lines. Moreri. Hutton's Mathematical Dictionary.-M.

DIOCLETIAN. C. VALERIUS AURELIUS DIOCLETIANUS, Roman emperor, was origi"ginally named Diocles, from Doclea, a town in Illyria, whence his mother derived her birth. His father was a slave in the family of Annulinus, a Roman senator, but probably obtained his freedom. The young Diocles was brought up to arms, and so much distinguished himself, that he was successively promoted to the government of Moesia, to the consulate, and to 'the command of the imperial guard. At the death of Numerian, brother and partner of Carinus, in 284, Diocletian, then in his thirtyninth year, was chosen to the succession, in a military council held at Chalcedon. His first act was solemnly to swear that he had no concern in the death of his predecessor; after which, causing Aper, the prætorian prefect, to be brought in chains before him, he declared him guilty of the murder, and immediately stabbed him with his own hands. This deed of violence, unsuitable to the general character of Diocletian, is ascribed to a superstitious purpose of fulfilling a prophecy, which had declared that he should become emperor after he had killed a wild boar (aper). A civil war was the immediate consequence of his election. Carinus aspired at the sole dominion, and marched to meet his rival, who advanced into Moesia. After several indecisive combats, a general action was fought at Margus, near the Danube, in which the victory inclined to Carinus, when he was assassinated in the field by one of his own officers. This event, which took place in 285, gave the empire to Diocletian without further contest. He used his success with singular clemency and moderation, pardoning all who had borne arms against him, and continuing in their offices most of the ministers and servants of Carinus. The dangers which at that time assailed the empire rendered more than one head and hand necessary for its preservation; and Diocletian almost immediately associated to himself, first as Cæsar, and then as Augustus, the valiant soldier Maximian. They assumed the respective titles of Jovius and Herculius; the first appropriated to Diocletian, denoting that superiority of rank and direction which he always preserved; the second awarding to Maximian the praise of warlike enterprise. While the arms of the latter were employed in the west, Diocletian watched the eastern frontier, and by his display of strength obliged the Persian king to make peace, and retire from Mesopotamia. The two

emperors had an interview at Milan in 290, where they presented to the admiring world the agreeable spectacle of a perfect union, the honour of which was chiefly due to the wisdom and calm authority of Diocletian. This harmony continued even after the exigences of the empire had made it advisable, in 292, to associate two subordinate princes, under the name of Cæsars. These were Galerius and Constantius, each of whom was obliged to repudiate his wife, and to become the sons-in-law, the first of Diocletian, the second of Maximian. (See CoNSTANTIUS.) In this subdivision of power, Diocletian reserved for his own peculiar jurisdiction Thrace, Egypt, and the Asiatic provinces. Although present advantages were derived from the multiplication of sovereigns, all men of civil or military talents, yet it opened a copious source of future dissensions, and aggravated the burdens of the state by the multiplicity of courts and establishments. Diocletian seems to have been little engaged in active enterprise, till, in 296, the revolt of Achilleus in Egypt called him to that country. After a siege of eight months he became master of Alexandria, in which the usurper had taken refuge; and he quelled the rebellion by the death not only of Achilleus and his principal accomplices, but of a great number of the inhabitants. He severely chastised the rest of the province, and utterly destroyed the towns of Busiris and Coptos. He improved the condition of Egypt, however, by many useful regulations for its government; and he rendered its defence less burdensome to the empire by resigning to the Nobatæ, or Nubians, an extensive tract, but of little value, bordering the Nile above Syene, with the stipulation that they should defend the frontier from the neighbouring barbarians. An edict which he is said to have published in Egypt for the delivery and destruction of all books relating to the supposed art of alchemy, has been represented, on the one hand, as resulting from tyrannical jealousy; on the other, as proceeding from a paternal care to preserve his subjects from a hurtful delusion. But it may be questioned whether he was philosopher enough to have detected the cheat of alchemical pretensions; and we know that, even in this country, there long existed a law against making gold, which could only have been inspired by political suspicions. The recovery of Great Britain to the empire by Constantius also distinguished the year 296.

At the time Diocletian visited Egypt, he sent Galerius to repress an irruption into Syria by Narses king of Persia. He himself afterwards took his station at Antioch, whence he super

intended the operations of the war. Galerius, in consequence of his rashness, met with a total defeat; and Diocletian, in his reception of him, took care to let him feel sensibly that he had highly displeased a master. This lesson incited him to exertions which produced a complete victory to the Romans in the next campaign; and Narses was obliged to submit to a peace, which left to the Roman empire five provinces beyond the Tigris, and granted them other conditions equally honourable and advantageous. A state of tranquillity succeeded, which Diocletian employed in cares to secure all parts of the frontier, and promote the internal prosperity of the empire. A taste for magnificence in building seems to have been carried by him to a hurtful excess. Besides the baths bearing his name at Rome, the immense circuit of which has astonished all who have examined the antiquities of that capital, he bestowed vast expences in the decoration and enlargement of Nicomedia, the place of his usual residence, which he was ambitious of raising to a rivalry with Rome itself; and it is sufficiently probable, that the construction of his spacious and splendid edifices was attended with those arbitrary exactions, and other acts of despotism, with which Lactantius charges him. Ostentation was a leading principle of his government, perhaps more through policy than natural disposition; for he knew that all the reverence of subjects for sovereigns, whom they had seen to rise from the meanest origin, must be the artificial product of displays of pomp and power. He assumed the Persian diadem, and adopted all the stately ceremonial of an oriental court in what regarded his person and palace. In the twentieth year of his reign, A.D. 303, the empire now being in a prosperous and tranquil state, Diocletian met his colleague Maximian at Rome, and they jointly triumphed over the foes vanquished by themselves and the Caesars. The spectacle was less splendid than some others had been, but it was memorable as being the last of the kind to which the ancient metropolis of the Roman world was witness. The games which accompanied it disappointed the expectations of the people, who shewed their discontent by murmurs and sarcasms. Diocletian, who never loved Rome, was induced by this conduct to abridge his intended stay, and, after two months' residence, he left it, never to return. The same year was remarkable for the commencement of that persecution of the Christians which has rendered the reign of Diocletian an era of calamity in the annals of the church. Christianity had long enjoyed a tolerationwhich

had wonderfully promoted its progress throughout the empire, and it had never been in so flourishing a state as at the present period. Not only were many of the most important offices in the state conferred upon Christians, but the principal functions about the palace were in their hands; and Diocletian's own wife and daughter, Prisca and Valeria, are asserted to have been secret converts. But this prosperity not only relaxed the morals and nourished the pride of the Christians, but roused the zeal and animosity of those who remained attached to the ancient religion. Maximian and Galerius had for some time displayed a rancorous aversion to the new sect, and the latter had dismissed a number of christian officers from his army. After the conclusion of the Persian war, he spent the winter at Nicomedia, in the palace of Diocletian, and there made use of every argument of policy and bigotry which might bring over the emperor to his own sentiments. For a considerable time he would agree to nothing farther than the exclusion of the Christians from employments in the household and the army; but at length Galerius persuaded him to summon a council on the subject, which held a solemn deliberation in his presence. The result was a determination to employ force in order to effect the total destruction of Christianity. The first operation was the demolition of the great christian church of Nicomedia. It was followed by an edict enjoining the like treatment of all the churches throughout the empire, and denouncing the penalty of death against all who should hold secret assemblies for worship. The bishops and presbyters were commanded to deliver all their sacred books to the magistrate, who was to burn them; and all the property of the church was confiscated. The refractory Christians were subjected to a variety of disabilities, and put out of the protection of the law. This, and subsequent edicts still more cruel, were enforced in the different parts of the empire with greater or less rigour, according to the temper of those who held the local supremacy. But the more particular account of this famous persecution belongs to ecclesiastical history. It is sufficient here to mention, that it ceased to be general after the abdication of Diocletian, though it continued violent for some years longer in the dominions of some of the imperial partners.

In the winter of 303-4 the emperor, from the fatigues of a journey, contracted an illness which brought on a long confinement, and durably injured his constitution. This circumstance, with a prospect of impending dissen

nor the more amiable features of his mature years. Crevier. Gibbon.-A.

sions, and, as is said, the arts of Galerius, determined him to a resignation of his authority. Maximian was induced, though unwillingly, to take the same step; and on the same day, May 1, 305, they divested themselves of the imperial dignity, the one at Milan, the other at Nicomedia. In a spacious plain near the latter city, Diocletian ascended a throne, whence he declared his purpose to the assembled soldiery and people in a grave and dignified speech. He then, in the place of Galerius and Constantius, who succeeded to the title of Augustus, -nominated Severus and Maximin for the new. Cæsars. This done, he took the purple robe from his shoulders, and returning to the city, passed through it without stopping to the place of his retreat. This was Salona in Dalmatia, near which, in a pleasant and salubrious spot, he constructed a superb palace, the relics of which are still visible at the modern town of Spalato. Here he passed his remaining years in philosophical content, never appearing to regret his abdication, and refusing to listen to the solicitations of Maximian and others, who urged him to resume his power. "If," said he in his reply, "you could see the vegetables which I have planted with my own hands at Salona, you would never advise me to return to a throne." His tranquillity, however, was disturbed by the contentions and violences which he lived to behold, and to which his daughter, after the death of Galerius, was a victim. He himself underwent affronts, and even menaces, from Licinius and Constantine, and (if the partial narrative of his christian enemies, eager to discover judgments in the fate of all their persecutors, can be credited) his last illness was attended with violent agitation, which, as some assert, impelled him to suicide. He died in 313, at the age of sixty-eight, and funeral honours of every kind were paid to his memory. Diocletian is always ranked among the ablest and most worthy of the Roman emperors. He possessed a genius fit for command, firmness, activity, vigilance, the love of order, and, in general, a sincere regard for the welfare of his subjects. He discouraged informers, promoted justice, and made many wise and equitable laws: yet he was more respected than beloved; and the spirit of his government was severe, and in some measure oppressive. His mind was uncultivated by letters, and little sensible to the pleasures of society and friendship. He has been compared to Augustus, whom he resembled in several of his qualities as a sovereign; but he had neither the vices of the earlier part of that emperor's life,

DIODATI, JOHN, a celebrated divine and preacher at Geneva, in the seventeenth century, was born at Lucca about the year 1589, and was a descendant from a noble family of the catholic persuasion; but having in early life embraced the protestant faith, he removed to Geneva, where he applied himself with such assiduity to his studies, that, at the age of nineteen years, he was deemed qualified for the professorship of Hebrew in that university. Some time afterwards he was appointed to the office of professor of theology, and acquired much reputation by his conduct in that department, as well as by his pulpit services. In the year 1619 he was deputed, together with his colleague, Theodore Tronchin, to represent the Genevan clergy in the famous synod of Dort. So highly were his abilities and orthodoxy respected by that synod, that he was one of the six ministers appointed to draw up the Belgic confession of faith, which was intended to secure the professors of the reformed religion in Holland within the pale of pure and unadulterated Calvinism. He died at Geneva in the year 1652, much regretted by the country and communion for which he renounced his family expectations and the religion of his ancestors. Among the different works which he published, his greatest reputation arose from a translation of the whole " Bible" into the Italian language, which first appeared at Geneva in 1607, in quarto, with notes; and was afterwards rereprinted by him in 1641, folio, in an improved state. The New Testament was printed separately at Geneva in 1608, and at Amsterdam and Haerlem in 1665. This version is, upon the whole, faithful and elegant, but much too paraphrastical. Father Simon maintains, that the author's notes are rather the serious meditations of a divine than the reflections of a judicious critic. Diodati also published at Geneva, in 1644, folio, a translation. of the "Bible" into the French language, which cannot be commended for its purity or neatness of style; and the first French translation of "Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent," in folio, which is sufficiently faithful, but possesses no higher pretensions to excellence of language than the preceding. cording to Spanheim and Grotius, Diodati was also the author of two translations from the English, one into the French and the other into the Italian language, of "Sir Edwyn Sandys's Europe Speculum, or a View or Survey of the State of Religion in the Western Parts of the World,"

Ac

626, 8vo. with considerable additions to the first ten chapters, written by the celebrated father Paul. Moreri. Nouv. Dict. Hist. Landi's Hist. de la Lit. d'Italie, vol. V.-M.

DIODORUS, named SICULUS, an ancient historian, was a native of Agyrium in Sicily, and flourished in the times of Julius and Augustus Cæsar. Devoting himself to the composition of history, he spent thirty years in his studies and enquiries, travelling to various parts of Europe and Asia, to the very spots where great events had been transacted, and making a long residence in Rome. The fruit of his labours was a work which he entitled "The Historic Library," treating, in forty books, on universal history, and divided into the periods, before the Trojan war, from that to the death of Alexander, and thence to the commencement of Cæsar's wars in Gaul. Of this only fifteen books and a few extracts remain. Photius praises his style as a good example of the middle diction proper for history, but later critics have judged less favourably of it. In point of matter, it is acknowledged that he has committed many mistakes in chronology, and he is charged with being given to fable and trifling narrative; but this last fault may be imputed to the fabulous nature of all early history. It cannot be doubted that his last books contained much information which would be highly valuable, and those which remain are of great service to the student of history. The best editions of Diodorus are those of Stephanus, Par. 1559; of Rhodomannus, Hanov. 1604; and of Wesseling, two vols. folio, Amst. 1746. Vossii Hist. Græc. Moreri.-A.

DIODORUS, bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, in the fourth century, was most probably a native of Antioch, in which city he long resided, and acquired considerable reputation in discharging the functions of a presbyter, and of an instructor of youth in the knowledge of the Scriptures and the principles of religion. The learned and celebrated Maximus bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, Theodorus bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, and John Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople, were educated in his school. As a presbyter, Diodorus is highly commended by Theodoret, Basil, and others of the fathers of the church, for the prudence of his conduct in managing the spiritual concerns of the Christians at Antioch during the banishment of their bishop Melitus, in the reign of the em peror Valens, and for the firmness with which he adhered to the orthodox cause under the persecutions of the arian sect. After the return of Melitus to Antioch, he ordained Diodorus

bishop of Tarsus, about the year 378. In that place he appears to have enjoyed a peaceable episcopate until his death, about the year 394. He was present at the first council of Constantinople, where the respect in which he was held occasioned his being selected as one of the bishops to whose pastoral vigilance and care the superintendance of the eastern churches was entrusted. Of his various writings, which were numerous, and, besides apologies for the christian religion and controversial treatises, consisted of commentaries on almost all the books of the Old Testament and several of the New, a few fragments only remain, to be found in the Catena Patrum Græcorum. The destruction of his works is, by some ecclesiastical* historians, attributed to the Arians; but by others to the Athanasians, on account of their being favourable to such opinions as were pronounced heretical by that sect in the famous Nestorian and Pelagian controversies. Be the truth what it may, the loss of them is to be. deplored, on account of the learning which they displayed, the example the author set of giving a literal sense to the language of the Scriptures, without puzzling himself and readers with unnatural and fanciful allegorical interpretations, and the intimate acquaintance which he discovered with Origen's Hexapla. In Suidas the reader may find a catalogue of these works taken from the fragments of Theodorus. Suidas. Cave's Hist. Lit. vol. I. sub. sæc. Arian. Du Pin. Moreri. Lardner's Cred. vol. IX.-M.

DIOGENES, surnamed the Babylonian, from the vicinity of Seleucia, his native place, to Babylon, was a stoic philosopher, who flourished in the second century B.C. He was a a disciple of Chrysippus, and the successor of his inmediate follower, Zeno of Tarsus, in the chair of the Porch; where he taught the principles of his sect with unwearied diligence, and eminent reputation. By Cicero he is called a great and respectable stoic. A strong proof of the high estimation in which his character and talents were held, was his appointment, conjointly with Carneades, the head of the Aca demics, and Critolaus, the chief of the peripatetic school, to the embassy to Rome, of which notice has been taken in the lives of those philosophers. He composed several works, among which were treatises on divination, on nobility, on the laws, and on Minerva, to which there are references in Cicero and Athenæus. He lived to the great age of eighty-eight years, and philosophised to the last. Seneca relates, that when he was one day discoursing against

1