Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 3 (1897).djvu/220

 200 THE DECLINE AND FALL After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the sacrifices of the Pagans, they were still tolerated in the city and temple of Serapis ; and this singular indulgence was impru- dently ascribed to the superstitious terrors of the Christians themselves : as if they had feared to abolish those ancient rites which could alone secure the inundations of the Nile, the harvests of Egypt, and the subsistence of Constantinople.^^ itB final de- At that time ^'^ the archiepiscopal throne of Alexandria was A.D. 389 [391] filled by Theophilus,^*^ the perpetual enemy of peace and virtue ; a bold, bad man, whose hands were alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis ; and the insults which he offered to an ancient chapel of Bacchus ^^ convinced the Pagans that he meditated a more important and dangerous enterprise. In the tumultuous capital of Egypt, the slightest provocation was sufficient to inflame a civil war. The votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius,^- who exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods. These Pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or rather fortress, of Serapis ; repelled the besiegers by daring sallies and a resolute defence ; and, by the inhuman cruelties which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate of Serapis. The two parties assembled, without arms, in the principal square ; and the Imperial rescript was publicly read. But, when a sentence of destruction against the idols of Alexandria was pronounced, the Christians set up a shout of joy and exultation, whilst the unfortunate Pagans, whose fury had given way to consternation, retired with hasty ^ Libanius (pro Templis, p. 21) indiscreetly provokes his Christian masters by this insulting remark. ■•9 We may choose between the date of Marcellinus (a.d. 389) or that of Prosper (a.D. 391). Tillemont (Hist, des Emp. tom. v. p. 310, 756) prefers the former, and Pagi the latter [which is probably right ; so Gothofredus, ad Cod. Th. xvi. 10, n ; Glildenpenning, p. 189. Clinton decides for end of 390 a.d.]. 50 Tillemont, Mi^m. Eccl^s. tom. xi. p. 441-500. The ambiguous situation of Theophilus, — a. saint, a^ the friend of Jerom ; a dez'tl, as the enemy of Chrysos- tom — produces a sort of impartiality ; yet, upon the whole, the balance is justly inclined against him. 61 [A Mithreum : cp. Socrates, 1. c] 52 Lardner (Heathen Testimonies, vol. iv. p. 411) has alleged a beautiful passage from Suidas, or rather from Damascius, which shews the devout ana virtuous Olympius, not in the light of a warrior, but of a prophet.