DIOCLESIAN.

or less extent of meaning which they have given to it, and to remark whether it is more fit for poetry than prose.

For example, I have observed that the inclemency of the weather is ridiculous in history, because that term has its origin in the anger of heaven, which is supposed to be manifested by the intemperateness, irregularities, and rigours of the seasons, by the violence of the cold, the disorder of the atmosphere, by tempests, storms, and pestilential exhalations, &c. Thus then inclemency, being a metaphor, is consecrated to poetry.

time extolled, panegyrised, and admired in the journals, especially as they came out under the protection of a certain lady of distinction, who knew nothing at all about the subject. We have recovered from all this now; and with one or two exceptions, the whole race of such productions is extinct for ever.

I did not in the first instance intend to make all these reflections, but to put the reader in a situation to make them.

I have shown at the letter E that our e mute, which we are reproached with by an Italian, is precisely what occasions the delicious harmony of our language: empire, couronne, diadème, épouvanta ble, sensible. This e mute, which we

I have given to the word impotence all the acceptations which it receives. I showed the incorrectness of the historian, who speaks of the impotence of Kingmake perceptible without articulating it, Alphonso, without explaining whether he referred to that of resisting his brother, or that with which he was charged by his wife.

I have endeavoured to show that the epithets irresistible and incurable require The first very delicate management. who used the expression, the irresistible impulse of genius, made a very fortunate hit; because, in fact, the question was in relation to a great genius throwing itself upon its own resources in spite of all difficulties. Those imitators who have employed the expression in reference to very inferior men, are plagiarists who know not how to dispose of what they steal.

As soon as a man of genius has made a new application of any word in the language, copyists are not wanting to apply it, very mal-a-propos, in twenty places, without giving the inventor any credit.

I do not know that a single one of these words, termed by Boileau foundlings (des mots trouvés)—a single new expression of genius, is to be found in any tragic author since Racine, until within the last few years. These words are generally lax, ineffective, stale, and so ill placed, as to produce a barbarous style. To the disgrace of the nation, these Visigothic and Vandal productions were for a certain

leaves in the ear a melodious sound like that of a bell, which still resounds although it is no longer struck. This we have already stated in respect to an Italian, a man of letters, who came to Paris to teach his own language, and who while there ought not to decry ours.

He does not perceive the beauty or necessity of our feminine rhymes: they are only e's mute. This inter-weaving of masculine and feminine rhymes constitutes the charm of our verse.

Similar observations upon the alphabet, and upon words generally, would not have been without utility; but they would have made the work too long.

DIOCLESIAN.

After several weak or tyrannic reigns, the Roman empire had a good emperor in Probus, whom the legions massacred, and elected Carus, who was struck dead by lightning, while making war against the Persians. His son, Numerian, was proclaimed by the soldiers. The historians tell us geriously that he lost his sight by weeping for the death of his father, and that he was obliged to be carried along with the army, shut up in a close litter. His father-in-law Aper killed him in his bed, to place himself on the throne; but a Druid had predicted in Gaul to Dioclesian, one of the generals of the

army, that he would become emperor quished. So much success without; a after having killed a boar. A boar, instill more happy administration within; Latin, is aper. Dioclesian assembled the laws as humane as wise, which still exist army, killed Aper with his own hands in in the Justinian code; Rome, Milan, the presence of the soldiers, and thus {Autun, Nicomedia, Carthage,embellished accomplished the prediction of the Druid. by his munificence; all tended to gain The historians who relate this oracle de-him the love and respect both of the east serve to be fed on the fruit of the tree and west; so that, two hundred and forty which the Druid revered. It is certain years after his death, they continued to that Dioclesian killed the father-in-law of reckon and date from the first year of his the emperor, which was his first right to reign, as they had formerly dated from the throne. Numerian had a brother the foundation of Rome. This is what named Carinus, who was also emperor, is called the Era of Dioclesian; it has but being opposed to the elevation of also been called the Era of Martyrs ; but Dioclesian, he was killed by one of the this is a mistake of eighteen years, for it tribunes of his army, which formed his is certain that he did not persecute any second pretension to the purple. These Christian for eighteen years. So far from were Dioclesian's right to the throne, it, the first thing he did, when emperor, and for a long time he had no other. was to give a company of prætorian guards to a Christian named Sebastian, who is in the list of the saints.

He did not fear to give a colleague to the empire in the person of a soldier of fortune, like himself; it was Maximian Hercules, his friend. The similarity of their fortunes had caused their friendship. Maximian was also born of poor and obscure parents, and had been elevated like Dioclesian, step by step, by his own courage, People have not failed to reproach this Maximian with taking the surname of Hercules, and Dioclesian with accepting that of Jove. They do not condescend to perceive that we have

He was originally of Dalmatia, of the little town of Dioclea, of which he took the name. If it be true that his father was a labourer, and that he himself in his youth had been a slave to a senator named Anulinus, the facts forms his finest eulogium. He could only have owed his elevation to himself; and it is very clear that he had conciliated the esteem of his army, since they forgot his birth to give him the diadem. Lactantius, a Christian authority, but rather partial, pretends that Dioclesian was the greatest poltroon of the empire. It is not very likely that the Roman soldiers would have chosen a poltroon to govern them, or that this pol-clergymen every day who call themselves troon would have passed through all the degrees of the army. The zeal of Lactantious against a Pagan emperor is very laudable, but not judicious.

Dioclesian continued for twenty years the master of those fierce legions, who dethroned their emperors with as much facility as they created them; which is another proof, notwithstanding Lactantius, that he was as great a prince as he was a brave soldier. The empire, under him, soon regained its pristine splendour. The Gauls, the Africans, Egyptians, and British, who had revolted several times, were all brought under obedience to the empire; even the Persians were van

Hercules, and peasants denominated
Cæsar and Augustus.

Dioclesian created two Cæsars; the first was another Maximian, surnamed Galerius, who had formerly been a shepherd. It seemed that Dioclesian, the proudest of men, and the first introducer of kissing the imperial feet, showed his greatness in placing Caesars on the throne from men born in the most abject condi tion. A slave and two peasants were at the head of the empire, and never was it more flourishing.

The second Cæsar whom he created
was of distinguished birth.
He was
Constantius Chlorus, great nephew, on

his mother's side, to the Emperor Claudius Il. The empire was governed by these four princes; an association which might have produced four civil wars a year, but Dioclesian knew so well how to be master of his colleagues, that he obliged them always to respect him, and even to live united among themselves. These princes, with the name of Cæsars were in reality no more than his subjects. It is seen that he treated them like an absolute sovereign: for when the Cæsar Galerius, having been conquered by the Persians, went into Mesopotamia to give him the account of his defeat, he let him walk for the space of a mile near his chariot, and did not receive him into favour until he had repaired his fault and misfortune.

Galerius retrieved them the year after, in 297, in a very signal manner. He vanquished the King of Persia in person. These kings of Persia had not been cured, by the battle of Arbela, of carrying their wives, daughters, and eunuchs, along with their armies. Galerius, like Alexander, took his enemy's wife and all his family, and treated them with the same respect. The peace was as glorious as the victory. The vanquished ceded five provinces to the Romans, from the sands of Palmyra to Armenia.

a centurion of the Trajan legion, named Marcellus, who served in Mauritania, assisting with his troop at a feast given in honour of the victory of Galerius, threw his military sash, his arms, and his branch of vine, on the ground, and cried out loudly" that he was a Christian, and that he would no longer serve pagans;" -a desertion which was punished with death by the council of war. This was the first known example of the famous persecution of Dioclesian. It is true that there was a great number of Christians in the armies of the empire, and the interest of the state demanded that such a desertion should not be allowed. The zeal of Marcellus was very pious, but not very reasonable. If at the feast given in Mauritania, viands offered to the gods of the empire were eaten, the law did not command Marcellus to eat of them, nor did christianity order him to set the example of sedition. There is not a country in the world in which so rash an action would not have been punished.

However, after the adventure of Marcellus, it does not appear that the Christians were thought of until the year 303. They had, at Nicomedia, a superb church, next to the palace, which it exceeded in loftiness. Historians do not tell us the reasons why Galerius demanded of Dio. clesian the instant destruction of this church; but they tell us that Dioclesian was a long time before he determined upon it, and that he resisted for near a year. It is very strange that after this he should be called the persecutor. At last, the church was destroyed, and an edict was affixed by which the Christians were deprived of all honours and dignities. Since they were then deprived of them, it is evident that they possessed them. A Christian publicly tore the imperial edict in pieces:-that was not

Dioclesian and Galerius went to Rome, to dazzle the inhabitants with a triumph, till then unheard of. It was the first time that the Roman people had seen the wife and children of a king of Persia in chains. All the empire was in plenty and prosperity. Dioclesian went through all the provinces, from Rome to Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor. His ordinary residence was not at Rome, but at Nicomedia, near the Euxine sea, either to watch over the Persians and the barbarians, or because he was attached to a retreat which he had himself embellished. { an act of religion, it was an incitement to It was in the midst of this prosperity that Galerius commenced the persecution against the christians. Why had he left them in repose until then, and why were they then ill treated? Eusebius says that

46

revolt. It is, therefore, very likely that an indiscreet and unreasonable zeal drew down this fatal persecution. Some time afterwards the palace of Galerius was burnt down; he accused the Christians,

3 ம்

and they accused Galerius of having himself set fire to it, in order to get a pretext for calumniating them. The accusation of Galerius appeared very unjust; that which they entered against him was no less so, for the edict having already issued, what new pretext could he want? If he really wanted a new argument to engage Dioclesian to persecute, this would only form a new proof of the reluctance of Dioclesian to abandon the Christians, whom he had always protected: it would evidently show that he wanted new additional reasons to determine him to so much severity.

sician named Ariston, who had a knife ready, cut the child's tongue out to pay his court to the prætor. The little Romanus was then carried back to prison; the jailor asked him the news: the child related at length how the old surgeon had cut out his tongue. It should be observed, that before this operation the child stammered very much, but that now he spoke with wonderful volubility. The jailor did not fail to relate this miracle to the emperor. They brought forward the old surgeon, who swore that the operation had been performed according to the rules of his art, and showed the child's tongue, which he had properly preserved in a box, as a relic. Bring hither another person," said he, “and I will cut his tongue out in your majesty's presence, and you will see if he can speak." The proposition was accepted; they took a poor man, whose tongue the surgeon cut out as he had done the child's, and the man died on the spot.

I am willing to believe that the Acts

their title pretends, but they are still more simple than sincere; and it is very strange that Fleuri, in his Ecclesiastical History, relates such a prodigious number of similar incidents, being much more inducive of scandal than edification.

It appears certain that there were many Christians tormented in the empire; but it is difficult to reconcile with the Roman laws, the alleged reported tortures, the mutilations, torn-out tongues, limbs cut and broiled, and all the insults offered against modesty and public decency. It is certain that no Roman law ever ordered such punishments; the aversion of the people to the Christians might carry them to horrible excesses, but we do not any-which relate this fact are as veracious as where find that these excesses were ordered, either by the emperors or the senate. It is very likely that the suffering of the Christians spread itself in exaggerated complaints: the Acta Sincera informs us, that the emperor being at Antioch, the prætor condemned a Christian child, named Romanus, to be burnt; that the Jews present at the punishment began to laugh, saying, "We had formerly three { children, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who did not burn in the fiery furnace, but these do burn." At that instant, to confound the Jews, a great rain extinguished the pile, and the little boy walked out safe and sound, asking, "Where then is the fire?"-The account goes on to say, that the emperor commanded him to be set free, but that the judge ordered his tongue to be cut out. It is scarcely possible to believe that the judge would have the tongue of a boy cut out whom the emperor had pardoned.

}

You will also remark, that in this year {303, in which it is pretended that Dioclesian was present at this fine affair in Antioch, he was at Rome, and passed all that year in Italy. It is said that it was at Rome, and in his presence, that St. Genestus, a comedian, was converted on the stage, while playing in a comedy against the Christians. This play shows clearly that the taste of Plautus and Terence no longer existed: that which is now called comedy, or Italian farce, seems to have originated at this time. St. Genestus represented an invalid; the physician asked him what was the matter with him,-"I am too unwieldy," said Genestus.-"Would you have us exorThat which follows is more singular.cise you to make you lighter?" said the It is pretended that an old Christian phy- physician.-"No," replied Genestus, “I

DIONYSIUS, ST. (THE AREOPAGITE).

?

DIONYSIUS, ST. (THE AREOPA- of St. Dionysius took its head in its