↩
Gibbon has not accurately rendered the sense of this passage, which does not contain the maxim of charity, Do unto others as you would they should do unto you, but simply the maxim of justice, Do not to others that which would offend you if they should do it to you. —⁠G. ↩
The Slavonian languages are no doubt Indo-European, though an original branch of that great family, comprehending the various dialects named by Gibbon and others. Shafarik, t. 33. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
We have at length a profound and satisfactory work on the Slavonian races, Shafarik, Slawische alterthümer, B. 2, Leipzig, 1843. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
On this note Dr. Maitland remarks⁠—“I do not know why Gibbon says a ‘bishop of Wurtzburg,’ when Fleury and D’Achery (Fleury’s only authority) say Verdun. The document exists as ‘Epistola cujusdam Abbatis Monasterii S. Germani ad V. Episcopum Virdunensem de Hungris.’ Neither the bishop nor the abbot seems to have given any credit to the notion of the Hungarians being Gog and Magog. In writing to the abbot, the bishop appears (for I believe his letter is not extant, and is only known by the answer) to have mentioned that the idea was current in his diocese, and to have desired him to look at the prophecy of Ezekiel, and let him know what he supposed to be its meaning. That the bishop did not express or imply any belief in the opinion, may be presumed from the terms in which the abbot (after saying that it was current in his part of the world also) sets it down as mere nonsense⁠—frivolam esse et nihil verum habere⁠—contrasted with the language of deep respect and affection in which he addresses the bishop. But farther⁠—the sarcasm can scarcely be said to touch either of the parties; for the abbot gives the notion about Gog and Magog being the root, and the heretics, etc., as the exposition of Jerome, without the expression of any opinion as to its correctness; unless indeed we may find something like apology in the language of the single sentence of comment which he bestows on it⁠—quae a B. Hieronymo exposita sunt, et brevitas epistolae plura de his dicere non permittit.” (The Dark Ages, p. 230.) —⁠S. ↩
Compare Johann Christian von Engel, Geschichte des Ungarischen Reichs und seine Nebenländer, Halle, 1797, and Mailáth, Geschichte der Magyaren, Wien, 1828. In an appendix to the latter work will be found a brief abstract of the speculations (for it is difficult to consider them more) which have been advanced by the learned, on the origin of the Magyar and Hungarian nation. Compare this note. —⁠M. ↩
The later antiquarians of Russia and Germany appear to aquiesce in the authority of the monk Nestor, the earliest annalist of Russia, who derives the Russians or Varegues, from Scandinavia. The names of the first founders of the Russian monarchy are Scandinavian or Norman. Their language (according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, c. 9) differed essentially from the Sclavonian. The author of the Annals of St. Bertin, who first names the Russians (Rhos) in the year 839 of his Annals, assigns them Sweden for their country. So Liutprand calls the Russians the same people as the Normans. The Fins, Laplanders, and Estonians call the Swedes, to the present day, Roots, Rootsi, Ruotzi, Rootslaue. See Thunman, Untersuchungen über die Geschichte der östlichen europäischen Völker, p. 374. Gatterer, Novi commentarii societatis regiae scientiarum Goettingensis XIII, p. 126. Schlözer, in his Nestorchronik. Christopher Koch, Tableau des révolutions de l’Europe, vol. I, p. 60. Malte-Brun, Géographie, vol. VI, p. 378. —⁠M. ↩
The late M. Schlözer has translated and added a commentary to the Annals of Nestor; and his work is the mine from which henceforth the history of the North must be drawn. —⁠G. ↩
The book of authority is the Geschichte des Hanseatischen Bundes, by George Sartorius, Göttingen, 1803, or rather the later edition of that work by M. Lappenberg, two vols. quarto, Hamburg, 1830. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Cerbied, the learned Armenian, gives another derivation. There is a city called Tschemisch-gaizag, which means a bright or purple sandal, such as women wear in the East. He was called Tschemisch-ghigh (for so his name is written in Armenian, from this city, his native place). Hase, Note to Leo Diaconus, p. 454, in Niebuhr’s Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. —⁠M. ↩
M. Gauttier d’Arc has discovered a translation of the Chronicle of Aimé, monk of Mont Cassino, a contemporary of the first Norman invaders of Italy. He has made use of it in his Histoire des conquêtes des Normands, and added a summary of its contents. This work was quoted by later writers, but was supposed to have been entirely lost. —⁠M. ↩
There is a fair Life of Gregory VII by Johannes Voigt (Weimar, 1815), which has been translated into French. M. Villemain, it is understood, has devoted much time to the study of this remarkable character, to whom his eloquence may do justice. There is much valuable information on the subject in the accurate work of Gustav Stenzel, Geschichte Deutschlands unter den fränkischen Kaisern⁠—the History of Germany under the Emperors of the Franconian Race. —⁠M. ↩
Cinnamus says nothing of their ignorance. The signal for retreat was οὐ σάλπιγγος ἠχὴ, ἤ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον, ἀλλὰ βάρβαρός τις καὶ ἀξύνετος τρόπος. —⁠M. ↩
The European reader now possesses a more accurate version of Ferishta, that of Col. John Briggs. Of Col. Dow’s work, Col. Briggs observes, “that the author’s name will be handed down to posterity as one of the earliest and most indefatigable of our Oriental scholars. Instead of confining himself, however, to mere translation, he has filled his work with his own observations, which have been so embodied in the text that Gibbon declares it impossible to distinguish the translator from the original author.” Preface, p. VII. —⁠M. ↩
This passage is differently written in the various manuscripts I have seen; and in some the word tope (gun) has been written for nupth (naphtha), and toofung (musket) for khudung (arrow). But no Persian or Arabic history speaks of gunpowder before the time usually assigned for its invention (AD 1317); long after which it was first applied to the purposes of war. Briggs’s Ferishta, vol. I, p. 47, note. —⁠M. ↩
Mr. Wilson (Select Specimans of the Theatre of the Hindus, vol. III, p. 12) and Schlegel (Indische Bibliothek, vol. II, p. 394) concur in identifying Palimbothra with the Patalipara of the Indians, the Patna of the moderns. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon’s conjecture was well-founded. Compare the more sober and genuine version of Col. Briggs, vol. I, p. 110. —⁠M. ↩
The religion of the Druses has, within the present year, been fully developed from their own writings, which have long lain neglected in the libraries of Paris and Oxford, in the Exposé de la religion des Druzes, by M. Silvestre de Sacy, deux tomes, Paris, 1838. The learned author has prefixed a life of Hakem Biamr-Allah, which enables us to correct several errors in the account of Gibbon. These errors chiefly arose from his want of knowledge or of attention to the chronology of Hakem’s life. Hakem succeeded to the throne of Egypt in the year of the Hegira 386. He did not assume his divinity till 408. His life was indeed “a wild mixture of vice and folly,” to which may be added, of the most sanguinary cruelty. During his reign, 18,000 persons were victims of his ferocity. Yet such is the god, observes M. de Sacy, whom the Druses have worshipped for 800 years! (See p. CCCCXXIX.) All his wildest and most extravagant actions were interpreted by his followers as having a mystic and allegoric meaning, alluding to the destruction of other religions and the propagation of his own. It does not seem to have been the “vanity” of Hakem which induced him to introduce a new religion. The curious point in the new faith is that Hamza, the son of Ali, the real founder of the Unitarian religion (such is its boastful title), was content to take a secondary part. While Hakem was God, the one Supreme, the Imam Hamza was his Intelligence. It was not in his “divine character” that Hakem “hated the Jews and Christians,” but in that of a Muhammadan bigot, which he displayed in the earlier years of his reign. His barbarous persecutions and the burning of the church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem belong entirely to that period; and his assumption of divinity was followed by an edict of toleration to Jews and Christians. The Muhammadans, whose religion he then treated with hostility and contempt, being far the most numerous, were his most dangerous enemies, and therefore the objects of his most inveterate hatred. It is another singular fact that the religion of Hakem was by no means confined to Egypt and Syria. M. de Sacy quotes a letter addressed to the chief of the sect in India; and there is likewise a letter to the Byzantine emperor Constantine, son of Armanous (Romanus), and the clergy of the empire. (Constantine VIII, M. de Sacy supposes, but this is irreconcilable with chronology: it must mean Constantine XI, Monomachus.) The assassination of Hakem is, of course, disbelieved by his sectaries. M. de Sacy seems to consider the fact obscure and doubtful. According to his followers he disappeared, but is hereafter to return. At his return the resurrection is to take place, the triumph of Unitarianism, and the final discomfiture of all other religions. The temple of Mecca is especially devoted to destruction. It is remarkable that one of the signs of this final consummation, and of the reappearance of Hakem, is that Christianity shall be gaining a manifest predominance over Muhammadanism.

As for the religion of the Druses, I cannot agree with Gibbon that it does not “deserve” to be better known; and am grateful to M. de Sacy, notwithstanding the prolixity and occasional repetition in his two large volumes, for the full examination of the most extraordinary religious aberration which ever extensively affected the mind of man. The worship of a mad tyrant is the basis of a subtle metaphysical creed, and of a severe, and even ascetic, morality. —⁠M. ↩
Compare the first chapter of Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge. —⁠M. ↩
Several new documents, particularly from the East, have been collected by the industry of the modern historians of the crusades, M. Michaud and Wilken. —⁠M. ↩
See this note. —⁠M. ↩
A singular “allegoric” explanation of this strange fact has recently been broached: it is connected with the charge of idolatry and Eastern heretical opinions subsequently made against the Templars. “We have no doubt that they were Manichee or Gnostic standards.” [The author says the animals themselves were carried before the army. —⁠M.] “The goose, in Egyptian symbols, as every Egyptian scholar knows, meant ‘divine Son,’ or ‘Son of God.’ The goat meant Typhon, or the Devil. Thus we have the Manichee opposing principles of good and evil, as standards, at the head of the ignorant mob of crusading invaders. Can anyone doubt that a large portion of this host must have been infected with the Manichee or Gnostic idolatry?” Account of the Temple Church, London by R. W. Billings, p. 5, London, 1838. This is, at all events, a curious coincidence, especially considered in connection with the extensive dissemination of the Paulician opinions among the common people of Europe. At any rate, in so inexplicable a matter, we are inclined to catch at any explanation, however wild or subtle. —⁠M. ↩
This is an unjust sarcasm against St. Bernard. He stood above all rivalry of this kind. See this note in c. LIX. —⁠M. ↩
The sum is uncertain. Several authors make it much less. Michaud, vol. I, p. 166. —⁠S. ↩
He seems to have led a force equal or superior to that of Godfrey, and his exploits against the Saracens of Spain would render his name memorable among the Arabian writers. —⁠S. ↩
However Gibbon may laugh at Anna, she had not the bad taste to write such an instance of the bathos as he has here concocted, by uniting two completely distinct sentences. The epithet “king of kings” is used by Hugo himself in a letter to the emperor; that of “commander-in-chief of the Frank army” is the description of him used by the ambassadors he had sent to the commandant of Dyrrachium. —⁠S. ↩
Sangeles would be a near enough equivalent for St. Gilles, but it is Isangeles; and the form of the corruption seems to have been determined by an etymology complimentary to the count⁠—ισάγγελος, angelic. A reader, ignorant of the pronunciation of modern Greek, might easily do injustice to Anna. The modern Greek alphabet has no letters equivalent to b and d (β represents v, and δ is aspirated dh); and in order to reproduce these sounds they resort to the devices of μπ and ντ. Thus Robert is quite correctly Ῥομπέρτος, and Τοντοφρέ is a near transliteration of Godfrey (Godefroi). —⁠B. ↩
See this earlier note. Soliman and Kilidge-Arslan were father and son. —⁠M. ↩
The journey of Col. Macdonald Kinneir in Asia Minor throws considerable light on the geography of this march of the crusaders. —⁠M. ↩
This is an exaggerated inference from the words of Tacitus, who speaks of the founders of the city, not the lawgivers. Praeviderant conditores, ex diversitate morum, crebra bella; inde cuncta quamvis adversus longum obsidium. —⁠M. ↩
The magic and enchantments, however, which produce so much poetical effect in Tasso’s work, belong rather to his own age than to that of the first crusade. The only historical trait during the siege of Jerusalem that can be at all associated with the marvellous, is the appearance of two female magicians on the ramparts during the assault, who invoked the elements and powers of hell against the besiegers. Michaud, vol. I, p. 436, note. —⁠S. ↩
David determined to take a census of his vast dominions, which extended from Lebanon to the frontiers of Egypt, from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. The numbers (in 2 Samuel 24:9, and 1 Chronicles 21:5) differ; but the lowest gives 800,000 men fit to bear arms in Israel, 500,000 in Judah. History of the Jews, vol. I, p. 248. Gibbon has taken the highest census in his estimate of the population, and confined the dominions of David to cis-Jordanic Palestine. —⁠M. ↩
See Wilken, vol. I, p. 17, etc. —⁠M. ↩
The Greek writers, in general, Zonaras, vol. II, p. 303, and Glycas, p. 334, agree in this story with the princess Anna, except in the absurd addition of the dead cock. Du Cange has already quoted some instances where a similar stratagem had been adopted by Norman princes. On this authority Wilken inclines to believe the fact. Appendix to vol. II, p. 14. —⁠M. ↩
Strabo (XII, p. 568) does not give this title to Iconium, nor does Cellarius say he did. Gibbon must have read the passage in Cellarius carelessly. The words of Cellarius are, “Strabo pauca in Lycoania memorat: unam urbem, Iconium, unam κωμόπολις, vicum instar oppidi, Soatra videlicet: et unum vicum Coropassum.” —⁠S. ↩
He names both⁠—Βρίττιοί τε καὶ Βριταννοί. —⁠M. ↩
It is now called the Girama: its course is described in M’Donald Kinneir’s Narrative of Travels in Asia Minor. —⁠M. ↩
Von Hammer (Die Geschichte der Assassinen, p. 202) sums up against Richard; Wilken (vol. IV, p. 485) as strongly for acquittal. Michaud (vol. II, p. 420) delivers no decided opinion. This crime was also attributed to Saladin, who is said, by an Oriental authority (the continuator of Tabari), to have employed the assassins to murder both Conrad and Richard. It is a melancholy admission, but it must be acknowledged that such an act would be less inconsistent with the character of the Christian than of the Muhammadan king. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Wilken, vol. VII, p. 94. —⁠M. ↩
Wilken, vol. VII, p. 257, thinks the proposition could not have been made in earnest. —⁠M. ↩
After these chapters of Gibbon, the masterly prize composition, Essai sur l’influence des croisades par A. H. L. Heeren, traduit de l’Allemand par Charles Villars, Paris, 1808, or the original German, in Heeren’s Vermischte historische Schriften, may be read with great advantage. —⁠M. ↩
It is scarcely necessary to mention the valuable work of Count Pierre Daru, Histoire de la république de Venise, of which I hear that an Italian translation has been published, with notes defensive of the ancient republic. I have not yet seen this work. —⁠M. ↩
The accounts differ, both as to the extent and the cause of his blindness. According to Villehardouin and others, the sight was totally lost; according to the Chronicle of Andrew Dandolo (Muratori, tom. XII, p. 322), he was visu debilis. See Wilken, vol. V, p. 143. —⁠M. ↩
He admits, however, that the Angeli had committed depredations on the Venetian trade, and the emperor himself had refused the payment of part of the stipulated compensation for the seizure of the Venetian merchandise by the emperor Manuel. Nicetas, in loc. —⁠M. ↩
Wilken places it before the death of Alexius, vol. V, p. 276. —⁠M. ↩
William de Champlite, brother of the count of Dijon, assumed the title of Prince of Achaia: on the death of his brother he returned, with regret, to France, to assume his paternal inheritance, and left Villehardouin his “bailli,” on condition that if he did not return within a year, Villehardouin was to retain an investiture. Brosset’s Addition to Le Beau, vol. XVII, p. 200. M. Brosset adds, from the Greek chronicler edited by M. Buchon, the somewhat unknightly trick by which Villehardouin disembarrassed himself from the troublesome claim of Robert, the cousin of the count of Dijon, to the succession. He contrived that Robert should arrive just fifteen days too late; and with the general concurrence of the assembled knights was himself invested with the principality. Ibid., p. 283. —⁠M. ↩
We read in the Chronicle of the Conquest of Constantinople, and of the Establishment of the French in the Morea, translated by Jean Alexandre Buchon, Paris, 1825, p. 64, that Leo VI, called the Philosopher, had prophesied that a perfidious emperor should be precipitated from the top of this column. The crusaders considered themselves under an obligation to fulfil this prophecy. Brosset, note on Le Beau, vol. XVII, p. 180. M. Brosset announces that a complete edition of this work, of which the original Greek of the first book only has been published by M. Buchon, is in preparation, to form part of the new series of the Byzantine historian. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon appears to me to have misapprehended the passage of Nicetas. He says, “that principal and subtlest mischief, that primary cause of all the horrible miseries suffered by the Romans,” i.e. the Byzantines. It is an effusion of malicious triumph against the Venetians, to whom he always ascribes the capture of Constantinople. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Von Raumer, Geschichte der Hohenstaufen, vol. III, p. 237. M. Petitot, in his preface to Villehardouin in the Collection complète des mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France, tom. I, p. 85, expresses his belief in the first part of the “tragic legend.” —⁠M. ↩
Or rather Ἐρρῆς. —⁠M. ↩
Whatever may have been the fact, this can hardly be made out from the expressions of Acropolita. —⁠M. ↩
The initials of this “unknown” editor are M. D. L. P., which meant Monsieur de la Place, a native of Calais, as this gentlemen states, indeed, in naming his own authority for the circumstance, a Monsieur Danjan of that town. Gentleman’s Magazine, July, 1839, p. 39. —⁠S. ↩
And even demanded in the present. —⁠M. ↩
Ramon de Montaner, one of the Catalans who accompanied Roger de Flor, and who was governor of Gallipoli, has written, in Spanish, the history of this band of adventurers, to which he belonged, and from which he separated when it left the Thracian Chersonese to penetrate into Macedonia and Greece. —⁠G.

The autobiography of Ramon de Montaner has been published in French by M. Buchon, in the great collection of Mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France. I quote this edition. —⁠M. ↩
Nicetas says expressly that Michael surrendered the Acropolis to the marquis. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon did not foresee a Bavarian prince on the throne of Greece, with Athens as his capital. —⁠M. ↩
Cantacuzene mentions 12,000. —⁠S. ↩
But it may be accused of unparalleled absurdity. He compares the extinction of the feeble old man to that of the sun: his coffin is to be floated, like Noah’s ark, by a deluge of tears. —⁠M. ↩
There seems to be another reading, χιλίαις. Niebuhr’s edit. in loc. —⁠M. ↩
The ἄλλοι were the religious enemies and persecutors of Nicephorus. —⁠M. ↩
This part of Nicephorus Gregoras has not been printed in the new edition of the Byzantine Historians. The editor expresses a hope that it may be undertaken by Hase. I should join in the regret of Gibbon if these books contain any historical information; if they are but a continuation of the controversies which fill the last books in our present copies, they may as well sleep their eternal sleep in MS. as in print. —⁠M. ↩
M. Rémusat (Recherches sur les langues Tartares, p. 233) justly observes that Timour was a Turk, not a Mongul, and, p. 242, that probably there was not a Mongul in the army of Baber, who established the Indian throne of the “Great Mogul.” —⁠M. ↩
This relationship, according to M. Klaproth, is fabulous, and invented by the Muhammadan writers, who, from religious zeal, endeavored to connect the traditions of the nomads of Central Asia with those of the Old Testament, as preserved in the Koran. There is no trace of it in the Chinese writers. Tableaux historiques de l’Asie, p. 156. —⁠M. ↩
The preface to the Histoire des Mongols (Paris, 1824) gives a catalogue of the Arabic and Persian authorities. —⁠M. ↩
A précis at the end of the new edition of Le Beau, Histoire des empereurs, vol. XVII, by M. Brosset, gives large extracts from the accounts of the Armenian historians relating to the Mogul conquests. —⁠M. ↩
To this catalogue of the historians of the Moguls may be added d’Ohsson, Histoire des Mongols (from Arabic and Persian authorities), Paris, 1824; and Schmidt, Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen, St. Petersburgh, 1829. This curious work, by Ssanang Ssetsen Chungtaidschi, published in the original Mongol, was written after the conversion of the nation to Buddhism: it is enriched with very valuable notes by the editor and translator; but, unfortunately, is very barren of information about the European and even the western Asiatic conquests of the Mongols. —⁠M. ↩
And likewise in Chinese history⁠—see Abel Rémusat, Mélanges asiatiques second ser. tom. II, p. 5. —⁠M. ↩
See a curious anecdote of Tschagatai, Histoire des Mongols, p. 370. —⁠M. ↩
Sou-houng-kian-lou. Abel Rémusat. —⁠M. ↩
La poudre à canon et d’autres compositions inflammantes, dont ils se servent pour construire des pièces d’artifice d’un effet suprenant, leur étaient connues depuis très long-temps, et l’on croit que des bombardes et des pierriers, dont ils avaient enseigné l’usage aux Tartares, ont pu donner en Europe l’idée d’artillerie, quoique la forme des fusils et des canons dont ils se servent actuellement, leur ait été apportée par les Francs, ainsi que l’attestent les noms mêmes qu’ils donnent à ces sortes d’armes. Abel Rémusat, Mélanges asiatiques second ser. tom. I, p. 23. —⁠M. ↩
Von Hammer’s History of the Assassins has now thrown Falconet’s dissertation into the shade. —⁠M. ↩
See the account of the Mongol library in Bergman, Nomadische Streifereien, vol. III, pp. 185, 205, and Rémusat, Recherches sur les langues Tartares, p. 327, and preface to Schmidt, Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen. —⁠M. ↩
They may be still more enlightened by the Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, by M. von Hammer-Purgstall of Vienna. —⁠M. ↩
We could have wished that M. von Hammer had given a more clear and distinct reply to this question of Gibbon. In a note, vol. I, p. 630. M. von Hammer shows that they had not only sheiks (religious writers) and learned lawyers, but poets and authors on medicine. But the inquiry of Gibbon obviously refers to historians. The oldest of their historical works, of which von Hammer makes use, is the Tarichi Aaschik Paschasade, i.e. the History of the Great Grandson of Aaschik Pasha, who was a dervish and celebrated ascetic poet in the reign of Murad (Amurath) I. Ahmed, the author of the work, lived during the reign of Bajazet II, but, he says, derived much information from the book of Scheik Jachshi, the son of Elias, who was Imam to Sultan Orchan (the second Ottoman king) and who related, from the lips of his father, the circumstances of the earliest Ottoman history. This book (having searched for it in vain for five-and-twenty years) our author found at length in the Vatican. All the other Turkish histories on his list, as indeed this, were written during the reign of Muhammad II. It does not appear whether any of the rest cite earlier authorities of equal value with that claimed by the Tarichi Aaschik Paschasade. —⁠M. (in Quarterly Review, vol. XLIX, p. 292) ↩
Von Hammer excuses the silence with which the Turkish historians pass over the earlier intercourse of the Ottomans with the European continent, of which he enumerates sixteen different occasions, as if they disdained those peaceful incursions by which they gained no conquest, and established no permanent footing on the Byzantine territory. Of the romantic account of Soliman’s first expedition he says, “As yet the prose of history had not asserted its right over the poetry of tradition.” This defence would scarcely be accepted as satisfactory by the historian of the Decline and Fall. —⁠M. (in Quarterly Review, vol. XLIX, p. 293) ↩
The manuscript of Major Davy has been translated by Major Charles Stewart, and published by the Oriental Translation Committee of London. It contains the life of Timour, from his birth to his forty-first year; but the last thirty years of western war and conquest are wanting. Major Stewart intimates that two manuscripts exist in this country containing the whole work, but excuses himself, on account of his age, from undertaking the laborious task of completing the translation. It is to be hoped that the European public will be soon enabled to judge of the value and authenticity of the Commentaries of the Caesar of the East. Major Stewart’s work commences with the Book of Dreams and Omens⁠—a wild, but characteristic, chronicle of Visions and Sortes Koranicae. Strange that a life of Timour should awaken a reminiscence of the diary of Archbishop Laud! The early dawn and the gradual expression of his not less splendid but more real visions of ambition are touched with the simplicity of truth and nature. But we long to escape from the petty feuds of the pastoral chieftain to the triumphs and the legislation of the conqueror of the world. —⁠M. ↩
According to the memoirs he was so called by a Shaikh, who, when visited by his mother on his birth, was reading the verse of the Koran, “Are you sure that he who dwelleth in heaven will not cause the earth to swallow you up? and behold it shall shake, Tamurū.” The Shaikh then stopped and said, “We have named your son Timūr,” p. 21. —⁠M. ↩
Col. Stewart observes that the Persian translator has sometimes made use of the name Uzbek by anticipation. He observes, likewise, that these Jits (Getes) are not to be confounded with the ancient Getae: they were unconverted Turks. Col. James Tod (Annals and Antiquities of Rajast’han, vol. I, p. 166) would identify the Jits with the ancient race. —⁠M. ↩
Compare the seventh book of von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. —⁠M. ↩
See this note in ch. II. —⁠M. ↩
Von Hammer considers the letter which Gibbon inserted in the text to be spurious. On the various copies of these letters, see his note, p. 116. —⁠M. ↩
Price translated the word pilot or boatman. —⁠M. ↩
See von Hammer, p. 308, and note, p. 621. —⁠M. ↩
Von Hammer, p. 318, cites several authorities unknown to Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
According to von Hammer this calculation is much too low. The asper was, a century before the time of which Leunclavius writes, the tenth part of a ducat; for the same tribute which the Byzantine writers state at 300,000 aspers the Ottomans state at 30,000 ducats, about £15,000. Note, vol. I, p. 636. —⁠M. ↩
Mr. Hallam makes the following observation on the objection thrown out by Gibbon: “The positive testimony of Villani, who died within two years afterwards, and had manifestly obtained much information as to the great events passing in France, cannot be rejected. He ascribes a material effect to the cannon of Edward, Colpi delle bombarde, which I suspect, from his strong expressions, had not been employed before, except against stone walls. It seems, he says, as if God thundered con grande uccisione di genti e efondamento di cavalli.” View of the State of Europe During the Middle Ages, vol. I, p. 510. —⁠M. ↩
I can discover no “pious horror” in the plain manner in which Chalcondyles relates this strange usage. He says, οὐδὲ αἰσχύνην τοῦτο φέρει ἑαυτοῖς κυέσθαι τὰς τὲ γυναῖκος αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας, yet these are expressions beyond what would be used if the ambiguous word κυέσθαι were taken in its more innocent sense. Nor can the phrase παρέχονται τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ἐν τοῖς ἐπιτηδεῖοις well bear a less coarse interpretation. Gibbon is possibly right as to the origin of this extraordinary mistake. —⁠M.

It may be observed, however, that this notion of the unchastity of the English seems to have been prevalent among the Greeks, as it is likewise recorded by Phranza, lib. III c. 2, p. 218, edit. Bonn. —⁠S. ↩
The Greek text of Phranzes was edited by F. C. Alter, Vindobonae, 1796. It has been re-edited by Bekker for the new edition of the Byzantines, Bonn, 1838. —⁠M. ↩
William Roscoe (Life of Lorenzo de’ Medici, vol. I, p. 75) considers that Hody has refuted this “idle tale.” —⁠M. ↩
It appears in the original Greek text, p. 95, edit. Bonn. —⁠M. ↩
Von Hammer disdainfully rejects this fable of Muhammad’s knowledge of languages. Knolles adds that he delighted in reading the history of Alexander the Great and of Julius Caesar. The former, no doubt, was the Persian legend, which, it is remarkable, came back to Europe, and was popular throughout the Middle Ages as the “Romaunt of Alexander.” The founder of the Imperial dynasty of Rome, according to M. von Hammer, is altogether unknown in the East. Muhammad was a great patron of Turkish literature: the romantic poems of Persia were translated, or imitated, under his patronage. Von Hammer, vol. II, p. 268. —⁠M. ↩
M. von Hammer has added little new information on the siege of Constantinople, and, by his general agreement, has borne an honorable testimony to the truth, and by his close imitation to the graphic spirit and boldness, of Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
They speak, one of a Byzantine, one of a Turkish, gun. Von Hammer, note, p. 669. —⁠M. ↩
Six miles. Von Hammer. —⁠M. ↩
Von Hammer gives a longer list of such transportations, p. 533. Dion Cassius distinctly relates the occurrence treated as fabulous by Gibbon. —⁠M. ↩
M. Brosset has given some extracts from the Georgian account of the siege of Constantinople, in which Justiniani’s wound in the left foot is represented as more serious. With charitable ambiguity the chronicler adds that his soldiers carried him away with them in their vessel. —⁠M.

Mr. Finlay remarks that the dialogue between Constantine and Justiniani is evidently a rhetorical invention. None of the historians were present, and those who were on the spot could hardly have reported a conversation with accuracy at such a moment. The conduct of Justiniani hardly deserves the censure that has been cast upon it. He appears to have received a mortal wound; and he was probably made the scapegoat of the lukewarmness or cowardice of the orthodox, who ought to have crowded to the walls to support their emperor. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, vol. II, p. 647. —⁠S. ↩
He was sold as a slave in Galata, according to von Hammer, p. 560. See the somewhat vague and declamatory letter of Cardinal Isidore, in the appendix to Clarke’s Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa, vol. II, p. 653. —⁠M. ↩
The new edition of the Byzantines, projected by Niebuhr, and continued under the patronage of the Prussian government, is the most convenient in size, and contains some authors (Leo Diaconus, Johannes Lydus, Corippus, the new fragment of Dexippus, Eunapius, etc., discovered by Mai) which could not be comprised in the former collections; but the names of such editors as Bekker, the Dindorfs, etc., raised hopes of something more than the mere republication of the text, and the notes of former editors. Little, I regret to say, has been added of annotation, and in some cases, the old incorrect versions have been retained. —⁠M. ↩
This question is discussed at considerable length in Dr. Thomas Arnold’s History of Rome, ch. XXIII. See likewise Bunsen’s dissertation on the Aria Cattiva, Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, pp. 82, 108. —⁠M. ↩
Compare Heinrich Franke, Arnold von Brescia und seine Zeit, Zurich, 1828. —⁠M. ↩
The best modern writers on the topography of Rome have, however, come to a contrary conclusion. They maintain that the Arx is the northeastern summit, now occupied by the church of Ara Celi; and that the Capitolium, or temple of Jupiter, is the southwestern summit, which is now covered in part by the Palazzo Caffarelli. See Bunsen, Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, vol. III, p. 10, seq.; Becker, Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer, vol. I, p. 385, seq. —⁠S. ↩
Dr. Cardwell (Lecture on the Coinage of the Greeks and Romans, p. 70, et seq.) assigns convincing reasons in support of this opinion. —⁠M. ↩
Since the publication of my first edition of Gibbon, some new and very remarkable documents have been brought to light in a life of Nicolas Rienzi⁠—Cola di Rienzo und seine Zeit⁠—by Dr. Felix Papencordt. The most important of these documents are letters from Rienzi to Charles the Fourth, emperor and king of Bohemia, and to the archbishop of Prague; they enter into the whole history of his adventurous career during its first period, and throw a strong light upon his extraordinary character. These documents were first discovered and made use of, to a certain extent, by Pelzel, the historian of Bohemia. The originals have disappeared, but a copy made by Pelzel for his own use is now in the library of Count Thun at Teschen. There seems no doubt of their authenticity. Dr. Papencordt has printed the whole in his Urkunden, with the exception of one long theological paper. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
Fatcor attamen quod-nunc fatuum, nunc hystrionem, nunc gravem, nunc simplicem, nunc astutum, nunc fervidum, nunc timidum simulatorem, et dissimulatorem ad hunc caritativum finem, quem dixi, constitui sepius memet ipsum. Writing to an archbishop (of Prague), Rienzi alleges scriptural examples. Saltator coram archa David et insanus apparuit coram Rege; blanda, astuta, et tecta Judith astitit Holoferni; et astute Jacob meruit benedici. Urkunden XLIX. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
So far from having magnified these visions, Pollistore is more than confirmed by the documents published by Papencordt. The adoption of all the wild doctrines of the Fratricelli, the Spirituals, in which, for the time at least, Rienzi appears to have been in earnest, his magnificent offers to the emperor, and the whole history of his life, from his first escape from Rome to his imprisonment at Avignon, are among the most curious chapters of his eventful life. —⁠M. 1845 ↩
On the financial measures of Sixtus V see Leopold von Ranke, Die römischen Päpste I, p. 459. —⁠M. ↩
But compare Ranke, Die römischen Päpste I, p. 289. —⁠M. ↩
The industry of M. Ranke has discovered the document, a kind of scandalous chronicle of the time, from which Leti wrought up his amusing romances. See also M. Ranke’s Observations on the Life of Sixtus by Tempesti, b. III, pp. 317, 324. —⁠M. ↩
The level of the Tiber was at one time supposed to be considerably raised: recent investigations seem to be conclusive against this supposition. See a brief but satisfactory statement of the question in Carl Bunsen and Ernst Platner, Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, vol. I, p. 29. —⁠M. ↩
The improbability of this theory is shown by Bunsen, vol. I, p. 239. —⁠M. ↩
Gibbon has followed Donatus, who supposes that a silk manufactory was established in the twelth century in the Coliseum. The Bandonarii, or Bandererii, were the officers who carried the standards of their school before the pope. Hobhouse, p. 269. —⁠M. ↩
“The division is mentioned in Vita Innocenti Papae II ex Cardinale Aragonio (Rerum Italicarum scriptores, vol. III pars I, p. 435), and Gibbon might have found frequent other records of it at other dates.” Hobhouse’s Historical Illustrations of the Fourth Canto of “Childe Harold”, p. 130. —⁠M. ↩