n, cold as ice and pure as snow, was freely
charged with the most abhorrent vices without an atom of foundation.
But the truth probably is that he never thought of the subject
seriously at all, and that, yielding to a regrettable inclination, he
copied his licentious Greek notes with little reluctance.

(2.) The character of Belisarius, enigmatical enough in itself, is
made by him more enigmatical still. He concludes the forty-first
chapter, in which the great deeds of the conqueror of Italy and
Africa, and the ingratitude with which Justinian rewarded his
services, are set forth in strong contrast, with the inept remark that
"Belisarius appears to be either below or above the character of a
MAN." The grounds of the apparent meekness with which Belisarius
supported his repeated disgraces cannot now be ascertained: but the
motives of Justinian's conduct are not so difficult to find. As Finlay
points out in his thoughtful history of Greece, Belisarius must have
been a peculator on a large and dangerous scale. "Though he refused
the Gothic throne and the empire of the West, he did not despise nor
neglect wealth: he accumulated riches which could not have been
acquired by any commander-in-chief amidst the wars and famines of the
period, without rendering the military and civil administration
subservient to his pecuniary profit. On his return from Italy he lived
at Constantinople in almost regal splendour, and maintained a body of
7,000 cavalry attached to his household. In an empire where
confiscation was an ordinary financial resource, and under a sovereign
whose situation rendered jealousy only common prudence, it is not
surprising that the wealth of Belisarius excited the imperial
cupidity, and induced Justinian to seize great part of it" (_Greece
under the Romans_, chap. 3). There is shrewd insight in this, and
though we may regret that we cannot attain to more, it is better than
leaving the subject with an unmeaning paradox.

It may be said generally that Gibbon has not done justice to the
services rendered to Europe by the Byzantine empire. In his crowded
forty-eighth chapter, which is devoted to the subject, he passes over
events and characters with such speed that his history in this part
becomes little more than a chronicle, vivid indeed, but barren of
thoughtful political views. His account of the Isaurian period may be
instanced among others as an example of defective treatment. If we
turn to the judicious Finl