47, and the law (l. ix. tit. xxxvii.) of the Theodosian code,
which has so much embarrassed the interpreters. Godefroy, tom.
iii. p. 267
Note: This conjecture is very doubtful. The obscurity of
the law quoted from the Theodosian code scarcely allows any
inference, and there is extant but one meda which can be
attributed to a Helena, wife of Crispus.]
[Footnote 19: See the life of Constantine, particularly l. ii. c.
19, 20. Two hundred and fifty years afterwards Evagrius (l. iii.
c. 41) deduced from the silence of Eusebius a vain argument
against the reality of the fact.]
[Footnote 20: Histoire de Pierre le Grand, par Voltaire, part ii.
c. 10.]
The innocence of Crispus was so universally acknowledged,
that the modern Greeks, who adore the memory of their founder,
are reduced to palliate the guilt of a parricide, which the
common feelings of human nature forbade them to justify. They
pretend, that as soon as the afflicted father discovered the
falsehood of the accusation by which his credulity had been so
fatally misled, he published to the world his repentance and
remorse; that he mourned forty days, during which he abstained
from the use of the bath, and all the ordinary comforts of life;
and that, for the lasting instruction of posterity, he erected a
golden statue of Crispus, with this memorable inscription: To my
son, whom I unjustly condemned. ^21 A tale so moral and so
interesting would deserve to be supported by less exceptionable
authority; but if we consult the more ancient and authentic
writers, they will inform us, that the repentance of Constantine
was manifested only in acts of blood and revenge; and that he
atoned for the murder of an innocent son, by the execution,