[286-293 A.D.]

The entire nation was split up into three classes: a landed nobility which had usurped the government; a clergy who formed a caste and compelled the poor to contribute to their maintenance and comfort; and the townspeople and peasants who, as the two other classes managed to avoid public burdens, had to meet all the expenses of the administration unaided and were also exposed to the harshest despotism and exaction. Want and misery finally drove the peasants to despair, and under the name of Bagaudæ, or banditti, they began an insurrection which may be placed on a level with the most terrible peasant wars which find a place in history. They assembled and gathered round them all manner of slaves and rabble, and roamed about in great hordes, ravaging and plundering. Soon all the roads were unsafe, commerce ceased, and even the large towns were destroyed or pillaged by the enraged hordes. Maximian had to wage a regular war with the Bagaudæ, and cut down whole troops of them. In this manner he restored peace, but only for a short time; for the cause of the misery of the unfortunate peasants was not removed, and the insurrection and devastations of the Bagaudæ lasted until the fall of the Roman dominion in Gaul.

Maximian had to hasten the suppression of internal disturbances for he needed his army to fight the barbarians. At that time the Franks and Saxons, who lived on the North Sea, and had learned shipbuilding from the Romans, began their piratical expeditions into Gaul and Britain, whilst their predatory excursions continued on land. In order to meet this new evil, Maximian prepared a fleet for the guarding of the channel, and gave it into the hands of a capable seaman, the Netherlander Carausius. The latter made use of the command entrusted to him to make friends for himself in Britain by means of the booty seized from the barbarians, to excite the troops there to rebellion and set up himself as emperor. Maximian marched against him, failed in his enterprise, and had to concede to the usurper the title he had assumed, as well as the government of Britain (289). Carausius remained in undisturbed possession of the island, until one of his generals, Allectus, murdered him and seized the government (293).

THE FOURFOLD DIVISION OF POWER

The situation of the empire in the East was also very critical. Diocletian not only had to make war against the Persians but also to fight the people of the Danube; and as in Britain, a usurper also arose in Egypt, Achilleus by name. This state of affairs compelled the emperor Diocletian to alter the entire organisation of the empire (292). He consulted his colleague Maximian about this important step, but in taking it showed not the slightest regard for the Roman senate, which he never thought worthy of attention. In his new organisation, Diocletian endeavoured to further the prompt introduction of necessary measures and thereby to anticipate all disturbances and insurrections, and carried still further the division of the imperial power begun at the appointment of Maximian. But as he was not in the least inclined to lessen his own authority, he only appointed as his co-rulers men on whose respect and obedience he could rely.

The change which he undertook to introduce into the government of the empire was therefore entirely based on his personal relations with his co-rulers. For this reason alone it could not possibly have been of any duration, even if it had not stood in direct opposition to the prejudices of the Romans [which latter, indeed, now had but slight influence]. The newly

[292-297 A.D.] chosen co-rulers were the generals Galerius and Constantius Chlorus. They received the title of Cæsar, and were thus in outward rank both subordinate to the two augusti, Diocletian and Maximian. Constantius was assigned to Maximian and received the government of Spain, Gaul, and Britain, whilst Maximian took Italy and Africa under his immediate superintendence; Galerius was entrusted with the administration of Thrace, Illyricum, and Greece and appointed to be coadjutor to Diocletian, who retained the East for himself. Each of the four regents had therefore his appointed provinces to govern, and his appointed boundaries to defend; yet each could deal with the affairs of government and lead the troops in the provinces of the others; also the commands of either of the four emperors held good in all provinces, and generally all four regents were considered

as one.

Four courts, four imperial armies, and a fourfold military government were necessarily very oppressive for the empire. Unfortunately, in consequence of this new organisation, the number of officials was also considerably increased and the divisions of the provinces multiplied, so that not only the entire administration proceeded with much delay and difficulty, but for the first time its despotic character was much felt even in the smallest districts and towns. All this must have been the more oppressive, as Diocletian permanently introduced Eastern forms of government. Until his time the outward appearance of the emperor, his position with regard to the nation and the court, had only had a passing air of orientalism, but with Diocletian this character of the government was firmly established for all time to come. The ordering of the court and the official hierarchy were, so to speak, established by law, the relations between the classes from thenceforth formed, as it were, the soul of the state, and the head of the empire was outwardly separated from the nation by a great gulf. From Diocletian the white bandeau or diadem, borrowed from the East, became the distinctive sign of the ruler, whilst formerly the purple raiment had been the sole sign. Diocletian and his next successor, besides this, introduced the remaining oriental regal ornaments. [The emperor Aurelian had, indeed, set them the example here.]

Now came the gloomy period when honour and consideration, power and influence, were entirely dependent on the court, when the services rendered to the person of the emperor were considered before all other services, when all patriotism and all effort for the general good disappeared. As is the case in the East up to the present time, everything became the ruler's property, the court and the officials consumed all private wealth, and soon none could attain to distinctions and wealth but the servants of the court and the officials.

Out of the four regents, three were equally brave, but equally harsh and cruel; Constantius Chlorus alone was of a milder disposition, and distinguished by birth, education, and culture. The latter was now commissioned to reunite Britain with the empire. He did not find the task easy, and was only able to accomplish it after some years. Besides this, Constantius, as well as the three other emperors, had to fight against barbarians and insurgents. A war with Persia was most honourable for the Roman Empire; like nearly all Parthian wars since Nero's time, it was caused by the succession to the Armenian throne. Diocletian had placed a Roman protégé in Armenia as king. The latter banished the Persian king Narses I, and the result was a war (294), the conduct of which Diocletian and Galerius undertook together. The latter, by his carelessness, brought on himself a terrible defeat in the same region where Crassus had once been annihilated. He afterwards

[297-303 A.D.] obliterated the disgrace by a brilliant victory, and obliged the Persians to make a peace, by which they not only relinquished several provinces on the Tigris but for the first time had to renounce all claim to Mesopotamia. Diocletian secured the newly acquired lands of the eastern border by erecting considerable fortifications. He now stood at the height of his fortune.1 Meanwhile Maximian had subdued the warlike Quinquegentiani which had been spreading terror in Africa.

DIOCLETIAN PERSECUTES THE CHRISTIANS

Soon after the end of the Persian War, Diocletian ordered a persecution of the Christians (303), the harshness of which would be incomprehensible in such a sagacious ruler if we did not know, from other actions, how jealously he watched his authority. Every act of disobedience, every attempt at rebellion, he punished with inexorable severity and cruelty, often in a paroxysm of rage giving orders which had the most fatal results. For instance, in Egypt, after the defeat of the usurper Achilleus, he exterminated all the latter's adherents and destroyed entire towns, the inhabitants of which had shown themselves insubordinate. When a certain Eugenius had set himself up as emperor in Syria, he caused the inhabitants of Antioch to expiate this presumption by suffering revolting cruelties, although they had helped to suppress the insurrection and had killed the rebel.

Diocletian's persecution of the Christians at first only struck at the Christians in the army. Latterly, whenever they had to witness a heathen sacrifice they had fastened the sign of the cross to their helmets, so as to prevent the raising of the devil, which, according to their belief, took place at the inspection of the entrails of the victim; they thereby roused the anger of one of the high priests, and he incited the emperor against them. Nevertheless Diocletian did not yet determine on cruel measures, as he was wise and thoughtful enough to perceive that the new sect could not be rooted out, on account of its wide diffusion, and that to persecute it would occasion dangerous disturbances throughout the kingdom. On this account he would not have determined on a general persecution had not Galerius, who was passionately attached to the mystical fantasies of the Phrygian worship, drawn him into it by every sort of intrigue. Even then his orders were directed less against the persons of the Christians than against their religion and against the acknowledgment of their congregation as a body.

The Christians were to fill no public offices, and not to seek justice before the tribunals; their churches were to be closed or pulled down, crosses and pictures of Christ were not allowed. This ordinance was publicly posted up in Nicomedia, where Diocletian and Galerius were. A man of great distinction among the Christians tore it down in full daylight with loud mockery, and it was only then that Diocletian, who, as soon as he thought his imperial dignity touched, became terribly cruel, gave free scope to a cruel persecution of individuals. His rage was further increased by a fire in the imperial palace, which, as it seems not unjustly, was attributed to the Christians. The execution of the imperial orders was left to the soldiers and the populace, and a number of Christians suffered death. These extreme measures were restricted to the East, to Africa, and to the south of Europe.

[1 Diocletian's administrative system was efficient; but the multitude of officials and the expenses of the four imperial courts weighed heavily upon the people. The arrangement for the succession was also defective. Nevertheless Diocletian added strength to the empire and gave it a new lease of life.]