the wives of constantius and julian
when the announcement of constantine’s death had been borne by swift couriers to the distant provinces, and the body, in its golden coffin, had been transferred to constantinople, there was a nervous rush of aspiring emperors and empresses to the capital. the unification of the empire under constantine had cost the state some hundred and fifty thousand of its finest soldiers, who perished in civil warfare while powerful nations pressed against its yielding frontiers. in his later years he had so distributed these provinces, whose unity had been so dearly purchased, among his sons and nephews, worthy and unworthy, that dismemberment was certain to follow his death. his eldest son, constantine, now in his twenty-first year, ruled gaul and britain; constantius, the second son, a youth of twenty, was the c?sar of the east; the third son, constans, aged seventeen, held sway over italy and africa. his nephew delmatius, also entitled c?sar, controlled thrace, macedonia, and greece, and the younger nephew hannibalian bore the ornate title of king of kings in pontus and cappadocia. the two brothers of constantine, and the husbands of his two sisters, were not left without a share of the imperial provision.
the race to constantinople after the death of the emperor may be imagined, but the suddenness and horror of the consequent tragedy must have sobered even the most frivolous. constantius, the second son, was the first to arrive, and to him the conduct of the impressive funeral was entrusted. the members of the family gathered round287 the marble palace from all quarters of the empire, and the shade of constantine continued for some months to rule the state, until their conflicting claims should be adjusted. julius constantius and delmatius, the legitimate heirs of constantius chlorus, who had been thrust aside thirty years before by the vigorous son of minervina, were now men in the prime of life. the younger son of the latter, hannibalian, the “king of kings,” strutted in a scarlet and gold mantle, and had married the fiery and ambitious young daughter of the late emperor, constantina. anastasia, constantine’s sister, brought her husband, the “patrician” optatus. the partition of power seemed a formidable task. but in the weeks that succeeded constantine’s death a new and sinister power arose, and its secret designs prepared a ghastly simplification of the problem.
constantius became insensibly the central figure of the drama. a callous youth, with little strength of character, he was selected by the eunuchs and corrupt officers of constantine’s court as a likely instrument of their plans. it was agreed that the interests of these officers and of the sons of constantine would be best served by a removal of all the other competitors, and a diabolical plot was devised. the details are given at length only by the christian historian philostorgius, of the next century, and are regarded with reserve; but an arian writer would hardly inculpate an arian bishop and an arian monarch without some just ground. his story is that constantine left a will in which he declared that he had been poisoned by his two half-brothers. the will was given to bishop eusebius. when the brothers were eager to see the will of constantine, eusebius is said to have discovered a fine piece of casuistry. he put the will in the hands of the dead emperor, and covered it with his robes, so that he might, without injury to his delicate conscience, assure the brothers that constantine had indeed shown him a will, but he had returned it into his hands. the will—or a will—was now produced, and the people and army were assured by their dead ruler that he had been poisoned by his family.
288 the story is regarded with suspicion by most historians. for the reason i have given, and because it is the only plausible explanation of what followed, it seems probable that such a will was produced and published by constantius. it was probably forged by the palace officials. whether they and the sons of constantine used this device or no, they somehow directed the tempestuous anger of the troops upon the older princes and their families, and extinguished their claims in a brutal massacre. julian casts the blame on constantius, admitting that he acted under compulsion, and the other fourth-century writers do not differ. constantius “permitted,” rather than “commanded.” the corrupt power behind the throne directed the murders, and the sons of constantine purchased a larger dominion by the blood of their uncles and cousins. the two uncles, seven cousins, and other distinguished men, were included in the bloody list. then the three imperial youths divided the empire between them, and departed to their provinces.
the wives of the eldest and the youngest of the brothers are unknown to us, and the first wife of constantius is so little known that we may pass rapidly over a number of years. the imperial sisters of constantine—except constantia, whom we have considered—enter little in the history of the time. anastasia disappears after the murder of her husband. eutropia will presently mingle her blood with that of her insurgent son on the soil of italy. constantina, the daughter of constantine who had married hannibalian, and who already bore the title of augusta, retired into a long widowhood, from which we shall find her emerging later in a monstrous character.
constantius had been married to his cousin galla in 336. she seems to have been the daughter of julius constantius, since julian says that her father and brother were included in the massacre. her personality is never outlined for us in the historical writings of the time, and we are left to imagine her shuddering or languishing in the arms that were stained with the blood of her family. she died some time before 350, as magnentius offered his289 daughter to constantius in that year. we have, therefore, no empress who can engage our attention until 353, and may be content with a slight summary of the events which lead on to the appearance of eusebia and the reappearance of the repulsive constantina.
three years after the partition of the empire constantine and constans quarrelled about their territory. the elder brother led his troops into the dominion of constans, and was slain; and his provinces were added to those of constans. the character of the youngest son of constantine was gross and intolerable. he revived the lowest vice of his pagan predecessors, and his open parade of the handsome barbarian youths whom he bought, or attracted to his frivolous court, disgusted his officers. in the beginning of the year 350 they rebelled against him. a banquet was given at augustodunum (autun) to the notables of the town and the officers of the camp, and at a late hour, when the abundant wine had warmed the hearts and obscured the judgment of the diners, the commander of two of the chief legions, magnentius, was brought before them in a purple robe. constans awoke from his vices to find that he had lost the throne and the army, and fled toward spain. he was overtaken and slain. some blood-curse seemed to hang over the house of constantine. constantius, who had been long occupied in resisting the persians, now wheeled round his troops, and faced the usurper.
in the long struggle that followed there were two incidents of interest for us. constantina, the imperial widow, was living in restless impotence at the time. between the rebellious provinces of the west and the loyal provinces of the east was the intermediate district between the danube and the greek sea. constantina, it is said, instigated the commander of the troops in these regions, vetranio, to assume the purple. what we shall see of her character presently will dispose us to believe that she meditated a return to power through vetranio, but constantius astutely disarmed and exiled him, and accepted290 her explanation that she had acted with the pure aim of resisting the advance of the western usurper. constantine’s sister eutropia also appears in the struggle. her son nepotian assumed the purple at rome, and led out a motley army to attack magnentius. they were quickly annihilated, and mother and son—two of the few remaining members of constantine’s family—were slain.
the interest of the student of the time is divided between the clash of armies and the not wholly bloodless conflicts of theologies. we are concerned with neither, and need only observe that constantius defeated magnentius, after a long and costly struggle—in one battle 54,000 roman soldiers perished in civil warfare—and reunited the empire under his sole dominion. the young empress of the defeated magnentius retired into widowhood, and will be restored to us in the next chapter. in the meantime constantina has returned to the field, and her imperial adventures call for our notice.
two children, the sons of julius constantius, had survived the massacre at constantinople. gallus was in his twelfth year, julian in his sixth. they were hidden until the fury of the soldiers had abated, and then their tender age induced the murderers to overlook them. the jealous eye of constantius fell on them when they approached manhood, and they were confined in a fortress, or ancient palace, in cappadocia. in the solitude of macellum no company was offered them but that of slaves and soldiers. julian, in whose mind the seeds of an elevated philosophy had taken root, resisted the pressing temptations, and devoted the long days to culture; but gallus, a sensual and ill-balanced youth, adopted the coarse distractions of his spacious jail. after six years (in 351) they were not only set at liberty, but gallus was amazed to find himself clothed with the dignity of c?sar and married to the emperor’s sister constantina. constantius was compelled to leave the east in order to face magnentius, and he needed a c?sar to rule in his name.
the three years’ rule of gallus and constantina was291 an imperial scandal. unscrupulous and unbridled, the daughter of constantine lives in the literature of the time as a monstrous perversion of womanhood. with her begins the historical work (as we have it) of ammianus marcellinus, a retired general, one of the most scrupulous and ample chroniclers of his time. he bursts at once into a vivid denunciation of her vices. she was “a mortal meg?ra,” an ogre, swollen with pride and thirsting for human blood. it is unfortunate that ammianus gives us no personal description of the women of his time. his work contains charming vignettes of the emperors and princes, but he seems never to have looked on the face or figure of their wives. gallus, he tells us, was a superb youth in figure and stature, his handsome features crowned with soft golden hair, and bearing a look of dignity and authority, in spite of his vices. the strain of cruelty and coarseness in him was provoked to excesses by his wife. when his savage conduct had exasperated his subjects he used to send his spies, in the disguise of beggars, to gather the secret whispers of discontent; and he even stooped to the practice of wandering himself, in disguise, from tavern to tavern on the well-lit streets of antioch to discover his critics. antioch had been noted for centuries for its freedom of speech, and the prisons and torture-chambers of gallus were busy.
constantina not only encouraged this criminal conduct, but enlarged on it. a woman of vicious character came one day to disclose some plot, or pretended plot, to her. she rewarded her heavily, and sent the harlot out into the city in the royal chariot, to encourage others. an alexandrian noble distinguished himself by resisting the guilty passion of his mother-in-law. the woman presented constantina with a pearl necklace, and the noble was put to death. we need not prolong the disgusting narrative. flavia julia constantina, a beautiful and able woman, who can scarcely have passed her thirtieth year, was one of the worst empresses in the imperial gallery. one can but suggest, in some attenuation of her guilt, that the292 murder of her husband by her brother when she was a young girl in her early teens, and the fourteen years of young widowhood that followed, had provoked the worst elements of her nature.
as long as constantius was occupied with the struggle against magnentius, he overlooked the excesses of his c?sar and his sister in the east. his opponent, magnentius, was not so compliant, though he wasted no legions in an effort to dethrone him. he sent a soldier to assassinate gallus and seduce the troops. as the man resided, however, in a tavern near antioch, he became less cautious over his cups, and boasted to his associates of his mission. the old woman who kept the tavern seemed too far removed from politics to be taken into account, but she promptly denounced her guest at the palace, and he was put to death. then magnentius fell, and committed suicide, and constantius turned to consider the scandalous conduct of his viceroy and his sister.
constantius proceeded, as he usually did whenever it was possible, by craft instead of force. the prefect of the east had been slain by the people of antioch, with the guilty connivance of gallus, and a new prefect, named domitian, was sent to antioch, together with the prefect of the palace, montius. domitian had orders to secure, by the most tactful and seductive means, that gallus should visit italy, and walk into the pit dug for him. he was, however, a sturdy officer, more sensible of the just substance than the form of his instructions. gallus and constantina were at once insulted because, on the day of his arrival, he drove insolently past the gate of the palace, and went straight to his villa. they then condescended to invite him to the palace. in the presence of the hated rulers he laid aside all pretence of diplomacy, and roughly ordered the c?sar to proceed at once to italy, or incur the just resentment of the emperor. gallus, stung by his insolence, at once gave the prefect into the custody of the soldiers. montius, who was present, and who also had lost all feeling for diplomacy in the passionate encounter,293 remonstrated with gallus, adding the taunt that a man who had no power to dismiss one of his magistrates had no right to imprison a prefect of the east. we are assured by philostorgius that constantina flew at the official, dragged him from the tribunal, and pushed him into the hands of the guard. we may prefer the more sober version of ammianus. gallus impetuously called upon the troops and the people of antioch to defend their ruler, and they responded with surprising alacrity. the distinguished officers of constantius were bound hand and foot, dragged through the streets until the last spark of life was extinct, and then flung into the river.
still constantius hesitated to enter upon a civil war with the east, and the unscrupulous cunning which dictated his policy discovered an alternative procedure. first, the commander of the cavalry in the east was summoned to milan, that the danger of a rising might be lessened. then, a series of letters, couched in the most friendly and mendacious terms, were sent to the c?sar. constantius was eager to see his beloved sister once more, and to confer with his c?sar. for some time they resisted the invitation, but at length constantina, less apprehensive of personal injury, set out for italy. she died on the journey, at c?num in bithynia, of fever, and her remains were buried at rome. she was still in her early thirties at the time of her death. the single deed that is recorded in praise of her is that she and gallus planted a christian church in the dissolute grove of daphne, and drew the austerity of the new faith upon that region of sensuous superstition and sensual license. her share in that act of piety may be put in the scale against her avarice, cruelty, selfishness, and unbridled temper.
the fate of her husband may be briefly recorded. lured at length by the deceitful professions of constantius, he set out for milan with his princely retinue. as soon as he reached europe, the retinue was brushed aside, and he discovered himself a captive. when the little party arrived in pannonia, he was stripped of the purple, and conducted294 to the remote prison at pola, where crispus had been executed. there he was “tried” by a eunuch of constantius’s court, and within a few days a breathless courtier—he had ridden several horses to death—rushed into the presence of constantius with the shoes of the slain c?sar. the empire was reunited under constantius, at a cost of the deaths of twenty princes and princesses of his house and their dependents, and fifty thousand soldiers; and the eunuchs and courtiers filled the palace at milan with the incense they offered to the young conqueror.
constantius had, meantime, married again, and a more worthy and commanding empress engages our attention. toward the close of his struggle with magnentius, in the year 352 or the beginning of 353, the emperor married a macedonian lady, aurelia eusebia, of remarkable beauty, no little ability, and dignified personality. her father and brothers had had consular rank in their province; her mother had been distinguished for the propriety of her conduct and the careful rearing of her children after the death of her husband. the language in which the emperor julian describes her is enhanced by gratitude, and enjoys the license of a panegyric; some would say that it is warmed by a more tender sentiment. but ammianus, who also knew her, pronounces that the beauty of her character was not less splendid than that of her form, and, beyond a peevish complaint of a later writer that she did not confine herself to the proper and restricted sphere of a woman, she maintains her high repute among the conflicting writers of the time. the one grave imputation, which ammianus seems to find quite consistent with his superlative praise of her, we will consider later.
we find eusebia established in the court at milan at the time when the heads of the last of constantius’s rivals are falling. when gallus has disappeared, he proudly takes the title of “lord of the world,” and endeavours to live up to it, amid his company of eunuchs and fawning attendants. in the hands of those astute and concordant schemers the weak and vain monarch was295 easily persuaded to arrive at decisions which he attributed to his own judgment, and it is, perhaps, the most indulgent plea that we can make for him that he was governed by a power so subtle and insinuating that he never perceived it. the high merit of a scrupulous chastity is claimed for him; but the monastic writer zonaras somewhat detracts from this by affirming that his coldness deprived him of a dynasty and forced his beautiful and accomplished wife into a fatal decline. his piety, at least, might be praised; but it rested on a basis of arian creed and is exposed to the scorn of the orthodox, who called him antichrist.
we may concur in the strictures of zonaras so far as to admit that eusebia cannot have been happy in his court. the eunuch eusebius, who had tried and executed gallus, was the most powerful man in the empire. ammianus observes, with heavy irony, that constantius was believed to be not without influence with his emasculated chamberlain. a hierarchy of lesser, but hardly less corrupt, officials led up to this favoured minister, and ammianus, from personal acquaintance with the court, assures us that their rapacity and unscrupulousness grew with the power of constantius. a persian officer, mercurius, had the nickname of “the count of dreams,” from the skill with which he could make the most innocent fancies of the night bear a treasonable complexion, and bring destruction and spoliation on the dreamer. paulus, who had risen from the lowly position of table-steward, was called “the chain,” because of the art with which he could involve a man in a charge of plotting. torture and confiscation became common experiences once more, and men began to shrink from even the most innocent conversation.
this unpleasant tenor of the imperial life at milan was relieved by the great controversy of the arians and athanasians, which was brought to italy for decision. how constantius and his officers induced the latin bishops to condemn athanasius, in 355, by “stroking their bellies instead of laying the rod on their backs,” to use296 the vigorous phrase of st. hilary, does not concern us, but it is interesting to see how eusebia came in contact with the prelates. when the roman bishop, liberius, bravely—for a time—incurred exile rather than condemn athanasius, eusebia sent him a sum of money. he returned it with the suggestion that her husband might find it useful for his troops or his arian bishops. a new power, besides that of eunuchs, was rising. suidas preserves a story that may be given here, though it may or may not refer to this council. as the bishops, he says, came to the town where the court was, for the purpose of holding a council, they called to salute the empress. leontius, bishop of tripoli, refused to visit her, and she sent word that, if he would call, she would give him the funds to build a large church. the saintly prelate replied that he would condescend to visit her if he were assured that she would receive him with fitting respect—if, he explained, she would rise from her throne at his entrance, bend for his benediction, and remain standing, while he sat, until he permitted her to resume her seat.
in the same year (355), however, a more pleasant diversion alleviated the weariness of eusebia, and another empress is introduced to our notice. we have already said that the unhappy gallus had for companion in his cappadocian jail a young half-brother of the name of julian. imbibing his early culture at the alternate hands of bishop eusebius and the philosophical eunuch mardonius, julian had come to prefer the greek culture of the latter to the theological lore of the prelate. he had come out untainted from the lonely fortress at macellum, and had passed to constantinople and then to nicomedia. there the distinguished pagan libanius attracted his allegiance, and from the three years in which he studied at nicomedia his mind was wholly given to the older culture, however much he might be compelled to dissemble his aversion for the new religion. after the execution of gallus he was brought to milan. with growing apprehension he awaited the decision of “the eunuch, chamberlain,297 and cook” who, he says, directed the bloody counsels of constantius. but he found an unexpected and powerful friend in the empress.
it seems clear that eusebia first espoused his cause in a pure feeling of humanity. the officials had impeached the innocent youth of twenty-three or twenty-four, chiefly on the ground of having visited gallus, and his life was gravely threatened. eusebia threw all her influence in the scale against the malignant officials, and, though they prevented constantius from hearing him, she saved his life. he was housed in the suburbs of milan, and was taken one day to see eusebia. “i seemed to see, as in a temple, the image of the goddess of wisdom,” he afterwards wrote in his “letter to the athenians.” the splendid figure of the beautiful empress can easily be imagined to have made a remarkable impression on the bookish youth. eusebia was differently, but favourably, impressed. julian was a well-made youth, of moderate stature and broad shoulders. he had the soft curly hair of his brother, a straight nose, large mouth, and brilliant eyes. the humane feeling of the empress assumed a more tender and personal complexion, and she set to work to make julian’s fortune.
he was sent for a time to como, and, as her influence prevailed, recalled to milan, and permitted to reply to his accusers before the emperor. he was then permitted to retire to his mother’s small estate in bithynia, but eusebia induced constantius to impose on him the pleasant sentence of an exile to athens. from the beloved schools of athens he was, after a few months, recalled to milan, to hear the astounding news that he was to receive the purple robe of c?sar and the hand of the emperor’s sister helena. he shrank in tears from the political world that opened to him, but eusebia tactfully overcame his opposition and guided his conduct. her eunuchs ran continually between the palace and his lodging. the beard and cloak of the philosopher were laid aside, and julian blushed to find himself accoutred in the splendid trappings of a commander.298 the jeers and intrigues of the court were at length silenced, and, on november 6th, 355, he stood on a lofty platform before the troops while constantius invested him with the purple and exhorted him to sustain the honour of rome. the marriage with helena followed, and in december julian and his bride, with a valuable collection of books as the gift of eusebia, set out for gaul.
julian never saw eusebia again, and cannot have had the least correspondence with her. even in milan he had, on reflection, torn up a letter in which he modestly wished his patroness the reward of a succession of children. on his side there was nothing but a pure feeling of gratitude and reverence. she was, says zosimus, “a woman of erudition and prudence above her sex”; a shining example of spiritual and bodily beauty, according to ammianus. she had most probably saved his life, and most certainly made his fortune. but it is believed by many writers that eusebia’s feeling for julian was of a less ethereal nature. gaetano negri, whose life of julian is one of the most distinguished biographies of a roman emperor, justly repudiates the suggestion of improper feeling on her part, and it is a superfluous inference. but one may, without casting the least reflection on her virtue, hesitate to think that the only link between them was a sympathy of culture. such sympathy we may well assume between a cultivated greek lady and an ardent hellenist, but so cold and spiritual a relation may very naturally and pardonably have been strengthened by a warmer feeling. julian had no sensuous attractiveness for a beautiful woman. but his manly person and character, his vast superiority to the crowd of ignoble parasites she daily encountered, and to her weak and mediocre husband, must have excited an admiration less purely intellectual than an appreciation of his learning.
the person of flavia julia helena remains faint and elusive in the ample chronicle of the time. she was much older than julian, who was in his twenty-fifth year, while299 helena cannot have been less than thirty.27 she had not been previously married, ammianus says, and the long maidenhood would not tend to make her attractive. the marriage was arranged by eusebia in the political interest of julian, and it probably retained the chill that a mariage de convenance, with such disparity of age, would naturally bear. in julian’s abundant, and largely autobiographical, writings she is barely mentioned. it was the marriage of an old maid—for the roman world—with an austere, if conscientious, philosopher. the gradual discovery of julian’s secret loyalty to the old gods would not make their relations more cordial.
we may, therefore, regret that the single line of inquiry which we pursue will compel us to leave almost unnoticed the brilliant episode of the reign of julian. the more liberal taste of our time has removed the violent and conflicting colours which the partisan writers of the fourth century laid upon the portrait of julian. to gregory of nazianzum he was a faint impersonation of antichrist; to the pagan writers a modest incorporation of apollo. in modern history he is a most conscientious thinker, a humane and unselfish ruler, a very capable commander, a conceited and unattractive personality. his character, in spite of the shade that clings to it as a trace of the enforced dissimulation of his early years, is great: his ability and achievements are just entitled to be called brilliant.
helena and eusebia appear little in the years that follow, and we must narrate the necessary events very briefly. the frame of mind in which constantius sent julian to gaul as c?sar is not at all clear. the frontier was obliterated; the barbarians overrunning the country in formidable strength; the military force inadequate, except with fine control. some writers are disposed to300 think that constantius was sending his cousin to death. at all events, the faith of eusebia, that her young and shrinking scholar would surmount these difficulties, was great; and it was rewarded. julian at once discovered a bravery that none had suspected. he cut his way through a region occupied by the barbarians, surveyed the devastated frontier, and passed the first year of his inexperience with only one small disaster. the difficulty of his task seemed greater when, in the winter, he was besieged in sens, and the commander of the troops in the neighbourhood refused to go to his relief. in the trouble that followed eusebia obtained for him the full command of the troops, which had been withheld from him, and from that moment he entered on a career of victory.
it is probable that helena did not share his peril in this winter (356–7). we find her at rome in april, with eusebia and constantius, and a curious story of their relations is put before us. constantius in that month bestowed his first and only visit upon the ancient capital of the empire. sitting in a chariot that glittered with gold and gems, preceded by officers whose spears bore silken dragons, so fashioned as to hiss in the breeze, on their golden and bejewelled tips, followed by his legions in battle-array, their breastplates and shields gleaming in the sun, the emperor passed with affected indifference between the dense lines of spectators and the great monuments of rome; though both the vast crowds and the ancient structures, shining with a beauty that his decaying empire could no longer produce, wrung from him in private an expression of astonishment. eusebia had invited helena to join them in this visit to rome.
at a later point in his narrative ammianus makes a reference to this visit that has perplexed every thoughtful reader. when he comes to record the death of helena, he says that it was due to a poisonous drug administered to her by eusebia, during the visit to rome, to prevent her from having children, and that in the previous year, when she was pregnant, eusebia sent a midwife to destroy the301 child under pretence of attending her. it does not seem to occur to gibbon and other historians, who adopt this story, that it suggests in eusebia a character in complete contradiction to that ascribed to her by ammianus himself and every other roman writer. a jealousy of helena, whether on account of her own childlessness or on account of julian, that could force her to such a malignant course, is utterly inconsistent with the description we have quoted of her. the story is peremptorily rejected by miss gardner and signor negri, and its discord with all that we know of eusebia is noticed by most writers.
one is tempted to inquire if it may not be an interpolation, but the text of ammianus lends no support whatever to the idea. we can only suppose that ammianus incorporated a piece of idle gossip, and was inattentive to its inconsistency with his high moral praise of eusebia. many legends, we shall see, sprang up after the death of helena. some of them assail julian, and are easily traced to their source. it is possible that the courtiers who opposed eusebia, and doubtless misrepresented her zeal for julian, started the rumour, and ammianus heard it in italy years afterwards. it is a mere feather in the scale against the authorities for the high character of the empress.
from rome constantius was summoned to repel fresh invasions in the east, and helena returned to gaul. she remains unnoticed until the spring of the year 360, and we will not follow julian through the brilliant campaigns in which he reduced the most powerful tribes of the barbarians, and restored peace and prosperity to his stricken province. but while julian succeeded in the west, the campaign of the troops of constantius in the east won for the emperor few laurels, and entailed grave disasters. the intriguers now doubled their charges against julian, and plausibly suggested that he would be prompted to claim a higher title than that of c?sar. it was decided to reduce his power by removing a number of his finest legions to the east.
302 julian was in winter quarters at paris—as lutetia was beginning to be called—when the grave summons reached him. the island on the seine, which now bears the cathedral, had from early times offered a secure settlement, and, as the province became more settled, the adjoining slope, where the latin quarter of a later age began, was occupied with a palace, an amphitheatre, and a few of the customary institutions of a roman town. julian loved the little settlement on the broad silvery river, surrounded by dense forests, and he was spending the winter there, attending with equal judgment and humanity to the civil welfare of his province, when the officers of constantius arrived. he has described at length the painful perplexity into which he was thrown. not only would the sacrifice of four of his best legions seriously impair his strength, but they were local troops and had enlisted only for local service. he decided to obey, and ordered the troops to prepare for departure. an angry murmur arose from the camps, as the men reflected on the fate that might befall their families in the ill-protected country. julian provided that their wives and children should accompany them, and they gathered at paris for the dismissal. in affecting language the c?sar conveyed to them his thanks and his admonitions, entertained their officers at a banquet, and retired to his palace.
the sincerity of julian has been made the theme of an acrid discussion between his violent critics and his resolute admirers. but we may, without serious reflection on his character, doubt whether he entirely wished the troops to go. such an order, from such a source, would plausibly relieve a c?sar from obedience. only excessive virtue or uncertain prospect of the issue would counsel a man to obey it. both feelings were at work in julian’s mind, and there is not ground to accuse his later account of hypocrisy. but we may surmise that, at the time, his decision was accompanied by unsanctioned hopes and dreams of a more satisfactory issue. in those days of anxious deliberation his imagination, however he might303 curb it, must have depicted for him the revival of culture, the arrest of superstition, the purification of the court and empire, that would follow his elevation to the throne.
he retired to his palace, where, as he incidentally observes somewhere, helena lived with him. but shortly after midnight a great tumult arose from the direction of the camp, and from the windows one could see the troops, the light of their torches gleaming on their drawn swords, coming toward the palace. the doors were at once closed, and julian refused to show himself, but the cry of “imperator” easily penetrated to his ears. on the following morning they broke into the palace, and forcibly conducted julian to the camp. he resisted, threatened, and supplicated, but the troops were consulting their own interest, now gravely threatened by their revolt, and there was no other course possible but to consent. he was raised up on a shield, and the legions broke into a frenzy of delight at their escape from exile. a diadem only was needed to complete his new dignity, and helena, who was present, seems to have offered a pearl necklace of hers. julian refused to wear the feminine adornment, and an officer provided a rich golden collar, studded with gems, for the coronation.
with the struggle that followed, and the dramatic chapter that opened in the annals of rome, we have no concern. both our empresses die before a decisive stage is reached. the date of the death of eusebia is not known. it was some time between the beginning of 359 and the middle of 360, as constantius married again toward the end of 360. she is said to have died of an inflammation of the womb, brought on by taking drugs for procuring fertility. that such drugs were familiar at the time, and that the empress would naturally try their effect, we readily admit, but we need not entirely overlook the statement of zonaras that the conduct of her husband and the unhappiness of her circumstances brought the beautiful greek into a decline. had she shared the304 throne with julian, and adopted his views, the story of europe might have run differently.28
that helena was won to the views of julian is improbable. she would, no doubt, discover soon after her marriage that he secretly cherished the cult of the old gods. from his first month in gaul he had, with one assistant, set up a private shrine to them. there are coins that bear the names of julian and helena and the figures of isis and serapis, but they yield no inference. nor can we learn the attitude of helena in the struggle between her husband and her brother. the complete silence of julian suggests that she remained moodily silent or hostile. several months were spent in negotiation with constantius. in december julian celebrated, at vienne, the fifth anniversary of his promotion, and wore the splendid diadem of an emperor as he presided at the games and exercises. in the midst of the festivities helena died. zonaras, who also gives a ridiculous rumour that she had been divorced by julian, says that she died in childbirth. we are tempted to think that the painful development of her unprosperous marriage weighed heavily on her, and her pregnancy had a premature and fatal delivery. her remains were conveyed to rome, and laid by those of her sister constantina. we need not notice the charge of one of constantius’s officers that julian had poisoned her, and paid the guilty physician with his mother’s jewels. julian, honestly, professes no grief at her death, and he never married again.
a third empress makes a brief appearance at the time when helena passes away. passing from his long campaign on the danube to the stricken regions of the east, constantius had, toward the close of 360, married for the third time, at antioch. maxima faustina, his third empress, had little time to make an impression on history, if she were capable of it. as constantius at length set305 out from antioch, in the autumn of 361, to crush the mutiny in the west, as he affected to regard it, he contracted a fever, and died before he reached the european frontier. faustina was left with the unborn wife of the future emperor gratian, and will come to our notice again. the roman empire was once more united under a strong, upright, and accomplished ruler. but julian was now wedded to his ideals, and, as no woman shared his ascetic life and arduous labours, we must pass over the reforms, the campaigns, and the religious struggles of the next two years.
