The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

186
EVAGRIUS
whom, and if there was anything of similar sort left. When they asserted
that they had expended great e¡orts in collecting these things, and swore
by the emperor that there was no paper capable of explaining these
matters deposited throughout the whole state, he again kindled a great
bon¢re from the papers which had been brought, and deluged the ashes
with water, wishing to obliterate the exaction utterly, so that there might
be seen neither dust nor ashes nor indeed any [139] trace of the business
from what had been partially burnt. But, while so greatly elevating the
abolition of the exaction, so that we might not appear to be in any way
ignorant of all that has been narrated in partisan spirit about it by earlier
writers, come now, let me set these out also and show their falsehood,
and particularly through what they themselves have recorded.
40 It is said by Zosimus, one of those from the accursed and foul worship
of the Hellenes, in his anger against Constantine because he was ¢rst of
the emperors to adopt Christian practices and abandon the loathsome
superstition of the Hellenes, that he ¢rst devised the so-called Chrysargyron,
and instituted that the said tribute be levied every fourth year; 150
and in countless other ways he blasphemed the pious and generous
Constantine. For he says that Constantine also devised many other
quite intolerable measures against every class, 151 and that he miserably
eliminated his son Crispus, and that he removed from among men his
wife Fausta by con¢ning her in a bath house which had been heated to
excess, 152 and that after seeking puri¢cation from his own priests for
150 Zosimus (ii.38.2) was correct in attributing the tax to Constantine (cf. n. 146 above),
who introduced it in the provinces under his control in the period 312^20. Zosimus, probably
following or elaborating on Eunapius, claimed that the tax was designed to produce
revenue for gifts to worthless individuals, and that it forced mothers to sell their sons into
slavery and fathers to prostitute their daughters, but the new measure was probably part of
a coherent attempt to transfer some of the burden of taxation from the countryside to the
towns. Discussion by Paschoud, notes to Zosimus ii.38 (Zosime vol. I. pp. 241^4).
151 This probably refers to the collatio glebalis, orfollis, a tax on senatorial property,
which the emperor Marcian abolished; another measure that had a marginal e¡ect on senatorial
wealth was the requirement that all praetors should ¢nance games during their year of
o⁄ce, or contribute a sum of money in lieu (Zosimus ii.38.3^4).
152 Again, Zosimus’ accusations (ii.29.2) are accurate, though the deaths had no connection
with Constantine’s conversion: in 326 Crispus was sentenced by Constantine to death
on accusations promoted by his stepmother, the empress Fausta; Fausta’s role was soon
revealed, probably by Constantine’s mother Helena, and she was killed, or forced into
suicide, later in the same year (Philostorgius ii.4). Sozomen, i.5, had already presented a
refutation of these accusations. Discussion in Paschoud, ‘Version’; Zosime I. pp. 219^24.