Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

probably established definitely the system of four prefecture* which Zosimus attributed to the express enactment of Constantino. Up to this time three pr. prefects seem to have been the rule, four an exception. But now, instead of iddiiig Eastern Illyricum to the large Prefecture of the East, Theodosius instituted % new Prefecture.

16. THE SARMATIANS-(P. 216)

It is often asserted that "Sarmatian " was a generio name for Slavonic peoples. It is certain that a great many Slavonic tribes must have been often described under the name, but it is extremely doubtful whether any of the chief Sarmatian peopleB—the Bastarnae, the Roxolani (? Box-alani) or Jazyges—were Slavonic. I believe that Safarik, in taking up a negative position on this question, was) right (Slawische Alterthumer, ed. Wuttke, i. 333 >qq.). But I cannot think that he has quite made out the Slavonic race of the Carpi (ib. £13-4), though this is accepted by Jireoek (Gesch. der Bulgaren, p. 77); he has a more plausible ease, perhaps, for the Kostoboks. On the other hand it is extremely likely, though it cannot be absolutely proved, that in the great settlements of non-German peoples, made in the third and fourth centuries in the Hlyrian peninsula by the Roman Emperors, some Slavonic tribes were included. This is an idea which -was developed by Driuov in his rare book on the Slavic colonization of the Balkan lands, and has been accepted by Jirecck. There is much probability in the view that Slavonic settlers were among the 300,000 Sarmatae, to whom Constantine assigned abodes in 334 A.d. It is an hypothesis such as, in some form, is needed to account for the appearance of Slavonic names before the beginning of the sixth century in the Illy rian provinces.

Safarik tried to show that the Alani, Roxolani, Bastarnae, Jazyges, 4c, were of Iranian race, allied to the Persians and Modes,—like the Scythians of Herodotus.

17. BATTLE OF SINGARA-(P. 227)

I have shown in the Byzantinischc Zeitsohrift (vol. 5) that we should accept Julian's notice as to the date of this battle (and place it in A.d. 344), instead of following Jerome's date (adopted by Idatius), A.d. 348. One might be tempted to guess that there were two battles at Singara, and that the nocturna pugna was placed in the wrong year by an inadvertence of Jerome; this might be considered in oonnexion with Forster's reconstruction of the corrupt passage of Festus, Brov. ch. 27: Verum pugnis Sisaruena, Singarena, et iterum Singarena praesente Gonstantio ao Sicgarena, &c. The Kvicrofuxio is described below as: nocturna Elliensi prope Singaram pugna. Elliensi is mysterious.

The events of the Persian wars of Constautius and Julian are briefly narrated by General F. R. Chesney in his Expedition for the Survey of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, voL 2, p. 430 $gq. (quarto ed.).

18. SOURCES AND CHRONOLOGY OF ARMENIAN HISTORY
UNDER TRDAT AND HIS SUCCESSORS-(C. XIX.)

Some works bearing on Armenia have been mentioned in connexion with general oriental history in vol. i. Appendix 13. In addition to these must now be mentioned (besides St. Martin's Memoires sur l'Armenie and the notes to his edition of Lebeau's Bas-Empire): Ter Mikelian, Die armenische Kircho in ihren Beziehungen zur byzantinischen (saec 4-13), 1892; Chalatianz, Zenob of Glak (in modern Armenian; known to me through Stackelberg's summary in Byz. Zeitschrift, 4, 368-70), 1893; and above all Gelzer's highly important essay. Die Anfange der armenischen Kirche (in the Ber. der kon. sachs. Gesellschaft der Wiss.), 1895.

1. Sources, (a) Faustus. For Armenian history in the fourth century after death of Trdat (Tiridates), A.d. 317, our only trustworthy source is Faustus, who wrote his History of Armenia in Greek (before the Armenian alphabet was introduced; the Greek original is quoted by Procopius, Ferg. i. 5), probably in first years of King Warn Sapuh, who reigned from 395 to 416 (Gelzer, p. 116). The work in marked by enthusiasm for the clergy, and a certain prejudice against the policy of those who were loyal to the kings, also by chronological errors. "Faustus is completely a national Armenian ; therein lies his strength and his weakness" (to. 117). He consulted official documents in the royal archives (ib ) and made use of old songs. It is announced that H. Gelzer and L. Babajan will issue a translation of Faustus, and Gelzer's name is a guarantee that it will be trustworthy. (6) Agathangelos, who lived about half a century later, contains a work which is our only good source for the reign of Trdat. His work (preserved both in Armenian and in a Greek translation, which mutually check each other) has been dissected by A. von Gutschmid (Kleine Schriften, 3, 395, sqq.). It contains an earlier Life of St. Gregory (perhaps originally composed in Syriac, Gelzer, p. 114) and an Apocalypse of Gregory written between 452 and 456 by a priest of Valarsapat. The latter is valuable as throwing indirect light on the church hiBtory of the fifth century, but worthless for the history of Trdat. (c) The conclusion of Carriere (mentioned in vol. i. App. 13) that the date of Moses of Ohorene is very late (beginning of eighth century) is accepted by Chalatianz and Gelzer, and seems to be established, (rf) The worthlessness of the History of Taron by Zenob of Glak has been shown by the investigation of Chalatianz (op. ciL). Hitherto supposed to have been written in Syriac in the fourth century and translated into Armenian in the seventh, it is now shown to be an apocryphal work of an impostor of the eighth or ninth century. There is a French translation by Langlois, F. H. G. vol. v.

2. Chronology. The student who consults the translation of Langlois (Agathangelos and Faustus ; op. cit.) must be warned that the chronological indications in the notes are set down at random and contradict one another. And, if he has read the note in Smith's edition of the Decline and Fall, vol. ii. p. 369, which is taken from St. Martin's edition of Lebeau, and compares it with the chronological list of kings in the same scholar's Memoires, he will find that the two accounts diverge. (In the Memoires, p. 412-3, the dates are: death of Trdat, 314; interregnum ; accession of Chosroes II., 316; Tiran II., 325; Arsaces, 341; Pop, 370. Aocording to the old view, which appears, though not consistently, in Langlois' collection, and seems to be assumed in Ter Mikelian's op. cit., Trdat reigned from 286 to 342.) The following reconstruction seems most probable:—

Death of Chosrov I., accession of Trdat, - 281 A.d.

Aooession of Chosrov II., 317 ■■

Tiran, *"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Pap, 367 „

to 374 „

There are not sufficient data for determining the dates of the Catholicij the statements of Moses will not bear criticism, seo Gelzer, p. 121 tqq. The only certainties we have are that Aria takes, son and successor of Gregory, attended the Council of Xicaja, 325; and that Nerscs was poisoned by King Pap before 374.

3. Trdat and Constantino (Gelzer, 105 sqq. )■ Officially the Armenian longs adopted the style '' Arsaces" (just as the Severian Emperors adopted Antoninus), and he appears in Cod. Theod. xi. i. 1 (Constantine and Licinius A. D. 315) as Arsacis ret/in Armenia. In the previous year, he and Gregory visited Constantine in Illyricum ("the land of the Dalmatians" in the Armenian Agathangelos) in "the royal city of the Romans," probably Serdica. There the alliance mentioned by Faustus (iii. 21; Langlois, p. 232) was concluded, which endured till 363. The authenticity of the account of Agathangelos (doubted by Gutschmid) has been successfully vindicated by Gelzer.

On Trdat's death the Romans intervened to put Chosrov on the throne, and Tiran likewise owed his elevation to Constantine. In 337 he was betrayed to the Persians by his chamberlain, seized by the governor of Atropatene, and blinded. The armed intervention of Constantine and Constantius led to the elevation of

Arsak, the son of Tiran, who declined to resume the sovereignty. Arsak first married Olympian, a Greek lady connected with the Constantinian house; and afterwards a daughter of the Persian king. His policy was to hold the balance between Rome and Persia throughout the wars of Constantiua and Julian.

4. In Eusebius, H. E. vi. 46, 2, we find this notice: «■> TMit «»i« 'Apiuviav MiravTDf wtpi neTavoias ca-itrreAAei Sty iwtaicowrvt Utfioviawjt, Gelzer (p. 171 *9<f •} points out that this bishopric of MeruzaneB cannot have been in the Roman provinces called Armenia, and therefore was in Great Armenia; and he seeks to show that it may have been in the south-eastern corner, the district of Vaspurakan. The words in Eusebius are from a letter of Dionysios of Alexandria (248265), and the inference seems to be that Christianity was introduced into an outlying district of Armenia in the fifties of the third century.1 But the formal conversion of Armenia began about 280 under the auspices of King Trdat, through the labours of Gregory the Illuminator. The destruction of the temples of the gods, in spite of strong opposition from the priests, was one of the first parts of the change, and preceded Gregory's journey to Csesarea (between 285 and 290 according to Gelzer) to be consecrated by Leontius. The Armenian Church was dependent on the see of Cresarea, and under Greek influence for nearly a century. After the death of the Patriarch Nerses, it was severed and made autocephalous by King Pap (circa A.d. 373-4. Cp. Ter Mikelian, p. 31). During the fourth century the seat of the Catholicus and the spiritual centre of Armenia, was Astisat is the southern district of Taron, as has been well brought out by Gelzer. It was afterwards removed to Valarsapat, when no longer dependent on Csesarea. and then the priests of Valarsapat invented stories to prove the antiquity of their seat and the original independence of the Armenian Church. In the fourth century, the chief feature of the domestic history of Armenia is the struggle between the monarch and the Catholicus, between the spirit of nationality and the subjection to foreign influences. It culminated in the reign of Pap, who solved the question by poison.

In regard to the conversion of Armenia, its progress was partly determined by the feudal condition of the country (Gelzer, 132). The nobles were easily won over by the personal influence of the king; the priests were naturally the most obstinate opponents. The new faith seems to have been slow in taking root among the people, and it is noteworthy that women, even in high rank, clung tenaciously to the old religion (like the wife of Chosrov, Faustus, iii. 3, and the mother of Pap, ib. 44).

I have read with interest the remarkable study of N. Man, O nachalnoi istorii Armenii Anonima, in Viz. Vremennik, i. 263 tqq. (1894). He discusses the character of the brief History of Armenia, which is prefixed to Sebeos' History of the Emperor Heraclius (Russ. tr. by Patkanian, 1862); and its relation to Moses of Chorene. This document (which appears in the collection of Langlois under the title Pseudo-Agathange) he regards as the earliest extant Armenian history of early Armenia; it was worked up by a later (also anonymous) writer, of whose composition a large extract has been preserved in Moses of Chorene, bk. i. c. 8 (in Langlois, under the title. Mar Apas Catina). Moses also used the original work. Marr points out a number of resemblances between Faustus and the first Anonymous, and hazards the conjecture (295 tqq.) that this history of Armenia may be part of the first two books of Faustus, whose work, as we have it, begins with book iii.

19. CONSTANTINE AND CHRISTIANITY—(C. XX.)

The attitude of Constantino to the Christian religion has been the theme of many discussions, and historians are still far from having reached a general

1 My friend Mr. F. C. Conybeare is inclined to believe that Gregory the Illuminator used an Armenian version of New Testament Scriptures made from a pre-Peshlto Syriac text, long before the time of Mesrop. This version may have been due to the Church in Vaspurakan. Apparently the non-existence of Mesrop's alphabet did not prevent literary

composition in Armenian.

agreement. Burokhardt, in his attractive monograph, developed the view that Conatantine was "ganz wesentlich unreligios," constitutionally indifferent to religion, because be was a " genialer Mensch," dominated by ambition; and that in his later years he exhibited personal inclinations rather towards paganism than towards Christianity. H. Richter has some remarkable pages on Constantino's systemof parity between the two religions; and Brieger, in an excellent article in his ZeiUchriftf. Kirchcngesch. (iv., 1881, p. 163 »??.), agrees with Gibbon that. Constantino s Christianity was due entirely to political considerations. Many of the data admit of different interpretations. Those who ascribe to him a policy of parity, or the idea of a state religion which might combine elements common to enlightened paganism and Christianity (so Schiller), appeal to the fact that the $aeerdotales and flaminet in Africa were granted privileges; but it is replied that they had ceased to carry on the ritual and simply, as a matter of equity, had the old rights secured to them, while they no longer performed the old duties. If the "cult" of Tyohe at Constantinople is alleged, it is urged that she had no teroplescrvioe. The temples of Constantinople are explained away; and the "aedes Flaviae nostrae gentis " of the remarkable inscription of Hispellum (date between 336 and 337 ; Orelli, 6580) is asserted not to have been intended for the worship of the Emperors, but simply as a fine hall for public spectacles.1 (See V. Schultee, in Brieger s ZtUtchrift, vii. 352 sqq.) The indulgence to paganism was simply the toleration of a statesman who could not discreetly go too fast in the accomplishment of such a great reformation. And certainly on the hypothesis that Conatantine had before his eyes, as the thing to be achieved, the ultimate establishment of Christianity as the exclusive state religion, his attitude to paganism would be, in general, the attitude we should expect from a really great statesman. Ranke's remark hits the point (Weltgesch. iii. 1, 532): "Er konnte unmoglich zugeben dass an die Stelle der ITnordnungen der Yerfolgung die vielleioht noch grbsseren einer gewaltsamen Reaction traten ".

It seems to me that Seeck, in holding that Constantine bad really broken with the old religion and was frankly a Christian, is nearer the mark than Gibbon or Sohiller. From the evidence which we have, I believe that Constantine adopted the Christian religion and intended that Christianity should be the State religion. As to a great many details, there may be uncertainty in regard to the facts themselves or their interpretation, but I would invite attention to the following general considerations.

(1) The theory that the motives of Constantino's Christian policy were purely political, and that he was religiously indifferent, seems perilously like an anachronism,—ascribing to him modern ideas. There is no reason to suppose that he was above the superstitiousness of his age. (2) The theory that he was a Deist, that he desired to put Paganism and Christianity on an equality, emphasising some common features, and that circumstances led him to incline the balance towards Christianity in his later years, is not the view naturally suggested by the (a) Christian education he gave his children, and (b) the hostility of the pagan Emperor Julian to his memory. (3) The fact that he countenanced Paganism and did not completely abolish the customs of the old State religion proves nothing; the remark of Ranke quoted above is a sufficient answer. In fact, those who have dealt with the question have sometimes failed to distinguish between two different things. It is one thing to say that Constantino's motives for establishing Christianity were purely secular. It is quite another to say that he was guided by secular considerations in the methods which he adopted to establish Christianity. The second thesis is true—Constantine would have been a bad statesman if he had not been so guided;—but its truth is quite consistent with the falsity of the first.

Sohiller (iii. 301 sqq.) has conveniently summarized the chief facts, and his results may be arranged as follows:—

(1) Coins. In Constantinu's western mints coins appeared with Man, with

1 Compare the words: ne aedis nostro nomini dedicata cuiusquam contagiosae supcraiitionia {raudibua pollualur, inaiated on by Seeck, Untergaog der antiken Wait, p. 439.

[ocr errors]

<tenius pop. Rom., and with AW, but certainly not in the two first cases, perhaps not in the last case, after 315 A.r.. Further, Constantinian coins with Juppiter were not struck in the west, but in the mints of Licinius. Thus we may say that between 315 and 323 pagan emblems were disappearing from Constantine s coinage, and indifferent legends took their place, such as Beata tmnquillitas.

We also find coins with js, as a sign of the mint; and at the end of Constantine's reign a series of copper coins was issued in which two soldiers were represented on the reverse holding the labarum, that is a flag with the monogram J?.

We see then two stages in Constantino's policy. At first he removes from his coins symbols which might offend bis Christian soldiers and subjects whom he wished to propitiate (this is Schiller's interpretation); and finally he allows to appear on his money symbols which did not indeed commit him to Christianity, but was susceptible of a Christian meaning.

(8) Lnws. After the great Edict of Milan, 318-3 A.d. (which, according to Seeck, was never issued), the following measures were taken by Constantine to put Christianity on a level with the old religion. (1) 313 A.m., the Catholic clergy were freed from all state burdens. (8) 313 (or 315), the Church was freed from annona and tribulum. (3) 316 (381), Manumissions in the Church were made valid. (4) 319, (1) was extended to the whole empire. (5) 380, exception to the laws against celibacy made in favour of the clergy, allowing them to inherit. (6) 381, wills in favour of the Catholic Church permitted. (7) 383, forcing of Christians to take part in pagan celebrations forbidden. On the other hand, a law of 381 (Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 1) forbids private consultation of haruspiccs, but allows it in public. [Cp. further Seuffert, Constantins Gesetze und das Christenthum, 1891. J

(3) Eusebius describes in his Ecclesiastical History (bk. x. 1 sqq.) a number of acts of Constantine after his victory over Maxentius, which attest not only toleration but decided favour towards the Christians. He entertains Christian priests, heaps presents on the Church, takes an interest in ecclesiastical questions. There is no reason to doubt these statements ; but Schiller urges us to remember (1) that Eusebius does not mention what favour Constantine bestowed on the I ingans, and (8) that, when the final struggle with Licinius came and that Emperor resorted to persecution, policy clearly dictated to Constantine the expediency of speoially favouring Christianity. In general, according to Schiller, from 313 to 383 Constantine not only maintained impartial toleration, but bestowed positive benefits on both the old and the new religion. The account of Eusebius is a misrepresentation through omission of the other side.

One or two points may be added. Eusebius states that after the victory over Maxentius Constantine erected a statue of himself with a cross in his right hand at Rome. This statement occurs in Hist. E. ix. c. 10, 11 ; Paneg. ix. 18 ; Vit. C. i. 40. Is this to be accepted as a fact? A statement in H. E. is more trustworthy than any statement in the Vit. C.; and Brieger thought that in this case the passage in H. E. is an interpolation from that in the Vit. C. (Ztach. f. Kirchengesch, 1880, p. 45). But Schultze (ib. vii. 1885, 343 sqq.) has shown that Eusebius mentioned the statue in question, in bis speech at Tyre in 314 A.d. . from H. E. x. 4, 16. This adds considerable weight to the evidence.

In regard to the monogram £, Rapp in his paper. Das Labarum und del Sonnenkultus (Jabrb. des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlandc, 1866, p. 116 .177-), showed that it appears on Gteco-Bactrian coins of 2nd and 1st centuries B.c. It appears still earlier on Tarentine coins of the first half of the 3rd century. It is not clear that Constantine used it as an ambiguous symbol; nor yet is there a well-attested instance of its use as a Christian symbol before A.d. 383 (cp. Brieger in his Ztschr. iv. 1881, p. 801).

Several examples of the Labarum as described by Eusebius are preserved; I may refer especially to one on a Roman sarcophagus in the Lateran Museum.

For " Christian emblems on thecoinsof Constantine the Great, his family and bis successors" see Madden in the Numismatic Chroniole, 1877-8.

« ForrigeFortsett »