The German historian, classicist, and orientalist Johannes Leunclavius published a translation of Zosimus, and he felt obliged to defend the pagan Zosimus (the last important pagan historian of Rome) from his Christian detractors. In the best tradition of Renaissance scholarship, he enthusiastically debates the ancient authors as if they were alive today and right in front of him. This translation of Leunclavius’ Apology appeared in an English translation of Zosimus published in 1684.
Leunclavius’s Apology for Zosimus
Although I were either to Dispute against Men even of a different Religion, or were not to undertake the defence of a Man, who, for having professed the old exploded Pagan Superstition, would certainly at first sight lose any manner of favour that he could expert in his cause among Men of our times; yet encouraged and supported with evident Arguments from Truth it self, and the weakness of those which are brought against him by his Adversaries, I will not fear but that what I have to say will with impartial Men obtain. But I foresee his Defence is like to prove no easie Province, being to reply to those Men who under the pretence of defending the Christian Religion and those Princes who were the most celebrated Patrons of it, charge one of the most elegant and useful Historians with lying and calumniating; and who because he was no Christian must not be admitted to be a proper or a faithful reporter of those things which were transacted in the Commonwealth. For mankind is generally so unhappily built, as easily to believe those Men whom they find of the same Opinions with themselves, even in things indifferent, but especially in matters of Religion, crying down in the mean while Men of different Sentiments, although the things they deliver do not appear repugnant to truth. But seeing there is that force in Virtue in general, but especially in truth, that we cannot but approve it even in an Enemy; we hope you will hear what we have undertaken to say in a few words in defence of Zosimus, and that Men not too perverse and disingenuous will acknowledge that matters of fact may with candour and integrity be transmitted to future Ages by Men even of a different Religion from our selves.
Zosimus is assaulted with abundance of ill language, bespattered, cursed and given to the Devil for a most wicked Fellow, and principally for professing himself a Pagan; though I even in this commend the ingenuity of the Man, and yet at the same time lament his want of judgment, who being a person of extraordinary Wit, yet like the wise of the World, as the Scripture speaks, could not discern the light of the Divine Truth: but seeing that could be no hinderance why he should not faithfully relate and discreetly judge of those things which were well or ill done in the administration of the Government, let us proceed to those things in which the principal force of the Accusation consists.
They say he was unjust to the memory of Constantine for introducing a new Religion and its increase under him; and this we may grant them, considering it is impossible for any Man to wish well to him who against our wills would alter our Religion, when we think it most agreeable to truth, and which has been confirm’d by the Authority and consent of almost innumerable Ages. But what then? Was this hatred of Zosimus towards Constantine any motive for him calumniously to write how Constantine was the first Emperour that exacted that wicked and intolerable kind of Tax called Χρυσάργυρον or aurargenteum, (that which in the Civil Law-Books is term’d aurum lustrale, because it was collected every fourth year,) or was it for this reason that he hath related how Constantine seized upon the Estates and goods of other Men? a grievous charge indeed, and Zosimus is to be reproved for his slanderous way of Writing, if it appear that he hath reported these things of the Emperour untruly: but I am so far from believing that Zosimus wants good and indubitable Authors for what he says, that although there needed other Testimonies, yet that Constantine cannot be acquitted from this Charge, is evident from one substantial Argument; for either Constantine found this grievous imposition already laid upon his People by some of his Predecessours or else he cruelly imposed it himself.
If we acknowledge Constantine to have been the Author, as Zosimus out of the Writers of those times demonstrates we ought to do, what reason is there to accuse him for relating matter of fact, as he had received it from others, as became a faithful Historian; his Adversaries are more to be blamed, who expatiating more in the praises of Constantine than becomes them, forget the duty of Historians, and seem rather to write Panegyrics and Declamations than Histories.
But let it be so that Zosimus forged this against him whom he knew to have been the first among the Emperours that profess’d the Christian Religion, and was therefore resolved to be revenged of him for deserting that of his Ancestours by aspersing him with the imposition of a Tax unheard of, and so odious to the People.
Well then, Constantine did onely retain (which yet these Cavillers dare not insist on) a most hateful custom which he had received from his Predecessours; however our excellent Emperour is not altogether innocent, who would not abolish a Tax so sordid and abominable, (and introduced by Heathen Princes) after he had himself embraced the Christian Religion. For what mighty difference is there between the Author of an evil custom, and him, who when he hath Power does not abrogate a cruel and unjust one brought in by those that preceded him? But themselves deny not but this Tax was collected and with great cruelty too, under Christian Princes; and confess that Anastasius the first a considerable time after Constantine did by a certain wile get all the Books, wherein were the accounts of this Money, into his own hands, out of all the Provinces, and burn’d them, to the inestimable benefit and satisfaction of his poor Subjects. Let them not therefore complain of any injury done to Constantine till they prove by good and substantial evidence that He was not the Author of this imposition; and though they should acquit him from being the Author, yet they cannot but confess that he will still stand equally criminal for approving and retaining so horrid and villanous a thing. But let us hear I beseech you what weighty reasons they produce, to prove that Constantine could not be the Author of so base an Imposition.
Zosimus himself, say they, confesses that Constantine did with incredible expence build Constantinople, and considerably enlarged the space without the Walls of the old City; that he adorn’d it with a Palace no way inferiour to that of Rome, and several other Edifices beautiful and magnificent; that in imitation of the City of Rome he granted to the common People a certain allowance of Corn: that the Senators who at his request left Rome and went to Constantinople, he gratified with noble Houses and considerable sums of gold. How then should the thought of such a Tax enter into the mind of such a Prince? and Zosimus was not aware how he contradicted himself in asserting things almost repugnant and inconsistent of the same Man. These are their Arguments, but who sees not that they are taken from us? Zosimus says, that Constantine was profuse and extravagant as soon as he had gotten the Empire to himself, and that he proves effectually; that he wasted the publick Revenue by unreasonable largesses, that he consumed vast sums in voluptuousness, impoverish’d the Exchequer by many costly and unnecessary Structures, and lastly mistook Profuseness for Munificence.
If these things shall appear to be true, as certainly they are, no wise Man will chink it strange that he found out new ways of extorting Money, and when just and reasonable Methods would not suffice, that he made use of some cruel and unheard of before. He that was wont to throw away such vast sums for his humour, would not want it for his pleasures; for no men are so rapacious after other mens goods as they who most madly wast what they have themselves, upon their own luxury and excess, and to as much purpose do they brag of Constantine’s bounty to his Soldiers: and this too they tell you Zosimus confesses, and what wonder if having purchased the Empire this way, he made use of the same to keep it; for had he not, there had been no reason why the Army should not have preferr’d the lawful Issue of Constantius which he had by his Wife Theodora, rather than Constantine. The riotous and greedy humour of Soldiers will not endure frugal and tenacious Princes, but are ever most devoted to them who feed their lusts though to the exhausting of the publick Treasury. And impossible it is, that those exorbitant largesses which are wasted upon those Soldiers, (who having been once corrupted are ever after mutinous) to keep them in their obedience, should not be to the destruction of those poor Subjects from whom it is torn with the greatest cruelty in the World. Hence those new kinds of exactions were meerly to redress the effects of prodigality: and to rehearse these kinds of Oppression, whether instituted by Constantine, or the elder Theodosius, or Valentinian the first, is not impudently to bespatter or rail at godly and religious Princes, but to relate things as they were, which we observing may be able to make use of to our advantage. For if we rightly confider, it amounts to no more than admonishing Princes of the present and future Ages, that because they profess the Christian Religion, they should not flatter themselves with a belief of such a right to the goods and properties of their Subjects, as Julian, and other Pagan Emperours never pretended to, who for their abstinence, gentleness and moderation in Government have been a reproach to some who profess’d a better Religion.
And the same Zosimus, say they, in another place applauds this Constantine for some actions of his bravely and valiantly perform’d, and ought not he to have taken care how he diminish’d his glory, whom he before had celebrated so much? as if it were impossible to commend Constantine, Theodosius and other Christian Princes without approving all that they did; or as if for this very reason he did not appear the honester Man, and without all controversie fitter to be an Historian, who though he observed some Vices in Constantine, very notorious, would not yet be so unjust to his memory, as to omit those things which were commendable in him.
Nor could Zosimus’s hatred to the Christian Religion transport him so far and hurry him into such undecencies as are too evident and scandalous in you, considering the Religion you profess. For those Princes who would be thought Christian, though for the most part lewd and immoral Men, you can scarce forbear deifying, bellowing out their praises to the very Sky; and at the same time others, that were destitute of that light, though otherwise Men of incomparable worth and Virtues, you are not ashamed to rob even of that praise which their merits challenge as their due. I do not now speak of humane frailty, which will not admit a Man so to deport himself as to be liable to no exception; and therefore wise Men acknowledg that of Theognis to be true:
Vir bonus interdum malus est, alias bonus idem.
I will allow Constantine to have been indeed a great Man, he was the first among the Emperours that abolish’d those severe and bloody Laws against our Religion, he embraced the true Worship of God, he removed that Tyranny that had so long been exercised against the Church and the Commonwealth; and lastly in a great measure quieted those intestine Differences which were among those of the Christian Profession, by a Convocation of most holy Men. These are indeed worthy Actions of an excellent Prince, and such as all good Men will not onely acknowledg but admire and applaud. But their way it was, who have written the History of the times about Constantine, not onely to report those things which were good and commendable, but even those too which can no way be justified, and that the Laws of History do necessarily require, and of considerable use it is in the life of Man; however it may seem to sully and diminish his glory of whom it is related. And if Zosimus have done this with great freedom of speech, he is not certainly more to be reproved for it than some others, who professing not the Pagan, as he did, but the Christian Religion, have not stuck bitterly to lash Constantine as well for those things which Zosimus has likewise charged him with, as also that an Emperour pretending to be a Christian should promulgate a Law, inserted in Justinian’s Code, forbidding those to be accused for the use of Magick Arts, who from those wicked Rites seek relief for sick bodies, and the conservation of those things which are necessary to life; that is, Men who forsake God the fountain of all good things, and expect those assistances from evil Angels which they despair of receiving from the Almighty: as if it were not expressly forbid in the Scripture, or that the use of that could be lawful, which is in it self impious and damnable: and not without reason do the same Men discommend Constantine for changing his Counsels and resolutions in his old age, when by the persuasion of his Sister Constantia he recalled Arius the Author of that most pernicious Sect from banishment, and commanded Athanasius, who, for his extraordinary Piety and Religion, had so well deserved of his own and all succeeding ages, to be banish’d into France; and these are Crimes more inexcusable than what Zosimus hath charged him with, these respecting the honour of God, the peace of his Church and the salvation of his Peoples Souls; Zosimus, in the mean while complaining chiefly of those things in Constantine which tended to the prejudice of the Commonwealth.
And what is Zosimus’s Crime, which Evagrius and Nicephorus make such a stir about, in relating how Constantine murder’d his Son Crispus Cesar, a most hopeful Youth and of great Virtue, and his own Empress Fausta? is not this a singular piece of impudence which denies that to have been done, which the consent of those Writers who are of undoubted veracity, confirms the truth of? But Eusebius, say they, who was contemporary with Constantine and survived him too, mentions not one word of those Parricides. But what if this testimony be not good? For I must tell you, this kind of Historians, Prelates I mean, Priests and Monks have but a scurvy reputation for their fidelity this way; for those Princes who preferr’d them, they do not onely praise immoderately, but studiously endeavour not onely to free from the guilt, but from the very suspicion too of those Villanies, which, for all that, are too apparent to be either conceal’d or excused; and some a- gain, and those no mean Persons, either not fairly pass’d over, or which is worse, unjustly stigmatized. But let us not make use of this advantage against so eminent an Author as Eusebius, and therefore allow that either he would not, or durst not write, his own circumstances and those of the times not admitting it; for either he wrote his History while Constantine was alive, or soon after his death: while he was yet alive he could not, without unavoidable hazard of his life, bring in the story of so horrid a Villany, and little less could he have expected from Constantius who survived his Father and Brethren, if he had written it after he was dead. For whom I beseech you should he spare who spared not his own blood? shall we say therefore that those murders of Constantine were were feign’d, because Eusebius, for fear of the Father, and when he was dead, of the more cruel Son, durst not insert them into his History? But Eusebius, say they, commends Crispus, and therefore very unlikely it is, that he should have been murder’d by his Father; as if an enraged Father who was jealous of his Son’s being naught with his Mother-in-law, could in the heighth of his passion so far command himself as to spare him because he was a hopeful and a forward Youth: or had not afterwards testified his resentment of the injury he had done so excellent and virtuous a Person, when touch’d with grief and remorse for the murder of such a Son, he strangled his own Wife Fausta who was the occasion of his suspicion, in a Bath. Eusebius therefore if he had a mind to be safe, could not better consult his own security than by wholly declining the mention of Crispus’s murther in his History; for one of these two he must necessarily have done, either have made Crispus die innocent, or not; guilty he would not, because the contrary was manifest to all Men, and innocent he durst not, for fear of accusing the Father: And hence we may truly infer that Crispus was unblameable, because among the rest who testifie his innocence, Zosimus relates how sadly he was lamented by his Grandmother Helena; and therefore Eusebius for reasons best known to himself left that in doubt which Zosimus more remote from that Age ought by no means to have omitted. And truly I cannot but admire what was in the minds of these Men, who not content to have exposed themselves by their zeal against Zosimus, will not allow Constantius to have been cruel at all, because he did not execute Vetranio who had been guilty of Treason: as if one single instance were sufficient to entitle a Man to the Character of a gentle and merciful Prince, (who at other times inhumanly butchered his own Relations) for sparing a Man who by the course of Nature could not live long, of no Birth, not bravely taken or conquered, but circumvented by a meer wile. And the same Constantius does Nazianzen a Man otherwise prudent enough commend onely out of hatred to Julian, a Man in many extraordinary Virtues, not equal, but far superiour to Constantius; to whom though you allow his Apostacy to the Pagan follies to have been a reproach, yet I cannot see any reasonable cause why you should so far prefer that other Champion of the Arian madness.
And now I must prepare to wipe off another Calumny, whereby Zosimus is accused partly for belying, partly for reproaching of Constantine, in reporting that being troubled in Conscience for having violated all the sacred ties of Religion, for his Murthers and other Villanies, and not being able to obtain such an absolution from the guilt of his sins in the Pagan Religion as would satisfie and quiet his mind. He did by the persuasion of a certain Spaniard called Ægyptius, come over to the Christian faith, as to a Religion that would give him peace of mind, provided he did with a firm belief and penitent heart apply himself to him whose Office it is to reconcile us to God.
This they who are for acquitting Constantine against the faith and stream of Historians will not allow to be true, because it was so long before he would admit of Baptism which is ordained for the washing away of sins; and for this they produce the Authority of Theodoret, who hath written how Constantine was baptized at Nicomedia a little before his death. But this no way invalidates the truth of what Zosimus relates; for it was possible for Constantine to profess the Christian Religion and not have been baptized; it being a custom which too much prevail’d about that time for many, although Christians by profession, to defer Baptism till they were near their ends, out of an Opinion which had then very much obtain’d and which yet even with us is not wholly rejected, viz. that after Baptism such a strictness of life was requisite as not to admit the least slip; and if after it we happen’d to fall, no absolution or forgiveness was ever to be expected again. Although indeed Theodoret hath particularly mentioned that Constantine would not be baptized, always desiring that in imitation of our Saviour he might at length have that sacred Rite perform’d in the streams of Jordan. This deferring his Baptism therefore hinders not at all but that Constantine was sufficiently satisfied that by his embracing the Christian Religion he was fully acquitted from the guilt of his Crimes. Nor does his being so very felicitous for a lasting and effectual peace of mind deserve any blame at all; but rather this passage in Zosimus redounds very much to the honour both of Constantine and our Religion too. For who can blame him for his penitence and being willing to be restored to the favour of Almighty God, and for the time to come amend a life so wicked and unrighteous as his had been? Who will deny the Christian Religion to be the most excellent that ever was, which reconciles us to that God who in our Consciences we know is displeas’d with our iniquities, and gives us that repose and quiet of mind, in which the greatest felicity of our whole life consists, and which the old Philosophers did so anxiously and to io little purpose study to acquire?
Any one therefore may see what trifling and unreasonable arguments Evagrius and Nicephorus make use of to lessen as they please the truth of those things which Zosimus like a faithful and wife Historian has deliver’d of Constantine, mingling his Virtues with his Vices, as well those things which were commendable in him as what was scandalous and wicked, in which Constantine himself seems to have degenerated from his own natural disposition. Ought we not rather to remember that most wise saying of Herodotus, That there never yet was, nor is there ever likely to be any Man who through the whole course of his life had not some mixture of evil, and with extraordinary Virtues, Vices as extraordinary? And what if a Pagan talk unskilfully of our Religion? ought that to be any motive for us to treat Zosimus at that rate, or condemn him never to be read again?
And to as much purpose do they say, that Zosimus lyes in affirming that from that time the Christian Religion was introduced, the Roman Empire was harass’d by the barbarous part of the World, and in its extent diminish’d, and scarce any remains of its ancient grandeur, but resembled some mighty Fabrick with patch’d Roofs and supported with buttresses; and to refute this they produce a List of a great many Provinces added to the Roman Empire after our Saviour was born, and had publish’d his Religion to the World; as part of Macedonia, Albania, &c. Though this be no better than a Cavil and no just Reply. For Zosimus speaks not of the b ginning and as it were the Infancy of our Religion, bur observes it of those times wherein it was spread and had gotten some force, and by the light and power of its Doctrine had so dispell’d the mists of Paganism, and beaten out the Superstitions of the Heathens, that neither Prince nor People had any veneration or esteem for the Rites and Ceremonies of their Ancestours; but if we shall look closer into that which they say of the Provinces reduced under the Reman jurisdiction, ’twill be a question whether the ignorance or impudence of these Cavillers is most to be admired; for Zosimus will immediately reply, and truly too, that those Conquests are owing to the Valour and Conduct of the Luculli, Pompeii, Julii, Vibii, Drusi, Trajani and the rest of those Pagan Heroes; and on the contrary will charge the loss of them to our account; nor indeed can we with any modesty or umbrage of Truth deny but that it was so. Wherefore we must find out other Arguments to confute Zosimus, and assign other causes why some Nations and Empires are reduced to confusion and ruin at some certain ominous and unlucky times, and by no means allow the institution of the Christian Religion to be the occasion, as some mistaken Men blinded with the prejudice of Education and the impressions they received from their Forefathers would insinuate, when the like contingencies are evident from ancient Histories, and we daily see the experience of it our selves.
But to return to these Men who are so much for lashing of Zosimus, who, labouring to prove against him, that the Commonwealth flourish’d more under Christian than Pagan Emperours, object the unfortunate expedition of Julian against the Persians: but because Men differ in their Opinions concerning this Prince, and the ancient Divines more especially are most injust in theirs. Before we proceed in the defence of Zosimus; let us see what manner of Man this Julian was, setting aside the business of Religion; and we shall find in him very many, not faint stroaks, but strong and express signs of extraordinary Virtues, which if his mistake in Religion had not obscured, you might have beheld in him, though but a young Man, the most admirable and perfect Idea of a good and excellent Prince, he had a vigorous Wit and capacious understanding, adorn’d from his Childhood, not, as Noblemen use to be, with a slight and superficial knowledg, but he attain’d such a perfection in all the liberal Sciences, that by confession of all sides he excelled even his Masters, Men too most eminent themselves; and that he has deservedly this reputation for Learning, needs no other proof, than those elegant and elaborate Pieces of his which are yet extant; and that he was no mean Civilian is evident from his Rescripts which are still to be seen in the Books of the Civil Law. Now as to what relates to his other Accomplishments; the warlike Germans by sad experience almost to their destruction are proofs of his singular Fortitude and Prudence in Military Affairs, who fearing even the extinction of their name became Petitioners to a young Man for Peace; a People who had given Laws to the mightiest Emperours both before and after Julian: and during these Wars it is incredible how great was his frugality and temperance both in eating and drinking, how little he slept, and what pains he took, contemning all the Charms and allurements of Pleasure; he lived like a Philosopher amidst the clashing of Swords and sound of Trumpets: and a very great instance of a modesty that seem’d a stranger to Ambition did he give, when Constantius married him to his Sister Helena, and made him Cesar when he thought of nothing less. For when by the Emperour’s command the Purple Cloak was thrown over him, willing to shew how little he esteem’d that Princely Garment, he repeated this Verse of Homer,
Purpurei vis leti & inexorabile fatum
Occupat.
His gentleness and readiness to forgive Men, was very often remarkable, and then especially when the Antiochians had jested upon him more sharply and saucily than became Subjects to their Prince, he was content with the revenge of a most witty Oration, which though it were to their shame, could not be read without delight to others.
His Chastity, a Virtue so rare in great Princes, he did ever so carefully prefer, as not onely during the life of his Wife never to violate, but even after her death, in the very flower of his age refused to marry again, yet ever abhorr’d all unlawful love; nor contented to demonstrate by his practice how much he esteem’d this Virtue, he had always in his mouth these Verses of Bacchilides an ancient Poet,
Ut quum de statuâ facies formosa revulsa est
Non decus in reliquo corpore truncus habet;
Sic reliqui mores spreti sine honore jacebunt,
Ne sint ornati laude pudicitiæ.
Who can be so brutish and disingenuous as not to admire and celebrate a Man so illustrious for endowments of mind and body as Julian, in whom so excellent a Wit, as appears from his Sayings, so much Learning, from his Writings, such Skill in the Civil Law, from his Rescripts, so much Valour, from his Actions, so much Modesty, from his Behaviour, such Chastity, from his Continence, were so remarkable and conspicuous? yet some there are such strangers to humanity, who under the pretence onely of his defection from the Christian faith, impudently deny him those praises which are due to his Virtues, and are not ashamed to proclaim him for an unfortunate Prince and pernicious to the Commonwealth, because, say they, he was unsuccessful against the Persians, and being slain in the Enemies Country had like to have ruined the Empire. Whereas indeed the Persians and the Germans, two Nations so fatal and terrible to the Romans, he reduced to such streights, that the Germans broken with such dismal overthrows, earnestly sought Peace, and when they had obtain’d it from him, they religiously observed it as long as he lived, out of fear of so fortunate a young Man; though at other times a People unquiet and impatient of rest and leisure: and the Persians terrified with a series of Victories, durst no more come fairly into the field, nor fight upon equal terms, but burning and destroying their own Country, were forc’d to confess that they wanted but a little of a total subversion; and whatever of terrour or damage was brought upon the Romans was owing to Jovian, a Man of our own Religion, who to the eternal reproach of the Roman name became almost a petitioner for Peace to an enemy even conquered himself, and appealed those by the surrender of I know not how many Provinces, whom he ought’ to have made buy a Peace at the price of some of their own Territories. What strange humour is this then, that Men should take delight to lay those miscarriages upon other Men which are in truth to be charged upon our selves?
And now let us see with what weighty Arguments these Censurers undertake to demonstrate how the Christian Princes have been much juster and braver Persons than those that were Pagans, and that the Commonwealth flourished more under them. The Pagan Princes say they, were most of them slain and plagued with Seditions; whereas ours were neither murther’d by their Domesticks nor by forein Enemies, and therefore the times wherein they reigned are to be accounted happier than the others. I think we need not go very far to shew them how very forgetful or how infatuated they are with endeavouring to calumniate others. Are not they I beseech you to be accounted Domesticks that are related to us by blood? and after our Parents are not our Brethren next akin? and will not our Cousin-germans succeed in course? Let us see then what was acted between the Sons of Constantine who all profess’d the Christian Religion. Constans the youngest of these, having surprized his eldest Brother Constantine by a wile, dreaming of no such matter, barbarously murther’d him by a company of base Assassines. Magnentius a Rebel slew this very Constans polluted with the blood of his Brother. Constantius the onely surviver, savagely hunting after the blood of his own Kinred so long, till at length having destroyed the posterity of his Brother, his own Family became extinct. What sadder and more tragical Examples of Parricides than these can you expect? but these our fine Historians never so much as thought of; these, which were indeed a stumbling-block to those who before having no great kindness for our Religion, were confirmed in their abhorrence by this bloody and inhumane Scene.
But what Zosimus relates of the Immoralities of the Emperour Valens, Evagrius takes not so ill, because he was a defender of the Arian Heresie; several of the Ancients, among whom Paulus Varnefridus, commonly called Diaconus, and Jornandes complain of him as the Author of that wicked Law (as they term it) by which he restrain’d thofe vast numbers of those, who under pretence of Religion affected Solitudes and took upon them a kind of Monkish life; and that Persons fit for the management of Affairs and the support of the Commonwealth should be fetch’d out of those holes, and forc’d according to their several capacities either to enter into the Wars, or the discharge of civil Duties; and truly for this very reason I think Valens undeservedly reprehended; and some there are who think this Law brought into use for the failing provisions for the Army out of those allowances which went towards the maintenance of those Lubbards, and that good Troops might be form’d out of them and paid without the charge of the Commonwealth, by turning those Revenues that way, which by the superstitions of their Predecessors had been bequeathed to the feeding the Bellies of a parcel of lazy Monks.
And here you see what it is Evagrius, and Nicephorus make such ado about against Zosmus. But their empty and trifling reasons for excusing Christian Princes, their vanity in accusing Pagans, their impudence in denying the truth, and their ignorance in asserting falshoods, I hope I have sufficiently exposed.
There remains Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople, who charges Zosimus for barking like any Dog against the Godly; but we have before shewn that there is no hurt in his barking, nor any venom in his bite: which that it may be evident n a few words: We see through the whole History of Zosimus, Constantine is reproved by him for the cruelty of his exactions, his Parricides,, his Luxury, his profuseness; which Vices it seems, even the Christian Religion could but little restrain in him. He objects to his Sons their slaughter of one another, and the murther of their Kinred. He shews the sloth of Jovian, and the cowardise of his mind in quitting those Provinces which belonged to the Empire. He sets a mark upon Valentinian for his unrealizable suspicion, and thence his cruelty to such as he distrusted, his oppressing his People with immoderate and unreasonable Taxes. In Gratian, he shews how his too great affection towards the barbarous Nations, and his contempt of his own Subjects were the occasion of his death and an alteration in the Commonwealth. He blames Theodosius for changing and augmenting the number of Magistrates and selling of their places, and his being so excessively given to voluptuousness; though excepting these, he as freely praises him. He terms his Son Arcadius no better than beast, for being governed onely by Eunuchs and idle Women to the extream detriment of the Commonwealth and the grief of all good Men; and lays that Honorius was even as slothful as his Brother.
These are those godly Princes, I suppose, against whom Photius complains Zosimus has bark’d, in exposing their Vices to the World; who nevertheless if he found any thing that deserved commendation he never dissembled it. Add the Pillars of our Religion, St. Chrysostom, who he says was wont with great Eloquence to soften and cajole the unlearned Rabble: and Pope Innocent, who opposed not the use of those impious Rites for the safety of the City, as if he had had that of Virgil in his mind,
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
And lastly the Monks, whom he takes notice of for abstainiug from Marriage, filling Cities and Villages with Colledges of single People, of use neither to the Wars, nor to any civil Duty in the Commonwealth: but have ever since gone a certain way whereby they have secured a considerable part of the Earth to themselves, and under pretence of relieving the poor, have reduced a great part of mankind to beggery. And here you see the yelping Photius is so displeas’d at.
In those other things wherein Zosimus hath reflected upon the Christian religion, you may observe a kind of admirable return or Circle of Times and humane things. He relates how Gratian died by a kind of Judgment for refusing to put on the Garment of the Pontifex Maximus, according to the custom of his Predecessors, declaring himself a Christian and no Worshipper of the host of Heaven: which Garment was wont to be presented to the Pagan Emperours with the same Ceremony as in succeeding ages the Christian used to put on the Stolæ Diaconatus. He reports how the Senate in defence of the Religion they had received from their Ancestours, laid before Theodosius the Antiquity of their Rites and Worship, having derived them from the very foundation of their City, and by the observing of which the People of Rome had preserv’d their Empire twelve hundred years; that it was unreasonable to prefer a Religion that had so little to say for it self to one so ancient and august. And adds, how Theodosius abolish’d those sacred Rites which by the Institution of his Ancestours ought to have been perpetuated, how he forbad sacrificing at the Publick charge, and commanded provisions for the Army to be raised out of them for the safety of the Roman Empire; He complains of his removing the Images*, and shortly after, the Statues of Gold and Sliver and coining vast sums of Money out of them, which he was afterward forc’d to part with to Alaric to buy a Peace at his hands; that Serene Theodosius’s Niece sacrilegiously rob’d the Mother of the Gods of her jewels and wore them herself, and that he Husband Stilico took away those huge Plates of Gold which we fastened to the doors of the Temple belonging to the Capitol. But who is there that has not seen the like in our days and heard the like Complaints? From all which it is evident that the common Enemy of mankind, that he might obstruct the true Worship of God, has always been the same. But ’tis my Opinion, that Wise Men will be so far from refusing to read Zosimus, that the variety of these kinds of Relations will render him more acceptable and delightful.
This is what I had to offer in his Defence against the frightful Invectives of some Writers; and which I hope will obtain among those Men who are capable of making a right judgment of things. I could if I pleas’d or thought it worth my while inlarge in the just praise of Zosimus’s History; But because, as they say, Good Wine needs no Bush, I will no longer detain the Reader from entertaining himself better with the most Elegant Writings of Our Author; and I promise my self, that excepting those things which relate to Church-Affairs, the learned Reader will in all others prefer him far before either Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen or Theodoret; or if out of a religious kind of scruple they are affraid to prefer a Pagan to those Ecclesiastical Writers of the upper Form, yet we do not at all doubt but they will without dispute allow him to equal them in his Way, and not so much as admit the rest of them as Zonaras, Cedrenus, &c. into competition with him.