Alexandria silenced those of Athens; and the CHA P. ancient sects inrolled themselves under the ban- XIII. ners of the more fashionable teachers, who recommended their system by the novelty of their method, and the austerity of their manners. Several of these masters, Ammonius, Plotinus, Amelius, and Porphyry *, were men of profound thought, and intense application; but by mistaking the true object of philosophy, their labours contributed much less to improve, than to corrupt the human understanding. The knowledge that is suited to our situation and powers, the whole compass of moral, natural, and mathematical science, was neglected by the new Platonists; while they exhausted their strength in the verbal disputes of metaphysics, attempted to explore the secrets of the invisible world, and studied to reconcile Aristotle with Plato, on subjects, of which both these philosophers were as ignorant as the rest of mankind. Consuming their reason in these deep but unsubstantial meditations, their minds were exposed to illusions of fancy. They flattered themselves that they possessed the secret of disengaging the soul from its corporeal prison; claimed a familiar intercourse with dæmons and spirits; and by a very singular revolution, converted the study of philosophy into that of magic. The ancient sages had N 4 * Porphyry died about the time of Diocletian's abdication. The life of his master Plotinus, which he composed, will give us the most complete idea of the genius of the sect, and the manners of its professors. This very curious piece is inserted in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Græca, tom. iv. p. 88-148. CHA P. had derided the popular superstition; after disXIII. guising its extravagance by the thin pretence of allegory, the disciples of Plotinus and Porphyry became its most zealous defenders. As they agreed with the Christians in a few mysterious points of faith, they attacked the remainder of their theological system with all the fury of civil war. The new Platonists would scarcely deserve a place in the history of science, but in that of the church, the mention of them will very frequently occur. CHAP. CHAP. XIV. Troubles after the Abdication of Diocletian.Death of Constantius.—Elevation of Constantine and Maxentius.-Six Emperors at the same time.-Death of Maximian and Galerius.-Victories of Constantine over Maxentius and Licinius.-Re-union of the Empire under the Authority of Constantine. THE СНАР, XIV. Period of fusion. HE balance of power established by Diocletian subsisted no longer than while it was sustained by the firm and dexterous hand of the founder. It required such a fortunate mixture civil wars of different tempers and abilities, as could scarce- and conly be found or even expected a second time; A. D. 305, two emperors without jealousy, two Cæsars with--323. out ambition, and the same general interest invariably pursued by four independent princes. The abdication of Diocletian and Maximian was succeeded by eighteen years of discord and confusion. The empire was afflicted by five civil wars; and the remainder of the time was not so much a state of tranquillity as a suspension of arms between several hostile monarchs, who, viewing each other with an eye of fear and hatred, strove to increase their respective forces at the expence of their subjects. As soon as Diocletian and Maximian had re- Character signed the purple, their station, according to the and situarules of the new constitution, was filled by the Constan tion of trus. two CHA P. two Cæsars, Constantius and Galerius, who imXIV. mediately assumed the title of Augustus*. The honours of seniority and precedence were allowed to the former of those princes, and he continued under a new appellation, to administer his ancient department of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. The government of those ample provinces was sufficient to exercise his talents, and to satisfy his ambition. Clemency, temperance, and moderation, distinguished the amiable character of Constantius, and his fortunate subjects had frequently occasion to compare the virtues of their sovereign with the passions of Maximian, and even with the arts of Diocletian †. Instead of imitating their Eastern pride and magnificence, Constantius preserved the modesty of a Roman prince. He declared, with unaffected sincerity, that his most valued treasure was in the hearts of his people, and that, whenever the dignity of the throne, or the danger of the state, required any extraordinary supply, he could depend with confidence on their gratitude and liberality . The provin *M. de Montesquieu (Considerations sur la Grandeur et la Decadence des Romains, c. 17.) supposes, on the authority of Orosius and Eusebius, that, on this occasion, the empire, for the first time, was really divided into two parts. It is difficult, however, to discover in what respect the plan of Galerius differed from that of Diocletian. Hic non modo amabilis, sed etiam venerabilis Gallis fuit ; præcipue quòd Diocletiani suspectam prudentiam, ex Maximiani sanguinariam violentiam imperio ejus evaserant. Eutrop. Bre viar. x. I. Divitiis Provincialium (mel. provinciarum) ac privatorum studens, fisci commoda non admodum affectans; ducensque melius publicas provincials of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, sensible c H a p. of his worth, and of their own happiness, reflect- XIV. ed with anxiety on the declining health of the emperor Constantius, and the tender age of his numerous family, the issue of his second marriage with the daughter of Maximian. The stern temper of Galerius was cast in a of Galevery different mould; and while he commanded rius. the esteem of his subjects, he seldom condescended to solicit their affections. His fame in arms, and above all, the success of the Persian war, had elated his haughty mind, which was naturally impatient of a superior, or even of an equal. If it were possible to rely on the partial testimony of an injudicious writer, we might ascribe the abdication of Diocletian to the menaces of Galerius, and relate the particulars of a private conversation between the two princes, in which the former discovered as much pusillanimity as the latter displayed ingratitude and arrogance*. But these obscure anecdotes are sufficiently refuted by an impartial view of the character and conduct of Diocletian. Whatever might otherwise have been his intentions, if he had apprehended any danger publicas opes a privatis haberi, quam intra unum claustrum reservari. Id. ibid. He carried this maxim so far, that whenhe gave an entertainment, he was obliged to borrow a service of plate. ever * Lactantius de Mort. Persecutor, c. 18. Were the parti culars of this conference more consistent with truth and decency, we might still ask, how they came to the knowledge of an obscure rhetorician? But there are many historians who put us in mind of the admirable saying of the great Condè to cardinal de Retz; "Ces coquins nous font parler et agir, comme ils auroient fait eux-memes à notre place." 66 |