But if we must discount the evidence both of the preacher and of the comedy-writer, we may find a more impartial guide than either in the Law. The Theodosian Code shows that the aspect of a crime changed with the social status of the criminal. There was no consistent ethical standard. If the wife of a tavern-keeper was taken in adultery, she could be publicly accused; but if her servant girl was so taken, she might be dismissed as too cheap to worry about (pro vilitate).[1138] If a guardian corrupted his ward, he was punished by deportation and total confiscation of his goods.[1139] But a woman who had committed adultery with her slave was put to death, and the slave burned. So terrible did this interference with class-distinction seem that even slaves were allowed to give information.[1140] Again, in bringing a charge of treason which he cannot prove, an ordinary man is subject to torture, but a slave or a freedman is denied an audience and crucified.[1141] If a slave or freedman brought an accusation against his master (except in the case of treason), he was to be beheaded before his charge was examined. ‘Vocem enim funestam intercidi oportet potius quam audiri.’[1142] Again, in the law of extortion, judges who have been convicted lose the marks of imperial favour, are stripped of their office, and ranked with the worst and lowest class in the State.[1143]
In the opinion of the law, and therefore of the mass of the people, being ‘pessimus’ means belonging to the plebs, and the punishment of crime comes to consist in loss of ‘caste’.[1144] That is to say, morality becomes a matter of social position, and the corollary is that anything may be done by those whose status is high, as long as they manage to maintain that status, while those at the bottom, having no status to lose, hardly care what they do. However much we may disregard particular descriptions of moral degeneracy, the Codex Theodosianus supplies a very damning commentary on the ethical standards of the time. Nor did the Christians effect any improvement in this legal respect of persons.
We have, of course, men like Paulinus of Pella who speak of the ‘sollers castorum cura parentum’[1145] which shielded him from every evil influence, and the Parentalia of Ausonius indicates happy home-conditions. Lavisse notes this,[1146] and makes much of the domestic felicity and the tender love reflected by these writers and by the inscriptions.[1147] But, apart from the fact that Ausonius and Paulinus were at the top of society, it is dangerous to presume too much from epitaphs. Then, as now, convention played a great part, and the stock phrase ‘Coniugi Karissimae’ may be as formal as the constantly recurring ‘memoriae aeternae’. It was the fashion to write epitaphs in which the superlative was prominent.[1148] Besides, in most of these inscriptions there is no clue as to the dates.
We must conclude, then, that there was much for the Christians to educate, in society and in themselves, if they wanted to fulfil the Christian code of morals.
Turning to the question how far an attempt was made in the pagan schools to train the moral nature, we find that it is precisely this side of pagan education that Juvenal and Tacitus criticized. The old Roman tradition of strict moral education at home was impaired under the Empire by the influx of foreign elements, and the decline is familiar from the authors of the first century A.D. Seneca could see in the education of his day no moral element,[1149] and his criticisms apply to the scholars of Gaul as much as to those of Rome. How could there be (he argued), when the masters were so utterly corrupt? ‘The grammarians’, he said, ‘taught merely antiquarian stuff, not ethics. They asked whether Homer was older than Hesiod, and inquired into the ages of Patroclus and Achilles, or the wanderings of Ulysses.’ ‘Quid horum ad virtutem viam struit?’ The geometricians teach how to survey estates, but ‘what does it profit me to know how to divide a plot of land, if I do not know how to share with my brother? You know what a straight line is. What good is it, if you do not know what is straight in life? O man of learning, let us be content with the simpler title: man of virtue.’[1150] The burden of the cry is for perspective, for an ethical basis, without which education was seen to be like an anchorless storm-tossed ship.[1151]
This need continues to be felt through the following centuries. We have seen what stress Julian laid on the moral qualifications of the teacher. His ideal was Hellenic purity. Before him, Eumenius, on whom the imperial injunction was laid: ‘ut ... ad vitae melioris studium adulescentium excolas mentes’,[1152] proclaimed the ideal of practical morality advocated by Cicero. Similarly, the emperor in his zeal for education stressed the moral side as well as the intellectual (so at least his panegyrist maintained), and realized that letters were the basis of virtue.[1153] These virtues, he says, grow up in youth, and in manhood form the strong support of all the various duties of citizenship, whether in peace or war. And so letters are the cradle ‘of all diligence and all praise’.
To a certain extent this demand for moral education was met in the pagan schools. When Paulinus speaks of learning ‘dogmata Socratus’ at the age of five, what he probably means is a selection of well-known sentences chosen for their moral teaching.[1154] The didactic nature of the fables and rhetorical exercises has been noticed, and we cannot doubt that they played a considerable part in the moral theory of the pagan schools. An inscription of Limoges, belonging probably to the second century, contains the figure of a man with a scroll in his right hand, and the following words:
‘Artis Grammatices Doctor Morumqꝫ Mag .. ter Blaesianus Biturix’.[1155]
The inference is that the popular conception of the grammarian’s task included moral training. We find that ‘Grammatica’ was regarded as the nurse of the virtues. A training is obtained through it for practical life. Not only the orator but the soldier was supposed to be thus formed. It is the school of the grammarian that trains the soldier whom the Campus Martius receives. ‘Grammar’ has fired him with imaginary battles, taught him courage by accustoming him to the apparatus of war even among the blandishments of peace, and so will make him obedient to the actual trumpet call.[1156] All this is claimed for the school. Such was the theory, but what sort of training was given in practice? It was of little use that fables with moral tags were put before the child if there was not at the same time the living example. And Seneca’s objection to the character of the ‘grammatici’ seems to have held to some extent in Gaul during our period. The disgusting picture of social vice which Ausonius gives in the latter part of the Epigrams applies in part also to the teachers. Eunus, the pedagogue, figures prominently in the list, and Ausonius himself speaks quite naturally about things that directly contradict the Christian morality which he professed. There was a hollowness in the teaching of the ‘grammaticus’ which logically followed from the attempt to maintain the precept without the example. The objections to the low ethical standard of the gods in Homer, which were urged in the fifth century as in the time of Plato and Cicero, were unheeded by the teachers, says Augustine, even when a man of their own school (ex eodem pulvere) proclaimed that Homer had transferred human qualities to the gods.[1157] A barbarism or a solecism was of more account than a moral offence: to forget the h in homo was more serious than to forget to love a fellow man.[1158]
‘Liberales Artes’, Seneca had said, ‘non perducunt animum ad virtutem, sed expediunt.’[1159] We must be content if the school-training merely creates a disposition of mind favourable to virtue. The Christian schools went further. They insisted on correlating theory and practice, and prescribed definite lines of action. As against the hollowness of the pagan moral teaching (and here again we can detect a reaction), the Christian teachers on the whole not only tried to practise what they taught, but saw to it that their pupils carried out their commands. They were exhorted to do so in the Canons of the Church. They put before men a personal ideal, and, if their methods of striving after it were sometimes crude and exaggerated, their sincerity can hardly be doubted. So obsessed were they with the idea of working out their own salvation that their teaching tended to become oppressively moral. The long disquisitions of Jerome or Tertullian on the minute points of moral behaviour are sometimes positively unhealthy. But we must remember that they represented a reaction from an extreme. And in this reaction the seeds of a higher ethical standard were being sown. Not as the lightning lighteth the heavens, but as the growth of the mustard-tree, the stern teaching of the monks who saw a higher vision and fled the world for its sake penetrated and leavened the mass of society, whether that society called itself Christian or not. Already in the fifth century a better public opinion was being formed. We find Sidonius, half-pagan as he was, commending his villa at Avitacum because of the absence of immoral pictures and scenes—‘non hic per nudam pictorum corporum pulchritudinem turpis prostat historia, quae sicut ornat artem sic devenustat artificem.... Absunt lubrici tortuosique pugilatu et nexibus palaestritae (wrestlers) quoram etiam viventum luctus, si involvantur obscenius casta confestim gymnasiarchorum virga dissolvit.’[1160] So in his letter to his son,[1161] he praises him for loving purity and adopts the tone of the moral educator.