no means without their use. If they did not lead to any positive results, we may be sure that their general effect was humanising. It was better for the higher and wealthier class to take pleasure in discussing theological dogmas than in witnessing the last agonies of dying gladiators. No doubt the luxury of the time, in the capital especially, was a scandal and a source of corruption and feebleness; but luxury is, we know, inseparable from wealth and softness of manners, and throughout the East it may have been a civilizing and not a purely demoralizing agency.
A university was founded at Constantinople in the reign of Theodosius—a distinct symptom of intellectual activity. We may conjecture that the emperor's cultivated and energetic sister helped on the movement. It was not the result of private liberality; it was the act of the state, and the university was maintained at the public cost. The professors held very honourable positions, and attained them after having given decisive proof of profound learning and excellent character. A chair in the university was obtained by competitive examination. A professor of twenty years' standing received the title of "count," and became, in fact, a nobleman of the empire. It seems that the officials of the civil service were chosen from distinguished members of the university. Greek was one of the chief subjects of study; Latin was by no means neglected, and there were chairs of law and philosophy. The Eastern world evidently set a high value on learning and culture. Literature was hardly popular in our sense of the word, but religious
