Gisbertus Cuperus, Notae in Lactantium de Mortibus persecutorum

Notes on Lactantius.

On the Deaths of the Persecutors. From the examples noted by Baluze and Columbus it is clear enough that the ancients often said mortes ('deaths') in the plural number. Nor does Manilius speak otherwise, 1, 887:

Weeping had given up its office: and funerals were lacking to the deaths, and tears too.

Seneca, Suasoriae, at the end: Juba and Petreius ran upon each other with mutual wounds, and lent out deaths at interest; to which Prudentius, 2 Against Symmachus 675, is to be added. For the rest, what Columbus wished for, that the little work of John of Salisbury which he entitled On the End of Tyrants, as he himself testifies in On the Trifles of Courtiers, should see the light of publication, I too would certainly wish most earnestly. For I think that he recorded the deaths and ends of Diocletian, Maximian and the other tyrants and theomachoi ('fighters against God'); and, as he was accustomed to read the ancient authors, he could perhaps have consulted this very little book of Lactantius, since he lived in the twelfth century, when a far greater abundance of manuscripts survived. The praise for discovering and publishing this little work is reserved for the English or the French, because he spent his life in both kingdoms; and certainly men outstanding in learning ought to leave no stone unturned, so that this work of John of Salisbury may at last come to light. On the testimony of Bale, it is entitled On the Evil End of Tyrants. Among the manuscripts of the Bodleian Library his Nero is cited; and Graevius supposed that this was the same little work, which had been entitled from the first and most savage tyrant and persecutor, Nero, and from its subject, On the End of Tyrants: that this custom of entitling books is ancient is established from Cicero and Varro.

Chapter I.

He will be added to all these. Either I am mistaken, or the devil is meant, who is the chief adversary and enemy of the faithful, and who, he says, must at last be conquered too, just as his instruments, the persecutors, had been overcome: ch. 14: For nine times subjected to torments and various tortures, nine times you conquered the ADVERSARY by glorious confession; soon after, repeating the same thing, he calls him Zabulus, or the devil: In nine battles you vanquished Zabulus with his attendants, that is, the persecutors. And although Maxentius in ch. 43 is said to be one among the adversaries of God, yet he and all the other persecutors had been removed by the time at which Lactantius was writing this; hence ch. 50: In this way God vanquished all the persecutors of His name, so that neither stock nor any root of them remained. And yet to all these the adversary will be added, that is, the devil; which he also indicates at the end of this little book: That He may keep all the snares and assaults of the devil away from His people, that He may guard the flourishing churches in perpetual quiet; and if this happens, the devil is certainly conquered, and is added to the other adversaries trodden underfoot. And thus the devil is said to prepare contests for the martyrs. The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity: For the girls, however, the devil prepared a most ferocious cow, procured for that very reason contrary to custom, rivalling their sex even in the beast. The Greeks likewise call this adversary antikeimenos, as Chrysostom, on chapter 12 of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, quoting 1 Kings 4, There was no Satan in his days, explains, that is, adversary; and so ho antikeimenos in the Epistle to the Thessalonians is the adversary of God, or Antichrist, who always and perpetually attacks God.

Tranquillity having been restored throughout the world. So they spoke elegantly, because wars, as is very well known, were compared to tempests and storms. Hence on a coin of Antoninus in Tristan, vol. 1, p. 576: TRANQUILLITAS AUG., to indicate that Antoninus by his prudence and virtue had given peace and tranquillity to the Roman empire.

On other coins there occurs SERENA TRANQ., and so shortly after, peace is called by Lactantius "delightful and serene".

The temple of God, which had been overthrown by the impious. The most learned Baluze thinks that the temple of Nicomedia is meant here, which was overthrown by Diocletian and Maximian, as is plain from chapter 13. But I judge that the Christian religion in general ought to be understood, or the Christians, formerly harassed by bitter persecution but now restored through Constantine to peace and quiet. Hence shortly after nothing follows about a building to be erected, as would altogether have been necessary, but rather about minds, which peace delightful and serene gladdens; and that this looks back to what precedes is plain enough and more than enough from the particle "for". Nor does it seem to me that what follows shortly after should be interpreted otherwise: "Those who had overthrown the holy temple have fallen with a greater ruin; those who had butchered the just"; for this is to be referred in general to the Persecutors, who certainly had not all ordered the temple of Nicomedia to be destroyed. Indeed, at the beginning of the chapter too he calls that temple, that is, the gathering of the faithful, the church: "Tranquillity having been restored throughout the world, the church, lately overthrown, rises again"; although I am not unaware that in chapter 12 the same word is used for a meeting-house. Moreover, the Fathers were accustomed to call the shrines of the gods of the gentiles "temples", and the places in which the Christians assembled "churches" or "meeting-houses", etc.; which Lactantius himself does, chapters 5, 15, 35, 36, and it is plain from the letter of the emperor Aurelian in Vopiscus, and men of outstanding learning have shown it sufficiently. And as the faithful in the New Covenant are called ναὸς Θεοῦ ["temple of God"], so too the Latin Fathers called them the temple of God, holy, faithful, steadfast, heavenly; as Lactantius himself does in chapters 2 and 15, and also in Institutes 4.25: "Complaining that profane men were present at their rites, they drove their Princes into fury, so that they might storm the temple of God": where I judge that Lactantius by no means has in view the temple of the Christians at Nicomedia, but the faithful, whom they tried to storm throughout the whole Roman empire; and this expression can fitly be used, not of an overthrown meeting-house, although soldiers put their hands to the work, but of Christians afflicted by persecution. So in Institutes book 5, 2, the added word "of God" seems to indicate that there too the faithful are to be understood, no differently from chapter 33 below, because the edict which follows shortly after concerns all Christians.

They have provided for the human race. To this belong the coins on which is inscribed PROVIDENTIA AUG. and SAPIENTIA PROVIDENTISSIMI PRINCIPIS; and it is customary to understand by "the human race" the Roman empire: hence on the same coins there occurs SALUS GENERIS HUMANI.

Now appeased. I used to think that the word "God" ought to be placed after "appeased", and that Lactantius had written "the fallen and afflicted of His servants", for "His wretched and afflicted servants"; but now Columbus's "prayers" does not displease me, which also occurred to the learned Englishmen.

Concerning which end. The words that have fallen out should perhaps be supplied thus: "Concerning which end of the impious it has pleased me to bear witness, so that all who were far removed, or who shall come after us, might know how far the supreme God displayed His power and Majesty in ruining and destroying the enemies of His name"; shortly after, following "authors", I think "of such great crimes" or "of the persecution" has fallen out. The Englishmen supply it somewhat differently, and Columbus too; if anyone prefers their conjectures to mine, I shall not take it amiss.

Chapter II.

He was crucified. That is, fastened to a cross, as Columbus shows from Lactantius's Institutes; nor did Hegesippus speak otherwise, book 18: "Countless were taken; about five hundred a day were crucified."

The two Gemini. How differently others think is well known

see Scaliger, Petavius, Bucherius, Onuphrius, Langius, Christmann, Th. Lydiat and others.

The storm of a cloud. He says more than is in sacred Scripture; for there mention is made only of a cloud, and the taking-away itself is expressed as 'He was taken up into heaven': a manner of speaking that plainly excludes a storm, and teaches that Jesus Christ our Lord was raised into heaven gently.

Peter comes to Rome. Lactantius also reports this in Institutes 4.21. The miracles, however, without doubt refer to the tale that is told about Simon the magician, and that is related by Arnobius and others.

And stable. That is, firm, lasting. Thus on coins there occurs TELLUS, or TERRA STABILITA, in Erizzo p. 386, by which it is signified without doubt that the emperors had given a lasting and firm peace to the world.

From the worship of idols. Lactantius speaks this way as a Christian, for the heathen used to say 'the worship of the gods'. An inscription in Gruter:

To Diocletian Caesar Augustus, Galerius having been adopted in the East, the superstition of Christ having been everywhere destroyed, and the worship of the gods having been spread abroad.

And as is evident from innumerable authors, Greek as well as Latin, and also from the martyrologies and the Acts of the martyrs, the Gentiles designated statues representing gods by the very names of the gods.

To a new religion. And this is what was continually thrown at the Christians, as is more than sufficiently evident from Arnobius book 1 page 34, book 2 pages 92, 93 and 94, and elsewhere. Hence the Gentile Asclepiades in Prudentius, Hymn 10 of the Peri Stephanon, verse 580, first extols the ancient rites, and then throws the 'novel dogma' at the Christians; and Tristan, following Baronius, volume 1, page 698, understands by the 'boys and girls of the new men' in Capitolinus, in Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher, the children of the Christians: although I should consider that Casaubon and Salmasius give the truer account.

First of all. All relate this with one voice; and although the Christians seem to have been ill-treated by Claudius, just like the Jews, under whose name they too passed in the first times of the nascent Church (on which matter there is an elegant passage in Sulpicius Severus 2.99), yet that disturbance has not been counted among the persecutions. The blessed Luke reports in the Acts of the Apostles that Claudius ordered the Jews to leave Rome; and Suetonius, chapter 24, speaks thus of the same matter: 'He expelled from Rome the Jews, who were constantly causing tumults at the instigation of Chrestus.' By Chrestus he without doubt means Christ our Lord, and they called Him so because Chrestus was a name in common use among the Romans, as is evident from inscriptions and from Cicero, Letters to his Friends 2.8; and I think that the Gentiles named our Lord thus by an error about the name, and not as an insult, which, however, the learned suppose. For it does not seem to me any insult to call someone Chrestus, that is, good, sweet, kind; although the Gentiles erred more than enough when they thought that this was the name of our Saviour. Christ, moreover, could not have instigated the Jews, since He was returned to heaven in the reign of Tiberius: but it seems to me that this should be interpreted thus, that some of the Jews said that our Christ was the Messiah, while others on the contrary denied it; and that from this tumults arose among them, in private as well as in public. Yet Claudius did nothing else than expel them all from Rome; and at that time without doubt the same lot befell the Christians too: and because they were obliged only to change their place of abode, with their fortunes and religion left intact, Claudius has not been counted among the persecutors.

Of so evil a beast. Thus Lactantius, with the best of reason, names Nero, Diocletian and the other persecutors, as Baluze has pointed out. See chapters 4, 9, 16, 25, 32 and 39, in which now 'execrable animal', now 'nefarious', now 'evil beast' occur. Latinus Pacatus calls Maximus a 'raging brute'; where similar things

from Rutilius and Seneca are noted by Livineius. Nor do these speak otherwise of tyrants and impious princes: Livy XXXIV, XXXIX; Cicero, book I and III of the Offices; Lucian pp. 1015, 1016, 200 and 206, Bourdelot's edition; Dio Cassius at the end of book LXXVII; Arnobius V, p. 115; Asterius, Homily 1. To these may be added Rittershusius IV, 9 of the Sacred Readings, and in the passion of Seraphia, Helpidius is called a most rabid dog. Evidently they sometimes did not think it enough to apply a general name, such as "beast" or "animal": instead they hurled at them whichever of these most suited the foulest men, or what they thought suited them. Thus Lycophron, p. 20, calls Helen a bitch (κύνα) on account of her shamelessness, and on p. 170 he calls Clytemnestra a thirsty she-serpent (δράκαιναν διψάδα). Meursius observed on Lycophron, p. 125, that men endowed with savage and harsh manners were called snakes (ὄφεις), serpents (δράκοντας) and scorpions. So Asterius, p. 72, does not hesitate to name an adulteress "asp and viper" (ἀσπίδα καὶ ἔχιδναν); and in Livy XXXIX, 11, Hispala, a woman not very chaste, is called excetra. So Julian, Ep. 23, calls Constantine a many-headed hydra (πολυκέφαλον ὕδραν); from this it can be seen clearly enough with what hatred that Apostate persecuted the Christians.

Adventum ... nefas. I think these words can be supplied as follows: "which it is wrong to believe. Just as they declare that two prophets have been translated alive and will go before the holy and everlasting beginning of Christ in the last age, when He begins to descend, in the same way they also think that Nero will come, who is to be the forerunner of the devil." And Lactantius is right to say first that it is wrong to believe that Nero will return and go before the coming of Antichrist; a little before, he calls these people certain madmen. Hence it is plain that our author does not accept the opinion of those who held that Nero was not dead but still alive, and would come before the end of the age, and would either himself be Antichrist or would rage through the West at the same time as the latter raged through the East; Baluze did not forget to point this out. More on this matter can be seen in Casaubon on Suetonius. Commodian, Instructions 41, sings that Nero will return from hell. His verses ought to be added here, because that little book is quite rare, and because it also mentions the coming of Elijah:

Isaiah said: This is the man who shakes the world

and as many kings, under whom the land will be made a desert:

Hear, since the prophet foretold concerning him:

I have said nothing in polished form, but carelessly

then indeed the world is ended, when he will appear;

he himself will have divided the world among three rulers,

but when Nero has been raised up from hell,

Elijah will come first to seal the beloved.

The things which the region of Africa and the whole northern nation

in seven years the earth will tremble on every side

But Elijah will hold half the time, Nero half.

Then Babylon the harlot, reduced to ashes, an ember

thence the Latin victor will go on to Jerusalem

then he will say: I am the Christ, to whom you always pray.

But by the two Prophets translated alive we are to understand Enoch and Elijah, as is plain from John Damascene, IV, 27, On the Orthodox Faith; although others mention only Elijah as returning, as Commodian also does, as is plain from the verses cited. Moreover, Lactantius seems to have in view the millenarian kingdom of Christ, on which one may also see book VII, c. 1 at the end, and ch. 14, and elsewhere in the Divine Institutes; Commodian may be added to these. And as in this place he says that Christ at His coming descends, so he speaks no differently of His nativity, Inst. IV, 10: "That it was necessary, as the end of the age drew near, for the Son of God to descend to earth." The Greeks call this καταβαίνειν, and Jupiter καταβάτης, or Descender, occurs on coins. By that name the Athenians, prone to flattery, honoured Demetrius Poliorcetes, as though Jupiter had been changed into him and had descended to earth. In my opinion Tristan, vol. II, p. 571, does not explain it cautiously enough as Jove hurling the thunderbolt to earth. For although Jupiter hurling the thunderbolt, and when he rains, may be said καταβαίνειν, that is, to descend, and the thunderbolt itself, or σκηπτός, is even called by Lycophron, p. 67,

καταιβάτης, and by the same, p. 199, Zeus καταιβάτης is said to set fire to the houses of enemies with the thunderbolt; although places struck by the thunderbolt were consecrated to the same Jupiter, on the testimony of the author of the Etymologicum Magnum under the word Ἐνηλύσια, and also of Pollux, book 9, chapter 5, I nevertheless think that Demetrius was so called because flatterers wished to seem persuaded that he was Jupiter himself. So too Jupiter is said to descend when it rains. Virgil, Georgics 2.324.

Then the almighty father, the ether, with fertile showers / descends far and wide into the lap of his spouse.

and perhaps this myth is represented on a coin of Antoninus Pius in Seguin, p. 197, on which Jupiter, suspended in the air and holding a winged thunderbolt in one hand, pours out from a cornucopia with the other either dew or rain.

Chapter III.

Until impious hands. The Vulgate translator of Isaiah 14:26: And this is the hand stretched out over all nations; Lactantius, the following chapter: He raised impious hands against God; and those manners of speaking signify nothing other than to attack someone. In another sense, in an inscription in Gruter, 1.830, Procope is said to raise her hands against God, Who took her away innocent, with an image of two raised hands added; for she testifies that she died innocent, and accuses god as cruel, because she was snatched so quickly from human affairs.

Killed at home. Even the memory. I am very nearly inclined to punctuate: Killed. At home also, that is, at Rome, by decree of the Senate, as is clear from what follows and from Suetonius. On the custom of condemning someone's memory, see Lipsius on book 6 of Tacitus's Annals, and Raoul Fornier, book 2, chapters 17 and 18 of the Rerum Quotidianarum. And to this belongs the fact that the coins of such emperors were also abolished and melted down, as was done, on the testimony of Dio, when Caligula died; or that they had no value, as Arrian teaches when treating of Nero, 4.5, on Epictetus. But how much better it is, with good princes, to have a good memory, which Themistius attributes to them in his ninth oration! But if this punctuation is not to be admitted, by the word domi Lactantius doubtless understood that Domitian was killed in his own palace, and that by his own people; as is clear from Suetonius, chapter 17, and this now seems to me preferable.

To their former state. That Lactantius holds this to have been done under Nerva, and not while Domitian was still living, I think is sufficiently clear from the words which precede, the acts of the tyrant therefore having been rescinded; which certainly could not have happened except after the death of Domitian. Yet he did not persecute the Church for long; indeed, restored to a better mind, he desisted from persecuting the Christians and recalled the exiles, as is not obscurely clear from Tertullian: Domitian too, a portion of Nero in cruelty, had made the attempt; but because he was also a man, he easily checked what he had begun, even restoring those whom he had banished; things such as Hegesippus also reports in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.20.

Chapter IV.

The execrable animal Decius. If faith is to be given to the Martyrologies, his near relatives nevertheless were Christians, such as Trofonia or Tryphonia or Tryphaena, wife of the son of that Caesar himself, whose memory is celebrated in the German Martyrology recently published, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of November; and the daughter of the same Caesar, Cyrilla, was imbued with the same sacred rites, on the testimony of Ado in his Martyrology, pp. 159, 174 and 178. But books of this kind are to be read with diligent caution.

For after him there arose the execrable animal Decius. There is hardly any passage equally notable in this whole little book; for from it we learn that the Christians, in the times of Nerva, Trajan, the Antonines, etc., did not suffer persecution through edicts of the emperors promulgated and posted, nor indeed by their order; whence also in the preceding chapter Lactantius calls them good princes; which he certainly would not have done if the Christian cause had received as much harm from them as the martyrologies make out. And it is also especially worthy of observation that Prudentius, Against Symmachus, book 2, line 669, attaches the Decian persecution to the Neronian, omitting not only the persecutions

which are attributed to the Antonines and other good emperors, but also that with which Domitian raged against the pious.

At his instigation Nero first, his mother slain, drank apostolic blood and defiled me with the slaughter of the pious, and in his cruelty branded his own crime upon me. After him Decius too, revelling in laid-open throats, soon fed his insane rage; and a thirst like that of many burned in him.

Prudentius doubtless had his reasons for preferring to wrap Domitian's cruelty in silence rather than recount it. That persecution, namely, did not last long, and he changed his purpose for the better. For he began to rage against the Christians in the fourteenth year of his reign; and since he was killed in the fifteenth year, he certainly could not have done so for many years: which will be clearer from this, that, on Tertullian's testimony, he easily checked what he had begun, even restoring those whom he had banished. Nor should it be passed over that the same Tertullian uses the verb tentare: "Domitian had made an attempt"; and that Lactantius in the preceding chapter writes that Domitian sat upon the necks of his subjects for a very long time and reigned in safety until he stretched out impious hands against the Lord; and that he was delivered into the hands of his enemies when he had been roused to persecute the righteous people. For these forms of speech show amply and more than amply that Domitian set a persecution in motion at the very end of his reign: indeed the word tentare too seems in some measure to soften it, and to signify that it was merely begun. Moreover, Prudentius speaks of the tortures and slaughters with which Nero and Decius raged against the Christians. But Domitian put to death only those who said that they were sprung from Judah and were kinsmen of Christ; the rest he banished, as is quite plainly evident from Eusebius 3.20: hence too Tertullian says that he restored those whom he had banished; and Nerva allowed those who had been unjustly driven out, or expelled, to return to their homeland. Henry Dodwell, in Dissertation 11 on Cyprian, dwells at length on establishing the small number of the martyrs; and, following Lactantius, he rejects the persecutions which are attributed to Hadrian and the Antonines. Jean Mabillon in his Iter Italicum tries to refute his opinion, with the help of Prudentius, Hymn 11 of the Peristephanon, where he celebrates the countless ashes of martyrs; and of two inscriptions, of which the first testifies that a certain Alexander under Antoninus, and the other that a young man Marcus, a military officer under Hadrian, suffered martyrdom. But even if these inscriptions were genuine (which perhaps will seem otherwise to others), two martyrs will nevertheless not be able to increase their number much; nor will they be evidence that Hadrian and Antoninus put to death as many Christians at Rome as are recorded in the Martyrologies. Next, the question is not whether some Christians suffered under them at Rome or in the provinces (for prefects or governors who were harsher and more devoted to pagan superstition could have done this), but whether those good emperors ordered such things; which I for one can certainly hardly believe. Lastly, Prudentius wrote after the most severe persecutions of Diocletian and others, under whom certainly more people suffered martyrdom at Rome; and something must be granted to poets when they try to exaggerate a matter.

"For having set out against the Carpi." Philip, who reigned before Decius, made war on them and, if coins are to be trusted, defeated them; for a bronze coin stamped with his face, on the testimony of the illustrious Spanheim, bears the inscription VICTORIAE CARPICAE. But either they had not been well subdued, or they rebelled, since Decius set out against them; and on a coin of his in Tristan, vol. 2, p. 578, one reads VICTORIA CARPICA VOTIS X. And from the decennial vows pronounced it is quite plainly evident that in the first year of his reign Decius fought successfully against the Carpi: and he seems to have waged wars with the Carpi and other barbarians through a whole two years. And indeed Zosimus 1.2 testifies that, when he had been raised to the imperial power, he compelled the enemy to withdraw to the bank of the Tanais, and drove them out of Moesia and Dacia, which they had occupied; whence on his coins one doubtless sees DACIA CAPTA and DACIA FELIX. Yet the Carpi did not thereby keep quiet; for he was slain by them, on the testimony of

Lactantius, and Zosimus, who uses a longer narration. Aurelian, after the same people had been conquered, was called Carpicus, as Vopiscus relates. Hence Diocletian afterwards removed them from their ancient seats and transferred them into Pannonia, on the testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus 28.1; Jerome in the Chronicle p. 178; Eutropius 9.15; Aurelius Victor 39, and others. And from them without doubt the village of the Carpi in Moesia received its name, which Ammianus mentions at 27.5, where Valesius notes that the Carpi were conquered by Galerius and, after their surrender, were all transferred onto Roman soil in the consulship of Tuscus and Annullinus. And from the conquered Carpi Galerius is called "twice greatest of the Carpi" in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 8.17. And on this occasion I put forward to the learned, for elucidation, the Carpian cities which Menander the Rhetor mentions in book 1, chapter 15, On the Demonstrative Genre: "But of the necessary kind, as with regard to the cities along the river settled on behalf of the Romans, which are called Carpiae, so that the barbarians should not cross over and do harm." "Necessary, moreover, as with regard to the cities built by the Romans beside the river, which are called Carpiae, lest the barbarians should cross over and harass [them]", as Natalis Comes translated the Greek. But let others examine what these cities were, and whether they were the ones called Carpiae or Carpicae which the Romans built on the bank of the Danube against the incursions of the Carpi; and if that is true, it must be that the Romans at first greatly feared these barbarians. Ptolemy places a town Carpis on the Danube.

Not even burial. This too Lactantius records among the punishments inflicted on Decius. It is well established that the gentiles desired above all the burial of corpses or of remains, because they were persuaded that the souls of the unburied do not rest and are not received by the gods either above or below. Christians too, although Augustine says it makes no difference whether one rots in the ground or elsewhere, were very zealous for burial, and gentile judges often begrudged it to the martyrs, as is more than sufficiently clear from their histories; so that it is no wonder that Lactantius notes this, especially in the case of an emperor, for whom a mausoleum would otherwise perhaps have been erected.

Chapter V.

He used to say that this was true. These words are perfectly sound, and nothing is to be understood in addition, as a learned man thought. The Romans, namely, used to paint on walls or panels emperors treading on the necks and backs of conquered enemies and kings. Coins certainly are undoubted witnesses of that custom; and that emperors were painted so is shown by an elegant passage of Gregory Nazianzen, Invective 1 against Julian. The king of the Persians, then, says that the pictures of the Romans, in which the emperor trod on the necks of kings and perhaps of Sapor himself, are fictitious and imaginary, but that this is true: that he trod on the back of Valerian. But so that this passage may be clearly understood, it must be noted that the saddles of the ancients lacked stirrups, or the devices which we use today in mounting horses and on which riders in some manner stand. Hence they either mounted horses with a leap, or were lifted onto them by the help of others and set upon them. Virgil, Aeneid 12.287:

Others bridle the chariots, or with a leap throw their bodies onto the horses, and stand ready with drawn swords.

And in the age of Vegetius too, as is clear from book 1, chapter 18: Recruits learned to leap on and to leap off not only on the right side but also on the left: to which the desultores of Livy and others are certainly not at all relevant, nor the pares equi of Festus, which Stewechius adduces. Hence those who got down from horses were said equis delabi, desilire, defluere, as is clear from Justin book 1, chapter 10, Virgil, Aeneid 11, verse 501, and Furius in Macrobius, Saturnalia 6.14. And the Greeks said apopedan in the same sense, that is, desilire, as is clear from Themistius, Oration 6. And indeed desilire, as I think, is to free oneself from the horse with a single leap; defluere, on the other hand, is to get down from the horse slowly and across its body, so to speak: whence Furius spoke thus of a wounded man; and Livy does the same, book 2: And, the horseman being in no way held back by his wound, the dying Roman, with slipping

arms over his body, slid down to the ground: whence Virgil too, by the word desilire, may seem to attribute greater agility to Camilla than to her troop, which he sings slid down. Others, and indeed men of higher rank, were lifted up onto their horses by men; Livy 6.24: When Camillus, set on a horse by those standing around, and reserves having been hastily placed in opposition: This, he said, soldiers, is the battle which you demanded. And they had stratores, so called from saddling or caparisoning horses, who lifted their masters onto them. Spartianus, Caracalla 4: Finally, when his STRATOR was lifting him, he stabbed him in the side with a dagger; Ammianus Marcellinus, book 38: When the horse did not receive him as he was lifted up, rearing its forelegs aloft contrary to its habit, he ordered the right hand of the soldier who was his STRATOR to be cut off. Observe here that soldiers rendered this service to emperors, for he is speaking of Valentinian. So 22.1, of Julian: The soldier having fallen who raised him with his right hand as he was about to mount the horse. In an inscription in Gruter 7, c. 1, there occurs MATERNIUS PERLETUS, SOLDIER OF THE SEVENTH LEGION PR. P. F., STRATOR. and in 2, 389, SILIUS HOSPES, HASTATUS OF THE TENTH LEGION GEMINA, HIS STRATOR, or [strator] of the governor T. Cl. Candidus I do not know whether this word occurs in the same sense in the inscription in Spon, p. 253 of the Miscellanea.

DIOMEDES AP

STRATOR

OF FAUSTA HEDIA.

For a learned man explains it as strator of the Appian [Way], one who paved that road and restored its pavement where it failed. But if this Diodemes lifted Fausta Hedia onto a horse, we should have a striking proof that women too had their own Stratores: but, to confess the truth, a strator of the Appian Way pleases me more, who perhaps preserved the memory of his wife; and so Virgil said strata and Suetonius straturam viarum. Among the Greeks the man who performed the same service for those mounting a horse is called anaboleus; and Suidas explains him as the one who brings [someone] up onto the horse; and he confirms this with an example taken from some author or other: And the king, having called his ANABOLEUS and quickly mounted the horse, asked for a drink: The king, calling his Strator, having swiftly mounted his horse, asked for a drink. Nor did Plutarch speak otherwise in the Crassus: At the same time a horse with gilded bridles was brought up to Crassus, and the anaboleis, lifting him, set him on it; and the stratores, raising him, placed him upon it: whence at the same time it is clear that several together sometimes performed this service for one and the same man. That the Persians too did not know stirrups, and had slaves as stratores, is clear from the story of Tiribazus in Xenophon, book 4, and also from the Hipparchicus of the same author, p. 956, from which I seem to gather that stratores were still unknown to the Greeks at that time and that the custom was derived from the Persians; for he writes that the younger horsemen ought to learn to leap onto their horses, but that for those advanced in age it would be of no small help to be mounted in the Persian manner by one another. And that the Scythians did not use them Magius showed from Hippocrates in his Miscellanea. Sapor, therefore, in order to be able to mount his horse, did not use stratores, but Valerian, who for him performed the office not of a strator but of a stirrup: because he placed his feet on his back, as the illustrious Salmasius very well observes on the Historia Augusta. And the author of the Passion of St Pontius in Baluze did not forget to note this: Valerian, that is, the emperor, led into captivity by Sapor king of the Persians, received the reward deserved by his deeds not by the sword, but by mockery all the days of his life, so that whenever King Sapor wished to mount his horse, he placed his limbs on the horse not by his hands (behold the office of a strator), but with his back bent and his foot set on his neck (which, that is, served as a stirrup); and Hugh of Fleury relates similar things in his Chronicle: At the last Valerian himself, deprived of God's protection, captured by Sapor king of the Persians, grew old with him in ignominious servitude, and as long as he lived he always bore this penalty of an infamous office, that, bowed to the ground, he raised up the king when he was about to mount, not with his hand but with his back. Since therefore the use of stirrups was unknown to the ancients, certainly the coin of Alexander the Great which Laurenberg displays in his Graecia

Antiqua, is either spurious or badly drawn, because the rider has his feet set in those instruments; and a quite similar coin is seen in Lazius, book 1 of Greece: but the stirrups do not hang from the horse's sides.

And for this reason Spon too, vol. 2, p. 386, rightly rejects the saddle, or saddle-cloth, which the Swiss attribute to Julius Caesar. Yet we must inquire into the origin of these instruments; and Charles Pagi, p. 333, makes them very recent. Scaliger too says the thing is new, and for that reason judges the very large silver coin of the Emperor Constantine to be recent. Others on the contrary, among them Magius, maintain that it is an old custom, though not a very old one, and cite an ancient inscription, of which this is the end:

Leaping down by mischance, my foot stuck in the stirrup; dragged along, I perished. Hasten in good time to your own affairs. Farewell.

But first, nothing is established about the date of this monument; and then there are various things which suggest that it is either of the latest age or spurious: hence Janus Gruter too placed it among the spurious inscriptions. It cannot, however, be denied that this instrument is mentioned by Eustathius, who flourished in the times of Manuel Comnenus, about the year of Christ 1150, and also under Alexius Comnenus and Andronicus, on the Odyssey: "Anaballein means also to lead onto a horse, to make someone mounted; whence anaboleus means not only the iron in which some people put their feet and become mounted, but also the man who performs such a service"; that is, Anaballein means to lift onto a horse, and to make a rider sit on a horse: hence anaboleus denotes not only the iron, putting their feet into which some mount horses, but also the man who serves the same purpose. Before Eustathius, Suidas, who lived in the times of the elder Alexius Comnenus about the year of Christ 1080, mentions the same instrument: "Anaboleus, also what among the Romans is called the scala." And he tries to confirm this by citing a testimony from an anonymous author: "And Massias, having grown old, mounted a horse without an anaboleus." Salmasius in his Letter on the Cross, and Reinesius, Variae lectiones 3.2, rightly correct this to Massanissas; and he understands by anaboleus not a step but a groom, who lent his hand to his master as he mounted the horse. The illustrious man thinks this is perhaps a fragment of Polybius, and Reinesius judges that Suidas took this saying from him: but Lipsius rightly notes that its author is Appian, since he, in his book on the Punic Wars, p. 107 of the latest edition, speaks thus of Masinissa: "He was also of a great and robust body until a great old age; he took part in battles up to his death, and mounted a horse without an anaboleus", and mounted his horse without a groom (it is very badly rendered "without saddle-cloths"). So that in the age of Suidas, at least, steps were in use among some: but they are by no means to be looked for in the words cited, since in more ancient times they were wholly unknown. The Emperor Leo, surnamed the Philosopher, who came to the throne on the death of his father Basil the Macedonian in the year 886, book 1 of the Tactics, ch. 6, also mentions these instruments: "and on the saddles two iron steps", to the saddles two iron steps; indeed, before him Maurice, who they hold lived in the year 491, uses the same words in book 1, ch. 2 of the Tactics. Moreover, even in the age of St Jerome, who flourished in the year 408, these steps seem to have been in use; for so he speaks in the Letters, on the testimony of Magius: that, if memory does not fail, when he received a certain letter he was about to mount his beast and already had his foot in the bistapia; indeed Vossius, book 1 of On Vices of Speech, ch. 7, relying on the ancient inscription cited by me above, thinks that their use was perhaps somewhat older: but that this argument is slight is clear from what I have pointed out. And from these things it will certainly be clear that Hugo, book 1 of On the Equestrian Service, ch. 5, wrongly thinks that no mention of this instrument is extant except in Eustathius, the interpreter of Homer. But it must be carefully noted that Eustathius says that some people used this iron; and that the illustrious Salmasius thinks that in the time of the Emperor Leo the horsemen did not, on those iron steps,

have their feet placed while they rode; but that these served only for mounting a horse, being afterwards drawn up and stowed away under the saddle; and if this is true, already in Leo's age they rode without those ladders, and the use of our stirrups was still unknown, which nevertheless Jerome's bistapia, and Leo's own two iron ladders (for one would have been enough for someone mounting), seem to recognize. For bi in bistapia undoubtedly denotes the dual number, just as in other compounds: thus in Prudentius, Hymn 12, the bifestus dies is sacred to two apostles, Paul and Peter; bipalium in Varro I, 24, On Agriculture; bicinium, where two sing; bilorus, biblex; and bisellium, which Chimentelli has illustrated, and which also occurs in the school colloquy published with Glosses by Vulcanius: Δότε ὧδε θρόνους, δίφρους, βάθρον, διδρον. Give this man seats, chairs, a bench, a double seat; and in the Tironian notes, p. 164: Sella, sellarius, sellisternium, bisellium, subsellium, bidinium, tridinium; where read biclinium, triclinium. Be that as it may, the certain origin of this custom can only with difficulty be drawn out of darkness into light. Casaubon, on Athenaeus VI, 16, writes that he shows elsewhere that the most ancient of the Rabbis make mention of stirrups; and if the coin published by Tristan is genuine and is to be ascribed to Chosroes, king of the Persians, this custom is to be traced back to the time of Justinian, whose contemporary he was, and perhaps to the Persians. For Chosroes sits on a horse adorned with rays like the Sun (whose brothers, and the Moon's, the kings of the Persians called themselves), and his feet, as is evident from the impression, rest in stirrups. But since not all men had grooms, Gaius Gracchus, while the Republic was free, in order to serve the interests of the common people and win the minds of the Italians to himself, paved many roads and set up stone columns to mark the miles: Ἄλλους δὲ λίθους ἔλαττον ἀπέχοντας ἀλλήλων ἑκατέρωθεν τῆς ὁδοῦ διέθηκεν, ὡς εἴη ῥᾳδίως τοῖς ἵππους ἔχουσιν ἐπιβαίνειν ἐπ' αὐτῶν ἀναβολέως μὴ δεομένοις, "Other stones, a little apart from one another, he set on each side of the road, so that those who had horses could mount them easily without the help of grooms," as Plutarch witnesses in his Life; and since at that time ladders were not in use, there is certainly no reason why Lipsius should waver and think those words can be drawn to mean an instrument for climbing. Moreover, Xenophon too somewhere records, long before, the same thing that Gracchus did.

Having placed his foot upon his back. The authors of that and of later times differ in describing the calamity that afflicted Valerian, as may be seen in Barth on Claudian and on Statius, Thebaid book 2, line 713; but that Sapor trod on his very neck, besides Victor's Epitome and the Passion of St Savinus, our Lactantius is a witness beyond all exception. A learned man illustrates, both from the Old Testament and from profane authors, the custom of treading on the necks of the vanquished; and he shows from Corippus that the Roman emperors were painted thus:

In the middle of the hall he had painted him as victor, / treading on the savage neck of the Vandal tyrant.

From this he tries to prove that these words, "For as long as he lived, the king of that same province, making him stoop, used to mount his horse placing his foot on his neck," were stitched onto Eutropius from elsewhere, because they are not found in the better manuscripts and were also omitted by the Greek translator; and after he had brought forward various opinions about Valerian's calamity, he also calls Eusebius to his side, and from his Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 8, or rather from Dionysius, whom he follows, he shows that Valerian grew so old in power that, worn out with age, he himself handed it over to his sons to govern; and he adds that Eusebius passes over a thing unworthy of the Roman name, out of reverence for his own princes, or through negligence, or for some other reason, and that in matters of that kind no one is unaware that he quite often slips along with his whole flock. Certainly Valerian had two sons, Gallienus and Valerian, and made the former Augustus and the latter Caesar before he came into Sapor's power: but yet I find in no other author that Valerian in power so

grew old that, affected by age, he handed it over to his sons. For in the first place he did not grow old in the imperial office, but was made emperor at seventy years of age; and since he bore his age very well, and, endowed with many virtues, was worthy of the empire, it certainly cannot be said that he handed the empire over to his sons on account of age, although at the beginning of his principate he created Gallienus Augustus, and, while absent, having perhaps set out for the Persian war, created the other of his sons, Valerian, Caesar. Barth was beyond doubt deceived by Christopherson, the translator of Eusebius, who, as Valesius rightly notes, understood the words cited as concerning Valerian, whereas they are to be referred to Macrianus, whose mention immediately preceded; hence that passage is today translated thus: "But Macrianus, burning with desire to rule, although unworthy of the empire, since he could not put on the royal power, being himself weak in body, set over the empire his two sons, who would take upon themselves their father's crimes." And these things agree very well with what Trebellius Pollio relates in his Life. For although he does not mention a desire for the empire, nevertheless from the counsel that he held with Balista (on which the same may be seen in the Gallieni), and because he at once yielded to him, I think it is clear enough that they played out this scene by common counsel, and that thus Macrianus can be said to have coveted the empire. The rest also agrees very well; for Macrianus said: "But this is not in me at my age: I am an old man, I cannot ride as an example to others; I must bathe rather often, and eat rather delicately: riches have long since drawn me away from the practice of soldiering." But when Balista understood that he was thinking of his sons, he said that he was handing the commonwealth over to his prudence: let him give his children, Macrianus and Quietus, most valiant young men; and so he was made emperor together with his two sons, with the consent of all the soldiers. But since Lactantius makes such distinguished mention of Valerian Caesar, I cannot refrain from examining the Epitome of Victor. "Licinius Valerianus, surnamed Colobius, ruled fifteen years; born of most splendid parents, yet stupid and very sluggish, and not fitted for any use of public office, by counsel or by deeds. He made his son Gallienus Augustus, and Gallienus's son Cornelius Valerianus Caesar." What he says of Valerian's character is sufficiently refuted by Tristan at the beginning of vol. III, whom I judge to give most true counsel; next, Valerian did not reign for fifteen years, but at most for six years. For he was made emperor at seventy, on the testimony of Treb. Pollio, and that in the year of Christ 253, and he was captured by the Persians in the year 259, in the consulship of Fulv. Aemilianus and Pomponius Bassus; and learned men note that he died by a most cruel death, his skin being stripped off from the neck to the soles of his feet by order of Sapor, in the seventy-seventh year of his age; which facts certainly rule out so many years of rule, although the Alexandrian Chronicle also assigns him fourteen years. The source of the error is perhaps to be sought in those authors who wrote that Valerian and Gallienus reigned the same number of years; and since this is true of Gallienus (for he held the empire six years with his father, nine alone), others interpreted it of Valerian as well. Treb. Pollio speaks thus in the Gallieni: "But concerning the years of Gallienus and Valerian that pertain to the empire, such uncertain things are handed down that, although it is established that they reigned 15 years, that is, that Gallienus reached the fifteenth, while Valerian was captured in the sixth, some commit to writing that Gallienus reigned 9 years, others even ten." Nor could the author of the Epitome have meant anything else, as is plain from what he presently relates: "He reigned fifteen years (namely Gallienus), seven with his father, eight alone": whence Gallienus, in the Letter of Dionysius in Euseb. 7.23, is called "at once an old and a new emperor". But as for his adding that Gallienus's son Cornelius Valerianus was made Caesar by Valerian, others with better right refer this to Valerian the son of Valerian, who, born of a mother other than Gallienus's, namely Mariniana, was named Caesar by his father while absent, on the testimony of Trebellius Pollio; whereas P. Licinius Cornelius Saloninus Valerianus, the elder son of Gallienus, was made Caesar by his father. He died while his father was alive

and was consecrated; but the other was killed together with his brother Gallienus. So I am surprised that Balerus, king of the Cadusii, and Artabasdes, king of the Armenians, in the letters sent to Sapor that are given in Trebellius Pollio, mention only Valerian's son and grandson: "Valerian has both a son as emperor (Gallienus) and a grandson." But I leave these matters to be examined by others; and let it not irk you, reader, to consult the most illustrious Spanheim in his seventh dissertation, and Jean Vaillant, a most learned man, in the Coins of the More Eminent Emperors; and also Reinesius's note on inscription 41 of class 3.

Having placed his foot upon his back. Athenaeus, book 6, page 256, records that certain women of Caria, summoned by the wives of Artabazus and Mentor, were called klimakides ("ladder-women"), because they offered themselves to them as ladders, "so that the mounting was made upon their backs, and the dismounting likewise, for the women riding in the wagons," that is, so that by way of their backs they might climb into the carriage in which they rode, and get down from it in the same way. And Casaubon observes that Eustathius, after quoting Athenaeus's words, page 1669, notes that this was done in his own time too, and that when a horseman could not easily mount his horse, someone would bend down and his neck would serve in place of a ladder or stirrup: a passage which further teaches us that in his time the use of those implements was not general. For the rest, the savagery of the Persians and of the Eastern nations is to be noted, since they subjected so great an emperor to so foul a mockery. And to this is to be referred the cruelty of Adonibesec, who cut off the toes and fingers of seventy petty kings and forced them to gather crumbs beneath his table, as the Book of Judges witnesses. To this belongs the arrogance of Sesostris, who yoked subdued kings to his chariot when he entered a temple or a city, as we read in Diodorus Siculus; and finally the no less savage deed of Tamerlane, who, to mock him, carried about Bajazet, emperor of the Turks, shut in an iron cage, and also yoked him to his chariot, if credit is to be given to Matthaeus Palmerius in his manuscript Chronicle, which Henricus Copezius gave me to use. "Temberlanes," he says, "an emperor of incredible power, dies. He had been born among the Tartars in a humble station, and had gained such strength that he had more than twelve hundred thousand men in his camp. With this multitude, having crushed the Teucri in war" (so too he elsewhere calls the Turks), "he had bound their emperor in golden chains and yoked him, as though in triumph, to the chariot in which he rode."

In that, although [he had] his son. Gallienus, who did not persecute the Christians, whence he is called by Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.23, "the more holy and more God-loving," the most religious emperor and most loving of God.

His skin was torn off. When he was dead, that is; which Peter the Patrician also relates in the Excerpts on Embassies, as Valesius notes on Eusebius, chapter 24 of the Oration of Constantine. So Cedrenus is wrong to tell that Valerian was flayed alive: "flayed by Sapor, he died"; and Barthius, on book 2 of Statius's Thebaid, verse 715, calls this story into doubt to no purpose. Agathias too, book 4, relates that the skin was stripped from Valerian while alive. For after telling that Nachoragas was subjected to that punishment by Chosroes, and assigning the story of Marsyas to fables, he adds that Sapor, who reigned long before Chosroes, was the originator of this punishment: a man very unjust, headlong to anger and cruelty; and that many histories testify that this punishment was inflicted on Valerian by him.

Of the one God. That is, of the only one, Him Who alone is God. In book 5, chapter 5, of the Institutes he calls Him "the one Founder of things"; and in chapter 14 of the same book he speaks thus: "who had begun to defend true justice and to serve the one God."

Who holds all things together. So Cicero speaks of the world, On the Nature of the Gods 2: "The world confines and holds together all things in its embrace."

Chapter VII.

He made three sharers in the rule. Not together, or at the same time. For Maximianus Herculius was taken up

into partnership in the empire, and made Augustus in the year 285 by Diocletian; and those two together in the year 293 made Constantius Chlorus and Galerius Maximian Caesars. For I think that Eutropius errs when, in chap. 15 of book 14, he relates that Herculius was created Caesar, and in chap. 14 that the same man was created Augustus from Caesar, although Orosius, 7, 25, and P. Diaconus, book 10 of the Historia Miscella, follow him. The author of the Epitome of the Times in Scaliger, p. 277, also errs, and writes not cautiously enough that Herculius was made a partner in the kingship at the beginning of the third year of Diocletian's reign, since that took place on the kalends of April in the year 285, and Diocletian entered upon his reign on the 12th day before the kalends of December 284, as Baluze teaches in his Chronology.

Of indictions. That is, of tributes, as the same man teaches, and as Ducange confirms with several examples in his Glossary. Below, c. 31: Indictions of gold and silver; and they seem at the beginning to have been imposed as extraordinary levies. Victor touches on this matter, c. 39 of the Caesars: Hence at length the huge evil of tributes was brought upon part of Italy. For while the whole of it was conducting itself under the same obligation and in a restrained manner (another reading: and moderately), a new law was introduced so that the army and the emperor, who were always or for the most part present, might be fed by payments. Asterius, Homily on Avarice, p. 28, calls them ἐπιτάγματα.

Many governors. A very notable passage, inasmuch as it serves much towards knowing the beginning of the division of one province into several, each of which had its own governors; and these words are worthy that another, who has more leisure, should diligently illustrate them, inasmuch as they will without doubt kindle great light for ecclesiastical as well as profane authors.

Civil proceedings rare. That is, these judges rarely gave their attention to settling the lawsuits of private persons, but took cognizance of atrocious crimes, and condemned men to death, or proscribed them. In chap. 21 he has said light and civil cases.

Here a mint. This word is taken for the building in which money, or coins, were struck. Ammianus Marcellinus 22, 121: Because he had overturned an altar in the mint, which he governed. Sidonius in the poem on Narbonne:

Hail, Narbo, mighty in healthfulness, / in gates, porticoes, forum, theatre, / shrines, capitols, mints, / baths, arches, granaries, markets.

Others said monetum, as du Cange teaches. That Diocletian, moreover, built many splendid works is clear from this passage, and from his baths at Rome, which are called simply the Diocletianae by the scholiast of Juvenal, whose words Ferrarius cites, I El. 6: Beside the rampart Sejanus first placed a camp, that is, above the Diocletianae, which was called the praetorian camp; for that camp was beyond these baths. So too Vopiscus in the Carinus, c. 19, testifies that Diocletian rendered more magnificent the stage at Rome which had burned down.

Factory of arms. In which arms either of every kind, or of this or that kind, were manufactured. So in the Notitia of the empire the master of offices in the West is said to be in charge of eight factories in the Gauls: that of Strasbourg for arms of all kinds; that of Mâcon for arrows; that of Autun for breastplates; that of Soissons for ballistae, and for shields, and for heavy armour.

Chapter VIII.

What of his brother. Maximian. Namely Herculius, who had been made by Diocletian partner in the empire and Augustus. Whether he held the dignity of Caesar is a great dispute among the learned. Eutropius 9. 13, P. Diaconus in the Historia Miscella, Hugh of Fleury in the Chronicle, and others, Tristan, vol. 3, p. 349, and Antoine Pagi, p. 157, record and contend that Herculius was made Caesar before he was created Augustus. But Victor relates that Diocletian, when he learned that the Bagaudae, having laid waste the fields, were attacking very many of the cities, ordered Maximian AT ONCE to be emperor. Yet the learned write that the Bagaudae were overcome by him as Caesar; furthermore, the dignity of Caesar appears on none of his coins, which Mezzabarba collected. Francesco Angeloni indeed

lists one, on the obverse of which is seen MAXIMIANUS. NOB. CAES., but on the other PRINCIPI JUVENTUT. But perhaps it should be referred to Galerius, whose coins are adorned with such inscriptions. But Mamertinus too calls him Caesar, in ch. 6 of the Panegyric which he delivered at Trier: 'We saw you, Caesar, on the same day both undertake vows for the Republic'; and shortly after: 'We saw you, Caesar, also in the most splendid garb of peace.' But the oration was delivered to Maximian Herculius Augustus: whence he both calls him, in ch. 4, the brother of Diocletian, and in ch. 9 says that they are brothers in virtues. So in ch. 1: 'For in truth, most sacred emperor, anyone might deservedly call you and your brother the founders of the Roman empire', words which certainly in no way befit a Caesar; and since in ch. 2 and ch. 5 he relates various victories of Herculius, namely over the Burgundians, Alamanni, Chaibones and Eruli, this panegyric could only have been delivered to an emperor and Augustus, because those peoples were overcome in the year 287, when Diocletian Aug. for the third time and Maximian Aug. were consuls, and because Maximian, in the opinion of the learned, was made Augustus in the year 286, having been created Caesar in the year 285. Whence it appears that for the author of the panegyric the word Caesar is the term not of the second rank but, in the ancient manner, of the first.

His brother Maximian. Baluze notes very well and very truly that Maximian is called the brother of Diocletian not because they were born of the same parents, or of the same father, or of the same mother, but because they were partners in the empire, or both Augusti. And as they were called brothers, so in respect of the Caesars they were called fathers, and conversely the latter were called their sons, as is clear from ch. 20, in which a notable trace of this custom is preserved. Indeed Diocletian and Maximinian too, in respect of those whom they had made Augusti from Caesars, are called fathers, as is clear from inscr. 7, p. 178, in Gruter.

Our Lords Diocletian and Maximinian, unconquered, senior Augusti, fathers of the emperors and Caesars, [and] Constantius and Maximinian, unconquered Augusti, and Severus and Maximinus, most noble Caesars, dedicated to their Romans the auspicious baths, consecrated in the name of [their] brother Diocletian Augustus, the buildings having been begun, [and] completed with every adornment in proportion to the magnitude of so great a work.

In this inscription it should be observed besides that Diocletian and Maxim. Herculius are still called Augusti after laying down the imperial power, and finally that Diocletian is called brother by the Emperors and Caesars, whose father he is said to be shortly before. And so that this manner of speaking may be illustrated with more examples after Baluze, it should be noted that kings called one another brothers. Sapor in Amm. Marc. 17.5 names Constantine Caesar his brother; and Valesius proves from sacred as well as profane authors that others did the same. And both Romans and Greeks were accustomed to designate things animate or inanimate in no other way, provided they were of the same origin or were alike. Well known are the priests called the Arval Brothers; and in inscriptions there occur the fratres fabriles [smith brothers], namely those who belong to one guild of smiths. The Carthaginians and Philip with the Macedonians, in the treaty in Polyb. 7.2, call themselves friends, and kinsmen, and brothers; and it is well known from panegyrics and inscriptions that the Aedui and Batavi were deemed worthy of that honour by the Romans: which Hardouin, p. 487, notes from Aristides and Dio of Prusa that other cities also did, just as in Polybius too, ch. 25 of the Excerpts on Embassies, the Rhodians testify that they and the people of Soli are sprung from Argos, and that hence there is a brotherly kinship between them; and Carthage and Utica are called sisters in Tertullian's book On the Pallium, because both were said to have been founded by the Phoenicians. That inanimate things were described by the same name of kinship Mela 1.5 teaches: 'There are high mountains which, set continuously and as if on purpose in a row, on account of their number seven, on account of their likeness

are called brothers.' Thus, since the ancients believed that the Euphrates and the Tigris rise from the same spring, as is plain for instance from Lucan 2.256, they were for that reason called brothers, or, what is more, twins. Mamertinus in the Genethliacus, ch. 6: 'For you the Rhine, and the Ister, and the Nile, and the Tigris with its twin Euphrates.' Livineius interprets 'twin Euphrates' as the one which joins itself with the Tigris in Mesopotamia, while otherwise flowing separately; but it is called twin because it rises from the same springs; whence Eumenius too, in ch. 21 of the oration which he delivered for the restoration of the schools, calls them the twin rivers of Persis. Yet if anyone prefers here to understand two rivers, in the way that Virgil said 'twin serpents', Manilius 'the twin hinge of the world', and so on, I shall not object at all. In Stephanus, moreover, the Euphrates and the Araxes are called ἀδελφοί [brothers], because they rise from the same mountain of Armenia; and the author of the Etymologicum Magnum explains ἀδελφά as ὅμοια [alike]; and in that sense the word is used by Aelian, Varia Historia 2, 18 and 12, 1. Lucian, moreover, in the book On Calumny makes flattery the ἀδελφή [sister] of calumny; Petronius makes poverty the sister of good sense; Martial calls coverlets sisters; and many others speak in this way.

Who is called. I punctuate this thus: who is called Herculius? not unlike him; for neither..., with the question mark moved. Now Maximian is frequently called Herculius in the Panegyrics and on ancient stones; and on his coins Hercules is seen, and 'To the Valour of Hercules', as may be seen in Tristan, Spanheim and others.

The lights of the Senate were constantly being put out. He has imitated his Virgil:

After he reached the deep waves and came to the sea, / he washed from there the flowing gore of his gouged-out eye.

Although the latter speaks literally, the former metaphorically; just as Velleius, 2.52: 'The two heads of the Republic dashed against each other, and one light of the Roman empire put out', that is, Pompey: where, however, Scioppius would prefer effusum [poured out]. And as Lactantius calls the leading senators lights of the Senate, so too Prudentius, Hymn 2 of the Peristephanon:

The very lights of the senate too, / once Luperci and Flamens, / kiss the lights / of the apostles and martyrs.

Cicero, 2 Catiline, [speaks of] the lights of the city, and Velleius 2.99 calls Tiberius the second light of the Republic. In Latinus Pacatus, ch. 46 of the Panegyric, the two Theodosii are called the hope and eyes of the Republic, and in ch. 46 the leading senators are called the lights of the senate; and Agamemnon is called by Euripides, Hecuba 841, the greatest light to the Greeks; Amphiaraus by Adrastus in Pindar, Olympian 6, p. 47, the eye of my army. Indeed this manner of speaking has been transferred to other things as well. Athens and Sparta in Justin, book 5, are the two eyes of Greece; and Plutarch in the Political Precepts relates that Athens was not destroyed by the Lacedaemonians, lest Greece become one-eyed: to which belongs Philo the Jew's writing somewhere that Athens is in Greece what the pupil is in the eye and reason in the soul. For Cicero, book 3 On the Nature of the Gods, Corinth and Carthage are the two eyes of the sea coast; for Pindar, Olympian 2, Agrigentum is the eye of Sicily; and finally a villa is called by Catullus, poem 27, the little eye of peninsulas and islands.

To corrupt morals. The most learned Burnet saw rightly, as is plain from the translation, that mares [males] should be written; and Victor too reports this: 'For Herculius was driven by such great lust that he did not hold back the foulness of his mind even from the bodies of hostages.'

The felicity of the empire. This occurs on the coins of various emperors; as 'the felicity of the times', and 'perpetual Felicity of the age' on the coins of Commodus, Geta, Caracalla and others: indeed on one, very elegantly, 'the happy things of the times'. He therefore thought that he would thus be fortunate and blessed, as precedes. And thus 'public blessedness' occurs below, ch. 48; 'most blessed Caesars' in Nazarius, ch. 1, and at the end of the Panegyric 'most blessed victory', 32, 'blessedness of the city', 33; and 'most blessed age' in Tacitus, Agricola ch. 3. From these passages it is plain that the word beatus was taken by the ancients in another sense than is customary today.

On Chapter IX.

But the other Maximian. Namely Galerius; from which names Jordanes wrongly makes two Caesars:

On account of which Constantius, and Galerius, and Maximian are taken up into the rule as Caesars.

Narseus, king of the Persians. Diocletian had previously either defeated the Persians, or they had made peace with him; for Mamertinus, in the Panegyric which he delivered to Maximian Herculius before the latter's quinquennial celebrations, speaks thus in ch. 7: I believe likewise that the Euphrates was covering that excellent and fertile Syria as if with its embrace, before the kingdoms of the Persians surrendered themselves of their own accord to Diocletian; and again, in ch. 10: In this same way that king of the Persians, who had never before deigned to acknowledge himself a man, makes supplication to his brother, and lays open his whole kingdom, if he should deign to enter it; and that Herculius himself waged wars at the Euphrates is gathered without doubt from ch. 2. Hence also in ch. 5 of the Genethliacus: I pass over the Franks coming with their king to seek peace, and the Parthian fawning upon you with marvels of gifts: of which gifts he speaks also in another Panegyric, ch. 10.

Of his grandfather Sapor. If we follow others, Sapor was the great-great-grandfather of Narseus. That is to say, Sapor was succeeded by his son Hormisdates; this king of short duration was followed by Vararanes, who, after reigning for three years, left a son of the same name, a king of seventeen years: he was followed by Vararanes the third, surnamed Segansaa, because his father Vararanes had subdued that people, as may be seen in Agathias, book 4. The learned make Narses the son of the third Vararanes, and accordingly, in their opinion, Sapor was his great-great-grandfather. But Agathias nevertheless does not relate that Narses was begotten of the third Vararanes, although he succeeded him; and if Lactantius writes truly, and Sapor was the grandfather of Narseus, he could have been begotten of Hormisdates, and on account of his infancy his uncle, and afterwards that uncle's sons, were preferred to him. Our Narses, moreover, is said by Agathias to have reigned seven years and five months, which certainly can in no way be true, if he already held the kingdom in the time of Probus. Vopiscus, in ch. 16 of his Life, speaks thus: His letter also, the gifts which the king of the Parthians had sent having been refused, is reported to have been as follows, to Narseus. Casaubon notes that this Narseus was a petty king of Armenia, ordered by the king of the Persians, or of the Parthians, to carry these gifts to the Roman Emperor, and that Aurelius Victor makes mention of him in his Diocletian. Certainly no other Narseus is mentioned by Victor in his Diocletian than this one of ours, who was king of the Persians and was defeated by Galerius Maximian: whence it is more than sufficiently clear that the most learned man wrongly confuses both the times and the persons, and wrongly supposes that the Narseus of Vopiscus is cited by Victor in his Diocletian. For this reason he makes him a petty king of Armenia, whereas to me he seems to be the king of the Persians as well: but to be confused with Vararanes, who was reigning in the time of Probus, if Agathias informs us truly. For if Narseus brought gifts to the Roman emperor and thus discharged the office of an envoy, it is not likely that Probus would give a letter to him while he was present, nor could he be said to have received a letter, nor to be the third and to have made peace; all of which things suit a king of the Persians, or of the Parthians. Perhaps Casaubon had before his eyes, when he wrote this, the Narseus whom Sapor, the grandson of our Narses, sent to Constantius in the year 357, as we read in Ammianus Marcellinus, 17, 5, who nevertheless does not say that he was a petty king of Armenia. Eutropius, moreover, makes Narseus, or Narsetes, or Narses, our man, the grandfather of Ormisdas and Sapor; which also must be examined. Agathias relates that after Narseus there reigned his son Hormisdates (who perhaps bore his grandfather's name) for the same number of years and months, and that he was succeeded by Sapor, his posthumous son, who ruled for seventy years, and that after his death the rule passed to his brother Artaxerxes; which I for my part can scarcely comprehend. For if Hormisdates left his wife pregnant, and the one whom the queen was to bear was to reign, as Agathias records, it is clear at any rate that Hormisdates had no more sons, and that Sapor had no brother. Hence also the Persians, when they had learned from the Magi that the queen would give them a daughter and successor, placed a tiara upon her womb, and made the infant, not yet born, king; and this was Sapor, the grandson of our Narseus. Chevraeus certainly errs, book 4, ch. 3, when, of Sapor, who Valerian

conquered and treated in so unworthy a fashion, writes that so happy an omen of future power befell him when he was not yet born. For that can in no way be attributed to this Sapor, but must be referred to the other, who lived in the time of Julian, as will be evident even to anyone who looks at Agathias. This narrative, as I have said, plainly excludes a brother; and these things cannot be reconciled unless we say that Artaxerxes was begotten by Hormisdates of a concubine and was raised to the throne at more than seventy years of age. But it is strange that a brother succeeded Sapor, since Ammianus Marcellinus 25.4 mentions two sons of the king, that is, of our Sapor. But if we suppose that they had died and that Sapor left no descendants, then Artaxerxes his brother, though born of a concubine, could succeed, because sons born of concubines were kept from the throne so long as lawful and legitimate children survived, as Brisson has noted from Herodotus. Agathias certainly testifies in clear words that after Sapor his brother Artaxerxes reigned for four years, and that he was succeeded by a son likewise called Sapor. And from this too I think it is evident that Hormisdas, who fled to Constantine the Great, cannot have been the brother of the long-lived Sapor; which nevertheless most of the learned report, and Henri Valois too on Ammianus 16.18, who says that he was of royal blood, as Zosimus and Suidas say he was the king's son: but no one writes that he was begotten by Hormisdates, the son of Narses. Narses, namely, had four sons: Adanarses, Hormisdas, one unnamed, and Hormisdates. Adanarses lost the throne on account of his cruelty and a savage saying (which is, however, something other than what Hormisdas threw out); Hormisdas, on account of the story of Marsyas which he had bandied about, was cast into chains when his father Narses had died and Adanarses had been driven out; freed from them by the craft of his wife, he fled to Constantine the Great: the kingdom was handed over to Hormisdates, who blinded his other, unnamed brother, as may be seen in Zonaras. Yet the ancients seem to have held that Hormisdas was the brother of Sapor and the grandson of Narses, as is evident even from the words of Eutropius. And indeed not everything can be made clear enough amid such darkness of history. Two things remain to be explained: namely, with whom Narseus waged a civil war, and whether he was captured by Galerius. On the former matter Mamertinus, Genethliacus ch. 17, speaks thus: "The Persians themselves and the king himself, having called in the Saccae and the Russi and the Gelli (or Gethi), his brother Ormies attacks; and he has no regard for him either as a king, out of respect for majesty, or as a brother, out of family duty." Livineius writes "Ormisda", and notes that Eutropius makes Narseus the grandfather of Sapor and Ormisdas. But if we look at the dates, it will readily be evident that the Hormisdas of Eutropius can have no place here. The panegyric was delivered, as is evident from its opening, before the celebration of the quinquennalia of Herculius, which fell in the year 288 or the following one. For if Narses reigned for only seven years and some months, as Agathias records, and if he died in the year 302, as the learned judge, it necessarily follows that he began to reign in the year 295, before which that panegyric was pronounced; and further, that it was the grandfather or the father of Narses who carried on this civil war. The other point, namely that Narseus was captured by Galerius together with his wife, children and sisters, the learned remark, and they cite as authorities for their opinion Eusebius in the Chronicle, and Eutropius. But Eusebius writes that Galerius, when Narseus had been overcome and his wives and children and sisters captured, was received by Diocletian with great honour; and Eutropius, that Galerius, when Narseus had been driven off, plundered his camp and took his wives, fathers-in-law and children: from which it can certainly in no way be proved that Narses came into the power of Galerius. Yet Victor Aurelius, who I am surprised has been passed over by learned men, relates it: "Finally in the same place he brought King Narseus under his dominion, together with his children and wives and the royal court." And Chevreau too reports the same, History of the World book 4, ch. 3. But both have erred; and from all the other historians, as well as from our Lactantius, it is clearly evident that the king slipped away in flight.

"And when Narseus had been put to flight." At first, however, Galerius was defeated, as is established from Victor, Rufus and also Jerome, the last of whom speaks thus: "Galerius Maximianus, defeated by Narseus, ran in his purple before the carriage of Diocletian;"

and Amm. Marcell. IV, 11 has regard to that history, where Galerius too is called not Caesar but purpuratus [the one clad in purple]; because, namely, those who were created Caesars were clothed in purple, as is evident even from ch. 19 of Lactantius, and from Amm. Marcell. book XV; whence Julian in the same author, XX, 5, addressing the soldiers as Caesar, names himself purpuratus. But if we listen to P. Diac., Hist. Misc. X, Galerius had a favourable first battle; then, having engaged between Callinicum and Carrhae, he was beaten, and afterwards fought successfully in Lesser Armenia and conquered Narseus: but if we listen to Hugh of Fleury, Galerius, when he had already clashed twice in battle with Narseus, was defeated in a third encounter, lost his forces, and fled back to Diocletian, afterwards enjoying better fortune. For the rest, it is very worthy of note that Diocletian was so arrogant and so savage that he either allowed or ordered the Caesar, clad in purple, that is, adorned with the insignia of his power, to run before his carriage. Histories preserve similar examples. Eutropius, VII, 5, relates that many kings came from their kingdoms to pay court to Augustus, and in Roman dress, that is, wearing togas, ran beside his vehicle or his horse: but this was of their own will, the other was held a punishment. Galba, in Suet. ch. 6, ran beside the chariot of the emperor Gaius for twenty miles, though he was sprung from a noble and ancient lineage. An example of this arrogance is also furnished by Epictetus the bishop, in the Libellus Precum which Faustinus and Marcellinus presented to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius: Finally, since he persists for the integrity of the faith (Rufinianus), Epictetus, that cruel and dreadful bishop of Centumcellae, forced him to run before his carriage; and when he runs for a long time, there on the road, his vitals burst, he expired pouring out blood. Nor ought it to seem strange to anyone that Galerius obeyed Diocletian; for the Caesars were wholly in the power of the Augusti. These supplied them with provisions, secretaries and transport, and the offices of the Caesars' household depended on their nod, as is evident from various passages of Ammianus Marcell., in whom for that reason Julian the Caesar himself calls himself a faithful attendant.

With huge booty. Eumenius speaks elegantly of this, and of the victories of the other emperors and Caesars, in the Oration which he delivered for the restoration of the schools, ch. 21: « There let the most glorious deeds of the bravest emperors be recalled through the various representations of the regions; while, with the news of victories ever fresh and ever arriving, the twin rivers of Persia are reviewed, and the thirsty fields of Libya, and the joined horns of the Rhine, and the many-cleft mouths of the Nile; and while the mind of those who gaze pictures to itself, at each of these, either Egypt at rest under your clemency, Diocletian Augustus, its fury laid aside, or you, unconquered Maximian, hurling thunderbolts on the stricken columns of the Moors, or, under your right hand, Lord Constantius, Batavia and Britain raising their squalid heads from the woods and the waves, or you, Maximian Caesar, trampling on Persian bows and quivers. » That Galerius gained huge booty, moreover, all the others also attest; and it is to be noted above all that the author of the Collection of Histories edited by Scaliger, p. 395, relates that he returned having purses filled with precious stones and pearls; that Diocletian then for the first time used clothing and shoes adorned with precious stones and gold, and that he likewise ordered that, the old custom of greeting being scorned, he should be adored. But Eusebius refers the beginning of this custom to the year 295, and the defeat of Narses to the year 303. Indeed, even before Diocletian, Carinus had gems on his shoes, used a jewelled brooch, and often a jewelled belt, as Vopiscus attests, ch. 17. Nay, before Carinus, Aurelian used gems and clothing wholly gilded, which still seemed almost unknown to Roman custom, as we read in Victor's Epitome; so that Diocletian was not the originator of this custom, though he was able to increase the gems and add them to all his garments. Tristan, vol. III, p. 325, notes from Eutropius that Diocletian had coverings for his legs made of silk and purple, shoeing himself even with stockings of silk and of purple, as says

Eutropius; which, however, I am still searching for in him.

With huge spoils. Besides this, the Persians were compelled to cede to the Romans Mesopotamia and five regions beyond the Tigris, as Rufus Festus testifies; these, after Julian's death, Jovian was forced to give back to them, as we read in Ammianus 25, 7, where mention is also made of Maximianus Galerius. It is moreover worth noting that the same author, at 23, 5, relates that a dead lion was presented to Julian while he was waging war against the Persians, just as a lion and a boar had earlier been presented to our Maximianus; and there he discusses what these omens portended, namely death for Julian and victory for Galerius.

Fear to Diocletian. He without doubt did not wish to add new regions to the Roman empire, lest Galerius become more insolent. Victor: So great a victor that, had not Valerius, at whose nod all things were done, refused for some uncertain reason, the Roman fasces would have been carried into a new province. The reason, which Victor confesses he does not know, may be learned from our Lactantius. But it is nevertheless surprising that Victor reports such things, since from what I have noted on this very chapter it is plain that Narses gave up Mesopotamia and the dominion of five nations settled beyond the Tigris. To reconcile these, it must be held that the Romans recovered nothing except what Trajan had brought under their power. Under his rule the eastern frontier was established on the banks of the Tigris; and under Diocletian Mesopotamia was restored, and the frontier on the bank of the Tigris was re-established in such a way that the Romans obtained the dominion of five nations settled beyond it: which condition of the treaty was kept and lasted until the time of the deified Constantius, as Rufus Festus testifies. For the regions are called Transtigritane with respect to the Persians, not with respect to the Romans, as Valesius showed on book 25 of Ammianus Marcellinus.

That he was said to have been begotten of Mars. He wished, that is, to imitate Diocletian and Maximian, who were not only called Jovius and Herculius, but who also made Jupiter and Hercules their fathers. Hence Mamertinus, in chapter 1 of the Panegyric, calls Hercules the founder of Maximian's line; and soon after speaks thus: Whom the very likeness of your stock, and the silent force of nature, makes so generous in honouring the birthday of Rome. The same in the Genethliacus, chapter 2: Since you prove that you were born of gods, by your divine powers indeed, but much more by your virtues; chapter 3: Then above all your parents, who bestowed on you both names (of Jovius and Herculius) and empires, are occupied in the perpetual performance of the greatest works; and soon after Jupiter is called the author-god of Diocletian, and he himself together with Hercules are called parent gods; the anonymous author of the Panegyric to Hercules and Constantine, chapter 8, speaks of him in no other way: This is he who gave you the name which he received from the god who founded his line; who proved himself the offspring of Hercules not by fabulous flatteries but by equal virtues. But I am surprised that Lactantius does not censure this arrogance of Diocletian and Maximian, since he reproves the same in Galerius.

Romula his mother. So too the author of the Epitome of Aurelius Victor names the mother of Galerius Maximianus, and adds that he insolently dared to affirm that his mother, after the manner of Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great, had conceived when once embraced by a serpent; which, though it departs widely from Lactantius's narrative, nonetheless equally shows the man's arrogance. This name was also given to other women; and PETRONIA ROMULA occurs in an inscription in Reinesius. Sometimes the word is an adjective, and there occur Romula gens in Horace, Romula sceptra in Prudentius, and Romula vox in an old grammarian in the Catalecta of Pithou. At the beginning of the chapter this woman is said to have been from beyond the Danube (Transdanuviana), and to have taken refuge in New Dacia. And first, the spelling in the word Transdanuviana is to be observed, since that river is otherwise generally written Danubius. But in just the same way DANVVIVS occurs on a coin of Trajan in Tristan, volume 1, p. 393, as also in inscription 3, 448, in Gruter. Next, some remarks must be made about New Dacia. It is also mentioned by the author of the Excerpta Valesiana: Licinius therefore, from NEW DACIA, of rather low origin, from

made emperor by Galerius; and it is the Dacia of Aurelian, as Baluze rightly teaches; and I think that the author of the Exposition of the Whole World, edited by Godefroy, had this one before his eyes, ch. 6, where he writes that the Dacians lived on that side of the Danube where Pannonia and Thrace are. The Epitome of Victor, which P. Diaconus follows, relates that Armentarius was born in Dacia Ripensis and buried there, and that the place was called Romulianum by him from the name of his mother Romula. The learned men of the last century divided Transdanubian Dacia into Mediterranea, Ripensis and Alpestris; and if this distinction is true, it follows that Armentarius was born before his mother migrated into New, or Cisdanubian, Dacia. But I have not yet found anyone among the ancients who makes mention of Dacia Alpestris. Ripensis and Mediterranea are mentioned: but these were on this side of the Danube, and indeed in Moesia and Dardania, a matter on which I treat at greater length at ch. 35. These are the two Dacias which Rufus Festus enumerates in his Breviary: Trajan conquered the Dacians under king Decebalus, and made Dacia beyond the Danube, on the soil of Barbary, a province, which had a circuit of a thousand thousand paces. But under the emperor Gallienus it was lost, and through Aurelian, the Romans having been transferred from there, two Dacias were made in the regions of Moesia and Dardania. One of these Dacias was called Ripensis, because it was nearest to the Danube; the other, however, Mediterranea, because it was remote from it and inland. That New Dacia, moreover, was nearest to the Ister is plain from Eutropius, book 2, ch. 9: And he settled the Romans, led away from the cities and fields of Dacia, in middle Moesia; and it is on the right side as the Danube flows into the sea, whereas before it was on the left. P. Diaconus, book 10 of the Historia Miscella, follows this and adds: He settled them in middle Moesia, and called it Dacia, which now divides the two Moesias; words which the illustrious man wrongly attributes to Eutropius. These, however, are drawn from Vopiscus, ch. 39 of the Aurelian, where the illustrious Saumaise rightly interprets Dacia Ripensis and Mediterranea. Nor ought it to stand in the way that Aurelian is said by Vopiscus, Eutropius 9.9, Jordanes and others to have been born in Dacia Ripensis, because from this it seems to follow that already before his own reign Dacia, or a part of it, was called Ripensis. For those authors commit an anachronism; and what was called Moesia when Aurelian was born was afterwards called Dacia Ripensis; and hence it came about that a certain ancient author reported that he was born in Moesia: which I am surprised that Vopiscus did not understand, since those who relate that Aurelian was born in Dacia Ripensis and the others who report that the same man was born in Moesia are saying the same thing.

His father-in-law having been stripped. A very elegant manner of speaking is to be noted. For someone is said, for example, to put off a father-in-law who casts aside the mind of a father-in-law and does not conduct himself as a father-in-law towards his son-in-law. Thus Statius and Quintilian said to put off the man, that is, as it were to fall away from human nature, to become wild and barbarous: to put off the woman, Seneca, letter 95; to put off the prince and put on the raging tyrant, Haymo, Ecclesiastical History 8.2; to put off the father, Valerius Maximus; ἐκδῦναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, Hesychius in the Lives of the Philosophers; and to put on the traitor and enemy, Tacitus, Annals 6. But in this passage that manner of speaking cannot be so explained, because Galerius was not the father-in-law but the son-in-law of Diocletian. Therefore exuto socero is nothing other than: Diocletian having been removed from rule, or after Diocletian, the purple having been stripped off, abdicated from rule and Galerius was made emperor, or Augustus, only then did he begin to rage. It is well known that the purple, or the purple military cloak, was the badge of both the Caesarean and the Augustan dignity: hence those who were created Caesars or Augusti were said simply to be invested; but those who laid down rule, or were compelled to lay it down, to be stripped. Lactantius, ch. 18: And when I sent to Maximian that he might be invested by him; and ch. 29: Stripped, he threw himself headlong from the tribunal. And thus what follows will cohere excellently, in which he names Diocletian, as being a private man, Diocles; and which should be written thus

I judge: Diocles (for so he was called before his reign) when the commonwealth.....

Chapter X.

While he was staying in the regions of the East. In the Notitia dignitatum, at its very beginning, one reads: Notitia in the regions of the East; where all the provinces of the Eastern empire are set out, of which empire the East was a part. And as Lactantius speaks, so too did Treb. Pollio speak in the Gallieni, according to the emendation of Salmasius: When Odenatus had seized power in the regions of the East; and elsewhere: So Macrianus, having gathered armies from every side, made for the regions of the East; for in these places that part of the Eastern empire which is called the East must be understood, because Odenatus brought it, or that part of the East, under his power, and after his death Zenobia held it. And without doubt that manner of speaking arose from this: first, because the Eastern empire was a part of the Roman empire; next, because it was divided into as many parts as there were Caesars or emperors; and thirdly, because the East too was a part of the whole body. Below, c. 39: After the death of Maximian, Valeria had come to him, since she thought she would stay more safely in his regions; that is, in the part of the Roman empire which he ruled. In this chapter, moreover, he distinguishes Bithynia, and in chap. 9 Armenia, from the East: whence it is worth inquiring which provinces came under that name. Learned men judge it obscure which part of Asia is so called, and think that it lay towards Parthia, Assyria and Lesser Armenia. I consider that, if not all, at least most of the regions which are listed in the Notitia imperii were comprehended under that name; such as Palestine, Phoenicia, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Arabia, Isauria, Palaestina Salutaris, Palaestina Secunda, Phoenice Libani, Euphratensis, Syria Salutaris, Osrhoena, Mesopotamia, Cilicia Secunda. Ammianus Marcellinus, XV, 8, describes the Eastern provinces, and begins from Cilicia and Isauria: thence he relates that these regions are separated from the Eoan world by Mount Amanus, and that the frontier of the East, stretched out lengthwise and straight, extends from the banks of the river Euphrates up to the brows of the Nile, bordering on the left on the Saracen peoples; and within the frontier of the East he includes Commagene, Euphratensis, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia and Cyprus: so that for him Cilicia, Isauria and Mesopotamia do not come under that name. Basil too mentions the East, book 1 On the Life of Thecla: This city is of Lycaonia, not far distant from the eastern [region]; That city (Iconium) is of Lycaonia, not far distant from the East, yet lying rather towards Asia, and situated at the very entrance to the region of the Pisidians and Phrygians: where by Asia must be understood Asia Minor, situated by the Hellespont, to which Iconium was nearer than to the East, remote beyond Mount Amanus. But since Diocletian is said in chap. 9 to have stopped in the East, we must see where he spent the summer. Aurelius Victor writes that Jovius set out for Alexandria, the province having been entrusted to Maximian Caesar; and that there at that time he defeated Achilleus, who had assumed the purple, as the same Victor, Eutropius and Suidas under the word Diokletianos record. Lactantius, c. 36, relates that Maximinus arranged the stages of his journey from the East, and that he soon became such as he had been in Syria and Egypt, whence indeed he had come; so that by the East, in which Diocletian stopped, Egypt seems to be what must be understood, since the frontier of the East extended to its river Nile, on the testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus. Valesius, on the same author XIV, 7, wonders that Egypt is reckoned among the provinces of the East, since it is clear from the Notitia and countless authors that Egypt was separate from the provinces of the East: but he adds that at last he ceased to wonder, after he learned that Egypt and Mesopotamia were formerly under the jurisdiction of the count of the East; and that an ancient inscription teaches this, which runs thus: TO M. MAECIUS MEMMIUS FURIUS BALBURIUS CAECILIANUS PLACIDUS, A MAN OF CLARISSIMUS RANK, COUNT OF THE EAST, OF EGYPT AND OF MESOPOTAMIA. Certainly Egypt is separated from the East by Vopiscus in the Probus, chap. 9; by the Libellus Precum offered by Faustinus to Valentinian, etc., p. 20; by Haymo, Ecclesiastical History VIII, 2; and therefore

I do not yet see that it was included under the name of the East; and if that were true, it would certainly not be distinguished from it in the inscription cited as well. So "eastern provinces" is one thing, "the East" and "provinces of the East" another; they can be used in a double sense, namely either for provinces lying towards the sunrise in general, or for the provinces which were included in the East properly so called. Ammianus says that he is reviewing the eastern provinces, and under that name Mesopotamia and Egypt were certainly included, although they are distinct from the East, or from the provinces of the East taken strictly; which is to be carefully noted. But since Lactantius writes expressly that Diocletian halted in the East and waited for the outcome of events, he could first have halted at Antioch (which was the capital of the East) and afterwards have gone to Egypt; or rather the times must be distinguished, because both could have happened during the war against the Persians, but not in the same year. For war was waged against the Persians in the years 294, 295, 296 and 297, and Achilleus was defeated, as the learned judge, in the year 295, so that in the last year, in which Narses, victor before, was defeated, Diocletian seems to have halted in the East, and indeed at Antioch.

"Searcher of future things." Thus Diocletian is called by Aurelius Victor "a searcher of things impending"; and since for that reason he consulted the entrails of victims, and so diligently worshipped the gods of the gentiles, hence, I think, Zozimus (2.10) relates that he was unwilling to resume the purple because he foresaw the disturbance of affairs: "as one always devoted to the divine," as he was a man most observant of religion; that is, a diligent worshipper and consulter of the gods. And so Ammianus Marcellinus (22.1) relates that Julian constantly searched entrails and, watching the birds, hastened to know beforehand the end of what would happen.

"The sacred rites were disturbed." That is, the sacrifices could not be performed duly; an evil omen was presented to them. Virgil, Aeneid 3.407:

lest amid the holy fires in honour of the gods / some hostile face should appear and disturb the omens.

"That master of the haruspices, Tages." Certainly he so calls the chief of the haruspices, because Tages is said to have invented that art, on the testimony of Cicero and others; and indeed to have written on haruspicy, if credit is to be given to Fulgentius, in the Exposition of Ancient Words: just as he designates the physicians of his own time, in chapter 53, by the ancient names Chiron and Melampus. Nor is it unusual to call the presidents of sacred colleges masters. In inscriptions there occurs "Master of the college of the Arval Brethren", "of the order of priests of the god Sol Invictus Mithras", and "of the Salii". Indeed a Master of the haruspices himself is mentioned on a stone in Reinesius, v. 13:

Lucius Fonteius Flavianus, / haruspex of the two Augusti, CC., / pontiff, dictator / of Alba, public master / of the haruspices; to the order / of the haruspices, by decree of the decurions.

I do not know whether the Greeks sometimes expressed this word by Didaskalos. Certainly in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 10, there is mention of "the teacher and chief of the synagogue of the magi from Egypt", who incited Valerian to persecute the Christians, and by whom I think Macrianus, who afterwards seized the empire, can by no means be understood, as Valesius would have it. For he is said to have been katholikos, that is, the emperor's Rationalis, and to have shown signal gratitude "to them", that is, to Valerian and the chief of the synagogue: at least unless other things came before, since these things are not narrated in continuous order; which also does not favour Valesius's opinion. But it is safer to understand a Jew, with the most excellent Francesco Spanheim, because the name of chiefs of the synagogue and of masters was proper to them.

"Profane men." The Christians, whom the gentiles therefore kept away from their sacred rites, and whom they called atheists, impious and irreligious, because they condemned the worship of the gods,

as is established from Lucian's Pseudomantis and from Arnobius.

He ordered the soldiers to be compelled to abominable sacrifices. Baluze rightly notes that Eusebius, 8.1, records the same thing; he also elegantly describes the origin of the evils that followed this edict, and it is pleasing to add his account, so that each may take an example from it. Gradually and with moderation (God) began to punish us, beginning the persecution first with those who were serving in the army. But when, bereft of all sense, we did not even think of appeasing God, but rather, like certain impious men, believing that human affairs were governed by no care and providence, we added daily some crimes to others; when the pastors, despising the rule of religion, contended against one another in mutual disputes, striving to increase nothing but quarrels, threats, rivalries, hatreds and mutual enmities, and claiming the primacy for themselves most vehemently, as though it were a kind of tyranny; then at last, according to the saying of Jeremiah, the Lord darkened the daughter of Zion in His anger, etc. And the same author teaches, in ch. 4, that Christian soldiers were removed from military service if they would not sacrifice; where it should be noted that the stratopedarch, whoever he was, first persecuted the soldiers. This man without doubt did it by order of Diocletian, if we follow Lactantius; but if we follow Eusebius, by order of Maximianus Galerius: for in book 8, p. 317, he relates that Galerius, long before the other emperors, persecuted the Christians who were in the army and who lived in the palace, and that he was the author of the wretched persecution. Now the Christians were forced to sacrifice because there was no more evident sign of worshipping the gods: hence PIETAS too is seen on coins with the instruments customarily used in sacrifice, as I show on the Apotheosis of Homer, p. 288; and because the Christians refused to do this, they were called athei. Arnobius, book 6, at the end: Since it has been sufficiently shown, as the matter allowed, how vainly images are made, the order [of the argument] next demands that we speak, as briefly as possible and without any circumlocutions, about sacrifices, about the slaughterings and immolations of victims, about wine, incense, and all the other things that are done in that part [of worship]. For on this point you are accustomed to stir up the most tumultuous ill-will against us, to call us ATHEISTS, and, because we by no means attribute [these things] to the gods, even to inflict capital punishments [on us] through the cruelties of wild beasts.

Chapter XI.

A worshipper of the gods of the mountains. What I think about this passage will be clear from what I sent to the late Columbus, which could not conveniently be transferred here from that learned man's notes. Now I am persuaded that this reading is sound, and that the mother of Galerius worshipped mountains as gods; or at any rate that she especially worshipped the gods whom they believed to dwell in the mountains, as in their own seats: such as Rigault too noted are called Monteses deos in the transcript of Commodian; although he prefers

You call [them] mountains and gods,

and this is either put for Montenses, as in inscription 7, p. 41 of Gruter NEMORESIS DIANA stands for Nemorensis; or it is written so according to the manner of speaking of that age. Thus gods of the mountains occur in the Vulgate interpreter, 1 Kgs 20:23: But the servants of the king of Syria said to him: Their gods are GODS OF THE MOUNTAINS, therefore they overcame us: but it is better that we fight in the plains. The Seventy interpreters keep the singular number: The God of Israel is a god of mountains, and not a god of valleys. The Syrians mean that the gods, or the god, whom the Israelites worshipped dwell and rule in the mountains; as Ovid sings:

We are rustic gods, and we who rule on the high mountains; Jupiter's dominion is over his own dwellings.

And not only can rustic gods be called gods of the mountains, but also those who were worshipped on mountains, and others who were believed to dwell in them, such as Diana, who hunted wild beasts in the mountains and was for that reason called montivaga [mountain-roaming]. Indeed

even Cybele is called goddess of the mountains by Maecenas in Diomedes, book 3, p. 514:

Be present, he says, O Cybele, wild goddess of the mountains.

So Galerius's mother worshipped gods of the mountains, or gods that are mountains; and if anyone prefers to embrace the latter, it will certainly not be against my will. For she was a native of Dacia, and perhaps born of Dacian parents and brought up there; hence it ought to be no wonder if she followed their superstition. For it is established that the Getae, or Dacians, worshipped a certain mountain as if it were a deity. Strabo, book 8: "Among the Getae the priest was named god, and the mountain was held sacred, and they call it so." Among the Getae the priest is called god, and the mountain is considered sacred and is so named; and the learned think that Statius celebrates the "sworn summit" because the Dacians, when about to wage war, assembled on that mountain and bound themselves by oath: although Strabo's mountain may have been held sacred only because the priest dwelt on it, who was called "god", after the example taken from Zamolxis, and because that cavernous place was inaccessible to all others except the king and his servants, as we read in the same author; and this rules out the Dacians binding themselves by an oath; and perhaps the word hieron ought to be translated "temple", in the way that Maximus of Tyre, dissertation 38, writes that Mount Atlas was held by the inhabitants of Libya to be a hieron, a god, an oath and an image; that is, a temple, a god, an oath and a likeness. Be that as it may, either gods that are mountains or gods of the mountains are to be understood in Lactantius. But when I call this superstition to mind, I cannot help first grieving for the human race, that it could venerate as deities masses arranged indeed, but nevertheless rude and shapeless, and that it showed the same honour to shapeless stones and whitewashed stakes and columns which bore no human figure about them. On account of the likeness of the subject, I shall on this occasion add what I have noted on the matter, though it is rather long and not all of it is new, so that this foul and insane superstition may lie open most clearly to the eyes of all. That STONES, then, or ROCKS, were worshipped by the heathen with divine honour, that is, anointed, garlanded and adored, is established from Arnobius, book 2: "If ever I had seen ribbons painted on aged trees, or a stone made slippery and smeared with olive oil, I would fawn on it as though a present power were in it, I would address it, and I would ask benefits of a log that felt nothing"; where the commentators may be consulted. Lucian in the Pseudomantis notes that Rutilianus, whenever he had caught sight of a stone anointed or garlanded, at once fell on his knees, adored it, made vows and asked it for prosperity. And I think that men eminent in learning truly note that superstitious men imitated Jacob pouring ointment on the stone at Bethel, Genesis 28, who nevertheless, as Augustine bears witness, did not pour oil on the stone after the manner of idolatry, as though making it a god, nor did he adore that stone, nor sacrifice to it. Certainly the Arabs bordering on Palestine worshipped a stone as a god. Maximus of Tyre, Dissertation 38: "The Arabians worship one whom I do not know; but the image which I saw was a square stone." Among the same people, with blood which those striking a treaty drew with a sharp flint from their larger fingers, or thumbs, seven stones placed in the middle were anointed, and Bacchus and Urania were invoked, as Herodotus bears witness, 3, 8. Now the god whom they worshipped in the form of a stone was, as I suppose, Bacchus, called by another name Deusares. For Suidas is not to be heeded, who changes it into Theus, that is, Theos Ares, as was observed by the illustrious Bochart: but nevertheless he rightly describes his image: "The image is a black square stone, unshaped, having no figure, four feet high, two feet broad, set upon a golden base." Thus in Tertullian, in the Apology, the god of Arabia is said to be Dysares; and in Hesychius we read "Dusares, Dionysus, among the Nabataeans": indeed Stephanus too writes that Dusare is a crag and the highest peak of Arabia, and takes its name from Dusares, who was worshipped as a god by the Arabs. The most distinguished Vossius, On the Idolatry of the Gentiles 6, 39, thinks that the square stone by Maximus of Tyre

cited was the summit, or peak, of a lofty place, which the Arabs worshipped as a deity; because Stephanus calls it a "crag and peak", and presently adds that the same writer, or Hermolaus, clearly relates that the ridge, that is, the highest place in Arabia, was called Dusares, and was held as a deity by the Arabs as well as by the Dacharenes: in noting which things the very learned man suffers something human. For Stephanus relates only that the summit, or crag, of Dusares has its name from the god Dysares, and that his image was not a mountain but a squared stone, as we have been taught from Suidas. And it is of this deity of the Arabs that Porphyrius seems to need to be explained, book 2 On Abstinence: "And the Dumatii of Arabia every year sacrificed a boy, whom they buried beneath an altar which they use as a cult image." The Dumatii too, a people of Arabia, sacrificed a boy every year, whom they buried beneath an altar, which they used in place of an image; for since the god of the Arabs was a squared stone, as Maximus of Tyre and Suidas attest, since very many altars are of that shape, and since that altar served the Arabs in place of an image, I certainly see no reason why Porphyrius cannot be explained in this way. This superstition, moreover, seems to have passed also to the Saracens, although the stone which they worshipped had the outlines of a head, if anyone inspected it more carefully, as Euthymius Zygabenus attests in the Panoplia edited by Sylburg. Indeed even today the Mohammedans, in a small temple which they tell the fable was founded by Adam after he was driven out of paradise, and in which Abraham, Ishmael and Mahomet made their prayers, if we follow them, worship and kiss the stone Al-hajar Al-Aswad, which they call Brachtan, and which they idly tell that Gabriel carried from paradise to Abraham, and that at first it was whiter than snow and milk and bright like the sun, but was made black on account of the sins of men, as Chevraeus teaches in his History of the World. And I do not know whether Antoninus Martyr speaks of this stone in his Itinerary: "On part of that very mountain the Saracens have their idol set up, of marble, which is white as snow; there a priest remains, clothed in a dalmatic and a linen mantle. And when the time of their festival comes, as the moon runs its course, before the priest enters for their feast day, that marble begins to change colour; and while they worship the idol, that marble becomes black as pitch; and when the time of the festival is completed, it returns to its former colour, at which we too marvelled greatly"; as those words are cited by others. And just as the Arabs, or Ishmaelites, imitated the patriarchs badly, so the Phoenicians consecrated stones, which they called Baetulia, or Baetuli, as Damascius attests in Photius; and the Greeks gave the same name to the stone which Rhea is feigned to have given Saturn to devour in place of Jupiter, as Selden, Vossius, Bochart, Salmasius and Reinesius have taught from Hesychius, Priscian and others: looking to which story Lycophron in the Cassandra, p. 70, calls Jupiter "greatest discus", that is, greatest stone; for as Tretzes notes, "He calls Zeus a discus on account of the stone which was swaddled by Rhea in place of Zeus and swallowed down by Cronus." Moreover, divine stones occur in Lampridius, Heliogabalus, ch. 8: "He wished to bring the stones which are called divine from the very temple of Diana of Laodicea, out of its sanctuary, in which Orestes had placed it." Salmasius judges that the divine stones were in the sanctuary of the Laodicean Diana; and Casaubon notes that that most famous image carried off from Tauris by Orestes and Iphigenia is called the divine stones. Rubenius, book 2 of the Electa, ch. 31, understands the divine brothers, that is, the Castors, whose temple Domitian restored; but at the same time he admits that his mind is in suspense and that the matter needs further deliberation; and he ends the sense after the word templo, and inserts the word simulacrum after Laodiceae. Certainly these stones cannot have been in the sanctuary of Diana, nor have they anything in common with that goddess's statue, nor can they in any way be referred to the Castors; because a temple of their own is expressly assigned to the divine stones, and because Lampridius is treating of new gods which Heliogabalus wished to transfer to Rome from other cities. Noticing this, Tristanus, vol. 2, p. 324, judges the divine stones

that they were none other than the thirty stones, of square shape, which stood at Pharae in Achaea around the statue of Mercury, and on each of which the name of a god had been placed, as Pausanias witnesses, book 7. But what prevents me from embracing this explanation too is the temple of their own in which the divine stones were placed. Tristan does indeed assign a temple to these stones on the authority of Pausanias; but I find nothing of the kind in him, since he only relates that at Pharae there is water sacred to Mercury, that the spring is named Hama, that the inhabitants spare the fish because they consider them sacred to the god, and that near the very statue of that god about thirty stones of square shape are placed. What then? I think these stones are to be sought in the East and in Syria; and, whether you write "divine stones" or, with the illustrious Salmasius, "living" ones, that the Baetyls must be understood, which the Greeks not only called "ensouled stones", but about which they also told many marvels, as may be seen in Photius on Damascius, and for which in the East, the homeland of Heliogabalus, somewhere, and perhaps at Hierapolis, a temple of their own had been built. And that the word "statue" or "image" has dropped out or is to be understood (as Obrecht thinks) is clear enough from the relative "it", which otherwise cannot conveniently be referred to anything preceding; so that in my opinion the words of Lampridius should be punctuated thus: "The stones which are called divine [he wished to bring] from their own temple, [the statue] of Diana of Laodicea from its shrine, in which Orestes had placed it, he wished to bring." But to proceed, it must be carefully observed that Dio Chrysostom, oration 12, notes in express words that many of the barbarians, through poverty or because they did not know the art of sculpture, considered mountains to be gods, "and untouched trees, and unmarked stones", that is, shapeless stones; and that Pausanias writes in the Achaica that it was customary of old among the Greeks to pay "the honours of the gods" to "unwrought stones", rough stones, "instead of statues"; and that the same author notes in the Corinthiaca that before the temple of the Lycean Diana there lies "a stone called sacred", upon which nine men of the Troezenians purified Orestes from his mother's slaughter. Pliny moreover, 2.58, records that in the gymnasium of Abydos a stone was venerated in his time, small indeed, but one which Anaxagoras had foretold would fall in the middle of the earth (from the sun, namely); that another is venerated at Cassandria, which was called Potidaea; and that Anaxagoras on another occasion again foretold that a rock would fall from the sun; and that this happened in the daytime in a part of Thrace at the river Aegos, and that this stone was shown, of the size of a cartload, of a scorched colour. Since, therefore, such things are reported of Anaxagoras, it is in no way surprising that Ammianus Marcellinus, 22.16, writes that he foretold that stones would fall from heaven; and I wonder that the words of Pliny did not occur to the most learned commentator, who writes that Philostratus and Tzetzes agree with Ammianus, but that all the others relate that Anaxagoras foretold that only one stone would fall. For he foretold it twice, and those who write that the philosopher foretold that stones would fall could have joined the two stories, or the two fables; or, if they were persuaded that it happened once, they could have used the plural number for the singular, by a very common manner of speaking: just as Ammianus also, in chapter 8 of the same book, relates that Anaxagoras at Aegospotami foretold that stones would fall from heaven, which nevertheless was only one. There presents itself besides the mother of the gods, who Livy, 29.11, writes was a sacred stone, and who, Arnobius records in his fifth book, was formed out of a rock of utterly unheard-of vastness, named Agdus, in the borders of Phrygia, along with the stones thrown by Pyrrha and Deucalion into a world empty of mortals, and was animated by divine power. The mountain, therefore, to which the Mountain goddess, or "mountain deity", that is, Rhea, owes her origin, was called Agdus; and Reinesius, in Variae Lectiones 17, thinks this word should be restored in Isidore, in whose Glosses is written Agadir, or, as Vulcanius edited, "abadir stone". The most learned man rightly indeed rebukes Barth, who seeks this stone in Germany; but he wrongly thinks that Agdir, Agadir, or, if Arnobius is uncorrupted, Agdus is a stone, and likewise that the goddess worshipped in the image of a great black stone was the one brought across from Phrygia to Rome

For Agdus was not a stone but a rock, or a mountain of unheard-of vastness; next, Abdir, Abadir, Abaddir is a baetyl stone (βαίτυλος), as the learned have noted from Priscian, who speaks thus in book 1: "Abdir, a kind of stone"; in book 5: "Abadir is a god: by this name is also called that stone which Saturn is said to have devoured in place of Jupiter, which the Greeks call Baetylus"; in book 6: "Abdir also, and Abaddir, the baetyl, genitive Abaddiridis." Moreover, the stone that was believed to be the Mother of the gods seems to have had the features of a woman's face; and Zygabenus also attributes these to the stone of the Saracens. Prudentius, Hymn 10, line 155:

The little black stone, to be carried forth on a chariot, / sits enclosed in silver, with a woman's face:

unless the poet's meaning is that the silver case in which that stone was enclosed bore a woman's face, so that the stone was enclosed in silver of womanly face; which I ask those more learned to examine. The god Alagabalus was also a stone, and Herodian, book 5, makes him "a very large stone, rounded below and ending in a point"; and he adds that its shape was conical and its colour black, that certain projections and forms or figures were shown on the stone, that it was an image of the sun not wrought by human art, and finally that it had fallen from heaven. This god is seen on a coin of Heliogabalus, and the stone is marked by an eagle and three stars, in the illustrious Spanheim on Julian's Caesars. Moreover, on coins of the Seleucians of Pieria in Syria, which were struck in honour of Trajan, a mountain is represented whose summit has an opening, or a stone set in the middle of a temple, with the inscription ΖΕΥϹ ΚΑϹΙΟϹ: whence men eminent in learning judge, not without reason, that Jupiter Casius is shown, or that this mountain was believed to be Jupiter Casius, since it "rises aloft in a smooth circuit", as Ammianus Marcellinus testifies, 22, 14, just as it is shown on the coin. On a coin of Philip the father there is likewise seen a temple, and in its middle a rock or mountain, with the inscription ΚΑΙ ΤΗΣ ἈΡΤΕΜΙΔΟΣ ΠΕΡΓΑΙΑΣ; which is no empty indication that that rock or mountain was worshipped with special honour and was sacred to Diana. On another coin, of Caracalla, a stone, round and ending in a point, occupies the middle of a temple, with the inscription ΚΟΙΝ. ΔΕΙΗΩΝ; which Harduin thinks stands for Διήων and refers to Dium, a city of the Decapolis region in Syria, which Pliny and Stephanus mention, but Tristan and Holstenius refer it to Dia, a city of Arabia; and they think Venus is represented, who they teach, from Clement of Alexandria, Maximus of Tyre, Arnobius, Dio Chrysostom and Pausanias, was worshipped in that form. But Clement, Maximus of Tyre, Arnobius and Dio do not name Venus; they speak only of a stone, a square stone, or a shapeless stone; and they may have had in view the square stone worshipped by the Arabs, which I remember having treated before. Tristan perhaps saw this too; and to prove that this stone is Venus Urania, he adds that Pausanias, book 1, relates that at Athens there was a temple dedicated to Venus Urania, whom they held to be the eldest of the Fates, "in which there was a stone made in the form of a Herm, or boundary-stone, whose inscription showed that it was the effigy of Venus Urania." The Greek runs thus: "a square image of Urania, in the same manner as the Herms"; in which words I find no pointed stone, but a square statue of Venus after the fashion of the Herms, that is, that it had a head and the rest of the body was square, without arms, etc., as Herms used to be made. To this certainly belongs the Paphian Venus, whose image, as Tacitus testifies in the Histories, is "not in human likeness, but a continuous round mass, broader at the base, rising to a slender circuit in the manner of a turning-post, and the reason is obscure"; and whose statue, Maximus of Tyre writes, diss. 38, could be likened to nothing else than "a white pyramid", such as is seen on a coin of Drusus in Patin, of Trajan in Tristan, and on others in Jacques Gutherius, 3, 5, On Pontifical Law, who wrongly refers these coins to the Paphian Diana. In the same place a learned man corrects the words of Lampridius cited a little before

thus: "He wished to carry off from the very temple of Lycean Diana that [one] of Laodicea, from its sanctuary, into which Orestes had placed it"; and he understands the stone which, on the testimony of Pausanias, lay before the temple of Lycean Diana and was called sacred; and he adds that the Laodiceans obtained from Seleucus the image of Diana carried away from Brauron, and that this was the statue of the goddess which Orestes and Iphigenia had once taken away from the Taurian land. But in the first place, the divine or living stones are one thing; the stone lying at Troezen before the temple of Lycean Diana is another: the former had their own temple; this one, on the other hand, was placed not even in a temple, but before the temple of another deity. Next, Pausanias does not teach that the statue of Diana which was carried off from Brauron into Persia, and was given by Seleucus to the Laodiceans of Syria, is the Taurian Diana; on the contrary, in book 3 he refutes this with various arguments, and teaches that the image of Diana Orthia, which was worshipped in Limnaeum, in the Laconian territory, is rather the one which had been taken from the barbarians by Orestes and Iphigenia. Nor again do I approve of what Gutherius adds, that the image was of the ancient workmanship of that Praxiteles who was held to be successful and famous in marble. For since Praxiteles lived in the time of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, he certainly could not have made the image of the Taurian Diana; and Pausanias writes in the Attica that at Brauron there is a shrine of Brauronian Diana, and an image, the work of Praxiteles; but he adds: "and the ancient wooden image is at Brauron, Artemis, as they say, the Taurian": whence it is clear that another, far older statue of the Taurian Diana was there; and since the learned man did not distinguish this, he fell into error. But to continue: Selden observes, from Suidas and Hesychius, that the statue of Apollo Agyieus is a stone with a circular base, ending in a cone; but they, no differently from Harpocration, the scholiast of Aristophanes, Stephanus, the author of the Etymologicum Magnum and Eustathius, p. 166, hand down with one voice that the Agyieus is an altar before the doors "in the shape of a pillar", or "a pillar ending in a point, which they set up before the doors", or "a cone-shaped pillar" sacred to Apollo, or to Bacchus, or to both; and at the same time it is clear from them that Apollo was called Agyiates and Agyieus, that is, Ephodios, or guardian of the roads; but I have not yet been able to learn from those authors that Apollo was worshipped in such a form; rather, Macrobius, Saturnalia 1, 9, plainly hands down the contrary: "For, as Nigidius also relates, among the Greeks Apollo is worshipped who is called Thyraios; and they frequent his altars before their doors, showing him to be powerful over going out and coming in. The same Apollo is among them also named Agyistys, as one set over the streets of the city. For they call the streets which are within the pomerium agyiai"; for Apollo is expressly distinguished from the altar. Pausanias moreover, book 1, in the Megarian section, writes that there is a stone "having the shape of a small pyramid", and that it was named Apollo Karinos; and in the Corinthian section he mentions images of Zeus Meilichios and of Diana Patroa made with no art, "the former like a pyramid, the latter like a column", or pillar. Thus the author of the Phoronis, in Clement of Alexandria, names the statue of Argive Juno a kion, or column, for no other reason, as Scaliger notes on Eusebius. Bacchus, on the testimony of the same Clement, was also worshipped in the form of a column; which Dickinson, chapter 10 of the Delphi Phoenicizantes, refers to the column which in the Old Covenant shone before Moses, from whom they made Bacchus, and before the Israelites; and not without reason the same Clement records that formerly columns were worshipped in place of images: "Before the forms of statues were perfected, then, the ancients set up pillars and revered them as representations of the god." And to this could also be referred the disc which, as I show in the Harpocrates, the Paeonians worshipped in place of the sun; to this the Penates of Lavinium, whose form and figure Timaeus, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, book 1, writes to be "heralds' staffs of iron and bronze, and Trojan earthenware", iron and bronze caducei, and a Trojan clay vessel: unless one prefers to render keramon as "lamp", with Baudelot de Dairval, volume 1, p. 199; and to this finally belongs the idol of the Saxons, Irminsul, of which Meibom treated in a special book. Now this worship of shapeless stones or rocks lasted a long time, and even the Christian common people in the villages were infected with it.

Ivo of Chartres, part 2, chapter 38, reports a canon of the council of Nantes, by which the stones that they venerate in ruinous and wooded places are ordered to be dug up from their foundations; and in chapter 57, a canon of the council of Agde, by which it is decreed that inquiry must be made whether anyone makes vows to trees, or to springs, or to certain stones as though to altars. And from these things I think it is more than sufficiently clear that the Greeks, the Syrians and other peoples worshipped shapeless stones as gods. Now it must be examined whether the people of Romulus, the toga-wearing race, also advanced to this madness. That they worshipped the Mother of the gods and Elagabalus, as also that they anointed stones, is well known; but my aim is to examine whether they venerated some ancestral deity in that form. Certainly Tristan, vol. 1, p. 427, notes that Jupiter was called epakrios, not only because he was worshipped on the summits of mountains, but because the mountain or rock was thought to be Jupiter himself, who in fact was the Jupiter surnamed Lapis [Stone] mentioned by Cicero, and other celebrated antiquaries follow in his footsteps. But the very ancient Roman rite, as Apuleius calls it, of swearing by Jupiter Lapis, or the most sacred oath, as Gellius 1, 21 calls it, has no bearing here. For, as Turnebus and Sanctius have shown from Festus and Polybius, the expression is elliptical; and those who swore by that rite held a flint stone, saying these words: If I knowingly deceive, then may Diespiter, the city and citadel being kept safe, cast me out from my goods, as I [cast] this stone; whence it is clear that Jupiter was not worshipped by the Romans in the form of a stone. Yet they did pay honour to shapeless stones; as to the manalis stone, or the rock which was, as Festus teaches, outside the Capena gate near the temple of Mars, and when they dragged it into the city on account of excessive drought, rain immediately followed, and because it made waters flow they called it the manalis stone. And as the stone which fell from the sun, as Anaxagoras foretold, was worshipped, so in the Crustumine territory, as Livy 41, 9 attests, a stone which fell into the grove of Mars was held sacred; if indeed he is speaking of the same one, and not of another, in chapter 13: That in the Crustumine territory a sangualis bird (as they call it) struck a sacred stone with its beak. But to turn to another part, it should be noted that the gentiles also worshipped bare stakes as gods; to this belong the spears, about which I treated in connection with the Apotheosis of Homer. The image also of the Ephesian Diana, when it first fell from heaven, or was consecrated by the Amazons, was a sharpened trunk of elm, as Scaliger notes on Eusebius: and if this is true (for Petit thinks otherwise, in chapter 30 of his most polished book On the Amazons), Pierre Faber, 1, Sem. 3, writes not cautiously enough that the image of Diana was consecrated by the Amazons in the ancient and customary figure of a huntress; and equally badly he tries to show that the Ephesian Diana was not built up with many breasts and spits: which, however, is so clear that it does not even need proof. But, to return to the matter, we must hear Arnobius, book 6, Against the Gentiles: You laugh that in ancient times the Persians worshipped a river, as memorial writings show, the Arabs a shapeless stone, the nations of Scythia a scimitar, the Thespians a branch in place of Cinxia, the Icarians (others read Caryos, and understand Carya, or the Caryatid Diana worshipped by the Laconians) an unhewn log in place of Diana, the Pessinuntians a flint in place of the Mother of the gods, the Romans a spear in place of Mars, as the Muses of Varro show; and, as Aethlius records, before the use and craft of image-makers, the Samians a plank in place of Juno; and do you refrain from laughter when, in place of immortal gods, you supplicate little figurines of men and human forms? These words set this old-womanish superstition most clearly before our eyes. Thus Clement of Alexandria calls the image of Cinxia or of Juno a hewn-off stump; that of Diana, unworked wood; that of Juno, a plank, as has been observed by the learned; nor does Callimachus, in Eusebius, Praep. 3, 8, describe either the Samian Juno or the Lindian Minerva otherwise, as Vossius learnedly teaches on Catullus. Of statues of this kind Tertullian, Ad Nat. 1, 12, speaks elegantly: If there is any difference in this, when Attic Pallas and Pharian Ceres, which without form, with a rough pole, are distinguished from the stake of a cross (for so, with Étienne le Moyne, a most learned man,

should be read) and is represented only by a little statue of shapeless wood. By "the upright of the cross" he means the upright wood of the cross, which Justin calls ὄρθιον ξύλον; and wrongly does Lipsius conclude from this that the cross at one time consisted of an upright piece of wood alone, since the sense is that the Gentiles ought not to wonder that the cross is held in esteem by Christians, when they themselves, under the form of a post, or of a little statue, and indeed of an upright stake, which makes up part of a cross, worship Pallas at Athens and Ceres or Isis in Egypt. Whence in the same chapter Tertull. had said: "The quality of the cross: it is a sign made of wood; you too worship [a thing] of the material, with an effigy, among yourselves. Yet just as yours has a human figure, so ours too has its own proper one: let the lineaments be as they may, so long as the quality is one; let the form be as it may, so long as it is the very body of God." The most learned Gothofredus thinks that by these words the perplexity of those who inquire whether in Tertullian's time an image of the crucified was added to the cross can be settled; and he adds that Tertullian openly sets this distinction between the crosses of the nations and those of the Christians, namely that the former were with a human effigy, the latter with their own proper figure, not a human effigy, not human lineaments, but ἀπεγλαισμένας, bare of any image: what these words are meant to signify I scarcely grasp. For that the heathen worshipped any of their gods fixed to a cross, or held a cross in honour (others will perhaps except the Egyptians, among whose hieroglyphic signs a figure like a cross appears), I do not think is to be found in the Fathers or in anyone else: nor certainly is that Tertullian's meaning; rather he argues thus: that the cross of the Christians is a sign made of wood; that the gentiles also worship what is of material, that is, made of wood: and that thus the quality of both is the same; that the wooden objects of the gentiles indeed represent human figures, that is, are statues: but that the cross also has a figure, not human, but its own and proper; to which pertains what Minucius Felix writes in the Octavius: "Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You certainly, who consecrate wooden gods, perhaps adore wooden crosses as parts of your gods." Thence Tertullian adds that no account is to be taken of lineaments, nor are statues to be preferred to the cross, since they are of wood; and he subjoins that, if we grant there is a difference here, yet the Attic Pallas differs in nothing from the upright post of the cross; whether she was the one which, as Eusebius relates in the passage cited, the Autochthones set up from wood, I do not know. This superstition, moreover, was frequent in the fields, in which Terminus was worshipped in the form of a stone or of a post. The former Prudent. teaches us, Against Symmachus 2, 1005:

We enjoy both the yield of the countryside, and in the method of cultivating

it does not shame us to exercise our hands; and if a stone there

stood from of old, which error had been accustomed to gird

with little bands, or to entreat with the lung of a hen,

it is broken, and Terminus is profaned by no entrails.

The latter, however, together [with the former], Ovid, Fasti 2:

Terminus, whether you are a stone, or whether you are a post sunk in the field,

you too have divinity from the ancients.

Tibullus 1, 1 calls it a "deserted post" (which some emend and others explain, as may be seen in Scal. on Varro, On Agriculture 1, Barth, Adversaria 4, 2, Voss. 2, 7, 21, Harm., Evan., Giphan. in the Index to Lucretius, Jac. Loensis, Miscellanea 2, 18, and the commentators on the poet) and a "hewn post", Prudent., in the Hymn of the martyr Romanus. Such a post they called a delubrum. Festus: "They called delubrum a club stripped, that is, one with its bark removed, which they venerated as a god." The most learned Vossius thinks the last words are Paul's, who everywhere aims at this, that he may not seem to favour the religion of the Gentiles; and although I am by no means averse to that opinion, yet I think I can raise some doubts. For since delubrum is not used except of a sacred thing or a religious place, Festus would have said nothing unless he had added the last words; and every club stripped of bark, every post fixed in any place whatever for any reason whatever, would be a delubrum. Massurius Sabinus in Servius on Aeneid 2, 225, interprets delubrum as an effigy, from the stripping of the bark, because the ancients, having drawn off the bark, used to shape the branches of fruitful trees into the effigy of the gods. Servius himself, on book 4, notes that an image is called delubrum from liber [bark], that is

made of shaved wood, which in Greek is called xoanon; and some in Asconius at last plainly side with Festus (for the passages of Servius can also be explained as concerning statues). There are also those who think that delubra were stripped pieces of wood, that is, pieces with the bark removed, set up in place of images of the gods after the manner of the ancients: but wrongly; and where he says "after the manner of the ancients", Festus seems to express it by "they venerated". Hence in the Glosses Delubrum is explained as kathidryma, xoanon, anathema, and elsewhere xoanon, delubrum. To this superstition there also belongs the spear worshipped by the Romans in place of Mars, as Arnobius and Plutarch witness; and I wonder whether Servius on Aen. 2:325 should be explained from this: "Which penates, however, some hold to be Apollo and Neptune; others say they are Astatae, and set up in the Regia." For one should read either Hastatos, the way Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes the Penates, or Hastas, and positas; and the Spears of Mars are to be understood, which Julius Obsequens attests were placed in the Regia. And this will indeed be enough to illustrate the foul superstition and to illustrate some passages of the authors; and I hope that the fair reader will take this, such as it is, in good part.

A worshipper of the gods. So Statius, Silvae 5.1.193, calls Priscilla "the special worshipper of Caesar"; and in inscriptions in Gruter there occur Worshippers of Hercules, of Jupiter, of the Lares and of other gods, who indicate that they venerate those gods with particular devotion. That the gods were worshipped on the highest mountains, and that Jupiter was for this reason called Akraios, and that the same appears on a coin of the Smyrnaeans, I have shown on the Apotheosis; and I hope, reader, that it will be a most welcome thing to you if I share with you a quite elegant inscription, recently sent to me from Smyrna with other excellent ones, which preserves the memory of the same Jupiter:

From the water brought in to Zeus Akraios, under Ulpius Traianus the proconsul, in the generalships of the Marci Junii, son and father.

To the Milesian Apollo. The fame of this oracle seems to have been great at that time. Thus Licinius, when about to make war against Constantine, consulted, as Sozomen witnesses, book 1, chapter 7, the oracle of the Didymaean Apollo at Miletus; which the author of the Tripartite History translates thus: "They say that he then tried the divination of Miletus and of the Twin Apollo." For the rest, from this and from Ammianus Marcellinus, who at 14.6 relates that Serenianus sent a close friend of his to the prophetic temple, and from other authors, it is clear that the oracles had not yet entirely fallen silent at that period; or that the frauds of the priests had not yet become plain to the eyes of all.

Chapter XII.

A suitable and fortunate day. That is, one which would not be forbidden, black, or unlucky for transacting business. It is very well known that the Gentiles did nothing on forbidden, ill-omened or Egyptian days, but that if they wished to undertake anything they chose convenient and fortunate days; on which matter I could bring forward some things, and those by no means commonplace, if that were the business in hand.

On the seventh day before the Kalends of March. I would not point out a very commonplace matter, namely that it should be written with the letters separated, a. d., that is, ante diem, did I not see that the same fault also remains in chapters 17 and 44. But how varied the opinions are on the beginning of the Diocletianic persecution, see in Welser in the notes on the conversion of St Afra.

As if a boundary. Sacrifices too were made to Terminus in the month of February, which in ancient times was held to be the last of the year. Ovid, Fasti 2:47:

But lest you go astray, ignorant of the ancient order: / the month of Janus was first even before, as it is now. / The one that follows Janus was the last of the old year: / you too, Terminus, were the end of the sacred rites.

And indeed Ovid seems to indicate that after the Terminalia, or the rites performed to Terminus, no further day was kept as a festival to any god in that year. In the calendars certainly, after the Terminalia there are recorded no

festivals, except those that were introduced after those first times of which Ovid speaks. Yet I do not think that the last five days of February were sacred to Terminus; for if that were true, five, or rather six, days would have been dedicated to Terminus. Indeed Dionysius of Halicarnassus too assigns a fixed day, or "appointed day", to the Terminalia, book 2, page 133; and Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.13, writes that the Romans intercalated not when February was completed, but after its twenty-third day, that is, when the Terminalia had already been celebrated, and then added the remaining days of February, which were five, after the intercalation. And by a certain fiction the day of the Terminalia was held to be the last day of the year. Varro, On the Latin Language, book 5: "Terminalia, because this day was established as the last of the year. For the twelfth month was February; and when there is intercalation, the last five days are taken away from the twelfth month": so that these five days, together with the intercalary days, were not counted as part of February.

Profectus ("having set out"). Columbus very rightly judges that praefectus ("the prefect") should be written; for the emperor did not go to the church along with them, as is plain from what follows, "but they themselves on the watch-towers"; and that the praetorian prefect is to be understood is evident from the generals and tribunes who accompanied him, and also from the fact that the praetorian soldiers demolished the temple.

Acie strunta ("with the line drawn up"). Either instructa should be read, or else, just as they used strumentum for instrumentum, as Du Cange teaches in his Glossary, so they also put struere for instruere. But Virgil too said struere aciem somewhere, if I remember rightly.

Fanum illud editissimum ("that very lofty sanctuary"). In the beginning the Christians gathered in private houses to worship our Lord Jesus Christ, as is more than sufficiently plain from the New Testament, in which Paul too, in the last chapter of 1 Corinthians, commends the church "and house of Aquila and Priscilla". But afterwards, since the emperors or the heathen magistrates did not forbid it, on account of the multitude which daily gave its name to Christ, they built in individual cities spacious and large houses, as is evident from Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 8, chapter 1, and also from this passage of Lactantius, in which the church is called "very lofty", that is, a building. As for his saying a little before that "many large houses surrounded the church on every side", it seems it should be interpreted thus: that the church was surrounded on all sides by the houses of private persons, so that it could not be seen by those walking through the streets; which was without doubt done to avoid the ill-will of the gentiles; just as even today we see older monasteries surrounded on all sides by houses, so that their size cannot be seen.

Chapter XIII.

Tormentis subjecti essent ("they should be subjected to torture"). For, as is evident from Roman law, not all could be tortured indiscriminately: hence in chapter 21 too he notes, as an unusual thing, that "decurions and leading men of the cities, men of eminent and most perfect rank", were tortured.

Omnis actio caleret ("every action should be hot"). I do not reject it, since Cicero said "trials are hot", "to be hot in pleading", and "a charge is hot"; but nevertheless valeret ("should be valid") pleases me greatly, as the jurists speak.

Libertatem denique ac vocem non haberent ("finally, they should have no liberty or voice"). That is, they could not bring action concerning injury, adulteries and other outrages, nor complain before a judge. Nor do I think that Lactantius has in view the liberty of slaves, as Baluze judges. I now judge that Eusebius was indeed rightly interpreted by Rufinus; for "those in households" are without doubt slaves; and those who are elsewhere called by Eusebius "those in the imperial households" are certainly none other than the servants of the emperors, who were in the household, in the palace, and who serve, although they are not slaves properly so called.

Victorias Gothorum et Sarmatarum ("victories over the Goths and Sarmatians"). Whom, that is, they had conquered: hence on coins of Diocletian and Maximian there occurs VICTORIA SARMATICA; and that the Goths were conquered by them is plain from the Genethliacus of Mamertinus. That Christian, then, means to indicate that the emperors ought to take a title for themselves from the Christians they had crushed, as from the Goths they were called Gothici, and from the conquered Sarmatians Sarmatici. And although Eusebius seems to praise

this man, I nevertheless judge that Lactantius thinks better, who writes that this was not rightly done.

Cooked in due form. Gallonius and Sagittarius, in their works On the Tortures of the Martyrs, give no notice about those "cooked in due form". I now think that he was first cooked over a slow fire, such as meat used to be roasted on, and then burnt up; that Galerius raged against the Christians in this way is plain from chap. 21, where among other things one reads, "the whole skin having been cooked off over a great part of the day"; and also from Eusebius 8, 6, who says pointedly that a certain Peter was roasted on the fire like meats that are prepared for food, or, as Lactantius puts it, was cooked. And so certainly "in due form" can be conveniently explained with Columbus: although I would not oppose those either who expound it as "according to the laws which the Augusti had passed"; in the way that "lawful oil" in Petronius is the oil with which wrestlers were drenched according to the law and custom of the palaestra, as Gronovius, a most learned man, has taught on Statius.

Chapter XIV.

By secret agents. Perhaps it is put for "through secret agents"; or else the agents and household servants of Diocletian are to be understood, without whose knowledge and without their noticing he had the palace set on fire.

Two emperors. But only one was emperor, the other was Caesar: which must be carefully noted, because this manner of speaking occurs in other writers too, and because Eusebius likewise calls them βασιλέας (kings). Otherwise Lactantius rightly distinguishes these, chap. 18, where Diocletian addresses Galerius Maximinianus, who was Caesar: "But if he desired to obtain the name of emperor, there was nothing in the way of all being called Augusti."

All his own. That is, the courtiers who served him: in chap. 15 he calls them "household servants". It should be observed, moreover, that there were many in the palace who had given their name to Christ; and that our Lord granted this favour to the courtiers of the cruellest persecutors, and even to those nearest them. Thus St Paul at the end of the Epistle to the Philippians mentions "the saints, those of Caesar's household"; and most worthy of note are the words of Eusebius, book 8, chap. 1 of the Church History: "A proof of this may be the kindness of the emperors towards our people, to whom they even entrusted the governing of provinces, freeing them from all fear of sacrificing on account of the singular goodwill with which they were disposed towards our religion. What need is there to speak of those who lived in the emperors' palaces? What of the emperors themselves, who gave their household servants, and their wives, children and slaves, the power of freely carrying out in their own presence, in word as well as deed, the things that belonged to their religion, permitting them to glory on account of this freedom of their faith, and in a manner to show themselves off." And so the same writer, 7, 10, writes that Valerian at the outset embraced the Christians most warmly, and that his whole house was full of θεοσεβῶν (God-fearing people), so that it seemed to be an ἐκκλησία θεοῦ (church of God).

Chapter XV.

He compelled them to be polluted by sacrifice. What I think about this passage I explain at chap. 1.

Through whom the palace. That is, those who had the greatest authority with the emperor; of which the Augustan History furnishes plenty of examples; and so "formerly" is not to be taken of a long interval of time, but of a short one, namely that by which it preceded the edict.

Presbyters and ministers. That is, presbyters and deacons. Isidore in Gratian: "These (Levites) are called deacons in Greek, ministers in Latin." Canon 18 of the Council of Elvira deals with "priests and ministers, if they have committed adultery". Canon 33, "on bishops and ministers, that they abstain from their wives": on which matter more can be seen in Caspar Ziegler, in his book On the Deacons and Deaconesses of the Ancient Church, and in du Cange in his Glossary. Sulpicius Severus 2, 43 uses this word in a general sense: "Indeed I would not pass over this example in silence, and I would gladly press it upon the MINISTERS of the churches to be read." But since there is mention of the Council of Elvira, there must be illustrated

by me, by the reader's good leave, Januarius, bishop of Sibaria, or, as others write from the manuscripts, of Salaria, who is mentioned in it. Mendoza attests that in the codex of the Church of Toledo there is read "Januarius of Fiblaria", and "Fibularia"; and he writes that this reading is not to be rashly rejected, since Pliny attests that Calagurris was called Fabularia by the ancients. I therefore judge that "Fibulariensis" ought to be written, because Luitprand, at number 226 of his Adversaria, expressly preserves that name: "In the gorge of the Fibularian pass is Fabularia, which the Moors call Xergal, an episcopal see. Thus at the Council of Illiberis, in the fourteenth place, Januarius, bishop of Fibularia, confirms: thus in certain codices." And hence it is evident either that the names of the bishops were placed in a different order in some codices, or that the number XIV must be changed to XVII, the place at which the name of that Januarius is listed in the printed editions. Gonzalez also cites this passage in his notes on that council, but he did not notice that it pertains to the Januarius who is mentioned; and he wrongly tries to prove from it that, beyond the bishops recorded, the bishop of Fibularia too was present at the council and subscribed to it.

With all their own. That is, their households, children, slaves; because there follows shortly, "and no less against the rest of the people."

The prisons were full. It is to be noted first of all that Eusebius, book 8, chapter 6, writes that at the beginning of the persecution countless Christians were put to death, but that soon an edict was published that all the prelates of the churches should be bound and shut up in prisons, because some in Melitene, others in Syria, were seizing power, and that the prisons were filled with bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers and exorcists; that afterwards another edict was published, that whoever had sacrificed should go free, but whoever had refused to do so should be subjected to severe tortures. Valesius, from Libanius, noted that the man who seized power in Syria was called Eugenius; but it is a huge loss to history that we do not know what was done in Melitene, or Lesser Armenia; and would that Lactantius, who was able to know everything well, had come to the aid of this matter!

Lest to anyone rashly. That is, lest judges should perhaps give sentences in favour of Christians, which was forbidden by the laws, as is plain from chapter 13.

From the precepts of his elders... That is, of Diocletian and Herculius, who were Augusti, while he himself and Galerius were only Caesars: "of the superiors" you could say with Eusebius, book 9, chapter 1. And certainly Constantius greatly favoured the Christians; and in the Gauls, Britain and the neighbouring places it did not seem to be against the law for anyone to be a Christian, as Cassiodorus attests, book 1, chapter 7 of the Tripartite History. The petition of the Donatists presented to Constantine, in Optatus of Milevis: "Your father, among the other emperors, did not carry on persecution, and Gaul is free of this crime." For Gaul and Britain had fallen to Constantius. In Gaul he fought bravely near the Lingones and killed many Alamanni, as Eutropius witnesses, 9, 15, whence he is also said by Vopiscus, chapter 18 of the Carinus, to have restored Gaul to the Roman laws: where Casaubon certainly suffers something human when he notes that our Constantius conquered the Persians in war.

Chapter XVI.

The devil (Zabulus). Whom he calls the adversary shortly after, and in chapter 1, as I showed there. Now martyrs who bravely withstood torments were customarily said to conquer the devil, because he is the leader and commander of those who persecute the Church of Christ: to this pertain the visions narrated in the passions of Saints Perpetua and Felicity, of whom Perpetua, when she would not put on the dress of the women consecrated to Ceres, is said to have already trampled on the head of the Egyptian, that is, of the devil.

Not white horses, or huge elephants... That is, both formerly and then, white horses were yoked to the chariots of those celebrating triumphs. Ovid, Art [of Love], book 1:

You will go, golden, behind four snow-white horses.

Hence Claudian, Gothic War 5.127, assigns them snow-white four-horse chariots:

Who drove captive kings with snow-white four-horse chariots.

and Plautus, Asinaria 2.2.13, speaks of white four-horse chariots. The precedent comes from Camillus, on whom, however, this deed brought ill will, because he seemed to wish to imitate Jupiter and the sun, as Livy, the author of On Illustrious Men, Plutarch and others testify. Nor do I heed the most distinguished Freinshemius, who in his commentary on Florus and Curtius says that this did not bring ill will on Camillus, because white horses were among the customary features of a triumph. For afterwards this was indeed done; but the first precedent came from Camillus, and the unusual thing brought him ill will. Nor do I agree either with Plutarch when he relates that none of the following generals triumphed in this way, since the contrary can be proved from Roman history with little effort.

Not white horses. The precedent for these, as I have noted, comes from Camillus, of whom Livy speaks thus, 5.23: He himself was the chief object of all eyes, entering the city in a chariot drawn by white horses; and this seemed not merely unbecoming a citizen but even unbecoming a mortal. They even made it a matter of religious scruple that the dictator should be made equal to the horses of Jupiter and of the sun (the most distinguished Scheffer, book 1, chapter 18, On Vehicles, emends this to: should be made equal to Jupiter and the sun in his horses); and the triumph, chiefly for this one thing, was more illustrious than it was welcome; and in chapter 28: Camillus, distinguished for justice and good faith, with far better praise than when the horses had carried him in triumph through the city. That white victims were sacrificed to Jupiter Varro attests (not to call in the testimony of others) in Gellius 10.15, and Curtius 3.3 relates that among the Persians his chariot was drawn by white horses. And that horses of this colour were also customarily consecrated to the sun we learn from an elegant passage in Eratosthenes (whom, to note this in passing, the scholiast of Germanicus often follows closely), chapter 13 of the Catasterisms: This is Erichthonius, son of Vulcan and of Earth. Jupiter, they say, when he saw that he was the first among men to yoke horses to a chariot, admired him, because he made a driving that imitated that of the sun, yoking white horses; that is, because he had devised an image of the chariot of the Sun, yoking white horses; and the scholiast just cited refers this to the four-horse chariot: he first taught men to make chariots with horses yoked, like the four-horse chariot of the sun; and Hyginus also relates such things in the Poetic Astronomy.

The bogeys of tyrannical power: that is, terrors; so he has also spoken in chapter 47; and Lucilius in Lactantius, Institutes 1.21, if Barth on Statius 5.68 is to be believed:

Bogeys, Lamias, which Faunus and Numa Pompilius instituted

which he interprets as phantoms that struck terror into children or others. But in the printed editions the reading current is Terricolas Lamias, earth-dwelling Lamias; and the illustrious Huet, in the Evangelical Demonstration, emends it to Turricolas, tower-dwelling, because Tertullian spoke proverbially of the towers of Lamia and the combs of the Sun.

Hooks: these were iron instruments that resembled the claws of birds, whence also they received this name; with them men were torn, for the most part stretched on the rack; besides Gallonius, Magius and others, Ferrarius has treated of them, Electa 1, chapter 6. Prudentius puts it clearly, Hymn 5 of the Peristephanon, line 337:

He wanders with his kisses over the double furrows of the hooks.

He says double because two furrows were drawn at one stroke by one hook.

Chapter XVII.

The ninth consulship: Zosimus 2.7 writes that this fell in the hundred and first year after Severus had celebrated the Secular Games; and that the time at which they ought to have been celebrated fell in the third consulship of Constantine and Licinius; and that, these games having been neglected, the Roman empire was unfortunate. This passage should be carefully noted for its indication of the date.

Should go forth as consul: the proper term, as Baluze has shown; hence on a coin in Spanheim, dissertation 8, FELIX PROCESSUS COS. VI. AUG. or AUG. COS. VI; to which add Wilthem

on the Diptych of Liège, and Henr. Noris in his dissertation on the Decennial Vows. Now the emperors were accustomed, as soon as they entered upon imperial power, to assume the consulship: whence perhaps the CONS. on the coin of Aurelian denotes consul, although I may explain it otherwise on the Augustan gem; and on the same [coin] the sun can be called DOM. IMP. ROM., because Aurelian, on the testimony of Vopiscus, attended the sun with great reverence. And this explanation seems all the more to be embraced, because CONS. on coins sometimes denotes Consul. Sirmond, on ep. 12 of book 2 of Sidonius, comments thus: The front face shows the countenance of Valentinian, with the usual inscription: D. N. PLA. VALENTINIANUS P. F. AUG.; the other [shows] Maximus in senatorial dress sitting on a chair, with his scroll in the right hand and in the left a sceptre with an eagle, the name being inscribed on this side: PETRONIUS. MAXIMUS. O. C. CONS.; which coin Wilthem illustrates at length in the book cited. But this word is generally used when the emperors came out in public with pomp and on a solemn day: so in ch. 19, where he relates that Diocletian and Herculius laid down the imperial power and created new Augusti and Caesars: When these things had been settled, there is a procession on the Kalends of May. Moreover Diocletian entered his ninth consulship at Nicomedia, and Herculius his eighth at Rome; and Baluze observes that in the year 304 the latter was in Campania during the summer. And indeed he was at Nola, as I think I can affirm from the passion of St Felix: but after twelve days the praetorian prefect ordered him to sail after the emperors; and shortly afterwards: But fasting he came to Nola. For although the emperors are spoken of, and the prefect wished to send him to both, yet Felix was brought before Herculius alone, because Diocletian was staying at Nicomedia: and rightly the author of the passion, doubtless an ancient one, writes that the edict by which the Christians are ordered to be persecuted was promulgated when Diocletian for the eighth time and Maximian for the seventh were consuls, that is, in the year 303, and not 304, as is noted in the margin of the book, in which latter year Felix suffered the punishment of the sword. But a great difficulty arises, because Felix is said to have been beheaded on the 18th day before the Kalends of February, since in the year 304 Herculius was still at Rome in that month, and there in April entered the twentieth year of his reign, as Baluze notes: how this knot can be untied I scarcely see, unless we suppose that at the beginning of the year 305 Herculius was still lingering in Campania, and that Felix was put to death then: which I would wish others, who have more leisure, to examine more carefully.

Around the circuit of the bank of Striga. Heinsius, a most distinguished and most learned man, once advised me that it ought to be written ripae Histriae, or Histricae; just as striculus for histriculus, Spania for Hispania, and other such things are found in Salmasius on Tertullian's De Pallio: if this emendation is true, Diocletian made for Nicomedia not by the direct route, but went round the shore of that region, or of Histria. Or else the bank of the Danube will have to be understood, which is also called Hister, as is very well known. Certainly he made use of a roundabout route; and so too Victor speaks of Carinus, who was in Gaul: He hastily made for Illyricum by the circuit of Italy.

Chapter XVIII.

He had recently clashed with Maximian the old man. Either he follows the Greeks, or the particle cum has dropped out; or Maximiano seni ought to be written, in the way that some have said certare [with the dative], Virgil, Ecl. 5:

In our mountains Amyntas alone may contend with you.

In Catullus we read, do not fight against two; and in Amm. Marcell. 15.4, to engage the barbarians: although the particle cum may be understood.

That fifteen years had already flowed by... It seems that quibus has dropped out, so that Lactantius would have written, That fifteen years had already flowed by in which in Illyricum, etc. For the rest, nothing is to be changed, with Baluze; for Illyricum taken strictly was not on the bank of the Danube, but on the Adriatic Sea, which for that reason is also called Illyrian: and then not only Illyricum, but that whole tract as far as the Pontus was entrusted to Galerius. Aur. Victor: The coasts of Illyricum as far as the strait of Pontus were entrusted to Galerius; and

he conquered the Carpi and the Bastarnae dwelling by the Danube after Narseus had been defeated in war. I know indeed that Illyricum extended itself far and wide in these times, and especially in the following ones; and the most illustrious prelate Pierre de Marca shows this in his dissertation on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and so Baluze could defend his emendation: but what need is there to change anything beyond necessity?

Now Maximian had a son, Maxentius. Maxentius, then, was born to Herculius. But Tristan, vol. 3, p. 576, notes from Julian's Oration 1, p. 9, that Eutropia, when asked whether Maxentius was her son, answered that he had been born to her by a certain Syrian: if this is true, Maxentius was not the son but the stepson of Herculius, or was passed off on Herculius. But I for my part find nothing of the kind in Julian; he only records that some of the Easterners related that they had given the grandmother of Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, in marriage to his maternal grandfather, that is to Herculius; because, namely, Eutropia was a Syrian, and by her Herculius had begotten Fausta, the wife of Constantine the Great: on which matter I shall deal more fully at chapter 39.

He was accustomed to adore. That is, Diocletian was the first who wished to be adored, whereas before him the emperors were saluted. Eutropius 9, 16: He was the first to bring into the Roman Empire the form of a royal custom rather than of Roman liberty, and ordered himself to be adored, whereas before him all were saluted. Jerome in the Chronicle: Diocletian was the first to order himself to be adored as a god, and gems to be set into his garments and shoes, whereas before him all the emperors were saluted in the manner of judges, and had nothing more than a purple cloak beyond private dress: things of the same kind you may read also in Jordanes and others. Herculius and Galerius doubtless followed Diocletian's ways; nor does Maxentius seem to be blameworthy for having refused to render divine honour to the emperors, no more, that is, than the Macedonians, who likewise refused to flatter Alexander the Great in this way: so that I do not see why Lactantius calls him proud and contumacious in this respect; unless perhaps the custom of adoring begun by Diocletian had passed into usage, and was practised also by Constantine and others.

Hateful to both. The same is reported in the Epitome of Victor: This Maximian was never dear to anyone, not even to his father or to his father-in-law Galerius: where it is clear from Paul the Deacon that Maxentius must be read; and Valesius noted it on the Excerpta which were published with Ammianus Marcellinus.

Constantine... It is no wonder that Diocletian favoured him, since his father Constantius had sent him to him at Nicomedia "to be educated" (paideuthesomenon), that is, to be instructed, as Praxagoras attests in Photius; or so that in the emperor's court, and as it were under the eyes of him whom Eutropius calls a most diligent and most shrewd prince, he might learn what would one day be necessary to him for ruling. Others relate that he was a hostage; and certainly he could also have been regarded as such. The Excerpta of Valesius: This Constantine, then, born of Helena, a mother of very low station, in the town of Naissus, and brought up there, a town which he afterwards magnificently adorned, being not much instructed in letters, a hostage with Diocletian and Galerius, served bravely under them in Asia. This doubtless took place when Galerius was waging war against Narses, and Diocletian was recovering Egypt, which was in rebellion. For we read that he stayed close to Diocletian as his companion in the Polity of the holy fathers Metrophanes and Alexander in Photius, p. 1406: He related that he had seen Constantine "ranking among the youths" in Palestine, when he was with Diocletian as he made war on Egypt; a war which a sedition had stirred up: which Paul the Deacon also reports, book 10, as does Eusebius, book 1, chapter 19 of the Life of Constantine; who also records that Constantine was seen by him there.

A most holy young man. That is, of upright and honest life, one who kept justice and was endowed with good morals. In Velleius 2, 53, Pompey is called in this sense a most holy and most excellent man; and in chapter 29, outstanding in innocence, distinguished in holiness. Very many examples could be brought forward both from authors and from inscriptions: but that would be to abuse one's leisure. Among these, moreover, there often occur, Most holy husband, most holy

wife, and by that commendation spouses testify that the deceased woman, or the deceased man, lived continently, holily and chastely. For I do not agree with the learned man who, in the inscriptions of Grenoble, judges that a certain Valerius consecrated his wife Valeriana and for that reason calls her SANCTA. For this epithet signifies nothing other than that the woman lived chastely; just as Catullus names Juno the holy wife of Jove.

For he who as a private man despised me. Yet he had already been raised in dignity, was a tribune of the first order, and at the same time the son of a Caesar; such a man we today would certainly not call a private man. There is a most elegant passage on this point in Horace, book 3, Ode 8, which I think the most learned men have not sufficiently understood:

Careless whether the people suffer in any way, / forbear, as a private man, to take too much care, and / gladly seize the gifts of the present hour, and / leave grave matters behind.

The poet celebrates the Kalends of March because on that day he had nearly been killed by a tree, as is clear from 2, 13, and he urges Maecenas to cheer himself on that anniversary day for the sake of his friend's safety, and to set aside his civic cares over the city; and this all the more because the Dacians and Cantabrians had been conquered, the Medes and Parthians were clashing with one another in hostile arms, and the Scythians were preparing to go home. Since these things are so, he adds: forbear, as a private man, to take too much care: that is, do not be too intent on the safety of the city and indeed of the empire; or, as he says elsewhere, do not fear too anxiously for the city, since you are not the emperor, the one in whose hands lies the supreme power, but a private man. That is to say, after the Roman state had been handed over to one man, all others, even though adorned with the highest dignities and honours, were called private men in relation to the prince. This is why Claudius in Tacitus, Ann. 2, 31, repeatedly asks whether he himself was in possession of the empire, whether Silius was a private man; that is, whether he had not yet been made emperor. Thus Torrentius and Casaubon very rightly interpret the private spectacles in Suetonius, Nero 21, as those which were given by others than the emperor, even if they were magistrates; and in the same sense Tacitus, ch. 39, calls Agricola a private man, although he held the Britains with military command. In the free Republic that man was called a private man who was not in command, or had laid it down, even if he held other honours, as is established from Suetonius, Caesar, Cicero and others; and since the Caesars or emperors alone held the command, while the rest bore standards entrusted to them, as Statius elegantly sings, and indeed the magistrates received their jurisdiction from the Prince, they were rightly called private men. Forbear, therefore, Maecenas, since the care of the empire does not belong to you but to Augustus, to provide always with such great care that the careless Roman people suffer no harm. By careless people I understand careless of its own safety, given over to leisure, games and idleness. It is well known that Tacitus notes at the beginning of the Annals that Augustus, when he had enticed the soldiers with gifts, the people with the corn supply, and everyone with the sweetness of leisure, drew to himself the functions of the senate, the magistrates and the laws, with no one opposing; and that Juvenal sings in Satire 10:

Long since, from the time when we sell our votes to no one, / it has shaken off its cares; for that which once bestowed / command, the fasces, legions, everything, now holds / itself in, and anxiously longs for two things only, / bread and circuses.

It should be noted besides that a private man is sometimes opposed to a soldier, and then signifies civilians, or those who had not enlisted for military service. Lactantius himself taught me this a little before: of upright character and singular courtesy, he was loved by the soldiers and also desired by private men. On this occasion I cannot refrain from illustrating Cicero at the same time. Those who have written on pontifical law ask whether the Pontifex Maximus of ancient Rome was a private man; and Muretus spends much effort explaining this matter on the First Catilinarian, in which Cicero speaks thus: Or did that most eminent man P. Scipio, Pontifex Maximus, as a PRIVATE MAN kill Tiberius Gracchus when he was moderately undermining the condition of the Republic? I, to leave the question to Muretus, Gutherius and Bosius, think that he

wavers in vain, and that it never came into Cicero's mind to say in this place that the Pontifex Maximus was a private citizen; but rather that P. Scipio, who was afterwards made Pontifex Maximus, suppressed the sedition of Gracchus while he was still a private citizen. So clearly, and without any ambiguity, does he make him a private citizen, On Duties 1: Nor did Africanus, singular both as a man and as a commander, benefit the commonwealth more in destroying Numantia than P. Nasica, A PRIVATE CITIZEN, did at the same time, when he killed Tib. Gracchus. And although Appian, Civil Wars 1, writes that the leader of the Romans was Scipio the Pontifex Maximus, "and the first to lead the way for them was the one called the greatest pontiff, Cornelius Scipio Nasica", and that the Gracchans gave way to so great a man, or "in deference to his rank, to a most excellent man", to me nevertheless the contrary seems plainly true, and greater is the authority of Velleius, who at 2.3 writes that P. Scipio Nasica did these things as a private citizen and in civilian dress, and on account of these virtues was made Pontifex Maximus in his absence, the first of all men to be so. Scipio therefore suppressed the sedition as a private citizen, and on account of so outstanding a deed earned the office of Pontifex Maximus; and because he obtained that dignity a little later, authors, not distinguishing the times properly enough, wrote that he killed Gracchus when he was Pontifex Maximus. P. Licinius Crassus Dives, Pontifex Maximus, perished in the war waged against Aristonicus. The Epitome of Livy 59: P. Licinius Crassus, consul, though he was at the same time Pontifex Maximus (which had never been done before), set out beyond Italy, was defeated in battle, and was killed. And indeed this was in the consulship of Appius Claudius and M. Perpenna, on the testimony of Julius Obsequens, ch. 87, that is, in the year of the City 623, Crassus having been consul in the previous year and having set out for the war in that same year, in which very year others also hold that he perished. In no way therefore could Scipio have held the office of Pontifex Maximus at the time of the Gracchan sedition, which was put down in the year 620 or 621; but only after Licinius Crassus had been killed was that honour first offered to him, and that too in his absence, since, in order that he might be removed from envy, he had been sent away to Asia under the pretext of an embassy, as the author of On Illustrious Men testifies.

Faithfully supplied. That is, pay, the military grain ration, which various authors call praebenda. I wondered, I confess, whether one might read praefuit [presided]; but Columbus embraces the former explanation, not at all against my wish, although the passages which he cites have joined to them the thing which was supplied, such as also occur in Terence, Cicero, Horace and others. But just as praebere is used absolutely in this place, so too in the Theodosian Code those provincials are called praebitores who supplied post-services and vehicles for the public post in certain provinces, as Jac. Gothofredus explains.

Let him be clothed. That is, with the purple, which was the sign of the imperial and Caesarean dignity. So in chs. 20 and 28, in the contrary sense, he said exuere [to put off] absolutely, for laying down the imperial power.

He had partly changed the name... This passage is obscure and, if I see anything, corrupt; yet in such a way that it can be restored to soundness by the slightest change. Lactantius therefore says that Galerius Maximianus changed the name of his kinsman Daia or Daza, because Diocletian had earlier changed his [Galerius's] own name too: whence I write, whom he had lately ordered to be called Maximinus after his own name. For Diocletian too had partly changed his name for the sake of the omen, because Maximianus kept faith with the utmost scrupulousness. That is to say, Galerius Maximianus was formerly called Galerius and surnamed Armentarius, because, born of country parents, he had been a herdsman of cattle. Hence this surname is attributed to him by Aur. Victor in the Caesars: For these reasons he created Julius Constantius and Galerius Maximianus, whose surname was Armentarius, Caesars; and in the Epitome: He created Constantius and Galerius Maximianus, surnamed Armentarius, Caesars. For although he does not expressly state that Galerius was called Armentarius before obtaining the power of Caesar, yet I do not hesitate to affirm it, because it is not likely that anyone would have dared to give him that surname after he had been raised to that summit of honour; although I do not deny that soon after in the same Epitome he, already Caesar, is so called. Partly

therefore, that is, Diocletian changed the cognomen of Armentarius and, keeping the name of Galerius, called him Maximianus; and this for the sake of the omen, because he hoped that he would be as faithful to him as Maximianus Herculius was, whose name he was giving to the other, and of whose fidelity Victor speaks thus: He orders Maximianus, faithful in friendship from the first, though half-rustic, yet good in soldiering and in ability, to be emperor. In the Epitome, however, he is said to have been dear to no one, not even to his father or to his father-in-law Galerius. But since Herculius was not the son of Diocletian, nor did he have Galerius as father-in-law, one must certainly read: This Maxentius was never dear to anyone; as I remember having pointed out above, and as not only Valesius but also Baluze has shown.

For the sake of the man. Corruptly, as we have already hinted, for 'for the sake of the omen'. The same fault, moreover, is found also in the Scholiast on Juvenal, on Sat. 2, v. 142: Barren women used to offer themselves to the Luperci as they performed the purification, and were beaten with a rod. By this man, who, etc., where write: were beaten, by this omen; who. The rest does not seem able to be healed without the help of manuscripts.

He is my kinsman by marriage. In a loose sense this word is taken for a sister's son. The same word occurs on a coin which du Cange published in the Familiae Byzantinae: EMPEROR MAXENTIUS. TO THE DEIFIED CONSTANTIUS. HIS KINSMAN BY MARRIAGE; now Maxentius was the brother, on the mother's side, of Flavia Maximiana Theodora, the wife of Constantine.

Chapter XIX.

On the Kalends of May. Baluze rightly notes that this is the true day on which Diocletian and Herculius laid down the imperial power. Eusebius confirms this in some measure; for after relating that Dionysius was beheaded on the ninth day before the Kalends of April, he adds, ἐν τούτῳ, that is, during, or about, the same time, the change of emperors took place. Idatius therefore errs in the Fasti, who writes that this happened on the Kalends of April: and he may not have understood Eusebius well enough, and may have referred that ἐν τούτῳ to the Kalends of April, as being the nearest; but from Lactantius it is plain that this is to be understood of a longer time. Columbus noted that Zosimus relates the same thing, which, however, is found nowhere in him; and I think that the distinguished man did not grasp Baluze's meaning, since he writes that there is indeed an error in Zosimus and in the Idatian Fasti, where these things are said to have happened in the consulship of Diocletian for the ninth time and Maximianus for the eighth, on the day of the Kalends of April. But I think the eminent man means that Zosimus relates that this happened in the consulship of Diocletian for the ninth time and Maximianus for the eighth, while Idatius mentions the same consuls and the Kalends of April. Moreover, the author of the panegyric addressed to him and to Constantine, c. 8, also testifies that Maximianus stripped himself of the imperial power in his eighth consulship; and he soon also tells us that Diocletian was then suffering from ill health and years, but that Maximianus was of whole and sound strength.

The chiefs of the soldiers... So 'chief of the city' in the passion of St Mammarius in Mabillon, Annales, vol. 4, p. 94; 'chiefs of the bureau' in the Theodosian Code; and 'chief of the place', 'chief of the school', and the like occur in du Cange's Glossary.

A column with a statue of Jupiter. The ancients were accustomed to erect columns in public places, and in places made solemn by some celebration, and to set on them statues either of gods or of emperors. This could be confirmed by many examples, if I were undertaking that; but I shall only point out that at Constantinople, on a column which stands there even today, a statue of the emperor Marcian was placed, with this inscription added, on the testimony of Spon:

Behold this statue of the emperor Marcian, and its base; Tereius vowed it, a work which Tatianus [made].

A learned man thinks that the heart of Marcian was placed in the square vessel which is set on the column, and that his corpse was perhaps placed beneath the column; but let the learned consider whether Forumque should not rather be written. Here, however, a statue of Jupiter was perhaps set up, because Diocletian wished to be seen as begotten of Jupiter; for that reason he was called Jovius, as is very well known. Tristan, vol. 3, p. 332, seems to hint

that Diocletian laid down the purple in the temple of Jupiter. Certainly he writes that he and Maximian used these words when they were laying down the purple: Take back, Jupiter, what you wished for. This Diocletian did at Nicomedia, and Maximian at Milan, in the temple of Jupiter, both using these terms: Take back, etc. But the author of the panegyric, ch. 12, from which these things have been taken, does not even mention a temple; and moreover he speaks of Maximian alone, with no mention made of Diocletian. Eumenius, however, in ch. 13 of the panegyric addressed to Constantine, indicates quite plainly that Herculius laid down the imperial power in the temple of Jupiter, and indeed of Capitoline Jupiter. For after he has praised Diocletian because he was unwilling to resume the imperial power, he adds: That man, then, who had been adopted by him as his brother, was ashamed to imitate this one; he repented of having sworn to him in the temple of Capitoline Jupiter: no wonder, since he perjured himself even to his son-in-law; that is: Herculius did not imitate Diocletian, and he repented of having sworn to Diocletian in the temple of Jupiter that he would, following his example, in good faith lay down the imperial power. These things, moreover, were done by Herculius at Milan, lest anyone should perhaps understand Rome because of the mention of Capitoline Jupiter. For, after the example of Rome, there were capitols in other cities too; which Suetonius attests of Capua in the Tiberius, ch. 40; the passion of St Saturninus in Chifflet, and Ado in the martyrology, p. 193, of Toulouse; the same, p. 118, of Ravenna; Eumenius in the oration on the Restoration of the Schools, of Autun; Pausanias, of Corinth: on which matter Welser may also be consulted, book 4 of the Affairs of Augsburg, and in the commentary on the conversion of St Afra. Now a column is called stēlē by the Greeks; and this word frequently also denotes a statue, which learned men often fail to observe: in the Anthology, book 4, ch. 8, under the title 'On images', etc., there occurs an epigram of Posidippus 'On the stēlē of Alexander the Macedonian', which is wrongly translated 'on the column of Alexander': which is certainly astonishing, since the poet celebrates the statue of Alexander made by Lysippus. So too the 'Amazonian stēlē' which Plato celebrates in the Axiochus I do not think should be rendered 'column', but 'statue of an Amazon'; and the translators of Plutarch commit this fault too in the Life of Theseus: For he calls the one whom Theseus had Hippolyte, not Antiope. Some, however, say that she, fighting alongside Theseus, fell pierced by a javelin from Molpadia, and that the stēlē beside the temple of Olympian Earth stands over her; and that the statue which is beside the shrine of Olympian Earth was set up for her: wrongly commonly rendered 'that a column was placed upon her'.

On him Diocletian put his own purple. That is, on Maximinus Daza, or Daia. But here I should like to ask the learned whether they think there was any difference between the purple of an emperor and the purple of a Caesar. Certainly this passage suggests the contrary, since Diocletian the Augustus clothed the Caesar Maximinus with his own purple; and hence again a question worth investigating arises, by what insignia emperors were distinguished from Caesars. For it is evident from coins that Caesars as well as emperors wore diadems, and illustrious men have shown it, Spanheim in dissertation 8, and du Cange in number 16 of the dissertation on the Coins of the later age; yet in such a way that the Caesarean dignity was sometimes given 'without the diadem', as the latter notes from Chrysostom: just as Demetrius, king of Syria, had Myrmes the Samian as 'partner outside the diadem', on the testimony of Athenaeus, book 13, and as Philostratus, at the end of book 7, contrasts 'in the guise of a Caesar' and 'in the diadem': where he writes that Julian lived five years in the dress of a Caesar, but after Constantius two and a half with the diadem. Hence it is most clearly evident that at that time the diadem was reserved for the Augusti alone; although there are extant coins on which Julian is seen wearing a diadem with the Inscription D. N. JULIANUS NOB. CAES., which, from the Inscription on the other side, VOT. V. MULT., were evidently struck in the last year of his Caesarean dignity; otherwise on most of them Julian as Caesar is seen without a diadem or laurel crown. Hence also Julian, when he was created Augustus by the soldiers while Constantius was alive, was crowned with a diadem, or rather a torque, because the former was not at hand; so that, crowned, he might at least put forward an obscure appearance of the higher

power, as A. Marcellinus witnesses, book 20, ch. 4, where it is also to be noted that Julian as Caesar testifies that he never had a diadem: whence it is certainly surprising that he is seen on coins, while still Caesar, wearing a diadem, unless he was stamped at the very time when he was called Augustus, because, on the witness of the same author, book 21, he gave the quinquennial games already as Augustus: or rather this ought to be ascribed to the mint-masters. For the rest, Constantius Chlorus, Constantine, M. Licinius the Younger, Crispus, Constantine the Younger, Constantius and Decentius as Caesars appear on the coins in Du Cange either radiate, or laureate, or bare-headed; except that CONSTANTINUS JUN. NOB. CAES. is also girt with a diadem, but one not adorned with gems, on a single coin. Now Gaius Caesar, or Caligula, is said by Aur. Victor to have been the first of the Roman emperors to assume the diadem: "He was the first, having put a diadem on his head, to order himself to be called Lord": but greater credence is to be given to Suetonius, who writes that he came not far from assuming a diadem and converting the semblance of the principate into the form of a kingdom, ch. 22. Indeed Victor, forgetting himself, attributes this in the Epitome to Aurelian: "He was the first among the Romans to bind a diadem on his head"; and since Cedrenus and others make Constantine the Great the author of this custom, either we must say with Valesius, on book 21 of Ammianus, ch. 1, that Aurelian did not use it perpetually, but only on feasts and more solemn days, whereas Constantine was the first to wear the diadem perpetually, and that from then on it was held to be among the insignia of the rule of an Augustus, and was not granted to Caesars: or that Aurelian bound a diadem on his head without gems, but Constantine added gems to it, in which way he certainly appears adorned on coins. Aurelian is not seen girt with a diadem; except that Trist[an], vol. 3, p. 211, cites a coin on one face of which Vaballathus is seen, on the other Aurelian, both so adorned; and he thinks that this coin was struck in the East by Vaballathus, to indicate that he submitted his rule to Aurelian, and that the diadem signifies this, a thing with which the Romans at this time did not yet gird the heads of their emperors. On a coin quite similar, which Patin published, Aurelian is girt with a laurel crown, and Vaballathus with a diadem. But before Aurelian, Antonius Caracalla used a diadem, if indeed credence ought to be given to Greek coins; for Tristan, vol. 2, p. 215, published one on which on the one side a trireme is seen, and ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΙΑΝΗϹ ϹΕΥΗΡΑϹ, and below ΤΑΡϹΟΥ ΜΗΤΡΟΠ.; but on the other side Caracallus, in his opinion girt with a diadem, and ΑΥΤ. Κ. Μ. ΑΥΡ. ΕΥΗΡΟϹ. ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟϹ: unless we say that the people of Tarsus did this after the custom of Eastern kings, and that Caracalla never used a diadem at all. Nay, before Caracalla, Heliogabalus assumed a diadem, and a jewelled one at that, as the illustrious Salmasius notes, p. 370 of the Plinian Exercitations: "The diadem," he says, "was a royal band, white and broad: such were the fillets of priests ... The diadem of the Roman emperors was of this kind, which Heliogabalus first assumed jewelled: Caligula had tried to use a diadem after Julius Caesar; but after Diocletian all used a jewelled one." I could certainly wish that this very great man had taught us this more clearly. Herodian indeed writes, book 5, that Heliogabalus adorned his head with "a crown of costly stones blooming with colour", that is, a crown flowering with the colours of precious stones; and elsewhere that the same man had placed on it "a crown in the form of a tiara, varied with gold and precious stones", that is, a crown in the form of a tiara distinguished with gold and precious little stones. But this was not properly a diadem: moreover Heliogabalus wore it not as emperor, but as priest of his god, as will be plain to anyone who so much as looks into Herodian. But, to leave the diadem and return to the purple, I judge, first, that it is established that in Diocletian's time nothing was needed for declaring someone Augustus or Caesar except the putting on of the purple; and that if the diadem had also served that purpose, Lactantius would not have passed it over in silence: secondly, that the purple was the insignia of so lofty an eminence. Hence to Constantine, whom the soldiers, his father having died, had made Augustus, Galerius sends the purple, so that he might seem of his own accord to have adopted him into partnership

ch. 25 below; and Maxentius sends the purple to his father, who after laying down the imperial power was staying in Campania, and twice names him Augustus, ch. 26. Hence those who stripped themselves of the imperial power handed over the purple to the victor: ibid. He gave himself up, and returned the garment and the purple (that is, the purple garment, the purple military cloak) to the very man from whom he had received it; and again: The people, who had been stirred up, not being unwilling, they clothed Maxentius in the purple: the soldiers, that is, things of which kind can also be seen in ch. 28, 29, 32, 47 and 50. But these things are well known; and on this purple some things can be seen in Raoul Fornier, book 5, ch. 30 of the Rerum Quotidianarum.

And he is dismissed to his native place. That is, to Dioclea, a town of Dalmatia near Salonae, where he grew old in distinguished leisure, as a most learned man notes. Aurelius Victor certainly reports that Dioclea was the native place of Diocletian, and Paul the Deacon, book 11, followed him. But Eutropius, book 10, and Zonaras write that he withdrew to Salonae: so that "to his native place" can be explained as "to Dalmatia", or "to Salonae", as indeed now seems right to me. Aurelius Victor certainly writes that Illyricum was the native land of Diocletian, Herculius, Galerius and Constantius. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Themes book 2, 9, makes Diocletian a native "of a certain place of Salona"; and either he calls Salona a χωρίον (a place) because it had at that time been laid waste and destroyed by the Slavs, or he means the district neighbouring on Salona; or χωρίον signifies a city, and so he would have been born in Salonae itself. For Zonaras speaks thus: "Diocletian lived in Salona, a city of Dalmatia, which was also his native place", which city, that is, was his native place. Dioclea, on the other hand, or Diocla, lies towards Epirus and far removed from Salona; nor do I think there were several cities of that name. That Diocletian withdrew to Salona is most clearly evident not only from the answer which he gave to Herculius and Galerius when they urged him to resume the imperial power: Would that you could see at Salona the vegetables planted by our own hands! You would surely judge that this should never be attempted; but also from the palace of Diocletian, which was near Salonae and which today is called Spalato, as Spon, of blessed memory, clearly shows, and also George Wheler, an English knight, who described it most diligently. Indeed it was also in this palace, or this villa, that Diocletian died. Jerome in the Chronicle: Diocletian dies not far from Salonae in his villa of Spalato (in others Aspalato), and alone of all men is enrolled among the gods as a private citizen. If these words all came from Jerome, then certainly more than four hundred years ago this palace was called Spalatum or Aspalatum. But to me, considering the Latinity of Jerome's time, it seemed at times that this word had been written in the margin of the book, as they say, and had from there found its place among the very words of the author; and this seems the less remote from the truth because Eutropius, from whom Scaliger not without reason suspects that Jerome drew these things, writes: that Diocletian as a private citizen grew old in distinguished leisure in a villa which is not far from Salonae. Yet the same word occurs also in the Notitia of the empire: Procurator of the Jovian Weaving-house of Dalmatia at Aspalatum: so that I would not wish to oppose those who make this word older than four hundred years; unless someone should judge that here too it was added for the sake of explanation. Diocletian, then, had his villa or palace near Salonae; there he died, and there perhaps he was also buried. Ammianus Marcellinus, 16, 8, mentions his tomb: Having stolen a purple covering from the tomb of Diocletian, he was keeping it hidden with certain accomplices. The most learned Valois believes that the vaults and underground chambers built with elegant workmanship, described at Aspalathus by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, are the very tomb of Diocletian; although it would seem safer to me to judge that these are remains of the whole palace, which, as is clear from Spon, was very vast. And not only was Diocletian buried there, but he was also enrolled among the gods; and Valois considers that the purple covering placed on his tomb is the most certain indication of his consecration. I know that Eutropius and Jerome relate

that it befell no one since the birth of mankind except Diocletian, that, though he died a private man, he was nevertheless numbered among the gods: but I do not see what indication of that honour the purple military cloak could have furnished, since it was rather laid either on the funeral couch or on the tomb, to indicate that he had been emperor. Next, it seems to me quite remarkable that no one besides the authors cited speaks of Diocletian's consecration; and that it does not appear either on coins or on marbles, since otherwise living emperors were accustomed to attest their piety towards the dead by these monuments. What I should really say on this matter I hardly know, since it does not seem likely to me that Constantine or Licinius paid this honour to Diocletian; for they thought that he had favoured Maxentius and Maximinus, as is clear from Victor's Epitome, and Constantine even allowed his portraits to be taken down together with the portraits of Maximian, as Lactantius witnesses, c. 42. Galerius Maximinus, however, in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 9.10, calls Diocletian and Maximian θειοτάτους, which is not unsuitably rendered by Divi: although they could have been so called, for honour's sake, by a persecutor of the Christians likewise, even if they had not been consecrated; which honour, however, was paid by Maxentius to Maximian Herculius, if indeed he is meant, and not rather Galerius Maximian. But to return to Diocletian's native place, I judge that he was born at Salonae, or near Salonae, or in the suburban territory of that city, because he is said by Lactantius to have returned to his native place, and because it is established that, after laying down the empire, he lived as a private man near Salonae. But Victor nevertheless mentions Dioclea, a city very near Epirus: Diocletian the Dalmatian, freedman of the senator Anulinus, his mother and likewise his town being named Dioclea, from whose names he was called Diocles until he took up the empire. Victor uses no circumlocutions, and says plainly that Diocletian or Diocles took his name from his mother and from the town in which he had been born. What I should set against so ancient an authority I scarcely know; unless we say that Victor was deceived by the kinship of the name, or that the words have been dislocated and moved from their place. Others, I think, will feel with me that this scruple is certainly not baseless, those who examine the words of Paul the Deacon, who everywhere follows Victor: His mother being Dioclea by town and likewise by name, from whose names he was called Diocles until he took up the empire. From here quite another sense arises; and if we follow Paul, Diocletian will not have been born in the city of Dioclea: rather his mother, brought forth there into the bright shores of light, bore the same name, and from her, as also from the town from which she came, the son was called Diocles; and his mother could have borne him near Salonae, or in that very city, although she came from Dioclea.

But since the new edition of Lactantius is still sweating under the press, I cannot refrain from adding some things to what I have noted about the city of Dioclea, in case the history of Diocletian can perhaps be further illuminated from it. I observe, then, that Diocletian's mother came from that city, and that others relate that Diocletian himself was born in it. But the emperor Constantine intervenes; and he, in chapter 29 of On Administering the Empire, writes that the fortress of Dioclea, which in his time was inhabited by the Diocletians, was built by Diocletian; and in chapter 35, that the region of Dioclea has its name from a fortress built there by Diocletian, which, though empty of inhabitants, was even then called Dioclea. Moreover, in chapter 31 and also 35 he testifies that Diocletian settled many Romans who had come out of Rome in Dalmatia; and doubtless at that time he also built Dioclea, or rather brought a colony there, and adorned the place from which his mother came and made it larger. For just as Constantine writes in chapter 30 that the fortress of Salona is the work of the emperor Diocletian, although it is established that that city is far older, and so could only have been adorned, enlarged or fortified by Diocletian: so too I judge that Dioclea was adorned and enlarged by the same prince, which the Latins expressed by condere and the Greeks by κτίζειν and οἰκοδομεῖν. But this too is to be observed, that in the same book twice

mention is made of Aspalatus. For in ch. 29 the emperor records that Diocletian built the fortress of Aspalathus, which is interpreted 'little palace'; that he held it as a home, and built there his own hall and palaces, most of which had perished; that there survived the bishop's residence of the fortress, and the church of St Domnus, which had been the emperor's bedchamber; that beneath were round vaults, and these had been prisons, into which he threw the saints whom he had cruelly tortured; that this fortress was built not of brick, nor of enchoregus (it is a kind of material), but of squared stones bonded together with iron and molten lead; that there were many columns with architraves there, and that on them Diocletian wished to build vaults and roof over the town, and above those vaults houses of two or three storeys (for so I think the Greek words should be rendered), but that the walls of the city had no walkway, nor bulwarks, but only high walls (and arrow-slit windows) in which there were openings for discharging. In chapter 30 he again writes that Salona and Aspalathus were built by Diocletian, and that his palace was here. Some of these things I certainly think must be counted among fables. For first, that Diocletian wished to roof the whole city with vaults and to set houses upon them is scarcely likely; next, what is related of the tortures of the martyrs is groundless, since none of the ancients records that Diocletian, after he had laid down the purple and withdrawn to Salona, raged against the Christians; and finally I greatly doubt whether Aspalathus means 'little palace'. Moreover it should be observed that Constantine Porphyrogenitus in ch. 30 makes Dioclea near to the towns of the region of Dyrrachium, that no other of that name is recorded by him, and that therefore without doubt only one city so called existed in that tract; and finally that Constantius, father of Constantine the Great, is in ch. 53 constantly called Constans; and that it is related in the same place that he, when he was tribune, led an army against the Sarmatians at the river Halys by order of Diocletian, and so that he himself served in Asia before he became Caesar or Augustus.

The East to be trampled. That is, to be laid waste, destroyed, trodden underfoot. And so they spoke of a conquered nation, upon which for that reason the emperors on coins set the soles of their feet. 'To trample a nation' Justin said, book 12 at the end; 'to trample tyrants' Corippus; 'to trample death' Julius Firmicus (in whom, with a harsher metaphor, 'to trample the waves under the oars' is also read). To this Ovid alludes, Tristia 4.2:

Behold, Germania too is borne along with dishevelled hair, / and sits sorrowful under the foot of the unconquered leader.

And book 2, Elegy 2, from Pontus:

Nor did the Illyrian land, her arms cast down, disdain / to bear Caesar's foot upon her servile head.

Prudentius, book 1 against Symmachus, v. 462, and book 2, v. 748, speaks similarly; and how Maximinus ruined and laid waste the East, Lactantius shows, ch. 38.

Chapter XX.

That he was of a mild nature. Which was also evident from this, if Orosius is to be trusted, 7.25, that he gave up Italy and Africa to Galerius, and was content with Spain and Gaul. But whence he drew this I do not know, since Diocletian kept for himself and Galerius the East taken broadly, but gave Constantius the Britains, the Spains and the Gauls, and Maximian Herculius Illyricum, Italy and Africa, as the illustrious prelate P. de Marca comments at the beginning of his dissertation on the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But in Socrates, whom he cites, I find nothing else than that Diocletian established his palace, or royal residence, at Nicomedia. Victor speaks thus of this matter: 'As though the empire had been divided, all that lies beyond the Alps of Gaul was entrusted to Constantius; Africa and Italy to Herculius, and the coast of Illyricum as far as the strait of Pontus to Galerius: the rest Valerius retained'; which clearly show that Orosius was plainly nodding when he wrote this.

That he should not name him son. Thus the Caesars were called by

the Augusti, as Baluze teaches on ch. 8. The anonymous author of the Panegyric that was delivered to Maximian Herculius and Constantine, ch. 3: O that divine judgement of yours, Maximian, who willed that this man should be your grandson by right of adoption, your son by the order of majesty, and also your son-in-law! That is to say, Herculius had adopted Constantius, the father of Constantine, who was thereby made his grandson; and son by the order of majesty, because he had been created Caesar by him, or because he had at that time been proclaimed emperor by him: that this was sometimes done I show from an ancient inscription at ch. 8. Maximinus, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 9.10, calls Diocletian and Maximian "most divine parents", because he had been made Caesar by them.

Chapter XXI.

That they should treat them as a household. That is, as slaves, who are designated by "household". Phaedrus, Fable 58.

When Aesop was his master's whole household;

that is, since he had no other slave than Aesop; Fable 46: the household throws scraps. But these things are well known. That the kings of the Persians, moreover, regarded all their subjects as slaves Brisson teaches with many examples, book 1 of On the Kingdom of the Persians.

He took away their honours. Perhaps for this reason, that they might be tortured; since otherwise decurions and men of rank were exempt from torture by the laws of the Romans, as Baluze notes on this passage. Hence Ammianus Marcellinus 28.7, on Valentinian: Enraged on learning these things, since he was a keen rather than a strict enemy of vices, by a single pronouncement on cases of this kind, which he arrogantly mixed in with the charge of impaired majesty, he decreed that all whom the justice of ancient law and the rulings of the deified emperors had exempted from bloody inquisitions should, if the matter required it, be subjected to torture. But when afterwards envoys sent by decree of the nobility begged that the punishments should not be heavier than the offences, and that no senator should be exposed to torture by an unaccustomed and unlawful practice, the cruel order was amended, as the same author says; and men of rank were tortured only on a charge of treason, as Valois teaches, and before him Fornier, 3.8, Rerum Quotidianarum. Thus Lampadius was first stripped of the dignity of the prefecture before he was tortured, as Ammianus Marcellinus testifies, book 15; on which matter more may be seen in Langlée, book 13, ch. 1 of the Semestria. And to this belongs in some measure an elegant passage found in the Libellus precum of Faustinus: But Clementinus, although he was not a Christian, yet showing reverence for the name of the episcopate, especially in that man whom he saw holding it reasonably and faithfully, answered Ossius: I do not dare, he said, to send a bishop into exile, so long as he continues in the name of bishop: but do you first give sentence, casting him down from the honour of the episcopate, and then at last I will carry out against him, as against a private person, what you wish to be done by order of the emperors.

Lusorium. That is, fighting with bears and other wild beasts was considered sport; and it was among the exercises of young men. Below, ch. 24: Under the pretext of exercise and SPORT he had thrown him to wild beasts. And perhaps the lusorium takes its name from this, that men trained for it as it were played with the beasts, and evaded them as they charged by leaps or by other means, as is very clearly evident from the Liège diptych and from what Wiltheim notes on it, to which can be added Bulenger, ch. 29, On the Hunting of the Circus.

He ordered them to be brought by name. That is, these beasts had their own names, as in Marcellinus book 29 one of the she-bears which Valentinian kept was called Mica aurea [Golden Crumb], the other Innocentia [Innocence]. There is a gem in Leonardo Agostini, the chief antiquary of the City, part 2, no. 32, on which is seen a man holding a whip and with it soothing a she-bear leaping at him, with this inscription around the edge: ΕΥΤΥΧΙ ΜΑΡΚΕΛΛΕ [Good luck, Marcellus], and above the back of the beast, ΕΙΡΗΝΗ [Peace]; of these the latter is the proper name of the she-bear, while by the former the man leading the beast about seems to wish for good fortune. And so it is established from Suetonius, Dio, and ancient inscriptions published both by Gruter and by Spon that horses in the Circus each had their own names.

Not exactly of eating, but of swallowing down. For bears are accustomed to lick and suck up the blood, and so to consume the body: hence Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 8.7, rightly counts them among "blood-devouring beasts". Moreover obsorbere also occurs in Plautus, Truc. 2.3.30: "Who gulp down whatever comes within the door-bolts"; and Mil. 3.2.21: "because indeed I gulped it down. For it was too hot, it was scorching my throat." But since bears are mentioned, I shall try to explain one or two passages of the passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity, which are quite elegant and, so far as I know, have not been sufficiently explained. Xiphilinus, following Dio, relates that the emperor Commodus devoted diligent attention to hunts and to the slaughtering of wild beasts, and among other things uses these words: "For the whole theatre had been divided by certain fitted-together diameters, which had a roof running round, and which cut one another in two, so that the beasts, divided fourfold, might more easily be struck with javelins from a short distance on every side." That is, the whole theatre was divided by certain connected diameters having a roof, around which one could walk, and cutting one another in two, so that the beasts, divided into four parts, might more easily be pierced with javelins from every side out of a confined place. Lucas Holstenius, a man to whom few can be compared, holds that Xiphilinus is speaking of the bridges of the amphitheatre, which are mentioned in the passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity, on which he notes this: "As for the mention of a bridge a little before, it seems to have come about by an institution of Commodus that there were bridges in the amphitheatre. For Xiphilinus relates in his Commodus that this emperor built BRIDGES across the arena of the amphitheatre, so as to dispatch wild beasts from them." But I am persuaded that the institution of Commodus has nothing in common with these bridges, and I hope that others who are willing to compare and examine the words of Dio and of the most ancient Passion will think the same as I do. For Commodus divided the amphitheatre "by certain fitted-together diameters", that is, by boards joined to one another and raised up on high, which cut the arena of the amphitheatre into four equal parts in this manner. For that these structures were of wood is sufficiently indicated by πήγνυμι, since that word is almost always, and properly, used of that material. Πήκτη δωμάτων, the compacted [doors] of houses, are doors which are fastened together from several boards; πῆγμα, pegma, is a wooden structure in the amphitheatre, about which the learned have made quite enough observations. The diameters were moreover surrounded "by a roof running round", by which Dio means that a roofed portico was built around the circuit of the amphitheatre, along which the emperor could go round, and from which he could most conveniently dispatch the beasts with javelins. The translator wrongly assigns the roof to the diameters, and the following diagram will make plain that this is quite foreign to the author's meaning.

A. The amphitheatre. B. The περίδρομος. C. D. The first diameter. E. F. The other diameter; both of these cut each other at right angles.

Herodian plainly confirms this, speaking of the same matter in book 1: "And for Commodus A GALLERY ROUND IN A CIRCLE had been built, so that he might not be in danger fighting the beasts at close quarters, but, hurling javelins from above and from a safe place, might give a display of skill in shooting rather than of courage"; that is, in the translation of Angelo Poliziano: "When the day of the spectacle had come, with the amphitheatre full, a peridromus had been built for Commodus, along which he could run round in a circle, so as not to be endangered fighting the beasts at close quarters, but by throwing missiles from above and from a safe place might display skill in javelin-throwing rather than courage"; and a little later he says that, running round in a circle, he pierced the noblest animals with javelins from above: "running round, he struck them down with javelins from above". Herodian too tells of the peridromus, or portico; but Dio adds besides, "and cutting one another in two", "and cutting one another in two parts"; or, as I would render it, "and cutting one another equally". For so Aristotle spoke in book 6 of the Politics: "If the court is divided in two", "if the court is divided equally into two". Nor indeed can any other division be understood, since a little later he says that the animals were divided into four, and "diameter" is scarcely used except when a whole is divided into two equal parts, as is readily evident from the diameter of the terrestrial globe, and of other circles, through whose centre, when drawn, it makes two equal parts

In this amphitheatre there is a double diameter: one drawn across the width, the other along the length; whence it came about that that structure was divided into four equal parts: which is plainly evident in the figure set out. Dio, moreover, gives the reason: ἵν' ἐξ ὀλίγου πανταχόθεν τετραχῆ τὰ θηρία μεμερισμένα ῥᾶον ἀκοντίζηται: so that the beasts, divided into four parts, might more easily be pierced with javelins from all sides from a narrow space; or, as I think it should be translated, so that [they might be pierced] more easily from all sides in a short time. For the rest, it may rightly be asked by what means, then, the spectators could have seen the dispatching of the beasts, if the peridromus was put together of boards from top to bottom. For if it had that form, people could in no way have enjoyed the spectacle. I think, therefore, either that this peridromus and the diameters were not so high, and that the lower seats were left empty; or that the diameters were indeed raised high, but the lower part of the peridromus was open to view, and that it was built only in the upper part, so that Commodus could go round and hurl javelins at the beasts, while the spectators could take in everything with their eyes. With this device of Commodus the Pontes which are praised in the passion have nothing in common; and I shall show more clearly than the noonday light that their use was a different one, yet on this condition and stipulation, that I shall bring forward nothing about their origin, which is entirely unknown. The PONTES, then, were platforms raised in the manner of bridges, so that one part touched the ground, while the other was raised on wooden legs, or legs made of some other material, on which those condemned to the beasts were set or bound, so that the beasts might rush upon them with greater force, and the mangling or vexatio, as they used to say, could be seen by all. There was then no division of the amphitheatre, but in the arena itself, open and exposed to the eyes of all, PONTES were built, as I think, roughly in this manner. The author of the Passion certainly confirms this explanation: And when he had been bound on the bridge for the bear, the bear refused to come out of its cage; that is, when the martyr was laid bound on the bridge so that the bear might make an assault on him and rage, which shortly before he called to tie to the boar and to supply: And so when he was supplied to the boar, it was rather the huntsman who had tied him to the boar who was gored by the same beast and died after the days of the show; that is, while he was laid bound on the bridge, or at any rate in the arena, and offered to the boar to be torn apart. And this PONS is called in the same Passion a pulpitum. And so, called back at the staging of the spectacle, having faced the leopard, he was also mauled by the bear upon the platform: that is, placed on the platform or bridge, he was mauled first by the leopard, then by the bear, that is, bitten, torn; in which sense this word is usually employed. For Arnobius and Lactantius, book 7 of the Institutes, ascribe vexationes to beasts, and the Greeks call this thing ἑλκυθμὸν τῶν θηρίων [the dragging by the beasts]. Moreover the martyrs are also said to ascend with respect to these platforms or bridges, as is plain from the same passion: The rest indeed received the sword motionless and in silence, much more Saturus, who, as he had ascended first, first gave up his spirit: he had ascended, that is, onto the platform or bridge. Although I would not wish to deny that the spoliarium may also be understood in this place; since it was like an underground cavern (Cassius Severus calls it a cave, Pliny a sinister receptacle), and since Saturus came out of it by steps into the theatre, he is not unsuitably said to have ascended. This is my opinion on this matter; which, however, I am ready to change, if anyone teaches better.

Chapter XXII.

They were corrected with the lance. As the penalty of the sword was more honourable than that of the axe, so being corrected with the lance seems to have been more honourable than being chastised with cudgels; and I judge that both the sword and the lance owe their origin to military service. I do not think, however, that mention of this custom is made in Apuleius, book 10, as a learned man supposes; and by disciplina there I understand military discipline, by whose prescription an army on the march had to arrange its packs in this way. In the passion of the holy women Perpetua and Felicity

a ladder of wondrous size is seen in a vision by Perpetua, on whose sides every kind of iron implement was fixed, swords, lances, hooks, sabres: but these lances are mentioned here, I think, because martyrs were sometimes run through with them. Moreover, after this word was taken over from the Spaniards, as Gellius attests, 15.30, its use became frequent; and some soldiers who were armed in this way were called Lancearii, as is clear from the Notitia imperii, and from inscription 3, p. 495, of Gruter, in which a prefect of the Lancearii seems to be mentioned. The petition of Faustinus also mentions them: And first indeed he harasses him through the public authorities, so that sometimes he even had him seized at dead of night and removed from the city by lancers. And before the tent of the prefect of the camp a lance was fixed, as Obsequens attests at the end of the book On Prodigies, perhaps so that it could be distinguished from the others.

A good death. Mention of this also occurs in Publilius Syrus: but in his latest edition it is wrongly written

A good delay is it for a man, which extinguishes the evils of life.

For either hora or mors must be read; and in general Syrus calls that death good which removes someone wretched and unhappy from life. The most distinguished Baluze also counts strangulation among good deaths, because men who end their life in that way die without tortures and torments. Lactantius, ch. 30, calls it an unsightly death, following the example of Virgil, and a base and ignominious death, in respect of the disgrace that followed an end of that kind; and the medieval writer Widukind calls it an evil death in his third book: Three leaders of the Hungarian nation were captured and, having been presented to Duke Henry, were punished with an evil death, as they deserved; for they perished by hanging; for everyone will readily grant that strangulation and such hanging are to be held in one and the same category. And long ago Homer, at the end of Odyssey X, called it 'not a clean death' when someone was strangled by hanging; and Eustathius notes that a clean death is reckoned to be that by the sword, but a defiled, or detestable, one that by hanging; on which matter the same writer should certainly be consulted at Od. Λ, page 1678. Before Eustathius, Hesychius observed the same distinction, explaining the same passage of Homer: Not by a clean death, through strangling. A death is not clean, but that by the sword is. Hence they do not offer funeral sacrifices to those who have hanged themselves; and he teaches us besides that no funeral rites were even performed for the strangled. Xenophon, at the end of book 2 of the Expedition of Cyrus, narrating the killing of Meno the Thessalian, clearly attests that having the head cut off was held to be the most honourable death: But when the other leaders had already been killed, he too was punished with death by the king, not, indeed, like Clearchus and the other leaders, whose heads were cut off, which was thought to be the finest of deaths, which death seemed to be the most honourable: but as a criminal, having been tortured alive for a whole year, he is said at last to have expired. And Seneca somewhere attests that men die in no way more gently than with the neck cut through by a sword. But on the contrary Latinus Pacatus, ch. 28, calls strangulation an infamous and womanish death: Of whom one, after the most ample magistracies and the consular purple, and a kind of senate of honours gathered within a single house, was compelled to renounce life; the other had his throat broken at home by the hands of British attendants, and was branded with the infamy of a womanish death, so that, forsooth, a man most devoted to the sword should seem to have preferred to perish by the noose rather than by the sword; and from Tacitus and Suetonius the most distinguished Scheffer observes that women were subjected to this kind of punishment. It should be noted besides, in passing, that Tacitus, at the end of book 16 of the Annals, where he relates that the slowness of the end brought severe torments to the one who was dying with his veins cut, is speaking not of Petronius, as Baluze thinks, but of Paetus Thrasea.

A good death. That is, an easy one, without tortures and torments; in which sense Baluze observes on ch. 26 that the cutting of the veins is called a good death. It also seems to have been held more honourable to end one's life struck by a sword than by an axe. At the end of the republic the penalty of the sword was not yet in use

as Casaubon rightly notes from Lucan, but began to be employed under the emperors; and just as the lictors used the axe, so the soldiers struck off the heads of the condemned with the sword, so that this custom seems to have taken its origin from them. A soldier skilled in beheading is mentioned by Suetonius in the Caligula, ch. 32, and Antoninus Caracalla rebuked the slayer of Papinian because he had struck him with an axe, not with a sword, on the testimony of Dio and of Spartianus, whose words are these: Papinian was struck with an axe and killed by the soldiers; when this was done, he said to the executioner: You ought to have carried out my order with the sword: from which it is quite clear that the sword was ordinarily in use among the soldiers, and that its penalty was held more honourable than that of the axe. And although Lactantius calls beheading a good death, because it is gentler, yet even it can sometimes have its own tortures and pains; namely, when the soldier, or cutter of necks, as Cicero says in the Oration for Roscius, inflicts several blows. Latinus Pacatus, ch. 41: Unless indeed another's hand is lighter than one's own, or a private death more shameful than a public one, or it is a longer punishment to fall upon the sword and burden the body with a wound, and to receive one's death at once and entire, than to divide the punishment, to bend the knee, to stretch out the neck for a blow perhaps not single. Hence the next of kin of the condemned used to give money to the lictors, so that they would take off their heads with a single blow, for the sake of easing their torment, as is established from Cicero's fifth Oration against Verres. And from that passage, no less than from Suetonius in the Life of Caligula, ch. 30, we say that the people did not take up weapons against the executioner if he inflicted several blows on the condemned man; indeed, it was later established by law or custom that the executioner should not dare to strike any further after the third blow, if credit is to be given to the history of the passion of Blessed Cecilia, Valerian, Tiburtius and others, which Bosio edited, and on whose page 26 these words are read: When the executioner had struck her with a third blow, he could not cut off her head; and so the bloody executioner left her half-dead: for among the ancients a law was laid upon him that, if [the condemned] was not beheaded in three strokes, he did not dare to strike any further.

Advocates removed, jurists either banished or killed. He rightly distinguishes these, because the former pleaded cases in the forum or in the courts, while the latter gave opinions on the law, as is clear even from Cicero, and from the little book of Hotman which he entitled Jurisconsultus.

Letters, moreover, were counted among the evil arts. By evil arts I understand the magical ones, which were forbidden by the edicts of the emperors, and which are called evil arts and Dardanian arts, as I show on the Apotheosis of Homer, p. 271: Ammianus Marcellinus, 23, 6, calls them secret arts, and Statius, Thebaid 1, the Atracian art. I had once thought that magic was called the art of Midas by Proclus in his praise of Blessed Chrysostom: but now I embrace wholeheartedly what was suggested to me in conversation by a man of distinguished nobility, Johan van Haarsholten, at that time delegate in the name of the Frisians to the assembly of the most mighty States General; and I hold that in his text one should write Artemida nudavit [he stripped Artemis], or fugavit [he put to flight].

Military judges, untaught in the humane study of letters, without assessors. That is, governors, proconsuls, dukes, counts, or others who commanded the soldiery in the provinces, administered justice to the provincials without calling in assessors or jurists, as even the emperors themselves had previously been accustomed to do, as Fornier teaches, Rerum quotidianarum book 4, ch. 10. These were, as it were, the counsellors of the judges, whence in an ancient inscription C. Calpurnius Asclepiades is said to have sat as assessor to the magistrates of the Roman people: and since this Asclepiades is said to have been a physician, it seems that others besides jurists were also called in; unless we suppose that he devoted himself to law at the same time. And from this time gradually, as I think, the custom prevailed that the ordinary or civil judges were passed over and cases were referred to military judgement; which the emperors Constantius, Arcadius, Honorius and Marcian forbade by the laws they passed, as Godefroy teaches on volume 1 of the Theodosian Code, p. 86. Suidas, under the word Maximinus, relates that he, having been made emperor, at once removed all the friends who had been intimates of Alexander

and who are called σύνεδροι or assessors by the Senate; and that while he reigned in the East he perpetrated many wicked crimes, persecuted the Christians, and at last fell into a most grievous disease, his flesh melted like wax, his body as it were blazed with fire, so that the very human form was destroyed. Whence it is clear that he too removed the assessors: which, however, is to be understood thus, that he removed only those who were friends of Alexander. Suidas drew the earlier part of this account from the beginning of book 7 of Herodian; and on his authority, first, ἐπιλεχθέντες, or 'chosen', ought to be read; next, those words refer to Maximinus, who succeeded Alexander Severus: but what follows about his death must be referred to C. Valerius Maximinus Daza, of whom Eusebius relates quite similar things at the end of book 9, and Lactantius, ch. 49, or to Maximianus Galerius, who is treated in ch. 33.

Chapter XXIII.

The censitors having been spread everywhere... So in ch. 26 and ch. 6: Yet no faith was placed in these same censitors. Those, namely, who conducted the census in the provinces were called Censitores, not Censores: whence in the Inscriptions there occurs Censitor of the province of Hither Spain, and on the same stones Censitores of other provinces. They were, moreover, in the cities or towns, and those who lived in the fields were obliged to come there with their children and slaves: whence it came about that all the forums of the cities or towns were full of herds of slaves, and that in the towns the urban and rustic commons were gathered together, as Lactantius presently says.

Animals of every kind were written down. That is, they were noted down, entered in their registers; and he speaks significantly and properly, for the tax which was paid for grazing cattle under the free Republic was called scriptura: hence ager scripturarius is pasture land, on the testimony of Festus; and the tax-farmers are called scripturarii, as is well known. But what I once added, that the Jews paid a tax for trees, as in this place by order of Galerius vines and trees were counted, I now change, and I think that Juvenal, Sat. 3, v. 15, is censuring in general the avarice of the Romans and their contempt for the old religion, since they let out the grove of the Camenae to the Jews.

They were hung up... Namely, from the equuleus. Prudentius, in the Hymn of the martyr Romanus.

Asclepiades, incensed at these words, had ordered / the body, to be disembowelled, to hang on the equuleus / at a distance

The same elsewhere:

You think me wretched because I hang / stretched out with arms twisted back

The Passion of St Tarachus: Strip him, gird him, and hang him up. Again: Since you are hung up, consent, and sacrifice. These two passages plainly agree with Lactantius, no less than the other in Ammianus Marcellinus, 14, 9: Eusebius, denying the charges rather boldly, though hung up, stood at the same degree of constancy; in place of which the same author, 19, 12, said: clinging long indeed to the equuleus. A corrupt word, Equuleus, as I judge, is in Ado in the Martyrology, p. 38: Then he was chained and sent into exile, in which again he was beaten at length with cudgels; for the sense requires that equuleum be read. In what way, moreover, martyrs or guilty persons were racked and hung on the equuleus may be seen in Magius, Gallonius, and others.

Sons were hung up against their parents, all the most faithful slaves were harried against their masters. That is, children were hung on the equuleus so that they might give testimony against their parents, namely that these had not rightly declared their property, and for the same reason slaves were interrogated by other and doubtless heavier torments: which Lactantius elegantly expresses by the word vexabantur. For this word carries the sense of a huge calamity; and as Gellius, 2, 6, says, he who is carried off and seized, and pulled this way and that, is properly said vexari; to which may be added Asconius on the second Verrine. Lactantius, ch. 27: Now as ravager of Italy he would have harried all things in hostile fashion, that is, would have plundered, laid waste; and in that sense the word is frequent

in Justin, Florus and others: to whom add Servius on Virgil's Eclogue 6, and the illustrious Salmasius, page 787, De modo usurarum. That this word was also applied to the contests of the arena, and that those were said to be vexati by the beasts whom they injured with horns or with mouth in such a way as not to kill them, Holstenius has shown on the Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity; and perhaps by vexatio in Suetonius, Tiberius, ch. 61, tortures ought to be understood.

Years were added to little children. Either this was done so that they could be tortured, in the way that Lipsius notes on Tacitus, Annals 5.9, that a certain boy was ordered by the Triumvirs in the proscription to assume the toga virilis, so that he could lawfully be put to death; or rather so that the tribute might be paid. For it was provided by the laws of the emperors that those who, for example, were not ten years old, and those who were more than sixty years of age, were not bound to pay the poll tax, as is clear from law 3, Digest, De censibus, and laws 4 and 6 of the Theodosian Code under the same title, where Jacobus Gothofredus may be consulted.

Money for heads. Lactantius in this chapter sharply censures Galerius Maximianus, because the assessors by his order searched out and inquired into everything, and he relates that the fields were measured by them clod by clod, etc., as though all these things were then being introduced for the first time; which, however, is far otherwise. For Ulpian, who lived in the times of Hadrian, writes in his book On Censuses that fields, ploughlands, vineyards, olive groves, meadow, pastures, coppice woods, the number of vines, slaves and their ages, duties and crafts, fishponds, harbours, salt-works, tenants were entered in the census registers; so that Galerius introduced nothing new, and is to be blamed either for excessive harshness, or because he revived a practice that had lapsed, or because he introduced this tribute into provinces which had not paid it before. Therefore he relates as something unusual, as it were, that in the cities the urban and rural common people were gathered together. In the cities the assessors, as I noted before, drew up the census registers, and there were recorded the fields which lay in the territory, as is clear from law 4, § 2, Digest, De censibus, and likewise also the heads of the country people who lived in the territory of any town were recorded. Yet I do not see what new and unusual thing Galerius introduced, unless Lactantius is relating that citizens and country people were compelled to pay the poll tax indiscriminately, whereas before the Honorati and the Decurions were exempt from this payment, and in the Eastern provinces even the urban common people itself, as Valesius teaches on Ammianus Marcellinus, 16.5, to whom may be added Contarenus, chapter 18 of his Variae lectiones.

Chapter XXIV.

He had thrown him to the beasts. That it was a lion Baluzius rightly notes from Praxagoras; and that the memory of this event is preserved on a coin I hold with Tristan, vol. 3, p. 528, who reports that the same thing is related by Pomponius Laetus, and thinks that he drew it from some author other than Praxagoras, who was perhaps Zonaras, in whom the same story is also found. But that Constantine overcame the lion corps à corps, so as to crush it, and was not equipped with weapons, I do not find in Praxagoras; and he could have been so depicted on coins because he overcame the lion after the example of Hercules, who, as the fabulous story relates, crushed a lion with his chest, as Statius sings, or, naked, strangled it in the grip of his arms.

At the very turning point. At the very moment, because dangers awaited him, and because he was to see his father still alive.

Having received instructions... Which, as I think, he was to carry to Constantius his father.

The public post had been stripped for him. That is, that there were no horses in it, because there precedes: that all the public horses had been taken away along many stages. Florus, 2.15: The harbour stripped of its works. Cicero, 13 to Atticus: Stripped of protection. On this matter the Author of Victor's Epitome speaks thus: When as a youth he was held by Galerius in the city of Rome under pretext of religion, taking to flight and, to frustrate his pursuers, killing the public beasts of burden wherever he went, he reached his father in Britain; where he wrongly writes that Constantine was a hostage at Rome. Paul the Deacon also errs when in book 10 he relates that Diocletian wished to destroy Constantine by treachery, because, namely, him in understanding

of the mind, and in strength of body, and in talent as regards learning, he saw advancing, and perceived that this man would be the destroyer of the tyranny and of its doctrine. For all these things fit Galerius; nor is it credible that Diocletian contemplated this, since he wished to make him Caesar. Hence I think that Philostorgius also errs, 1, 5, where he writes that Constantine fled τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν Διοκλητιανοῦ, the plots of Diocletian.

He could scarcely hold back his tears. The author of the Valesian Excerpts therefore errs when he writes that Galerius sent Constantine back to his father after he had been the cause of the victory which he won over the Sarmatians.

He reached his father.... Without doubt at York in Britain, lying ill with a disease, and dead on the fourth day after his arrival, as Baluze judges. But the author of the Excerpts departs far from this, and writes that Constantine, having crossed the Alps with the utmost haste, the post-horses behind him having been maimed, came to his father Constantius at Bononia, which the Gauls formerly called Gesoriacum; and that after the victory over the Picts his father Constantius died at York. He errs, however, without doubt: Constantine found his father sick and near to death not in the Gauls but in the Britains, as all the others testify with one voice. Further, Constantius, according to the opinion of the learned, crossed into Britain in the year of Christ 305 to wage war against the Picts, and in the year 306, on the 8th day before the Kalends of August, ended his days at York. But Eumenius, or whoever else is the author of the Panegyric spoken to Constantine, greatly disturbs this, ch. 7: For already then you were being called by heavenly suffrages to the safety of the Republic, when, at the very moment at which your father was crossing over into Britain, your sudden arrival shone upon the fleet as it was already setting sail, so that you seemed not to have been conveyed by the public post, but to have flown there in some divine chariot. For he too hints not obscurely that Constantine, together with his father Constantius, made for Britain from the Gauls, or that he caught sight of his father setting sail; and he seems not likely to have said such things to Constantine in his presence, if they were not true. The Panegyrist therefore relates nearly the same things as the author of the Excerpts, but he entirely rejects the victory over the Picts won afterwards, since it is clear from the same and the following chapter that Constantius did not long survive his son's arrival, and these words especially teach this: Good gods, with what great felicity you endowed Constantius the Pious even in his departure! The emperor, about to make his passage into heaven, saw the heir whom he was leaving behind. These things I leave to others to reconcile.

He handed over by his hands. In the Polity of the Holy Fathers Metrophanes and Alexander in Photius, p. 1406, we read that Constantine, having been instructed in the rites of the Christians by his father, was proclaimed Caesar by the same, and by him when dying βασιλέα, or emperor. But Photius writes that he does not know whence these things were drawn; namely because he knew that they were foreign to the truth. The same Acts relate what words Constantius, when dying, addressed to his son; and if these things really happened so, the rest of life which Lactantius teaches us that Constantius received will gain no slight light from them. Further, it is related in the same place that Constantius died in the third year of the persecution: which, however, is not so, if we make an accurate computation; for the beginning of the persecution falls on the Terminalia, that is, the 23rd day of February of the year 303; from then to March of the year 306 are three years: but Constantius died on the 8th day before the Kalends of August of the year 306, when the fourth year of the persecution was already running.

Of the holy religion restored. Either restitutio must be written, or with Columbus restitutae; so that Constantine may truly be called Restorer of the Christian Religion. Thus Aurelian and Carus are called Restorer of the world; Probus Restorer of the army; Alex. Severus Restorer of the coinage; and on another coin, of Aureolus, there occurs LEGIO. I. MINERVA. RESTITUTA.

Chapter XXV.

His laureate image. Which took its name, as I think, from the fact that it was encircled with a laurel crown. See Meursius in the Graeco-barbarous Glossary under the word λαβράτον, and Du Cange in

Glossary of the Middle Ages, how they spoke of laurelled letters, laurelled doorposts, and other things.

Constantine, however, not as emperor, as he had been made, but as Caesar. The authors do not agree: some say that on his father's death he was made emperor, others that he was made only Caesar by the soldiers. The former opinion is followed by Lactantius, Eusebius book 8, chap. 13, and Socrates book 1, chap. 2. But Zosimus (2, 6) relates that the soldiers bestowed on Constantine the rank of Caesar (καίσαρος ἀξίαν); and the Excerpta Valesiana testify that he was created Caesar by the consent of all the soldiers; nor does Eumenius relate anything else, in chap. 11 of the Panegyric which he delivered to Constantine Augustus himself: O fortunate Britain, now more blessed than all lands, which first saw Constantine as Caesar! Eumenius (who may be consulted also in the preceding chapter) would certainly not have declared this if the matter had stood otherwise. The same view is followed, though he is a writer of later ages, by Hugh of Fleury, and he relates in his Chronicle that Constantius appointed Licinius Caesar of the Spains, and his son Constantine Caesar of the Gauls; the first of which, however, is plainly foreign to the truth. And that Constantine was Caesar is a most certain fact, and the coins attest it, in which he is called not only Caesar but also fil. Augg. [son of the Augusti], in the way in which it is established that Caesars were styled. Worthy [of note] are the words of the panegyric delivered to Maximian Herculius and Constantine, chap. 5: And yet why do I use in your case the term of your age rather than of your gravity? whose maturity is so great that, although your father had left you the imperial power, you nevertheless, content with the title of Caesar, preferred to wait, so that the same man who [had declared] him might declare you Augustus. For you judged that this very imperial power would be the more beautiful if it had not accrued to you as hereditary by succession, but you had earned it from the supreme emperor as owed to your virtues. In which words I do not know how a very learned man could find that after his marriage to Fausta Constantine, although his father had left him the imperial power, was nevertheless content with the title of Caesar. For that is not the panegyrist's meaning, nor does he speak in this passage of things which happened after Fausta's marriage; rather he relates that Constantine, when the imperial power had been left to him by his father Constantius, refused to accept the name of Augustus, but was content with the dignity of Caesar; so that, namely, the same man should call him Augustus who had adorned his father with that summit of honour; that is, Maximianus Herculius, who also at the very marriage of his daughter Fausta and Constantine created him emperor. The same [writer] at the beginning of the Panegyric: Most sacred princes, Maximian, Augustus forever (whether you will or not), and Constantine, rising Emperor, I am nevertheless resolved to embrace in this speech chiefly those things which are proper to this present rejoicing, by which the name of imperial power has been added to you, Caesar, and the festivities of this heavenly marriage are celebrated. Constantine therefore was made Augustus at the time of the marriage; and it should be observed in passing how grossly the Panegyrist flatters the Emperors when he says that Constantine waited to be called Augustus also by the same man who had created his father Constantius Augustus. For this could not have entered Constantine's mind, because Maximianus Herculius, when Constantius was dying, had laid down the imperial power and was living as a private man in Campania, or, as Eutropius relates, in Lucania. But what we read in the Epitome of Victor and in P. Diaconus at the beginning of book 11, that Constantine was made Caesar at the same time as that dignity was conferred on Severus and Maximinus, is certainly a manifest error, as Baluze also noted very well on chap. 19; and what the Acts of Metrophanes and Alexander in Photius relate, that Constantine was created Caesar by his father as a very young man, has been refuted by me earlier.

But as Caesar... Not without reason does Baluze refer the words of an old calendar, 8th day before the Kalends of January, Birthday of the Unconquered, to the time at which Constantine was named Caesar by Galerius, although it may seem to stand in the way that Constantius died in the month of July of the year 306, and Constantine at once, according to solemn custom, sent his laurelled image to Galerius, and yet was first acknowledged by him as Caesar in the month of December of the same year. But, as I said, this conjecture does not displease me, and it ought to be preferred

to the explanation of Petavius; for that most learned man, at the end of Julian's Oration 4, understands games celebrated in honour of the unconquered sun. Certainly the unconquered sun very often occurs on coins, and on one of Victorinus he is called simply "unconquered". But even if this could very well hold good, I still do not see in what sense it would be called the Birthday of the Sun: and next, if the games celebrated in honour of the Sun are put off to this day, they will follow very closely on the last day of the Saturnalia, to which, it is asserted (gratuitously, indeed), an eighth day was added in Constantine's times. For the last day of the Saturnalia is the tenth day before the Kalends of January, whereas the Birthday of the Unconquered falls on the 8th before the same Kalends. And since the Birthday of Constantine Caesar was perhaps celebrated on that [day], it follows that the games of the Sun fell on the 9th before the Kalends of January. Certainly on this day "the show ends" is noted in the calendar, and by this it seems to be indicated that no further gladiatorial shows were celebrated in that year; and since Julian writes in the place cited that after the contest celebrated in honour of the Sun it was unlawful to exhibit any gloomy spectacles, the suspicion has arisen in me that games were consecrated to the Sun on this day by the institution either of Julian or of another emperor; for they immediately followed the last day of the Saturnalia: "But," he says, "to the Kronia, which are the last, the Helia are straightaway joined in the cycle"; and a little before, "before the new moon, immediately after the last day of Kronos (so perhaps it should be read), we hold for Helios the most splendid contest." But I should like others to examine these matters more diligently; and this can best be done by Spanheim, illustrious in rank and learning, who has promised us a more correct Julian, and how great the erudition with which he is endowed is shown amply enough by his notes on the Caesars of the same emperor.

Chapter XXVI.

Maxentius made emperor at Rome. Eutropius, book 10, chapter 2, writes that Maxentius was staying not far from the city in a public villa. There was at Rome a public villa in the Campus Martius; and it was a spacious house in which entertainment was provided for the envoys of foreign nations, as Nardini and Donati show. That is not to be understood here, but a praetorium, or villa, which is called public, as I think, because it belonged to the emperors and the commonwealth; just as those beasts of burden are called public by which the public post was carried on. For the Epitome of Victor teaches us that Maxentius was in a villa six miles distant from the city, off the Lubican road; and you may find the same words in Paul the Deacon, who however also calls the villa public. Thus on the Appian Way there was another public way. The author of Valesius's Excerpts: "Herculius, summoned on behalf of his son Maxentius, came there, and by perjury deceived Severus and handed him over to custody, and brought him to the city in the garb of a captive, and had him guarded in the public villa at the thirtieth milestone of the Appian Way." Eutropius too, 10, 2, relates that Constantine the Great died at Nicomedia in a public villa. The Greek translator rendered it "in an estate near Nicomedia"; just as, namely, Plutarch writes that the slaughter carried out by Sulla took place "in a small estate", that is, in the public villa, as the Latins say. For χωρίον signifies not only a field but also a villa, or a house built in the country outside cities; and when Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in Themes 9, says that Diocletian originated "from some estate of Salona", it may indicate that he was born on a farm, or in a villa near Salonae, in the very place where he afterwards built a spacious palace; on which matter may be seen what I note at chapter 19. Certainly in this way Maximian Herculius built a palace not far from Sirmium in the place where his parents carried on hired labour, as the Epitome of Victor and Paul the Deacon attest; and Constantine splendidly adorned the town of Naisus, in which he had been born and brought up, as we read in the Excerpts so often cited: "Constantine, born of Helena, a most base mother, in the town of Naisus, and brought up there, which town he afterwards splendidly adorned"; where, if anyone judged that it ought to be rewritten "his mother Helena, in the most base town of Naisus", he would certainly remove the baseness of birth from Helena.

Made emperor at Rome. Especially worthy of note

is this, that Eusebius, book 8, ch. 14 of the Ecclesiastical History, relates that Maxentius at first pretended to be a Christian, "out of complaisance and flattery towards the people of the Romans", that is, in order to humour and court the Roman people. For from this I think I can affirm that the number of Christians at Rome at this time was enormous, and that perhaps they outnumbered the gentiles. For I cannot find any other reason, whichever way I turn the matter, why the new emperor courted the favour of the Christians, since he was most devoted to the heathen superstition and pursued the Christians with hatred.

He had also abolished the praetorian camp. That it had been reduced by Diocletian and Herculius, or at any rate by the former, Aurelius Victor teaches us: "Herculius was driven by such great lust that he did not restrain the depravity of his mind even from the bodies of hostages; Valerius kept little honourable faith towards his friends, indeed out of fear of discords, since he thinks that the quiet of their partnership could be disturbed by informers. Hence also the strength of the city was, as it were, cut down, the number of the praetorian cohorts and of the populace under arms being reduced, whereby indeed many hold that he laid down the imperial power"; the sense of which passage I take to be that Diocletian was seldom together with the other emperors, because he feared discords arising from meetings, and did not trust them; that he thought the partnership could be maintained through others whom they sent to one another; and that he reduced the number of the praetorian soldiers because he feared that another might use them to make war upon him. And the suspicious prudence of Diocletian is well known from Eutropius. By "populace under arms" perhaps the urban cohorts could be understood, which seem at that time to have been levied from the populace; or with Cl. Baluze one should read "of the unarmed populace", since a great multitude of the populace too is wont to give occasion for seditions. What this emperor did, however, Lactantius ascribes to Galerius, unless the latter afterwards also reduced the number of the praetorians. For although he relates that he abolished the praetorian camp, this is nevertheless not true in every respect, since Constantine the Great did this afterwards, as Zosimus 2, 17 witnesses, and that the power of the praetorian prefects was greatly diminished by him Valesius teaches on Ammianus Marcellinus 14, 9. Constantine, moreover, abolished them because the praetorian soldiers, by order of Maxentius, had at a certain time at Rome slain all whom they met and had wrought an enormous slaughter, as Eusebius 8, 14 and Paul the Deacon, book 11, report, and because they were apt for fostering factions. Victor: "Whom (the senate and the people) he had afflicted to such a degree that he once consented to a slaughter of the populace by the praetorians"; and shortly after: "Out of hatred of whom the praetorian legions and auxiliaries, more apt for factions than for the city of Rome, were utterly abolished, together with their arms and the use of military dress." Not many of the praetorian soldiers, however, seem to have survived when Constantine abolished them, since for the greater part they fell in the battle in which Maxentius was defeated; for so it seems to me the words of the anonymous panegyrist, ch. 7, must be interpreted: "The enemy, terrified and put to flight and shut out by the narrows of the Mulvian bridge, except the first authors of that brigandage, who, despairing of pardon, covered with their bodies the place which they had taken up for the fight"; for I understand the praetorians, who had made Maxentius emperor and who had run riot in slaughters against the Romans.

He could not make three Caesars. Because, namely, the law of Diocletian stood in the way, as Baluze explains excellently; of which law or arrangement there is mention in ch. 18. What follows, however, "it seemed enough to have once done what he did not wish", refers to Constantine, whom he admitted as Caesar against his will.

He summons Severus. Victor relates that Severus happened to be at the city (namely Rome), and that Galerius ordered him to bear arms against the enemy with speed. Certainly Severus held Italy, and could have been at the city; but from there he seems to have been summoned into Illyricum by Galerius, who then urged him to recover the dominion.

To recover the dominion. That is, of Italy, which together with the West had fallen to Severus Augustus, and which Maxentius had seized, having been made emperor by the praetorian soldiery. But if we follow Zosimus, Severus was only Caesar, not Augustus, since he relates (2, 10) that Galerius took ill the things concerning the Caesar Severus

that had come about. But he is mistaken; and because [Severus] was placed at the very summit for only a very short time, he no doubt calls him Caesar. For in the preceding chapter Lactantius writes expressly that Severus was created Augustus, and his coins are inscribed IMP. C. SEVERUS. P. F. AUG. Tristan, vol. 3, p. 437, notes that he was made Augustus with the consent of Constantius and Galerius: but, as is clear from Lactantius, it was only after Constantius had died that Severus was made Augustus by Galerius, when he had learned that Constantine had been clothed in the purple by the soldiers in Britain. But whether, on receiving this news, Galerius at once declared Severus Augustus, or only did so after he learned of the attempt of Maxentius, is doubtful, learned men standing on either side of the question. From Lactantius it is clear that Severus was created Augustus when the laurelled image of Constantine had been brought to Galerius; and Zosimus testifies, book 2, chapter 9, that Maxentius was made Augustus when such an image of Constantine had been displayed at Rome: so that it is evident from this that the learned men do not differ much among themselves, and that both things could have happened at nearly the same time, although there is no need to believe that Galerius knew of the things that were being done at Rome when he proclaimed Severus Augustus. I observe that the coins of Severus as Caesar show his head laurelled, but those of Severus as Augustus show it helmeted, perhaps to indicate that as soon as he was made Augustus he set out against Maxentius; to this belongs the fact that the coins of Severus as Augustus are inscribed CONCORDIA or FIDES MILITUM, which by no means appear on those of him as Caesar.

His veins having been cut. The Life of the Holy Fathers Metrophanes and Alexander therefore errs, in which, as found in Photius, p. 1407, it is written that Severus died of disease; and perhaps there is attributed to this Severus what fits the Severus who succeeded Niger. If we follow the Excerpts of Valesius, he had his throat cut, and that not at once but afterwards, as is evident from the words I have just cited; and these also teach us that Herculius deceived Severus and broke his oath.

Chapter XXVII.

The city having been fortified, and with things begun hostile. A passage not only difficult, but also, if I see anything, corrupt. Perhaps one should read, "with the captured things of the enemy", that is, carefully equipping and fortifying [the city] with the things he had taken from his enemy Severus.

He would not have the utensils. That is, the things necessary for pursuit. Peter Damian, cited by the most learned du Cange in his Glossary: "Spurs, whip, and whatever other utensils of riding there are", that is, instruments.

Chapter XXVIII.

Because they were soldiers who had abandoned Severus. The sense absolutely demands that one read, "because they were his own soldiers who had abandoned Severus"; and that this is true is evident from chapter 44, and the similarity of the letters could have caused that word to drop out.

He tore apart the purple from his shoulders. If we wish to speak Latin, one ought to say deripuit, that is, he pulled it off his son's body; whereas diripere, on the contrary, means to cut into pieces, as I show in book 4 of the Observations, chapter 5. So Ovid, c. 7:

Procne tears the coverings from her shoulders......

Virgil: "They tear the hides from the ribs." In Socrates, where this attempt of Herculius is treated, one reads apolesai, which can most conveniently be rendered perdere, "to destroy".

Chapter XXIX.

When he was disputing with him. That is, conversing, discoursing, dealing with him. Cicero, Letters to Friends 3.8: "And so I think that I discussed at length at Synnada before the tribunal"; Speech for Caelius: "Know, judges, that those desires and these pursuits of which I am speaking cannot easily exist in the same man"; and more often elsewhere.

Shut out by his own. Which namely, before he had for the second time

been made Augustus, while Diocletian was still ruling, he had held, as is clear from chapters 7 and 8, and to govern which he had now been called by his son Maxentius, chapter 28.

Diocles was present there. A learned man notes that Herculius was not indeed at that time ruling in good faith; yet that he, rather than Diocles, completes the number six. Certainly Diocles, or Diocletian, could not be counted among the six princes, since he never resumed the purple; although Herculius and Galerius had urged him to do so, as Zosimus and Eutropius attest. But Herculius, on the contrary, was ruling in good faith: for Maxentius Augustus had sent him the purple; and having been made emperor a second time, he also named Constantine emperor, who was only Caesar. I admit that the power of rule lay with others than Herculius: but nevertheless in this respect Diocletian cannot be compared with him.

That he should give the rule to Licinius, substituted in the place of Severus. Therefore Licinius was made Augustus at once; for, as is established from chapter 25, Severus had been named Augustus by Galerius. The anonymous author on the Life of Constantine writes that Galerius made Licinius Caesar in Illyricum; and Tristan, vol. 3, p. 482, follows him (where he also notes that Licinius first assumed the title of emperor after the death of Galerius, which is very far from the truth), as do Oiselius on Table 13 and Antoine Pagi in the Dissertatio Hypatica. But from Lactantius, and especially from chapter 20 (where he relates in express words that Galerius was unwilling to make Licinius, the friend of his old comradeship in arms and his intimate from his first military service, Caesar, lest he should call him son, so that afterwards he might name him Augustus and brother in the place of Constantius), and also from what Henry Noris notes in the Explanation of a Coin of Diocletian and Licinius, p. 38, the contrary seems to be true. Yet on a coin in Strada there is seen the laureate bust of the elder Licinius, with the legend: LICINIUS. NOB. CAES.; on the other side, CONCORDIA. AVGG. DD. NN. AET. And on another in Angeloni, the laureate head of the same, and D. N. VAL. LIC. LICINIUS. NOB. C. Noris notes in the place cited that Licinius was designated Caesar and Augustus at one and the same time, and that this is clear enough from Eusebius and from the inscriptions of the coins. If what this most learned man notes is true, it might seem to someone that no one was made Augustus at that time without first having been created Caesar; and that those who were to be created Augusti were, merely for form's sake, called Caesars at one and the same time as they were proclaimed Augusti. And so Licinius, substituted in the place of Severus, will have been made Augustus: but that everything might be done in due form, the dignity of Caesar was first conferred on him. The same, it appears, must be held concerning Maxentius, whose coins also bear the inscription: M. VAL. MAXENTIUS NOB. CAESAR. But the coins of Licinius cited above prove that Scaliger notes, not cautiously enough, that Licinius is not called NOB. CAES. on coins. Indeed Aurelius Victor also confirms that Licinius was made Caesar and Augustus at the same time, if the particle "and" is inserted: Galerius, the fiercer for this, having called Jovius into counsel, creates Licinius, known to him by old friendship, Caesar and Augustus. The particle "and", I admit, does not appear in the editions: but perhaps it was swallowed up by the last syllable of the preceding word; nor do I think that Victor would have forgotten to record beforehand that Licinius had been made Caesar, if he had judged that he was first created Caesar and only then Augustus: further, the manner of speaking requires that Victor ought to have written, "creates Licinius Caesar, known by old friendship, Augustus", if he meant to indicate that Licinius was at that time made Augustus from Caesar.

The nation of the Franks. The most learned Baluze notes that the frontier of the Franks was about the Danube. But they dwelt near the Rhine, which Constantine without doubt crossed: from there they spread widely, as is clear from the Peutinger Table and from various authors; further, if they dwelt by the Danube, Constantine could not have entered their territory within a few days, which, however, it is established from this chapter that he did. And at this or another time

Constantine conquered the Franks: hence on his coin a captive sits, with the inscription added GAUDIUM ROMAN. and FRANCIA, in the illustrious Spanheim.

Chapter XXX.

Because he had once gone away unpunished. Quite similarly Phaedrus, Fable 8:

Since it can no longer get away unpunished thereafter.

and Terence, Cicero, Catullus and Seneca speak no differently.

To have seen a dream... He speaks with propriety; hence frequently in inscriptions EX VISU. The Vulgate translator at Gen. 41:1: after two years Pharaoh saw a dream.

His most proud throat crushed and broken. A most learned man, in illustrating the death of Herculius, remarks that Suidas writes very badly that Diocletian was slain by the senate, but that Maximian hanged himself. Certainly Diocletian was not slain by order of the Senate; but Herculius nevertheless, being permitted the manner of his death, chose hanging, as is most clearly evident from this chapter of Lactantius. Suidas too relates the same, so that I do not see why he is criticized; he errs, however, in calling Maximian Herculius, who ended his life by hanging, the gambros or son-in-law of Diocletian, since that was Galerius Maximian. That free choice of death was formerly granted to many is more than sufficiently evident from Tacitus, Suetonius and others.

He ended by death. At Marseilles, that is; and Baluze rightly faults Zosimus because, confusing Maximin and Maximian Herculius, he writes that the latter died of disease at Tarsus. Socrates commits the same fault, 1, 2, and also Cassiodorus, Tripartite History 1, 4: Hence his (Maxentius's) father, from lust for ruling, wished to deprive his son of the kingdom, which he was unable to do; after this, however, he died at Tarsus in Cilicia.

Chapter XXXI.

That he might render what he had promised. This passage is very difficult, and I scarcely see what sense lies in it. He seems to say that Galerius made heavy exactions so that he might hold and celebrate splendidly the vicennalia which he had promised.

He brought down a second axe. Here too I scarcely satisfy myself. If the sense is, as Columbus thinks, that Galerius brought down, or inflicted, a second axe upon the provinces, I should readily believe that Lactantius designates a new exaction and distinguishes from it the other, of which mention is made in chapter 23; and thus the name of the vicennalia will mean nothing else than that the vicennalia were already being spoken of, and there was much talk about them, and the things necessary for celebrating them were being prepared. The lacuna may perhaps be supplied thus: he was considering, and as one who long since, etc.

The soldiers of all the officia .... At that time officium signified a retinue, or the men who were subject to an illustrious man: hence in the Notitia Dignitatum, the officium of the illustrious man the praetorian prefect of the East, the princeps, the cornicularius; elsewhere, the officium of the illustrious men the praetorian prefects throughout Illyricum. Moreover the dignities themselves also went by that name: Suetonius, Nero 15: the office of quaestor being passed over, that is, the quaestor; Inscr. 1, 361: HAVING DISCHARGED THE OFFICE OF THE PRAETORIAN PREFECTURE; below, chapter 48, to your officium, that is, to you as judge. Hence the soldiers of all the officia may not badly be explained as the soldiers of all the magistrates, whom he presently calls the soldiers of the judges.

Threshing-floor. On which, that is, grain was cleaned and separated from the chaff. Let the writers on agriculture be consulted.

In hope of things to come. Namely of the crops which grow in the fields, and with which they could feed themselves.

I will furnish. That is, I will produce, I will give. So to furnish a fixed sum in Suetonius, Domitian ch. 9; Cicero, I seem scarcely able to furnish what I promised; hence praestatio, and the praestatio of legacies, in the Law. Galerius, moreover, seems to have exacted garments of every kind, tapestries, and also gold and silver to adorn the pomp of the vicennalia. Hence Lactantius asks him: Whence this to you

shall I furnish, or be able to give, if you take away all the produce, by the sale of which I ought to procure such things for myself?

Chapter XXXII.

Neither Caesar, nor in third place... Maximinus conducts himself almost exactly as Galerius himself had done before, as is clear from chap. 9, and in some measure we can observe the law of retaliation; that is, that he was harassed by Maximinus Caesar just as he himself had harassed Diocletian and Herculius. Galerius Maximianus was the first of the Augusti, Licinius the second; and Constantine, Maximinus, and Maxentius were held to be Caesars: but Galerius was at length compelled, as is clear from the end of the chapter, to reckon four emperors, so that there were five Augusti at the same time, Galerius, Licinius, Constantine, Maximinus, and Maxentius. But in what place the name of Maximinus was set is not yet established with certainty; and he wished to be named neither Caesar nor Augustus in the third place: whence it is certainly clear that he judged that the second place was owed to him, and that his name ought to be placed after the name of Galerius. Certainly, once Galerius was dead, he wished to be first, as Eusebius teaches us, Eccl. Hist. 9, 10: "and to proclaim himself first in honours": to claim the first place in titles and honours; and Valesius rightly notes that Maximinus named himself first in the inscriptions of public works and of statues, because he had been created Caesar before Constantine and Licinius. And from this one might perhaps arrive at the true reason why the name of Maximinus is not found in the edict in Eusebius 8, 17; namely, because he wished to be named not third, but second after Galerius. If, however, this edict was promulgated under a common title, as Lactantius teaches, chap. 36, that is, with the names of Galerius, Constantine, Licinius, Maximinus and Maxentius written at its head, perhaps the names of the last were omitted by the Christians, because these ceased only for a little while to persecute them: or Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius omitted them, because their friendship with them was not firm enough; and perhaps because Maxentius too was raising a dispute about precedence, since he had been made Emperor by the Praetorians before Constantine, Maximinus, and Licinius. The edict could also have been sent to Maximinus and Maxentius, so that each might publish it with his own name set at its head; and that it was sent is established from this, that Maximianus refused to promulgate it in the East, which he ruled, as Eusebius 9, 1 testifies, who may be consulted.

Let him keep his disposition.... That is, what he has established, what he has decreed, what he has prescribed as a kind of law; chap. 18: "That his disposition ought to be preserved in perpetuity"; chap. 34: "Which we always dispose for the advantage and benefit of the State." An old inscription: WHICH FORM OF INTERDICT AND DISPOSITION IS ORDERED TO BE KEPT UNDER PERIL OF THE SWORD.

He raises his horns more boldly... He takes on greater spirit, becomes bolder and prouder. Ovid, Art of Love 1, 239.

Then comes laughter: then the poor man takes up horns.

The same, Tristia 4, 9:

Now I am borne into battles and have not yet taken up horns; / nor would I wish there to be any cause for me to take them up.

And in the same sense horns are said to belong to Micyllus in Lucian's Cock, κέρατα εἶναι, "to have horns".

Sons of the Augusti. I think that Columbus advises most truly; and no one else is said by Lactantius to have been overcome by the obstinacy of Maximinus than Galerius Maximianus. Constantine and Maxentius were indeed sons of Augusti, whence they are also so called by Eutropius, 10, 3, but Maximinus Daza was a new man; yet I think this title was given to him too, because it is by no means likely that Galerius would pass over altogether the man whom he himself had made Caesar.

In the Campus Martius lately thronged... This passage has its difficulties; nor do I grasp what it is to throng the Campus Martius. Does it signify that manoeuvres of soldiers were held? or rather that an armilustrium was performed? But

this was not celebrated on the Campus Martius, but in the thirteenth region of the City, where P. Victor records the Vicus Armilustri. Next, the armilustrium did not concern the whole army, but only the ancilia, which, as I show in the observations, are called arma. Varro, book 5 On the Latin Language: at the Armilustrium those sporting went round armed with ancilia. Moreover, Maximinus was not at Rome, but in the East, as is clear from chapter 36; from which we learn that other cities too, after the example of Rome, had Campi Martii. I think, therefore, that all the soldiers had been gathered into one place, either for the sake of exercise or of some other matter, and that that day was a solemn one; and that this is why Lactantius says that the Campus Martius was celebrated. And in much the same way celebrare asylum is read in the Calendar which has been published with Ovid's Fasti: A temple was made to Carmenta. The asylum is celebrated; which Ovid, if we follow some editions, expressed thus: the grove of the neighbouring asylum is celebrated; for which Heinsius emends to Hylerni; and to celebrate the asylum means to keep that day on which Romulus opened the asylum; to celebrate the grove of Hylernus, to celebrate the appointed day in honour of the deity which presided over that grove; and in celebrating the Campus Martius sacrifices offered to Mars may also have taken place.

Chapter XXXIII.

God struck him... Job 2:7, he struck Job with a very grievous ulcer; Exod. 9:15, I will strike you and your people with pestilence; and in Jer. 30:12 there occurs an incurable fracture and a very grievous wound; and soon follows, for I have struck you with the wound of an enemy, with cruel chastisement.

A cancer attacks. Gangrene, as is clear from the Latin physicians Celsus and Scribonius, and from what Rhodius notes in the Scribonian Lexicon.

The masters gave way... It is taken from Virgil, and should be written:

The masters gave way, Chiron son of Philyra, and Melampus son of Amythaon,

as I show on page 4 of the Apotheosis of Homer.

Apollo gives a cure. That is, by his oracle he prescribes what remedies ought to be applied; and that the gods, or their oracles, were often consulted by the sick so that they might provide them with medicine is too well known to need proof: see Aristides in various places, and M. Antoninus the Philosopher, book 5, § 8.

The whole seat... So too below he calls the part of the body on which we sit, and through which excrements are expelled, the flowing seat. The Greeks similarly said τὴν ἕδραν, as is clear from Hesychius under the word Γαφανιδοσθῆναι.

Odoritatem... I in no way condemn Baluze's reading, odor teter: but one departs very little from the common text if we read odoritas tetra. So there occur prioritas, commodioritas, superioritas, noted by Meursius in chapter 32 of the Auctarium Philologicum; nor does uberitas, found on coins, differ, and I remember having read somewhere differitas for differentia.

Inestimable... That is, innumerable.

They had lost the appearance of a body. So exactly Suidas: And as he burned the more fiercely, the very bones were burned along with him, so that even the stamp of human form vanished: But when he was ablaze with a great burning, even the very bones were scorched, so that the figure of human form was utterly effaced; for that these words are to be understood of Maximinus, or Galerius Maximianus, not of Maximinus the successor of Alexander Severus, I have shown at chapter 22.

A continuous year. That is, entire, whole; and in this sense this word occurs in Plautus in the Amphitruo; Justin 5, 7; Ins. 2, 164; so that Festus notes without sufficient caution that only the poets used it.

Of a new pain pressing... Either he imitates the Greeks, who are accustomed to put a genitive in place of an absolute dative; or some fault lies hidden, which Columbus removes not inappropriately by nova vi doloris. Moreover Haymo, 8, 2, writes that Maximinus too (so he calls Galerius Maximianus), distended by a sudden swelling of the bowels, and his wounds afterwards having putrefied, boiled out worms and gave off an intolerable stench; and at the end of the following chapter,

that Maximinus Daza, seized by a violent sickness and by pains of the inward organs, having also lost his eyes through the disease, and then seeing better what he had committed against Christ, made an end of living, having first passed a law for the freedom of the Christians.

Chapter XXXIV.

And for the advantage... This also occurs on a coin, on one face of which is seen the emperor laureate and MAXIMIANUS P. F. AUG., on the other a woman clad in a stola, holding a globe in each hand, and UTILITAS PUBLICA, in Andreas Morellius's very learned Specimen of the Whole Science of Ancient Coins; and well known is the saying of Cassius in Tacitus, Annals 14.44: Every great example has something of injustice in it, which is compensated against individuals by the public advantage.

According to the ancient laws and the public discipline... That is, according to laws passed long ago, and rites received by usage, or the precepts which are observed at this time. Pliny 10.82: But if any have conducted themselves contrary to my discipline, let them be restrained at once.

That they might return to good minds. Those are said to return to a good mind who, having abandoned wicked opinions, embrace better ones, and come back from error onto the road: such as are said in Cicero's Letters to his Friends to return to sanity, that is, to better counsels; and bona mens also occurs in Petronius: poverty is the sister of a good mind: by which saying he signifies that a sound mind is rarely present in the rich, because they are for the most part corrupted by luxury and other vices.

And throughout different [places] they gathered various peoples... Eusebius renders, "and in different [places] to gather different multitudes"; which they interpret as and in different sects and opinions they gathered different assemblies: whereas I would rather render, and in different places: and I think that Lactantius too said diversa in the same way, namely places, or towns.

Many subjected to danger. That is, many, subjected to the torments and punishments which they had to endure under our laws, renounced Christ: many also did this without torments; provided that deturbare is used in the sense which Du Cange supposes. For the passages which he brings forward rather denote to scatter, to separate a gathered crowd, than détourner. Eusebius expressed the former by "subjected to danger"; the latter by "thrown into confusion", that is deturbati; or those who from fear of torments betook themselves to the Gentiles. For tarattein, as is very well known, means to terrify, to dismay, to strike down, and to dislodge, to cast down. Cicero, Letters to his Friends 5.7: But know this, that your old enemies, new friends, are struck hard by the letter and lie cast down from great hope. Elsewhere: Each man's own crime dislodges him from sanity and mind.

Nor observe the God of the Christians. Either I am mistaken, or these words plainly refer to the heresies born in this century or in the preceding ones; of which, after others, Friedrich Spanheim, a most celebrated theologian among the Dutch, treats excellently in his Introduction to Chronology and Sacred History, whose second part is now being read through by the learned with great profit and pleasure. For among others there were many which held Christ, or the God of the Christians, in mockery; and invented for themselves I know not what monstrosities of religions, as is clear from Augustine, Epiphanius, Damascene, Timothy the presbyter, and others. But this edict has its difficulties: so I shall briefly add what I think about one passage or another. By these words, then, who had abandoned the sect of their parents, I think Christians must be understood, who had renounced the superstitions of their Gentile parents and ancestors: hence he adds that he had wished to recall them to a good mind, that is, to bring it about that they should again worship the gods and embrace the abandoned sect; and he adds the reason, namely because such great anoia, or folly, or madness had seized them that each fashioned for himself a religion and worship at his own pleasure, and abandoned the institutions of the first Christians, who, namely, worshipped God with one mouth and one heart. Hence he adds that he had ordered that they should betake themselves to the institutions of the ancients; that is, that, abandoning such discordant opinions, they should worship the gods of the Gentiles.

This I think is the true sense of these passages; and although I earlier suspected that these words, that they did not follow those institutions of the ancients which perhaps their first parents had established, referred also to the superstition of the Gentiles, nevertheless, having weighed the matter more carefully, I change my opinion, and I judge with Baluze, a man of outstanding learning, that the Christians are being censured for having fallen away from that ancient simplicity of their parents and for being divided into a great many sects. But what follows, that they should betake themselves to the institutions of the ancients, I take as referring to the superstition of the gentiles, to which Galerius had tried to bring the Christians back.

Our indulgence... A proper term, and one met with on the coins themselves; it signifies the clemency and benevolence of the emperors, whether in remitting arrears or in bestowing and granting things that were asked for. Meursius thinks it arose in the time of Ammianus Marcellinus, because he speaks thus in book XVI: Finally we know that he observed this likewise right up to the end of his rule and of his life, that he would not remit the arrears of tribute through indulgences, as they call them. But I consider that nothing of the kind can be learned from this, because Ammianus Marcellinus says only that, if arrears of tribute were remitted by the emperors, that thing was called indulgences, as indeed they were. For this word is met with in far older authors, and it denotes a favour or remission which the emperors bestowed. Thus on a coin of Caracalla one reads INDULGENTIAE FECUNDAE, in Tristan, vol. II, p. 169, who may be consulted; on another of Severus, INDULGENTIA AUG. IN CARTHA. Hence Eumenius in the Panegyric often calls the emperors most indulgent princes; and Ambrose, in the Oration on the death of Theodosius, calls the relaxation of the exaction of the grain levies, promised by him but not delivered because he was forestalled by death, an inheritance of indulgences.

Their conventicles... So in chapters 15, 36 and 49, where this is the name given to the places at which they had been accustomed to assemble. Cicero, in the Oration for his House and in that for Sestius, uses this word for a gathering and congregation.

But by another letter to the judges, etc. Either he means that he will assign to the Christians, through the judges, certain places in which they may assemble, or that he will instruct [the judges] to observe what is done in them and to take care that they do not form any designs against the commonwealth. For this freedom is given them on that condition, as is clear from those words, so that they do nothing against discipline; that is, against the precepts of the emperors, against the government, against the laws. In Eusebius it is ὥστε μηδὲν ὑπεναντίον τῆς ἐπιστήμης αὐτοὺς πράττειν (so that they do nothing contrary to the discipline), which I believe is not rendered well enough as so that they are not compelled henceforth to do anything contrary to their own discipline; since freedom is granted to the Christians on the condition that they do not offend in any way against the laws and constitutions. At the beginning he said in the same sense τὴν δημοσίαν ἐπιστήμην τὴν τῶν Ῥωμαίων (the public discipline of the Romans), which in Lactantius is according to the ancient laws and public discipline of the Romans.

Their God... While the republic was free, the Romans entreated their gods for the welfare of the commonwealth, as is clear, for instance, from book I, chapters 10 and 22, of Velleius, and from other authors. The first was Cn. Pompeius Magnus, for whose welfare all Italy undertook vows, as the same author attests, II, 48. After the power of empire had been conferred on one man, they entreated the gods for his welfare too, as the same author teaches at the end of book II, and Seneca, Consolation to Polybius, I, Pliny at the end of the Panegyric, Aristides, vol. I, p. 50, and Julius Firmicus, book I of the Mathesis. The Christians imitated the same with the best of reason; and they prayed to Christ also for the welfare of the emperors, although these were gentiles, and did so by the precept of St Paul, 1 Tim. 2:2, which is confirmed by Jer. 29:7. And that they did this is taught by Theophilus, To Autolycus, book VII, p. 76; Athenagoras at the end of the Embassy for the Christians; the Passion of St Cyprian, p. 11; the Passion of St Victor of Marseilles, edited by Colomiès, a learned man; Tertullian, chapter 30 of the Apology; and finally Dionysius in Eusebius, book VII of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 1, where he relates that Gallus killed the holy men who interceded with God for his peace and health: who should also be consulted, chapter 11 of book

the same. So today the patriarchs of the Greeks and of the Armenians do the same for the emperors of the Turks, as Rycaut witnesses in the Life of Mahomet IV. That the Egyptian Christians still keep the old custom even now, and that the orthodox prayed to God for emperors infected with the Arian heresy, is established from the Coptic Liturgies, and also from Cyril, Catechesis 4, and from the letter of the synod of Ariminum sent to Constantius; would that some today, who wish to be Christians of the first rank and place, observed this!

Chapter XXXV.

With a horrible wasting disease... What this was like is clear from chap. 33, and Baluze rightly notes there that John Chrysostom tells a similar story about Julian, who was the uncle of the Apostate. Philostratus, VII, 10, relates the same about the same Julian, but leaves out the worms; these, however, are recounted by the author of the Passion of Theodoritus, priest of Antioch, in Mabillon, vol. IV of the Annals, p. 133. For the rest, it should be observed that a statue of this Maximian, although a most cruel prince, was still to be seen at Antioch in the time of Julian. Amm. Marcell. XXV, 10: For the statue of Maximian Caesar also, which was placed in the vestibule of the palace, suddenly lost the bronze sphere, shaped in the likeness of the heavens, which it carried; and the statue either had always remained there, or was set up again by Julian, the most bitter enemy of Christ.

He was consumed. He died at Serdica, or near that city, in Dacia Mediterranea, as Baluze notes on the following chapter. But there is no Serdica in Dacia, and that city must be assigned to Thrace. Yet those authors are not wrong who write that Galerius was either born in Dacia not far from Serdica, as Eutropius does, or died at Serdica. For, as I showed before, Dacia was a province of the Romans made by Trajan and situated beyond the Danube; after it could no longer be defended, Aurelian moved the provincials across to the other bank of the Danube and called that region Dacia, the part of which near the Danube was called Ripensis, but the interior part Mediterranea. Thus Amm. Marcell. XXI, 10 writes that the summits of Haemus and Rhodope separate the Illyrians and the Thracians, on one side bordering the inland Dacians and Serdica, on the other looking down upon the Thracian provinces and Philippopolis, large and noble cities; and this can certainly be understood only of Moesia or a neighbouring region. The same author, XXVI, 5, writes that Equitius received a report from Antonius the tribune, who was commanding the soldiery in Dacia Mediterranea; and this likewise is to be sought in Thrace or Moesia, as is clear from what follows. Others, following Ortelius, hold that Serdica is called a city of Macedonia by Ammianus at the end of book XXXI: but nothing of the kind is found in him, as will be clear from his own words: But those besieged at Hadrianople..... having gone out at midnight, avoiding the public highways, through wooded and pathless places, ran, some to Philippopolis and from there to Serdica, others towards Macedonia. For so far is he from assigning Serdica to Macedonia that he rather plainly affirms the contrary; and if some made from Hadrianople for Macedonia, but others for Philippopolis and thence for Serdica, then certainly Serdica could not have been assigned to Macedonia by Ammianus: indeed, from Hadrianople to Philippopolis and thence to our Serdica, towards the West, is the most direct road, whereas Macedonia lay to the South. Scholars also note that Nicetas Choniates mentions a Serdica situated on the bank of the Ister, and therefore different from our Mediterranean one: but I find in him only this, p. 19: that the Huns, having crossed the Ister, laid waste Branitzoba and plundered Sardica: from which it can by no means be proved that a city of that name lay on the Ister, since it is well known how great a distance those peoples were accustomed to cover in a short space of time, being intent on nothing else than taking plunder. Socrates, Eccles. Hist. II, 20, assigns Serdica to Illyricum. But neither is this different from ours, since the name of Illyricum then extended far and wide. For Appian extends Illyricum as far as the mountains of Thrace and includes within it the Moesias and other regions; and from the Notitia of the empire it is clear that throughout Illyricum eight governors

had been, of Thessaly, of Old Epirus, of New Epirus, of Dacia Ripensis, of Moesia Prima, of Praevalitana, of Dardania and of Macedonia Salutaris; and Rufus Festus assigns seventeen provinces to it: so that it is no wonder that the authors of that time assigned this city to Illyricum. Indeed, if we consider that the praetorian prefect of Illyricum presided over two dioceses, those of Macedonia and of Dacia, and that Dacia comprised five provinces, Dacia Mediterranea, Dacia Ripensis, Moesia Prima, Dardania Praevalitana, and part of Macedonia Salutaris, it will readily appear that Serdica too was in Illyricum taken in the broad sense. It is moreover established, and has been noted by learned men, that Illyricum was divided into Eastern and Western: that the former comprised two parts, Moesia and Thrace; eleven provinces, Moesia Prima, or Upper, Praevalis, Dardania, Dacia Ripensis, Dacia Mediterranea, Moesia Secunda, or Lower, Scythia, Thrace, Hoemimontus; Rhodope and Europa; while Western Illyricum comprised four parts: Raetia, Noricum, Pannonia and Illyris; nine provinces: Raetia, Vindelicia, Noricum Mediterraneum, Noricum Ripense, Pannonia Prima, Pannonia Secunda, Savia, Valeria; and in Illyris the peoples the Iapodes, the Liburni and the Delmatae. Thus Zosimus can be excused, who writes that Licinius and Maximinus fought it out in battle in Illyricum, although it is nevertheless established from Lactantius and others that that battle was fought near Perinthus, or Heraclea of Thrace. Learned men note besides that it appears from Cedrenus and Curopalates, indeed from Procopius, older than these, book 4 of the Buildings, that Serdica is beside Nessus in Servia; and that Sigonius, in book 5 of the Western Empire, places it on this side of the Ister in Dacia Mediterranea between the two Moesias. The former authors I am unable to consult: but Sigonius does not think otherwise than I, because he places that city on this side of the Danube, and so excludes trans-Danubian Dacia; and the Dacia of Aurelian lay between the two Moesias, and also embraced Dardania, or Servia, and perhaps part of Thrace: unless we say that Dardania also came under the name of Thrace. For I recognize only one Serdica, situated in Thrace: whence on the stone in Gruter, 2, p. 540: A THRACIAN BY NATION. OF THE CITY OF SERDICA; and because part of Thrace perhaps afterwards was added to Dacia Mediterranea, or, as I have said, Dardania too was reckoned to Thrace, it is therefore [said to be] in Thrace and in Dacia Mediterranea; and because Illyricum extended far and wide, it is therefore said to have been situated in Illyricum; and learned men have supposed that several cities were celebrated under that name; which, however, is plainly contrary to reason. In the same broad way Victor uses the word Illyricum, when he writes that Illyricum was the native land of Diocletian, Herculius, Constantius and Galerius; because Galerius was born in Dacia near Serdica, Diocletian in Dalmatia, Herculius near Sirmium; and although the birthplace of Constantius is unknown, yet without doubt he was born in the same regions, seeing that he also begot Constantine of Helena in the city of Naissus, as the Valesian excerpts testify. I had commented thus, when I came upon the geographical map of Sanson, in which a man very skilled in these matters has drawn Illyricum. But I noticed that he places Sardica at the river Cebrus on the side of Mount Haemus which faces towards Dardania and the Adriatic Sea; whereas on the contrary in the Tables of Ptolemy it is seen on that side of the same mountain which lies towards the Propontis. And the opinion seems to be confirmed by Ammianus Marcellinus, whom we have heard saying that the summits of Haemus and Rhodope are near on this side to the Mediterranean Dacians and to Serdica: on that side they looked down upon the Thracian provinces and Philippopolis; and so no part of Thrace would be contained in Dacia Mediterranea. However that may be, there was only one Serdica. And Ptolemy expressly, book 3, ch. 11, encloses it by Mount Haemus; for first he writes that there are in the province "prefectures by the Moesias and Mount Haemus, beginning from the west", praetorships beside each Moesia, and about Mount Haemus, beginning from the setting [sun]; and among them he numbers Sardica; and soon after among the inland cities of Thrace he lists Deultum

Colonia, Orcelis; Carpudaenum, Byzia, Serdica, Terta, Philippopolis, and others.

At Nicomedia of the same month... I have no doubt at all that one should write: at Nicomedia in the middle of the same month, that is, of May; for the Edict could not conveniently have been posted at Nicomedia any sooner, since Galerius was lying ill at Serdica, and it was posted there before this news was received, on the day before the Kalends of May.

Chapter XXXVI.

The strait of Chalcedon... This was also the boundary of the empire of Maximinus, as is clear from chap. 45.

Under a common tutelo... One should by all means write titulo [title], as I once sent to Columbus. For this freedom was given to the Christians in the common name of the emperors; and from this it follows that the names of Maximinus and also of Maxentius were placed at the head of the edict, though they do not appear today; on this matter see what I note at chap. 32. That peace was given to the Christians after this edict is clear not only from Lactantius but also from Eusebius, chap. 9 of the Martyrs of Palestine, where the cruelty of Maximinus is described at length. It should be noted, however, that Maximinus abstained from persecuting the Christians for scarcely six full months, and did not promulgate the edict in the East, over which he ruled, but only ordered his commanders to abstain from the persecution of the Christians; that the praetorian prefect Sabinus wrote the emperor's decision to the governors of the provinces; and finally that the first thing he did was to keep the Christians from the assemblies which were held in the cemeteries. Titles, moreover, comprised names and honours. Suetonius, Tiberius chap. 50, writes that to the titles of Tiberius there was to be added: son of Augustus and Livia; and in the same author, Domitian, last chap., the Senate decreed that his titles be erased everywhere and all memory of him be abolished.

Chief priests... Valesius rightly notes on Eusebius 8.14 that before these times there were archpriests (ἀρχιερέας) and priests of the provinces; and Spanheim teaches the same at length in his Dissertation. Nor should one pass over a notable passage which stands in the Chronicle of the Monk of Auxerre, p. 39: There were also at that time, in the time of Commodus, in Britain twenty-eight flamens, that is, pontiffs of the pagans, and also three archflamens, to whose power the other judges of morals and the fanatici were subject. These at length they rescued from idolatry by apostolic precept; and where there were flamens they set bishops, where there were archflamens, archbishops. Although I am not unaware how hard it is to give credence to such narratives of monks, yet traces are found there that the gentiles had priests set over provinces or cities. By fanatici, moreover, I understand priests, or men consecrated to the gods; in which sense there occur in inscriptions: Fanaticus from Isis [and] Serapis; Fanaticus from the street of Bellona, and from the temple of Bellona.

They should make [offerings] through all their gods... That is, they should sacrifice to all the gods. A strange expression, which I do not know whether it is met with elsewhere: in the following chapter he said to sacrifice on each single day.

By their own right... Freely, with no one hindering, at their own discretion. Cicero, To Atticus 2.2, and Florus 1.17 and 3.17 speak in just this way.

He should set over them individual Pontiffs, as it were from a rank of higher dignity... The chief priests were chosen from the leading men of the cities, and were set over the other priests of the same city; but over the whole province a Pontiff was placed; and he was elected from among men endowed with greater dignity than that of the leading men, such as the governors were: which Eusebius also clearly teaches, 8.14 and 9.4, where he calls the chief priests ἱερέας, but the Pontiffs ἀρχιερέας. By leading men, moreover, the decurions or municipal magistrates may conveniently be understood, in which sense leading men of the city occur in law 16, Digest, On use and usufruct. But it should be observed that the pontiff set over a province is also often called priest of the province, as is clear from law 46 of the Theodosian Code On decurions, by which the emperors lay down that the priest of the province ought to be appointed by the advocates alone and their body; where Gothofredus may be consulted, no less than

vol. 6 of the same Code, p. 254. And to this belong the Asiarchs, on whom one may consult Salmasius on Solinus, Spanheim in his Dissertations, Augustinus on Modestinus, De excusationibus, Gothofredus, De interdicta Christianis gentilium communione, Grotius on the New Testament, Rubenius, De urbibus neocoris, and finally Harduin, p. 422 of the Nummorum illustratio, all of whom, most learned men, treat this matter at length. And to these must be added the Galatarchs, who presided over the Commune of the Galatians and had charge of the solemn games. There is mention of them in an inscription, unpublished, in my possession, and found at Ancyra.

Gaius Aelius Flavianus Sulpicius, twice Galatarch, the most renowned and most just; Flavianus Eutyches [honours] his sweetest patron. [?]

And in Gruter, 3, 410, and 1, 415, T. Flavius Caius Antonius (for that man bore these names, as I shall show elsewhere from more complete inscriptions) is said to have been Galatarch and Sebastophant. But since Ancyra was the metropolis of the Galatians, I hope I shall do the reader no unwelcome service if I add below another inscription, and that a most elegant one, unpublished, which makes mention of it.

Calpurnius Proculus, of senatorial and consular rank, military tribune in Dacia of the Thirteenth Legion Gemina, tribune of the plebs, praetor at Rome, curator of roads, commander of the Fourth Legion [...], proconsul of Gal[atia?], legate and propraetor of Baetica: the metropolis of Galatia, Sebaste [of the] Tectosages, Ancyra, [honours] its saviour and benefactor.

But to proceed: women too were made priestesses of the provinces. Inscription 8, p. 321.

To Porcia Materna, daughter of Marcus, priestess-designate of P. H. C. and afterwards perpetual priestess of the Caesars [?] at Tarraco: L. Numisius Montanus to his wife.

For the learned explain the abbreviations P. H. C. as "of the Province of Hither Spain". And it is worth noting that these priests of the province do not appear to have been priests of all the gods who were worshipped in that province, but of one, to whom the whole province offered sacrifice; and above all of the Augusti, as Rubenius shows: hence inscription 10, p. 321, is to be interpreted:

To C. Sempronius Speratus, flamen of the deified Augusti, of the province of Baetica.

which moreover seems to show that Speratus was flamen of all the emperors who had been enrolled among the deified, or who were worshipped there; and similarly in Victor, that throughout Africa a priest was decreed for the Flavian family, namely because Constantine was called Flavius. To this belong the perpetual Augustal flamen in Baetica, the flamen of the Province of Hither Spain, and similar ones who occur on the same stones, and who show us that flamens, or priests, were set over the provinces.

I admit, however, that the case of those whom Maximinus instituted, as Lactantius testifies, is different, since they were set over all the rest, whereas the others could be called only Flamens or Priests of a province, because they took care of the common worship of the province. But the Chief Priest remains to be explained. As, then, is plain from Lactantius and from what I have noted, he was called chief priest who was set, as it were as head, over the rest of the priests in the individual cities; for by the former priests are to be understood those who, before chief Priests were appointed, performed the sacred rites in those towns or cities. That the emperors were called supreme pontiffs is too well known for it even to need mentioning: apart from them, pontiffs or chief priests are rarely met with, although among the Greeks Archiereis are very frequent, and they sometimes designate by that word the supreme pontificate of the emperors and of others, as the illustrious Spanheim has excellently shown, dissertation VI. In Reinesius, Ins. 58, Cl. 5, [an inscription] preserves the memory of a woman, a chief priestess:

Laberia Felicia,

chief priestess

of the Mother of the Gods, M[agna] I[daea].

But I think she was so called because she surpassed the others in age, or because she had been the first to be admitted into the College. Festus at any rate testifies that the latter custom was in use at Rome: The greatest of the lesser pontiffs is said to be he who came first into that college; likewise the least, he who came most recently; just as the oldest of the Vestal virgins was also called the greatest, as Lipsius has shown, a most learned man indeed, and one who has shed very much light on the study of Antiquity; although a pontiff, priest and Vestal virgin of this kind doubtless also surpassed the rest in dignity and authority. That at Cephaledium too, a small town of Sicily near the river Himera, there was a chief Priest, Cicero teaches us, Action II against Verres: At Cephaledium there is a fixed month in which the chief priest must be created; and from what follows it is plain that he was elected for a year from among the citizens and in the assemblies of the people; and he was so called not from age but from authority: just as Festus testifies that some think he is called chief Praetor who holds the greatest power, but others, he who is greatest in age. The same writer says that he is called chief Curio by whose authority the curiae and all the curiones are governed; and perhaps with respect to him others were called lesser curiones, such as is recorded in Inscription 4, page 305, in Gruter. Johann Andreas Bose, in his very learned dissertation On the Supreme Pontiff of Ancient Rome, chapter 2, also lists a chief Augur, but, to tell the truth, I have not yet seen him mentioned by any ancient writer; certainly he is not found in Festus under the word chief praetor. And from these things it is indeed plain that the title of chief was given to some priests: but this deserves examination, whether the Romans so named any others besides their own supreme pontiff, whether at Rome or outside Rome. Gutherius thinks so, and believes that an ancient inscription mentions P. Vergilius, supreme pontiff of the Sabines: Bose rejects this and, following Reinesius, judges that what was written here was PONT. MAI., that is, Majori [to the greater], or MAR., that is, of Mars. But Reinesius himself seems afterwards to have changed his opinion, since on page 445 of the Inscriptions he notes that this Vergilius was called supreme pontiff among his own people and in the college of municipal pontiffs, just as at Rome too there was a chief among the lesser pontiffs: whom, however, Bose thinks either was simply called chief, or with the name of scribe (for so, he notes, the lesser pontiffs were called) or some other added. Be that as it may, certainly very rarely are other supreme pontiffs mentioned besides the truly supreme pontiff of the Romans. I find a highest pontiff in Prudentius, Hymn 10 of the Peri Stephanon, verse 223, where the Roman martyr addresses Asclepiades:

You sit as spectator of these things, highest pontiff,

whom I think to have been the pontiff of the province; and by the same [poet] a highest priest is recorded:

The highest priest, namely, beneath the earth in a pit

The one to be consecrated is plunged into [a pit] driven deep, he is decked with a mitre and fillets

That the pontifex maximus is described in these verses is wrongly supposed by Bulengerus, by Reinesius on page 622 of the letters and page 77 of the Inscriptions, by Sylburgius on Zosimus book 4, chapter 36, and also by a most learned man on page 172 of the Cenotaphia Pisana; whereas that highest priest is the chief priest of Cybele, or of the mother of the gods, who was consecrated in that manner; and the illustrious Salmasius too, on the Augustan History, judges that Prudentius is treating of these rites.

Each as it were a pontiff... I think I have shown that these were greater than the priests appointed in the cities; and nothing prevents those from being called maximi, and these simply pontiffs. For the name of pontiff was always held more dignified than that of priest; and the latter is general, the former specific: whence not without reason Velleius (2, 59) spoke of "the priesthood of the pontificate". Indeed even the pontifex maximus is sometimes called absolutely pontifex by the Latins, and by the Greeks Archiereus, the word megistos being omitted, as the illustrious Spanheim excellently shows in his sixth dissertation. Thus Geta on coins is called now PONTIF., now PONT. MAXIMUS; and on a coin of Plautilla, Caracalla is styled ANTON. P. AUG. PONT. TR. P. V. COS., in the celebrated and learned antiquary Jean Vaillant; and in Cicero, in the speech On the Response of the Haruspices, P. Lentulus the consul is called pontifex, who was pontifex maximus. And as Eusebius calls Lactantius's pontiffs archiereis, so Plutarch in the Numa calls the pontiffs by no other name. "To Numa they also assign the ordering and establishment of the archiereis, whom they call pontifices, and they say that he himself was the first of these": Now also they ascribe to Numa the institution of the priests whom they call pontiffs; and they say that he himself was pontifex maximus among them. This passage troubles me, because learned men hold that Plutarch relates that King Numa was pontifex maximus; and Zosimus (4, 36) confirms their opinion. But I am wont to wonder that Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Livy, or any other author older than Plutarch and Zosimus has not recorded it; and I have sometimes suspected that in him one ought to write to prōton, that is, that he himself at the beginning was one of them. Certainly I do not see how otherwise the word hena can have a place; and Livy, which is especially to the point, writes (1, 20) that Numa himself performed very many rites, chiefly those which now belong to the Flamen Dialis; and he likewise testifies, with others, that Numa Marcius, son of Marcius, was chosen pontiff from the patricians, and that all the rites, written out and sealed, were assigned to him by King Numa. The authority of Zosimus does not move me in the least, since he relates other things wrongly there too, and could have been deceived by the name of Numa.

With white cloaks... That is, priests put on garments of white colour, except those who sacrificed to the gods below, as is very well known. And so Porphyry, On Abstinence 4, 19, teaches specifically that the prophetai of Jupiter in Crete used garments of this kind. Silius in book 3 assigns a snowy garment to a priest; Pliny a white one to the Druids, in book 16, last chapter; and Apuleius white linen to the overseers of the rites, in book 11. And as a chlamys is assigned to priests in this place, so Apuleius does the same in the book cited: And from his shoulders there hung down behind his back a precious chlamys.

The eyes of the confessors were dug out... This punishment is frequent in the Ecclesiastical History, as also cut-off hands, feet and noses. But it is worthy of note that Eusebius (8, 12) relates, among the deeds of Diocletian, that the emperors, after satiety of torments and blood had seized the judges, ordered that the eyes of the Christians should be torn out and one of their legs crippled; and moreover that Haymo records the same in Ecclesiastical History 8, 1, and that Suidas refers it to Diocletian and Maximian his son-in-law, who was Galerius, and whom, as is clear from what follows, he confuses with Maximian Herculius. Overcome, he says, by the multitude of the Christians who were being killed, they promulgated an edict that from all Christians, as many as should be found, the right eye should be dug out, not only for the bitterness of the pain but also for the disgrace, καὶ πρόδηλον ("and conspicuous"),

καὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων πολιτείας ἀλλότριον ("and alien to the polity of the Romans"); "and conspicuous, and on account of the alienation of Roman citizenship", as Portus translated it, whereas Suidas seems to me to say that this punishment was foreign to the practice of the Romans, or not customary in the Roman state; which is certainly true: whence anyone at all could at once recognize that they were Christians. In the Life of the holy Fathers Metrophanes and Alexander in Photius we read that Paphnutius, who took part in the Council of Nicaea, had his right eye gouged out and the sinews of his left elbow cut by order of Maximian τοῦ μισοχρίστου ("the Christ-hater"); καὶ τὴν λαιὰν ἐνευροκόπησεν ἀγκύλην: but this should have been translated "and he cut the sinews of the left knee-joint", since ἀγκύλη signifies the bend of the knee as much as that of the arm, or the elbow; and Eusebius, after the words just cited, expressly writes that the right eyes of the Christians were dug out, and τοὺς λαιοὺς πόδας κατὰ τῶν ἀγκύλων ("the left feet at the joints") were disabled with red-hot iron. It is moreover not unworthy of note that Eusebius 9.5, and after him Haymo 8.3, relate, where they treat of this persecution by Maximinus, that the priests of the idols were stirred up to hatred and slaughter of the Christians: and that this might appear to be done for some just reason, certain acts were fabricated as though held before Pilate concerning our Saviour, in which every blasphemy against the Christians is written down. From which it follows that these Acts were forged at the end of the year of Christ 311, since after the death of Galerius, which fell in May of that same year, Maximinus refrained from persecution for scarcely six months. But Valesius thinks that mention of these Acts is made earlier, in the governor's official acts of Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus, chapter 9: "Unjustly, do you not know (says the governor Maximus) that this Christ whom you invoke was indeed a man, put in the custody of Pontius Pilate, and punished, of whom the Acts of the passion are extant?" These things were done when Diocletian for the fourth time and Maximian for the third were consuls, that is, in the year of Christ 290, and if the same Acts are to be understood, certainly they preceded the persecution; and to reconcile the dates Valesius thinks one should write "Diocletian for the ninth time, Maximian for the eighth", because in those Acts mention is made of the command of the emperors by which all were ordered to sacrifice to the immortal gods, and because the governor in chapter 9 says that the princes had granted a long and profound peace, which did not exist when Diocletian was consul for the fourth time. He held his ninth consulship in the year 304, and so in this way too the Acts of Pilate were fabricated before the persecution of Maximinus; yet Eusebius expressly reports that these spurious Acts were published at its beginning. I think, therefore, that in the Acts of Tarachus there is no reference to those Acts of Pilate: but that the governor Maximus alludes either to Holy Scripture itself, from which, as a history committed to writing by the Christians, not of Pilate but of Christ, it is established that He was fixed to the cross; or to the Acts which Pilate sent to the emperor Tiberius concerning the passion, resurrection and miracles of Christ, and to which Tertullian, Eusebius and others appeal. For if the wicked crimes which are attributed to Christ by those impious and criminal men had then been read by the heathen in the Acts of Pilate, Maximus would without doubt not have kept silent about them, nor would he have said only that Christ was a man and was punished.

Auriculae (little ears)... That is, ears: the Poet, "King Midas has the ears of an ass"; Arnobius, book 6, p. 240: "But now, because they see mouths, eyes, heads, cheeks, ears, noses"; and well known is that saying of Cicero, "softer than the lowest tip of the ear". Brissonius shows that these kinds of punishment were in frequent use among the Persians; and the author of the Etymologicum Magnum derives ἀκρωτηριάζειν ("to mutilate the extremities") from this, because the ancients cut off τὰ ἄκρα τῶν ὤτων ("the tips of the ears") of criminals.

Chapter XXXVII.

"So that whoever had been invited to dinner should go away from it defiled and impure." I have already pointed out on chapter 11, as will be evident from the notes of Columbus, that these words must be referred to idolothyta (meats offered to idols): and that for the same reason the Christians abstained from the feasts which Romula, the mother of Galerius, used to give. What was decreed about these things in the time of the apostles, and what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, is clear enough and more than enough from the New Testament. The Gentiles, when they sacrificed to their gods, set the victims whole before the altars and consecrated them to the gods: but nevertheless they did not offer them entire; rather, a part of them served for entertaining friends. Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 2, line 347:

while the first hunger is overcome with the sacred entrails......

that is, with the meats which were left over from the sacrifice. The god himself, to whom the sacrifice had been made, was thought to feed the guests; whence Aristides, vol. I, p. 97, most elegantly calls Sarapis ἑστιάτορα [the host of the feast], as Salmasius very well explains in his observations on Attic and Roman Law. There were, however, sparing men who seasoned with salt the remains of the sacrifices once brought home; others who sold them to butchers, as Theophrastus teaches us, ch. 23 of the Characters; others, more respectable, who, to avoid expense, sent parts of the victims to friends, as the learned have shown from Theocritus and Plautus. But the man who divided them was not called καλωκρέτης, as Castellanus supposes in the preface of his Syntagma on the Festivals of the Greeks: rather, the sacrificer himself did this through a particular man, perhaps a slave. The καλωκρέτης, on the contrary, will have been a quaestor of public money; and although he had charge of the expenses incurred in public sacrifices, and received the hides and remains of such victims no less than the priests, as the Scholiast on Aristophanes observes, yet it can by no means be inferred from this that he divided the remains of the sacrifices and sent them to the friends of the sacrificers. Porphyry, book II, § 8 of On Abstinence, attests that in his time some parts of the animals were sacrificed, and the rest served as a feast: 'just as we now do with animals; for having offered the first portions, we set out the rest as a meal'; and in § 27 he thinks that men, when in ancient times they offered the first fruits of the crops to the gods and ate the rest, tasted of the consecrated animals after the same example. There were, however, sacrifices in which it was unlawful to eat what had been immolated. The same Porphyry, II, 44: For all the theologians have agreed on this, that 'in averting sacrifices none of the victims is to be touched, but they are to be used for purifications'; that is, in sacrifices which are made to avert some evil, the things immolated are not to be eaten, but are to be used for expiations. The first Christians, moreover, abstained from things offered to idols; and besides the examples brought forward by others, see Ado in the Martyrology, pages 80, 142, 148 and 181, and Mabillon's Analecta, vol. IV, page 132, a passage quite singular and elegant, and page 141; but on the contrary the Nicolaitans and the Valentinians fed on them, as Epiphanius and Augustine testify.

In other things also like his master. I think Galerius Maximianus is meant; unless someone thinks one ought to write magistris suis [like his masters], since Diocles and Maximian are mentioned shortly after.

Hence famine for the fields... Haymo also mentions this, book VIII, ch. 3, but assigns other causes.

They were snatched away to the daily sacrifices, with which them... I formerly thought that the word eos [them] ought to be referred to agros [the fields]: but now I reject that, because what follows plainly proves the contrary. Nor does Columbus's suos [his own] displease me; so that Lactantius means the courtiers, or the emperor's household, who were so thoroughly sated with the remains of the sacrifices that they despised as worthless the provisions or food which was given to them. This passage too pertains to things offered to idols; and one almost like it is found in Ammianus Marcellinus XXII, 12: Yet he (Julian) drenched the altars with the abundant blood of victims with excessive frequency, sometimes sacrificing bulls by the hundred, and countless flocks of various cattle, and white birds sought out by land and sea: so much so that almost every day soldiers, living rather boorishly on a too distending diet of meat and corrupted by greed for drink, were carried on the shoulders of passers-by through the streets from the public buildings, where they indulged in feasts fitter to be punished than to be calmed, to their own lodgings. By annona, moreover, we ought to understand meat, oil, wine and grain, as we learn from the Theodosian Code, on the Disbursement of Military Provisions; on which Gothofredus may be consulted, as also Salmasius on the Historia Augusta; to whom may be added Zosimus II, 9, from whom it is clear that there was one prefect for supplying pork to the praetorians.

And they poured out everywhere... I judge that this ought to be written thus: annonam. Et effundebat passim sine delectu, sine modo, cum divites universos... expungeret [the provisions. And he poured them out everywhere without discrimination, without measure, when he struck off all the rich...], so that all these things refer to Maximinus. Eusebius certainly

8:14, relates that Maximinus despoiled all the wealthiest men of their paternal and ancestral goods, [and] bestowed riches in a mass and heaps of money on the flatterers around him. Now "to expunge with garments and gold coins" is nothing other than to deprive someone of those things, to take them away from someone. It is, however, a strange expression, and I do not know whether it is met with elsewhere. "To expunge a name" is to pay a debt; the poor are said "to be expunged" when there is paid to them what the Church owes freely for the sake of Christ, as the most distinguished Gronovius teaches in chapter 8 of his Observations on Ecclesiastical History; an "expunged maniple" is one deleted from the roll of soldiers and released from its oath; "expunged accounts" are abolished and deleted. All these have nothing in common with Lactantius's phrase; and although it might seem to someone that emungerent ought to be read, in the way that Terence in the Phormio said "to wipe an old man clean of his silver", nevertheless I think that Lactantius wrote expungerent, because Papinian spoke in quite the same way in law 15, Digest, On Military Matters: "One marked for the cause of desertion, and restored, is deprived of the outlays for the time that he spent in desertion."

"I do not know whether to be done"... I read "whether not to be done", which Lactantius says ironically.

Chapter XXXVIII.

"Limb by limb"... Antony lays the same charge against Augustus in Suetonius, chapter 69: "that matches were sought out through friends, who stripped and inspected mothers of families and virgins of mature age"; where Casaubon notes that male slaves and female slaves were inspected naked by buyers; a word which Seneca also uses in book 1 of the Controversies.

"He was killed in water: as if it were a crime of majesty." Not that drowning was the penalty for injured majesty, but because that crime was capital, not indeed under the Julian law, but under the laws of the later emperors. For although under the Julian law the penalty for such men was exile, or interdiction from water and fire, and this is also evident from Tacitus, nevertheless Paul the jurist writes of his own time that men of the lower sort are thrown to the beasts or burned alive, men of the more honourable sort are punished capitally; and from then on, in the following times (Paul lived under Alexander Severus), the penalty of death was imposed on those who were held guilty of the crime of injured majesty.

Chapter XXXIX.

"Whom he had lately called mother"... Understand Valeria, widow of Galerius Maximianus, who had adopted Maximinus Daza. But it will be worth the effort to set out briefly, as if in a table, what wives Diocletian, Herculius, Galerius and others had, and who were born of them, so that in this way a clearer light may shine upon various passages of Lactantius.

That Diocletian had a wife by the name of Serena is attested by Ado in the Martyrology, p. 135, by Tristan and others. Valesius calls her Eleutheria; others Alexandra; but Lactantius, chapter 15, teaches that she was called Prisca, and all the former seem to have erred, unless we say that she had two or more names. Diocletian begot of her Galeria Valeria.

As regards Galerius Maximianus, Galeria Valeria married him; for Diocletian, having adopted him, ordered him to put away his former wife and marry her, and hence he is called Diocletian's son-in-law in chapter 29. She was barren; hence she adopted Candidianus, born to Galerius of a concubine, whom he also wished to make Caesar, as is evident from chapter 20, just as Lactantius teaches us in chapter 50: "The same man (Licinius) ordered Candidianus to be killed, whom Valeria, on account of her barrenness, had adopted, he having been begotten of a concubine." Galerius, when near death, commended her with her son Candidianus to Licinius and delivered her into his hands, chapter 35. But she left Licinius embittered, as I judge, because she would not marry him, and entrusted herself with her mother to Maximinus, with whom, however, her husband had not been on very good terms, as is established from chapter 32. Now the reason for her leaving Licinius I judge to lie hidden in these words of this chapter: "After the death of Maximianus, Valeria had come to him, since she thought she would stay more safely in his territories, chiefly because he had a wife." Licinius, that is, was

unmarried, inasmuch as he afterwards took Constantia, the sister of Constantine, as his wife; and it is very likely that Valeria was approached by him about marriage, and that she used the same argument with which she rejected Maximinus: because it was unlawful for a woman of her name and station, without custom, without precedent, to try a second husband. For I do not see for what other reason Lactantius would have said so pointedly that she had entrusted herself to Maximinus, especially because he had a wife; and he did not dare to narrate the matter as it actually stood, because there was a firm friendship between Constantine and Licinius when this little book was published. Since, therefore, she was unwilling to marry Maximinus either, she is driven by him into exile with her mother and banished to certain deserted wastes of Syria, nor could she obtain pardon through the entreaties of Diocletian, chapters 20 and 41. And at length Licinius ordered her head and that of her mother Prisca to be cut off at Thessalonica, chapter 51, whose corrupt words I shall emend there. It should be noted, moreover, that Ado of Vienne, p. 105 of the Martyrology, writes that a daughter of the emperor Diocletian, tormented by a demon, was cured by the prayer of St Vitus; indeed, on p. 70, that the same woman is called Artemia, and was freed from a demon by Cyriacus and baptized; and that he immediately adds that at that very time Maximinus killed his sister Artemia. If there is any truth in these things, Diocletian must have had two daughters; and if the one who is said to have been killed is the same as the former Artemia, Maximianus ought to be written, namely Galerius, inasmuch as he had her sister Valeria in marriage, and can be said to have killed his own [sister] by killing his wife's sister. But to tell the truth, little credence can be given to authors of this kind.

Maximianus Herculius had as his wife Valeria Eutropia, who had earlier borne Theodora, or Flavia Maximiana Theodora, to a Syrian man, and she married Constantius Chlorus; but once married to Herculius she bore Maxentius.

Constantius Chlorus, when he was created Caesar, was compelled to put away Helena, whether concubine or wife, of whom Constantine had been born to him, afterwards called the Great from the glory of his achievements; and he took as wife Theodora, the stepdaughter of Herculius, who bore him Dalmatius, Constantius, Annibalianus, Constantia, Eutropia and Anastasia; of whom one married Licinius, as is clear from chapter 43: When he heard that the sister of Constantine had been betrothed to Licinius, he judged that this alliance of the two emperors was being joined against him. And because Max. Herculius was Theodora's stepfather, Constantius Chlorus is therefore called his son-in-law in chapter 29: That he might circumvent by guile the emperor Constantine, his son-in-law (on account of his wife Fausta) and the son of his son-in-law; that is, the son of Constantius Chlorus, who had taken Theodora, the stepdaughter of Herculius, as wife, and who was not the mother but the stepmother of Constantine.

Constantine the Great took as wife the younger daughter of Herculius Maximianus, Fausta by name: so chapter 27, the Panegyric of an uncertain author, and others; and this when his first wife Minervina had died. Which and how many children he had is well enough known, and the illustrious Du Cange explains it excellently.

Maxentius was the son of Maximianus Herculius and Eutropia. Mamertinus praises him highly as a boy in chapter 14 of the Panegyric: But surely that day will soon dawn when Rome sees you as victors, and your son eager at your right hand, whom, born with all gifts of talent for the most honourable arts, some fortunate teacher awaits, for whom it will cost no labour to urge a divine and immortal offspring to the pursuit of praise. That he was nevertheless foisted on Herculius by the craft of Eutropia, who was striving to hold her husband's affection through the auspice of a most welcome birth begun with a boy, is reported by the author of the Epitome of Victor, by the author of the Excerpta Valesiana, and by Paul the Deacon. The same is taught by the uncertain panegyrist, chapter 3: Finally he himself, who was believed to be his father, tried to drag the purple, torn, from his shoulders: note, believed; therefore not the true father: whence shortly after, in chapter 4, he calls Maxentius the supposititious son of Maximianus; and Tristan thought that Julian reports the same, though I have shown at chapter 18 that he is mistaken. However,

in the Politia of the Holy Fathers Metrophanes and Alexander in Photius, Maxentius is called the nephew of Maximian. I shall write out the whole passage, because it seems to me very intricate. "When Severus had died of disease, Licinius, who had the sister of Constantius as his wife, ruled; Maximian held the remaining part of the East. Maxentius ruled over the region of Rome, being the nephew of Maximian; for the one was [son] of the former Maximian, the other of Diocletian." "Maxentius, however, ruled at Rome, son of the brother of Maximian. And this one was [son] of the former Maximian, but the other the son of Diocletian." I for my part can scarcely extricate myself from this, and I hope that others will be found who will untie the knot; for I have not read that Maxentius was born of a brother or of a sister of Maximian, since he was begotten of Herculius and Eutropia the Syrian. I have sometimes suspected that the passage is corrupt and the words transposed, and indeed that at the beginning one ought to read "Maximin held [it], being the nephew of Maximian"; for Maximin held the East, and was born of the sister of Galerius Maximian: next Maxentius is called the son of Maximian, namely Herculius; and the other, that is Galerius Maximian, the son of Diocletian, because he was adopted by him and had his daughter as wife. But I determine nothing certain, and leave these things to others to be examined. Maxentius, if we believe Tristan, had as wife Magna Urbica, daughter of Galerius by an earlier spouse, from whom he begot Romulus, who died in his father's lifetime and was consecrated, and another son, who is said to have been still alive with his mother two days before the defeat: whence the panegyrist relates that Maxentius two days before left the palace, and with his wife and son withdrew of his own accord into a private house.

Severus had a son Severianus, as is clear from chapter 50; the name of his wife and of his parents is unknown. Tristan judges that he was born of the sister of Maximian Galerius: but Zosimus and Aurelius Victor, whom he cites, record this only of Galerius Maximin, called Daza before his rule. And if this had been true, I do not think that Galerius Maximian would have blotted it out with silence when he was addressing Diocletian and treating with him about the creation of Caesars, chapters 18 and 19.

C. Valerius Maximinus, whom Haymo, 8, 3, wrongly calls Severus Maximinus, was born of the sister of Galerius Maximian. The Epitome of Victor: "Galerius Maximinus, born of the sister of Armentarius, and by his true name called Daza before his rule": hence Galerius Maximian in chapter 18 calls him his kinsman, and by Paul the Deacon he is called the son of Galerius's sister, by whom, however, he is wrongly called Maximus. Tristan writes that Zosimus makes her the sister of Maximian Herculius: but in him I find nothing of the kind, although Hofmann and Moreri report the same in their Lexicons. The name of his wife is unknown, chapter 39, and she herself was thrown headlong into the Orontes, chapter 50. Maximin had by her a son and a daughter, killed by order of Licinius, in the same place. But nevertheless in chapter 47 it attributes to him sons, not a son and a daughter: "But he, on the Kalends of May, that is, in one night and one day, reached Nicomedia on the next night.... and, snatching up his sons and his wife and a few companions from the palace, made for the East." Moreover in chapter 50 his eldest son is mentioned: "He also put to death the son of Maximin himself, his eldest, then in his eighth year, and his seven-year-old daughter, who had been betrothed to Candidianus." But if he had had more sons, Licinius would certainly not have forgotten to kill them: hence in the former passage under the name of sons perhaps the daughter too is included, which is clear from civil law to have been the practice; and in the latter Maximus is a proper name, unless we say that the younger by birth had died in the flight. For Eusebius, at the end of Book 9 of the Ecclesiastical History, seems clearly to teach that Maximin had two sons: "To all these were added also the children of Maximin, whom he had already made sharers in the imperial honour and in the setting up of tablets and pictures." "To all these were added the children of Maximin, whom he had already made partners in rule and sharers in titles and images." I know that παῖδας signifies children in general, and can comprehend the son and the daughter of Maximin: but he adds that they were painted on tablets and made partners in rule; which, as

I think, do not apply to a daughter, nor do I find any weapon for parrying this, unless we say that Eusebius used the plural number for the singular. And these are the points I had to make about the emperors and their wives and children; and I judged that it would not be unwelcome to the reader if at the beginning of Lactantius's little work I also displayed the genuine likenesses of them and of the other persecutors, so that each person might thus set before his eyes, as it were at a single glance, the horrible persecutions with which they [afflicted] the Church, and the deserved punishments with which God afflicted them. I did not add Magna Urbica, because the learned doubt whether she was the wife of Maxentius. I added Licinius, because he is mentioned by Lactantius; and because he afterwards persecuted the Church, he has his place among the Persecutors. I had Constantine depicted in the middle of the plate, surrounded by his father, mother, stepmother and wife: because Constantius Chlorus favoured the Christians, and because Constantine, the victor over the tyrants, together with Licinius gave peace to the Church, which the latter, however, afterwards disturbed, as I have pointed out.

He burns. That is, he is inflamed with lust: and he burns as he gazes.

The time of mourning not yet being completed. This was ten months, and afterwards, by the law of Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, it was made twelve months, as the learned have noted; so that these things happened at the end of the year 311, or at the beginning of 312, because Galerius died in the month of May of the year 311; and because he writes "recently", that she had been called mother by Maximinus, and Valeria complains that the ashes of her husband were still warm, with my full consent these things will be assigned to the year three hundred and eleven: from which it is at the same time clear about how long she stayed with Licinius.

In that funereal dress... That is, black: hence a little before, the woman was still in dark garments; although Lipsius on Tacitus, and Kirchmann following him (On Funerals 2, 18), think that under the emperors women put on white garments in mourning. That this is true is clear from Herodian and Plutarch: but this custom may have been abolished in the time of Diocletian, or have been observed not by everyone, indeed only in certain cases.

While her husband's ashes were still warm... Therefore Maximianus Galerius was placed on a pyre, and at that time cremation was still in use among the Gentiles; unless someone thinks it is a figurative manner of speaking, and wishes it to mean only that Valeria's husband had recently died. The learned once tried to prove that Capitolinus, in chapter 13 of the life of Marcus Antoninus the philosopher, reports that cremation was abolished by the Antonines: but their error has been corrected; and that passage certainly teaches us nothing other than that the Antonines, when a very great pestilence had broken out, made some provision concerning the building of tombs: what sort of provision this was, however, the men most skilled in these matters dispute among themselves, Salmasius, Casaubon, Jac. Godefroy, and Obregthus, of whom Godefroy seems to me not to have strayed entirely from the truth. But even if the words of Capitolinus did not refute this opinion, it is in any case certain that it cannot be admitted, because of the following examples; not the least of which are the Consecration with a pyre found on the coins of L. Septimius Severus, of Caracalla, and of the Caesar P. Cornelius Saloninus Valerianus, son of Gallienus Augustus, and also Galerius Maximianus cremated. I am persuaded that cremation was abolished with the lapse of time; and I think the learned are not wrong in judging that the Christians were a great cause of this change, who, as Felix Minucius says, feared no harm from burial, but practised the old and better custom of interment. Macrobius (Saturnalia 7, 7) writes that in his own age, that is, in the reign of Theodosius the Younger, there was no practice whatever of burning the bodies of the dead. That cremation itself was not an ancient institution, and that Sulla the dictator was the first of the Cornelian clan to be cremated, Pliny and Cicero relate. Indeed it is also clear from the Silvae of Statius, where he describes the funeral of Priscilla, that in the time of Domitian interment was practised by some, or that corpses were embalmed. And as the old custom grew more and more from day to day, and seemed more humane even to the Gentiles themselves, hence I think

it came about that we sometimes read on ancient monuments that a body was buried whole.

To the Spirits of the Dead.

Of Lucius Julius Epigonus.

He lived 26 years, 5 months, 12 days.

The body buried whole.

Marcus Julius Hamus,

the father, to his most dutiful son.

Gaius Julius Hamus,

to the Spirits of the Dead

of Lucius Julius Marcellus,

his grandson.

He lived 5 years,

41 days.

The body whole

buried in a sarcophagus.

Nor indeed am I displeased by the opinion of a most learned and most celebrated man, who thinks that the catacombs were made by the Gentiles, and that corpses were laid in them: but I hope he will not take it ill if I add what Giovanni Battista Doni thinks on this matter in the book which he entitled On Restoring the Healthiness of the Roman Countryside. “Sand-pits,” he says on page 52, “crypts dug out in ancient times for extracting sand for the use of buildings (which today they do by a different method, digging the earth from above, as is usual in trenching vineyards), exist in such numbers not only close at hand, and under the vineyards near the city, but also farther off, and in almost every direction as far as the sea and the mountains of Praeneste; and towards another quarter of the sky, very far indeed into Etruria (nor have some people lacked the zeal for searching out certain more hidden and deeply buried wonders of the ancient age), that this whole suburban tract of Latium and Tuscany, whose lowest ground is of one nature, tufaceous and sandy, could be thought undermined throughout and almost hanging in the air: whence it comes about that it is scarcely ever shaken by internal blasts of wind; so long and manifold, and in so many ways interwoven with one another, do the underground passages extend in every direction, that they present the appearance of some immense labyrinth. Crypts or tunnels of this kind, also called simply Sand-pits, are read of in the ancient Acts of the holy Martyrs; and also Catacombs, because during the raging persecution of the tyrants the innocent people of Christ would hide in these underground places, chiefly by day, would sleep, take food, and hold their sacred assemblies. From these, as species from genus, the Cemeteries differ, which are generally near the City and set beside the military roads (for many survive), spread out over wider but shorter spaces, splendidly adorned with chapels, tombs, altars and constructions of that kind; such as were more or less some underground monuments among the heathen too, which were also called conditoria, supported round about by walls of brickwork, in which were numerous niches with urns and ossuaries belonging, as a rule, to a single family.” This is the opinion of a very learned man about these crypts and catacombs, which I leave to be examined by the learned who live in Rome and can inspect its suburban countryside. Yet I do not think that the Puticuli have anything in common with these crypts or tunnels. For, first, they were outside the Esquiline Gate in one place, whereas on the contrary the catacombs and those sand-pit crypts are found all round Rome: next, it is by no means likely that the earth was dug out at such great expense in order that the corpses of baser men might be buried there; and finally, a puteus (whose diminutive is puticulus) is one thing, catacombs another: the former is open, while the latter are under the earth; and that in the place which was called puticuli there were many pits, Varro and Festus clearly teach, and the very name of puticuli seems to suggest nothing else. Festus notes that the puticuli, a most ancient kind of burial, were so called because men were buried there in pits, and those words seem to me to hint at nothing else than that in ancient times corpses were placed in trenches and covered with earth, and that those trenches were called puticuli; and that hence Varro, when about to give the reason for that name

writes that men were buried there in pits; with earth, that is, as is the custom today. If we follow Aelius Gallus in Varro, corpses were thrown out there, and the place was named from putrefying; which Festus also teaches, adding to the words just quoted: What sort of place it was where corpses are now usually thrown out beyond the Esquiline gate; and because they rotted there, the name Puticuli arose. And the words both of Aelius Gallus and of Festus seem to teach that the corpses were not even covered with earth, but merely thrown out, to be dried and consumed by the air. Horace certainly confirms this plainly in book 1, Satire 8, where he describes the gardens of Maecenas, which were on the Esquiline and at the Puticuli:

But a reed fixed on my head frightens off the troublesome birds and forbids them to settle in the new gardens. Hither formerly a fellow slave hired the carrying, in a cheap box, of corpses thrown out from narrow cells; this stood as a common burial place for the wretched common people, for Pantolabus the buffoon and for Nomentanus the spendthrift. Here a boundary stone gave a thousand feet of frontage and three hundred into the field, so that the monument should not pass to the heirs. Now one may live on a healthful Esquiline and stroll on the sunny embankment, where lately men gazed sadly at ground made hideous with white bones.

For from this we learn first that the bodies of slaves were thrown out of the boxes in which they were placed; next, that there were also burial places of the lowest common people there; and finally, that the bones of corpses lay scattered in that same place: all of which suggests that many corpses were thrown out into that place, and covered with no earth, or with a light layer, and that the remains of those burned, perhaps, namely bones and ashes, were not laid away but left in the field. For there were also public burning places there. Porphyrion on Horace's fifth Ode notes that in the district of the embankment, which is outside the Esquiline gates, the bodies of the poor were customarily either burned or thrown out; and the Commentator edited by Cruquius not only calls the puticuli pits, and so plainly confirms my opinion, but also writes that there was a public burning place there. From the pits, he says, that is, the trenches for burying the corpses of the poor, the place was called puticuli; here too were the public burning places. These puticuli, then, I think we can call ditches, pits, or in the Dutch tongue cuylen, groeven. If all this displeases others, I shall certainly yield at once, if I am taught better.

Without custom, without precedent... No Augusta, then, on the death of her husband the emperor, had up to that time married another; which is also abundantly clear from history: nor does Statilia Messalina stand in the way, Nero's last wife, whom Otho had indeed intended to marry, as Suetonius attests in chapter 10 of his Life: but that marriage, death intervening, was not contracted. But it should especially be noted that learned men think Tertullian reports, in the Exhortation to Chastity, chapter 13, that the emperors, as being supreme pontiffs, could not by law enter into second marriages. The wife of the Flamen, he says, has one husband, which is also the law of the Flamen. For the supreme Pontiff himself is not permitted to repeat marriage so as to have two marriages, which is certainly the glory of monogamy; and in book 1 To his Wife, chapter 7: The priesthood of widowhood and celibacy exists among the nations. In rivalry of the devil, that is, it is unlawful for the king of the age, the supreme pontiff, to marry again. Johann Andreas Bose, in chapter 2 of his dissertation on the supreme pontiff of ancient Rome, rewrites the first passage as jam cum ipsi, etc., so as, namely, to remove the connection that the word Nam has with what precedes; next he explains the king of the age as him who held supreme power among the heathen, that is, the emperor, who held the supreme pontificate. But there are so many examples of emperors who had several wives that one must either say they despised the law, or that these passages ought to be interpreted otherwise, especially since nowhere do we read that under the free republic second marriages were forbidden to the supreme pontiff. I would rather, then, follow the learned men who understand by supreme pontiff the Flamen Dialis, whom Gellius (10, 15) records as the greatest, namely of the Flamens, and as having had only one wife. This could perhaps also be referred

to the pontiff of Cybele, who, as I showed at chapter 36, was called summus. For Tertullian too, in the book On the Prescription against Heretics, speaks in no other way: What of the fact that he also appoints a supreme pontiff in single marriages? However that may be, it is by no means likely that the Roman emperor can be understood; and if Tertullian called either the Flamen Dialis or some other pontiff pontifex maximus when he ought to have said summus, as Prudentius did, that must be forgiven him. He calls him, moreover, king of the age, not because he was prince and emperor of the heathen, but because he was, as it were, the head of the gentile superstition, which I think is designated by saeculum; and I shall not object at all if anyone wishes to understand a pontiff, or some Flamen, who in Africa was set over the priests, or who was the priest or pontiff of the province.

Chapter XL.

A Vestal virgin, a handmaid... She who is consecrated to a goddess is elegantly called her handmaid; as Medea is called Hecate's in Valerius Flaccus 6.502:

And he shall find that I, her mistress, / have grieved at the shameful rape of my handmaid.

The same, 6.643:

And her parents bore her, the handmaid of the Phasis, / her hair uncut, in vain.

Again, 7.366:

Soon was shown to the handmaid the crop which, by Phoebe's torch, / the tenth, she reaps glad upon the ridges...

In Oenomaus, as cited by Eusebius, Preparation book 5, the poet is called servant of the Muses, because he is, as it were, consecrated to them; indeed the Hyperborean people, or the people of the Hyperboreans, is called servant of Apollo by Pindar, Olympian 3, because it worshipped him above all. The Graces are handmaids of Venus in the scholiast on Statius, on book 2 of the Thebaid, which Barthius, I know not why, changed; and the same name was at length given to animals which carried out the commands of the gods, as the Calydonian boar, Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.287.

He is the servant and avenger of hostile Diana.

Nor did animals specially consecrated to the gods go by any other name; thus swans, the partridge-hunter, and the swift-wing are called servants of Apollo by Aelian, History of Animals 2.32, 6.49 and 12.4.

No less close to the Augusta. That is, she who was as intimate with the Augusta as the other, who was always in her company. For I do not think that the word proxima refers to any degree of kinship, in which sense it is very frequently used, because the words non minus refer to the intimacy mentioned just before.

Lest he be overwhelmed with stones... The Jew, namely, to whom the people were hostile on account of the false testimony which he was about to give; and hence Lactantius ironically praises the fairness and diligence of the judge, because he protected from the violence of the people the man who was to be a witness in so grave a case.

Which, ordered..... Perhaps this should be supplied thus: ordered by the evil beast, or by the wicked judge, or something similar; and then perhaps the punctuation would also be better as: the innocent are restrained, and are ordered to be led away.

Are restrained. That is, those two noble women who were refuting the Jew. And so in Eusebius 8.3 we read that soldiers restrained the Christians with their fists, so that they should not speak or say that they had neither sacrificed nor would sacrifice; which is also repeated in chapter 1 of the Martyrs of Palestine. And it is very well known that the accused and the condemned were properly and absolutely said to be led (duci) when they were taken to prison or to the place of execution.

Well-deserving. Nothing is more frequent in ancient inscriptions than for a husband to be called by his wife, and a wife by her husband, well-deserving, and having deserved well (meritum, meritam); and by this manner of speaking the Gentiles bore witness to conjugal love.

Promoted in military fashion... The learned attempt in various ways

to heal this passage; I, until others bring forward something more certain, following in their footsteps, think it should be written: Promoti militari modo instructi, ut velites et sagittarii, prosequuntur ("the promoti, equipped in military fashion, like skirmishers and archers, escort [them]"). The insertion of the particle ut seems to me necessary, because he does not say that soldiers escorted those noble women, but that promoti armed after the manner of skirmishers and archers did. The promoti are officials of the judges, promoted to some grade, as is clear from law 2 of the Theodosian Code on the Julian law concerning canvassing; and one may see Jacques Godefroy on law 2 of the same code concerning false coinage. But if, besides the promoti equipped in military fashion, skirmishers and archers were also present, the ut can conveniently be omitted, and milites can also be read in place of velites; for if we follow this, it is not soldiers who are said to have been equipped in military fashion, but promoti.

Nor the adulterer... That is, the Jew who, questioned under torture before the judge, had falsely confessed that he had had relations with noble women, and so had made himself an adulterer: and these words show that what he narrates in the preceding chapter is true, that Valeria's friends were condemned on a feigned charge of adultery. But the penalty with which the adulterer and the adulteress were visited is to be observed, namely that it was capital. The most learned jurists hold that under the Julian law the penalty for adultery was relegation, and that under the law of Constantine they were punished with the sword. But since the law of Constantine, which is law 30 of the Code on the Julian law concerning adulteries, was passed in the year of Christ 326, whereas these things happened in the year 312, it follows that this penalty must be ascribed to the character of the tyrant Maximinus, or else that a capital penalty against adulterers had been established before the law of Constantine.

Chapter XLI.

Into certain wastes of Syria. In which part of Syria these were is very difficult indeed to say, since that region extended far and wide and had great deserts. The author of the life of Damasus mentions one of them: "But at that time, when blessed Damasus presided over the Church, blessed Jerome, a man praiseworthy for the brilliance of his learning and his holy life, in that wilderness of the eastern region which, joined to Barbaria, bounds Syria at its border"; where perhaps he calls Arabia Barbaria, or the regions which the Saracens inhabited; for Jerome himself speaks thus in the Life of Paul the hermit: "that I have seen monks in that part of the desert which adjoins the Saracens near Syria"; and it is well known that solum Barbaricum, and so also Barbaria, signified at that time the regions not obedient to the Roman emperor.

A military and powerful man... That is, one who had great authority and was adorned with great honours or dignities; in which sense he also spoke in ch. 15 of "the most powerful eunuchs".

Chapter XLII.

The statues of the old man Maximian... That is, of Herculius, who, together with Diocletian, are called SENIORES AUGUSTI ("the senior Augusti") on p. 178 of Gruter's Inscriptions; and a coin of Maximian Herculius himself bears the inscription: TO THE LORD MAXIMIAN, MOST BLESSED, SENIOR AUGUSTUS. Now the statues of those who were stripped of power were thrown down; hence this was frequently the beginning of a rebellion. See Ammianus Marcellinus 14.7.

And the images with whom he had been painted were pulled down. Presently Lactantius himself relates: "And because the two old men had for the most part been painted together." From this a suspicion arose in me that a slight sore lies hidden here, which, once removed, will yield a most elegant sense. Lactantius, then, distinguishes between statues, which were made of marble, bronze, gold, silver or some other harder material, and images, which, painted on panels or shields, were dedicated in temples, senate-houses and other public places: hence I think it should be read, "And the images, since he too had been painted, were pulled down." These words concern Herculius; but what follows troubled Diocletian, "and because the two old men had for the most part been painted together"; hence his images also, not his statues, which is to be noted, were taken down along with the images of Herculius. Thus in ch. 44 he distinguishes between statues and images: "Constantine the treachery of Maximinus

recognizes, detects letters, finds statues and images"; and in chap. 43, by "the images of Maxentius and Maximinus placed together", no others seem able to be understood than those painted on shields: although I know well, and have indeed taught it myself, that the word imago is used also of figures or statues made of marble or other material. Thus Eusebius, speaking of Herculius, VIII, 3, writes that τὰς ἐπὶ τιμῇ γραφὰς καὶ ἀνδριάντας [the paintings and statues set up in his honour] were thrown down; and there exists on this matter an elegant passage in the same author, IX, 11, Ecclesiastical History: Γραφαί τε ὅσαι εἰς τιμὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ παίδων κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνήκειντο πόλιν: "But also the images or paintings which, set up in honour of him and his children (he is speaking of Maximinus), were to be seen in almost every city, some were thrown down from on high and broken to pieces; others were rendered useless, the face being blotted out with black colours": ἀνδριάντων τε ὁμοίως ὁπόσοι εἰς τὴν αὐτοῦ τιμὴν διανεστήκεσαν ὡσαύτως ῥιπτόμενοι συνετρίβοντο; "statues too, as many as had been erected in his honour, were likewise thrown down and smashed." As Lactantius distinguishes images and statues, so Eusebius distinguishes γραφάς and ἀνδριάντας: and he writes that of the images some were pulled down and dashed to the ground, while others were covered over with black colour; and presently he relates that the children of Maximinus were put to death by Licinius: οὓς ἤδη καὶ τῆς βασιλικῆς τιμῆς τῆς τε ἐν πίναξι καὶ γραφαῖς ἀναθέσεως πεποίητο κοινωνούς: "whom he had already made sharers of the empire, and of the dedication, or consecration, in painted panels", as that passage is to be rendered. Haymo, VIII, 4, Ecclesiastical History, rendered the former passage thus: "But the images of the tyrant himself, sculpted or painted, are ordered to be cast down, or darkened with black, or blotted out with colours": which version, however, as is evident from the Greek, is not very felicitous. To paintings belong altogether the shields on which emperors were depicted. Suet. Dom. ch. 23: "The senate was so delighted that, the senate-house having filled in eager rivalry, it ordered ladders even to be brought in, and his shields and images (that is, images painted on shields) to be pulled down before its eyes and dashed to the ground on the spot": which passage teaches us that those shields were hung on the walls of the senate-house in a higher place, and that hence Lactantius and Suetonius not undeservedly write that the images were pulled down. Nor does Justin speak otherwise, XXXVIII, 9: "Then the people pulls down his statues and images": where likewise statues and images are distinguished; which also Venuleius Saturninus the jurisconsult does, l. 6, D. ad L. Jul. Maj., and Modestinus, l. 7, § 4, D. same title, and Suet. Ner. ch. 24, of whom Venuleius speaks thus: "Those who have melted down statues or images of the Emperor already consecrated, or have committed anything else similar, are liable under the Julian law of majesty." Hence we learn that images could be melted down, that is, that the shields on which the emperors were painted were often made of gold or silver; just as Trebellius Pollio relates that the senate placed a golden shield for Claudius in the senate-house: and next, that statues or images of the emperors were solemnly set up and consecrated, and in this way made sacred and religious; for, as Marcian witnesses, book 7, D. ad L. Jul. Maj. § 2: "Severus and Antoninus rescribed to Poncius that no offence against majesty seems to be committed on account of images of Caesar not yet consecrated having been sold." But on this occasion I should like to ask the learned what difference they think there was between ἄγαλμα and ἀνδριάς, and between ἀγαλματοποιός and ἀνδριαντοποιός. Polybius, in the Excerpts On Virtues and Vices, p. 1468, latest edition, distinguishes them, where he speaks of Prusias despoiling the Nicephorium: Ἐσύλησε δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀνδριάντας, καὶ τὰ λίθινα τῶν ἀγαλμάτων [and he plundered both the statues and the stone ones among the images]; "he began to despoil and plunder the statues of the immortal gods", as the most learned editor renders it, who however does not translate λίθινα τῶν ἀγαλμάτων, nor does he teach what the difference was between ἀνδριάντες and ἀγάλματα. And certainly I can find no reason why Prusias despoiled and indeed carried off only the λίθινα τῶν ἀγαλμάτων, leaving the silver and perhaps golden ones: unless we say that the statues made of more precious material had been carried away to Pergamum when the enemy was invading their lands; for λίθινα τῶν ἀγαλμάτων seem to indicate that there were other images too in the same place. Polybius therefore distinguishes ἀγάλματα and ἀνδριάντας; and the Scholiast on Theocritus presents their makers to us as quite different

on Idyll 5, line 105: "They say there were two Praxiteleses, the older a statue-maker (andriantopoios), the younger a maker of images (agalmatopoios). The latter lived in the time of King Demetrius, of whom Theocritus speaks." I shall perhaps be mistaken if I lay down that the agalmatopoios made images of the gods, and the andriantopoios statues of men. But nevertheless this seems capable of being affirmed in some measure. For not only does Suidas interpret agalmata as "the likenesses of the gods", but Pausanias too, book 1, p. 31, distinguishes these words thus: "And there stand images (agalmata) of the goddesses Peace and Hestia, and statues (andriantes) of others, among them Autolycus the pancratiast." Yet I would not wish to assert that either Pausanias himself or other Greek authors always observed this distinction; but nonetheless I think that, when they distinguish these words so clearly, they also believed that they signified things different from one another; since otherwise it would have been enough to mention agalmata or andriantes. Herodotus also, 1, 131, speaking of the Persians, joins together "images (agalmata) and temples and altars"; whence perhaps no idle argument can be drawn that agalmata were assigned to the gods. In Suidas an agalma of Athena, of Apollo and of Dionysus occurs under the entries Agalma Apollonos and Auxentios; and so he joins them all under the former entry, where the translator renders these words, "and there is an image, the abomination of desolation, in Antioch", as "There is also at Antioch a manifest and abominable image of devastation and desolation": which certainly can by no means be true. For in the first place one must write "in Antiocheia", or rather "Antiochos"; that is, that image occurs under that entry; and under the entry Antiochos Suidas records that Antiochus entered the Sanctuary and erected in it "an altar and an idol, the abomination of desolation", that is, a statue of some god, and doubtless of Olympian Jupiter, to whom he was dedicating the temple of Jerusalem: which statue was the abomination of desolation. And that agalma is ordinarily used for a statue of gods or heroes Eustathius teaches on Iliad Δ, page 456: "A certain ancient writes thus: agalma [is used here] not in the usual way, of gods or heroes, but generally"; that is, "A certain ancient commentator writes thus: agalma in this place does not signify, as it usually does, a statue of gods or heroes, but is used in a general sense." Ammonius lays down a far different distinction between xoanon, bretas and agalma; and writes that the first is "a carved [image] of stone or of ivory", sculptured, of wood or of ivory; the second like a mortal, of bronze, or made of similar material; but the agalma an image of poros, that is, of stone, of poros stone (which Pliny mentions), or made of some other marble; so that he restricts agalma to marbles; and if this is true, Polybius may seem to have put "stone [works] of images (agalmata)" simply for marble statues, with no regard had to agalmata made of another and more precious material; which I leave to be discussed by others who have more leisure. Theocritus assigns a bowl to Praxiteles, who in the Scholiast's opinion is made contemporary with King Demetrius.

. . . . And there is a bowl,

the work of Praxiteles. . . .

and since this bowl was carved and adorned with figures, let the learned see whether some distinction between andriantopoios and agalmatopoios can be found from this.

And so the agalmatopoios would be an engraver, since the Scholiast observes that the younger Praxiteles made that bowl. Praxiteles the statuary and "the older" lived in the 104th Olympiad, on the testimony of Pliny 34, 8, who also lists his works at 34, 8 and 36, 5. But whether he reached the times of Demetrius and of the first Ptolemies, under whom Theocritus flourished, is by no means certain; and it may have been that the one whom Theocritus sings of as having engraved the bowl was a different man from him. And so the agalmatopoios would be an engraver; and agalma signifies "an ornament, anything in which one delights and rejoices", whereas andrias is customarily used only of images or statues; or else it must be laid down that Praxiteles lived until the times of King Demetrius, and also engraved certain works; or that the shepherd Comatas is introduced by Theocritus making mention of him because the man's fame was great, and in order to express the shepherd's simplicity. But far different from the old Praxiteles

is another, who flourished at Rome in the time of Pompey, and whom Lloyd, Hofmann and Moréri wrongly confuse with the noble sculptor, and to whom they attribute the works recorded by Pliny 36.5, which belong to an altogether older age. Next, that Praxiteles was not a sculptor but an engraver of silver, as is clear from the same Pliny 33.12, and from Cicero, On Divination book 1, who nevertheless does not call him a silver-dealer, as the recent Interpreter does, not cautiously enough, citing the words of Cicero shortly afterwards, although there was a great difference between a silver-dealer and an engraver of silver.

A most fortunate emperor for twenty years. Aurelius Victor writes that Diocletian reigned for twenty-five years; but without doubt he is mistaken, and has also counted the years during which, having laid down the empire, he lived as a private man. For in the year of Christ 305 he put off the purple, and he died in the year 312, as Baluze clearly shows; so that Zosimus 2.8 and Suidas under the entry Diocletian, who write that he lived only three years after abdicating the empire, are not to be listened to. But what shall become of Tristan, who, following Victor, writes that Diocletian survived nine years after laying down the empire, vol. 3, p. 325? If this were true, then the same Victor ought to have written that he reigned twenty-nine years. These words, I think, the learned man had before his eyes: He lived sixty-eight years, of which he spent nearly nine in common dress. The passage certainly has its difficulties; for if we examine the whole life of Diocletian, he lived more than nine years in common dress, that is, as a private man. I have sometimes thought that one should write forty-nine, and that the former numeral sign had been worn away; if the twenty years of reign are added to these, he then lived sixty-eight years. But Paul the Deacon, following in Victor's footsteps, records at the end of book 10 that Diocletian lived sixty-eight years, of which he spent nearly nine in common dress after his reign. He adds pointedly, after his reign; so that some seem to have thought that Diocletian lived for so many years after he put off the purple, which nevertheless cannot be true. Diocletian, however, was unwilling to resume the empire, although Herculius and Galerius urged it; for which reason Eumenius praises him excellently in chapter 15 of the Panegyric spoken to Constantine: 'But that divine man, who was the first both to share the empire and to lay it down, does not repent of his counsel and deed, nor does he think he has lost what he willingly handed over. Truly happy and blessed is he whom the dutiful service of such great princes as you honours. But he too, supported by an empire of many yokes, is gladly sheltered by your protection, you whom he knows to have grown from his stock, and he justly claims your glories for himself. This man, then, the one who had been taken by him as a brother was ashamed to imitate; to this man he repented of having sworn in the temple of Capitoline Jupiter: no wonder that he also perjured himself to his son-in-law.'

He was consumed by hunger and anguish. The most excellent Baluze notes on this passage and on chapter 1 that some relate that Diocletian was carried off by dropsy, others by poison, Suidas by hanging; while others attribute to him a foulness of the tongue, and worms bursting out of his throat, and putrid matter. But on chapter 30 the same man observes that Suidas relates that Diocletian was slaughtered by the Senate, and that Maximian hanged himself, which must certainly be ascribed to a fault of memory. Where Suidas drew this from, however, I do not know; but I do not remember that any of the ancients relates that Diocletian or Maximian was slaughtered, or killed, by order of the senate. But it is certain that Herculius, the choice of his death having been freely left to him by Constantine, ended his life by hanging; whence 'and he strangled himself' fits him very well. Others record that Diocletian died raving, driven by madness, as Henri de Valois notes from Eusebius, and from the oration of Constantine in the same author, and from Chrysostom in his oration on St Babylas. Eusebius, 8.13, writes that Diocletian, after completing his vicennalia, fell into a grievous illness, a disease of no good omen, and was thrown out of his state of mind; but he does not relate that he died raving. And Constantine, in chapter 25 of the oration, records that Diocletian through his folly's

harm, on account of the vice of madness, shut up in some mean dwelling, paid the penalty: which I am persuaded was said rhetorically rather than truly; and whatever the case, Constantine does not record that he died seized with madness. Chrysostom, I admit, testifies that Diocletian perished μανέντα [having gone mad]: but he could have exaggerated the matter after the manner of rhetoricians; he could also have been pointing his finger at the illness which Eusebius mentions and which Lactantius describes, ch. 37. For I cannot be persuaded that Lactantius would have forgotten to consecrate to memory and posterity that Diocletian died stricken with madness, if this were true; and he could know the whole matter, being a contemporary of those times. But he who describes the tragic and deserved ends of the persecutors relates only that Diocletian, cast down into hatred of life and trampled with insults, was worn out by hunger and anguish; words which signify nothing other than that, as he says a little before, worn out by a twofold sickness, he had decided that he must die; and everything that is related in this chapter proves that Diocletian ended his life through grief and anguish, which was so great that he even rejected food, and so, as Victor says, was consumed by a voluntary death through fear; namely because, as follows, he suspected a disgraceful death: whence he is also said to have drunk poison. Lactantius, ch. 17, writes that through the illness into which Diocletian fell after the vicennalia had been completed he was made demented, so that at certain hours he was mad and at certain hours he came to his senses. But this could have been so while he was troubled by the illness, as is observed in many people: it could also have lasted for some time, nay through all the rest of his life: but nevertheless various things, and indeed death itself, seem to argue the contrary. For he refused to resume the purple, although Herculius and Galerius earnestly asked him to do so; and he answered them wisely: Would that you could see at Salona the vegetables planted by our own hands! Surely you would never judge that this should be attempted; which Baluze, on ch. 29, not without reason thinks happened at Carnuntum. For he had been summoned thither by Galerius Maximianus so that, what he had not done before, he might in his presence give the empire to Licinius, and hold a council with him concerning the highest affairs of the State and the creation of Licinius as emperor, as Victor clearly teaches; which he certainly would not have done if he had been cast down from his state of mind; add to this that Eutropius writes that he grew old in a most distinguished leisure. But the narrative of Constantine, although he could have known the matter, seems to need taking with a grain of salt. For I do not think he is speaking of Diocletian's death, but merely hinting that this man, made demented by illness, laid down the empire and, shut up in a mean dwelling, paid the penalty for the persecution; and moreover this was not a mean dwelling, or εὐκαταφρόνητος οἴκησις [a contemptible abode], but a huge and splendid palace, as Spon, a man most worthy of a longer life, shows more than sufficiently in his Itinerary. But if anyone nevertheless holds that Diocletian after laying down the empire was through his whole life now sane, now not in possession of his mind, and ascribes to madness everything that Lactantius relates in this chapter, I for my part will by no means object. Yet it seems to me a great enough punishment that he, burning with distress, unwilling to eat, drawing sighs and fearing a miserable death, met his last day through anguish and, as Eusebius writes at the end of book 8, through a long and most grievous infirmity of the body. And so too Maximinus, defeated and put to flight by Licinius, took refuge in death through anguish of mind and fear. For the rest, I do not know whence Jordanes drew the claim that Diocletian died in Cappadocia; and I also think that the most learned Baluze, not without reason, refutes Victor, who relates that Diocletian received threatening letters from Constantine and Licinius and therefore, suspecting a disgraceful death, drank poison. For although, as almost always, Paul the Deacon follows Victor, at the end of book 10, I do not think that Lactantius would have passed over a story which would be most notable in narrating Diocletian's death. For the rest, on ch. 9 I observe

that Diocletian captured and killed Achilleus, who had assumed the purple, in Egypt at Alexandria. Orosius adds that he used his victory cruelly, gave Alexandria over to plunder, and defiled all Egypt with proscriptions and slaughter. Moreover he seems to have held Alexandria in check with a fortress; for Victor, bishop of Tunnuna, speaks thus in his Chronicle: He is sent into exile (that is, Victor) and is handed over to the prison of Diocletian's fortress after the praetorian prison; and that this happened at Alexandria is clear from what follows: Victor and Theodorus, the aforementioned African bishops, are cast out of prison, and after disputations in the praetorium continuing for 15 days, are sent to another custody, that of the monastery of the Tabennesiots, which is near Canopus, 12 miles distant from the city of Alexandria. I thought it worth while to point this out, because mention of Diocletian occurs so often in this little book; and I think that in Victor one should write, is handed over to the prison of Diocletian's fortress after the praetorian prison: although the Latinity of the authors of that age can by no means be reduced to a rule.

Chapter XLIII.

The sister of Constantine... Hence Licinius, in Photius in the Acts of Metrophanes and Alexander, p. 1407, is called the brother-in-law of Constantine through his sister.

The images of both are set up together. That is, on shields, just as those of Diocletian and Maximian Herculius in the preceding chapter, where the note may be consulted. So on one side of various coins we often see the faces of two emperors joined.

As if the death of his father... He rightly adds as if, because he had not loved him while alive; and Herculius had done things which would certainly have removed all love and reverence, as is clear from chapters 18 and 28. His father, therefore, was the pretext for war; nor do I think that Herculius was deified by Maxentius for any other reason, as the coins attest which are inscribed, TO THE DEIFIED MAXIMIAN, THE ELDER, BEST, BRAVE; for I do not think that anyone other than his son did this.

This detestable old man... So Baluze emends, not against my wish; others wrongly think that detestable discord is meant.

Chapter XLIV.

The response he had received..... Maxentius indeed had at first pretended that he was a Christian, as Eusebius attests, 8, 14, but afterwards showed more than enough that he embraced the old wives' tales of the Gentiles; and this is also clear beyond doubt from the response received from the oracle, and from the consulting of the Sybilline books. But it is remarkable, indeed more than remarkable, that Lactantius relates nothing of his crimes, lust and magic arts, all of which Eusebius vividly depicts, 8, 14, and, following in his footsteps, Haymo, 8, 2, Paul the Deacon in the eleventh book, and the Politia of the Holy Fathers, often cited in Photius. Indeed Aurelius Victor himself touches lightly on these things: It is incredible how much the Senate and the people exulted with joy and gladness at his death, whom he had afflicted so greatly that he once assented to the Praetorians' slaughter of the common people; and he was the first, by a most evil practice, to compel the senators and farmers to contribute money, under the appearance of deities, to him in his prodigality; where the learned not unreasonably write instead, under the appearance of gifts: but they incautiously adduce the New Year's presents offered to Augustus and Caligula. For by munera should be understood games and spectacles, which he had resolved to put on magnificently, and under that heading he scraped together and exacted immense sums of money. Paul the Deacon too dwells at length on recounting the cruelties and lusts of Maxentius: and he adds that the fields were abandoned, and, all effort at ploughing and sowing ceasing, a great famine invaded the City and all places; which agrees with what Lactantius ascribes to Maximus Daza, chapters 37 and 38. Further, the unknown author of the panegyric delivered to Constantine depicts the wicked character of Maxentius, chapters 4 and 14, where he calls him a most vile man, a foolish and worthless animal; and also Nazarius, chapter 31, who should by all means be consulted.

That he would perish, if..... It can be tolerated; perhaps, however, the [word] se has dropped out, and one should write periturum esse se, si.....

Of the Moors and the Italians... That is, in Africa Alexander had seized imperial power; but Rufus Volusianus, praetorian prefect, sent by Maxentius, defeated him, as Aurelius Victor, ch. 39, and Zosimus, 2.15, testify. This Alexander, moreover, seems to have been besieged in the city of Cirta. Victor: Then throughout Africa a priesthood was decreed for the Flavian family, and on the town of Cirta, which had fallen in the siege of Alexander, once it had been restored and adorned, the name Constantina was bestowed; that is, the town of Numidia had been laid waste and plundered when Alexander, who had assumed the purple, was besieged in it. It could also have remained loyal to the Emperors, and have been besieged and overthrown by Alexander, since Zosimus writes that he was defeated at the first encounter, captured, and soon strangled. Tristan, however, embraces the former opinion, vol. 3, p. 440, as is clear from these words of his: These men (Volusianus and Zenas), having gone down into Africa, defeated Alexander at the first encounter, and pursued him in his flight so closely that they caught him in Cirta, which they took by force, and straightway strangled him. However that may be, the devastated city rose again and received the name of Constantina. A learned man notes on Aurelius Victor that it was also called Nicephorium, because it was famous for a signal victory won there by Alexander the Great; and he adds that the same is called Nisibene Constantina in the Notitia Imperii. But Alexander the Great never traversed Africa with victories; next, Nicephorium was in Mesopotamia near Edessa, as Stephanus and Pliny, 5.24, testify, the latter of whom attests that it was founded by Alexander the Great, 6.26: In the neighbourhood of the Euphrates is Nicephorium, as we have said, which Alexander ordered to be founded on account of the advantage of the site. If Nicephorium, as Stephanus, and Suidas following him, write, bore the name of Constantina, it seems to follow that it was previously called Amida, and received the name of Constantina from Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, while he was still Caesar; for Ammianus Marcell., 18.8 and 9, clearly testifies that he called Amida Constantina by a change of name, which, however, men eminent in learning do not seem to have noticed. But just as I do not deny that Nicephorium, since Stephanus reports it, could have been called Constantina, so certainly it has nothing in common with Amida, or the Constantina cited by Marcellinus. For Nicephorium was situated on the Euphrates, as Pliny and Ptolemy, 5.18, teach. But Amida, or the Constantina of Ammianus, was near Nisibis, set on the Tigris, as Procopius, Persian War book 1, testifies, or else it could be reached by a channel from the Tigris, as we read in Ammianus; to which may be added what Bochart, a most eminent man, notes on p. 21 of the Sacred Geography: so that the words of Stephanus have nothing in common with the narrative of Ammianus. That this city was near Nisibis is clear also from the Notitia, since in it it is called Nisibine Constantina, perhaps to distinguish it from another, or from other Constantinas in that region; of which one, if we follow Stephanus, was Nicephorium situated on the Euphrates; and another, farther removed from there, in Arabia Petraea, as is clear from the subscription of the council of Constantinople, which the illustrious Pelletier edited together with the code of canons restored by Pithou, and in which are mentioned bishops of the Province of Bostra: Elpidius of Dionysias, Chilon of Constantina, Uranius of Adraa, or Adrana, and Severus of Neapolis. And although Constantius changed its name, yet it also kept the old one; and Procopius in Photius records that in the time of the emperor Anastasius Amida was besieged by the Persians; and that its inhabitants are called Constantians at the end of the Excerpts, I am persuaded. For that Nicephorium cannot be understood in this passage is certainly clear, since it was from there that Chosroes went to Daras; which was also near Nisibis, and was called Anastasiopolis by the emperor Anastasius: unless, however, these towns were very close to one another, and the one bore the name of Amida, the other that of Constantina. For in the subscription cited are listed the bishops

of the province of Mesopotamia, Maras of Amida, Jobianus of Aemara, Bathes of Constantina: although I would not deny that Bathes could have been bishop of another city, which also bore the name of Constantina in Mesopotamia, as Stephanus records under Nicephorium. Dio, book 40, and Strabo, book 16, also mention Nicephorium; and from this it is clear that it lay near Carrhae, and the learned judge that Jupiter Nicephorius, whom Spartianus mentions at the beginning of the Hadrian, takes his name from that city; and a very great man doubted whether there is another city of this name, yet he judges that Jupiter Nicephorius is so called from the place. But Nicephorium was also a grove, or a village near Pergamum, distinguished by many temples and statues of the gods. Polybius, in the Excerpts on Virtues and Vices: But on the next day (Prusias), having led his forces to the Nicephorium, began to lay waste all the temples, and to strip and plunder the shrines and statues of the gods, and the images; and at the same time there was a grove planted by King Eumenes: whence Strabo, book 13, mentions the Nicephorian grove. This is clear also from the reply of the king of Macedonia to T. Flaminius, in Polybius, book 17. For when the envoys of King Attalus, c. 2, had asked that he restore the temple of Aphrodite intact and the Nicephorium, which he had destroyed, he replies, cap. 6: The Nicephorium and the temple of Venus, which have been laid waste, since I cannot otherwise restore them to their former state, I will send plants and gardeners, by whom care will be taken for the cultivation of the places and for the growth of the felled trees; such things Livy also relates, book 32, cap. 33 and 34, where the temple of Venus is likewise distinguished from the Nicephorium. Hence I think I can affirm that the grove received its name from the principal temple, which may have been that of Jupiter Nicephorus, and embraced within its circuit, or enclosure, the temples of Venus and of the other gods. Diodorus Siculus certainly, p. 294 of the Excerpts, records that Philip overthrew the temples around Pergamum, both the Nicephorium, sumptuously built, and the others that had admired carvings; and again, page 337, that Prusias, king of Bithynia, disappointed in his hope of capturing Attalus, ruined the precinct before the city called the Nicephorium, and of the temples, and plundered the statues, and the wooden images of the gods, and the celebrated statue of Asclepius, and finally all the sacred places, all the temples. If therefore anyone should judge that Jupiter Nicephorius has his name from here, and that he is so called because he held Victory in his hand, as he is very frequently seen on the coins of the Greeks and Romans, he certainly has my leave. But to return to Aurelius Victor, the learned man notes besides that in Strabo Cirta is written with a V, and that Virta, a town founded by Alexander, is mentioned by Marcellinus, book 20. In Casaubon's edition it is written Kirta, which is a rather trifling matter: but Virta, founded by Alexander the Great, has nothing in common with our Cirta, nor was it situated in Africa, but in the furthest part of Mesopotamia, as will be clear to anyone who merely looks at Ammianus. But Cirta of Africa, afterwards called Constantina, was a city once celebrated, formerly the seat of kings, situated far from the sea, on the testimony of Mela, book 1, cap. 6. And Strabo, book 17, also places it in the interior, and writes that the city is very strongly fortified and excellently furnished with all things, chiefly by Micipsa, who settled Greek colonists there. That it afterwards flourished under the Arabs, was celebrated in his own time, and retains the name of Constantina, Leo Africanus relates at length in his Description of Africa; and the same was attested to me by the ambassador of the emperor of Morocco, who not long ago was sent to the most powerful States of the federated Netherlands, repeatedly affirming that it is a great and spacious city, full of splendid and ancient buildings and monuments, which are inscribed with unknown letters (Greek, no doubt, and Latin), and situated far from the sea: the last point we have just seen that Strabo and Mela also relate. But Sallust greatly confuses the situation, and seems to make the city near the sea, c. 21 of the Jugurthine War: Meanwhile the army of each side encamped not far from the sea near the town of Cirta: how these things can be reconciled I scarcely see, since even today Constantina is far removed from the sea, and there was not a double Cirta in Africa; although

Danaeus may suppose that, on chapter 69 of Augustine's On Heresies: and I am surprised that it also occurs in the index of Strabo, since nothing of the kind is read in him. And since this city is little known, I think, reader, that I shall do you a not unwelcome service if I add a drawing of it, which I owe to the most distinguished Witzius, burgomaster of the republic of Amsterdam, and which a certain man communicated to that illustrious person, a man who for three years in that city met with hard fortune, but afterwards at Tunis with the most splendid fortune, although he was a Christian.

Constantina, then, set on the summit of an almost inaccessible mountain, which is further fortified with stones 10 or 12 feet long and 4 or 5 wide, is round, and of about the same size as Rotterdam. The buildings, in keeping with the custom and character of the people, are of little importance; but the rubble and marble columns, which are dug up everywhere by those who dig the earth, are the surest indications that those buildings were once splendid and magnificent. Such too they were in the time of Leo Africanus. Buildings, he says, very sumptuous ones may be seen everywhere: such as the chief temple, two colleges, three or four monasteries, and a great many others of that kind. And this passage recalls to my memory that the city was once the metropolis of Numidia. Canon 86 of the Council of Milevis, On the Archive and Register of Numidia: Next it pleased all the bishops who signed in this council that the register and archive of Numidia should be both with the first see and in the metropolis, that is, Constantina: on which canon Sam. Petitus disputes at length, book III, chapter 1 of the Variae Lectiones, to whom should by all means be added Louis du Pin, a man certainly most learned, Historical Dissertation I on the Ancient Discipline of the Church. Constantina is distant from Tunis 45 or 50, from Bona 20 or 25, and from Algiers 70 German miles; and to cover these, setting out from the last-named city, the man who communicated these things to Witzius spent fourteen days.

1. A high tower, from which burning lamps hang down at night.

2. A fort built in the middle of the city to guard the exit of the old road, by which alone the city could be approached.

3. The road, or entrance of the city, cut into the rock, so broad and high that horses and camels could go up through it into the city. Now it is filled with filth, because it was held too heavy a burden for the inhabitants to supply fuel to a great many lamps by day and night; since without them this approach could be of no use because of the darkness.

4. Forts, or rather a double wall fortified with towers and built for the sake of defending the approach: in the outer one there were two gates, which led by a slanting road to the one gate that was in the inner wall; through which gate access was given to the entrance into the city cut into the rock. Leo Africanus records that there were two roads to the city: And there are only two very narrow roads which lead into the city: of which the one lies open from the east, the other from the west. It also has very large, very spacious and elegant gates. But our eyewitness mentions only this one in his time; and if the site did not prevent it, these two roads could have led to the two gates of the outer wall.

5. The present-day approach to the city, which the Turks made out of the ruins of old buildings; but which is so difficult that one can only go on foot, and cannot ride on a horse: so that the Turks and the inhabitants must dismount from their camels and horses and lead them.

6. The fort by which the new approach is defended.

7. Hot-water baths, almost ruined, in which the poor now wash their bodies, and the women, with the help of a certain kind of earth which has the power of lye-ash and which they call tofill, make linen garments and other things clean. Of these baths Leo without doubt speaks: « One goes down to the river by certain steps cut into the rock; and in the river itself there is a kind of house, also cut into the rock in such a way that roof, columns and walls form a single piece: here the women of Constantina are accustomed to wash their bits of cloth. There is also near this

town a certain bath of hot water, which spreads out by flowing among the rocks. »

8. The water mills, which were built by the Moors who had been expelled by Charles V from Andalusia and Granada.

9. The gardens and pleasure-grounds of the same Moors. Leo Africanus: "The river which flows past across that plain has on both sides very fertile gardens, if they were rightly cultivated."

10. The waterfall, which is made by a spring rising near the city towards the East and pouring out a great quantity of water; it encircles the city on the side where it faces the North, serves in place of a fortification, and pours itself with a great roar into a very deep valley. Leo Afr.: "It is girded by very high rocks; beneath it flows the river Sufegmate, which is itself also enclosed by rocks, so that the very deep river, together with the rocks set on either side, provides Constantina with a kind of moat."

11. The stream, or river, which rises from the aforesaid spring. All these things, as is plain, agree fairly well; but it is surprising that Leo makes no mention of the entrance into the old city, unless perhaps he means it by the steps cut into the rock, by which one used to go down to the river. But let this suffice.

To the Moors... These too were in the army of Severus, and without doubt went over to Maxentius together with the rest of the soldiers. For Zosimus, 2, 10, writes that Severus came "with the Moorish regiments"; and no wonder, since he had the army of Herculius, who, as Eutropius testifies, brought the war in Africa to an end, the Quinquegentani having been subdued and reduced to peace; and Maxentius further increased these Moors; whence it is said that he had recently drawn out his own army from Moors and Italians.

The soldiers of Maxentius were prevailing. Lactantius indicates quite plainly that at the beginning Constantine fought with little success; but Eusebius, on the contrary, 9, 9, relates that he defeated the first, second and third battle-line of the tyrant, and so approached the city of Rome to fight with Maxentius himself. And, as is evident from the panegyric spoken to Constantine, the fighting took place first beneath the very ridges of the Alps, ch. 5, then in the Taurinian plains, ch. 6, thirdly at Verona, ch. 8, and finally at the Mulvian Bridge; on which matter Nazarius too may be consulted, ch. 17, 21 and following of his panegyric. And likewise Orosius, 7, 28, relates that Maxentius, often worn down by many battles, was at last defeated and killed at the Mulvian bridge. And yet I do not think that Lactantius would have committed such things to record if those matters had been plainly otherwise. And the Politia of the Holy Fathers, in Photius, p. 1409, supports him, for there it is expressly related that Constantine, since he could not persuade Maxentius to abstain from persecution, attacked him in war, and that at first he was not far from succumbing: "and having engaged in battle, at first he comes near to getting the worse", as the Greek runs; and thereupon it speaks of the cross seen in the sky, in much the same way as Lactantius too relates the matter.

The quinquennial festival was coming to its end. What the learned men Baluze and Pagi think of this passage, see, reader, in the notes on this passage, and on p. 248 of the Dissertatio Hypatica; and from there you will learn that both hold that Maxentius fell when the sixth year of his reign was completed and the seventh was beginning. This opinion is confirmed by the author of the Panegyric spoken to Constantine, ch. 16: "And having spent six years in idleness, he marked the very birthday of his reign with a final slaughter, so as not to violate that sacred and holy number seven even by beginning it." And I think that the learned hold, not without reason, that the sixth year of the reign was called the quinquennalia, because they were celebrated on the first day of that year. But there is no leisure to inquire more carefully into this matter; and I leave this whole dispute to those who, both in France and in Italy, devote themselves to it with the highest credit to themselves.

Admonished in sleep... If we follow Lactantius, it is certain that Constantine did not see this sign in the sky while awake; but I do not wish to examine a matter which has been thoroughly discussed by so many learned men: see Fred. Spanheim, a man most expert in ecclesiastical antiquity, in his Introductio Chronologica, and Jac. Godefroy, on book 1, chapter 6 of Philostorgius. But in what follows it must be written,

as I noted in passing in the Dissertation on the Usefulness which Princes Can Derive from Coins, he denotes Christ on the shields; that is, the name of Christ, which they expressed by the first two letters of the saving word. Not otherwise does Prudentius speak against Symmachus:

"Christ, woven in jewelled gold, marked the purple labarum..",

that is, the name of Christ, the monogram of Christ. And if we follow Lactantius, it was composed in this manner, as Baronius in the Annals, and Gassendi in the Notitia of the Church of Digne, observe that the Christians marked [it] in the fourth century and the following ones. Nor do the first letters of the divine name occur otherwise on a coin of Anastasius in the Duke of Aarschot, Plate 67. Others make it a cross, but I make it the name of Christ; because Christ, and not the cross, is the saviour of the world, which is designated by the globe. That monogram could also have been of this kind,

because it is expressed in the same way on the coins of Constantine, and because Eusebius, book 1, chapter 25 of his Life, writes that the first letters of the name of Christ were woven into the labarum, "the P being crossed at its very middle"; although these words too might perhaps be interpreted of the former figure, which I think Lactantius indicates, since the Greek letter P, if a line cuts it at the middle, is crossed. Certainly the learned author of the historical Dissertation on the Vision of Constantine strays quite far from the truth of the matter, and wrongly supposes that the common mark of the circumflex accent was employed in this manner,

which there is no need to refute at length, since I am sure that man would abandon his opinion if he were to look at the coins, or come upon this very mark. I would make an end here, were it not my pleasure to add what I had sent to the late Columbus to illustrate the forms of certain crosses, since it has been inserted in his notes. These, then, are as follows.

I shall not linger over examining the things which Charles Du Fresne notes in the Dissertation on the Coins of the Lower XVI [i.e. Age], no. 23, but shall only point out that in the cross marked with the letter A the upper transverse line denotes the tablet on which was inscribed "King of the Jews"; the other, the wood to which the hands of Our Lord Jesus Christ were fastened: that in the one marked with the letter B the topmost and the middle [lines] must be taken in exactly the same sense, while the lowest line signifies the place to which the feet of the Saviour were fastened: that in the third, which the letter C designates, the same things are denoted, but the crossed crosses, as they call them, on the middle transverse line indicate the places in which the nails pierced the Lord's hands for our sins; and finally that in the last cross, marked with the letter D, the topmost circle is to be referred to the title, the two to the arms of the transverse beam, and the lowest to the pierced feet. Reason urges all this, although the time at which such a custom of fashioning crosses began is unknown to me

entirely; nor do I think the matter of such weight that we ought on that account to torment ourselves even in the slightest. Of the monogram of Christ expressed on coins the illustrious Du Fresne treats, in section 24 of the dissertation cited; and though his remarks are elegant, I do not think that he explains quite correctly the gem on which it is seen, and on which is read at the same time SAL. DO. N. ALEX. FIL. LUCE. For it can in no way be referred to Alexander the son of Mamaea, but looks to Alexius, a name borne by various emperors in later times; and LUCE can be expounded with equally fitting sense as LUCEBIT ("will shine"), so that thus at the same time vows, as it were, are offered for Alexius the emperor's son. Yet I would not reject LUGET either, since that is met with on other coins in Choul. Moreover the monogram of Christ is seen on coins of Maxentius, p. 277, in the same author; but, to confess the truth, it seems to me in no way likely that the divine character was set or stamped on his coinage; and, if one cares to reckon the dates, it could in no way have happened, since he perished in that very battle in which Constantine first ordered this sign to go before the army. I think therefore that Choul was deceived, and ascribed to Maxentius what Magnentius did, whose coins it is established were so marked, as the illustrious Mediobarbus shows well enough, who also attributes to Magnentius another coin which the same Choul, p. 187, assigns to Maxentius. I had thought that a coin of the Delians marked with that monogram was also cited by the illustrious Du Cange, and I had judged it spurious; but only now do I notice that the learned man means nothing else than that on the gem which shows the monogram of Christ above the head of Jupiter the heads of Jupiter, Apollo and Diana are seen, just as they occur joined on a coin of the Delians in Goltzius, Plate 18; wherefore I most willingly confess that here I was indeed over-hasty. But how it came about that that divine sign was placed on the head of Jupiter is very difficult to say; nor indeed do I extricate myself from this. For the inscription added, VIVAS IN DEO F., that is, Feliciter ("May you live in God happily"), seems clearly to indicate that this gem was carved by a Christian; unless we say that some Christian afterwards added the monogram and the inscription to the heads of the gods, perhaps not knowing whose heads they were, or in order thus to turn a profane object, as it were, to sacred use. It should be noted, however, that the monogram occurs on coins which were struck not only before Constantine but even before the saving coming of Christ. For Scaliger on Eusebius, and Rupertus in the historical orator, cite a coin of Ptolemy Apion, on one face of which is seen a head with ram's horns and a diadem; on the other an eagle holding a thunderbolt in its talons; beside it is a horn of plenty; below the bird's feet this mark; around the edge of the coin, ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ("of King Ptolemy"); and they judge this mark to be ΧΡΗΣΤΗΡΙΟΥ, "of the oracle" of Ammon, neighbour to Cyrene, of which he was king. I could wish indeed that I might inspect a coin of this kind, since it is certainly to be counted among the rarest; and, while I do not reject that interpretation, I remember having read somewhere that this mark on coins struck before Constantine designates the name of the moneyer: which however, to confess the truth, has its difficulties. X and P likewise occur almost joined to each other on a coin of Decius in Tristan, vol. 2, p. 595, on which is read

BA☧ATO.

"He marks Christ on the shields...." Not, as I have pointed out, an image of Christ, but the monogram. And even in the time of Prudentius this was not yet done. Hymn 2, Peri Stephanon, v. 98:

What you know is Caesar's, give to Caesar; surely I ask what is just. Unless I am mistaken, your God stamps no money at all.

Unless these words are to be referred to the times of Laurence, who died a martyr in the year 254. But neither was it done in the age of Prudentius, because the first of the Greek emperors Justinian

Rhinotmetus, who began to reign in the year 685, stamped his coins in this way. And Du Cange, in the dissertation often praised already, rightly rejects John Damascene, who writes that Constantine placed on a coin "the sign of the saving cross then shown in heaven, and the God-man image of Christ together with his own"; that is, the sign of the saving cross which he had seen in heaven, and the image of Christ, God and man, together with his own. Nor do I think that Constantine stamped coins with the faces of the saints, although Andreas Mamora reports it in his History of the Island of Corcyra, published at Venice in the year 1672. For he displays a coin on one face of which is seen the head of Constantine, girt neither with laurel nor with any other crown; but on the other Corcyra, holy virgin and martyr, standing in a temple and holding in her hands a palm as a sign of victory, with the inscription ΚΟΡΚΥΡΑΙΩΝ ("of the Corcyraeans"): this Corcyra they make the daughter of Cercillinus, chief of the senate of the Corcyraeans, converted to Christ through the work of Jason and Sosipater, disciples of St Paul. But that bust has nothing in common with the face of Constantine; and further, those who can bring their minds to believe such things pleasantly deceive themselves, since these things are plainly foreign to the truth.

"Armed with which sign, the army takes up the sword....." Zosimus (2, 16) relates that not this but another wondrous thing encouraged Constantine to draw up his line and join battle: namely that owls, flying up "in boundless multitude", filled the walls, and that Constantine, beholding this, ordered "his own men to be drawn up"; this the heathen could have invented, so as to set something against the vision "In this conquer"; and perhaps it is also from this that on his coins an owl is seen standing on a base, on whose sides are a spear, a shield and a helmet, with the inscription SAPIENTIA PRINCIPIS ("the wisdom of the prince"): although all these things can fittingly be referred to Minerva, the goddess who presides over wisdom.

"And when suddenly the people..." I punctuate this thus: "And when suddenly the people (for they were the Circensian games on his birthday) and with voice raised....", so that "erant" ("they were") is understood; and yet I do not disapprove of Columbus's reading "edebat" ("was giving").

"Having summoned certain senators, he orders the Sibylline books to be inspected...." It is well known that the Sibylline books were inspected by the Duumviri, then by the Decemviri, and finally by the Quindecimviri for performing sacred rites. And the learned have noted that the Quindecimviri remained until the times of Theodosius, and that he abolished that priesthood together with the rites of the old superstition, and also that the Sibylline books were burned under Honorius by Stilicho. In this passage, however, by Maxentius's order, it is not the Quindecimviri but certain senators who inspect those books: from which it could perhaps be affirmed either that at that time the Quindecimviri no longer existed, or that the Sibylline books were consulted by those whom the emperor chose. But the former can hardly be true, because, as the illustrious Salmasius notes on the Historia Augusta, in the times of Constantine the Great Lactantius himself (Institutes 1, chapter 6) still assigns that office to the quindecimviri; Vopiscus, in the Aurelian, chapter 19, teaches that the pontiffs inspected the Sibylline books by decree of the senate and order of the emperor: "Go then, pontiffs, as being pure, as clean, as holy, as fitted in dress and mind for the sacred rites, ascend the temple, set up the laurelled benches, unroll the books with aged (others read: reverent) hands, search out the fates of the commonwealth, which are eternal." And the same most learned man judges that the quindecimviri, since many of them were also pontiffs, were called by the nobler name of pontiffs; yet that they had the charge of inspecting and keeping the Sibylline books not as pontiffs but as quindecimviri. But in this passage Lactantius mentions certain senators: how these things can be reconciled I hardly see, unless either we embrace the explanation brought forward by me, namely that others than the quindecimviri could inspect those books if the emperor ordered it; or unless rather we determine that these senators were also quindecimviri, in the way that the address of Ulpius Sullanus in Vopiscus also seems to suggest that those pontiffs were from the number of the senators. For in ancient times the Decemviri were created from the patricians, and afterwards half of them were also from the plebs. Book 6, 42: Re-elected

for the tenth time, the same tribunes Sextius and Licinius carried a law on the decemvirs for sacred rites, that they be created partly from the plebs. Five were created from the patricians, five from the plebs; and by that step a way already seemed to have been made to the consulship. I interpret this to mean that five of the quindecimvirs were patrician and five plebeian senators; for it does not seem likely to me that this priesthood was given to anyone at all from the plebs. And it is established that the pontiffs, and for the most part the priests, were senators; Cicero alone shows this, ad Att. 4.2: "All the pontiffs who were senators are summoned."

"The enemy of the Romans"... This is ambiguous, like most such things; and if Constantine had been defeated, they would without doubt have called him the enemy.

"The bridge behind him is cut." The Mulvian, it seems, which he mentioned before. Victor speaks of this matter thus: "While, his battle line cut down, he was fleeing and betaking himself back to Rome, he was caught in crossing the Tiber by the ambush which he had laid for the enemy at the Mulvian bridge"; and I think he relates that Maxentius fell into the river from a bridge other than the Mulvian. The Mulvian bridge was built by M. Aemilius Scaurus, as the Author of the De viris illustribus testifies, and was without doubt of stone: and if Maxentius wished to save himself in flight by this bridge, it is quite likely that the bridge was cut without his order. And although this is contrary to reason, yet Lactantius relates shortly afterwards that Maxentius tried to save himself by that route: "He himself, turned to flight, hurries to the bridge, which had been broken, and, pressed by the multitude of those fleeing, is thrown down into the Tiber." Prudentius too, Against Symmachus 1, celebrates the same bridge:

The Mulvian, hurling the tyrant it had received into the Tiber's pools.

And the anonymous Author of the Panegyric, ch. 17, writes that the soldiers of Maxentius, terrified and put to flight at the first onset of Constantine's army, and shut out by the narrowness of the Mulvian bridge, went headlong into the river. But Eusebius, 9.9, testifies that Maxentius joined the Tiber with boats, and that when he wished to save himself in flight by the bridge made from them, he perished by his own ambush; which Praxagoras in Photius also records, and Zosimus, 2.15 and 16, relates at greater length, who may be consulted. Haymo, 8.3, follows Eusebius, as he usually does: "and the tyrant Maxentius, preparing to engage with all the ships with which he had paved the river, He plunges into the deep." Moreover the Epitome of Victor and also Paul the Deacon relate that this bridge was a little above the Mulvian bridge, and that Maxentius was plunged into the deep by the fall of his horse. But their writing that the tyrant fell into the river by the fall of his horse is not found in others; unless we judge that the Excerpta Valesiana mean the same, in which we read that he was hurled down by his horse. Zosimus relates that the beams of the bridge could not bear the multitude of those fleeing and were broken; and the Politia of the Holy Fathers in Photius, p. 1407, that the treacherous bridge was broken, "the contrived bridge having burst asunder under them." And from this it is more than sufficiently clear what these words of Victor mean, namely that Maxentius was caught by the ambush which he had laid for the enemy at the Mulvian bridge. He therefore fell into the river from the Mulvian, or rather from the wooden bridge; and perhaps he had the Mulvian bridge broken in order to draw Constantine into the ambush, should he wish to cross the Tiber and seize Rome during the fighting or before the battle. Yet the tyrant was not at once drowned, but, carried by his horse, tried to escape; what prevented him from doing so was the higher and steep bank. The Author of the Panegyric, ch. 17: "But him himself, with his horse and distinguished arms, vainly struggling up the steep of the farther bank, the same Tiber seized in its eddy and swallowed."

"Is frightened away." Read "is trampled down," namely the army or soldiery of Maxentius, just as "the Maxentian soldiers" occur a little before; unless Lactantius means that the soldiers of Maxentius were terrified and put to flight at the first onset of Constantine's army, as we have just heard the author of the panegyric say. They use the same word not only

Terence and Plautus, but also Virgil, Aen. 12, whom Lactantius is accustomed to imitate.

The title of the first name.... I wavered this way and that before; and although I had thought that this title could have been the word Maximus, because Constantine is so called on coins and in inscriptions, and because Lactantius shortly relates that Maximinus uttered insults mixed with jests against the emperor Maximus, now however I judge that nothing else is indicated than that the name of Constantine had been put in the first place by decree of the Senate, because the same Lactantius writes that Maximinus claimed for himself the title of the first name: which, as I show at chap. 32, Eusebius also relates. And Maximinus seems to have been able to do this by right, because he had been made Caesar before Constantine.

Chapter XLV.

When it was at its very greatest.... It pleases me sometimes to descend to minutiae. The particles quam cum maxime denote both the time and at the same time the intensity of the cold; so that Lactantius is saying that at that time the cold was at its greatest. Often, however, the word nunc is added; and then it does nothing else than intensify and increase. Cicero, Pro Cluentio: A mother who for many years now, and now most of all, desires her son killed; somewhat differently the books On Old Age: Of the illustrious cases, whichever I have defended, I am now more than ever composing the speeches. Nazarius, ch. 1, Panegyric: For he boasts himself now most of all; and before them Terence, Phormio: But there is need of it now most of all.

With doubled stages. That is, that in one day he would cover as much of the journey as two stages were distant from each other, and would rest not at the first but at the second. The royal roads were divided into Mansiones and Mutationes: at the mansiones they spent the night, so that from one mansio to the next was a day's journey; at the mutationes they changed horses, and halted during the day for the sake of refreshing themselves. For to the ancients manere meant to spend the night. Seneca, On Benefits 3.16: What woman will you find so wretched, so mean, that one pair of adulterers is enough for her? Unless she has parcelled them out by single hours, and the day is not enough for them all; unless she has been carried in her litter at one man's house and has stayed (mansit) at another's, that is, has spent the night. Cicero, On Divination 1: That chamber where he was to stay (mansurus), if he had gone on, collapsed on the first night; in place of which, in book 2, he said: In that chamber he would have had to sleep; and in this way Suetonius also speaks in Aug. 72, 78, and Calig., ch. 55. Hence mansiones are places in which someone spends the night. In this sense, as I show in book 4, 2, of the Observations, mansiones saliorum occur in an ancient inscription. Hence not only are mansiones distinguished from mutationes in the Theodosian Code, the Bordeaux Itinerary, and elsewhere, but also mansio is used by Pliny 12.14 for the journey of a whole day: The incense-bearing land stands eight stages from the high mountain. These mansiones, moreover, were spacious buildings, so that emperors sometimes spent the night in them with their retinue, as is clear from Ambrose in On the Death of Valentinian, and from Suetonius, Titus, and Vopiscus, ch. 35, Aurelian. But granaries too were joined to them, or they served the purpose of granaries, and there the military provision was stored, to be distributed to the soldiers going along the military road on campaign; which provision Eumenius calls copias mansionum. But it would be too long to elucidate these words; and I shall only point out that a similar manner of speaking is found in Justin 13.8: Neoptolemus, defeated, fled to Antipater and Craterus, and persuaded them to come upon Eumenes by continuous stages while he was glad from his victory and secure because of his flight; and then that an elegant inscription is extant in Spon, 302, of the Miscellanea, in which the word manere also occurs:

Mercury here profit

promises, Apollo health,

Septimanus lodging

with a meal. Whoever comes

will fare better afterwards.

Guest, look out where you are to stay.

That inscription, I admit, is obscure; and if I suffer anything human in explaining it, I shall follow others at once when taught better. I think, therefore, that the sign of this inn was Mercury and

Apollo; and that from this Septimanus seizes the opportunity of inviting people into his lodging: of which, however, those will make better use who have brought their lunch with them, or who have come at the hour when lunch is taken; but after lunch the guest must look out for where he may stay, that is, spend the night.

Perinthus having been received in surrender. The learned rightly note that Perinthus is Heraclea, which he had related a little before had been besieged; and that this city bore that name is observed by Ammianus Marcellinus, 22, 2 and 27, 4, and also by Procopius, book 1 of the History of the Vandal War, to whom Tristan, vol. 2, p. 80, should by all means be added.

Distant by soldiers... Following the conjectures of others, I read "by as many miles, and gathered in the same place." A most learned man notes that this happened near Resiston, and that this place is the first to occur in the Itinerary of Antoninus for those going from Heraclea to Hadrianopolis. I, in the Itinerary, p. 37, find that Apri and Resiston are listed between Trajanopolis and Heraclea, and that the former place is 23 miles distant from Trajanopolis, the latter 22; thus, if the first halting-place was Resiston, the second will certainly be Apri, since Lactantius assigns an equal number of miles to each. But he mentions not Trajanopolis but Adrianopolis; and the Author of the Itinerary describes for us quite other places between Adrianopolis and Heraclea; as on p. 30: Ostudizum, Bergulae, Drizipara, Izirallon; on p. 51 he lists the same together with Heraclea; as also on p. 73, Hadrianopolis, Ostudizum, Burdidizum, Bergulae, Drusiparum, Tirallum, Perinthus, Heraclea: but on the other hand, on p. 75, he again enumerates for us Trajanopolis, Cypsela, Apri, Resiston, Heraclea; so that it seems to me at least that the Serene Plain, mentioned in the following chapter, must be sought elsewhere.

Chapter XLVI.

Through the commanders and tribunes.... The name of praepositus is very general, as Gutherius teaches in his book On the Offices of the August House. Here they are placed above the tribunes: but nevertheless Vegetius, 2, 12, writes that a tribune commanded the first cohort of the legion, while the rest were directed by tribunes or by praepositi. In the inscriptions in Gruter there occur "praepositus of the cohort of the German expedition", "praepositus of the legion, of the units marching into Pontus", and "of the detachment of Perinthus"; so that no one will err who in this passage makes the praepositi superior to the tribunes. Thus in an inscription in my possession, unpublished:

To the Spirits of the Departed. To Gaius Julius Candidus, praepositus of the Thirteenth Legion Gemina, his heirs made [this] in accordance with his will.

For the double P. P. signifies praepositus; and in Gruter's index these abbreviations are sometimes wrongly expounded as praefectus; and worse in Inscr. 6, p. 277, as Pro Praetore, when it is the emperor Gaius's title "father of the fatherland": and so too must 1, p. 278, be explained, in which indeed PRO. PR. is read and written out, but it refers not to the emperor but to M. Aurelianus Valentinianus. But this in passing.

The battle of the day of the Kalends of May.... Either diei has been put for die, or diem should be written.

The plain.... which they call Serene. I think it was so called not because it lacked winds, but because it lacked trees and thickets, and was level. Such a plain, I think, is called katharon pedion, a clear plain, by Eusebius, 4, 19, On the Life of Constantine, who ordered that the soldiers not yet made Christians should go out into it every Lord's day and all together, at a given signal, pour out prayers to God. For this plain was beyond doubt level and unobstructed by trees or other things; on it I think the soldiers also exercised themselves in arms. Livy, 24, 14, spoke of a clear and open plain. But the serene plain causes me to point out that I have also read of a serene military service in Paul the Deacon, book 10 of the Historia Miscella: "Who (Carausius), most basely born, of the serene military service

in the ranks had won an outstanding reputation." What sort of thing a "serene service" may be, I confess I do not understand, unless someone thinks it is so called with respect to the Emperors, who are called Serene Lords on the column which is still seen today at Constantinople. And let the learned weigh whether one ought rather to rewrite it as "of strenuous" or "of severe service": the last of which occurred to a learned friend; so that Carausius would be said to have acquired a reputation for himself from diligent observance of military discipline.

Tight-fisted in giving... Victor: For in the former (Constantine) everything else was great beyond measure; in the latter (Licinius) there was only thrift, and that a boorish one. And the Author of the Epitome writes that in the lust of avarice he was the worst of all.

Chapter XLVII.

Was mown down by a few. That is, was laid low, was cast down, as we cut grass with a sickle. Columbus brings forward examples; and another is extant in Tertullian at the end of the Apology: Nor has your more exquisite cruelty been of any avail; it is rather an enticement to the sect: we become more numerous as often as we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed. And in Silius Italicus, book 13:

Scipio rushes into the arms that meet him, and, insatiable, mows down the opposing column.

The highest God... With the best right is our God so called: but the Gentiles also used "highest" simply of the Greatest God, Whom they did not know. Statius, Thebaid 4, 516:

And the highest of the threefold world, whom it is unlawful to know;

where the Scholiast notes this: He means the highest god, Demogorgon, whose name it is not permitted to know. Moreover countless philosophers [and] magi, the Persians too, affirm that there truly exists, besides these known gods who are worshipped in temples, another chief and greatest god, the ordainer of the other deities, of whose race the sun and moon alone are; where the rest may be seen, which are elegant, and which Barthius tries to emend in his notes; to whom must be added Fr. de Cordoua, who in chapter 25 of the Didascalia multiplex rewrites demiurgum, that is, maker, in place of demogorgona, and thinks that Demogorgon owes his origin to Boccaccio: but he wrongly doubts which is older, Lutatius or Boccaccio, since nothing is more certain than that the former lived before the latter.

Chapter XLVIII.

Public security. This occurs on various coins in the antiquaries; as in Erizzo, pp. 119, 413, 469, 497, 559; Tristan, vol. 1, p. 630; vol. 2, p. 469; Patin, p. 73; the Thesaurus; Vaillant, whose book on the colonies we eagerly await; and others. In Ammianus Marcellinus, 14, 6, the security of the time of Pompilius is also mentioned.

We were to have under treatment... That is, we were to consult and deliberate. See what pertains to this in the Glossary often cited.

Which indeed the divinity... I think one should write, whereby whatever of divinity [there is] in the heavenly seat. See the notes of Columbus, a most learned man. And the Gentiles spoke thus because they were in doubt what properly the highest deity was, which God, and disputed among themselves.

For the quiet of the time... That under my rule there may be quiet and peace; soon after: Whereby in this also, through our clemency, provision may be made for public quiet. On a coin of Maximian Herculius in Tristan, vol. 3, p. 372, a goddess is seen holding a rod in one hand and ears of grain in the other; and QUIES. AUG.; and by that emblem it is without doubt signified that quiet, or peace, is the cause of abundance and of the grain supply. Ammianus Marcellinus, 19, 11: And, cherishing quiet as a saving goddess, they should undergo the burdens of tributaries; where Valesius may be seen.

Let them demand a vicar... This name is general, so much so that it cannot be affirmed for certain what office the vicar here held. But nevertheless I by no means think he will err who supposes that Maximinus designates

any vicar whatever in his own province. Thus in the regions of the East there were four vicars, of the Asian diocese, of the Pontic, of the Thracias and of Macedonia, concerning whom, as also concerning the other vicars of other provinces, the Notitia imperii may be consulted. In the inscriptions edited by Reinesius there are mentioned Flavius Rufus Sabinus Volusianus, vicar of Asia, and Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, vicar of Africa; and in the Libellus Precum of Faustinus, p. 14, there occurs a vicar of Spain. In general, moreover, he is called vicarius who acts in the stead of another, or serves another; thus a servus vicarius, on the testimony of Ulpian, serves an ordinary slave. VICARIUS SUPRA COCOS in Inscript. XII, 580, who is set over the cooks in place of him who held authority over them; and our vicars have this name with respect to the praetorian prefects, or the governors, in whose stead they administered: whence Sextilius Agesilaus Aedesius is called on an ancient stone VICARIUS PRAEFECTURAE PER HISPANIAS; and in ch. 16 Lactantius mentions Hierocles, a governor who had been a vicar, which is wrongly rendered by the French as président.

To the right of their body... These are the ecclesiastical goods; and this passage clearly proves that before the law of Constantine the Great the churches of the Christians possessed goods, immovable ones as they call them. Julian forbade this, as Ado testifies in his martyrology, p. 108, and Faustinus and Marcellinus would certainly have agreed with him, since in the Libellus Precum, p. 21, they speak thus: But for this reason the authority of that name was complaining even with every disgrace, lest the possessions of the Church should be taken away from them; would that the Church had never possessed them, so that, living in the apostolic manner, it might inviolably possess the faith entire.

The right of their body... This edict of Maximinus permits each person to worship whatever god he wished; and since nearly every one of the gods of the Gentiles had men devoted to him gathered into one body, from this it speaks in like manner of the Christians, inasmuch as they were devoted to the divinity and majesty of Our Lord Jesus Christ. On ancient stones there occur COLLEGIUM AESCULAPII, ET HYGIAE NAUCLERUS, QUI ERAT IN COLLEG. SERAPYS, COLLEG. FABRUM VENERIS; concerning which an occasion for discussion will shortly be given elsewhere. And just as these bodies had their own treasuries and lands, from which they met their expenses, so too the Christians possessed their goods; who nevertheless spent all their revenues and all their alms on the poor, and did not feed idle bellies with them.

With public blessedness... This too is a customary expression, and indeed one met with on the coins themselves, and it denotes a tranquil and happy state of the commonwealth. Tacitus said most blessed age, ch. 3 of the Agricola; Nazarius most blessed Caesars, ch. 1 and the last; most blessed victory, ch. 32, and the blessedness of the city, ch. 33 of the Panegyric.

By your published notice... It signifies that the governor of the province had to make known, by a writing publicly posted, that he had received such an edict from the emperors, and had been ordered to post it up. This passage certainly seems to me worth noting, because it teaches us that the edicts of the emperors were not posted in the provinces unless the governors at the same time attested that edicts of this kind had been sent to them by the emperors; and this was necessary to do, so that spurious edicts might be kept off, by which the provincials could have been stirred up to revolution by turbulent men.

Chapter XLIX.

But to Licinius following... I had thought that sequente should be written; but now I judge that Maximinus gave way to Licinius as he followed, that is, that he did not wait, but fled, as soon as he learned that Licinius was coming and approaching with an army. Cicero, De oratore I: To whom, so that I may discuss all these matters, when I have conceded it, I will nevertheless grant and give this to the orator; a passage which, if you look at the form of expression, is plainly similar to this one of Lactantius.

The victors breaking through everything on the right. Maximinus, after his forces were cut down between Heraclea and Hadrianople, fled first to Nicomedia, thence into Cappadocia, on the testimony of Lactantius, ch. 47. When Licinius followed him thither,

he seizes the narrows of Mount Taurus; and since mountains of this kind are not passable everywhere, I would readily believe that a definite place is meant, and indeed the one through which Cilicia could be reached, since Maximinus is said to have fled to Tarsus. In Livy 35.13 we read that Antiochus withdrew to Antioch through Cilicia, having crossed Mount Taurus. Alexander, in Justin 11.8, fearing the narrows, crossed the Taurus with great speed and reached Tarsus; and Curtius, 3.4, describes those narrows very well, from whom we learn besides that Alexander also made for Cilicia from Cappadocia, and that those narrows were called pylae or gates (which could also be confirmed by other examples). Licinius, however, held to another route, and crossed the Taurus in the direction of Pamphylia: whence Maximinus, fearing that he would be cut off from flight, betook himself to Tarsus, meaning, of course, to be nearer to the East and to Egypt.

As those are wont to do who think they are doing this for the last time. Thus indeed the Numantines wished to rush into battle; and when they could not do so, they killed themselves, Florus 2.18. Juba, after feasting magnificently, gave himself to Petreius to be killed over the tables and cups, 4.2; and some of the Cantabrians, when they saw their end at hand, vied with one another in anticipating death by fire, by the sword, in the midst of banquets, and by poison, 4.11. Moreover, to men condemned by the sentence of a judge, to which Lactantius perhaps alludes, and to gladiators, a last mixed supper was given, so that they might fill themselves with a variety of foods and, having drunk well, cast off the fear of death. Juvenal, Satire 11:

Thus they come to the mixed fare of the gladiatorial school,

Where the commentator says: "Miscellanea, the food of gladiators, that is, the last supper"; and he adds the reason: "They are called miscellanea because they mix together everything that is set before them, and so eat it"; and although others, perhaps not undeservedly, reject this interpretation of the poet, and although it is not likely that all the gladiators' foods at the supper which they thought to be their last were mixed together, but rather that they were filled with a variety of foods, yet the Scholiast seems to preserve that custom for us. Among the Athenians, those who were condemned, or who were being led ἐπὶ θάνατον, to death, were permitted to fill themselves with food and wine, "to be filled with bread and wine", on the testimony of Suidas, under the word εἴποις τὰ τρία, and the Vatican Appendix, Century 1, Proverb 75. And that to the bestiarii, or those condemned to the beasts, a free supper was given, and that on the day before they fought they were accustomed to dine most sumptuously, is plain from the passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity, as also from what Henri Valois, a most celebrated man, points out in his preface. Moreover the military dinner also seems to belong here, so called because it prepares soldiers for war, that is, for battle, on the testimony of Pollio in the Gallieni.

With white-robed attendants. I read "with white-robed". In other turns of speech, however, this particle is omitted by the writers of that age. Ammianus Marcellinus, 15.4, said congredi barbaris, as I show at chapter 18. But since Ammianus has been mentioned, should not ad damnandum be written instead of ad amandum in the same author, 15.7? "In judging most just, by nature benevolent, although for the sake of preserving authority he seemed to some harsh and inclined to love." That certainly seems so to me, because "harsh" and "love" do not fit well together here; and from the same chapter it is established that Leontius condemned men without delay; and the most distinguished Columbus judged this emendation necessary and true.

With white-robed attendants. Thus, namely, the faithful are clothed in the Apocalypse and elsewhere, and with the best of reason, to indicate purity and integrity of life. Prudentius, Hymn 1 περὶ Στεφάνων, verse 67.

Christ there presides over the white-robed cohorts, / And reigning from His lofty throne condemns the infamous gods.

Repeatedly beseeching Christ. Eusebius relates the same, 9.10, at the end. This remarkable example teaches us that the conscience even of the cruellest persecutors has such power that it makes them guilty. To this belongs the fact that Maximinus, after he had been defeated by Licinius, granted liberty to the Christians by an edict, which

translated from the Latin language into Greek, Eusebius preserved in the passage cited, and which Haymo also mentions, book 8, chapter 3 of the Ecclesiastical History. But it is strange that Lactantius preserved no record of this matter.

He breathed out [his life] by a detestable kind of death.... Eusebius, 9, 9, writes that he died by a most shameful death, and the author of the Epitome of Victor [says] by a simple death: which plainly conflicts with Lactantius and Eusebius. A simple death is attributed to those who are put to death without tortures and heavy torments, as is clear from Suetonius, Caesar ch. 74. Hence Prudentius, Hymn 10 On the Crowns, v. 8_7:

Let us therefore first try to cut off with the sword some part of the surviving body, / so that the many-times criminal may not fall by a simple death, / or the faithless one meet his end by a single slaying; / as many limbs as he bears, in so many ways I will that he perish.

But Maximinus suffered most severe pains, though not inflicted by another; and I think that that author sets a simple death against the death by which someone is taken off by another, and that this is the same as if he had said: he was not strangled, he was not beheaded, but died by his own death, however full of torments that death may have been. Paul the Deacon follows Victor, indeed does so so faithfully that, following his example, he even praises this most savage man, and writes that he was by birth and upbringing a herdsman, but a cultivator of all the wisest men and of letters, of quiet temper, rather too eager for wine, drunk with which he would order certain harsh things with a disordered mind; and since he regretted it once done, he had decided that what he had commanded should be deferred to a sober and morning hour. But Lactantius teaches us something far different; and I can bear that a man of the gentile religion should praise a most vigorous champion of that religion: but such things are by no means to be pardoned in a Christian; and perhaps Victor calls him a cultivator of all the wisest men and of letters because he favoured the heathen philosophers and priests, whom he judged to be far wiser than the Christians, and honoured them.

He breathed out.... He was buried in Cilicia, and Philostratus 8, 1 records that near him, by chance, Julian, the most hostile enemy of Christ, was buried.

Chapter L.

Valerius.... Who this was I cannot reach even by guessing, since no one else makes mention of him: which Baluze also rightly observed. Nor do I think that what Paul the Deacon writes, after recounting the death of Maximinus, in book 11, has any bearing here: Valens meanwhile, having been hailed Emperor by the army in the East, is punished with death by the same Licinius. Then Alexander, who had been made emperor at Carthage, is slain by the army of Constantine. For although Valens could at the same time have been called Valerius, yet he does not fit this time; and more than once that author suffers some human lapse in narrating these matters. For Valens was not put to death at that same time: rather, after the defeat suffered at Cibalae at the hands of Constantine, he was created Caesar by Licinius, and was killed at Constantine's demand when [Constantine] granted him peace, as Tristan shows from Victor and Paul the Deacon, vol. 3, p. 472, who nevertheless, not cautiously enough, notes from the same authors that Valens rebelled against Galerius Maximianus. For this is foreign to the truth; and Galerius Maximianus had already met his end when Valens was created Caesar with Maximinus willing it, as is clear from the Excerpta Valesiana, although Victor and Paul the Deacon call him emperor. What follows, that Alexander was slain by the army of Constantine, also conflicts with the trustworthiness of history. For he was defeated by Maxentius through the praetorian prefect Volusianus and Zenas, as may be seen in Zosimus 2, 14; so that these two have nothing in common with our Valerius, who I think is found nowhere, and whom we can come to know only by the remedy of Ovid's Metamorphoses. For as he sings that the maiden Iphis was changed into a male by the help of Isis, so the suspicion has sometimes arisen in me that Valerius should be changed into Valeria by the help of Criticism

This will no doubt seem strange to others, since in the following chapter Lactantius relates the death of Valeria at some length. Lactantius does so, I admit; but I think that in that same chapter he also narrates it in passing, among the first of the things which Licinius undertook after Maximinus had been conquered; and that he desired nothing so ardently as to be able to put Valeria out of the way. Nor do I see with whom he could have been angry, except with Valeria, who had spurned him, as is clear from ch. 39, and towards whom, on account of that injury, he was without doubt hostile. And hence it is that I have sometimes suspected that in this place one should write, first of all Valeria, whom Maximinus........; and what follows agrees with this very well, since he relates that Valeria had adopted Candidianus. And just as he presently describes in particular the death of Candidianus, who he had said had been killed, so too in chapter 51 he relates the death of Valeria and of her mother Prisca, although they were not killed together with Candidianus immediately after the death of Maximinus. I had made these comments when I noticed that the learned Englishmen had also emended this passage in the same way; and I plainly testify that I had not looked at them beforehand.

And he seemed to be held in honour... For he was the son of Galerius Maximianus, begotten of a concubine, and adopted by his lawful wife Valeria, the daughter of Diocletian: all of which things could certainly add to his pride. Hence, when at Nicomedia, which was the seat of the emperors, he carried himself too high and above the station of a private man, he was killed by order of Licinius; because, as I think, he was coming under suspicion of revolution, and was perhaps thinking of assuming the purple; which is what we read was soon afterwards charged against Severianus, the son of Severus.

Besides Valeria, who, being willing to yield to Licinius by her own right all the inheritances of Maximianus, had refused the same to Maximinus..... A very tangled passage; for if Valeria was willing to yield to Licinius all the inheritances of Maximianus, it is by no means likely that she would have left him together with her mother and entrusted herself to Maximinus, who, if not an enemy of her husband, was certainly no friend, as is clear from ch. 39. Certainly these things do not hang together; and for that reason I judge the passage to be corrupt. Lactantius relates that all those whom he mentions feared Licinius as an evil, and believed that they would be safer with Maximinus; but he makes an exception of Valeria and her mother Prisca, who, while leaving Licinius after the example of the others, were unwilling also to be with Maximinus, to whom nevertheless the rest were entrusting themselves. I think, therefore, that Lactantius wrote, who, being unwilling to Licinius... and thus what follows will fit very well, had refused the same to Maximinus; which would certainly not be true if she had been willing to give everything to Licinius. Valeria, therefore, was unwilling to yield the inheritances of Galerius Maximianus her husband to Licinius; who, I am persuaded, had sought her in marriage before he married the sister of Constantine, since Lactantius said earlier, so pointedly, that she had thought she would stay more safely with Maximinus, because he had a wife. And this opinion of mine is confirmed to a wonderful degree by the author himself in the following chapter, where he writes that their chastity and their rank were their ruin; that is, that they perished because Prisca was the wife of Diocletian, Valeria their daughter and the wife of Galerius Maximianus; and because she, the widow of an emperor, was unwilling to marry either Licinius or Maximinus, and, contrary to custom and without precedent, to pass to a second marriage. Lactantius therefore praises these most illustrious women for their chastity, so that, although he says that they paid the penalty, he nevertheless seems to pity so bitter a fate: The women, therefore, were led to execution amid a vast spectacle and pity for so great a fall, and, their heads having been cut off, their bodies were thrown into the sea, ch. 51. Nowhere, certainly, does he censure them, or even lightly suggest that Diocletian or Galerius Maximianus had been incited by them to persecute the Christians; which, however, he does not forget to note concerning Romula, the mother of Galerius Maximianus, ch. 11, just as in this chapter he also censures the wife of Maximinus on account of the chaste women drowned in the Orontes. Nay more, he separates them from the impious and the persecutors; for when in ch. 50 he had related that all the impious, by the true and just judgement of God, received

the same things that they had done, presently in the following chapter he describes the death of Valeria, and also of her mother Prisca. What then? Prisca and Valeria either were Christians or favoured them; and Lactantius himself makes me think so, in ch. 15, where he speaks thus: The emperor (Diocletian) therefore raged now not only against the members of his household but against all; and first of all he compelled his daughter Valeria and his wife Prisca to be polluted by sacrifice. For neither would Diocletian have compelled them to sacrifice, nor would Lactantius have written that they had been polluted by sacrifice, unless they had been Christians, or had fallen under that suspicion with the emperor, although they did not dare openly to embrace their doctrines. For a pagan is not compelled to sacrifice; nor can such a one properly be said to be polluted by sacrifice, but indeed he who has given his name to Christ and returns to the superstition he has abjured. Thus in the same chapter "to compel" is used of the Christians, whom, driven into the temples, they compelled to sacrifice: No less violently did the persecution fall upon the rest of the people (from whom, namely, he had distinguished the presbyters and ministers). For judges, dispersed through all the temples, compelled everyone to sacrifices. And Prudentius, Hymn Peri Stephanon 2, v. 367, sings that the Jewish people was defiled by the golden ox; and it is too well known to need proof that, to embrace the pagan religion, nothing else had to be done than to sacrifice to the gods and to throw incense upon the altars. This opinion of mine is confirmed by various Acts and Histories which, in Baronius, Tristan and others, make Diocletian's wife a Christian, although her true name was unknown to them, and they relate many things that are foreign to the truth; which Baluze also observes. But if they were Christians, what reason is there, after all, why Lactantius does not relate it in clear words, while on the contrary the martyrologies, on the 17th day before the Kalends of September, relate that Serena (that is the name they give Diocletian's wife) died a martyr? The martyrdom, to confess the truth, seems to me to belong with the other errors of the martyrologies; nor is it likely that Lactantius would have passed it over, if such illustrious women had been punished with death for Christ. Indeed the sacrifice offered to idols also plainly rules that out; for although they did it under compulsion, and perhaps afterwards returned to a right mind and wiped out that crime with tears, a chaste life and true penitence, yet they were not killed as Christians, because Licinius had given freedom to the Christians by edict, and had not yet brought his mind to tear apart a harmless people. For this little book was written before the war between Constantine and Licinius arose, when the Church enjoyed peace and tranquillity, as appears most clearly from its end; and also from its beginning, where he relates that God had raised up princes who rescinded the wicked and bloody rule of the tyrants; that is, Constantine and Licinius. I had commented thus, when afterwards it came into my mind that the words in which he relates that Valeria and Prisca were polluted by sacrifice could be said by Lactantius as a Christian, and that cogi is used in the sense in which it is in the same chapter, ad sacrificia cogebant; although, to confess the truth, these words indicate that force was applied to those who resisted: For judges, dispersed through all the temples, compelled everyone to sacrifices.

But first their mother was cast headlong into the East.. What my opinion on this passage is, see, if you please, reader, in the notes of Columbus; I thought they should be left there, because they could not conveniently be transferred here. Yet lest I be altogether barren in that place where mention of a celebrated river occurs, I shall try to apply a remedy to Josephus where he mentions the river Sabbatius, book 7 of the Destruction, ch. 24: For it flows in the middle between Archaea, of Agrippa's kingdom, and Raphanaea. And it has a wonderful peculiarity. For being abundant when it flows, and not sluggish in its current, then failing entirely from its sources for the space of six days, it lets the place be seen dry; then, as if no change had taken place, it pours forth alike on the seventh, and it has always been observed keeping this order exactly. Whence they have also called it the Sabbatical, naming it so from the sacred seventh day of the Jews; that is, with Rufinus as translator: This flows

midway between Arcae and Raphanaeae, cities of the kingdom of Agrippa. Now it has a certain peculiar marvel. For although, when it flows, it is very abundant and not sluggish in its course, yet after an interval of six days, failing from its springs, it shows its bed dry to the view. Then, as though no change had been made, it rises the same on the seventh day; and it has been ascertained for certain that it always keeps this order. Hence also it has been called the Sabbatical, being so named from the sacred seventh day of the Jews. The passage is truly intricate and, in the opinion of Casaubon, was corrupt already before Rufinus, because all the Rabbis oppose Josephus and maintain that the river is called Sabbatical not because it discharges its waters on the seventh day, but because on that day it rests; which Pliny also does, Natural History 31.11: In Judaea a stream dries up on every Sabbath. Spizelius, in his dissertation on the American Israelites, judges that according to Josephus that river did not receive the name of Sabbatical from the fact that it rests on every seventh day, but because on each Sabbath it enjoys some remarkable change. Manasseh ben Israel so inverts the sense of the words that it agrees with Pliny in every respect; Isaac Casaubon, however, by the transposition of a few words and the omission of some, restored the corrupt passage in his Exercitations against Baronius. But I am persuaded that no words have been omitted, and I restored them thus: 'not sluggish, for the number of six days; then, failing entirely from its springs, it presents the place dry to see. Then, as though no change had taken place, it issues forth the same at (read: after) the seventh'; that is, and it is carried with no gentle force over the space of six days; then, failing entirely at its very springs, it offers its bed dry to be looked upon; and thereupon, as though no change had been made, it bursts forth the same after the seventh day. For when he writes that the Sabbatical river was dry after the sixth day, and after the seventh burst forth the same as before that seventh day, he shows clearly enough that it rested and was dry on every Sabbath. But let the learned judge, who have long promised us a far more correct Josephus.

Chapter LI.

Valeria also, having wandered through various provinces for fifteen months in plebeian dress... We must see from what point the epoch of this wandering is to be reckoned. Licinius, in the year of Christ 313, on the Kalends of May, defeated Maximinus; if we count Valeria's wanderings from that time, it follows necessarily that she was killed in the month of June or July of the year 314. But if we begin to number them from the time when she was sent into exile by Maximinus, in the year 312, it follows that she was put to death not long after Maximinus was defeated; which is certainly not contrary to reason, because Licinius, if my conjecture is true, especially desired to kill Valeria; and because Lactantius too, c. 39, expressly relates that Maximinus banished her with her mother into exile, and not to a fixed place, but drove her out headlong hither and thither with mockery: while she was forced to undergo this misfortune, she was surely clad in nothing but plebeian dress; although I would not deny that the word pervagata seems to signify that she moved herself, not by order of the emperor but of her own accord and to avoid her persecutors, now into this province, now into another. But if this little book was published immediately after the defeat of Maximinus, and before the war which arose in the year 314 between Constantine and Licinius, this flight can conveniently be reckoned from the decree of Maximinus. In that war Licinius was defeated on the eighth day before the Ides of October of the same year, and obtained peace by handing over Illyricum, and only in the year 319 returned to the gods; or rather showed that he had always been a pagan, by issuing an edict that bishops should not hold councils, and he persecuted the Christians. But if anyone should think that this book was published by Lactantius after the first war that took place between Constantine and Licinius, he will see with little effort that its birth ought to be assigned to the period which lies between the years 314 and 319. For the Church was enjoying peace when these things were committed to writing.

Paid the penalty... I do not think that Lactantius means that they were punished as guilty, but only that they perished by a violent death.

Chapter LII.

All of which, etc. This will be perfectly plain if you punctuate it thus: All of which (I speak on the word of those who know) I have thought fit to commit to writing just as they were done.

The surnames of the Jovii and Herculii, renowned among the nations, which, first insolently assumed by Diocles and Maximian and afterwards passed on to their successors, flourished? Others therefore after Diocletian and Maximian were surnamed Jovii and Herculii. Indeed Galerius, Maximinus and Licinius were called Jovii, as Valesius shows on Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 9.9, and Tristan, vol. 3, p. 433, who, however, does not explain a most elegant coin well enough: which Henry Noris, a most learned man, does in his explanation of the Licinian coin, where he shows at the same time that Constantius and Constantine were called Herculii; which the author of the panegyric spoken to Maximian and Constantine also mentions, ch. 8: This is he who gave to you (Constantine) the name which he received from the god who was the founder of your race, he who proved himself to be the offspring of Hercules not by fabulous flatteries but by equal virtues. And in the Epitome of the times, p. 277, there occurs Maximinus Jovius, most illustrious Caesar; and Galerius Maximianus is to be understood: just as, conversely, Maximinus is sometimes called Maximianus by authors who confuse these names, or through the fault of copyists.

The Lord has blotted them out... Most rightly is our God so called, since He is by the best of rights Lord of all things. Yet the Gentiles too gave so splendid and so illustrious a title to their gods and goddesses. In Gruter, 6, 68, there occurs LORD ASCLEPIUS; and on a coin in Hardouin, The great god Lord Sarapis, as a learned man suspects, not without reason, should be read with the letters separated. That the Sun was called Lord by the Latins and Despotes by the Greeks I have shown on Harpocrates, p. 113; and by THE UNCONQUERED LORD in Gruter 11, 1066, either the sun must be understood, which is often called Unconquered, or the god whom Commodian in Instruction 13 calls simply the Unconquered, who was Agdestis; to whom Arnobius attributes unconquered strength, and who, as Rigault observes, is confused with Mithras or the sun: or finally the god worshipped in that place is so called. Nor did goddesses lack this title. Lady Artemis, Lady Diana, occurs in inscription 13, p. 1066 of Gruter; THE LADIES in another, p. 90, found at Alba Julia, by whom perhaps the Mother Goddesses are meant; and LADY HONOUR in inscription 3, p. 100, which is to be noted, because Honour is of the masculine gender, and yet he is called LADY (provided no lines have been lost), because he was sometimes represented in the likeness of a goddess, as is clear from a coin of Galba which is inscribed HONOUR AND VIRTUE. By Virgil, book 3, Aeneid line 113, Cybele, or the mother of the gods, is called in just this way:

And yoked lions went under the chariot of the lady.

And although some in Servius think that Cybele is called lady of the lions, the same author nevertheless notes that she was properly called the Lady. They call goddesses ladies, he says; as elsewhere:

These set about leading the lady from the bridal chamber of Dis.

Indeed Varro and the rest affirm that the mother of the gods is properly called the Lady; for there too Proserpina was called lady by Virgil because she herself is said to be the earth, just as the mother of the gods is: presently he adds, This same one (namely Cybele) is called Era, that is, Lady. In just this way Germanicus sings in his Aratea:

The Dictaean Corybants, servants of the lady, ply,

that is, servants of the mother of the gods; and Valerius Flaccus gives the same epithet to Juno and Diana, Argonautica book 4, line 355, and book 7, line 181. Moreover the Arcadians the goddess

worshipped with the highest veneration, called simply Despoina, as is clear from Pausanias, book 8. The translator, p. 499, makes her Proserpina; no doubt because she is joined with Ceres, and because, on p. 516, she is said to be her daughter: but there she is nevertheless at the same time clearly distinguished from Proserpina, and is called the daughter of Neptune and Ceres; and Pausanias writes besides that he does not dare to write the name of this goddess for the uninitiated: which things certainly show amply enough that she was not Proserpina. But although the gods of the Gentiles were so surnamed, yet our God is by the best right Lord; and as He cast them down and trampled on them, so I hope that He will at length look upon the most atrocious calamities of the faithful people, and restore peace to the true Church throughout the whole world. The Roman emperors too were called lords, as is very well known; nor would I mention this, did I not see that Caspar Gevartius, at the end of book 1 of the Silvae of Statius, has not interpreted Claudian quite correctly. For when he had shown that Domitian, Trajan and others were called Lords, he adds that he wonders that Claudian, in book 3 On the Praises of Stilicho, writes pointedly that the Romans, first of all, bestowed the title of Lord on Stilicho, in these words:

But never has public favour poured itself forth with such assent; for what prince has brought it about by all his deference that he should be called lord and father, as the vaults of heaven resound to you day after day? Hail, consul, in your new titles; the people of Mars confess you lord, Brutus not resenting it, and what Roman Liberty could hitherto be brought to endure by no terror, she has granted to her love for Stilicho.

But I hardly think that this was Claudian's meaning: rather I judge that he sings that the people, as it were compelled and unwilling, called the princes so; which certainly follows, if we admit the very probable conjecture of Heinsius, "the prince did not buy with all his deference"; and that the same people of its own accord and out of affection called Stilicho lord: or that Stilicho was the first of the consuls to be named lord by the people; which the following lines certainly confirm, in which he teaches that Brutus himself, the restorer of liberty, would not take it ill, because, namely, Stilicho, although he was called lord, nevertheless acted as the parent of the people.

To the most distinguished man PAUL VOET VAN WINSSEN, Secretary to the High and Mighty States of the diocese of Utrecht, GISBERT CUPER sends greeting.

If the new edition of Lactantius On the Deaths of the Persecutors were finished, you would perhaps not be receiving this letter from me, most distinguished sir; for since various men of outstanding learning besides Baluze and myself (at which I rejoice exceedingly) have set their minds to illustrating this little book, I hardly doubt that what will be the chief head of this letter has occurred to one of them. They are a few words, and in them at first sight scarcely anything worthy of remark presents itself: whence it also came about that, when I was arranging my little Notes, I did not notice what I now send to you for your consideration.

It is established, then, that the Gentiles compelled the Christians to sacrifice to the gods, and demanded nothing else of them when they were forcing them to renounce the true religion. Very many passages of ecclesiastical history, of the passions, and of the Fathers testify to this amply enough. Well known is what Prudentius sings was said to Eulalia, in Hymn 3 of the Peri Stephanon:

What trouble is it, I ask, to escape these (torments)? If you would be willing, kindly maiden, to touch with your fingertips a little salt and a scrap of incense, the heavy penalty will be far away.

Diocletian in Lactantius, chapter 10: Raging with anger, he ordered not only those who were ministering at the sacrifices but all who were in the palace to sacrifice, and that against them, if they had refused,

punishment be inflicted; and, letters having been issued to the officers that the soldiers too be compelled to the impious sacrifices, he ordered that those who had not obeyed be discharged from military service. Chap. 15: So the emperor was now raging not against his household only, but against all; and first of all he compelled his daughter Valeria and his wife Prisca to be polluted by sacrifice. And soon after: For the judges, dispersed through all the temples, were compelling everyone to sacrifice. These last words I attempted to explain in passing at chap. 1; but while I do not altogether reject that explanation, something greater and more worthy of annotation seems to lie hidden in them. For I think that the Christians, oppressed by so bitter a persecution, frequented the temples of the gods together with the Gentiles, not in order to adore them, sacrifice to them, or pay honour in any way to the false deities, but in order to avoid the tortures and punishments which were constantly in readiness for those who were held to be Christians and refused to abjure Christ and sacrifice to the gods. Diocletian, being informed of what was going on, orders all who were found in the temples to sacrifice, which there would have been no need at all to decree if none but Gentiles went to the temples; and in this way it came about that the Christians who were trying to escape the tortures were detected: whence there also follows soon after: The prisons were full, unheard-of kinds of torments were devised. And without doubt the Christians were persuaded that it was permitted them to do this in order to avoid persecution, and that they could nevertheless keep the faith pledged to Christ, since in entering the temples they had no intention whatever of worshipping idols. I shall not now say that the Nicolaitans taught that many things might be done without discrimination, both to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to be in temples, and to do everything publicly in common, as the author of the Indiculus on the Heresies of the Jews, which is commonly attributed to Jerome, puts it: but I think I have noticed that the ancients distinguished those who went to the temples for the sake of worshipping idols from those who did not frequent them with that intention. Canon 1 of the council of Elvira runs thus: It has been resolved among them that whoever, after the faith of saving baptism, being of adult age, has approached a temple to commit idolatry and has done so, which is a capital crime, because it is the highest wickedness, it has been resolved that he is not to receive communion even at the end. For the Christians who go to temples with the intention of adoring idols, and who did this and sacrificed, are set apart; and since the Christians who were trying to free themselves from persecution did neither of these things, I think I may not undeservedly affirm that they had nothing in common with the others, and that the canon of the council does not speak of them. So in canon III the Flamens who only gave the shows that were celebrated in honour of the gods are distinguished from those who also sacrificed: Likewise Flamens who have not offered sacrifice but have only given a show, inasmuch as they have abstained from the deadly sacrifices, it has been resolved that communion be granted them at the end; and Can. LV: priests who only wear the crown, and neither sacrifice nor furnish anything for the idols at their own expense, it has been resolved that they receive communion after two years. And there is a fine example in Cyprian, ep. 21, where he calls Candida Aecusa (as Cestriensis reads it), because she paid out gifts on her own behalf so as not to sacrifice. But she seems to have gone up only as far as the tria fata, or dryphacta (as J. F. Gronovius, a man of outstanding learning, judges it should rightly be read, chap. 14 of the Observations on the ecclesiastical writers), and thence to have come down; to the dryphacta, that is, where the Christians were compelled to sacrifice in the presence of the governor, and although Candida went up to it, she is nevertheless excused by Cyprian, because she did not pollute herself with sacrifice. And although, in my opinion, those who enter the temples of the Gentiles for that reason are by no means free from sin, they nevertheless seem able to be excused in some measure, because they did not do it with the intention of worshipping idols. Thus Canon 41 of the council cited permits the faithful to have idols in their houses. It has been resolved that the faithful be admonished that, as far as they can, they forbid idols to be kept in their houses; but if they fear violence from their slaves, let them at least keep themselves pure; if they do not do so, let them be held as strangers to the Church. Nor is it without reason that Albaspinaeus notes that these words establish beyond doubt that that council, in the most difficult times of persecution,

and indeed convened before Constantine; for they would not have dreaded that their name be denounced through their own slaves, if, with impunity held out to them, they had been able at their own choice to embrace and defend whatever religion they pleased. Just as, therefore, the faithful in time of persecution were able to keep idols in their homes, and to allow their slaves to worship them, so as not, that is, to be accused by them, so they seem to have been persuaded that they could frequent the temples of the Gentiles in order to avoid persecution; nor could they easily be distinguished in them, because these were very spacious places, adorned with porticoes and other works, in which they could walk about and do none of those things which the Gentiles were accustomed to do when worshipping their deities, and this all the more because the latter often went to the temples merely to greet the gods, and did not always sacrifice. I do not wish now to dispute whether the Christians did rightly or otherwise, or how grave a sin this is; nor yet to inquire by what guilt those of our countrymen are bound who, merely for the sake of seeing, enter the churches of those Christians in which statues and images are set up not only for ornament but also for the sake of worship. But I cannot refrain from pointing out that the Gentiles demanded nothing else of the Christians than that they should sacrifice, touched by no concern as to the mind with which men worshipped their gods. Would that the papists did not imitate their example, who consider all to be initiated into their rites whom by force, fear, punishments and tortures they compel to become partakers of them, whereas Julian the Apostate held the contrary view, and forbade that anyone should affect any of the Christians either with injury or with insult, μηδὲ ἄκοντας πρὸς θυσίαν ἕλκειν, or drag them unwilling to sacrifice, but [ordered] that those who came to the altars of their own accord should first appease the averting gods, Ἀποτροπαίους, and be purified by the expiations customary among them. For God demands for Himself the better part of us, the soul and the mind, not the body. But it pleases me on this occasion to call into play an ancient inscription, from which I seem able to affirm that the Jews in time of persecution either renounced their religion, or else did certain things for the sake of avoiding it, from which the Gentiles could be persuaded that they were no longer Jews. Among the Oxford Marbles, no. 28, and in Reinesius 3, no. 68, there is extant an inscription which contains the names of those who contributed money for adorning, as it seems, the gymnasium of Smyrna; and among them are listed the Jews, οἱ ποτὲ Ἰουδαῖοι, M. A., that is, in the opinion of learned men, "the Jews who were lately present, one mina". But it seemed to me that these words ought sometimes to be rendered, "who were formerly Jews". These things were done at Smyrna in the time of the emperor Hadrian, when the Jews stirred up a most grievous sedition and rebellion under the leadership of Barcochebas, the pseudo-Messiah. Hadrian conquered them, the whole of Judaea being laid waste, and a multitude without number of that wretched nation was slain; and since they doubtless suffered persecution throughout the whole Roman Empire, it could easily have come about that some of the Smyrnaeans renounced God and embraced the superstition of the Gentiles, or contributed silver for adorning the shrine of Fortune, so that the Gentiles might think they had gone over into their camp, and thus they might free themselves from torments. For that the Jews could without difficulty do such things in accordance with the opinion of their teachers is evident from what Jacobus Capellus observed on the books of Moses, p. 619 and following. Nor indeed do I see why Jews "who were lately present" should give a mina for the adornment of a temple, since it is not likely that Jews who had moved elsewhere to live, or had betaken themselves elsewhere, would contribute anything towards building a temple at Smyrna, or would do the same if they dared to profess openly that they were Jews; since they would by no means be free from idolatry,

from which that nation after the Babylonian captivity was wholly averse in mind. This is my opinion on the passage of Lactantius and on the old inscription; if you approve it, I shall consider that I have rightly spent a brief hour in writing this letter. But if it should turn out otherwise, and my conjecture should deceive me, I shall nonetheless be glad to have done this, because the grief, scarcely to be consoled, which I have felt from the sudden death of my dearest wife seems to be eased while I converse with you; and this same cause does not allow me to put an end to my letter, but bids me, as it were, to add one or two notes which ought to be joined to the rest.

On chapter 9, after "legimus", I add: And Augustine looks to this in book 4, page 29, of the City of God, where he mocks the god Terminus. For it is one thing not to have yielded, another to have returned to the place from which you had yielded. "Although afterwards also, in the eastern parts, the boundaries of the Roman empire were changed by the will of Hadrian. For he ceded three noble provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria, to the empire of the Persians, so that that god Terminus, who according to these men guarded the Roman boundaries, and by that most beautiful auspice had not yielded his place to Jupiter, seems to have feared Hadrian, a king of men, more than the king of the gods. When the provinces mentioned had been recovered at another time as well, almost within our own memory, Terminus withdrew backwards, when Julian, given over to the oracles of those gods, with immoderate daring ordered the ships to be burned by which the provisions were being carried, etc."

On chapter 17 I note that the ancients said "certare alicui" [to contend with someone] and the like; and I observe this manner of speaking also in inscription 339 of Gruter:

YOU CONTENDED WITH MANY. THOUGH POOR, YOU FEARED NO ONE. HAVING SUFFERED ENVY, YOU WERE ALWAYS BRAVELY SILENT.

And in Apuleius, book 4, page 143: "When I saw dogs both great in size and many in number, and fit to fight with bears and lions."

On chapter 33 I noted that "odoritas", "prioritas", etc., are found; to which add "indulgitas". Junius Philargyrius on the second Georgic: "He said 'indulgentia' in a new way. For the ancients said 'indulgitas', as Caelius in book 7: 'by the habit of his wife, by indulgence towards the children.'"

On chapter 36, after "ad Hist. Aug.", add: Thus the first of the priests of Isis is called the highest, or the principal, or the chief priest, by Apuleius, book 2, pages 264, 266 and 267, Elmenhorst's edition.

On chapter 40 I observe in what sense men or animals are called "famuli" and "therapontes" [servants] of the gods. Psyche in Apuleius, book 5 of the Metamorphoses, for the same reason entreats Ceres "by the winged courses of the servant dragons"; and Plato used to call himself "fellow-slave of the swans", as Olympiodorus witnesses in his Life, because swans were under the protection of Apollo, or were dedicated to him, and he himself was thought to have been begotten by that god. Moreover, those consecrated to the gods, or initiated into their rites, were called servants. Apuleius, book 2: "Therefore I ought to feel that I too was sought out as a servant even by the great god, and to serve the same"; the same: "And now dedicate yourself to the obedience of our religion, and undergo the voluntary yoke of ministry: for when you have begun to serve the goddess, then you will feel more the fruit of your freedom." In Inscriptions 12, 328, FAMULA BACCHI [handmaid of Bacchus] occurs; and in Augustine, book 4, chapter 10 of the City of God, the vestal virgins are called handmaids of Vesta, which suits Lactantius admirably. Strabo, book 12, 1, 557, writes that at Ameria there was a temple of Men, having many hierodules; and at page 577, that at Antioch near Pisidia there was a priesthood of Men Archaeus having a multitude of hierodules, that is, a priesthood of Lunus, surnamed Arcaeus (elsewhere he is called Ascaeus, and by Salmasius on the Historia Augusta Archaeus), having a multitude of hierodules, or servants of the sacred rites, under which name priests and consecrated persons may come; and at page 559 Strabo distinguishes hierodules and priestesses. Now I have rendered "menos" as "of Lunus", and I think this should be done at page 580 as well; nor do I think that some month was worshipped by those peoples, but the god Lunus, who is seen on the coins of Antioch near Pisidia, not to speak of other cities, and who also on the coin

of the Olbians, whose city was in Pamphylia, sits on a horse. One may see what I note at p. 17 of the Harpocrates, where I call Diospolis the city of Armenia which by Strabo is called Diopolis, which I thought should be pointed out. And from this it will at the same time be established that Mensis is certainly not mentioned on the coin of the Antiochenes, as the learned think, but that one must read Antiochensis, and not Mensis, COL. CAES. ANTIOCH., which I pointed out in passing in the Harpocrates, and which Hardouin also accepts in the Antirrheticus. And, if it is right to mix sacred things with profane, Christians, and the Apostles themselves, are called servants of Christ, and a bishop in Inscr. IX, 1053, SERVANT OF CHRIST.

On chapter 39, and especially in the preface, I treat of the burning of corpses, and also of bodies buried whole. Afterwards I observed that in Apuleius's time burial was also in use, as appears most clearly from the story of the boy whom they thought had been put out of the way by poison, when on the contrary the physician had mixed a sleeping draught for him, Metamorphoses book 10. Next, that the Gentiles held it a great religious duty that bodies be committed to burial whole is evident even from this, that they carefully guarded corpses laid out in their houses, lest witches carry off any limbs from them. Apuleius tells this at length in book 2, p. 124, and adds: Ah, and what I had almost passed over: if anyone does not return the body whole in the morning, whatever has been plucked or diminished from it, he is compelled to make all of it good by cutting it from his own face. Whether this be true or invented, it nevertheless points to the concern which held the Gentiles, that bodies should be buried whole and should come entire to the underworld. Hence, in book 3, that sorrow of Lucius, when he had been summoned to trial for murder, and, by the Greek custom, fire and the wheel and also every kind of scourge, by which he was of course to be torn apart, were being brought in: My grief is greatly increased, nay doubled, that I may not at least die whole. Hence, in book 7, when they wished to castrate him after he had been turned into an ass, he resolved either to throw himself headlong or to die of starvation: about to die nonetheless indeed, but about to die whole; and finally this is also evident from p. 199 of the same book: The corpse, its parts scattered, was at last found entire, and having with difficulty pieced it together they committed it to the earth on the spot.

On the same chapter I observe that no Augusta, on the death of her husband the emperor, passed to a second marriage. And there is an elegant passage on this matter in the Thirteenth Council of Toledo, held in the year of Christ 683. For the title of the fifth chapter runs thus: That, when the prince has died, no one dare join his widowed wife to himself either in marriage or in adultery, as appears from the account of the councils of Spain which Joseph Saenz de Aguirre published in the year 1686; although it is also certain that not all queens, either formerly or now, have observed this rule, as even the example of Pythodoris shows us in Strabo, book 12.

On chapter 46 it should be added that Apuleius, at the beginning of Metamorphoses book 10, mentions a commander who held the command of a thousand armed men, and that the same man, at p. 244, is called Tribune.

I noted on chapter 50 that Prisca and Valeria, the wife and daughter of Diocletian, were Christians, or at any rate favoured the religion of the Christians; afterwards I noticed that Henry Dodwell, a man of outstanding learning, in Cyprianic Dissertation 11, no. 66, affirms that they were Christians, as is evident from his words which follow: "Indeed, even in the very palaces of the emperors they moved freely. Their very wives, and children, and servants were Christians. (It is established that such were Diocletian's wife Prisca and his daughter Valeria, and also the wife of Maximian Galerius.) To these they gave the freedom to carry out, in their very presence, the things that belonged to their religion, in words as well as in deeds." This man, most skilled in these matters, relies on two authorities, and they cause him to be persuaded that those Augustae had given their names to Christ. One is Eusebius, book 8, chapter 1, of the Ecclesiastical History; the other is Lactantius, chapter 15, whose words I too used as a foundation for proving the same thing on chapter 50. But Eusebius does not seem to me to be speaking of the wives of the emperors, but of the wives of the household officials, or of the courtiers,

or of those who lived in the palace, as will be clear beyond doubt if anyone cares to consult the Greek; and for that reason I myself used the same words in chapter 14, to prove that there were often Christians in the palaces of the pagan emperors, and indeed that they held the first honours. Christophorson once thought that Eusebius was speaking of the emperors' wives, but Valesius corrected that error in his notes. I thought it right, however, to point out that Dodwell noticed before me that those Augustae were Christians, lest anyone perhaps think that I am claiming another man's discoveries for myself. For I declare that, when I was arranging my little notes, I had not observed those words, and that I would not have omitted, among other things, to praise that most learned man on that account.

These are the things that came into my mind, and which friendship, and the very great and most delightful intimacy that exists between you and me, made me share with you. But if the printer, or rather the learned men whose notes, as I hear, he is awaiting, cause longer delays, you will perhaps receive a second and longer letter from me. For I have not so entirely exhausted the whole subject that I could not compose fuller dissertations on some matters. Farewell. The Hague, the 7th day before the Ides of July.

Scarcely was this letter finished when, behold, there was brought to me the Critica historico-chronologica on the Annals of the Most Eminent Baronius by Antoine Pagi, a most learned man and a diligent restorer of chronology. And since he sheds wonderful light on the times of Diocletian and of the emperors who reigned with him, it will be for you to judge whether the printer would not be serving his own interests well if he were to add to the new edition extracts of those things from the work which serve to elucidate Lactantius. To me at least this seems exceedingly useful, and likely to be welcome to the learned; both because that book is not worn by everyone's hands, and because in this way everything necessary for a better understanding of this golden little book would be collected into one small body.

You are already wearied by reading so long and wordy a letter; but nevertheless I cannot let you go, and I beg your pardon if I attach to the former a second equally lengthy one. I perceive, then, with the greatest pleasure that a man of distinguished learning agrees with me, under the year of Christ 306, that Constantine the Great was born in the town of Naissus and not in Britain; under the year 302, that Prisca and Valeria were Christians; and finally that the same man, under the year 306, refers the BIRTHDAY OF THE UNCONQUERED to the Sun. Nor, therefore, do I now see any reason at all why the opinion of Petavius, which Hardouin also embraces in his Antirrheticus, should not be followed, since that day is not undeservedly called the birthday of the sun, because the sun then first withdraws from the South towards the North, as Julian himself teaches in Oration 4; and Hardouin judges that the birthday of Christ was first transferred to this day at Rome, so that while the Gentiles were occupied with their profane rites, the Christians might freely attend to their own sacred rites. But it seems more convenient to me to arrange in the order of the chapters the other things which I have observed in Pagi's book, both those which confirm my opinions and those which deserve to be examined, so that you may thus find everything more easily and judge of it.

I deal with the persecution of Domitian at chapter 3 of Lactantius, and I am of the opinion that it was neither long nor severe. Pagi, on the contrary, thinks that Domitian decreed a persecution against the Christians in the 13th year of his reign, that it was continued in the 14th year, and increased on the occasion of the quinquennial games in the 15th year, in which he was slain in his bedchamber, as Suetonius testifies, and not in the temple of Jupiter, "in the temple of Zeus", as the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle writes. To support his opinion the learned man writes that in the Chronicle cited, under the consuls Asprenas and M. Arretinus Clemens, book 9, one reads: "Bruttius relates that a great multitude of Christians was put to death and afflicted with martyrdom from the 14th year of Domitian"; and then he observes that Eusebius, who had read the history of Bruttius, relates in his Chronicle that the persecution was begun in the year of Christ 93, and that he confirms the same in his History,

and chap. 17 of book 3 speak of the persecution under Domitian, and that what he has afterwards, in chap. 18, shows only that it was intensified in this year. But that the author of the Chronicle is not among the most accurate writers is certainly evident, for he joins together these following consuls: Domitian for the thirteenth time and Flavius Clemens; Asprenas and Lateranus; Domitian for the fourteenth time and Clemens; and finally Valens and Vetus. To the first consuls he assigns the beginning of the persecution, and writes that at that time the apostle John was banished to Patmos, and that Domitian resolved to remove the race of David from their midst; to the following ones he attaches the words of Bruttius; and in the remaining two years he makes not even mention of the persecution. We must judge similarly concerning the Chronicle of Eusebius. And although, if we follow the authority of Bruttius, the persecution may have begun in the year 14, it can be put off just as well to the end as to the beginning of that year: and if this is true, it will certainly not differ much from the opinion of the other scholars. But what Pagi tries to prove from chap. 17 and 18 of book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, that the persecution was begun in the year 93 and intensified in the year 95, that I, such is my dullness, can by no means grasp. For Eusebius did not arrange the chapters of his books by years; next he writes that Domitian persecuted the Christians τελευτῶντα, that is, towards the last period of his life. Chapter 18, moreover, he attaches to the former one with these words, ἐν τούτῳ, namely διωγμῷ, or persecution; and finally those very words by which Pagi thinks it is proved that the persecution was intensified in the year 15 are also joined to the preceding ones, and indicate that in that year the Christians were harassed by persecution; which seems to me a quite firm argument that the emperor began to rage against the harmless people in the year 15. For, when he had said that even heathen writers did not hesitate to hand down to memory the martyrdoms of the Christians, he adds: οἵγε καὶ τὸν καιρὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀκριβὲς ἀπεσημήναντο, who indeed noted accurately even the very time of the persecution. But what was that time? Certainly not the year 13, not 14, but the fifteenth; for they write that in the fifteenth year of the reign of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, niece by a sister of Flavius Clemens, him who was at that time consul at Rome, was deported together with very many others to the island of Pontia because of the confession of Christ. Nor do I think that Eusebius would have omitted to relate it, if the same writers had committed to memory that the persecution had already begun, or been decreed, in the thirteenth year of Domitian. Yet, as I said before, it is not my intention entirely to oppose those who hold that Domitian was already raging against the Christians in the year 14. For Dio Cassius, book 68, after he had related that Fabius Clemens ὑπατεύοντα, consul, and Flavia Domitilla were put to death, the charge of ἀτεότητος, impiety, having been brought against them both (for so they used to speak of the Christians), adds that Domitian τῷ ἑξῆς ἔτει, in the following year, in the consulship of Gaius Valens and Gaius Antistius, was slain. And that in the preceding year other Christians too were either banished or put to death is clear from the words which follow the account of Flavia Domitilla: ἐπηνέχθη δὲ ἄμφοιν ἔγκλημα ἀθεότητος. ὑφ᾽ ἧς καὶ ἄλλοι ἐς τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἤθη ἐξοκέλλοντες πολλοὶ κατεδικάσθησαν. καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀπέθανον, οἱ δὲ τῶν γοῦν οὐσίων ἐτερήθησαν. The charge of impiety was brought against both, Clemens and Domitilla, on which charge many others also, having embraced Jewish rites, were condemned: of whom some were slain, some stripped of their property: where by Jewish rites the Christian religion is to be understood, not only in Dio but also in the author of the Olympiads, who writes that the charge of Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ was brought against them. For Jews and Christians were confused; and perhaps Dio spoke thus because Domitian ordered those to be killed who were sprung from the stock of David. And even if I were to grant that the persecution began so early, yet it would not follow from this that it was either long or severe; and to me there is hardly any doubt that Domitian raged more cruelly against others, and that it is chiefly in this sense that he can be called a portion of Nero in cruelty.

On ch. 9, I observe that before Narseus was defeated by Galerius Maximianus, the Persians had also been overcome by Diocletian, or had made peace with him; and that Herculius seems to have waged wars with the same. And indeed Antonius Pagius, at the year 289, proves that Diocletian made war with the Persians, following Noris, a man likewise of outstanding learning, who may be consulted at ch. 4 of dissertation 1 on the coinage of Diocletian, and who observes in the same place that Maximianus Herculius never fought against the Persians; which Pagius also follows at the year 297. The author of the Alexandrian Chronicle does indeed report the contrary, and he also wrongly writes that Constantius waged war with the Persians, into which error I have observed that Casaubon also fell, at ch. 15 of Lactantius. And perhaps he followed the author of the Chronicle, who speaks thus on p. 642: The Persians were defeated in a very great war by the Caesars Constantius and Maximinus Jovius. On the contrary, Constantius never made war with the Persians, and, having been created Caesar at Nicomedia, at once made for the West; the other Caesar too was called not Maximinus but Galerius Maximianus: I show at ch. 52 of Lactantius that this error occurs elsewhere too in the same Chronicle, or Epitome of the times, as it is called by Scaliger. But nevertheless Mamertinus, in ch. 2 of the Panegyric delivered to Maximian Augustus, speaks thus: Or should I attempt to enumerate your deeds, which first standards inaugurated you under imperial auspices, which camps received you as their future master, which wars led you forth, which victories increased you? I shall, of course, go gathering the traces of your valour along the whole frontier of the Ister, and along all the Euphrates, wherever it runs, and I shall traverse the banks of the Rhine and the shore of the Ocean. These words, I confess, seemed to me to signify that Herculius made war with the Persians at the Euphrates; nor do I change [my view]: but this happened before he was Emperor, and while he was serving in the camps of other Emperors; and Mamertinus in these words briefly relates how Maximian spent his life before he was raised to the imperial power, and what outstanding proofs of his valour he gave. Nor do the gifts prove anything with which the Parthian, as is read in ch. 5 of the Genethliacus, courted Diocletian and Maximian, because Narseus did this after he struck a treaty with Diocletian, as is clear from ch. 10 of the Panegyric which I have cited: In this same way that King of the Persians, who never before deigned to confess himself a man, supplicates your brother (Diocletian), and, if he should deign to enter, throws open his whole kingdom, offers it; meanwhile he sends various marvels, wild beasts of extraordinary beauty, and, content to obtain the name of friendship, earns it by compliance. For without doubt he is speaking of the same gifts. Nor is it an obstacle that Maximianus Herculius is called Persicus Maximus in Inscriptions, because he obtained that surname from Diocletian's victories, who for his part was also called Germanicus Maximus from the victories of Herculius, as Noris notes, ch. 5 of Dissertation 1 on the coinage of Diocletian.

On ch. 18 I discuss whether Diocletian was consecrated. I now notice that Ant. Pagius, at the year 316, maintains from the passage of Eusebius cited by me that he was enrolled among the gods by Maximinus.

On ch. 42, p. 494, I examine for how many years Diocletian lived as a private man after abdicating the empire; and what I note there should be recast thus: « He says significantly after his rule, and it is agreed that Diocletian survived for as many years after laying aside the purple, if we count among them the year in which he died; for in the year 305 he made himself a private man, and in the year 313 he died, and with both of those reckoned as whole years, nine years will be gathered, as Pagius teaches at the year of Christ 316. But he did not wish, etc. »

On the same chapter I observe that Maximianus Herculius was consecrated by his son Maxentius. Anton. Pagius confirms this view from a coin in Mediobarbus, which is inscribed:

To the deified Maximian, father

Maxentius Augustus, son.

And for this reason, and not because by Constantine

his son-in-law he had been consecrated, he is called Divus on a stone in Nicolas Bergier 3, 23, by Constantine the younger, as the same author observes elsewhere:

To the Emperor Caesar Fl(avius) Val(erius) Constantine, P(ious), F(ortunate), Aug(ustus), grandson of the deified Constant(ius) Aug(ustus) Pius, son. 33.

Unless we say that by that word the living emperors of that time meant to signify nothing other than that those whom they were mentioning were dead; in which sense I supposed, at chap. 19, that Diocletian and Maximian are called θειοτάτους (most divine) by Galerius Maximinus in Eusebius.

At chap. 50, I showed that Valerium must be changed to Valeriam. Pagi, at the year 306, n. 15, and 314, 1[ ], writes that Valerius Valens was killed by Licinius. But I scarcely doubt that he, a man of rare learning, would change his opinion if he were to come upon what I noted about the death of Valens. As for the coin which in Goltzius is inscribed in Greek ΑΥΤ. Κ. ΠΟΠ (in Pagi it reads POT) ΟΥΑΛΕΡ. ΟΥΑΛΕΝϹ ϹΕΒ. L. A., it is very doubtful whether it can be referred to the Valens killed by Licinius, because another coin is listed by the same Goltzius on which, in his opinion, he is called ΑΤ. ΚΑΙ. Γ. ΟΥΑΛΕΝϹ. ΚΥ. ϹΕΒ. L. A. And, to confess the truth, I should very much wish to be able to inspect those coins and handle them; for they are quite suspect to me, certainly one of them, since our Valens was never Augustus but only Caesar. However that may be, it is most plainly established that Valens was not put to death by Licinius at that time, but after the first war waged with Constantine, which fell in the year of Christ 317, since what Lactantius relates in that chapter is to be assigned to the year 314, as Pagi himself arranges these things. But what I noted at chap. 50 about Valens, refashion thus, I ask you; for it was done in haste, so that I did not give close enough attention to what Tristan noted. « For Valens, duke of the frontier (in Pagi it is wrongly written 'of the soldiery') of Dacia, was not put to death at that same time, but after Licinius had been defeated by Constantine at Cibalis, he was created Caesar by him; and when both succumbed again in the battle on the Mardian plain, which seems to have lain between Philippi and Hadrianople, Constantine made peace with Licinius on this condition, that Valens should become a private man and be killed, as Tristan noted, vol. 3, p. 472, from the Excerpts on the life of Constantine, Zosimus and Peter the Patrician; and he also rightly censures Victor, Paul the Deacon and Occo, because they write that Valens rebelled against Galerius Maximianus. » For although I do not find that in the former two, yet it is certainly true that Valens could not have rebelled against Galerius Maximianus, since he had died when Valens was created Caesar by Licinius. For Victor and Paul the Deacon call him Imperator; and if they think he was made Augustus, they are certainly wrong: or else it must be held that in that age the title of Imperator was given indiscriminately both to Augusti and to Caesars; just as, as Pagi observes, Numerian is called Imp. C. M. Aur. Numerianus Nob. C. on an ancient coin. I had supposed, however, that Numerian was at times in that period not Caesar but Augustus, because this would be the only coin on which a Caesar was called Imperator, a title which I do not see given to Caesars on other coins or in Inscriptions, unless you except Ins. 7, CCLXXV.

To the Emperor Q. Julius, son of Gallienus Augustus and Salonina Augusta.

For he was made only Caesar. And the one who in Tristan, vol. 3, p. 466, is inscribed IMP. ROMVLVS, and is referred by Mediobarbus to the son of Maxentius, who in fact died a Caesar, is assigned by Tristan to the one called Romulus Augustulus, who was made Augustus, or Imperator, by his father Orestes. Nor does it seem to stand in the way that Numerian is called most noble Caesar; for that title the Augusti

sometimes retained, as is clear from inscription IV, 278.

To the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Carinus, most noble Caesar, pious, fortunate, unconquered Augustus, supreme pontiff, [holder of] tribunician [power], father of the fatherland, consul, proconsul.

And this is clear also from a coin in Mediobarbus, on which Gaius Valens Hostilianus Messius Quintus is called most noble Caesar and Augustus: QVINTVS. NO. CAE. VALENS. HOSTIL. AVG. Thus Volusianus, Publius Licinius Valerianus, Herodianus the son of Odenathus, Herennianus, Maxentius and Constantine the Great are called on coins EMPERORS AUGUSTI, and at the same time PRINCES OF THE YOUTH.

On the same chapter 50, I observe that Valeria and Prisca were Christians, or greatly favoured the Christians. Antonius Pagius holds the same view, and tries to confirm it also from book 8, chapter 1 of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, and at the year 302 he prefers Christophorson's translation to that of Valesius. To me, examining the Greek words of Eusebius again and again, it cannot yet be established that he is speaking of the wives of the emperors, because what follows plainly suggests the contrary, in which mention is made of Dorotheus and Gorgonius, since it seems that one ought not even to doubt that Eusebius would have named the Augustae and their children, peace having already been given to the Church, if he had understood them by these words "wives and children". Indeed, when I examine Eusebius more carefully, somehow it comes about that I think that neither Christophorson nor Valesius grasped the sense of these words, although I followed the latter's translation at chapter 14 of Lactantius. I shall set out my reasons, from which, however, I am ready to depart if another teaches something better, or if they seem to the learned not strong enough. Eusebius, then, relates that the Christian religion had attained great glory and freedom among Greeks and barbarians before the persecution of Diocletian: that this was proved by the kindness "of those in power", that is, of the emperors, towards the Christians, since they gave them "governorships of the provinces". After he had thus discoursed about the emperors, he passes on to others: "What need is there to speak of those in the imperial households and of the rulers over all?"; these last words Christophorson and Valesius interpret of the emperors themselves, Pagius of those who command all. But I judge that they should be translated thus: What need is there to speak of those who dwell in the emperor's palace? What of those who are set over all? And by these "rulers" I understand the Praetorian Prefects, or rather the Chamberlains of the bedchamber, or the like, who were set over the rest who dwelt in the palace and were in the Prince's retinue. These, Eusebius says, were Christians, and permitted their household, wives, children and slaves freely to profess the Christian religion: that such was Dorotheus, who was Chamberlain of the bedchamber, as Valesius shows, and such Gorgonius, another likewise a prefect in the palace, and the rest who together with them attained equal glory on account of "the word of God"; and finally he adds that "the rulers of each church", or the bishops of the churches, were in great honour "with all procurators and governors", among all, private persons as well as rulers of provinces, as they translate, whereas they ought to interpret these words: among all procurators of the Augusti and governors, or rulers of provinces; just as in inscription II, 595, Aufidius Julianus is called "the most excellent procurator of the Augusti", and at 459 Titus Porcius Proclus "Procurator of the Private Estate for Flaminia, Aemilia, Liguria". And these last words of Eusebius seem to me at least sufficiently to prove that he is speaking not of the emperors but of those who were of the first rank in their palaces and governed the household; and the same is confirmed by chapter 6, where he treats "of those in the imperial

households", that is, of those who live in the palace, and in the same place he lists the imperial servants about Dorotheus (τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Δωρόθεον βασιλικοὺς παῖδας), that is, the chamberlains, or the like, over whom Dorothaeus was set: who, although they had been adorned by the emperors with the privilege of the highest honour, and were loved by them no less than sons, nevertheless chose to suffer insults and torments for the Christian religion; and soon after he says that Dorotheus and Gorgonius were strangled. And hear, finally, what came into my mind while I was writing this, which, if you approve it, would remove the whole dispute entirely. Chapter 6, as I said, mentions the imperial servants (βασιλικοὺς παῖδας), the chamberlains of the prince; and it will be for you to judge whether in chapter 1, in place of ἐπὶ πᾶσι, one ought to write ἐπὶ παῖσι ἀρχόντων; and βασιλικοῖς, a word which came before, can very conveniently be understood. And since in chapter 7 he follows the same order, and narrates first the constancy and martyrdoms of the imperial servants (βασιλικῶν παίδων), then those of the prefects Dorotheus and Gorgonius themselves, and finally of the bishop Anthimus, I am more and more confirmed in this opinion, and I think that Gorgonius also held a prefecture in the palace, and that perhaps it was either his son or his grandson who, in the time of Constantius Augustus, on the testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus, 15, 2, was also called Gorgonius, and to whom the charge of the Caesar's bedchamber had been entrusted. For there were two superintendents of the sacred bedchamber, namely of the Augustus and of the Augusta, as is clear from law 5 of the Code, title On the superintendents of the sacred bedchamber, and Dorotheus and Gorgonius may have been adorned with each of these dignities: although I would not at all object if anyone thinks that they held other honours in the palace; indeed I shall even acquiesce entirely if this conjecture displeases anyone, for I do not hold my emendations in any other standing.

These are the things, most distinguished sir, which I wished to share with you; and it will now be for you to judge whether they are worthy of my leisure, and indeed of yours. Farewell most heartily.

The Hague, 15 July 1689.

Gisbert Cuperus sends greetings to the most distinguished Voetius.

What I often foretold would happen if Lactantius lingered too long in the hands of the workmen has now come about; and here for you is another note, which the printer will be able with little trouble to add somewhere to the others, provided only that you judge it worthy to be made public, most distinguished sir.

Chapter 12. Having set out suddenly for the church while the light was still doubtful. I have pointed out that the Christians at first met in the houses of private persons, and that afterwards the same Christians, with the emperors indulgent and conniving, built spacious houses in which they worshipped Christ our Lord, as it were publicly and openly. Eusebius, 8, 1, writes that the Christians, because of the countless multitude of the faithful, not content with the old buildings (τοῖς παλαιοῖς οἰκοδομήμασι), built from the foundations churches broad in extent throughout all the cities; and he adds that with the passage of time these advanced daily to greater and better things, with no one begrudging it: so that by the old buildings (παλαιὰ οἰκοδομήματα) we may quite reasonably understand the houses of private persons, or at any rate the meeting places of the Christians, which differed in no way from the buildings of private persons; and by churches broad in extent (ἐκκλησίας εὐρείας εἰς πλάτος), larger buildings, which were not so much long as wide and spacious, and in which almost anyone could know that the Christians worshipped their God. Of this kind of building, in my opinion, Lampridius speaks in his Alexander Severus, ch. 49: When the Christians had occupied a certain place which had been public, and the cookshop-keepers on the other side said that it was owed to them, he replied in writing that it was better that God be worshipped there in whatever manner than that it be handed over to the cookshop-keepers. For although no clear mention of a building is made, it is nevertheless very likely that the Christians built a meeting place in that spot, since by the indulgence of the emperor they could gather together without fear; and from this we are taught that the Christians at that time had places in which they met freely, and which lay open to the eyes of all. Indeed, it might seem to someone that this too was granted to them under Hadrian, because the same Lampridius, in chapter 43 of the Life of the same emperor Severus, thus

says: He wished to build a temple to Christ and to receive Him among the gods. Hadrian too is said to have had this in mind, who had ordered temples without images to be made in all cities, which today, because they have no deities, are for that reason called "of Hadrian", and which he was said to have prepared for this purpose. For since Hadrian did pursue this, as a man of great name, P. Daniel Huet, proves with several arguments in the Praeparatio Evangelica, it is accordingly not unreasonable that he favoured the Christians and granted that they might worship and adore Christ openly, as it were. Indeed learned men, relying on Eusebius, book 3, chapter 37, hold that churches too were built under the emperor Trajan: At the same time there also flourished Quadratus, who is recorded to have been distinguished, together with the daughters of Philip, by the grace of prophecy. Besides these, many others also flourished at the same time, holding the chief place among the successors of the Apostles: who also, being godly disciples of such great men, built upon the foundations of the churches laid down in every place by the Apostles: who, as being disciples of such great men, plainly admirable and godlike, built up, with edifices added, the foundations of the churches which the Apostles had first laid in various places. The papists use this argument to prove the antiquity of various churches; but to me, as I consider the times of Trajan, it is by no means likely that any such thing could have come into Eusebius' mind. Trajan did not wish hetaeriae, or sodalities, or corporations to be established in the cities, on account of the factions that were stirred up by them here and there, as is clear from letters 42 and 43 of book 10 of Pliny's Letters. The assemblies of the Christians were held in the same category, because the Gentiles too had sacred colleges devoted to some deity; and so Pliny, and without doubt other governors as well, forbade them to meet. For when in Letter 98 he had related that the Christians sang a hymn to Christ as to a god, bound themselves by an oath not to commit robberies or adulteries, and took food that was common and harmless, he adds: Which very thing they had ceased to do after my edict, by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden hetaeriae to exist. Next, against buildings of this kind, or churches, there stand the facts that the Christians were accustomed to assemble on a fixed day before dawn, as the same Secundus says, and the emperor Trajan's decree, that Christians are not to be sought out: if they are denounced and convicted, they are to be punished. For since the Gentiles pursued the Christians with the greatest hatred and let no occasion of accusing them slip, they could certainly have done so most conveniently if the Christians had assembled, as it were, in the sight of the cities; nor do I think so meanly of the prudence and piety of the early Christians as to believe that they exposed themselves, seeing and willing, to the gravest dangers. Moreover, the records of the ancients teach us, and the very condition of the times confirms, that the Faithful assembled in the houses of private persons, in upper rooms, in porticoes, crypts and cemeteries; indeed, whether in the third century there were temples or churches is a question still undecided, on which matter Frederick Spanheim, a man of rare learning, may be consulted in his Ecclesiastical History. Why say more? I am persuaded that the interpreter of Eusebius, and those distinguished men who follow him, by no means understood the Greek words. For he is not speaking of buildings, but records that those who lived from among the successors of the Apostles built upon the foundations of the churches laid by the Apostles, or strengthened the faith of the Christians, made many Christians, and increased their assembly or ekklesia. And this manner of speaking is taken from the Apostle Paul, Eph. 2:20: Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner stone. In which sense epoikodomeo and oikodomeo are often used in the New Testament; so that I am surprised that this did not occur even to the most sagacious Valesius himself. And although these things are so, the papists nevertheless hold and affirm that under Domitian and Trajan churches were built, and works of similar bulk such as we see today. Minucius Felix speaks thus in the Octavius: For why to hide and conceal

whatever it is that they worship do they strive so greatly? since honourable things always delight in publicity, while crimes are secret. Why do they have no altars, no temples, no known images? On these words a learned man, who recently wrote a commentary on the true Christian origin of the Senones, remarks on p. 40: 'That these things were true in his time, as far as public assemblies are concerned, when everything was seething with slaughter and fires against the Christians, I do not at all doubt: but once Nero and Domitian were dead (under the latter we fix the era of the inauguration of the Church of Sens, consecrated to Christ by the blood of Savinianus) and affairs were pacified for a while, no one doubts, given the emperors' edicts adduced above, that the Christians emerged from the hiding places or crypts in which, out of reverence for their sacred rites and for their own protection, it was lawful for them to be concealed, and erected for their public uses churches of various construction, or basilicas known to everyone.'

Various points are to be observed here; and 1° indeed the age in which Minucius is said to have lived. His age is indeed uncertain: the very learned Dodwell, p. 35, Dissert. Cyprian., thinks that he wrote towards the end of Marcus Antoninus; Balduinus makes him later than Alexander Severus; and Cardinal Bellarmine thinks that he flourished under that emperor: but no one, apart from that learned man, has been found who assigns him to the times of Domitian or Nero. For I do not see, if this is not his opinion, how he could argue thus: in his time Caecilius or Minucius truly says that the Christians had no temples, because the emperors were raging with persecutions against an innocent people; but once those emperors Nero and Domitian were dead, that was not true, because churches were being built. Next, if the church of Sens was inaugurated when Domitian was emperor, and if Minucius wrote at that time, it follows that he is mistaken when he relates that the Christians had no temples or churches (for to the learned man these stand on the same footing) under that same emperor, so that these things are indeed inconsistent.

II. He cautiously adds 'as far as public assemblies are concerned', evidently so as tacitly to thrust upon us images and pictures in that age, of which nevertheless [it is] most certain that the Christians were then wholly ignorant; and I do not at all doubt that the Gentiles would have dealt more mildly with the Christians if they had worshipped images, or had kept them for the sake of remembrance: indeed it would also have been to their advantage not to hide their images, but through them to court the favour of the Gentiles, who would readily have admitted them and would have allowed the images to be worshipped publicly, because they would have imagined them to be like the images of their own gods, even though they were worshipped in another manner and no incense was thrown upon the altars.

III. The church of Sens cannot have been inaugurated under Domitian, because the Christians, as I have just proved, at that time assembled in private houses, and afterwards in buildings either not at all or only slightly different from private houses, which, from the assembly of Christians gathered in them, they called ἐκκλησίας, and from the same and from their form ἐκκλησιῶν οἴκους, and from the prayers προσευκτηρίων οἴκους. Afterwards, when life was now freer for the Christians, they built basilicas: and indeed leading men abounding in wealth did this when they gave their names to Christ; and they could do it without the ill will of the Gentiles, because the foremost men among these too adorned their houses with basilicas, as Alexander Donatus teaches, and because people were accustomed to meet in basilicas. For basilicas were magnificent buildings, supported by many columns and with a flat roof, in which not only did merchants sell their wares, but courts of justice were also held, and perhaps sometimes recitations too took place; for it pleases me I know not how greatly to explain thus Juvenal, Sat. 1:

The plane trees of Fronto, and the shaken marbles and the columns broken by the unremitting reciter, cry out / Forever.

For although porticoes too may be understood, yet that it is not contrary to reason to have recourse to the basilicas of private persons, he will judge, as I hope, who is willing to weigh how convenient these were for this purpose. However that may be, it is established that in public basilicas, and perhaps also in private ones, there was always a great multitude of people, whether they were walking about in them, or holding conversations, or doing something else; and hence it is, as I think, that the Christians also used to meet in them. Ammianus Marcellinus 27, 3: And it is established that in the basilica of Sicininus, where there is a meeting-place of the Christian rite, on a single day one hundred and thirty-seven corpses of the slain were found. This basilica was without doubt built by a certain Sicininus, and perhaps joined to his house; in it the Christians, even in the very time of persecution, could meet as though doing something else, and sing a hymn to Christ; and others call it the basilica of Liberius, not so much because Pope Liberius had built a church there, as Valesius comments, as because he converted it into a church. For the former manner of speaking implies a new building, but the latter by no means; and that this was done is clear from the acts of Serotinus cited by Hugo Mathoud: Men of noble rank of the city, who were his parents and kinsmen, built with marvellous workmanship over him a basilica of beautiful construction, which the blessed pontiff Potentianus afterwards consecrated as a church in memory of the martyr. And I think I can affirm from this that the Christians, in the places where martyrs were buried, first made basilicas, as public or private buildings, because it was permitted to adorn the city with works of that kind; and that these same basilicas were afterwards converted into churches, and that they have their name from other works of the same name, and are not so called because they are dedicated to Christ the King of the heavens, as some think. Since, moreover, the basilicas of the Romans were flat, as is clear from the coin of Lepidus which is inscribed AEMILIA N. basilica, M. LEPIDUS REFECIT, and from another of Trajan with the inscription S.: P. Q. R. OPTIMO. PR. BASILICA ULPIA, with the shapes of those basilicas added, and also from Vitruvius book 5, chapter 1, and other authors, the basilicas of the Christians too were without doubt of the same shape; and gabled roofs could have been put on them when they made churches out of them, so that in this way they might imitate the temples of the Gentiles and their splendour.

IV. Because the Christians met either in private houses, or in meeting-places in no way different from the houses of private persons, if you look at the exterior form, and since the temples of the Gentiles were most splendid, Caecilius therefore says that they have no temples. For temples and meeting-places are set in opposition; and so nothing prevents the Christians, when these things were written, from having been able to meet freely; nor is it necessary to refer Minucius to the times of Nero or Domitian. Thus Galerius in Eusebius 8, 17 calls them "houses in which they used to assemble"; and in Lactantius, chapter 48, "places to which they had been accustomed to come together"; and Lactantius himself likewise, Institutes 5, 11; Arnobius and others "meeting-places". And the Fathers frequently set temples and churches in opposition; and they assign the former to the Gentiles, the latter to the Christians, as learned men have shown.

V. The edicts of the emperors which are cited serve the argument little, and those of Maximian were framed and promulgated a long time after the church of Sens was, as the learned man supposes, founded; and indeed at that time in which the Christians beyond doubt had large and lofty buildings, as is clear from Lactantius, and perhaps also basilicas.

These things, most distinguished sir, also came into my mind; and I thought I ought to share them with you, as one greatly devoted to the more refined studies. Farewell. The Hague, 19 November 1679.