It seems incontestable that Constantine degenerated as he grew older. Certainly his popularity tended to decrease. This, however, is the usual penalty of length of reign, and in itself would not count for much. But one cannot overlook the cumulative evidence which is to be found in the authorities of the period. Eusebius himself admits[126] that unscrupulous men often took advantage of the piety and generosity of the Emperor, and many of the stories which he tells in Constantine’s praise prepare us for the charges which were brought against him by the pagan historians. For example, Eusebius declares that whenever the Emperor heard a civil appeal, he used to make up out of his private purse the amount in which the losing party was mulcted, on the extraordinary principle that both the winner and the loser ought to leave their sovereign’s presence equally satisfied. Such a theory would speedily beggar the richest treasury. Aurelius Victor preserves a popular saying which shews the general estimation in which Constantine’s memory was held. Men used to say that for the first ten years of his reign he was a model sovereign (_præstantissimus_), for the next twelve he was a brigand (_latro_), and for the last ten a spendthrift heir, so called because of his preposterous extravagance (_pupillus ob profusiones immodicas_). He was nicknamed _Trachala_, the obvious reference of which would be to his short, thick neck; but Aurelius Victor appears to associate it in some way with the meaning of “scoffer” (_irrisor_). ----- Footnote 126: _De Vita Const._, iv., 54. ----- [Illustration: BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE AT ROME. FROM “ROME OF TO-DAY AND YESTERDAY,” BY JOHN DENNIE. ]