ページの画像
PDF

B. c. 600. [ChERsiphon.] The most probable conclusion, then, (for anything like certainty is clearly unattainable,) we think to be this: that the genealogy and dates given under Rhoecus are tolerably correct: that Rhoecus was the inventor of the casting of metals, and that this art was carried on by the family of which he was the head: that Rhoecus and his son Theodorus erected the Heraeum and the Lemnian labyrinth, and that the latter laid the foundation of the temple of Artemis: that the younger Theodorus devoted himself more especially to the task of perfecting the art of casting metals, and that this is the reason why he, rather than other members of the family, is mentioned, with Rhoecus, at the head of that branch of art; and that to this younger Theodorus should be ascribed the silver crater of Croesus and the ring of Polycrates. We are quite aware of some minor objections to this theory, which remain unanswered; but the subject, interesting as it is, both critically and historically, has already been pursued almost beyond the proper limits of this article. Another question, important in the early history of Greek art, arises out of the statements respecting these Samian artists, namely, how far they were affected by foreign influence. The story told by the Egyptians, and repeated by Diodorus, must be received with great caution ; but even those, who contend most strongly for the native origin of Greek art, admit that Telecles and Theodorus may have learnt some mechanical processes from the Egyptians. But the fact is, that the point involved in the story relates not so much to mechanical processes as to rules of proportion; for, in order to accomplish the result stated, the precise proportions of the human figure must have been settled by rule, as well as the precise attitude; and the question is, whether the Greeks, at this early period, had established such rules of proportion independently of the Egyptians. On the other hand, the statements with respect to the invention of metal-casting make it of purely native origin; whereas we know that it existed long before, among the Phoenicians, for the two bronze pillars and various vessels of Solomon's temple are expressly said to have been cast in earthen moulds by Phoenician artists. (1 Kings vii. 46.) Now, when we remember that an extensive commerce was carried on in very early times by the Phoenicians in the Levant and the Aegean, and also that Samos is said to have been the earliest Grecian maritime state in those parts, a strong probability is established, that arts already existing in Egypt and Phoenicia may have been transferred to Samos. The full discussion of these questions belongs to the general history of Greek art: we will here only add that we believe the Egyptian and Phoenician influence on Greece in early times to have been lately as much undervalued as it was formerly exaggerated. It only remains to explain one or two points connected with the works ascribed to these artists. Besides the silver crater presented by Croesus to the Delphians, there was a golden one found by Alexander among the treasures of the Persian kings, which was also said to be the work of Theodorus of Samos. (Amynt. ap. Ath. xiv. p. 515, a.) With respect to the ring of Polycrates, it has been much disputed whether the stone in it was engraved or not. The words of Herodotus (iii. 41. croppnyls ... xpvuòeros, guapáyöov sov Aidov

éoùoa, pyov & K. T. A.) will, we think, bear either meaning. Of course no great weight can be assigned to the statements of later writers, such as Strabo (xiv. p. 638), Pausanias (l.c.), Pollux (v. 100), and Clemens (Protrept. iii. p. 247, ed. Sylburg), who assert that it was engraved, any more than to that of Pliny, who says that it was not, and that the art of gem-engraving was invented many years later. (H. N. xxxvii. 4.) This last statement can be positively contradicted, so far as the East is concerned, by the account of Aaron's breast-plate (Erod. xxviii. 17–21), in which not only were the precious stones engraved, but they were “like the engravings of a signet; ” and other evidence might be adduced to prove the very early use of engraved seal-rings in the East. Some evidence that the art was known in the islands of the Aegean, and particularly in Samos, even before the time of Polycrates, is furnished by the tradition that the father of Pythagoras was an engraver of seal-rings, baktvatoyatopos (Diog. viii. 1; MNESARCHUs), and there is another tradition which would prove that it had been introduced at Athens in the time of Solon. (Diog. i. 57.) Lastly, with respect to bronze statues by Theodorus, Pausanias expressly says that he knew bf none such (x. 38. § 3. s. 6); but Pliny, on the contrary (II. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19. § 22), tells us that the same Theodorus, who made the labyrinth, cast in bronze a statue of himself, which was equally celebrated for the excellence of the likeness and for its minute size. It held a file in the right hand, and a little quadriga in the left, the whole being so small as to be covered by the wings of a fly, which formed a part of the work (tantae partitatis ut totam eam currumque et aurigam integeret alis simul facta. musca). It is obvious that a work like this could not belong to the age of Croesus and Polycrates. Such productions of patient ingenuity were made at a later period, as by MYRMEcid Es ; and, considering how common a name Theodorus was, it seems very probable that there may have been, at some period, an artist of the name, who made such minute works, and that some thoughtless transcriber has introduced the words “qui labyrinthum fecit.”" . To sum up the whole, it seems probable that there were two ancient Samian artists named Theodorus, namely: – 1. The son of Rhoecus, and brother of Telecles, flourished about B. c. 600, and was an architect, a statuary in bronze, and a sculptor in wood. He wrote a work on the Heraeum at Samos, in the erection of which it may therefore be supposed that he was engaged as well as his father. Or, considering the time which such a building would occupy, the treatise may perhaps be ascribed to the younger Theodorus. He was also engaged, with his father, in the erection of the labyrinth of Lemmos; and he prepared the foundation of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. We would also ascribe to him the old Scias at Sparta. In conjunction with his brother Telecles, he made the wooden statue of Apollo Pythius for the Samians, according to the fixed rules of the hieratic style. o 2. The son of Telecles, nephew of the elder Theodorus, and grandson of Rhoecus, flourished about B. c. 560, in the times of Croesus and Polycrates, and obtained such renown as a statuary in bronze, that the invention of that art was ascribed to him, in conjunction with his grandfather. Ile also practised the arts of engraving metals (topov- 3 Y a

riki, caelatura), and of gem-engraving; his works in those departments being the gold and silver craters mentioned above, and the ring of Polycrates. (For the different views of modern writers respecting these artists, see Sillig, Cat. Artif. s. v.v. Telecles, Theodorus ; Müller, Archäol. d. Kunst. §§ 35, m.1, 55, n., 60, 70, n.4, 80. n. i. 1, 97, n. 2, 159; Bähr, ad Herod, ll. cc.) There were several later artists of the same name : — 3. An Argive sculptor, the son of Poros, made a statue of Nicis, the son of Andromidas, which was dedicated by the people of Hermione, as we learn from an extant inscription, the character of which as well as the nature of the work, an honorific statue of a private individual, lead to the conclusion that the artist lived at a comparatively late period. (Böckh, Corp. Inscr. No. 1197; Welcker, Kunstblatt, 1827, No. 83 ; R. Rochette, Lettre à M. Schorn, pp. 415, 416, 2d ed.) 4. A sculptor or modeller, of unknown time, made the celebrated bas-relief, known as the Tabula Iliaca, as appears from an inscription on its back, which runs thus, OEOAOPHOSHITEXNH, that is, Oeo6%petos réxvn. (Lehrs, Rhein. Mus. 1843, vol. ii. p. 355; Jahn, in Gerhard's Archäol. Zeitung, vol. i. p. 302; R. Rochette, Lettre à M. Schorn, p. 416, 2d ed.) 5. A Theban statuary, mentioned by Diogenes Laërtius, in his list of persons of the name (ii. 104). Nothing more is known of him, nor of the three other painters whose names are found in the same list. 6. A painter mentioned by Polemon (Diog. l.c.). 7. An Athenian painter, mentioned by Menodotus. (Diog. l.c.) 8. An Ephesian painter, mentioned by Theophanes, in his work on painting. (Diog. l.c.) 9. A painter, whose name is contained in Pliny's list of those who were primis prorini (H. N. xxxv. 8. s. 40. § 40), and who may very probably be identical with one of the three mentioned by Diogenes. Pliny ascribed to him the following works: — Se inungenlem, which appears to mean an athlete anointing himself; the murder of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus by Orestes; the Trojan War, a composition on several panels, preserved at Rome in the portico of Philip ; Cassandra, also at Rome, in the temple of Concord (comp. Welcker, ad Philostr. Imag. p. 459); Leontium Epicuri cogitantem, which ought perhaps to be read like the similar passage a little above (10. s. 36. § 19) Leontionem pictorem ; and king Demetrius. This last work, if a portrait taken from life, would place the artist's date at, or a little before, B. c. 300. 10. A Samian painter, the disciple of Nicosthenes, mentioned by Pliny in his list of those painters who were non ignobiles quidem, in transcursu tamen dicendi. (H. N. xxxv. 1 1. s. 40. § 42.) [P. S.] THEODO'SIUS. This able general, from whom descended a line of Roman emperors, after having acquired a great military reputation, was sent A. D. 367 by Valentinian I. to drive away the Picts and Scots, who were ravaging Britain. Theodosius crossed the straits from Boulogne with his troops of Heruli, Batavians, Jovii, and Victores, and landed at Sandwich. On his road to London he defeated several hordes of the barbarian invaders ; and the citizens of London, who were

despairing of their safety, gladly received him

within their walls. After establishing order and confidence, he commenced his operations against the invaders, and in two campaigns cleared the province of its savage enemies, and repaired and strengthened the military positions. He drove the Caledonians to the northern part of the island, and formed a province or provincial division of Valentia, or Valentiniana, so named in honour of Valentinian. This tract composed the country between the wall of Severus and the rampart of Antoninus, which Theodosius recovered from the enemy. The history of these campaigns is recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus (xxvii. 8, xxviii. 3). Claudian leads us to infer that Theodosius also pursued the enemies of Rome on the stormy seas of the North ; and the Orkneys and Thule were stained with the blood of the Picts and the Saxons. (In Quart. Cons. Hanor. 31, &c.) Theodosius, on his return from Britain A. D. 370, was rewarded for his services with the rank of master-general of the cavalry, and being stationed on the Upper Danube, he defeated the Alemanni. In A. D. 372, Firmus, a Moor, the son of Nabal or Nubal, the most powerful of the Moorish princes who professed obedience to the sovereignty of Rome, revolted against the Roman authority; and the natives, who were exasperated at the tyranny of Count Romanus, the governor of Africa, joined the standard of Firmus. The Moorish chieftain plundered Caesarea, on the site of the modern Algiers, and made himself master of Mauritania and Numidia; and he is said to have assumed the title of king. Romanus being unable to oppose this active enemy, Theodosius was sent to Africa about the close of 372 or the beginning of 373. He sailed from the Rhone and landed at Igilgilis, before the Moorish chief heard of his coming. The first step of Theodosius was to arrest Romanus, whose maladministration was considered to be the cause of the revolt. The campaign against Firmus is recorded by Ammianus (xxix. 5) in a long, most confused, and corrupt chapter, out of which Gibbon has extracted a narrative. Firmus had the cunning and treachery of Jugurtha, and Theodosius displayed all the talents of Metellus, in his negotiations with the Moor, and in pursuit of him through a country which presented unexpected difficulties to regular troops. Firmus at last fled to Igmazen, king of the Isaffenses, a people of whose position Ammianus gives no indication. Igmazen was summoned to surrender Firmus, and after having felt the Roman power, and the consequences of refusal, he determined to give him up. Firmus escaped by a voluntary death. He first made himself drunk, and while his guards were asleep, hanged himself by a rope, which he fixed to a nail in the wall. The dead body was given up to Theodosius, who led his troops back to Sitifis. In the reign of Valens, A. D. 376, Theodosius was beheaded at Carthage. The cause of his execution is unknown. (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iv. c. 25; Tillemont, Histoire des Einpereurs, vol. v., where all the authorities are referred to.) [G. L.] THEODO'SIUS I., was the son of Theodosius, who restored Britain to the empire, and was beheaded at Carthage. The family of Theodosius was Spanish, and the future emperor was born in Spain, about A. D. 346, as some say at Italica, the birth-place of Trajan, though other authorities say that he was a native of Cauca in Gallicia. Ilis panegyrists derive his descent from Trajan, but this lofty lineage seems not to have been discovered until Theodosius was invested with the imperial purple. Theodosius received a good education; and he learned the art of war under his own father, whom he accompanied in his British campaigns. During his father's life-time he was raised to the rank of Duke (dux) of Moesia, where he defeated the Sarmatians (A. D. 374), and saved the province. On the death of his father (A. D. 376), he retired before court intrigues to his native country, where he cultivated his own lands, which probably lay near his native place between Segovia and Walladolid. At this time he was already married to a Spanish woman, Aelia Flacilla or Placilla, who is sometimes called Placidia, by whom he became the father of Arcadius, Honorius, and a daughter Pulcheria. From this peaceful retirement he was called in the thirty-third year of his age to receive the imperial purple. Valens, the colleague of Gratian, had recently lost his life at Hadrianople (A. D. 378), where the Roman army was completely broken by the Goths, and Gratian, feeling himself unable to sustain the burden of the empire, invited Theodosius to fill the place of Valens. Theodosius was declared Augustus by Gratian at Sirmium in Pannonia, on the 19th of January A. D. 379. He was intrusted with the administration of Thrace, Asia, and Egypt, which had been held by Valens, together with Dacia and Macedonia. The new emperor of the East had the conduct of the war against the Goths. The history of Ammianus Marcellinus ends with the death of Valens, and the authorities on which the historian of the reign of Theodosius has to rely, are greatly inferior to Ammianus. Their character is well expressed by Gibbon in a few words, and they are referred to by Tillemont (Histoire des Empereurs, v.), with his usual diligence and accuracy. The Romans were disheartened by the bloody defeat which they had sustained on the plains of Hadrianople, and the Goths were insolent in their victory. Theodosius was too prudent to lead dispirited troops against a successful enemy, and he formed his head quarters at Thessalonica, the capital of the diocese or division of Macedonia, from whence he could watch the movements of the Goths. In four years' campaigns (A. D. 379– 382), of which the particulars are imperfectly recorded, Theodosius revived the courage of the Roman soldiers, and while he seems to have prudently kept aloof from any general engagement, he took all opportunities of attacking his enemy in detail, and securing for his men the advantage of victory without the danger of defeat. The Goths, who were not held together by any well-constituted authority, and only by the ability of their commander Fritigern, became disorganised by his death, and were split up into numerous bands which went about seizing all that they wanted, and destroying that which they had not the prudence to reserve for another time. Jealousy arose between the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths; and Theodosius by his agents added the inducement of money to those who were discontented. Modares, a chieftain of rank, went over to the Romans, among whom he obtained the rank of mastergeneral, and he earned his reward by surprising aud massacring a body of Goths, and carrying off

a great number of captives with four thousand waggons (Zosimus, iv. 25). In A. D. 381, Athanaric was compelled to leave his forests, and to , cross the Danube ; and many of those who had formerly acknowledged Fritigern as their leader, and were weary of anarchy, now yielded obedience to this Gothic judge. Tillemont conjectures that Athanaric was expelled by Fritigern, Alatheus, and Saphrax ; but Gibbon's narrative seems to signify (for seems is all the meaning that in many cases can be imputed to it) that Fritigern was already dead. However Athanaric was too old and too prudent to carry on war with the new em-, peror: he listened to proposals of peace, and he even went to Constantinople to visit the emperor. Theodosius left the city to meet him, and received him with the greatest respect. The Goth was struck with amazement at the magnificence of Constantinople, and exclaimed that the Roman emperor was an “earthly God.” Athanaric fell ill at Constantinople, and died there. Theodosius gave him a splendid funeral, and erected a monument to his memory. This politic behaviour gained over the whole army of Athanaric; and the adhesion of so large a body of the Visigoths was followed by the submission of the rest. “The general or rather final capitulation of the Goths may be dated four years, one month, and twentyfive days after the defeat and death of the emperor Valens.” (Gibbon; comp. Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. v. p. 216.) The Ostrogoths, who had retired from the provinces of the Danube about four years ago, returned (A. D. 386) to the lower course of that river recruited by an army of Scythians, whom none of the inhabitants qn the banks of the Danube had ever seen before (Zosimus, iv. 38). Promotus, the general on the Thracian frontier, who knew that he was a match for the invaders, thought it prudent to draw them over to the south bank, without letting them wait for their opportunity in the winter; and by his spies he encouraged them. to hope that by secretly crossing the river, they might destroy the Roman army. The passage was made on a dark night in numerous canoes; but the Ostrogoths discovered their mistake when they found the south bank of the Danube guarded by a triple row of vessels through which they could not penetrate. At the same time the Roman galleys descending the river, swept before them the frail boats of the Ostrogoths, and Alatheus the king, and his bravest troops, were either drowned in the Danube or destroyed by the sword. Those who escaped sued for mercy to the Romans. It is uncertain whether Theodosius had personally any share in this victory. Zosimus says that after the victory Promotus sent for Theodosius, who was at no great distance. If the historian Zosimus unjustly deprives Theodosius of all merit, the poet Claudian made amends for it by flattery and exaggeration. A treaty was made with the Goths, the precise date and terms of which do not appear to be known; but they were settled within the limits of the empire, in tracts which were neglected or unoccupied. A colony of Visigoths was established in Thrace, and the remains of the Ostrogoths were planted in Phrygia and Lydia. They were not scattered among the population of Thrace or Asia Minor, but they obtained whole districts in which they still lived as a Gothic people, acknowledging the emperor as their sovereign, but probably retaining jurisdiction in all disputes among themselves. The chieftains still governed their followers, but there was no kingly dignity. Forty thousand Goths were kept in the service of the Eastern empire, under the title of Foederati, and were distinguished from the other troops by golden collars, better pay, and more licence. But though the Goths were thus converted from enemies into dubious allies, their settlement within the limits of the empire is justly viewed as the immediate cause of the downfal of the western division. In the civil war against Maximus (A. D. 388), some of those barbarians who were in his army listened to the proposals of Maximus, but their treachery being discovered, they fled into the marshes and forests of Macedonia, where they were pursued by Theodosius and cut to pieces. Maximus, a native of Spain, like Theodosius, was living in Britain in retirement or in exile. When this province revolted against Gratian, Maximus was chosen their leader, and he invaded Gaul with a powerful army. Gratian fled from Paris to Lyon, where he was overtaken by Andragathius, the commander of the cavalry of Maximus and put to death (A. D. 383). Maximus sent an envoy to Theodosius to explain and justify his conduct, to excuse the assassination of Gratian as having been accomplished without his orders, and to offer to the emperor of the East peace or war. A war with the fierce soldiers of the north would perhaps have been an unequal contest for Theodosius, whose dominions had recently suffered from the ravages of the Goths; and reluctantly, as we may conclude, he made a treaty with Maximus, whom he acknowledged emperor of the countries north of the Alps, but he secured to Valentinian the brother of Gratian, Italy, Africa, and western Illyricum. Thus the empire was divided into three parts; one of which, an empire won by usurpation, consisted of three rich countries, –Spain, Gaul, and Britain. Theodosius was the son of a Christian father, whose ancestors acknowledged the creed of Nicaea; and next to , Constantine he became the great glory of the Christian church. The merits of Gratian secured him from the orthodox Christians a rank equivalent to that of a saint; and after his death they found a worthy successor to his orthodoxy in the more vigorous emperor of the East. Theodosius was not baptized until the end of the first year of his reign, when he was admonished by a serious illness no longer to delay this ceremony. In A. d. 380, before he commenced operations against the Goths, he was baptized at Thessalonica by the archbishop Ascolius, in the orthodox faith of the Trinity; and his baptism was immediately followed by a solemn edict which fixed the faith of his subjects (Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. v. p. 198; Cod. Theod. 16. tit.1. s. 2), and branded with the name of heretics all who dissented from the imperial creed. The edict declared “according to the discipline of the apostles, and the doctrine of the gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, under an equal Majesty and a pious Trinity: we authorise the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians; and as we judge that all others are extravagant madmen, we brand them with the name of heretics, and declare that their conventicles shall no longer usurp the

respectable appellation of churches: besides the condemnation of divine justice, they must expect to suffer the severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict on them" (Gibbon, vol. v. c. 27). The faith which Theodosius so ardently embraced can hardly be supposed to be the result of a subtle inquiry into the metaphysical distinction between the sameness of substance or strict homoousian doctrine of Athanasius, and the similarity of substance in the Father and the Son, or the homoiousian doctrine in which some of the Arians sought refuge. A singular anecdote is told of Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium and afterwards a saint, who administered to Theodosius a practical lesson on the homoousian doctrine. It was in A. D. 383, just after Theodosius had raised his son Arcadius to the rank of Augustus, and the two emperors were seated on a throne to receive the homage of their subjects. Amphisbchius saluted Theodosius with reverence; his son he addressed with the familiarity of an equal. The emperor, indignant at this rudeness, ordered the bishop to be dragged from his presence, when he exclaimed, “Such is the treatment, 0 emperor, which the King of heaven has prepared for those impious men who affect to worship the Father, but who refuse to acknowledge the equal majesty of his divine Son.” Theodosius embraced the bishop, and never forgot the lesson. Arcadius was at this time about six years of age. Constantinople was the head-quarters of Arianism at the time of the accession of Theodosius; but his baptism in the orthodox faith and his edict gave the Catholics hopes of their supremacy being re-established. The emperor entered Constantinople with his army, and offered Damophilus the Arian prelate the alternative of subscribing to the creed of Nicaea or of resignation. Damophilus resigned his dignities, and retired into exile and poverty. Gregory of Nazianzus, who had laboured hard to restore the Catholic faith at Constantinople, was placed on the archiepiscopal throne which Damophilus had left vacant. Early in A. D. 381, Theodosius declared his intention to expel from all the churches both bishops and clergy who should refuse to profess the creed of Nicaea; and Sapor, his lieutenant, was armed with full powers to effect a change, which was accomplished without disturbance in all the Eastern empire. In the month of May (A. D. 381) a meeting of one hundred and fifty bishops who formed the first general council of Constantinople, and the second of the oecumenical general councils, was assembled to confirm and complete the creed that had been established by the council of Nicaea. The council had to explain some things which were ambiguous, and to dispose of the sect of the Macedonians, who, to the heresy of homoiousianism, added that of a belief that the Holy Ghost was created (Ktuatár)." The council declared the equal divinity of the Holy Ghost, the third person in the Trinity, which doctrine has prevailed in the Eastern church without interruption to the present time. After the death of Meletius, Gregory of Nazianzus presided in this council, and he has left a picture of the turbulent and disorderly proceedings which characterised its close. Theodosius, after establishing the supremacy of

* Gibbon seems to have misunderstood the nature of this heresy.

[ocr errors]

the Catholic faith by the council of Constantinople, proceeded to give it effect. In the course of fifteen years (A. D. 380—394) he published fifteen decrees against heretics, or those who were not of his own creed. The penalties were most particularly directed against those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity ; and they extended to ministers, assemblies, and the persons of heretics. It was about the time that the council was sitting that he deprived all persons who apostatised from Christianity to Paganism of the right which every Roman citizen had enjoyed at least from the time of the Twelve Tables, of disposing of his property by testament. In July (A. D. 381) he forbade the Arians and Eunomians to build any church ; and the law appears to mean that every place of worship which they already possessed should be taken from them. The various enactments against heretics are contained in the Code of Theodosius (16. tit. 5. s. 6—23; and the commentary of Gothofredus): the Eunomians, whose guilt consisted in denying any resemblance between the two substances, and who were accordingly Anomoeans, were also deprived of the power of testamentary disposition, and of taking by testamentary gift: they seem, in fact, to have been deprived of all the rights of citizens. The Manichaean heresy was punishable with death ; and the same penalty threatened the Audians or the Quartodecimans, who celebrated the festival of Easter on the wrong day. To the reign of Theodosius belonged the glory or the infamy of establishing Inquisitors of Faith, who seem to have been specially enjoined to look after the crime of the Quartodecimans. Though Theodosius thus established the principle of persecution, it is said that his rival Maximus was the first Christian prince “who shed the blood of his Christian subjects on account of their religious opinions.” It is fortunate for the same of Theodosius that there is not the same evidence of his giving effect to his own laws as there is for the severity of Maximus, under whose reign Priscillianus and others suffered death for heresy at Treves, A. D. 385. In A. p. 387 Maximus, not content with the possession of Spain, Gaul, and Britain, aspired to wrest Italy from the feeble hands of Valentinian II., who as an Arian was disliked by his Catholic subjects of Italy, and was opposed in his heretical projects by, the zeal of Ambrose, the Catholic archbishop of Milan. Maximus was in sight of Milan, before Valentinian and his mother Justina, who directed the administration, were aware of his hostile intentions; and he entered the city without resistance. Justina and her son embarked from one of the harbours in the north part of the Hadriatic and arrived in safety at Thessalonica. No resistonce was made to Maximus, except by the small town of Aemona, on the border of Italy. Theodosius visited Justina and her son at Thessalonica, and reminded Valentinian that his opposition to the faith of Nicaea was the cause of his own ruin and of the success of Maximus. Valentinian, it is said, acknowledged his errors, and returned to the true faith ; and the orthodox emperor promised to restore him to his throne: but perhaps he was influenced by other motives than gratitude to Gratian, and zeal in support of the Catholic faith. Theodosius was a widower; and Valentinian had a sister Galla, young and beautiful. Tillemont would fix the marriage of Theodosius

and Galla a year before the visit to Thessalonica at the close of A. D. 386; or he would make a compromise by admitting that Theodosius asked her in marriage in A. d. 386, but did not actually marry her till A. D. 387 (Histoire, &c. vol. v. p. 740): his desire was to protect the piety of Theodosius from the scandal of a sensual motive. But Zosimus (iv. 44) states that Justina, a woman of influence, who knew the amorous propensities of Theodosius, prevailed over the irresolution of the emperor by her daughter's tears and beauty. Theodosius saw her and was captivated: he asked her of her mother for his wife, but he only obtained her on condition of restoring Valentinian. Though Gibbon has preferred the authority of Zosimus, there is some evidence opposed to it; and

yet the narrative of Zosimus is so precise and cir

cumstantial that it is difficult not to give credit to it. There is nothing improbable in the fact of a passion for a woman determining a political question. After Theodosius had decided on his course, his operations were rapid and vigorous. He found Maximus encamped near Siscia, in Pannonia, a city situated on the great river Save. Maximus had not talent equal to his ambition, and Theodosius had a force which confounded the soldiers of the usurper by a mode of attack to which they were unaccustomed. His Huns, Alans, and his Goths were mounted archers, who annoyed the heavy troops of Gaul and Germany by the irregularity of a Parthian attack. Maximus, after sustaining one defeat on the banks of the Save, and probably a second, fled across the Alps, and shut himself up in Aquileia, just before Theodosius reached the gates. But in spite of his Moorish guard, he was given up to Theodosius by his own soldiers and the people of Aquileia, with his hands tied behind him. Theodosius, according to his panegyrist Pacatus, was not indisposed to pardon ; but his soldiers saved him the difficulty of a decision, by dragging Maximus from his presence and beheading him. Maximus had left his son Victor in Gaul, with the title of Caesar, or perhaps of Augustus. Arbogastes, the active general of Theodosius, seized the youth, and put him to death a short time after his father. Theodosius spent the winter at Milan, and in the following year (June 13th, 389) he entered Rome in triumph, accompanied by Valentinian and his own son Honorius. Two events in the life of Theodosius may be brought into juxtaposition as evidence of his uncertain character and his savage temper. In A. D. 387, the city of Antioch complained of increased taxation, the necessary consequence of the wars in which the emperor had been engaged ; and Antioch, as it had not suffered from an enemy whose ravages had been confined to Europe, was unwilling to bear its share of the expense of the Gothic campaigns. The complaints of the citizens were soon changed into active riot (February): the statues of the emperor, of his father, and of his wife Placilla, were thrown down; but these idle demonstrations were quickly suppressed by an armed force. The governor sent to the emperor at Constantinople an account of these riots, and the citizens of Antioch, in great alarm, despatched Flavian their bishop, and the senator Hilarius, to acknowledge their guilt and to pray for forgiveness. In March the judgment of the emperor was brought

« 前へ次へ »