DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0177
508 XII. CHRISTIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF S.W. PHRYGIA.
that they died ' appealing to the god over all.' Unconsciously Eusebius
writes as the epitaph over the ashes of the destroyed people the words
by which we have recognized the epitaphs which they themselves
habitually composed.
Lactantius mentions that this was done by a governor, and no
governor could have ventured on such an act, unless he had a full
commission to exterminate the Christians. A general massacre,
evidently, was deliberately planned by the central government, and
carried out by suitable agents. While this case has been selected as
an extreme example of barbarity on the one side and of steadfastness
on the other, it must be taken as indicative of the policy carried out
everywhere. It may perhaps hereafter be proved that Eumeneia was
the very city that suffered in this way; but, at any rate, the punish-
ment was everywhere proportioned to the guilt, and Eumeneia, as
being certainly more deeply infected than any of the surrounding
cities, would be treated with proportionate severity as an example to
the rest. We may confidently say that historical and archaeological
evidence is agreed as to the fate of Eumeneia: the active and coura-
geous element in the population was annihilated with fire and sword
in the years following A. D. 303, and the development of the city was
suddenly terminated.
While the government used the revival of anti-Chr. fanaticism for
its own purpose, and while the revival was a contributory cause of the
massacre, the main reason that induced Diocletian to give a reluctant
consent to it was certainly not fanaticism. The measure which he
carried out was chosen after long consideration as politically expedient.
The Christians were opposed to the government policy : they were the
party of reform, and, though they advocated their policy, as a rule,
within the limits of the strictest constitutional agitation, yet the
Roman government was never very tolerant of divergent political
opinions. The Christians, as a whole, were necessarily desirous of
change in the State policy: they were, as a rule, energetic as indi-
viduals and as a body, and therefore they naturally were opposed,
whether consciously or not, to the centralized and paternal govern-
ment policy, which more and more arrogated the right of ordering
everything, managing everything, and thinking for everybody. That
policy, which ultimately ruined the Empire, was endangered by the
growth of freedom and individuality among the Christians ; and it
resolved to destroy the opposing element.
Freedom of spirit is a more delicate plant in the East than in
Europe, in ancient than in modern time. Perhaps some persons may
consider us mistaken in believing that the spread of Christianity
that they died ' appealing to the god over all.' Unconsciously Eusebius
writes as the epitaph over the ashes of the destroyed people the words
by which we have recognized the epitaphs which they themselves
habitually composed.
Lactantius mentions that this was done by a governor, and no
governor could have ventured on such an act, unless he had a full
commission to exterminate the Christians. A general massacre,
evidently, was deliberately planned by the central government, and
carried out by suitable agents. While this case has been selected as
an extreme example of barbarity on the one side and of steadfastness
on the other, it must be taken as indicative of the policy carried out
everywhere. It may perhaps hereafter be proved that Eumeneia was
the very city that suffered in this way; but, at any rate, the punish-
ment was everywhere proportioned to the guilt, and Eumeneia, as
being certainly more deeply infected than any of the surrounding
cities, would be treated with proportionate severity as an example to
the rest. We may confidently say that historical and archaeological
evidence is agreed as to the fate of Eumeneia: the active and coura-
geous element in the population was annihilated with fire and sword
in the years following A. D. 303, and the development of the city was
suddenly terminated.
While the government used the revival of anti-Chr. fanaticism for
its own purpose, and while the revival was a contributory cause of the
massacre, the main reason that induced Diocletian to give a reluctant
consent to it was certainly not fanaticism. The measure which he
carried out was chosen after long consideration as politically expedient.
The Christians were opposed to the government policy : they were the
party of reform, and, though they advocated their policy, as a rule,
within the limits of the strictest constitutional agitation, yet the
Roman government was never very tolerant of divergent political
opinions. The Christians, as a whole, were necessarily desirous of
change in the State policy: they were, as a rule, energetic as indi-
viduals and as a body, and therefore they naturally were opposed,
whether consciously or not, to the centralized and paternal govern-
ment policy, which more and more arrogated the right of ordering
everything, managing everything, and thinking for everybody. That
policy, which ultimately ruined the Empire, was endangered by the
growth of freedom and individuality among the Christians ; and it
resolved to destroy the opposing element.
Freedom of spirit is a more delicate plant in the East than in
Europe, in ancient than in modern time. Perhaps some persons may
consider us mistaken in believing that the spread of Christianity