The deadening effect of this system is evident. It left no room for life and growth; spontaneity and genius were stifled, and progress checked. Naturalness and truth were not at home in this age of officialdom and adulation. The Theodosian Code bears witness to the elaborate and involved etiquette which revelled in high-sounding names,—‘tua sublimitas, tua excelsitas, tua magnificentia, praecelsa sinceritas tua’,[742] &c.—to which even the emperors were bound by the enormous stress which public opinion laid on these distinctions. Not that this Byzantine etiquette was wholly evil. As a means of counteracting the confusion which had previously reigned, of creating a respect for the person of the emperor which meant better order and fewer rebellions, it was a master-stroke on the part of Diocletian. But its evil effects in the direction of artificiality in times when the emperors could, with less justice, be called ‘divine’ is not to be denied. But by the side of this mechanical pagan society there was growing up at this time ‘another society, young, energetic, fruitful of results—the ecclesiastical society. It was around this society that the people rallied ... the senatorial and curial aristocracy was a mere phantom: the clergy became the real aristocracy.’[743] In this society lay the hope of the future. (ii) CLASS DISTINCTION AND EDUCATION The cast-iron rigidity of class distinctions is apparent even from the slight foregoing sketch of social conditions. Yet it is worth while dwelling on it a little longer in view of the statements that have been made. Every man had his place allotted to him by the divine will of the emperor, and there he must remain on pain of committing sacrilege. Valentinianus (says the emperor in A.D. 384) has prescribed for every rank its proper place and worth. If, therefore, any one occupies a position not his own, let him not plead ignorance. He stands convicted of sacrilege, for he has neglected the divine commands of the emperor.[744] This was the general scheme of Roman society. Nor was it modified to any great extent in Gaul by the admixture of the Visigoths, who had much the same system.[745] How did its details affect education in Gaul? Jullian maintains that practically every free-born child regularly attended the schools, which were equally accessible, he thinks, to the children of freedmen.[746] He does not deny that distinctions were rigid and many: ‘le IVᵉ siècle est, comme le XIIIᵉ, un siècle de privilèges, de distinctions et de hiérarchie’: but he thinks that all the classes were equal in the matter of education and that rank disappeared in the school.[747] In a similar strain Denk argues that the curials must have had a considerable school training in order to fit them for the management of municipal affairs. ‘In order to perform such duties thoroughly they must have had the necessary knowledge: and this they must have obtained from the school.’[748]