The emperors legislated against paganism and against heresy, not merely under ecclesiastical pressure, but because they thought religious uniformity politically desirable. Theodosius the Great, a Spaniard, with no sympathy for Hellenic culture, set himself the task of systematically eradicating pagan institutions and customs. Though his persecution accomplished much, paganism was far from being extinct either in the East or in the West in the 5th century. Not only did heathen cults survive in many remote dis tricts, but the old gods had many worshippers among the higher classes at Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Athens. The most distinguished Greek literati of that period were non Christian. Justinian, who united theological enthusiasm with be lief in the ideal of uniformity and, like Theodosius, was out of sympathy with Hellenism ("Helene" now came to mean "pagan"), persecuted polytheism more earnestly and severely than his pred ecessors. His measures created a panic among the higher classes at Byzantium, of whom many, as he suspected, were ad dicted to the ancient religion. He instituted a regular inquisition, exacted oaths of orthodoxy from all officials and teachers, and closed the philosophical schools of Athens. Missionaries (and it is remarkable that he employed monophysite heretics) were sent to abolish the old heathen worship which survived in many parts of Asia Minor where Christianity had hardly penetrated. By the end of the 6th century formal paganism had practically disap peared.
In Asia Minor, especially in the east, there were many dissident communities which asserted independence of the Church of Con stantinople and of all ecclesiastical traditions, founding their doc trines directly on the Bible. Most important of these heretics were the Paulicians (q.v.), a dualistic sect whom the Church regarded as Manichaeans.
The Autocracy and Its Constitutional Forms.—With Dio cletian the Principate of Augustus had become undisguisedly an absolute monarchy, and this constitution prevailed to the end. There is virtually no constitutional history in the proper sense of the term in the later Roman empire, for there was neither evolu tion nor revolution. The monarchical system remained in all its essential points unchanged, and presents a remarkable example of an autocracy of immense duration which perfectly satisfied the ideas of its subjects. No attempt was made to alter it—to intro duce, for instance, a limited monarchy or a republican Govern ment ; all revolts and conspiracies were aimed at the policies of particular autocrats, not at autocracy itself ; generally they only represented sectional antagonisms and personal ambitions. The emperors inherited a deeply rooted instinct of legality as a tradi tion from Old Rome; and this respect for law which marked their acts, along with the generally good administration of justice, was a palladium of the monarchy. They were supreme in legislation, as well as in the administrative and judicial spheres; but they were on the whole moderate in wielding legislation as an instrument of policy.
There were, however, recognized constitutional principles which it would have been impossible for the emperor to override.
(I) The elective principle, inherited from the republic, was never changed. A new emperor had to be elected by the senate and acclaimed by the people. The succession never became auto matic. But even Augustus had indirectly introduced the dynastic principle. Theodosius the Great, by causing his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius, to be elected Augusti in their infancy, practically elevated the dynastic idea into a constitutional principle; hence forward it was regarded as in the regular course that the son born to a reigning sovereign should in his infancy be elected Augustus.
Thus the election, though always an indispensable form, was only a reality when a dynasty came to an end.
(2) When the position of Christianity was assured by the failure of Julian's reaction, it was evident that profession of that religion would henceforward be a necessary qualification for elec tion to the throne. This was formally and constitutionally recog nized when the coronation of the emperor by the patriarch was introduced in 457, or perhaps in 450.
(3) The sovereignty of the emperor was personal and not ter ritorial. In this respect it always retained the character which it had inherited as the offspring of a Roman magistracy. Hence no Roman territory could be granted by the emperor to another power. For instance, the Western emperor Conrad III. could promise to hand over Italy to Manuel Comnenus as the dowry of his wife, but it would have been constitutionally illegal for Manuel to have made such a promise to any foreign prince ; an Eastern emperor had no right to dispose of the territory of the State. Tendencies towards a territorial conception begin indeed to appear (partly under Western influence) in the time of the Palaeologi, especially in the custom of bestowing appanages on imperial princes.
(4) While the senate of Rome generally lost its importance and at last became a mere municipal body, the new senate of Constantine preserved its position as an organ of the State till the fall of Constantinople. For the imperial elections it was con-, stitutionally indispensable, and it was able sometimes to play a decisive part when the throne was vacant--its only opportunity for independent action. The abolition, under Diocletian's system, of the senatorial provinces deprived the senate of the chief ad ministrative function which it exercised under the Principate; it had no legislative powers; and it lost most of its judicial func tions. It was, however, still a judicial court ; it tried, for instance, political crimes. In composition it differed from the senate of the Principate. The senators in the 4th century were chiefly func tionaries in the public service, divided into the three ascending ranks of clarissimi, spectabiles, illustres. The majority of the members of the senatorial order lived in the provinces, forming a provincial aristocracy, and did not sit in the senate. Then the two lower ranks ceased to have a right to sit in the senate, which was confined to the illustres and men of higher rank (patricians). The senatorial order must therefore be distinguished from the senate in a narrower sense ; the latter finally consisted mainly of high ministers of State and the chief officials of the palace. It would be a grave mistake to underrate the importance of this body, through an irrelevant contrast with the senate of the re public or even of the Principate. Its composition ensured to it great influence as a consultative assembly; and its political weight was increased by the fact that the inner council of imperial ad visers was practically a committee of the senate. The importance of the senate is illustrated by the fact that in the i z th century Constantine X., in order to carry out a revolutionary, anti-mili tary policy, found it necessary to alter the composition of the senate by introducing a number of new men from the lower classes.