rove to increase their
respective forces at the expense of their subjects.

As soon as Diocletian and Maximian had resigned the purple, their
station, according to the rules of the new constitution, was filled by
the two Caesars, Constantius and Galerius, who immediately assumed the
title of Augustus.

The honors of seniority and precedence were allowed to the former of
those princes, and he continued under a new appellation to administer
his ancient department of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. The government of
those ample provinces was sufficient to exercise his talents and
to satisfy his ambition. Clemency, temperance, and moderation,
distinguished the amiable character of Constantius, and his fortunate
subjects had frequently occasion to compare the virtues of their
sovereign with the passions of Maximian, and even with the arts of
Diocletian. Instead of imitating their eastern pride and magnificence,
Constantius preserved the modesty of a Roman prince. He declared, with
unaffected sincerity, that his most valued treasure was in the hearts of
his people, and that, whenever the dignity of the throne, or the danger
of the state, required any extraordinary supply, he could depend with
confidence on their gratitude and liberality. The provincials of Gaul,
Spain, and Britain, sensible of his worth, and of their own happiness,
reflected with anxiety on the declining health of the emperor
Constantius, and the tender age of his numerous family, the issue of his
second marriage with the daughter of Maximian.

The stern temper of Galerius was cast in a very different mould; and
while he commanded the esteem of his subjects, he seldom condescended to
solicit their affections. His fame in arms, and, above all, the success
of the Persian war, had elated his haughty mind, which was naturally
impatient of a superior, or even of an equal. If it were possible to
rely on the partial testimony of an injudicious writer, we might ascribe
the abdication of Diocletian to the menaces of Galerius, and relate the
particulars of a private conversation between the two princes, in which
the former discovered as much pusillanimity as the latter displayed
ingratitude and arrogance. But these obscure anecdotes are sufficiently
refuted by an impartia view of the character and conduct of Diocletian.
Whatever might otherwise have been his intentions, if he had apprehended
any danger from the violence of Galerius, his good sense would have
instructed hi