P. 327-M. Guizot states, that the acts of Tarachus and his companion contain nothing that appears dictated by violent feelings (sentiment outré). Nothing can be more painful than the constant attempt of Gibbon, throughout this discussion, to find some flaw in the virtue and heroism of the martyrs, some extenuation for the cruelty of the persecutors. But truth must not be sacrificed even to well-grounded moral indignation. Though the language of these martyrs is in great part that of calm defiance, of noble firmness, yet there are many expressions which betray "resentment and contempt." "Children of Satan, worship pers of devils," is their common appellation of the heathen. One of them calls the judge avaidèorare; another, npiwv aval déorαTE Túρavve: one curses, and declares that he will curse the emperors, vbρioa, kaì ὑβρίσω λοιμοὺς ὄντας καὶ ἀιμοπότας, as pestilential and bloodthirsty tyrants, whom God will soon visit in his wrath. On the other hand, though at first they speak the milder language of persuasion, the cold barbarity of the judges and officers might have called forth one sentence of abhorrence from Gibbon. On the first unsatisfactory answer, "Break his jaw" is the order of the judge. They direct and witness the most excruciating tortures; the people, as M. Guizot observes, were so much revolted by the cruelty of Maximus, that, when the martyrs appeared in the amphitheatre, fear seized on all hearts, and general murmurs against the unjust judge ran through the assembly. It is singular, at least, that Gibbon should have quoted "as probably authentic," acts so much embellished with miracle as these ⚫of Tarachus are, particularly towards the end.-M.

P. 327.-† Scarcely were the authorities informed of this, than the president of the province, a man, says Eusebius, harsh and cruel, banished the confessors, some to Cyprus, others to different parts of Palestine, and ordered them to be tormented by being set to the most painful labours. Four of them, whom he required to abjure their faith, and refused, were burned alive. Euseb., de Mart. Palest., c. xiii.-G. Two of these were bishops; a fifth, Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, was the last martyr; another, named John, was blinded, but used to officiate, and recite from memory long passages of the sacred writings.-M.

P. 327.- Perhaps there never was an instance of an author committing so delib. erately the fault which he reprobates so strongly in others. What is the dexterous management of the more inartificial historians of Christianity, in exaggerating the numbers of the martyrs, compared to the

unfair address with which Gibbon here quietly dismisses from the account all the horrible and excruciating tortures which fell short of death? The reader may refer to the xiith chapter (book viii.) of Eusebius for the description and for the scenes of these tortures.-M.

P. 327.-◊ This calculation is made from the martyrs of whom Eusebius speaks by name; but he recognises a much greater number. Thus the ninth and tenth chapters of his work are entitled, "of Antoninus, Zebinus, Germanus, and other martyrs; of Peter the monk, of Asclepius the Marcionite, and other martyrs." [Are these vague contents of chapters very good authority?

M.] Speaking of those who suffered under Diocletian, he says, "I will only relate the death of one of these, from which the reader may divine what befell the rest." Hist. Eccl., viii., 6. [This relates only to the martyrs in the royal household.-M.] Dodwell had made, before Gibbon, this calculation and these objections; but Ruinart (Act. Mart. Pref., p. 27, et seq) has answered him in a peremptory manner: Nobis constat Eusebium in historià infinitos passim martyres admisisse, quamvis reverà paucorum nomina recensuerit. Nec alium Eusebii interpretem quam ipsummet Eusebium proferimus, qui (l. iii., c. 33), ait sub Trajano plurimos ex fidelibus martyrii certamen subiisse (1. v., init.) sub Antonino et Vero innumerabiles prope martyres per universum orbem enituisse affirmat (1. vi., c. 1). Severum persecutionem concitâsse refert, in qua per omnes ubique locorum Ecclesais, ab athletis pro pietate certantibus, illustria confecta fuerunt martyria. Sic de Decii, sic de Valeriani, persecutionibus loquitur, quæ an Dodwelli faveant conjectionibus judicet æquus lector. Even in the persecutions which Gibbon has represented as much more mild than that of Diocletian, the number of martyrs appears much greater than that to which he limits the martyrs of the latter; and this number is attested by incontestable monuments. I will quote but one example. We find among the letters of St. Cyprian one from Lucianus to Celerinus, written from the depth of a prison, in which Lucianus names seventeen of his brethren dead, some in the quarries, some in the midst of tortures, some of starvation in prison. Jussi sumus (he proceeds) secundum præceptum imperatoris, fame et siti necari, et reclusi sumus in duabus cellis, ita ut nos afficerent fame et siti et ignis vapore.-G.

P. 327. Those who will take the trouble to consult the text will see that if the word úñoμɛivavтaç could be taken for the expectation of punishment, the passage

resembles our court almanacs (Red Books), with this single difference, that our almanacs name the persons in office, the Notitia only the offices. It is of the time of the Emperor Theodosius II., that is to say, of the fifth century, when the empire was divided into the Eastern and Western. It is probable that it was not made for the first time, and that descriptions of the same kind existed before.-G.

P. 340.- Constantin, qui remplaça le grand Patriciat par une noblesse titrée, et qui changea avec d'autres institutions la nature de la société Latine, est le véritable fondateur de la royauté moderne, dans ce qu'elle conserva de Romain. Chateaubriand, Etud. Histor. Preface, i. 151. Manso (Leben Constantins des Grossen), p. 153, &c., has given a lucid view of the dignities and duties of the officers in the imperial court.-M.

P. 357.-* It does not appear that the establishment of the indiction is to be attributed to Constantine: it existed before he had been created Augustus at Rome, and the remission granted by him to the city of Autun is the proof. He would not have ventured while only Cæsar, and under the necessity of courting popular favour, to establish such an odious impost. Aurelius Victor and Lactantius agree in designating Diocletian as the author of this despotic institution. Aur. Vict., de Cæs., c. 39. Lactant., de Mort. Pers., c. 7.-Ġ,

P. 358. The Decurions were charged with assessing, according to the census of property prepared by the tabularii, the payment due from each proprietor. This odious office was authoritatively imposed on the richest citizens of each town; they had no salary, and all their compensation was to be exempt from certain corporeal punishments in case they should have incurred them. The Decurionate was the ruin of all the rich. Hence they tried every way of avoiding this dangerous honour: they concealed themselves, they entered into military service; but their efforts were unavailing; they were seized, they were compelled to become Decurions, and the dread inspired by this title was termed Impiety. -G.

The Decurions were mutually responsible; they were obliged to undertake for pieces of ground abandoned by their owners on account of the pressure of the taxes, and, finally, to make up all deficiencies. Savigny, Geschichte des Röm. Rechts, i., 25.-M.

P. 358. The proprietors were not charged with the expense of this transport: in the provinces situated on the seashore or near the great rivers, there were companies

of boatmen and of masters of vessels who had this commission, and furnished the means of transport at their own expense. In return, they were themselves exempt, altogether, or in part, from the indiction and other imposts. They had certain privileges; particular regulations determined their rights and obligations. (Cod. Theod., 1. xiii., tit. v., ix.) The transports by land were made in the same manner, by the in tervention of a privileged company called Bastaga; the members were called Bastagarii. Cod. Theod., 1. viii., tit. v.-G.

P. 359. See likewise a Dissertation of M. Letronne, "Considerations Générales sur l'Evaluation des Monnaies Grecques et Romaines." Paris, 1817.

P. 360. Two masterly dissertations of M. Savigny, in the Mem. of the Berlin Academy (1822 and 1823), have thrown new light on the taxation system of the Empire. Gibbon, according to M. Savigny, is mistaken in supposing that there was but one kind of capitation tax; there was a land tax, and a capitation tax strictly so called. The land tax was, in its operation, a proprietor's or landlord's tax. But, besides this, there was a direct capitation tax on all who were not possessed of landed property. This tax dates from the time of the Roman conquests; its amount is not clearly known. Gradual exemptions released different persons and classes from this tax. One edict exempts painters. In Syria, all under twelve or fourteen, or above sixty-five, were exempted; at a later period, all under twenty, and all unmarried females; still later, all under twenty-five, widows and nuns, soldiers, veterani and clerici-whole dioceses, that of Thrace and Illyricum. Under Galerius and Licinius the plebs urbana became exempt; though this, perhaps, was only an ordmance for the East. By degrees, however, the exemption was extended to all the inhabitants of towns; and as it was strictly capitatio plebeia, from which all possessors were exempted, it fell at length altogether on the coloni and agricultural slaves. These were registered in the same cataster (capitastrum) with the land tax. It was paid by the proprietor, who raised it again from his coloni and labourers.-M.

P. 360. On no subject has so much valuable information been collected since the time of Gibbon, as the statistics of the different countries of Europe; but much is still wanting as to our own.-M.

P. 361. In this passage of Eumenius, Savigny supposes the original number to. have been 32,000; 7000 being discharged, there remained 25,000 liable to the tribute. See Mem. quoted above.-M.

and then dislocated by a string passed through them. Eastern authors are agreed with respect to the origin of this title. Malcolm, i., 84. Gibbon took his derivation from D'Herbelot, who gives both, the latter on the authority of the Leb. Tarikh.-M.

P. 376.- Constantine had endeavoured to allay the fury of the persecutions, which, at the instigation of the Magi and the Jews, Sapor, had commenced against the Christians. Euseb., Vit. Hist. Theod., i., 25. Sozom., ii., c. 8, 15.-M.

P. 376. Tiridates had sustained a war against Maximin, caused by the hatred of the latter against Christianity. Armenia was the first nation which embraced Christianity. About the year 276 it was the religion of the king, the nobles, and the people of Armenia. From St. Martin, Supplement to Le Beau, vol. i., p. 78. Compare Preface to History of Vartan, by Professor Neumann, p. ix.-M.

P. 376.- Chosroes was restored probably by Licinius, between 314 and 319. There was an Antiochus who was præfectus vigilum at Rome, as appears from the Theodosian Code (1. iii., de inf. his quæ sub tyr.), in 326, and from a fragment of the same work, published by M. Amédée Peyron, in 319. He may before this have been sent into Armenia. St. M., p. 407. [Is it not more probable that Antiochus was an officer in the service of the Cæsar who ruled in the East-M.] Chosroes was succeeded in the year 322 by his son Diran. Diran was a weak prince, and in the sixteenth year of his reign, A.D. 337, was betrayed into the power of the Persians by the treachery of his chamberlain and the Persian governor of Atropatene or Aderbidjan. He was blinded; his wife and his son Arsaces shared his captivity, but the princes and nobles of Armenia claimed the protection of Rome; and this was the cause of Constantine's declaration of war against the Persians. The king of Persia attempted to make himself master of Armenia, but the brave resistance of the people, the advance of Constantius, and a defeat which his army suffered at Oskha in Armenia, and the failure before Nisibis, forced Shahpour to submit to terms of peace. Varaz-Shahpour, the perfidious governor of Atropatene, was flayed alive; Diran and his son were released from captivity; Diran refused to ascend the throne, and retired to an obscure retreat; his son Arsaces was crowned king of Armenia. Arsaces pursued a vacillating policy between the influence of Rome and Persia, and the war recommenced in the year 345. At least that was the period of the expedition of Constantius to the East. See St. Martin, additions to Le

Beau, i., 442. The Persians have made an extraordinary romance out of the history of Shahpour, who went as a spy to Constantinople, was taken, harnessed like a horse, and carried to witness the devastation of his kingdom. Malcolm, i., 84.—M.

P. 377.-* Gibbon has endeavoured in his History to make use of the information furnished by Moses of Chorene, the only Armenian historian then translated into Latin. Gibbon has not perceived all the Chronological difficulties which occur in the narrative of that writer. He has not thought of all the critical discussions which his text ought to undergo before it can be combined with the relations of the western writers. From want of this attention, Gibbon has made the facts which he has drawn from this source more erroneous than they are in the original. This judgment applies to all which the English historian has derived from the Armenian author. I have made the History of Moses a subject of particular attention, and it is with confidence that I offer the results, which I insert here, and which will appear in the course of my notes. In order to form a judgment of the difference which exists between me and Gibbon, I will content myself with remarking that throughout he has committed an anachronism of thirty years, from whence it follows that he assigns to the reign of Constantius many events which took place during that of Constantine. He could not, therefore, discern the true connexion which exists between the Roman history and that of Armenia, or form a correct notion of the reasons which induced Constantine, at the close of his life, to make war upon the Persians, or of the motives which detained Constantius so long in the East; he does not even mention them. St. Martin, note on Le Beau, i., 406. I have inserted M. St. Martin's observations, but I must add that the chronology which he proposes is not generally received by Armenian scholars, not, I believe, by Professor Neumann.—M.

P. 377. It was during this war that a bold flatterer (whose name is unknown) published the Itineraries of Alexander and Trajan, in order to direct the victorious Constantius in the footsteps of those great conquerors of the East. The former of these has been published for the first time by M. Angelo Mai (Milan, 1817, reprinted at Frankfort, 1818). It adds so little to our knowledge of Alexander's campaigns, that it only excites our regret that it is not the Itinerary of Trajan, of whose eastern victories we have no distinct record.-M. P. 377- Now Sinjar, on the river Chaboras.-M.

P. 378.- The Persian historians or ro