308 LITERATURE IN THE EAST.—DIOCLETIAN.
deserving of mention: Iiis seventh, book shows real imagin-
ation.
In the East, on the other hand, things were different, for
there a new class of writers had sprung up. In the first and
second centuries, men like Dion Chrysostom had endeavoured
to reproduce the ancient Attic style and language, and persons
tried thoroughly to understand Plato and Demosthenes; but
this ceased in the third century, especially from the time of
Ammonius, when the so-called New-Platonism was developed
in Syria. In regard to intellectual power, the new school
was certainly above the rhetoricians who preceded it, and who
had had quite different objects; but the relation in which it
placed itself towards Christianity introduced something posi-
tively untrue into the Platonic philosophy, which was now
made to prop up paganism.
I can give you only a skeleton of the history which now
follows, and such as every one ought to know by heart1. The
accounts we have of Diocletian, are eminently hostile towards
him ; and very much exaggerated. His father is said to have
been a slave, or at best a freedman,2 but this must probably
be understood to mean a colonus, that is, a serf on the Dal-
matian frontier: he himself cannot possibly have been a slave;
for if he had been, the Roman law, even as it stood at that
time, would have prevented his being enlisted in a legion.
The derivation of his name from Doclea, a town on the
Dalmatian frontier, is probable enough. IIe had risen by his
own merits ; and his reputation had reached such a point, that
it required only one step more to place him on the throne.
Among the many charges which are brought against him, we
find that of cowardice, which is as unjust in the case of
Diocletian as in that of Napoleon3. He was on the whole a
man of a mild character, but there are two points which
l In the time of our grand-fathers too much importance was attached to
such a chronological skeleton of history; which, however, ought not to be
neglected; every one should impress upon his memory the list of Koman
emperors, together with the dates of their reigns,—N.
2 Aurel. Victor, Epitome, 39 ; Eutrop. ix. 19 ; Zonaras, xii, 31.
3 The charge of cowardice against Napoleon is highly unjust. It is true, he
often wanted moral courage, as for example, on the 19th of Brumaire; hut he
certainly had the courage of a general. The cases which arc referred to as
instances of his cowardice arc only those in which he had no desire to strike
a blow, or where he would not place himself in a position in which he could
neither have heard nor seen, and in which consequently he could not have
DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE.
309
justify the charge of cruelty; first the manner in which he
punished the insurrection of Alexandria, and secondly his
persecution of the Christians, to which he was instigated in
his old age by Galerius.
Diocletian had reigned about one year, when, without any
apparent reason, he assumed his countryman M. Valerianus
Maximianus as his colleague in the empire. Maximian was
a rough and violent man, and he shed at Rome much noble
blood—not noble in the moral sense of the word — quite like
an oriental despot, because he coveted the riches of those
whom he murdered (for he had not to revenge any political
offence on the part of his victims), and because he hated the
nobility. It appears that, at that time, it was a matter of
course for the sons of the great and wealthy to enter the
senate, and that the dignity remained hereditary in their
families.
The many divisions of the empire, and the tendency of the
East to become separated from the West, led Diocletian who
was a man of uncommon intelligence, to the conviction, that
all would be endangered if he should insist upon uniting
those parts which had a natural tendency towards separation.
He adopted therefore the apparently singular plan of sepa-
rating the East from the West, and of governing the empire
from two centres, though the whole empire was to remain one.
This scheme succeeded so long as he reigned. Legislation, the
consulship, and the high offices were to be common to both
parts as before. Each part of the empire was to have its own
Augustus, and two Caesars were to be appointed, who were to
be the coadjutors of the emperors, and one of them was to suc-
ceed on the death of an Augustus. By this regulation he in-
tended to prevent vacancies of the imperial throne, and the
arbitrary elections by the soldiers. As there were two Augusti,
the elder seems to have had the right of appointing the new
Caesars. The countries which had already been united into
one whole under Postumus and Tetricus, the praefectura galli-
arum, namely Gaul, Spain, Britain and Mauretania, were to
be governed by a Caesar ; Italy and Africa by an Augustus ;
the countries on the Danube, afterwards the prefecture of
discharged iιis duties as a general. In those cases his conduct was perfectly
right; but he might have died at Waterloo, and his escape from that battle-
field cannot so easily be excused.—N.