Chapter 5: Developmental and Social Perspectives on Gender

SEXUALITY TODAY 11TH EDITION

KELLY TEST BANK
Full download at link:

Test Bank: https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-sexuality-today-

11th-edition-kelly-0078035473-9780078035470/

Solution Manual: https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-

sexuality-today-11th-edition-kelly-0078035473-9780078035470/

Chapter 5: Developmental and Social Perspectives on Gender

Multiple Choice

1. A female pseudohermaphrodite possesses

a. female external genitalia, but male internal structures.
b. one ovary and one testis.
c. two ovaries and some male genitals but no testes.
d. two testes and some female genitals but no ovaries.
Answer: c
Type: Factual
Page 96

2. The terms berdache and hijra refer to

a. gender roles for a "third sex" recognized in particular societies.
b. individuals in various societies who have a same-sex sexual orientation.
c. malformed genitalia in newborn infants.
d. women who choose to live as males in their respective societies.
Answer: a
Type: Conceptual
Page 96

3. Which of the following best describes the traditional view of intersexuality in modern Western culture?
a. Modern Western culture generally has welcomed intersexed individuals and created a special social
role for them.
b. Modern Western culture has generally embraced a one-sex model in which both females and
intersexed individuals are considered less developed versions of males.
c. Modern Western culture has tended to view intersexuality as a biological accident or disease.
d. Unlike many other cultures, modern Western culture generally has been unconcerned with gender
Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
 Chapter 5: Developmental and Social Perspectives on Gender

roles and the sexual categorization of individuals and so has not recognized intersexuality.
Answer: c
Type: Conceptual
Page 97

4. A person's genetic sex is determined

a. at birth.
b. at conception.
c. during gestation.
d. during the fetal period.
Answer: b
Type: Factual
Page 98

5. At birth, people are usually categorized on the basis of

a. body sex.
b. brain sex.
c. genetic sex.
d. social sex.
Answer: a
Type: Factual
Page 98

6. Anatomical structures at birth define a person's

a. body sex.
b. gender identity.
c. gender role.
d. sexual orientation.
Answer: a
Type: Conceptual
Page 98

7. Robin feels deep inside herself that she is female. In other words, she has a clear sense of her
a. brain sex.
b. gender identity.
c. gender role.
d. secondary sex characteristics.
Answer: b
Type: Applied
Page 97

8. Chris wears clothes and acts in ways identified as feminine in her society. Such behavior is one aspect of
a. brain sex.
b. gender identity.
c. gender role.
Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
 Chapter 5: Developmental and Social Perspectives on Gender

d. sexual orientation.
Answer: c
Type: Applied
Page 97

9. The process by which an embryo or fetus develops into a male, female, or intersexual organism is called
a. gender identity development.
b. gender role adherence.
c. ongoing socialization.
d. sexual differentiation.
Answer: d
Type: Factual
Page: 99

10. Sexual differentiation is determined

a. at birth by external genital structures.
b. at puberty by hormones secreted by the gonads.
c. before birth by the chromosomes.
d. by an interaction of biological, sociocultural, and psychological factors.
Answer: d
Type: Conceptual
Page 99

11. If an individual has at least one X chromosome, that individual

a. cannot be a boy.
b. might be a boy.
c. must be a boy.
d. must be a girl.
Answer: b
Type: Conceptual
Page 99-100

12. The term SRY refers to

a. factors during infancy and childhood that contribute to sexual differentiation.
b. one of several chromosomal disorders that affect the gender assignment of the newborn.
c. the region of the Y chromosome that seems to trigger the development of male sex organs.
d. the sensitivity of the young child to factors that can influence gender role development.
Answer: c
Type: Conceptual
Page 100

13. Preliminary research focused on the DAX-1 gene suggests that

a. genetic determinants of sex may be overturned during postnatal development.
b. sexual differentiation begins during the middle fetal stage of development.
c. the X chromosome may also carry a sex-determining gene.
d. toxic substances ingested by the mother during fetal development may result in a chromosomal
disorder.

Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
 Chapter 5: Developmental and Social Perspectives on Gender

Answer: c
Type: Conceptual
Page 100

14. Which of the following is characteristically present in individuals with Turner syndrome?
a. Female external genitalia
b. Female internal genitalia
c. The XXX chromosome combination
d. Traits of a true hermaphrodite
Answer: a
Type: Conceptual
Page 101

15. Which of the following genetic combinations has NOT been identified among humans?
a. XO
b. XXY
c. XYY
d. YO
Answer: d
Type: Conceptual
Page 99-100

16. Jane has a miscarriage during the sixth week of pregnancy. Which of the following statements about the
genetic sex of the embryo is true?
a. Because chromosomal disorders are so common, it was probably an intersexual individual.
b. It was more likely a girl than a boy because more girls are conceived.
c. It would be impossible to tell the sex of the embryo by visually inspecting the embryo.
d. The sex of the embryo would not have been determined until the twelfth week of gestation.
Answer: c
Type: Factual
Page 100

17. In fetal development, it is not possible to determine the sex of a human embryo by its appearance until at
least
a. 5 weeks.
b. 8 weeks.
c. 12 weeks.
d. 16 weeks.
Answer: b
Type: Factual
Page 100

18. The embryonic structures that develop into ovaries are called the
a. genital tubercles.
b. Müllerian ducts.
c. ovarian ducts.

Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
 Chapter 5: Developmental and Social Perspectives on Gender

d. Wolffian ducts.
Answer: b
Type: Factual
Page 100

19. The embryonic structures that develop into testes and related reproductive structures are called the
a. genital tubercles.
b. H-Y antigens.
c. Müllerian ducts.
d. Wolffian ducts.
Answer: d
Type: Factual
Page 100

20. The chemical agent that helps change the fetal gonads into testes is called
a. DAX-1.
b. FSH.
c. H-Y antigen.
d. testosterone.
Answer: c
Type: Factual
Page 101

21. During fetal development, the SRY gene activates

a. an increase in the level of DSS.
b. expression of DAX-1.
c. production of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH).
d. the development of the penis.
Answer: c
Type: Factual
Page 101

23. If you were able to closely examine a 12-week-old fetus, you would
a. be able to determine if DHT-deficiency syndrome is present.
b. be able to distinguish male or female genitalia.
c. be able to observe changes in the hypothalamus and pituitary gland.
d. not be able to tell the sex of the fetus.
Answer: b
Type: Applied
Page 100

24. Recent research suggests that

a. fetal sex hormones only affect the functioning of the peripheral nervous system.
b. fetal sex hormones affect the number and location of nerve synapses in the hypothalamus.
c. fetal sex hormones have an effect on behavior only after the organism has reached sexual maturity.
d. the presence of male hormones has an effect on brain development only after birth.
Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Another document from Scribd.com that is
random and unrelated content:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Constantine the Great: The
reorganization of the Empire and the triumph of the Church
 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Constantine the Great: The reorganization of the Empire and

the triumph of the Church

Author: John B. Firth

Release date: August 6, 2022 [eBook #68703]

Language: English

Original publication: United States: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1904

Credits: KD Weeks, Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT: THE REORGANIZATION OF THE
EMPIRE AND THE TRIUMPH OF THE CHURCH ***
 Transcriber’s Note:
Footnotes have been collected at the end of each chapter,
and are linked for ease of reference.
Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been
corrected. Please see the transcriber’s note at the end of this
text for details regarding the handling of any textual issues
encountered during its preparation.
The cover image has been constructed using title page
information and is added to the public domain.
Any corrections are indicated as hyperlinks, which will
navigate the reader to the corresponding entry in the
corrections table in the note at the end of the text.
Heroes of the Nations
EDITED BY
H. W. Carless Davis, M.A.
FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD

FACTA DUCIS VIVENT OPEROSAQUE

GLORIA RERUM.—OVID, IN LIVIAM, 265.
THE HERO’S DEEDS AND HARD-WON
FAME SHALL LIVE.

CONSTANTINE
 CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
FROM THE BRITISH MUSEUM PRINT ROOM. Frontispiece.
 CONSTANTINE
THE GREAT
THE REORGANISATION OF THE EMPIRE AND
THE TRIUMPH OF THE CHURCH

BY

JOHN B. FIRTH

(SOMETIME SCHOLAR OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD)

AUTHOR OF “AUGUSTUS CÆSAR,” “A TRANSLATION OF PLINY’S LETTERS,” ETC.

G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
NEW YORK LONDON
27 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET 24 BEDFORD STREET, STRAND

The Knickerbocker Press

1905
 C , 1904

BY

G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS

Published, January, 1905

The Knickerbocker Press, New York

 PREFACE

In the following chapters, my object has been to tell the story of the
Life and Times of Constantine the Great. Whether he deserves the
epithet my readers will judge for themselves; certainly his place in the
select list of the immortals is not among the highest. But whether he
himself was “great” or not, under his auspices one of the most
momentous changes in the history of the world was accomplished, and it
is the first conversion of a Roman Emperor to Christianity, with all that
such conversion entailed, which makes his period so important and so
well worth studying.
I have tried to write with impartiality—a virtue which one admires the
more after a close reading of original authorities who, practically without
exception, were bitter and malevolent partisans. The truth, therefore, is
not always easily recognised, nor has recognition been made the easier
by the polemical writers of succeeding centuries who have dealt with
that side of Constantine’s career which belongs more particularly to
ecclesiastical history. In narrating the course of the Arian Controversy
and the proceedings of the Council of Nicæa I have been content to
record facts—as I have seen them—and to explain the causes of quarrel
rather than act as judge between the disputants. And though in this
branch of my subject I have consulted all the original authorities who
describe the growth of the controversy, I have not deemed it necessary to
read, still less to add to, the endless strife of words to which the
discussion of the theological and metaphysical issues involved has given
rise. On this point I am greatly indebted to, and have made liberal use of,
the admirable chapters in the late Canon Bright’s The Age of the Fathers.
Other authorities, which have been most useful to me, are Boissier’s
La Fin du Paganisme, Allard’s La Persécution de Dioclétien et le
Triomphe de l’Eglise, Duruy’s Histoire Romaine, and Grosvenor’s
Constantinople.
J. B. F .
L , October, 1904.
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.
PAGE
THE EMPIRE UNDER DIOCLETIAN 1

CHAPTER II.

THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH 12

CHAPTER III.

THE ABDICATION OF DIOCLETIAN AND THE 39

SUCCESSION OF CONSTANTINE

CHAPTER IV.

CONSTANTINE AND HIS COLLEAGUES 56

CHAPTER V.

THE INVASION OF ITALY 73

CHAPTER VI.

THE VISION OF THE CROSS AND THE EDICT OF MILAN 92

CHAPTER VII.
THE DOWNFALL OF LICINIUS 115

CHAPTER VIII.

LAST DAYS OF PERSECUTION 134

CHAPTER IX.

CONSTANTINE AND THE DONATISTS 159

CHAPTER X.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 189

CHAPTER XI.

THE COUNCIL OF NICÆA 211

CHAPTER XII.

THE MURDERS OF CRISPUS AND FAUSTA 237

CHAPTER XIII.

THE FOUNDATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE 257

CHAPTER XIV.

ARIUS AND ATHANASIUS 285

CHAPTER XV.

CONSTANTINE’S DEATH AND CHARACTER 301

 CHAPTER XVI.

THE EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY 330

INDEX 357
 ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT Frontispiece

From the British Museum Print Room.

BUST OF DIOCLETIAN 22

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT 40

From Grosvenor’s Constantinople.

THE GOLDEN GATE OF DIOCLETIAN’S 60

PALACE AT SALONA (SPALATO)

BUST OF MAXIMIAN AT ROME 62

Photograph by Alinari.

FRAGMENT OF 4TH CENTURY EGYPTIAN 70

POTTERY BOWL
Showing an early portrait of Christ, with busts
of the Emperor Constantine and the
Empress Fausta. From the British Museum.

THE BATTLE OF THE MILVIAN BRIDGE, BY 86

RAPHAEL
In the Vatican. Photograph by Alinari.

THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE AT ROME 90

Photograph by Alinari.
CONSTANTINE’S VISION OF THE CROSS, BY 94
RAPHAEL
In the Vatican. Photograph by Alinari.

THE WESTERN SIDE OF A PEDESTAL, 126

SHOWING THE HOMAGE OF THE
VANQUISHED GOTHS
From Grosvenor’s Constantinople.

THE AMPHITHEATRE AT ARLES 168

Exterior view. Present day.

THE AMPHITHEATRE AT ARLES AS IT 172

APPEARED IN 1686
From an old print.

STATUE OF CONSTANTINE FROM THE PORCH 188

OF SAN GIOVANNI IN LATERAN, AT ROME

GATE OF ST. ANDREW AT AUTUN 212

“CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND HIS 238

MOTHER, ST. HELENA, HOLY, EQUAL TO
THE APOSTLES”
From a picture discovered 1845, in an old
church of Mesembria. From Grosvenor’s
Constantinople.

THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE 248

From the painting by Raphael in the Vatican.
Photograph by Alinari.

ST. HELENA’S VISION OF THE CROSS 250

By Paul Veronese. National Gallery, London.
CHART OF THE EASTERN SECTION OF 258
MEDIÆVAL CONSTANTINOPLE
From Grosvenor’s Constantinople.

BAPTISTERY OF SAN GIOVANNI IN LATERAN, 262

ROME
Photograph by Alinari.

ST. HELENA AND THE CROSS 268

By Cranach. Lichtenstein Gallery, Vienna.

COLUMN OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT 270

From Grosvenor’s Constantinople.

THE THREE EXISTING MONUMENTS OF THE 276

HIPPODROME
From Grosvenor’s Constantinople.

PLAN OF THE HIPPODROME 278

From Grosvenor’s Constantinople.

THE SERPENT OF DELPHI 280

From Grosvenor’s Constantinople.

ST. ATHANASIUS 288

From the British Museum Print Room.

BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE AT ROME 302

From Rome of To-Day and Yesterday, by John
Dennie.

THE SUPPOSED SARCOPHAGI OF 314

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND
THEODOSIUS THE GREAT
From Grosvenor’s Constantinople.
 LIST OF COINS

COPPER DENARIUS OF CONSTANTINE THE 324

GREAT, SHOWING THE LABARUM

DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTIUS II., WITH 324

THE LABARUM

DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF DIOCLETIAN 324

SOLIDUS OF MAXIMIAN 324

AUREUS OF CARAUSIUS 332

AUREUS OF ALLECTUS 332

SOLIDUS OF HELENA 332

SOLIDUS OF GALERIUS 332

SOLIDUS OF SEVERUS II. 332

SOLIDUS OF MAXIMIN DAZA 340

SOLIDUS OF LICINIUS I. 340

SOLIDUS OF LICINIUS II. 340

DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTINE THE 340

GREAT

DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTINE THE 348

GREAT
DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF FAUSTA 348

DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CRISPUS 348

DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTIUS II. AS 348

CÆSAR
Constantine
 CHAPTER I
THE EMPIRE UNDER DIOCLETIAN

The catastrophe of the fall of Rome, with all that its fall signified to
the fifth century, came very near to accomplishment in the third. There
was a long period when it seemed as though nothing could save the
Empire. Her prestige sank to the vanishing point. Her armies had
forgotten what it was to win a victory over a foreign enemy. Her
Emperors were worthless and incapable. On every side the frontiers were
being pierced and the barriers were giving way.
The Franks swept over Gaul and laid it waste. They penetrated into
Spain; besieged Toledo; and, seizing the galleys which they found in the
Spanish ports, boldly crossed into Mauretanian Africa. Other
confederations of free barbarians from southern Germany had burst
through the wall of Hadrian which protected the Tithe Lands (Decumates
agri), and had followed the ancient route of invasion over the Alps.
Pannonia had been ravaged by the Sarmatæ and the Quadi. In successive
invasions the Goths had overrun Dacia; had poured round the Black Sea
or crossed it on shipboard; had sacked Trebizond and Chalcedon, and,
after traversing Bithynia, had reached the coast at Ephesus. Others had
advanced into Greece and Macedonia and challenged the Roman navies
for the possession of Crete.
Not only was Armenia lost, but the Parthians had passed the
Euphrates, vanquished and taken prisoner the Emperor Valerian, and
surprised the city of Antioch while the inhabitants were idly gathered in
the theatre. Valerian, chained and robed in purple, was kept alive to act
as Sapor’s footstool; when he died his skin was tanned and stuffed with
straw and set to grace a Parthian temple. Egypt was in the hands of a
rebel who had cut off the grain supply. And as if such misfortunes were
not enough, there was a succession of terrifying and destructive
earthquakes, which wrought their worst havoc in Asia, though they were
felt in Rome and Egypt. These too were followed by a pestilence which
raged for fifteen years and, according to Eutropius, claimed, when at its
height, as many as five thousand victims in a single day.
 It looked, indeed, as though the Roman Empire were past praying for
and its destruction certain.[1] The armies were in wide-spread revolt.
Rebel usurpers succeeded one another so fast that the period came to be
known as that of the Thirty Tyrants, many of whom were elected,
worshipped, and murdered by their soldiers within the space of a few
weeks or months. “You little know, my friends,” said Saturninus, one of
the more candid of these phantom monarchs, when his troops a few years
later insisted that he should pit himself against Aurelian, “you little know
what a poor thing it is to be an Emperor. Swords hang over our necks; on
every side is the menace of spear and dart. We go in fear of our guards,
in terror of our household troops. We cannot eat what we like, fight when
we would, or take up arms for our pleasure. Moreover, whatever an
Emperor’s age, it is never what it should be. Is he a grey beard? Then he
is past his prime. Is he young? He has the mad recklessness of youth.
You insist on making me Emperor; you are dragging me to inevitable
death. But I have at least this consolation in dying, that I shall not be able
to die alone.”[2] In that celebrated speech, vibrating with bitter irony, we
have the middle of the third century in epitome.
But then the usual miracle of good fortune intervened to save Rome
from herself. The Empire fell into the strong hands of Claudius, who in
two years smote the Goths by land and sea, and of Aurelian, who
recovered Britain and Gaul, restored the northern frontiers, and threw to
the ground the kingdom over which Zenobia ruled from Palmyra. The
Empire was thus restored once more by the genius of two Pannonian
peasants, who had found in the army a career open to talent. The murder
of Aurelian, in 275, was followed by an interregnum of seven months,
during which the army seemed to repent of having slain its general and
paid to the Senate a deference which effectually turned the head—never
strong—of that assembly. Vopiscus quotes a letter written by one senator
to another at this period, begging him to return to Rome and tear himself
away from the amusements of Baiæ and Puteoli. “The Senate,” he says,[3]
“has returned to its ancient status. It is we who make Emperors; it is our
order which has the distribution of offices. Come back to the city and the
Senate House. Rome is flourishing; the whole State is flourishing. We
give Emperors; we make Princes; and we who have begun to create, can
also restrain.” The pleasant delusion was soon dispelled. The legions
speedily re-assumed the rôle of king-makers. Tacitus, the senatorial
nominee, ruled only for a year, and another series of soldier Emperors
succeeded. Probus, in six years of incessant fighting, repeated the
triumphs of Aurelian, and carried his successful arms east, west, and
north. Carus, despite his sixty years, crossed the Tigris and made good—
at any rate in part—his threat to render Persia as naked of trees as his
own bald head was bare of hairs. But Carus’s reign was brief, and at his
death the Empire was divided between his two sons, Carinus and
Numerian. The former was a voluptuary; the latter, a youth of retiring
and scholarly disposition, quite unfitted for a soldier’s life, was soon
slain by his Prætorian præfect, Arrius Aper. But the choice of the army
fell upon Diocletian, and he, after stabbing to the heart the man who had
cleared his way to the throne, gathered up into his strong hands the reins
of power in the autumn of 284. He met in battle the army of Carinus at
Margus, in Moesia, during the spring of 285. Carinus was slain by his
officers and Diocletian reigned alone.
But he soon found that he needed a colleague to halve with him the
dangers and the responsibilities of empire. He, therefore, raised his
lieutenant, Maximian, to the purple, with the title of Cæsar, and a
twelvemonth later gave him the full name and honours of Augustus.
There were thus two armies, two sets of court officials, and two palaces,
but the edicts ran in the joint name of both Augusti. Then, when still
further division seemed advisable, the principle of imperial partnership
was extended, and it was decided that each Augustus should have a
Cæsar attached to him. Galerius was promoted to be the Cæsar of
Diocletian; Constantius to be the Cæsar of Maximian. Each married the
daughter of his patron, and looked forward to becoming Augustus as
soon as his superior should die. The plan was by no means perfect, but
there was much to be said in its favour. An Emperor like Diocletian, the
nominee of the eastern army alone and the son of a Dalmatian slave, had
few, if any, claims upon the natural loyalty of his subjects. Himself a
successful adventurer, he knew that other adventurers would rise to
challenge his position, if they could find an army to back them. By
entrusting Maximian with the sovereignty of the West, he forestalled
Maximian’s almost certain rivalry, and the four great frontiers each
required the presence of a powerful army and an able commander-in-
chief. By having three colleagues, each of whom might hope in time to
become the senior Augustus, Diocletian secured himself, so far as
security was possible, against military rebellion.
Unquestionably, too, this decentralisation tended towards general
efficiency. It was more than one man’s task, whatever his capacity, to
hold together the Empire as Diocletian found it. Gaul was ablaze from
end to end with a peasants’ war. Carausius ruled for eight years in
Britain, which he temporarily detached from the Empire, and, secure in
his naval strength, forced Diocletian and Maximian, much to their
disgust, to recognise him as a brother Augustus. This archpirate, as they
called him, was crushed at last, but whenever Constantius crossed into
Britain it was necessary for Maximian to move up to the vacant frontier
of the Rhine and mount guard in his place. We hear, too, of Maximian
fighting the Moors in Mauretania. War was thus incessant in the West. In
the East, Diocletian recovered Armenia for Roman influence in 287 by
placing his nominee, Tiridates, on the throne. This was done without a
breach with Parthia, but in 296 Tiridates was expelled and war ensued.
Diocletian summoned Galerius from the Danube and entrusted him with
the command. But Galerius committed the same blunder which Crassus
had made three centuries and a half before. He led his troops into the
wastes of the Mesopotamian desert and suffered the inevitable disaster.
When he returned with the survivors of his army to Antioch, Diocletian,
it is said, rode forth to meet him; received him with cold displeasure;
and, instead of taking him up into his chariot, compelled him to march
alongside on foot, in spite of his purple robe. However, in the following
year, 297, Galerius faced the Parthian with a new army, took the longer
but less hazardous route through Armenia, and utterly overwhelmed the
enemy in a night attack. The victory was so complete that Narses sued
for peace, paying for the boon no less a price than the whole of
Mesopotamia and five provinces in the valley of the Tigris, and
renouncing all claim to the sovereignty of Armenia.
This was the greatest victory which Rome had won in the East since
the campaigns of Trajan and Vespasian. It was followed by fifty years of
profound peace; and the ancient feud between Rome and Parthia was not
renewed until the closing days of the reign of Constantine. Lactantius, of
whose credibility as a historian we shall speak later on, sneers at the
victory of Galerius, which he says was “easily won”[4] over an enemy
encumbered by baggage, and he represents him as being so elated with
his success that when Diocletian addressed him in a letter of
congratulation by the name of Cæsar, he exclaimed,[5] with glowing eyes
and a voice of thunder, “How long shall I be merely Cæsar?” But there is
no word of corroboration from any other source. On the contrary, we can
see that Diocletian, whose forte was diplomacy rather than generalship,
was on the best of terms with his son-in-law, Galerius, who regarded him
not with contempt, but with the most profound respect. Diocletian and
Galerius, for their lifetime at any rate, had settled the Eastern question on
a footing entirely satisfactory and honourable to Rome. A long line of
fortresses was established on the new frontier, within which there was
perfect security for trade and commerce, and the result was a rapid
recovery from the havoc caused by the Gothic and Parthian irruptions.
Though Diocletian had divided the supreme power, he was still the
moving and controlling spirit, by whose nod all things were governed.[6]
He had chosen for his own special domain Asia, Syria, and Egypt, fixing
his capital at Nicomedia, which he had filled with stately palaces,
temples, and public buildings, for he indulged the dream of making his
city the rival of Rome. Galerius ruled the Danubian provinces with
Greece and Illyricum from his capital at Sirmium. Maximian, the
Augustus of the West, ruled over Italy, Africa, and Spain from Milan;
Constantius watched over Gaul and Britain, with headquarters at Treves
and at York. But everywhere the writ of Diocletian ran. He took the
majestic name of Jovius, while Maximian styled himself Herculius; and
it stands as a marvellous tribute to his commanding influence that we
hear of no friction between the four masters of the world.
Diocletian profoundly modified the character of the Roman Principate.
He orientalised it, adopting frankly and openly the symbols and
paraphernalia of royalty which had been so repugnant to the Roman
temper. Hitherto the Roman Emperors had been, first and foremost,
Imperators, heads of the army, soldiers in the purple. Diocletian became
a King, clad in sumptuous robes, stiff with embroidery and jewels.
Instead of approaching with the old military salute, those who came into
his presence bent the knee and prostrated themselves in adoration. The
monarch surrounded himself, not with military præfects, but with
chamberlains and court officials, the hierarchy of the palace, not of the
camp. We cannot wholly impute this change to vanity or to that littleness
of mind which is pleased with pomp and elaborate ceremonial.
Diocletian was too great a man to be swayed by paltry motives. It was
rather that his subjects had abdicated their old claim to be called a free
and sovereign people, and were ready to be slaves. The whole senatorial
order had been debarred by Gallienus from entering the army, and had
acquiesced without apparent protest in an edict which closed to its
members the profession of arms. Diocletian thought that his throne
would be safer by removing it from the ken of the outside world, by
screening it from vulgar approach, by deepening the mystery and
impressiveness attaching to palaces, by elaborating the court ceremonial,
and exalting even the simplest of domestic services into the dignity of a
liturgy. It may be that these changes intensified the servility of the
subject, and sapped still further the manhood and self-respect of the race.
Let it not be forgotten, however, that the ceremonial of the modern courts
of Europe may be traced directly back to the changes introduced by
Diocletian, and also that the ceremonial, which the older school of
Romans would have thought degrading and effeminate, was, perhaps,
calculated to impress by its stateliness, beauty, and dignity the barbarous
nations which were supplying the Roman armies with troops.
We will reserve to a later chapter some account of the remodelled
administration, which Constantine for the most part accepted without
demur. Here we may briefly mention the decentralisation which
Diocletian carried out in the provinces. Lactantius[7] says that “he carved
the provinces up into little fragments that he might fill the earth with
terror,” and suggests that he multiplied officials in order to wring more
money out of his subjects. That is an enemy’s perversion of a wise
statesman’s plan for securing efficiency by lessening the administrative
areas, and bringing them within working limits. Diocletian split up the
Empire into twelve great dioceses. Each diocese again was subdivided
into provinces. There were fifty-seven of these when he came to the
throne; when he quitted it there were ninety-six. The system had grave
faults, for the principles on which the finances of the Empire rested were
thoroughly mischievous and unsound. But the reign of Diocletian was
one of rapid recuperation and great prosperity, such as the Roman world
had not enjoyed since the days of the Antonines.
 CHAPTER II
THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH

Unfortunately for the fame of Diocletian there is one indelible blot

upon the record of his reign. He attached his name to the edicts whereby
was let loose upon the Christian Church the last and—in certain
provinces—the fiercest of the persecutions. Inasmuch as the affairs of
the Christian Church will demand so large a share of our attention in
dealing with the religious policy of Constantine, it will be well here to
describe, as briefly as possible, its condition in the reign of Diocletian. It
has been computed that towards the end of the third century the
population of the Roman Empire numbered about a hundred millions.
What proportion were Christians? No one can say with certainty, but
they were far more numerous in the East than in the West, among the
Greek-speaking peoples of Asia than among the Latin-speaking peoples
of Europe. Perhaps if we reckon them at a twelfth of the whole we shall
rather underestimate than overestimate their number, while in certain
portions of Asia and Syria they were probably at least one in five.
Christianity had spread with amazing rapidity since the days of
Domitian. There had been spasmodic outbreaks of fierce persecution
under Decius,—“that execrable beast,” as Lactantius calls him,—under
Valerian, and under Aurelian. But Aurelian’s reign was short and he had
been too busy fighting to spare much time for religious persecution. The
tempest quickly blew over. For fully half a century, with brief interludes
of terror, the Church had been gathering strength and boldness.
The policy of the State towards it was one of indifference. Gallienus,
indeed, the worthless son of Valerian, had issued edicts of toleration,
which might be considered cancelled by the later edicts of Aurelian or
might not. If the State wished to be savage, it could invoke the one set; if
to be mild, it could invoke the other. There was, therefore, no absolute
security for the Church, but the general feeling was one of confidence.
The army contained a large number of Christians, of all ranks and
conditions, officers, centurions, and private soldiers. Many of the
officials of the civil service were Christians. The court and the palace
were full of them. Diocletian’s wife, Prisca, was a Christian; so was
Valeria, his daughter. So, too, were many of his chamberlains,
secretaries, and eunuchs. If Christianity had been a proscribed religion, if
the Christians had anticipated another storm, is it conceivable that they
would have dared to erect at Nicomedia, within full view of the palace
windows, a large church situated upon an eminence in the centre of the
city, and evidently one of its most conspicuous structures? No,
Christianity in the East felt tolerably safe and was advancing from
strength to strength, conscious of its increasing powers and of the
benevolent neutrality of Diocletian. Christians who took office were
relieved from the necessity of offering incense or presiding at the games.
The State looked the other way; the Church was inclined to let them off
with the infliction of some nominal penance. Nor was there much
difficulty about service in the army. Probably few enlisted in the legions
after they had become Christians; against this the Church set her face.
But she permitted the converted soldier to remain true to his military
oath, for she did not wish to become embroiled with the State. In a word,
there was deep religious peace, at any rate in Diocletian’s special sphere
of influence, Asia, Egypt, and Syria.
It is to be remembered, however, that there were four rulers, men of
very different characters and each, therefore, certain to regard
Christianity from a different standpoint. Thus there might be religious
peace in Asia and persecution in the West, as, indeed, there was—partial
and spasmodic, but still persecution. Maximian was cruel and ambitious,
an able soldier of the hard Roman type, no respecter of persons, and
careless of human life. Very few modern historians have accepted the
story of the massacre of the Theban Legion at Agauna, near Lake
Leman, for refusal to offer sacrifice and take the oath to the Emperor.
According to the legend, the legion was twice decimated and then cut to
pieces. But it is impossible to believe that there could have been a legion
or even a company of troops from Thebes in Egypt, wholly composed of
Christians, and, even supposing the facts to have been as stated, their
refusal to march in obedience to the Emperor’s orders and rejoin the
main army at a moment when an active campaign was in progress,
simply invited the stroke of doom. Maximian was not the man to tolerate
mutiny in the face of the enemy.
But still there were many Christian victims of Maximian wherever he
took up his quarters—at Rome, Aquileia, Marseilles—mostly soldiers
whose refusal to sacrifice brought down upon them the arm of the law.
Maximian is described in the “Passion of St. Victor” as “a great dragon,”