This is a modern-English version of History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire — Volume 1, originally written by Gibbon, Edward. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL
OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Edward Gibbon, Esq.

With notes by the Rev. H. H. Milman

Volume 1

1782 (Written), 1845 (Revised)


CONTENTS


Introduction
Preface By The Editor
Preface Of The Author
Preface To The First Volume

Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The Antoninies.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.

Introduction—The Extent And Military Force Of The Empire In
The Age Of The Antonines.


Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The Antonines.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.   Part IV.  

Of The Union And Internal Prosperity Of The Roman Empire, In
The Age Of The Antonines.


Chapter III: The Constitution In The Age Of The Antonines.—Part I.   Part II.

Of The Constitution Of The Roman Empire, In The Age Of The
Antonines.


Chapter IV: The Cruelty, Follies And Murder Of Commodus.—Part I.   Part II.

The Cruelty, Follies, And Murder Of Commodus. Election Of
Pertinax—His Attempts To Reform The State—His Assassination
By The Prætorian Guards.


Chapter V: Sale Of The Empire To Didius Julianus.—Part I.   Part II.

Public Sale Of The Empire To Didius Julianus By The
Prætorian Guards—Clodius Albinus In Britain, Pescennius
Niger In Syria, And Septimius Severus In Pannonia, Declare
Against The Murderers Of Pertinax—Civil Wars And Victory Of
Severus Over His Three Rivals—Relaxation Of Discipline—New
Maxims Of Government.


Chapter VI: Death Of Severus, Tyranny Of Caracalla, Usurpation Of Macrinus.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.   Part IV.  

The Death Of Severus.—Tyranny Of Caracalla.—Usurpation
Of Macrinus.—Follies Of Elagabalus.—Virtues Of Alexander
Severus.—Licentiousness Of The Army.—General State Of The
Roman Finances.


Chapter VII: Tyranny Of Maximin, Rebellion, Civil Wars, Death Of Maximin.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.  

The Elevation And Tyranny Of Maximin.—Rebellion In Africa
And Italy, Under The Authority Of The Senate.—Civil Wars And
Seditions.—Violent Deaths Of Maximin And His Son, Of Maximus
And Balbinus, And Of The Three Gordians.—Usurpation And
Secular Games Of Philip.


Chapter VIII: State Of Persia And Restoration Of The Monarchy.—Part I.   Part II.

Of The State Of Persia After The Restoration Of The Monarchy
By Artaxerxes.


Chapter IX: State Of Germany Until The Barbarians.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.

The State Of Germany Till The Invasion Of The Barbarians In
The Time Of The Emperor Decius.


Chapter X: Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian And Gallienus.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.   Part IV.

The Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian, And
Gallienus.—The General Irruption Of The Barbarians.—The
Thirty Tyrants.


Chapter XI: Reign Of Claudius, Defeat Of The Goths.—Part I.  Part II.  Part III.

Reign Of Claudius.—Defeat Of The Goths.—Victories,
Triumph, And Death Of Aurelian.


Chapter XII: Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus And His Sons.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.

Conduct Of The Army And Senate After The Death Of Aurelian.—
Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus, And His Sons.


Chapter XIII: Reign Of Diocletian And This Three Associates.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.   Part IV.

The Reign Of Diocletian And His Three Associates, Maximian,
Galerius, And Constantius.—General Reestablishment Of Order
And Tranquillity.—The Persian War, Victory, And Triumph.—
The New Form Of Administration.—Abdication And Retirement Of
Diocletian And Maximian.


Chapter XIV: Six Emperors At The Same Time, Reunion Of The Empire.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.   Part IV.  

Troubles After The Abdication Of Diocletian.—Death Of
Constantius.—Elevation Of Constantine And Maxentius. ­
Six Emperors At The Same Time.—Death Of Maximian And Galerius.
—Victories Of Constantine Over Maxentius And Licinus.—
Reunion Of The Empire Under The Authority Of Constantine.


Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part I.   Part II.   Part III.   Part IV.   Part V.   Part VI.   Part VII.   Part VIII.   Part IX.

The Progress Of The Christian Religion, And The Sentiments,
Manners, Numbers, And Condition Of The Primitive Christians.


CONTENTS


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_6__

Introduction—The Scope and Military Power of the Empire during the Age of the Antonines.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_7__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_8__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_9__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_10__

On The Unity and Internal Prosperity of the Roman Empire in  
The Age of the Antonines.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_11__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_12__

On the Structure of the Roman Empire during The Age of the Antonines.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_13__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_14__

The Cruelty, Folly, and Murder of Commodus. Election of Pertinax—His Attempts to Reform the State—His Assassination by the Praetorian Guards.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_15__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_16__

Public Sale of the Empire to Didius Julianus by the Praetorian Guards—Clodius Albinus in Britain, Pescennius Niger in Syria, and Septimius Severus in Pannonia rise against Pertinax's murderers—Civil wars and Severus’s victory over his three rivals—Lax discipline—New governance principles.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_17__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_18__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_19__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_20__

The Death of Severus—Tyranny of Caracalla—Usurpation of Macrinus—Follies of Elagabalus—Virtues of Alexander Severus—Decadence of the Army—General State of Roman Finances.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_21__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_22__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_23__

The Rise and Oppression of Maximin—Rebellion in Africa and Italy under the Senate’s Authority—Civil Wars and Uprisings—Brutal Deaths of Maximin and his son, Maximus and Balbinus, and the Three Gordians—Usurpation and Secular Games of Philip.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_24__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_25__

On The Condition of Persia After the Restoration of the Monarchy by Artaxerxes.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_26__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_27__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_28__

The State of Germany Before the Barbarian Invasion During the Reign of Emperor Decius.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_29__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_30__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_31__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_32__

The Emperors Decius, Gallus, Aemilianus, Valerian, and Gallienus—The General Invasion of the Barbarians—The Thirty Tyrants.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_33__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_34__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_35__

Reign of Claudius—Defeat of the Goths—Victories, Triumph, and Death of Aurelian.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_36__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_37__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_38__

Actions of the Army and Senate After the Death of Aurelian—  
Reigns of Tacitus, Probus, Carus, and His Sons.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_39__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_40__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_41__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_42__

The Reign of Diocletian and His Three Colleagues, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius—Overall Restoration of Order and Peace—The Persian War, Victory, and Triumph—New Administrative Structure—Resignation and Retirement of Diocletian and Maximian.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_43__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_44__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_45__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_46__

Challenges After the Resignation of Diocletian—Death of Constantius—Rise of Constantine and Maxentius—Six Emperors at Once—Death of Maximian and Galerius—Constantine's Victories Over Maxentius and Licinius—Reunification of the Empire Under Constantine's Authority.


__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_47__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_48__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_49__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_50__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_51__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_52__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_53__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_54__ __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_55__

The Growth of the Christian Faith, and the Beliefs, Behavior, Number, and Situation of Early Christians.







Introduction

Preface By The Editor.

The great work of Gibbon is indispensable to the student of history. The literature of Europe offers no substitute for “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” It has obtained undisputed possession, as rightful occupant, of the vast period which it comprehends. However some subjects, which it embraces, may have undergone more complete investigation, on the general view of the whole period, this history is the sole undisputed authority to which all defer, and from which few appeal to the original writers, or to more modern compilers. The inherent interest of the subject, the inexhaustible labor employed upon it; the immense condensation of matter; the luminous arrangement; the general accuracy; the style, which, however monotonous from its uniform stateliness, and sometimes wearisome from its elaborate art, is throughout vigorous, animated, often picturesque, always commands attention, always conveys its meaning with emphatic energy, describes with singular breadth and fidelity, and generalizes with unrivalled felicity of expression; all these high qualifications have secured, and seem likely to secure, its permanent place in historic literature.

The great work of Gibbon is essential for anyone studying history. The literature of Europe has no replacement for “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” It has firmly established itself as the key resource for the extensive period it covers. Although some topics within it may have been investigated more thoroughly, when it comes to a general understanding of the entire period, this work is the one recognized authority that everyone respects, and few turn to the original writers or more modern historians. The compelling nature of the subject, the immense effort put into it, the extensive summarization of content, the clear organization, the overall accuracy, and the writing style—which, while sometimes monotonous due to its consistent formality and occasionally tedious because of its intricate technique—remains vibrant, engaging, and often vivid; it always captures attention, effectively conveys meaning with strong emphasis, describes with remarkable detail and accuracy, and generalizes with unmatched eloquence. All these exceptional qualities have secured, and are likely to continue securing, its lasting place in historical literature.

This vast design of Gibbon, the magnificent whole into which he has cast the decay and ruin of the ancient civilization, the formation and birth of the new order of things, will of itself, independent of the laborious execution of his immense plan, render “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” an unapproachable subject to the future historian:* in the eloquent language of his recent French editor, M. Guizot:—

This grand vision of Gibbon, the impressive entirety in which he has woven together the decline and fall of ancient civilization and the emergence of a new order, will, on its own, make “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” an unparalleled topic for future historians:* as expressed in the powerful words of his recent French editor, M. Guizot:—

“The gradual decline of the most extraordinary dominion which has ever invaded and oppressed the world; the fall of that immense empire, erected on the ruins of so many kingdoms, republics, and states both barbarous and civilized; and forming in its turn, by its dismemberment, a multitude of states, republics, and kingdoms; the annihilation of the religion of Greece and Rome; the birth and the progress of the two new religions which have shared the most beautiful regions of the earth; the decrepitude of the ancient world, the spectacle of its expiring glory and degenerate manners; the infancy of the modern world, the picture of its first progress, of the new direction given to the mind and character of man—such a subject must necessarily fix the attention and excite the interest of men, who cannot behold with indifference those memorable epochs, during which, in the fine language of Corneille—

“The gradual decline of the most extraordinary empire that has ever invaded and oppressed the world; the fall of that vast empire, built on the ruins of so many kingdoms, republics, and states, both savage and civilized; which, in turn, by its fragmentation, created a multitude of states, republics, and kingdoms; the destruction of the religions of Greece and Rome; the emergence and growth of two new religions that have spread across the most beautiful areas of the earth; the decay of the ancient world, the sight of its fading glory and corrupt morals; the infancy of the modern world, the depiction of its initial progress, and the new direction given to the minds and characters of people—such a topic must undoubtedly capture the attention and spark the interest of those who cannot view indifferently those significant periods, during which, in the eloquent words of Corneille—

‘Un grand destin commence, un grand destin s’achève.’”

‘A great destiny begins, a great destiny ends.’”

This extent and harmony of design is unquestionably that which distinguishes the work of Gibbon from all other great historical compositions. He has first bridged the abyss between ancient and modern times, and connected together the two great worlds of history. The great advantage which the classical historians possess over those of modern times is in unity of plan, of course greatly facilitated by the narrower sphere to which their researches were confined. Except Herodotus, the great historians of Greece—we exclude the more modern compilers, like Diodorus Siculus—limited themselves to a single period, or at least to the contracted sphere of Grecian affairs. As far as the Barbarians trespassed within the Grecian boundary, or were necessarily mingled up with Grecian politics, they were admitted into the pale of Grecian history; but to Thucydides and to Xenophon, excepting in the Persian inroad of the latter, Greece was the world. Natural unity confined their narrative almost to chronological order, the episodes were of rare occurrence and extremely brief. To the Roman historians the course was equally clear and defined. Rome was their centre of unity; and the uniformity with which the circle of the Roman dominion spread around, the regularity with which their civil polity expanded, forced, as it were, upon the Roman historian that plan which Polybius announces as the subject of his history, the means and the manner by which the whole world became subject to the Roman sway. How different the complicated politics of the European kingdoms! Every national history, to be complete, must, in a certain sense, be the history of Europe; there is no knowing to how remote a quarter it may be necessary to trace our most domestic events; from a country, how apparently disconnected, may originate the impulse which gives its direction to the whole course of affairs.

The extent and harmony of design clearly set Gibbon's work apart from all other great historical writings. He first bridged the gap between ancient and modern times, linking the two major worlds of history. The main advantage classical historians have over modern ones is their unity of purpose, which was significantly easier because their research was limited to a narrower scope. Except for Herodotus, the major historians of Greece—excluding later compilers like Diodorus Siculus—focused on a single period or at least on a limited range of Greek affairs. The Barbarians were included in Greek history only when they crossed into Greek territory or were involved in Greek politics; for Thucydides and Xenophon, except for Xenophon's account of the Persian invasion, Greece was the entirety of their world. This natural unity kept their narratives almost strictly chronological, with rare and very brief episodes. For Roman historians, the focus was just as clear and defined. Rome served as their focal point; the way Roman rule spread uniformly and the consistency of their civil system led Roman historians to adopt the plan that Polybius outlines as the subject of his history—the means and methods by which the entire world came under Roman control. How different the complex politics of the European kingdoms are! To have a complete national history, it must, in a way, encompass the history of Europe; it’s impossible to predict how far we might need to trace our most everyday events back; from seemingly unrelated countries might emerge the forces that shape the entire trajectory of events.

In imitation of his classical models, Gibbon places Rome as the cardinal point from which his inquiries diverge, and to which they bear constant reference; yet how immeasurable the space over which those inquiries range! how complicated, how confused, how apparently inextricable the causes which tend to the decline of the Roman empire! how countless the nations which swarm forth, in mingling and indistinct hordes, constantly changing the geographical limits—incessantly confounding the natural boundaries! At first sight, the whole period, the whole state of the world, seems to offer no more secure footing to an historical adventurer than the chaos of Milton—to be in a state of irreclaimable disorder, best described in the language of the poet:—

In following his classical models, Gibbon positions Rome as the central point from which his inquiries branch out and to which they continually refer; yet the scope of those inquiries is vast! The causes behind the decline of the Roman Empire are complicated, confusing, and seemingly tangled. The numerous nations emerge in mixed and indistinct groups, constantly shifting geographical boundaries and constantly blurring natural borders! At first glance, the entire period and the state of the world seem to provide no firmer ground for a historical explorer than the chaos described by Milton—existing in a state of irretrievable disorder, best captured in the poet’s words:—

     “A dark Illimitable ocean, without bound,
     Without dimension, where length, breadth, and height,
     And time, and place, are lost: where eldest Night
     And Chaos, ancestors of Nature, hold
     Eternal anarchy, amidst the noise
     Of endless wars, and by confusion stand.”
     “A vast, endless ocean, with no limits,
     No measurements, where length, width, and height,
     And time, and space, fade away: where ancient Night
     And Chaos, the forerunners of Nature, maintain
     Everlasting disorder, amidst the clamor
     Of endless battles, and chaos prevail.”

We feel that the unity and harmony of narrative, which shall comprehend this period of social disorganization, must be ascribed entirely to the skill and luminous disposition of the historian. It is in this sublime Gothic architecture of his work, in which the boundless range, the infinite variety, the, at first sight, incongruous gorgeousness of the separate parts, nevertheless are all subordinate to one main and predominant idea, that Gibbon is unrivalled. We cannot but admire the manner in which he masses his materials, and arranges his facts in successive groups, not according to chronological order, but to their moral or political connection; the distinctness with which he marks his periods of gradually increasing decay; and the skill with which, though advancing on separate parallels of history, he shows the common tendency of the slower or more rapid religious or civil innovations. However these principles of composition may demand more than ordinary attention on the part of the reader, they can alone impress upon the memory the real course, and the relative importance of the events. Whoever would justly appreciate the superiority of Gibbon’s lucid arrangement, should attempt to make his way through the regular but wearisome annals of Tillemont, or even the less ponderous volumes of Le Beau. Both these writers adhere, almost entirely, to chronological order; the consequence is, that we are twenty times called upon to break off, and resume the thread of six or eight wars in different parts of the empire; to suspend the operations of a military expedition for a court intrigue; to hurry away from a siege to a council; and the same page places us in the middle of a campaign against the barbarians, and in the depths of the Monophysite controversy. In Gibbon it is not always easy to bear in mind the exact dates but the course of events is ever clear and distinct; like a skilful general, though his troops advance from the most remote and opposite quarters, they are constantly bearing down and concentrating themselves on one point—that which is still occupied by the name, and by the waning power of Rome. Whether he traces the progress of hostile religions, or leads from the shores of the Baltic, or the verge of the Chinese empire, the successive hosts of barbarians—though one wave has hardly burst and discharged itself, before another swells up and approaches—all is made to flow in the same direction, and the impression which each makes upon the tottering fabric of the Roman greatness, connects their distant movements, and measures the relative importance assigned to them in the panoramic history. The more peaceful and didactic episodes on the development of the Roman law, or even on the details of ecclesiastical history, interpose themselves as resting-places or divisions between the periods of barbaric invasion. In short, though distracted first by the two capitals, and afterwards by the formal partition of the empire, the extraordinary felicity of arrangement maintains an order and a regular progression. As our horizon expands to reveal to us the gathering tempests which are forming far beyond the boundaries of the civilized world—as we follow their successive approach to the trembling frontier—the compressed and receding line is still distinctly visible; though gradually dismembered and the broken fragments assuming the form of regular states and kingdoms, the real relation of those kingdoms to the empire is maintained and defined; and even when the Roman dominion has shrunk into little more than the province of Thrace—when the name of Rome, confined, in Italy, to the walls of the city—yet it is still the memory, the shade of the Roman greatness, which extends over the wide sphere into which the historian expands his later narrative; the whole blends into the unity, and is manifestly essential to the double catastrophe of his tragic drama.

We believe that the unity and harmony of the narrative, which captures this time of social chaos, is entirely thanks to the historian's skill and clear organization. In the impressive Gothic structure of his work, where the vast range, the endless variety, and the seemingly mismatched beauty of the individual parts all support one main and dominant idea, Gibbon stands alone. We can't help but admire how he organizes his materials and arranges his facts into groups, not in chronological order, but based on their moral or political connections; the clarity with which he outlines periods of gradual decay; and the skill with which, while progressing along separate historical threads, he illustrates the shared direction of slower or faster religious or civil changes. Although these compositional principles may require more than usual attention from the reader, they are the only means to truly grasp the course and relative significance of the events. Anyone who wants to appreciate the clarity of Gibbon's organization should try to navigate the systematic but tedious histories of Tillemont, or even the lighter volumes of Le Beau. Both of these writers stick almost entirely to chronological order, which means we are repeatedly forced to pause and pick up the narrative of six or eight wars happening across different parts of the empire; to interrupt a military campaign for a court intrigue; to switch from a siege to a council; and the same page can place us in the middle of a battle against the barbarians and deep in the Monophysite debate. With Gibbon, it may not always be easy to remember exact dates, but the sequence of events is always clear and distinct; like a skilled general, even though his forces come from the most distant and opposite directions, they all converge on one point: the waning power and name of Rome. Whether he tracks the progress of rival religions or follows the invading waves of barbarians from the shores of the Baltic or the borders of the Chinese empire—though one wave has barely receded before another rises—they all flow in the same direction, and each has an impact on the weakening structure of Roman greatness, connecting their distant movements and reflecting their importance in the overarching history. The more peaceful and educational sections on the development of Roman law, or even aspects of ecclesiastical history, serve as pauses or divisions between the waves of barbarian invasions. In short, despite being initially distracted by the two capitals and later by the formal division of the empire, the extraordinary clarity of arrangement keeps a sense of order and progress. As we broaden our view to see the approaching storms forming far beyond the civilized world's boundaries—as we trace their advance toward the shaky frontier—the contracting and pulling line is still clearly visible; though gradually divided and the shattered pieces taking the shape of regular states and kingdoms, the actual connection of those kingdoms to the empire is preserved and defined; and even when Roman rule has shrunk to little more than the province of Thrace—when the name of Rome is limited in Italy to the city's walls—it is still the legacy, the shadow of Roman greatness, that casts its influence over the vast realm into which the historian unfolds his later story; everything merges into a unity, which is clearly crucial to the dual catastrophe of his tragic narrative.

But the amplitude, the magnificence, or the harmony of design, are, though imposing, yet unworthy claims on our admiration, unless the details are filled up with correctness and accuracy. No writer has been more severely tried on this point than Gibbon. He has undergone the triple scrutiny of theological zeal quickened by just resentment, of literary emulation, and of that mean and invidious vanity which delights in detecting errors in writers of established fame. On the result of the trial, we may be permitted to summon competent witnesses before we deliver our own judgment.

But the scale, the grandeur, or the balance of design are, while impressive, unworthy of our admiration unless the details are filled in with correctness and precision. No writer has faced harsher criticism on this front than Gibbon. He has been subjected to the intense examination of theological fervor fueled by righteous anger, of literary rivalry, and of that petty and spiteful pride that takes pleasure in finding faults in well-known authors. Regarding the outcome of this scrutiny, we can call upon knowledgeable witnesses before we share our own opinion.

M. Guizot, in his preface, after stating that in France and Germany, as well as in England, in the most enlightened countries of Europe, Gibbon is constantly cited as an authority, thus proceeds:—

M. Guizot, in his preface, after pointing out that in France and Germany, as well as in England, in the most enlightened countries of Europe, Gibbon is often referenced as an authority, goes on to say:—

“I have had occasion, during my labors, to consult the writings of philosophers, who have treated on the finances of the Roman empire; of scholars, who have investigated the chronology; of theologians, who have searched the depths of ecclesiastical history; of writers on law, who have studied with care the Roman jurisprudence; of Orientalists, who have occupied themselves with the Arabians and the Koran; of modern historians, who have entered upon extensive researches touching the crusades and their influence; each of these writers has remarked and pointed out, in the ‘History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ some negligences, some false or imperfect views, some omissions, which it is impossible not to suppose voluntary; they have rectified some facts, combated with advantage some assertions; but in general they have taken the researches and the ideas of Gibbon, as points of departure, or as proofs of the researches or of the new opinions which they have advanced.”

“I've had the chance, during my work, to consult the writings of philosophers who have discussed the finances of the Roman Empire; scholars who have studied chronology; theologians who have explored the depths of church history; legal writers who have carefully examined Roman law; Orientalists who have focused on the Arabians and the Koran; and modern historians who have undertaken extensive research on the crusades and their impact. Each of these authors has noted and pointed out some oversights, incorrect or incomplete views, and omissions in the 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,' which can hardly be considered unintentional. They have corrected some facts and successfully refuted certain claims; but overall, they have used Gibbon's research and ideas as a starting point or as evidence for their own investigations or new opinions.”

M. Guizot goes on to state his own impressions on reading Gibbon’s history, and no authority will have greater weight with those to whom the extent and accuracy of his historical researches are known:—

M. Guizot shares his thoughts on reading Gibbon’s history, and no one will have more credibility with those who are aware of the depth and precision of his historical research:—

“After a first rapid perusal, which allowed me to feel nothing but the interest of a narrative, always animated, and, notwithstanding its extent and the variety of objects which it makes to pass before the view, always perspicuous, I entered upon a minute examination of the details of which it was composed; and the opinion which I then formed was, I confess, singularly severe. I discovered, in certain chapters, errors which appeared to me sufficiently important and numerous to make me believe that they had been written with extreme negligence; in others, I was struck with a certain tinge of partiality and prejudice, which imparted to the exposition of the facts that want of truth and justice, which the English express by their happy term misrepresentation. Some imperfect (tronquées) quotations; some passages, omitted unintentionally or designedly cast a suspicion on the honesty (bonne foi) of the author; and his violation of the first law of history—increased to my eye by the prolonged attention with which I occupied myself with every phrase, every note, every reflection—caused me to form upon the whole work, a judgment far too rigorous. After having finished my labors, I allowed some time to elapse before I reviewed the whole. A second attentive and regular perusal of the entire work, of the notes of the author, and of those which I had thought it right to subjoin, showed me how much I had exaggerated the importance of the reproaches which Gibbon really deserved; I was struck with the same errors, the same partiality on certain subjects; but I had been far from doing adequate justice to the immensity of his researches, the variety of his knowledge, and above all, to that truly philosophical discrimination (justesse d’esprit) which judges the past as it would judge the present; which does not permit itself to be blinded by the clouds which time gathers around the dead, and which prevent us from seeing that, under the toga, as under the modern dress, in the senate as in our councils, men were what they still are, and that events took place eighteen centuries ago, as they take place in our days. I then felt that his book, in spite of its faults, will always be a noble work—and that we may correct his errors and combat his prejudices, without ceasing to admit that few men have combined, if we are not to say in so high a degree, at least in a manner so complete, and so well regulated, the necessary qualifications for a writer of history.”

“After a quick read-through, which made me feel nothing but the excitement of a narrative that is always lively and, despite its length and the variety of subjects it covers, remains clear, I began to closely examine the details it contained. I must admit that my initial judgment was unusually harsh. In some chapters, I found errors that seemed significant and numerous enough to convince me that they had been written with great carelessness; in others, I noticed a hint of bias and prejudice, which gave the presentation of the facts a lack of truth and fairness that the English effectively call misrepresentation. Some incomplete (tronquées) quotes and some passages, whether omitted by accident or on purpose, suggested a lack of honesty (bonne foi) on the author’s part. His violation of the fundamental rule of history—heightened in my view by the focused attention I gave to every phrase, note, and thought—led me to form a judgment of the whole work that was far too strict. After completing my work, I let some time pass before I reviewed everything again. A second careful and thorough reading of the entire work, including the author's notes and the ones I thought it right to add, showed me how much I had overstated the significance of the criticisms that Gibbon truly deserved; I noticed the same errors and the same bias on certain topics, but I hadn’t done enough justice to the vast scope of his research, the diversity of his knowledge, and especially to that genuinely philosophical insight (justesse d’esprit) that examines the past as it would assess the present; one that isn’t blinded by the fog that time gathers around the dead, which obscures our understanding that, beneath the toga and the modern attire, in the senate as in our councils, people were what they still are, and that events occurred eighteen centuries ago just as they do today. I realized then that his book, despite its faults, will always be a remarkable work—and that we can correct his mistakes and challenge his biases without denying that few individuals have come together, if not to such a high degree, at least in such a complete and well-structured way, the necessary qualifications to be a historian.”

The present editor has followed the track of Gibbon through many parts of his work; he has read his authorities with constant reference to his pages, and must pronounce his deliberate judgment, in terms of the highest admiration as to his general accuracy. Many of his seeming errors are almost inevitable from the close condensation of his matter. From the immense range of his history, it was sometimes necessary to compress into a single sentence, a whole vague and diffuse page of a Byzantine chronicler. Perhaps something of importance may have thus escaped, and his expressions may not quite contain the whole substance of the passage from which they are taken. His limits, at times, compel him to sketch; where that is the case, it is not fair to expect the full details of the finished picture. At times he can only deal with important results; and in his account of a war, it sometimes requires great attention to discover that the events which seem to be comprehended in a single campaign, occupy several years. But this admirable skill in selecting and giving prominence to the points which are of real weight and importance—this distribution of light and shade—though perhaps it may occasionally betray him into vague and imperfect statements, is one of the highest excellencies of Gibbon’s historic manner. It is the more striking, when we pass from the works of his chief authorities, where, after laboring through long, minute, and wearisome descriptions of the accessary and subordinate circumstances, a single unmarked and undistinguished sentence, which we may overlook from the inattention of fatigue, contains the great moral and political result.

The current editor has followed Gibbon's path through many parts of his work; he has read his sources while constantly referring to Gibbon’s pages and must express his considered judgment, with the highest admiration for his overall accuracy. Many of his apparent mistakes are almost unavoidable due to the close condensation of his material. Given the vast scope of his history, it was sometimes necessary to condense an entire vague and lengthy page from a Byzantine chronicler into a single sentence. Some important details may have been lost in this process, and his phrasing may not fully capture the entire essence of the passage from which it is drawn. His constraints sometimes force him to provide an outline; in those cases, it is unreasonable to expect the complete details of a finished depiction. At times, he can only address significant outcomes; in his account of a war, it can take a keen eye to realize that what appears to be part of a single campaign spans several years. However, his remarkable ability to select and highlight the points that truly matter—this balance of emphasis—although it may lead him to occasionally vague and incomplete statements, is one of the greatest strengths of Gibbon’s historical style. This quality becomes even more evident when we compare it to the works of his primary sources, where, after trudging through long, detailed, and exhausting descriptions of secondary and minor details, we may overlook a single unmarked and indistinct sentence containing the key moral and political outcome due to fatigue-induced inattention.

Gibbon’s method of arrangement, though on the whole most favorable to the clear comprehension of the events, leads likewise to apparent inaccuracy. That which we expect to find in one part is reserved for another. The estimate which we are to form, depends on the accurate balance of statements in remote parts of the work; and we have sometimes to correct and modify opinions, formed from one chapter by those of another. Yet, on the other hand, it is astonishing how rarely we detect contradiction; the mind of the author has already harmonized the whole result to truth and probability; the general impression is almost invariably the same. The quotations of Gibbon have likewise been called in question;—I have, in general, been more inclined to admire their exactitude, than to complain of their indistinctness, or incompleteness. Where they are imperfect, it is commonly from the study of brevity, and rather from the desire of compressing the substance of his notes into pointed and emphatic sentences, than from dishonesty, or uncandid suppression of truth.

Gibbon’s way of organizing information, while overall quite helpful for understanding the events, can also lead to some apparent inaccuracies. What we expect to find in one section is often saved for another. Our understanding relies on balancing statements from different sections of the work, and at times we need to adjust and rethink our opinions based on one chapter after reading another. However, it’s remarkable how rarely we find contradictions; the author’s mind has effectively aligned everything to reflect truth and likelihood, and the overall impression is nearly always consistent. The accuracy of Gibbon’s quotes has also been questioned; I have, in general, been more likely to appreciate their precision than to criticize them for being vague or incomplete. When they are lacking, it’s usually due to a pursuit of brevity, aiming to condense the essence of his notes into sharp and impactful statements rather than any dishonesty or intentional hiding of the truth.

These observations apply more particularly to the accuracy and fidelity of the historian as to his facts; his inferences, of course, are more liable to exception. It is almost impossible to trace the line between unfairness and unfaithfulness; between intentional misrepresentation and undesigned false coloring. The relative magnitude and importance of events must, in some respect, depend upon the mind before which they are presented; the estimate of character, on the habits and feelings of the reader. Christians, like M. Guizot and ourselves, will see some things, and some persons, in a different light from the historian of the Decline and Fall. We may deplore the bias of his mind; we may ourselves be on our guard against the danger of being misled, and be anxious to warn less wary readers against the same perils; but we must not confound this secret and unconscious departure from truth, with the deliberate violation of that veracity which is the only title of an historian to our confidence. Gibbon, it may be fearlessly asserted, is rarely chargeable even with the suppression of any material fact, which bears upon individual character; he may, with apparently invidious hostility, enhance the errors and crimes, and disparage the virtues of certain persons; yet, in general, he leaves us the materials for forming a fairer judgment; and if he is not exempt from his own prejudices, perhaps we might write passions, yet it must be candidly acknowledged, that his philosophical bigotry is not more unjust than the theological partialities of those ecclesiastical writers who were before in undisputed possession of this province of history.

These observations are especially relevant to the historian's accuracy and loyalty to the facts; his conclusions, of course, are more open to debate. It’s nearly impossible to draw a clear line between unfairness and unfaithfulness; between intentional distortion and unintentional misrepresentation. The significance and importance of events can depend on the perspective of the audience; the assessment of character relies on the habits and feelings of the reader. Christians, like M. Guizot and us, will view some things and certain people differently than the historian of the Decline and Fall. We may lament the bias in his thinking; we might be vigilant about the risk of being misled and want to caution less cautious readers against the same dangers; but we must not confuse this subtle and unknowing departure from truth with the intentional breach of truthfulness, which is the only reason an historian deserves our trust. It's fair to say that Gibbon is rarely accused of leaving out any significant fact that relates to individual character; he may, with seemingly spiteful intent, highlight the mistakes and wrongdoings, while downplaying the strengths of certain figures; yet, overall, he provides us with the information we need to make a more balanced judgment. And while he is not free from his own biases—perhaps we could say passions—it must be honestly recognized that his philosophical narrow-mindedness is no more unjust than the theological biases of those ecclesiastical writers who previously held unchallenged authority over this area of history.

We are thus naturally led to that great misrepresentation which pervades his history—his false estimate of the nature and influence of Christianity.

We are naturally led to that major misunderstanding that runs throughout his history—his incorrect view of the nature and impact of Christianity.

But on this subject some preliminary caution is necessary, lest that should be expected from a new edition, which it is impossible that it should completely accomplish. We must first be prepared with the only sound preservative against the false impression likely to be produced by the perusal of Gibbon; and we must see clearly the real cause of that false impression. The former of these cautions will be briefly suggested in its proper place, but it may be as well to state it, here, somewhat more at length. The art of Gibbon, or at least the unfair impression produced by his two memorable chapters, consists in his confounding together, in one indistinguishable mass, the origin and apostolic propagation of the new religion, with its later progress. No argument for the divine authority of Christianity has been urged with greater force, or traced with higher eloquence, than that deduced from its primary development, explicable on no other hypothesis than a heavenly origin, and from its rapid extension through great part of the Roman empire. But this argument—one, when confined within reasonable limits, of unanswerable force—becomes more feeble and disputable in proportion as it recedes from the birthplace, as it were, of the religion. The further Christianity advanced, the more causes purely human were enlisted in its favor; nor can it be doubted that those developed with such artful exclusiveness by Gibbon did concur most essentially to its establishment. It is in the Christian dispensation, as in the material world. In both it is as the great First Cause, that the Deity is most undeniably manifest. When once launched in regular motion upon the bosom of space, and endowed with all their properties and relations of weight and mutual attraction, the heavenly bodies appear to pursue their courses according to secondary laws, which account for all their sublime regularity. So Christianity proclaims its Divine Author chiefly in its first origin and development. When it had once received its impulse from above—when it had once been infused into the minds of its first teachers—when it had gained full possession of the reason and affections of the favored few—it might be—and to the Protestant, the rational Christian, it is impossible to define when it really was—left to make its way by its native force, under the ordinary secret agencies of all-ruling Providence. The main question, the divine origin of the religion, was dexterously eluded, or speciously conceded by Gibbon; his plan enabled him to commence his account, in most parts, below the apostolic times; and it was only by the strength of the dark coloring with which he brought out the failings and the follies of the succeeding ages, that a shadow of doubt and suspicion was thrown back upon the primitive period of Christianity.

But on this topic, some preliminary caution is necessary, so that expectations for a new edition don’t go too far, as it’s impossible that it can fully achieve that. We must first be equipped with the only reliable defense against the misconceptions likely to arise from reading Gibbon, and we need to clearly understand the real source of that misunderstanding. The first of these cautions will be briefly mentioned in its place, but it might be better to elaborate on it here. Gibbon’s style, or at least the misleading impression created by his two famous chapters, involves blending the origin and apostolic spread of the new religion with its later development into an indistinguishable mass. No argument for the divine authority of Christianity has been presented more powerfully or expressed more eloquently than that derived from its initial growth, which can only be explained by a heavenly origin, and its rapid spread throughout much of the Roman Empire. However, this argument—one that is, when contained within reasonable limits, unassailable—grows weaker and more debatable as it moves away from the religion's birthplace, so to speak. The further Christianity advanced, the more purely human factors contributed to its favor; it cannot be doubted that those factors were, as Gibbon so skillfully portrayed, essential to its establishment. In the Christian faith, as in the physical world, it is clear that the Deity is most undeniably present as the great First Cause. Once set in motion across the expanse of space, endowed with all their properties and relationships of weight and mutual attraction, the heavenly bodies seem to follow their paths according to secondary laws, which explain their magnificent order. Similarly, Christianity reveals its Divine Author primarily through its initial origin and development. Once it received its divine impulse—once it was instilled in the minds of its first teachers—once it fully captured the reasoning and affections of the select few—it might be—and for the Protestant, the rational Christian, it’s impossible to specify when it truly was—left to progress by its inherent strength, under the ordinary hidden influences of all-encompassing Providence. The central question, the divine origin of the religion, was skillfully avoided or superficially conceded by Gibbon; his approach allowed him to begin his narrative largely below the apostolic times; and it was only through the heavy emphasis he placed on the flaws and follies of subsequent ages that a shadow of doubt and suspicion was cast back upon the early period of Christianity.

“The theologian,” says Gibbon, “may indulge the pleasing task of describing religion as she descended from heaven, arrayed in her native purity; a more melancholy duty is imposed upon the historian:—he must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in a long residence upon earth among a weak and degenerate race of beings.” Divest this passage of the latent sarcasm betrayed by the subsequent tone of the whole disquisition, and it might commence a Christian history written in the most Christian spirit of candor. But as the historian, by seeming to respect, yet by dexterously confounding the limits of the sacred land, contrived to insinuate that it was an Utopia which had no existence but in the imagination of the theologian—as he suggested rather than affirmed that the days of Christian purity were a kind of poetic golden age;—so the theologian, by venturing too far into the domain of the historian, has been perpetually obliged to contest points on which he had little chance of victory—to deny facts established on unshaken evidence—and thence, to retire, if not with the shame of defeat, yet with but doubtful and imperfect success.

“The theologian,” says Gibbon, “can enjoy the satisfying task of describing religion as it came down from heaven, dressed in its natural purity; a more somber responsibility falls on the historian:—he must uncover the inevitable mix of error and corruption that it picked up during its long stay on earth among a weak and declining race of beings.” Remove the underlying sarcasm hinted at by the later tone of the whole argument, and it could kick off a Christian history written in the most genuine spirit of honesty. But as the historian, by appearing to respect the sacred space while cleverly blurring its boundaries, managed to suggest that it was a Utopia that existed only in the theologian's imagination—by implying rather than stating outright that the days of Christian purity were a sort of poetic golden age;—the theologian, by stepping too far into the historian's territory, has constantly found himself having to argue points where he had little chance of winning—denying facts well-established on solid evidence—and thus, retreating, if not with the shame of defeat, then with only uncertain and incomplete success.

Paley, with his intuitive sagacity, saw through the difficulty of answering Gibbon by the ordinary arts of controversy; his emphatic sentence, “Who can refute a sneer?” contains as much truth as point. But full and pregnant as this phrase is, it is not quite the whole truth; it is the tone in which the progress of Christianity is traced, in comparison with the rest of the splendid and prodigally ornamented work, which is the radical defect in the “Decline and Fall.” Christianity alone receives no embellishment from the magic of Gibbon’s language; his imagination is dead to its moral dignity; it is kept down by a general zone of jealous disparagement, or neutralized by a painfully elaborate exposition of its darker and degenerate periods. There are occasions, indeed, when its pure and exalted humanity, when its manifestly beneficial influence, can compel even him, as it were, to fairness, and kindle his unguarded eloquence to its usual fervor; but, in general, he soon relapses into a frigid apathy; affects an ostentatiously severe impartiality; notes all the faults of Christians in every age with bitter and almost malignant sarcasm; reluctantly, and with exception and reservation, admits their claim to admiration. This inextricable bias appears even to influence his manner of composition. While all the other assailants of the Roman empire, whether warlike or religious, the Goth, the Hun, the Arab, the Tartar, Alaric and Attila, Mahomet, and Zengis, and Tamerlane, are each introduced upon the scene almost with dramatic animation—their progress related in a full, complete, and unbroken narrative—the triumph of Christianity alone takes the form of a cold and critical disquisition. The successes of barbarous energy and brute force call forth all the consummate skill of composition; while the moral triumphs of Christian benevolence—the tranquil heroism of endurance, the blameless purity, the contempt of guilty fame and of honors destructive to the human race, which, had they assumed the proud name of philosophy, would have been blazoned in his brightest words, because they own religion as their principle—sink into narrow asceticism. The glories of Christianity, in short, touch on no chord in the heart of the writer; his imagination remains unkindled; his words, though they maintain their stately and measured march, have become cool, argumentative, and inanimate. Who would obscure one hue of that gorgeous coloring in which Gibbon has invested the dying forms of Paganism, or darken one paragraph in his splendid view of the rise and progress of Mahometanism? But who would not have wished that the same equal justice had been done to Christianity; that its real character and deeply penetrating influence had been traced with the same philosophical sagacity, and represented with more sober, as would become its quiet course, and perhaps less picturesque, but still with lively and attractive, descriptiveness? He might have thrown aside, with the same scorn, the mass of ecclesiastical fiction which envelops the early history of the church, stripped off the legendary romance, and brought out the facts in their primitive nakedness and simplicity—if he had but allowed those facts the benefit of the glowing eloquence which he denied to them alone. He might have annihilated the whole fabric of post-apostolic miracles, if he had left uninjured by sarcastic insinuation those of the New Testament; he might have cashiered, with Dodwell, the whole host of martyrs, which owe their existence to the prodigal invention of later days, had he but bestowed fair room, and dwelt with his ordinary energy on the sufferings of the genuine witnesses to the truth of Christianity, the Polycarps, or the martyrs of Vienne.

Paley, with his keen insight, recognized that addressing Gibbon using standard debate tactics was insufficient; his pointed remark, “Who can refute a sneer?” holds as much truth as it does significance. However, while this statement is impactful, it doesn't tell the whole story; it's the approach in which the growth of Christianity is examined, in comparison to the rest of Gibbon's richly adorned and elaborate work, which is the fundamental flaw in the “Decline and Fall.” Christianity alone doesn’t benefit from Gibbon’s expressive language; he fails to acknowledge its moral significance, suppressing it with a general atmosphere of envious criticism or diluted by an overly detailed analysis of its more troubling and corrupt periods. Indeed, there are times when its pure and noble humanity, and its clearly positive effects, manage to prompt even him to be fair, stirring his usual eloquence to life; but generally, he quickly falls back into a cold indifference; he affects an overtly severe neutrality; he highlights the flaws of Christians throughout history with harsh and nearly malicious sarcasm; he reluctantly, and with qualifications, concedes their right to admiration. This undeniable bias even appears to shape his writing style. While all the other attackers of the Roman Empire—be they warriors or religious figures, like the Goth, the Hun, the Arab, the Tartar, Alaric, Attila, Muhammad, Genghis, and Tamerlane—are introduced almost with dramatic flair, their advances described in a complete and uninterrupted narrative, the victory of Christianity is presented as a cold and critical analysis. The triumphs of raw force and barbaric energy bring forth all his skilled writing; meanwhile, the moral victories of Christian kindness—the calm heroism of endurance, the spotless purity, the disregard for shameful glory and honors that harm humanity, which would have been celebrated if they were named philosophy—fade into mere asceticism. In short, the glories of Christianity don’t resonate with the writer; his creativity remains stifled; his language, while still grand and measured, becomes cool, logical, and lifeless. Who would dull even one shade of the vibrant colors that Gibbon has used to paint the fading remnants of Paganism or obscure any part of his magnificent depiction of the rise and spread of Islam? Yet who wouldn’t wish that the same fairness had been extended to Christianity; that its true essence and profound impact had been explored with the same intellectual insight and conveyed more soberly, which would suit its gentle unfolding, perhaps less vividly, but still descriptively and appealingly? He could have discarded, with the same disdain, the heap of ecclesiastical myths surrounding the church's early history, removed the legendary embellishments, and presented the facts in their raw simplicity—if only he had granted those facts the benefit of the vibrant eloquence he withheld from them. He could have dismissed the entire construct of post-apostolic miracles, had he not insulted the credibility of those in the New Testament; he could have banished, with Dodwell, the entire multitude of martyrs that were created by later fanciful stories, if he had only given ample space to, and focused with his usual vigor on, the sufferings of the true witnesses to the truth of Christianity, like Polycarp or the martyrs of Vienne.

And indeed, if, after all, the view of the early progress of Christianity be melancholy and humiliating we must beware lest we charge the whole of this on the infidelity of the historian. It is idle, it is disingenuous, to deny or to dissemble the early depravations of Christianity, its gradual but rapid departure from its primitive simplicity and purity, still more, from its spirit of universal love. It may be no unsalutary lesson to the Christian world, that this silent, this unavoidable, perhaps, yet fatal change shall have been drawn by an impartial, or even an hostile hand. The Christianity of every age may take warning, lest by its own narrow views, its want of wisdom, and its want of charity, it give the same advantage to the future unfriendly historian, and disparage the cause of true religion.

And really, if the early development of Christianity seems sad and humiliating, we need to be careful not to place all the blame on the historian's lack of faith. It's pointless and dishonest to deny or downplay the early flaws in Christianity, its slow but significant drift away from its original simplicity and purity, and even more, from its spirit of universal love. It might be a valuable lesson for the Christian world that this quiet, perhaps unavoidable, yet deadly change has been highlighted by someone unbiased, or even unfriendly. Every generation of Christianity should take heed, so that its own narrow perspectives, lack of wisdom, and lack of compassion do not give the next critical historian the same leverage to undermine the true essence of religion.

The design of the present edition is partly corrective, partly supplementary: corrective, by notes, which point out (it is hoped, in a perfectly candid and dispassionate spirit with no desire but to establish the truth) such inaccuracies or misstatements as may have been detected, particularly with regard to Christianity; and which thus, with the previous caution, may counteract to a considerable extent the unfair and unfavorable impression created against rational religion: supplementary, by adding such additional information as the editor’s reading may have been able to furnish, from original documents or books, not accessible at the time when Gibbon wrote.

The design of this edition is both corrective and supplementary: corrective through notes that point out, hopefully in an honest and impartial manner without any agenda other than seeking the truth, the inaccuracies or misstatements that have been found, especially concerning Christianity; and thus, with prior caution, may significantly counterbalance the unfair and negative impressions formed against rational religion. It is also supplementary, by including additional information that the editor has gathered from original documents or books that were not available when Gibbon was writing.

The work originated in the editor’s habit of noting on the margin of his copy of Gibbon references to such authors as had discovered errors, or thrown new light on the subjects treated by Gibbon. These had grown to some extent, and seemed to him likely to be of use to others. The annotations of M. Guizot also appeared to him worthy of being better known to the English public than they were likely to be, as appended to the French translation.

The project started with the editor’s habit of writing notes in the margins of his copy of Gibbon, referencing authors who had pointed out mistakes or shed new light on the topics discussed by Gibbon. These notes had accumulated to some extent and seemed likely to be helpful to others. The annotations by M. Guizot also struck him as deserving wider recognition among the English audience than they would receive merely being attached to the French translation.

The chief works from which the editor has derived his materials are, I. The French translation, with notes by M. Guizot; 2d edition, Paris, 1828. The editor has translated almost all the notes of M. Guizot. Where he has not altogether agreed with him, his respect for the learning and judgment of that writer has, in general, induced him to retain the statement from which he has ventured to differ, with the grounds on which he formed his own opinion. In the notes on Christianity, he has retained all those of M. Guizot, with his own, from the conviction, that on such a subject, to many, the authority of a French statesman, a Protestant, and a rational and sincere Christian, would appear more independent and unbiassed, and therefore be more commanding, than that of an English clergyman.

The main sources the editor used for his materials are: 1. The French translation with notes by M. Guizot; 2nd edition, Paris, 1828. The editor has translated nearly all of M. Guizot's notes. Where he doesn't fully agree, he generally respects the knowledge and judgment of that author enough to keep the original statement, while providing his own reasoning. In the notes on Christianity, he has included all of M. Guizot's notes along with his own, believing that for many, the authority of a French statesman, who is Protestant and a rational and sincere Christian, would seem more independent and less biased, and thus more influential than that of an English clergyman.

The editor has not scrupled to transfer the notes of M. Guizot to the present work. The well-known zeal for knowledge, displayed in all the writings of that distinguished historian, has led to the natural inference, that he would not be displeased at the attempt to make them of use to the English readers of Gibbon. The notes of M. Guizot are signed with the letter G.

The editor has not hesitated to include M. Guizot's notes in this work. The well-known passion for knowledge, evident in all the writings of that distinguished historian, suggests that he would not mind this effort to make them accessible to English readers of Gibbon. M. Guizot's notes are marked with the letter G.

II. The German translation, with the notes of Wenck. Unfortunately this learned translator died, after having completed only the first volume; the rest of the work was executed by a very inferior hand.

II. The German translation, with the notes of Wenck. Unfortunately, this knowledgeable translator passed away after finishing only the first volume; the rest of the work was carried out by a much less skilled individual.

The notes of Wenck are extremely valuable; many of them have been adopted by M. Guizot; they are distinguished by the letter W.*

The notes of Wenck are really valuable; many of them have been taken up by M. Guizot; they are marked with the letter W.*

III. The new edition of Le Beau’s “Histoire du Bas Empire, with notes by M. St. Martin, and M. Brosset.” That distinguished Armenian scholar, M. St. Martin (now, unhappily, deceased) had added much information from Oriental writers, particularly from those of Armenia, as well as from more general sources. Many of his observations have been found as applicable to the work of Gibbon as to that of Le Beau.

III. The new edition of Le Beau’s “Histoire du Bas Empire, with notes by M. St. Martin and M. Brosset.” That notable Armenian scholar, M. St. Martin (now sadly deceased), included a lot of information from Oriental writers, especially those from Armenia, along with more general sources. Many of his insights have proven to be relevant to both Gibbon’s work and Le Beau’s.

IV. The editor has consulted the various answers made to Gibbon on the first appearance of his work; he must confess, with little profit. They were, in general, hastily compiled by inferior and now forgotten writers, with the exception of Bishop Watson, whose able apology is rather a general argument, than an examination of misstatements. The name of Milner stands higher with a certain class of readers, but will not carry much weight with the severe investigator of history.

IV. The editor has looked at the different responses to Gibbon when his work first came out; he has to admit, with little gain. They were mostly put together quickly by lesser-known and now-forgotten writers, except for Bishop Watson, whose skilled defense is more of a broad argument than a detailed analysis of inaccuracies. Milner's name carries more weight with a specific group of readers, but it doesn't hold much appeal for those who rigorously study history.

V. Some few classical works and fragments have come to light, since the appearance of Gibbon’s History, and have been noticed in their respective places; and much use has been made, in the latter volumes particularly, of the increase to our stores of Oriental literature. The editor cannot, indeed, pretend to have followed his author, in these gleanings, over the whole vast field of his inquiries; he may have overlooked or may not have been able to command some works, which might have thrown still further light on these subjects; but he trusts that what he has adduced will be of use to the student of historic truth.

V. A few classical works and fragments have come to light since Gibbon's History was published, and they have been acknowledged in their respective sections; a lot of emphasis has been placed, especially in the later volumes, on the growth of our collection of Oriental literature. The editor cannot claim to have followed his author in these findings throughout the entire extensive area of his investigations; he may have missed some works or may not have had access to others that could have provided even more insight on these topics; however, he hopes that what he has presented will be useful for students of historical truth.

The editor would further observe, that with regard to some other objectionable passages, which do not involve misstatement or inaccuracy, he has intentionally abstained from directing particular attention towards them by any special protest.

The editor would also note that concerning a few other questionable sections, which don’t involve any errors or inaccuracies, he has purposefully chosen not to highlight them with any specific objection.

The editor’s notes are marked M.

The editor's notes are marked M.

A considerable part of the quotations (some of which in the later editions had fallen into great confusion) have been verified, and have been corrected by the latest and best editions of the authors.

A significant portion of the quotes (some of which had become quite jumbled in later editions) have been checked and revised according to the most recent and reputable editions of the authors.

June, 1845.

June 1845.

In this new edition, the text and the notes have been carefully revised, the latter by the editor.

In this new edition, the text and the notes have been thoroughly updated, the latter by the editor.

Some additional notes have been subjoined, distinguished by the signature M. 1845.

Some extra notes have been added, marked with the signature M. 1845.





Preface Of The Author.

It is not my intention to detain the reader by expatiating on the variety or the importance of the subject, which I have undertaken to treat; since the merit of the choice would serve to render the weakness of the execution still more apparent, and still less excusable. But as I have presumed to lay before the public a first volume only of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, it will, perhaps, be expected that I should explain, in a few words, the nature and limits of my general plan.

It’s not my goal to keep the reader by going on about the variety or importance of the subject I’m addressing; highlighting the merits of the topic would only make the flaws in my execution stand out even more, and be even less justifiable. However, since I’ve chosen to present only the first volume of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, it might be expected that I briefly explain the nature and limits of my overall plan.

The memorable series of revolutions, which in the course of about thirteen centuries gradually undermined, and at length destroyed, the solid fabric of human greatness, may, with some propriety, be divided into the three following periods:

The notable series of revolutions that over the span of about thirteen centuries gradually weakened and eventually dismantled the strong structure of human greatness can reasonably be divided into the following three periods:

I. The first of these periods may be traced from the age of Trajan and the Antonines, when the Roman monarchy, having attained its full strength and maturity, began to verge towards its decline; and will extend to the subversion of the Western Empire, by the barbarians of Germany and Scythia, the rude ancestors of the most polished nations of modern Europe. This extraordinary revolution, which subjected Rome to the power of a Gothic conqueror, was completed about the beginning of the sixth century.

I. The first of these periods can be traced from the time of Trajan and the Antonines, when the Roman monarchy, having reached its peak strength and maturity, started to head towards its decline; and will last until the overthrow of the Western Empire by the barbarian tribes of Germany and Scythia, the rough ancestors of the most refined nations in modern Europe. This remarkable change, which put Rome under the control of a Gothic conqueror, was finished around the start of the sixth century.

II. The second period of the Decline and Fall of Rome may be supposed to commence with the reign of Justinian, who, by his laws, as well as by his victories, restored a transient splendor to the Eastern Empire. It will comprehend the invasion of Italy by the Lombards; the conquest of the Asiatic and African provinces by the Arabs, who embraced the religion of Mahomet; the revolt of the Roman people against the feeble princes of Constantinople; and the elevation of Charlemagne, who, in the year eight hundred, established the second, or German Empire of the West.

II. The second period of the Decline and Fall of Rome is thought to begin with the reign of Justinian, who, through his laws and victories, briefly brought back some glory to the Eastern Empire. This era includes the invasion of Italy by the Lombards; the conquest of the Asian and African provinces by the Arabs, who adopted the religion of Muhammad; the rebellion of the Roman people against the weak rulers of Constantinople; and the rise of Charlemagne, who, in the year 800, founded the second, or German Empire of the West.

III. The last and longest of these periods includes about six centuries and a half; from the revival of the Western Empire, till the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and the extinction of a degenerate race of princes, who continued to assume the titles of Cæsar and Augustus, after their dominions were contracted to the limits of a single city; in which the language, as well as manners, of the ancient Romans, had been long since forgotten. The writer who should undertake to relate the events of this period, would find himself obliged to enter into the general history of the Crusades, as far as they contributed to the ruin of the Greek Empire; and he would scarcely be able to restrain his curiosity from making some inquiry into the state of the city of Rome, during the darkness and confusion of the middle ages.

III. The last and longest of these periods spans about six and a half centuries; from the revival of the Western Empire until the Turks took Constantinople and the end of a corrupted line of rulers who continued to claim the titles of Cæsar and Augustus, even after their territory had shrunk to just one city; in which the language and customs of ancient Romans had long been forgotten. A writer attempting to recount the events of this period would need to delve into the overall history of the Crusades, especially how they contributed to the downfall of the Greek Empire; and he would likely find it hard to resist exploring the condition of the city of Rome during the darkness and chaos of the Middle Ages.

As I have ventured, perhaps too hastily, to commit to the press a work which in every sense of the word, deserves the epithet of imperfect. I consider myself as contracting an engagement to finish, most probably in a second volume, the first of these memorable periods; and to deliver to the Public the complete History of the Decline and Fall of Rome, from the age of the Antonines to the subversion of the Western Empire. With regard to the subsequent periods, though I may entertain some hopes, I dare not presume to give any assurances. The execution of the extensive plan which I have described, would connect the ancient and modern history of the world; but it would require many years of health, of leisure, and of perseverance.

As I have rushed, perhaps too quickly, to publish a work that, in every sense, deserves to be called imperfect, I see myself committing to complete, likely in a second volume, the first of these significant periods. My goal is to provide the public with the full History of the Decline and Fall of Rome, from the era of the Antonines to the collapse of the Western Empire. As for the later periods, while I may have some hopes, I won't pretend to make any promises. Completing the extensive plan I've outlined would link ancient and modern world history, but it would take many years of good health, free time, and dedication.

BENTINCK STREET, February 1, 1776.

BENTINCK STREET, February 1, 1776.

P. S. The entire History, which is now published, of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in the West, abundantly discharges my engagements with the Public. Perhaps their favorable opinion may encourage me to prosecute a work, which, however laborious it may seem, is the most agreeable occupation of my leisure hours.

P. S. The complete History, which is now published, of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in the West, fully fulfills my commitments to the Public. Maybe their positive feedback will motivate me to continue a project that, no matter how challenging it may appear, is the most enjoyable way to spend my free time.

BENTINCK STREET, March 1, 1781.

BENTINCK STREET, March 1, 1781.

An Author easily persuades himself that the public opinion is still favorable to his labors; and I have now embraced the serious resolution of proceeding to the last period of my original design, and of the Roman Empire, the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, in the year one thousand four hundred and fifty-three. The most patient Reader, who computes that three ponderous volumes have been already employed on the events of four centuries, may, perhaps, be alarmed at the long prospect of nine hundred years. But it is not my intention to expatiate with the same minuteness on the whole series of the Byzantine history. At our entrance into this period, the reign of Justinian, and the conquests of the Mahometans, will deserve and detain our attention, and the last age of Constantinople (the Crusades and the Turks) is connected with the revolutions of Modern Europe. From the seventh to the eleventh century, the obscure interval will be supplied by a concise narrative of such facts as may still appear either interesting or important.

An author can easily convince himself that public opinion still supports his work; and I have now made the serious decision to proceed to the final stage of my original plan, focusing on the Roman Empire’s fall, specifically the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. The most patient reader, who realizes that three hefty volumes have already covered four centuries, might be concerned about the long journey of nine hundred years ahead. However, I don’t plan to go into the same level of detail about the entire Byzantine history. As we enter this period, the reign of Justinian and the conquests by the Muslims will be worth our attention, and the final days of Constantinople (the Crusades and the Turks) are tied to the changes in Modern Europe. From the seventh to the eleventh century, the unclear period will be filled in with a brief account of the events that still seem either interesting or significant.

BENTINCK STREET, March 1, 1782.

BENTINCK STREET, March 1, 1782.





Preface To The First Volume.

Diligence and accuracy are the only merits which an historical writer may ascribe to himself; if any merit, indeed, can be assumed from the performance of an indispensable duty. I may therefore be allowed to say, that I have carefully examined all the original materials that could illustrate the subject which I had undertaken to treat. Should I ever complete the extensive design which has been sketched out in the Preface, I might perhaps conclude it with a critical account of the authors consulted during the progress of the whole work; and however such an attempt might incur the censure of ostentation, I am persuaded that it would be susceptible of entertainment, as well as information.

Diligence and accuracy are the only qualities that a historical writer can truly claim for themselves; if any merit can even be derived from fulfilling a necessary obligation. I can therefore say that I have thoroughly examined all the original materials that could shed light on the topic I set out to explore. If I ever finish the ambitious project outlined in the Preface, I might wrap it up with a critical review of the authors I consulted throughout the entire process; and even if such an effort could be seen as boastful, I believe it would be both entertaining and informative.

At present I shall content myself with a single observation. The biographers, who, under the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine, composed, or rather compiled, the lives of the Emperors, from Hadrian to the sons of Carus, are usually mentioned under the names of Ælius Spartianus, Julius Capitolinus, Ælius Lampridius, Vulcatius Gallicanus, Trebellius Pollio and Flavius Vopiscus. But there is so much perplexity in the titles of the MSS., and so many disputes have arisen among the critics (see Fabricius, Biblioth. Latin. l. iii. c. 6) concerning their number, their names, and their respective property, that for the most part I have quoted them without distinction, under the general and well-known title of the Augustan History.

Right now, I'll just make one point. The biographers who wrote, or really compiled, the lives of the Emperors from Hadrian to the sons of Carus during the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine are typically known by the names Ælius Spartianus, Julius Capitolinus, Ælius Lampridius, Vulcatius Gallicanus, Trebellius Pollio, and Flavius Vopiscus. However, there is a lot of confusion in the titles of the manuscripts, and many disagreements have come up among scholars (see Fabricius, Biblioth. Latin. l. iii. c. 6) about their number, names, and individual contributions, so for the most part, I have referenced them generally, under the well-known title of the Augustan History.

Preface To The Fourth Volume Of The Original Quarto Edition.

I now discharge my promise, and complete my design, of writing the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, both in the West and the East. The whole period extends from the age of Trajan and the Antonines, to the taking of Constantinople by Mahomet the Second; and includes a review of the Crusades, and the state of Rome during the middle ages. Since the publication of the first volume, twelve years have elapsed; twelve years, according to my wish, “of health, of leisure, and of perseverance.” I may now congratulate my deliverance from a long and laborious service, and my satisfaction will be pure and perfect, if the public favor should be extended to the conclusion of my work.

I am now fulfilling my promise and finishing my project of writing the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, both in the West and the East. This entire period stretches from the time of Trajan and the Antonines to the capture of Constantinople by Mahomet the Second; it also includes a look at the Crusades and the state of Rome during the Middle Ages. Since the release of the first volume, twelve years have passed; twelve years, according to my wish, "of health, leisure, and perseverance." I can now celebrate my release from a long and demanding task, and my satisfaction will be complete if the public shows support for the conclusion of my work.

It was my first intention to have collected, under one view, the numerous authors, of every age and language, from whom I have derived the materials of this history; and I am still convinced that the apparent ostentation would be more than compensated by real use. If I have renounced this idea, if I have declined an undertaking which had obtained the approbation of a master-artist,* my excuse may be found in the extreme difficulty of assigning a proper measure to such a catalogue. A naked list of names and editions would not be satisfactory either to myself or my readers: the characters of the principal Authors of the Roman and Byzantine History have been occasionally connected with the events which they describe; a more copious and critical inquiry might indeed deserve, but it would demand, an elaborate volume, which might swell by degrees into a general library of historical writers. For the present, I shall content myself with renewing my serious protestation, that I have always endeavored to draw from the fountain-head; that my curiosity, as well as a sense of duty, has always urged me to study the originals; and that, if they have sometimes eluded my search, I have carefully marked the secondary evidence, on whose faith a passage or a fact were reduced to depend.

I initially planned to gather all the various authors, from every age and language, from whom I've drawn the material for this history into one comprehensive view. I still believe that while it might seem showy, it would be more than justified by its usefulness. However, I've decided against this idea; I've stepped back from a project that even received praise from a master artist.* My reasoning lies in the extreme challenge of appropriately measuring such a catalogue. A simple list of names and editions wouldn’t satisfy either myself or my readers. The main authors of Roman and Byzantine history have sometimes been tied to the events they describe; a more thorough and critical examination could indeed be worthwhile, but it would require a detailed volume, which might eventually expand into a comprehensive library of historical writers. For now, I will just reaffirm my serious commitment to drawing from the original sources; my curiosity and sense of duty have always driven me to study the originals, and if I've occasionally had trouble finding them, I've made sure to note the secondary sources that support a particular passage or fact.

I shall soon revisit the banks of the Lake of Lausanne, a country which I have known and loved from my early youth. Under a mild government, amidst a beauteous landscape, in a life of leisure and independence, and among a people of easy and elegant manners, I have enjoyed, and may again hope to enjoy, the varied pleasures of retirement and society. But I shall ever glory in the name and character of an Englishman: I am proud of my birth in a free and enlightened country; and the approbation of that country is the best and most honorable reward of my labors. Were I ambitious of any other Patron than the Public, I would inscribe this work to a Statesman, who, in a long, a stormy, and at length an unfortunate administration, had many political opponents, almost without a personal enemy; who has retained, in his fall from power, many faithful and disinterested friends; and who, under the pressure of severe infirmity, enjoys the lively vigor of his mind, and the felicity of his incomparable temper. Lord North will permit me to express the feelings of friendship in the language of truth: but even truth and friendship should be silent, if he still dispensed the favors of the crown.

I will soon return to the shores of Lake Lausanne, a place I have known and loved since my youth. In a gentle government, surrounded by beautiful scenery, living a life of leisure and freedom, and among a people with graceful and refined manners, I have enjoyed, and hope to again enjoy, the different pleasures of both solitude and society. But I will always take pride in being an Englishman: I’m proud of being born in a free and enlightened country, and the approval of my country is the best and most honorable reward for my efforts. If I were seeking any other patron besides the public, I would dedicate this work to a statesman who, during a long, tumultuous, and ultimately unfortunate term in office, had many political opponents but almost no personal enemies; who has kept many loyal and selfless friends despite his fall from power; and who, despite suffering from serious health issues, maintains a sharp mind and the joy of his remarkable temperament. Lord North will allow me to convey my feelings of friendship in the language of truth: however, even truth and friendship should remain silent if he is still granting the favors of the crown.

In a remote solitude, vanity may still whisper in my ear, that my readers, perhaps, may inquire whether, in the conclusion of the present work, I am now taking an everlasting farewell. They shall hear all that I know myself, and all that I could reveal to the most intimate friend. The motives of action or silence are now equally balanced; nor can I pronounce, in my most secret thoughts, on which side the scale will preponderate. I cannot dissemble that six quartos must have tried, and may have exhausted, the indulgence of the Public; that, in the repetition of similar attempts, a successful Author has much more to lose than he can hope to gain; that I am now descending into the vale of years; and that the most respectable of my countrymen, the men whom I aspire to imitate, have resigned the pen of history about the same period of their lives. Yet I consider that the annals of ancient and modern times may afford many rich and interesting subjects; that I am still possessed of health and leisure; that by the practice of writing, some skill and facility must be acquired; and that, in the ardent pursuit of truth and knowledge, I am not conscious of decay. To an active mind, indolence is more painful than labor; and the first months of my liberty will be occupied and amused in the excursions of curiosity and taste. By such temptations, I have been sometimes seduced from the rigid duty even of a pleasing and voluntary task: but my time will now be my own; and in the use or abuse of independence, I shall no longer fear my own reproaches or those of my friends. I am fairly entitled to a year of jubilee: next summer and the following winter will rapidly pass away; and experience only can determine whether I shall still prefer the freedom and variety of study to the design and composition of a regular work, which animates, while it confines, the daily application of the Author. Caprice and accident may influence my choice; but the dexterity of self-love will contrive to applaud either active industry or philosophic repose.

In a quiet place, vanity still whispers to me, suggesting that my readers might wonder if, at the end of this work, I'm saying a final goodbye. They will learn everything I know and all I could share with my closest friend. The reasons for speaking or staying silent are now evenly matched; I can't even figure out what my true feelings lean towards. I won’t hide the fact that putting together six volumes must have tested and possibly worn out the Public's patience; that by trying again, a successful author has a lot more to lose than to gain; that I’m getting older; and that the most respected people in my country, whom I hope to emulate, stopped writing history at around the same age. But I believe there are many rich and fascinating topics to explore from both ancient and modern times; I still have my health and free time; that writing must have helped me gain some skill and ease; and that, in my passionate quest for truth and knowledge, I don't feel like I'm slowing down. For an active mind, doing nothing is more uncomfortable than hard work, and the first months of my freedom will be filled with curiosity and enjoyment. Sometimes, those distractions pull me away even from enjoyable tasks: but now, my time is my own; and whether I use or waste my independence, I won't worry about judging myself or facing the opinions of my friends. I deserve a year of celebration: next summer and the winter after will fly by; and only time will show if I’ll still prefer the freedom and variety of studying over the structure and writing of a formal work, which inspires me, yet binds me with the daily demands of being an author. My whims and chance may sway my choices; but my self-love will find a way to praise either hard work or moments of contemplation.

Downing Street, May 1, 1788.

Downing Street, May 1, 1788.

P. S. I shall embrace this opportunity of introducing two verbal remarks, which have not conveniently offered themselves to my notice. 1. As often as I use the definitions of beyond the Alps, the Rhine, the Danube, &c., I generally suppose myself at Rome, and afterwards at Constantinople; without observing whether this relative geography may agree with the local, but variable, situation of the reader, or the historian. 2. In proper names of foreign, and especially of Oriental origin, it should be always our aim to express, in our English version, a faithful copy of the original. But this rule, which is founded on a just regard to uniformity and truth, must often be relaxed; and the exceptions will be limited or enlarged by the custom of the language and the taste of the interpreter. Our alphabets may be often defective; a harsh sound, an uncouth spelling, might offend the ear or the eye of our countrymen; and some words, notoriously corrupt, are fixed, and, as it were, naturalized in the vulgar tongue. The prophet Mohammed can no longer be stripped of the famous, though improper, appellation of Mahomet: the well-known cities of Aleppo, Damascus, and Cairo, would almost be lost in the strange descriptions of Haleb, Demashk, and Al Cahira: the titles and offices of the Ottoman empire are fashioned by the practice of three hundred years; and we are pleased to blend the three Chinese monosyllables, Con-fû-tzee, in the respectable name of Confucius, or even to adopt the Portuguese corruption of Mandarin. But I would vary the use of Zoroaster and Zerdusht, as I drew my information from Greece or Persia: since our connection with India, the genuine Timour is restored to the throne of Tamerlane: our most correct writers have retrenched the Al, the superfluous article, from the Koran; and we escape an ambiguous termination, by adopting Moslem instead of Musulman, in the plural number. In these, and in a thousand examples, the shades of distinction are often minute; and I can feel, where I cannot explain, the motives of my choice.

P. S. I want to take this chance to share two verbal comments that haven’t come up until now. 1. Whenever I refer to places like beyond the Alps, the Rhine, the Danube, etc., I usually imagine myself in Rome, and later in Constantinople; without considering whether this relative geography applies to the reader or the historian's changing location. 2. For proper names of foreign, especially Oriental origin, we should always aim to express a faithful version in English. However, this guideline, which is based on a commitment to consistency and accuracy, often needs to be adjusted; and the exceptions will depend on the language's customs and the interpreter's taste. Our alphabets can sometimes be lacking; a harsh sound or awkward spelling might offend the ears or eyes of our fellow countrymen; and some words, clearly corrupted, have become entrenched and, in a way, naturalized in everyday language. The prophet Mohammed can no longer be detached from the well-known, though incorrect, name Mahomet: the familiar cities of Aleppo, Damascus, and Cairo would almost be unrecognizable as Haleb, Demashk, and Al Cahira: the titles and offices of the Ottoman Empire have been shaped by three hundred years of usage; and we happily combine the three Chinese syllables, Con-fû-tzee, into the respected name of Confucius, or even adopt the Portuguese version of Mandarin. But I would change how I use Zoroaster and Zerdusht, depending on whether I'm getting my information from Greece or Persia: since our connection with India, the authentic Timour has taken back the throne of Tamerlane: our most accurate writers have removed the Al, the unnecessary article, from the Koran; and we avoid a confusing ending by using Moslem instead of Musulman in the plural form. In these cases, and many others, the differences can be very subtle; and I understand my choices even if I can’t always explain them.






Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The Antoninies.—Part I.

Introduction—The Extent And Military Force Of The Empire In
The Age Of The Antonines.
Introduction—The Scope and Military Power of the Empire in the Age of the Antonines.

In the second century of the Christian Æra, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilized portion of mankind. The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valor. The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence: the Roman senate appeared to possess the sovereign authority, and devolved on the emperors all the executive powers of government. During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this, and of the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth.

In the second century of the Christian Era, the Roman Empire included some of the most beautiful parts of the earth and the most civilized people. The borders of this vast empire were protected by its long-standing reputation and disciplined strength. The gentle yet strong influence of laws and customs had slowly brought the provinces together. Their peaceful residents enjoyed and sometimes misused the benefits of wealth and luxury. The idea of a free constitution was maintained with proper respect: the Roman Senate appeared to have sovereign power and delegated all executive government responsibilities to the emperors. During a fortunate period of over eighty years, the public administration was led by the virtues and skills of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. The aim of this and the next two chapters is to describe the prosperous state of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to outline the key events of its decline and fall—a transformation that will always be remembered and is still felt by nations around the world.

The principal conquests of the Romans were achieved under the republic; and the emperors, for the most part, were satisfied with preserving those dominions which had been acquired by the policy of the senate, the active emulations of the consuls, and the martial enthusiasm of the people. The seven first centuries were filled with a rapid succession of triumphs; but it was reserved for Augustus to relinquish the ambitious design of subduing the whole earth, and to introduce a spirit of moderation into the public councils. Inclined to peace by his temper and situation, it was easy for him to discover that Rome, in her present exalted situation, had much less to hope than to fear from the chance of arms; and that, in the prosecution of remote wars, the undertaking became every day more difficult, the event more doubtful, and the possession more precarious, and less beneficial. The experience of Augustus added weight to these salutary reflections, and effectually convinced him that, by the prudent vigor of his counsels, it would be easy to secure every concession which the safety or the dignity of Rome might require from the most formidable barbarians. Instead of exposing his person and his legions to the arrows of the Parthians, he obtained, by an honorable treaty, the restitution of the standards and prisoners which had been taken in the defeat of Crassus.

The main victories of the Romans happened during the republic; the emperors mostly focused on maintaining the territories gained through the senate's strategies, the active competition among the consuls, and the military zeal of the people. The first seven centuries were filled with rapid triumphs, but it was Augustus who stepped back from the ambitious goal of conquering the entire world and brought a more moderate approach to public policy. His temperament and circumstances made it clear that Rome, in its high position, had more to fear than to gain from the whims of war; pursuing distant wars only became harder, the outcomes more uncertain, and the control less stable and profitable. Augustus' experiences reinforced these valuable insights and convinced him that, with smart leadership, he could secure all necessary concessions for Rome's safety and dignity from even the most powerful barbarians. Instead of risking his life and his army against the Parthians, he negotiated an honorable treaty to get back the standards and prisoners taken during Crassus' defeat.

His generals, in the early part of his reign, attempted the reduction of Ethiopia and Arabia Felix. They marched near a thousand miles to the south of the tropic; but the heat of the climate soon repelled the invaders, and protected the un-warlike natives of those sequestered regions. The northern countries of Europe scarcely deserved the expense and labor of conquest. The forests and morasses of Germany were filled with a hardy race of barbarians, who despised life when it was separated from freedom; and though, on the first attack, they seemed to yield to the weight of the Roman power, they soon, by a signal act of despair, regained their independence, and reminded Augustus of the vicissitude of fortune. On the death of that emperor, his testament was publicly read in the senate. He bequeathed, as a valuable legacy to his successors, the advice of confining the empire within those limits which nature seemed to have placed as its permanent bulwarks and boundaries: on the west, the Atlantic Ocean; the Rhine and Danube on the north; the Euphrates on the east; and towards the south, the sandy deserts of Arabia and Africa.

His generals, early in his reign, tried to conquer Ethiopia and Arabia Felix. They marched nearly a thousand miles south of the tropic, but the heat of the climate quickly drove the invaders back, protecting the peaceful natives of those isolated areas. The northern countries of Europe hardly warranted the costs and efforts of conquest. The forests and swamps of Germany were inhabited by a tough group of barbarians who valued freedom above life itself; and although they seemed to succumb to the might of Rome at first, they soon staged a dramatic act of defiance, reclaiming their independence and reminding Augustus of the unpredictability of fortunes. After that emperor died, his will was read publicly in the senate. He left behind, as a significant piece of advice for his successors, the recommendation to keep the empire within the natural boundaries it seemed destined to have: to the west, the Atlantic Ocean; the Rhine and Danube to the north; the Euphrates to the east; and to the south, the sandy deserts of Arabia and Africa.

Happily for the repose of mankind, the moderate system recommended by the wisdom of Augustus, was adopted by the fears and vices of his immediate successors. Engaged in the pursuit of pleasure, or in the exercise of tyranny, the first Cæsars seldom showed themselves to the armies, or to the provinces; nor were they disposed to suffer, that those triumphs which their indolence neglected, should be usurped by the conduct and valor of their lieutenants. The military fame of a subject was considered as an insolent invasion of the Imperial prerogative; and it became the duty, as well as interest, of every Roman general, to guard the frontiers intrusted to his care, without aspiring to conquests which might have proved no less fatal to himself than to the vanquished barbarians.

Fortunately for the peace of humanity, the balanced approach suggested by the wisdom of Augustus was adopted out of the fears and vices of his immediate successors. Caught up in the pursuit of pleasure or the exercise of tyranny, the first Caesars rarely engaged with the armies or the provinces. They were not willing to allow the victories that their laziness overlooked to be claimed by the skill and bravery of their officers. The military success of a subject was seen as a bold challenge to the authority of the Emperor, and it became both the responsibility and the interest of every Roman general to protect the borders under their command, without seeking conquests that could be just as dangerous for them as for the conquered barbarians.

The only accession which the Roman empire received, during the first century of the Christian Æra, was the province of Britain. In this single instance, the successors of Cæsar and Augustus were persuaded to follow the example of the former, rather than the precept of the latter. The proximity of its situation to the coast of Gaul seemed to invite their arms; the pleasing though doubtful intelligence of a pearl fishery attracted their avarice; and as Britain was viewed in the light of a distinct and insulated world, the conquest scarcely formed any exception to the general system of continental measures. After a war of about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, maintained by the most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all the emperors, the far greater part of the island submitted to the Roman yoke. The various tribes of Britain possessed valor without conduct, and the love of freedom without the spirit of union. They took up arms with savage fierceness; they laid them down, or turned them against each other, with wild inconsistency; and while they fought singly, they were successively subdued. Neither the fortitude of Caractacus, nor the despair of Boadicea, nor the fanaticism of the Druids, could avert the slavery of their country, or resist the steady progress of the Imperial generals, who maintained the national glory, when the throne was disgraced by the weakest, or the most vicious of mankind. At the very time when Domitian, confined to his palace, felt the terrors which he inspired, his legions, under the command of the virtuous Agricola, defeated the collected force of the Caledonians, at the foot of the Grampian Hills; and his fleets, venturing to explore an unknown and dangerous navigation, displayed the Roman arms round every part of the island. The conquest of Britain was considered as already achieved; and it was the design of Agricola to complete and insure his success, by the easy reduction of Ireland, for which, in his opinion, one legion and a few auxiliaries were sufficient. The western isle might be improved into a valuable possession, and the Britons would wear their chains with the less reluctance, if the prospect and example of freedom were on every side removed from before their eyes.

The only territory that the Roman Empire gained during the first century of the Christian Era was the province of Britain. In this one case, the successors of Caesar and Augustus were convinced to follow the approach of the former, rather than the advice of the latter. Its location near the coast of Gaul seemed to invite their military expeditions; the appealing but uncertain reports of a pearl fishery fueled their greed; and since Britain was seen as a separate, isolated world, the conquest fit well within their overall strategy for continental expansion. After nearly forty years of war, led by the least competent, maintained by the most debauched, and concluded by the most cowardly of all emperors, most of the island fell under Roman control. The various tribes of Britain showed bravery but lacked strategy, and they had a desire for freedom but no spirit of unity. They took up arms with savage intensity; they laid them down or turned them against each other with wild inconsistency; and while they fought individually, they were gradually defeated. The courage of Caractacus, the despair of Boadicea, and the fervor of the Druids couldn’t prevent the enslavement of their country or halt the steady advance of the Imperial generals, who upheld national pride even when the throne was occupied by the weakest and most corrupt individuals. At the very moment when Domitian, trapped in his palace, felt the fear he inspired in others, his legions, led by the honorable Agricola, defeated the united forces of the Caledonians at the foot of the Grampian Hills; and his fleets, daring to navigate unknown and perilous waters, showcased Roman power around every part of the island. The conquest of Britain was considered accomplished; and Agricola aimed to secure his success by easily taking Ireland, believing that one legion and a few auxiliaries would be enough. The western island could be turned into a valuable asset, and the Britons would wear their chains more willingly if the hope and example of freedom were removed from their sight.

But the superior merit of Agricola soon occasioned his removal from the government of Britain; and forever disappointed this rational, though extensive scheme of conquest. Before his departure, the prudent general had provided for security as well as for dominion. He had observed, that the island is almost divided into two unequal parts by the opposite gulfs, or, as they are now called, the Friths of Scotland. Across the narrow interval of about forty miles, he had drawn a line of military stations, which was afterwards fortified, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, by a turf rampart, erected on foundations of stone. This wall of Antoninus, at a small distance beyond the modern cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, was fixed as the limit of the Roman province. The native Caledonians preserved, in the northern extremity of the island, their wild independence, for which they were not less indebted to their poverty than to their valor. Their incursions were frequently repelled and chastised; but their country was never subdued. The masters of the fairest and most wealthy climates of the globe turned with contempt from gloomy hills, assailed by the winter tempest, from lakes concealed in a blue mist, and from cold and lonely heaths, over which the deer of the forest were chased by a troop of naked barbarians.

But Agricola's exceptional skills soon led to his removal from the governance of Britain, ultimately thwarting this logical yet ambitious plan for conquest. Before he left, the wise general had ensured security as well as control. He had noticed that the island is almost split into two unequal sections by the opposing bays, or as they are known today, the Friths of Scotland. Across the narrow stretch of about forty miles, he established a line of military posts, which was later reinforced during the reign of Antoninus Pius by a turf wall built on stone foundations. This Antonine Wall, located just beyond what are now the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, marked the boundary of the Roman province. The native Caledonians maintained their fierce independence in the northern part of the island, thanks in part to their poverty as well as their bravery. Their raids were often pushed back and punished, but their land was never conquered. The rulers of the most beautiful and wealthiest regions of the world looked down with disdain at the bleak hills battered by winter storms, at lakes shrouded in blue mist, and at cold, desolate moors over which deer were hunted by a group of naked warriors.

Such was the state of the Roman frontiers, and such the maxims of Imperial policy, from the death of Augustus to the accession of Trajan. That virtuous and active prince had received the education of a soldier, and possessed the talents of a general. The peaceful system of his predecessors was interrupted by scenes of war and conquest; and the legions, after a long interval, beheld a military emperor at their head. The first exploits of Trajan were against the Dacians, the most warlike of men, who dwelt beyond the Danube, and who, during the reign of Domitian, had insulted, with impunity, the Majesty of Rome. To the strength and fierceness of barbarians they added a contempt for life, which was derived from a warm persuasion of the immortality and transmigration of the soul. Decebalus, the Dacian king, approved himself a rival not unworthy of Trajan; nor did he despair of his own and the public fortune, till, by the confession of his enemies, he had exhausted every resource both of valor and policy. This memorable war, with a very short suspension of hostilities, lasted five years; and as the emperor could exert, without control, the whole force of the state, it was terminated by an absolute submission of the barbarians. The new province of Dacia, which formed a second exception to the precept of Augustus, was about thirteen hundred miles in circumference. Its natural boundaries were the Niester, the Teyss or Tibiscus, the Lower Danube, and the Euxine Sea. The vestiges of a military road may still be traced from the banks of the Danube to the neighborhood of Bender, a place famous in modern history, and the actual frontier of the Turkish and Russian empires.

The state of the Roman frontiers and the principles of Imperial policy remained the same from the death of Augustus until Trajan became emperor. This virtuous and active ruler had a soldier's education and the skills of a general. The peaceful approach of his predecessors was disrupted by scenes of war and conquest, as the legions, after a long interval, found a military emperor leading them. Trajan's initial campaigns were against the Dacians, known to be the most combative people living beyond the Danube, who had insulted Rome's authority with no consequences during Domitian's reign. They combined the strength and fierceness of barbarians with a disregard for life, stemming from a strong belief in the immortality and reincarnation of the soul. Decebalus, the Dacian king, proved to be a worthy rival for Trajan; he did not lose hope for himself or his people until, according to his enemies, he had exhausted all means of bravery and strategy. This notable war, with only a brief pause in hostilities, lasted five years. Since the emperor had the freedom to use the full force of the state, it ended with the complete surrender of the barbarians. The new province of Dacia, which was a second exception to Augustus's rule, had a circumference of about thirteen hundred miles. Its natural borders were the Niester, the Teyss or Tibiscus, the Lower Danube, and the Euxine Sea. The remnants of a military road can still be seen stretching from the banks of the Danube to the area near Bender, a place notable in modern history and currently the frontier between the Turkish and Russian empires.

Trajan was ambitious of fame; and as long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters. The praises of Alexander, transmitted by a succession of poets and historians, had kindled a dangerous emulation in the mind of Trajan. Like him, the Roman emperor undertook an expedition against the nations of the East; but he lamented with a sigh, that his advanced age scarcely left him any hopes of equalling the renown of the son of Philip. Yet the success of Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before his arms. He descended the River Tigris in triumph, from the mountains of Armenia to the Persian Gulf. He enjoyed the honor of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman generals, who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets ravaged the coast of Arabia; and Trajan vainly flattered himself that he was approaching towards the confines of India. Every day the astonished senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations, that acknowledged his sway. They were informed that the kings of Bosphorus, Colchos, Iberia, Albania, Osrhoene, and even the Parthian monarch himself, had accepted their diadems from the hands of the emperor; that the independent tribes of the Median and Carduchian hills had implored his protection; and that the rich countries of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, were reduced into the state of provinces. But the death of Trajan soon clouded the splendid prospect; and it was justly to be dreaded, that so many distant nations would throw off the unaccustomed yoke, when they were no longer restrained by the powerful hand which had imposed it.

Trajan was driven by a desire for fame, and as long as people continue to give more praise to their conquerors than to their benefactors, the pursuit of military glory will always be a flaw in the most elevated characters. The admiration for Alexander, passed down through generations of poets and historians, sparked a dangerous rivalry in Trajan. Like Alexander, the Roman emperor launched a campaign against the nations of the East, but he sighed over the realization that his age left him little hope of matching the fame of Alexander the Great. Nevertheless, Trajan's success, though short-lived, was swift and impressive. The weakened Parthians, torn apart by internal strife, fell before his forces. He triumphantly sailed down the Tigris River, from the mountains of Armenia to the Persian Gulf. He had the honor of being the first and, as it turned out, the last of the Roman generals to navigate that distant sea. His fleets ravaged the coast of Arabia, and Trajan foolishly convinced himself that he was nearing the borders of India. Each day, the astonished senate received news of new regions and nations that recognized his rule. They learned that the kings of Bosphorus, Colchis, Iberia, Albania, Osrhoene, and even the Parthian king himself had accepted their crowns from the emperor; that the independent tribes in the Median and Carduchian hills sought his protection; and that the wealthy lands of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria had been turned into provinces. But Trajan's death soon overshadowed this promising outlook, and it was rightly feared that so many distant nations would shake off the unfamiliar yoke once they were no longer held in check by the strong hand that had imposed it.





Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The Antoninies.—Part II.

It was an ancient tradition, that when the Capitol was founded by one of the Roman kings, the god Terminus (who presided over boundaries, and was represented, according to the fashion of that age, by a large stone) alone, among all the inferior deities, refused to yield his place to Jupiter himself. A favorable inference was drawn from his obstinacy, which was interpreted by the augurs as a sure presage that the boundaries of the Roman power would never recede. During many ages, the prediction, as it is usual, contributed to its own accomplishment. But though Terminus had resisted the Majesty of Jupiter, he submitted to the authority of the emperor Hadrian. The resignation of all the eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his reign. He restored to the Parthians the election of an independent sovereign; withdrew the Roman garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus, once more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the empire. Censure, which arraigns the public actions and the private motives of princes, has ascribed to envy, a conduct which might be attributed to the prudence and moderation of Hadrian. The various character of that emperor, capable, by turns, of the meanest and the most generous sentiments, may afford some color to the suspicion. It was, however, scarcely in his power to place the superiority of his predecessor in a more conspicuous light, than by thus confessing himself unequal to the task of defending the conquests of Trajan.

It was an old tradition that when the Capitol was founded by one of the Roman kings, the god Terminus (who was in charge of boundaries and was symbolized, in line with the customs of the time, by a large stone) alone, among all the lesser deities, refused to give up his place to Jupiter himself. His stubbornness was seen as a positive sign, interpreted by the augurs as a certain indication that the boundaries of Roman power would never shrink. Over many years, this prediction, as is often the case, helped bring about its own fulfillment. But while Terminus resisted the authority of Jupiter, he submitted to the power of Emperor Hadrian. The first action of Hadrian’s reign was to give up all of Trajan’s eastern conquests. He allowed the Parthians to choose their own independent ruler; withdrew Roman troops from the regions of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria; and, following Augustus's directive, reestablished the Euphrates as the empire's boundary. Critics, who scrutinize the public actions and private motives of rulers, have suggested that envy drove this decision, which could instead reflect Hadrian's prudence and moderation. The emperor's mixed character, capable of both the lowest and the most generous feelings, might lend some credence to this suspicion. However, it was hardly within his power to highlight his predecessor's superiority more clearly than by admitting that he was not equal to the task of safeguarding Trajan's conquests.

The martial and ambitious spirit of Trajan formed a very singular contrast with the moderation of his successor. The restless activity of Hadrian was not less remarkable when compared with the gentle repose of Antoninus Pius. The life of the former was almost a perpetual journey; and as he possessed the various talents of the soldier, the statesman, and the scholar, he gratified his curiosity in the discharge of his duty. Careless of the difference of seasons and of climates, he marched on foot, and bare-headed, over the snows of Caledonia, and the sultry plains of the Upper Egypt; nor was there a province of the empire which, in the course of his reign, was not honored with the presence of the monarch. But the tranquil life of Antoninus Pius was spent in the bosom of Italy, and, during the twenty-three years that he directed the public administration, the longest journeys of that amiable prince extended no farther than from his palace in Rome to the retirement of his Lanuvian villa.

The martial and ambitious spirit of Trajan created a striking contrast to the moderation of his successor. Hadrian's restless energy was equally notable when compared to the gentle calm of Antoninus Pius. The former lived almost as if he were always traveling; with skills as a soldier, statesman, and scholar, he satisfied his curiosity while fulfilling his duties. Unconcerned with the changing seasons and climates, he walked on foot and bare-headed through the snows of Caledonia and the hot plains of Upper Egypt; there wasn't a province in the empire that didn’t host the emperor at some point during his reign. In contrast, Antoninus Pius led a peaceful life in Italy, and during the twenty-three years that he oversaw public administration, the farthest he traveled was from his palace in Rome to his villa in Lanuvium.

Notwithstanding this difference in their personal conduct, the general system of Augustus was equally adopted and uniformly pursued by Hadrian and by the two Antonines. They persisted in the design of maintaining the dignity of the empire, without attempting to enlarge its limits. By every honorable expedient they invited the friendship of the barbarians; and endeavored to convince mankind that the Roman power, raised above the temptation of conquest, was actuated only by the love of order and justice. During a long period of forty-three years, their virtuous labors were crowned with success; and if we except a few slight hostilities, that served to exercise the legions of the frontier, the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius offer the fair prospect of universal peace. The Roman name was revered among the most remote nations of the earth. The fiercest barbarians frequently submitted their differences to the arbitration of the emperor; and we are informed by a contemporary historian that he had seen ambassadors who were refused the honor which they came to solicit of being admitted into the rank of subjects.

Despite their differences in personal conduct, Augustus's overall system was embraced and consistently followed by Hadrian and the two Antonines. They focused on preserving the empire's dignity without trying to expand its borders. Through honorable means, they sought the friendship of the barbarians and aimed to show the world that Roman power, above the lure of conquest, was driven only by a love for order and justice. For a long period of forty-three years, their virtuous efforts were successful; and aside from a few minor conflicts meant to keep the frontier legions active, the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius presented a promising vision of universal peace. The Roman name was respected among the most distant nations. Even the fiercest barbarians often brought their disputes to the emperor for arbitration, and a contemporary historian noted that he witnessed ambassadors who were denied the honor they sought of being recognized as subjects.

The terror of the Roman arms added weight and dignity to the moderation of the emperors. They preserved peace by a constant preparation for war; and while justice regulated their conduct, they announced to the nations on their confines, that they were as little disposed to endure, as to offer an injury. The military strength, which it had been sufficient for Hadrian and the elder Antoninus to display, was exerted against the Parthians and the Germans by the emperor Marcus. The hostilities of the barbarians provoked the resentment of that philosophic monarch, and, in the prosecution of a just defence, Marcus and his generals obtained many signal victories, both on the Euphrates and on the Danube. The military establishment of the Roman empire, which thus assured either its tranquillity or success, will now become the proper and important object of our attention.

The fear of the Roman military added weight and respect to the emperors' restraint. They maintained peace through constant readiness for war; and while justice guided their actions, they made it clear to the neighboring nations that they were just as unwilling to tolerate an injury as they were to inflict one. The military power that Hadrian and the earlier Antoninus only needed to showcase was used by Emperor Marcus against the Parthians and the Germans. The attacks from the barbarians angered that thoughtful ruler, and in defending his empire, Marcus and his generals achieved many impressive victories along the Euphrates and the Danube. The military setup of the Roman Empire, which ensured either its peace or success, will now be the main focus of our discussion.

In the purer ages of the commonwealth, the use of arms was reserved for those ranks of citizens who had a country to love, a property to defend, and some share in enacting those laws, which it was their interest as well as duty to maintain. But in proportion as the public freedom was lost in extent of conquest, war was gradually improved into an art, and degraded into a trade. The legions themselves, even at the time when they were recruited in the most distant provinces, were supposed to consist of Roman citizens. That distinction was generally considered, either as a legal qualification or as a proper recompense for the soldier; but a more serious regard was paid to the essential merit of age, strength, and military stature. In all levies, a just preference was given to the climates of the North over those of the South: the race of men born to the exercise of arms was sought for in the country rather than in cities; and it was very reasonably presumed, that the hardy occupations of smiths, carpenters, and huntsmen, would supply more vigor and resolution than the sedentary trades which are employed in the service of luxury. After every qualification of property had been laid aside, the armies of the Roman emperors were still commanded, for the most part, by officers of liberal birth and education; but the common soldiers, like the mercenary troops of modern Europe, were drawn from the meanest, and very frequently from the most profligate, of mankind.

In the earlier days of the republic, the use of weapons was limited to those citizens who had a country to love, property to protect, and a role in creating the laws that it was both their interest and duty to uphold. However, as public freedom diminished due to expansion and conquest, warfare gradually became more of a skilled profession and less of a noble endeavor. The legions, even when they began recruiting from far-off provinces, were still expected to be made up of Roman citizens. This distinction was usually seen as either a legal requirement or a fair reward for soldiers, but more importance was given to vital attributes like age, strength, and physical fitness. During enlistments, there was a clear preference for recruits from northern climates over southern ones; men raised in the countryside, rather than cities, were favored for military service. It was reasonably assumed that the tough work of blacksmiths, carpenters, and hunters would cultivate more strength and determination than the sedentary jobs associated with luxury. Even after property requirements were dropped, the armies of the Roman emperors were mostly led by officers of educated and wealthy backgrounds; however, the common soldiers were often recruited from the lowest and frequently the most disreputable segments of society, similar to the mercenary forces of modern Europe.

That public virtue, which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a different, but not less forcible nature—honor and religion. The peasant, or mechanic, imbibed the useful prejudice that he was advanced to the more dignified profession of arms, in which his rank and reputation would depend on his own valor; and that, although the prowess of a private soldier must often escape the notice of fame, his own behavior might sometimes confer glory or disgrace on the company, the legion, or even the army, to whose honors he was associated. On his first entrance into the service, an oath was administered to him with every circumstance of solemnity. He promised never to desert his standard, to submit his own will to the commands of his leaders, and to sacrifice his life for the safety of the emperor and the empire. The attachment of the Roman troops to their standards was inspired by the united influence of religion and of honor. The golden eagle, which glittered in the front of the legion, was the object of their fondest devotion; nor was it esteemed less impious than it was ignominious, to abandon that sacred ensign in the hour of danger. These motives, which derived their strength from the imagination, were enforced by fears and hopes of a more substantial kind. Regular pay, occasional donatives, and a stated recompense, after the appointed time of service, alleviated the hardships of the military life, whilst, on the other hand, it was impossible for cowardice or disobedience to escape the severest punishment. The centurions were authorized to chastise with blows, the generals had a right to punish with death; and it was an inflexible maxim of Roman discipline, that a good soldier should dread his officers far more than the enemy. From such laudable arts did the valor of the Imperial troops receive a degree of firmness and docility unattainable by the impetuous and irregular passions of barbarians.

That public virtue, which the ancients called patriotism, comes from a strong feeling of our own interest in the preservation and success of the free government we belong to. This sentiment, which made the legions of the republic nearly unbeatable, could have only a weak impact on the paid soldiers of a tyrannical ruler; and it became necessary to fill that gap with other motivations, which, while different, were no less powerful—honor and religion. The farmer or worker absorbed the useful belief that he was promoted to the more dignified role of a soldier, where his rank and reputation depended on his own bravery; and that, although the achievements of a private soldier often went unnoticed, his actions might occasionally bring glory or shame to his unit, the legion, or even the entire army to which he belonged. Upon joining the service, he took an oath with all the seriousness it deserved. He promised never to abandon his flag, to submit his own desires to the orders of his leaders, and to sacrifice his life for the safety of the emperor and the empire. The loyalty of the Roman troops to their standards was influenced by the combined power of religion and honor. The golden eagle, which shone at the front of the legion, was the focus of their deepest devotion; it was considered not only disgraceful but also sacrilegious to abandon that sacred symbol in times of danger. These motivations, fueled by imagination, were supported by more tangible fears and hopes. Regular pay, occasional bonuses, and a set reward at the end of service helped ease the challenges of military life, while, on the other hand, cowardice or disobedience faced severe punishments. The centurions were allowed to punish with blows, the generals had the authority to punish with death; and it was a strict rule of Roman discipline that a good soldier should fear his officers far more than the enemy. From such commendable practices, the courage of the Imperial troops gained a level of discipline and obedience that was unattainable by the impulsive and unpredictable emotions of barbarian forces.

And yet so sensible were the Romans of the imperfection of valor without skill and practice, that, in their language, the name of an army was borrowed from the word which signified exercise. Military exercises were the important and unremitted object of their discipline. The recruits and young soldiers were constantly trained, both in the morning and in the evening, nor was age or knowledge allowed to excuse the veterans from the daily repetition of what they had completely learnt. Large sheds were erected in the winter-quarters of the troops, that their useful labors might not receive any interruption from the most tempestuous weather; and it was carefully observed, that the arms destined to this imitation of war, should be of double the weight which was required in real action. It is not the purpose of this work to enter into any minute description of the Roman exercises. We shall only remark, that they comprehended whatever could add strength to the body, activity to the limbs, or grace to the motions. The soldiers were diligently instructed to march, to run, to leap, to swim, to carry heavy burdens, to handle every species of arms that was used either for offence or for defence, either in distant engagement or in a closer onset; to form a variety of evolutions; and to move to the sound of flutes in the Pyrrhic or martial dance. In the midst of peace, the Roman troops familiarized themselves with the practice of war; and it is prettily remarked by an ancient historian who had fought against them, that the effusion of blood was the only circumstance which distinguished a field of battle from a field of exercise.* It was the policy of the ablest generals, and even of the emperors themselves, to encourage these military studies by their presence and example; and we are informed that Hadrian, as well as Trajan, frequently condescended to instruct the unexperienced soldiers, to reward the diligent, and sometimes to dispute with them the prize of superior strength or dexterity. Under the reigns of those princes, the science of tactics was cultivated with success; and as long as the empire retained any vigor, their military instructions were respected as the most perfect model of Roman discipline.

And yet the Romans were very aware that bravery alone wasn’t enough without skill and practice, so they named their army after the word for exercise. Military drills were the main focus of their training. Recruits and young soldiers were constantly being trained, both in the morning and evening, and veterans were also required to repeat what they had already learned daily, regardless of their age or experience. Large sheds were built in the winter quarters for the troops, so their training wouldn’t be interrupted by bad weather, and it was strictly enforced that the weapons used for these mock battles were double the weight of those used in actual combat. This work won’t go into detail about Roman drills, but it's worth noting that they included everything to build strength, enhance agility, and improve grace. Soldiers were carefully taught to march, run, jump, swim, carry heavy loads, and handle all types of weapons used for offense and defense, whether in long-range combat or close encounters; they practiced various formations and moved in time to the music of flutes during the Pyrrhic or martial dance. Even in times of peace, Roman troops practiced as if they were at war. An ancient historian who fought against them noted that the only thing that separated a battlefield from a training ground was the spilling of blood. It was the strategy of the best generals, and even the emperors, to promote these military studies through their participation and example. We are told that Hadrian and Trajan often took the time to train inexperienced soldiers, reward those who worked hard, and sometimes compete with them for the title of strongest or most skilled. During their reigns, the study of tactics flourished; and as long as the empire remained strong, their military teachings were respected as the ultimate standard of Roman discipline.

Nine centuries of war had gradually introduced into the service many alterations and improvements. The legions, as they are described by Polybius, in the time of the Punic wars, differed very materially from those which achieved the victories of Cæsar, or defended the monarchy of Hadrian and the Antonines. The constitution of the Imperial legion may be described in a few words. The heavy-armed infantry, which composed its principal strength, was divided into ten cohorts, and fifty-five companies, under the orders of a correspondent number of tribunes and centurions. The first cohort, which always claimed the post of honor and the custody of the eagle, was formed of eleven hundred and five soldiers, the most approved for valor and fidelity. The remaining nine cohorts consisted each of five hundred and fifty-five; and the whole body of legionary infantry amounted to six thousand one hundred men. Their arms were uniform, and admirably adapted to the nature of their service: an open helmet, with a lofty crest; a breastplate, or coat of mail; greaves on their legs, and an ample buckler on their left arm. The buckler was of an oblong and concave figure, four feet in length, and two and a half in breadth, framed of a light wood, covered with a bull’s hide, and strongly guarded with plates of brass. Besides a lighter spear, the legionary soldier grasped in his right hand the formidable pilum, a ponderous javelin, whose utmost length was about six feet, and which was terminated by a massy triangular point of steel of eighteen inches. This instrument was indeed much inferior to our modern fire-arms; since it was exhausted by a single discharge, at the distance of only ten or twelve paces. Yet when it was launched by a firm and skilful hand, there was not any cavalry that durst venture within its reach, nor any shield or corselet that could sustain the impetuosity of its weight. As soon as the Roman had darted his pilum, he drew his sword, and rushed forwards to close with the enemy. His sword was a short well-tempered Spanish blade, that carried a double edge, and was alike suited to the purpose of striking or of pushing; but the soldier was always instructed to prefer the latter use of his weapon, as his own body remained less exposed, whilst he inflicted a more dangerous wound on his adversary. The legion was usually drawn up eight deep; and the regular distance of three feet was left between the files as well as ranks. A body of troops, habituated to preserve this open order, in a long front and a rapid charge, found themselves prepared to execute every disposition which the circumstances of war, or the skill of their leader, might suggest. The soldier possessed a free space for his arms and motions, and sufficient intervals were allowed, through which seasonable reinforcements might be introduced to the relief of the exhausted combatants. The tactics of the Greeks and Macedonians were formed on very different principles. The strength of the phalanx depended on sixteen ranks of long pikes, wedged together in the closest array. But it was soon discovered by reflection, as well as by the event, that the strength of the phalanx was unable to contend with the activity of the legion.

Nine centuries of war had gradually brought many changes and improvements to the military. The legions, as Polybius describes them during the Punic Wars, were quite different from those that won victories under Caesar or defended the reign of Hadrian and the Antonines. The structure of the Imperial legion can be summarized in a few words. The heavy infantry, which made up its main strength, was divided into ten cohorts and fifty-five companies, led by an equivalent number of tribunes and centurions. The first cohort, which always held the position of honor and protected the eagle, consisted of 1,105 soldiers, the most skilled in valor and loyalty. The remaining nine cohorts each had 555 soldiers, bringing the total number of legionary infantry to 6,100 men. Their equipment was uniform and well-suited to their role: an open helmet with a tall crest, a breastplate or chainmail, greaves for their legs, and a large shield on their left arm. The shield was oblong and concave, measuring four feet long and two and a half feet wide, made of lightweight wood, covered with bull hide, and reinforced with brass plates. In addition to a lighter spear, the legionary soldier held in his right hand the formidable pilum, a heavy javelin about six feet long, topped with a massive triangular steel tip of eighteen inches. This weapon was indeed inferior to modern firearms, as it could only be thrown once effectively, at a range of about ten to twelve paces. Yet when launched by a strong and skilled hand, no cavalry would dare approach it, nor could any shield or armor withstand its force. After throwing the pilum, the Roman would draw his sword and charge towards the enemy. His sword was a short, well-tempered Spanish blade, double-edged, suitable for both striking and thrusting; however, soldiers were trained to prefer the thrust as it reduced their exposure while dealing a more serious wound to their opponent. The legion was typically arranged eight ranks deep, with a regular three-foot gap maintained between both files and ranks. Troops trained to keep this open formation, in a long line with rapid advances, were prepared to execute any maneuvers required by the circumstances of battle or the strategy of their commander. The soldiers had enough space for their weapons and movements, and sufficient gaps were left for timely reinforcements to support weary fighters. The tactics of the Greeks and Macedonians were based on very different principles. The strength of the phalanx relied on sixteen ranks of long spears tightly packed together. However, it was soon realized through reflection and experience that the phalanx could not compete with the flexibility of the legion.

The cavalry, without which the force of the legion would have remained imperfect, was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the first, as the companion of the first cohort, consisted of a hundred and thirty-two men; whilst each of the other nine amounted only to sixty-six. The entire establishment formed a regiment, if we may use the modern expression, of seven hundred and twenty-six horse, naturally connected with its respective legion, but occasionally separated to act in the line, and to compose a part of the wings of the army. The cavalry of the emperors was no longer composed, like that of the ancient republic, of the noblest youths of Rome and Italy, who, by performing their military service on horseback, prepared themselves for the offices of senator and consul; and solicited, by deeds of valor, the future suffrages of their countrymen. Since the alteration of manners and government, the most wealthy of the equestrian order were engaged in the administration of justice, and of the revenue; and whenever they embraced the profession of arms, they were immediately intrusted with a troop of horse, or a cohort of foot. Trajan and Hadrian formed their cavalry from the same provinces, and the same class of their subjects, which recruited the ranks of the legion. The horses were bred, for the most part, in Spain or Cappadocia. The Roman troopers despised the complete armor with which the cavalry of the East was encumbered. Their more useful arms consisted in a helmet, an oblong shield, light boots, and a coat of mail. A javelin, and a long broad sword, were their principal weapons of offence. The use of lances and of iron maces they seem to have borrowed from the barbarians.

The cavalry, which was essential for the legion’s effectiveness, was divided into ten troops or squadrons. The first troop, paired with the first cohort, had one hundred and thirty-two men, while each of the other nine contained only sixty-six. Overall, this created a regiment, if we can use modern terminology, of seven hundred and twenty-six horse connected to its respective legion but sometimes deployed separately to support the flanks of the army. The emperors' cavalry was no longer made up, like that of the ancient republic, of the noblest youth from Rome and Italy, who would serve in the military on horseback to prepare for positions as senators and consuls; instead, they sought the approval of their fellow citizens through acts of valor. With changes in society and governance, the wealthiest members of the equestrian class were focused on administering justice and revenue, and whenever they chose a military career, they were quickly given command of a troop of horse or a cohort of foot. Emperors Trajan and Hadrian recruited their cavalry from the same regions and classes of subjects as the legion. Most horses were bred in Spain or Cappadocia. Roman cavalrymen looked down upon the heavy armor used by Eastern cavalry. Their more practical gear included a helmet, an oblong shield, light boots, and a coat of mail. Their main weapons were a javelin and a long, broad sword. They seemed to have borrowed the use of lances and iron maces from the barbarians.

The safety and honor of the empire was principally intrusted to the legions, but the policy of Rome condescended to adopt every useful instrument of war. Considerable levies were regularly made among the provincials, who had not yet deserved the honorable distinction of Romans. Many dependent princes and communities, dispersed round the frontiers, were permitted, for a while, to hold their freedom and security by the tenure of military service. Even select troops of hostile barbarians were frequently compelled or persuaded to consume their dangerous valor in remote climates, and for the benefit of the state. All these were included under the general name of auxiliaries; and howsoever they might vary according to the difference of times and circumstances, their numbers were seldom much inferior to those of the legions themselves. Among the auxiliaries, the bravest and most faithful bands were placed under the command of præfects and centurions, and severely trained in the arts of Roman discipline; but the far greater part retained those arms, to which the nature of their country, or their early habits of life, more peculiarly adapted them. By this institution, each legion, to whom a certain proportion of auxiliaries was allotted, contained within itself every species of lighter troops, and of missile weapons; and was capable of encountering every nation, with the advantages of its respective arms and discipline. Nor was the legion destitute of what, in modern language, would be styled a train of artillery. It consisted in ten military engines of the largest, and fifty-five of a smaller size; but all of which, either in an oblique or horizontal manner, discharged stones and darts with irresistible violence.

The safety and honor of the empire were mainly entrusted to the legions, but Rome’s strategy took advantage of every useful military tool available. Regular levies were made from the provincials, who had not yet earned the prestigious status of Romans. Many allied kings and communities scattered around the borders were allowed, for a time, to maintain their freedom and security in exchange for military service. Even selected troops of hostile barbarians were often forced or convinced to use their dangerous skills in distant lands for the state's benefit. All of these were grouped under the general term “auxiliaries,” and no matter how they changed depending on the time and situation, their numbers were rarely much lower than those of the legions themselves. Among the auxiliaries, the bravest and most loyal groups were put under the command of prefects and centurions and were rigorously trained in Roman discipline; however, the vast majority kept the weapons that were more suited to their homeland or their early way of life. Because of this setup, each legion, which was assigned a certain number of auxiliaries, contained within it all types of lighter troops and ranged weapons, making it capable of facing any nation with the benefits of its specific arms and training. The legion also had what we would now call artillery. It consisted of ten large military engines and fifty-five smaller ones, all of which could launch stones and darts with tremendous force, either at an angle or straight on.





Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The Antoninies.—Part III.

The camp of a Roman legion presented the appearance of a fortified city. As soon as the space was marked out, the pioneers carefully levelled the ground, and removed every impediment that might interrupt its perfect regularity. Its form was an exact quadrangle; and we may calculate, that a square of about seven hundred yards was sufficient for the encampment of twenty thousand Romans; though a similar number of our own troops would expose to the enemy a front of more than treble that extent. In the midst of the camp, the prætorium, or general’s quarters, rose above the others; the cavalry, the infantry, and the auxiliaries occupied their respective stations; the streets were broad and perfectly straight, and a vacant space of two hundred feet was left on all sides between the tents and the rampart. The rampart itself was usually twelve feet high, armed with a line of strong and intricate palisades, and defended by a ditch of twelve feet in depth as well as in breadth. This important labor was performed by the hands of the legionaries themselves; to whom the use of the spade and the pickaxe was no less familiar than that of the sword or pilum. Active valor may often be the present of nature; but such patient diligence can be the fruit only of habit and discipline.

The camp of a Roman legion looked like a fortified city. As soon as the area was marked out, the pioneers carefully leveled the ground and removed any obstacles that might disrupt its perfect layout. Its shape was a perfect square; and we can estimate that an area of about seven hundred yards was enough for the encampment of twenty thousand Romans, while a similar number of our own troops would expose a front to the enemy that was more than three times that size. In the center of the camp, the prætorium, or general’s quarters, rose above the rest; the cavalry, infantry, and auxiliaries occupied their designated areas; the streets were wide and completely straight, and a clear space of two hundred feet was left on all sides between the tents and the rampart. The rampart itself was usually twelve feet high, protected by a line of strong and complicated palisades, and defended by a ditch that was twelve feet deep and wide. This important work was done by the legionaries themselves, who were just as familiar with the spade and pickaxe as they were with the sword or pilum. Natural bravery may often be a gift from nature, but such consistent hard work can only come from training and discipline.

Whenever the trumpet gave the signal of departure, the camp was almost instantly broke up, and the troops fell into their ranks without delay or confusion. Besides their arms, which the legionaries scarcely considered as an encumbrance, they were laden with their kitchen furniture, the instruments of fortification, and the provision of many days. Under this weight, which would oppress the delicacy of a modern soldier, they were trained by a regular step to advance, in about six hours, near twenty miles. On the appearance of an enemy, they threw aside their baggage, and by easy and rapid evolutions converted the column of march into an order of battle. The slingers and archers skirmished in the front; the auxiliaries formed the first line, and were seconded or sustained by the strength of the legions; the cavalry covered the flanks, and the military engines were placed in the rear.

Whenever the trumpet signaled departure, the camp quickly broke down, and the troops lined up without delay or confusion. Besides their weapons, which the legionaries hardly saw as a burden, they carried their cooking gear, fortification tools, and provisions for many days. Under this load, which would weigh down a modern soldier, they were trained to march around twenty miles in about six hours. When an enemy appeared, they discarded their baggage and easily shifted from a marching column to a battle formation. The slingers and archers skirmished at the front; the auxiliaries formed the first line, supported by the strength of the legions; the cavalry guarded the flanks, and the military engines were positioned in the back.

Such were the arts of war, by which the Roman emperors defended their extensive conquests, and preserved a military spirit, at a time when every other virtue was oppressed by luxury and despotism. If, in the consideration of their armies, we pass from their discipline to their numbers, we shall not find it easy to define them with any tolerable accuracy. We may compute, however, that the legion, which was itself a body of six thousand eight hundred and thirty-one Romans, might, with its attendant auxiliaries, amount to about twelve thousand five hundred men. The peace establishment of Hadrian and his successors was composed of no less than thirty of these formidable brigades; and most probably formed a standing force of three hundred and seventy-five thousand men. Instead of being confined within the walls of fortified cities, which the Romans considered as the refuge of weakness or pusillanimity, the legions were encamped on the banks of the great rivers, and along the frontiers of the barbarians. As their stations, for the most part, remained fixed and permanent, we may venture to describe the distribution of the troops. Three legions were sufficient for Britain. The principal strength lay upon the Rhine and Danube, and consisted of sixteen legions, in the following proportions: two in the Lower, and three in the Upper Germany; one in Rhætia, one in Noricum, four in Pannonia, three in Mæsia, and two in Dacia. The defence of the Euphrates was intrusted to eight legions, six of whom were planted in Syria, and the other two in Cappadocia. With regard to Egypt, Africa, and Spain, as they were far removed from any important scene of war, a single legion maintained the domestic tranquillity of each of those great provinces. Even Italy was not left destitute of a military force. Above twenty thousand chosen soldiers, distinguished by the titles of City Cohorts and Prætorian Guards, watched over the safety of the monarch and the capital. As the authors of almost every revolution that distracted the empire, the Prætorians will, very soon, and very loudly, demand our attention; but, in their arms and institutions, we cannot find any circumstance which discriminated them from the legions, unless it were a more splendid appearance, and a less rigid discipline.

Such were the strategies of war that the Roman emperors used to protect their vast conquests and maintain a military spirit during a time when luxury and tyranny suppressed every other virtue. When it comes to their armies, it's tough to define their numbers with acceptable precision. However, we can estimate that a legion, made up of six thousand eight hundred and thirty-one Romans, along with its support troops, could total around twelve thousand five hundred men. The peace establishment of Hadrian and his successors included no less than thirty of these powerful brigades, likely forming a standing force of three hundred and seventy-five thousand men. Rather than being confined to fortified cities, which Romans viewed as a sign of weakness or cowardice, the legions were stationed along the banks of major rivers and on the borders of barbarian territories. Since their positions were mostly fixed and permanent, we can outline the distribution of the troops. Three legions were enough for Britain. The main strength was stationed on the Rhine and Danube, consisting of sixteen legions divided as follows: two in Lower Germany, three in Upper Germany, one in Rhætia, one in Noricum, four in Pannonia, three in Mæsia, and two in Dacia. The defense of the Euphrates was managed by eight legions, six of which were placed in Syria and the other two in Cappadocia. For Egypt, Africa, and Spain, which were far from significant war zones, a single legion maintained order in each of those large provinces. Even Italy had military protection. Over twenty thousand elite soldiers, known as City Cohorts and Prætorian Guards, ensured the safety of the emperor and the capital. As the instigators of nearly every upheaval that affected the empire, the Prætorians will soon demand our attention; however, in their weapons and organization, we find no features that set them apart from the legions, except for a more impressive appearance and a less strict discipline.

The navy maintained by the emperors might seem inadequate to their greatness; but it was fully sufficient for every useful purpose of government. The ambition of the Romans was confined to the land; nor was that warlike people ever actuated by the enterprising spirit which had prompted the navigators of Tyre, of Carthage, and even of Marseilles, to enlarge the bounds of the world, and to explore the most remote coasts of the ocean. To the Romans the ocean remained an object of terror rather than of curiosity; the whole extent of the Mediterranean, after the destruction of Carthage, and the extirpation of the pirates, was included within their provinces. The policy of the emperors was directed only to preserve the peaceful dominion of that sea, and to protect the commerce of their subjects. With these moderate views, Augustus stationed two permanent fleets in the most convenient ports of Italy, the one at Ravenna, on the Adriatic, the other at Misenum, in the Bay of Naples. Experience seems at length to have convinced the ancients, that as soon as their galleys exceeded two, or at the most three ranks of oars, they were suited rather for vain pomp than for real service. Augustus himself, in the victory of Actium, had seen the superiority of his own light frigates (they were called Liburnians) over the lofty but unwieldy castles of his rival. Of these Liburnians he composed the two fleets of Ravenna and Misenum, destined to command, the one the eastern, the other the western division of the Mediterranean; and to each of the squadrons he attached a body of several thousand marines. Besides these two ports, which may be considered as the principal seats of the Roman navy, a very considerable force was stationed at Frejus, on the coast of Provence, and the Euxine was guarded by forty ships, and three thousand soldiers. To all these we add the fleet which preserved the communication between Gaul and Britain, and a great number of vessels constantly maintained on the Rhine and Danube, to harass the country, or to intercept the passage of the barbarians. If we review this general state of the Imperial forces; of the cavalry as well as infantry; of the legions, the auxiliaries, the guards, and the navy; the most liberal computation will not allow us to fix the entire establishment by sea and by land at more than four hundred and fifty thousand men: a military power, which, however formidable it may seem, was equalled by a monarch of the last century, whose kingdom was confined within a single province of the Roman empire.

The navy maintained by the emperors might seem small compared to their greatness, but it was fully sufficient for all necessary government functions. The Romans focused primarily on land; they were never driven by the adventurous spirit that inspired the navigators of Tyre, Carthage, and even Marseilles to expand the world's boundaries and explore the most distant coastlines of the ocean. For the Romans, the ocean was more feared than curious; after Carthage was destroyed and the pirates eliminated, the entire Mediterranean became part of their provinces. The emperors aimed only to maintain peaceful control of that sea and protect their subjects' trade. With these moderate goals, Augustus established two permanent fleets in the most convenient Italian ports: one at Ravenna on the Adriatic, and the other at Misenum in the Bay of Naples. Over time, the ancients realized that galleys with more than two or three tiers of oars were more about show than actual utility. In the victory at Actium, Augustus had witnessed how his own light frigates (called Liburnians) outperformed the tall, cumbersome ships of his rival. He formed the two fleets of Ravenna and Misenum with these Liburnians, designated to oversee the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean, and each squadron was supported by thousands of marines. Besides these two main ports of the Roman navy, a significant force was also stationed at Frejus on the Provençal coast, while the Euxine was defended by forty ships and three thousand soldiers. Additionally, we should include the fleet that maintained communication between Gaul and Britain, along with many vessels regularly active on the Rhine and Danube to harass the region or block barbarian movements. If we take a look at the overall status of the Imperial forces—comprising cavalry, infantry, legions, auxiliaries, guards, and the navy—a generous estimate would suggest that the total force by land and sea did not exceed four hundred and fifty thousand men. This military strength, though seemingly impressive, was matched by a monarch from the last century whose kingdom was limited to a single province of the Roman Empire.

We have attempted to explain the spirit which moderated, and the strength which supported, the power of Hadrian and the Antonines. We shall now endeavor, with clearness and precision, to describe the provinces once united under their sway, but, at present, divided into so many independent and hostile states.

We have tried to clarify the influence that balanced and the strength that upheld the power of Hadrian and the Antonines. We will now aim, with clarity and precision, to describe the provinces that were once united under their rule, but are now divided into numerous independent and conflicting states.

Spain, the western extremity of the empire, of Europe, and of the ancient world, has, in every age, invariably preserved the same natural limits; the Pyrenæan Mountains, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic Ocean. That great peninsula, at present so unequally divided between two sovereigns, was distributed by Augustus into three provinces, Lusitania, Bætica, and Tarraconensis. The kingdom of Portugal now fills the place of the warlike country of the Lusitanians; and the loss sustained by the former on the side of the East, is compensated by an accession of territory towards the North. The confines of Grenada and Andalusia correspond with those of ancient Bætica. The remainder of Spain, Gallicia, and the Asturias, Biscay, and Navarre, Leon, and the two Castiles, Murcia, Valencia, Catalonia, and Arragon, all contributed to form the third and most considerable of the Roman governments, which, from the name of its capital, was styled the province of Tarragona. Of the native barbarians, the Celtiberians were the most powerful, as the Cantabrians and Asturians proved the most obstinate. Confident in the strength of their mountains, they were the last who submitted to the arms of Rome, and the first who threw off the yoke of the Arabs.

Spain, the western edge of the empire, Europe, and the ancient world, has consistently maintained the same natural boundaries throughout history: the Pyrenees Mountains, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean. This great peninsula, now unevenly split between two sovereigns, was divided by Augustus into three provinces: Lusitania, Bætica, and Tarraconensis. The kingdom of Portugal now occupies the territory once held by the warlike Lusitanians, and while it has lost some land to the east, it has gained additional territory to the north. The borders of Granada and Andalusia align with those of ancient Bætica. The rest of Spain—Galicia, Asturias, Biscay, Navarre, León, the two Castiles, Murcia, Valencia, Catalonia, and Aragon—contributed to form the largest and most significant Roman province, named after its capital, Tarragona. Among the native tribes, the Celtiberians were the most powerful, while the Cantabrians and Asturians were the most resistant. Confident in the strength of their mountains, they were the last to surrender to Roman forces and the first to shake off the dominance of the Arabs.

Ancient Gaul, as it contained the whole country between the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Rhine, and the Ocean, was of greater extent than modern France. To the dominions of that powerful monarchy, with its recent acquisitions of Alsace and Lorraine, we must add the duchy of Savoy, the cantons of Switzerland, the four electorates of the Rhine, and the territories of Liege, Luxemburgh, Hainault, Flanders, and Brabant. When Augustus gave laws to the conquests of his father, he introduced a division of Gaul, equally adapted to the progress of the legions, to the course of the rivers, and to the principal national distinctions, which had comprehended above a hundred independent states. The sea-coast of the Mediterranean, Languedoc, Provence, and Dauphiné, received their provincial appellation from the colony of Narbonne. The government of Aquitaine was extended from the Pyrenees to the Loire. The country between the Loire and the Seine was styled the Celtic Gaul, and soon borrowed a new denomination from the celebrated colony of Lugdunum, or Lyons. The Belgic lay beyond the Seine, and in more ancient times had been bounded only by the Rhine; but a little before the age of Cæsar, the Germans, abusing their superiority of valor, had occupied a considerable portion of the Belgic territory. The Roman conquerors very eagerly embraced so flattering a circumstance, and the Gallic frontier of the Rhine, from Basil to Leyden, received the pompous names of the Upper and the Lower Germany. Such, under the reign of the Antonines, were the six provinces of Gaul; the Narbonnese, Aquitaine, the Celtic, or Lyonnese, the Belgic, and the two Germanies.

Ancient Gaul, which covered the entire area between the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Rhine, and the Ocean, was larger than modern France. In addition to the powerful monarchy's territories, including its recent gains of Alsace and Lorraine, we must consider the duchy of Savoy, the cantons of Switzerland, the four electorates of the Rhine, and the regions of Liege, Luxembourg, Hainaut, Flanders, and Brabant. When Augustus established laws for the conquests made by his father, he created a division of Gaul that aligned with the progress of the legions, the course of rivers, and significant national distinctions, which had included over a hundred independent states. The Mediterranean coastline, Languedoc, Provence, and Dauphiné got their provincial name from the colony of Narbonne. The governance of Aquitaine extended from the Pyrenees to the Loire. The area between the Loire and the Seine was referred to as Celtic Gaul and soon gained a new name from the renowned colony of Lugdunum, now known as Lyons. The Belgic region lay beyond the Seine and was historically bordered only by the Rhine; however, shortly before Caesar's time, the Germans, taking advantage of their military strength, had occupied a significant part of the Belgic land. The Roman conquerors seized upon this favorable situation, and the Gallic border of the Rhine, from Basel to Leiden, was grandly named Upper and Lower Germany. Thus, during the reign of the Antonines, there were six provinces of Gaul: the Narbonnese, Aquitaine, the Celtic or Lyonnese, the Belgic, and the two Germanies.

We have already had occasion to mention the conquest of Britain, and to fix the boundary of the Roman Province in this island. It comprehended all England, Wales, and the Lowlands of Scotland, as far as the Friths of Dumbarton and Edinburgh. Before Britain lost her freedom, the country was irregularly divided between thirty tribes of barbarians, of whom the most considerable were the Belgæ in the West, the Brigantes in the North, the Silures in South Wales, and the Iceni in Norfolk and Suffolk. As far as we can either trace or credit the resemblance of manners and language, Spain, Gaul, and Britain were peopled by the same hardy race of savages. Before they yielded to the Roman arms, they often disputed the field, and often renewed the contest. After their submission, they constituted the western division of the European provinces, which extended from the columns of Hercules to the wall of Antoninus, and from the mouth of the Tagus to the sources of the Rhine and Danube.

We have already mentioned the conquest of Britain and defined the borders of the Roman Province on this island. It included all of England, Wales, and the Lowlands of Scotland, stretching as far as the Firths of Dumbarton and Edinburgh. Before Britain lost its freedom, the land was unevenly divided among thirty tribes of people, the most notable being the Belgæ in the West, the Brigantes in the North, the Silures in South Wales, and the Iceni in Norfolk and Suffolk. From what we can see or believe about their similar customs and language, Spain, Gaul, and Britain were populated by the same tough group of people. Before they surrendered to the Roman military, they frequently fought against each other and often renewed their battles. After their submission, they formed the western part of the European provinces, which stretched from the columns of Hercules to the wall of Antoninus and from the mouth of the Tagus to the sources of the Rhine and Danube.

Before the Roman conquest, the country which is now called Lombardy, was not considered as a part of Italy. It had been occupied by a powerful colony of Gauls, who, settling themselves along the banks of the Po, from Piedmont to Romagna, carried their arms and diffused their name from the Alps to the Apennine. The Ligurians dwelt on the rocky coast which now forms the republic of Genoa. Venice was yet unborn; but the territories of that state, which lie to the east of the Adige, were inhabited by the Venetians. The middle part of the peninsula, that now composes the duchy of Tuscany and the ecclesiastical state, was the ancient seat of the Etruscans and Umbrians; to the former of whom Italy was indebted for the first rudiments of civilized life. The Tyber rolled at the foot of the seven hills of Rome, and the country of the Sabines, the Latins, and the Volsci, from that river to the frontiers of Naples, was the theatre of her infant victories. On that celebrated ground the first consuls deserved triumphs, their successors adorned villas, and their posterity have erected convents. Capua and Campania possessed the immediate territory of Naples; the rest of the kingdom was inhabited by many warlike nations, the Marsi, the Samnites, the Apulians, and the Lucanians; and the sea-coasts had been covered by the flourishing colonies of the Greeks. We may remark, that when Augustus divided Italy into eleven regions, the little province of Istria was annexed to that seat of Roman sovereignty.

Before the Roman conquest, the area now called Lombardy wasn’t considered part of Italy. It was occupied by a strong colony of Gauls who settled along the banks of the Po, stretching from Piedmont to Romagna, spreading their name and influence from the Alps to the Apennines. The Ligurians lived along the rocky coast that is now the republic of Genoa. Venice didn’t exist yet, but the areas that would become that state, east of the Adige River, were inhabited by the Venetians. The central part of the peninsula, which now makes up the duchy of Tuscany and the ecclesiastical state, was the ancient homeland of the Etruscans and Umbrians, from whom Italy first learned the basics of civilized life. The Tiber River flowed at the base of the seven hills of Rome, and the lands of the Sabines, Latins, and Volsci, from that river to the borders of Naples, were the scene of Rome’s early victories. On that famous ground, the first consuls earned triumphs, their successors built villas, and their descendants constructed convents. Capua and Campania had the land surrounding Naples, while the rest of the kingdom was home to many warrior nations, including the Marsi, Samnites, Apulians, and Lucanians; the coastlines were lined with prosperous Greek colonies. Notably, when Augustus divided Italy into eleven regions, the small province of Istria was added to Roman control.

The European provinces of Rome were protected by the course of the Rhine and the Danube. The latter of those mighty streams, which rises at the distance of only thirty miles from the former, flows above thirteen hundred miles, for the most part to the south-east, collects the tribute of sixty navigable rivers, and is, at length, through six mouths, received into the Euxine, which appears scarcely equal to such an accession of waters. The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general appellation of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were esteemed the most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to be more particularly considered under the names of Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mæsia, Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece.

The European provinces of Rome were protected by the paths of the Rhine and the Danube. The latter of these great rivers, which starts just thirty miles from the former, flows for over thirteen hundred miles, mostly to the southeast, gathers the waters of sixty navigable rivers, and finally, through six mouths, empties into the Black Sea, which seems hardly adequate to handle such a large influx of water. The provinces along the Danube quickly earned the general name of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were regarded as the most militaristic of the empire; however, they deserve to be looked at more closely by their specific names: Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mæsia, Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece.

The province of Rhætia, which soon extinguished the name of the Vindelicians, extended from the summit of the Alps to the banks of the Danube; from its source, as far as its conflux with the Inn. The greatest part of the flat country is subject to the elector of Bavaria; the city of Augsburg is protected by the constitution of the German empire; the Grisons are safe in their mountains, and the country of Tirol is ranked among the numerous provinces of the house of Austria.

The province of Rhætia, which quickly overshadowed the name of the Vindelicians, stretched from the peak of the Alps to the banks of the Danube; from its source up to where it meets the Inn. Most of the flat area is under the control of the elector of Bavaria; the city of Augsburg is safeguarded by the constitution of the German empire; the Grisons are secure in their mountains, and the region of Tirol is classified among the many provinces of the House of Austria.

The wide extent of territory which is included between the Inn, the Danube, and the Save,—Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, the Lower Hungary, and Sclavonia,—was known to the ancients under the names of Noricum and Pannonia. In their original state of independence, their fierce inhabitants were intimately connected. Under the Roman government they were frequently united, and they still remain the patrimony of a single family. They now contain the residence of a German prince, who styles himself Emperor of the Romans, and form the centre, as well as strength, of the Austrian power. It may not be improper to observe, that if we except Bohemia, Moravia, the northern skirts of Austria, and a part of Hungary between the Teyss and the Danube, all the other dominions of the House of Austria were comprised within the limits of the Roman Empire.

The vast area located between the Inn, the Danube, and the Save—Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Lower Hungary, and Slavonia—was known to ancient people as Noricum and Pannonia. In their original state of independence, their fierce inhabitants were closely connected. Under Roman rule, they were often united, and they still belong to a single family. Today, this region is home to a German prince who refers to himself as Emperor of the Romans, forming the core and strength of Austrian power. It's worth noting that all the other territories of the House of Austria, except for Bohemia, Moravia, the northern parts of Austria, and a section of Hungary between the Teyss and the Danube, were included within the boundaries of the Roman Empire.

Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more properly belonged, was a long, but narrow tract, between the Save and the Adriatic. The best part of the sea-coast, which still retains its ancient appellation, is a province of the Venetian state, and the seat of the little republic of Ragusa. The inland parts have assumed the Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia; the former obeys an Austrian governor, the latter a Turkish pacha; but the whole country is still infested by tribes of barbarians, whose savage independence irregularly marks the doubtful limit of the Christian and Mahometan power.

Dalmatia, which was more accurately named Illyricum, was a long but narrow stretch of land between the Sava River and the Adriatic Sea. The best part of the coastline, which still keeps its ancient name, is part of the Venetian state and is home to the small republic of Ragusa. The interior regions have taken on Slavic names, Croatia and Bosnia; the former is governed by an Austrian leader, while the latter is ruled by a Turkish pasha. However, the entire area is still plagued by tribes of barbarians, whose fierce independence irregularly defines the uncertain borders between Christian and Muslim territories.

After the Danube had received the waters of the Teyss and the Save, it acquired, at least among the Greeks, the name of Ister. It formerly divided Mæsia and Dacia, the latter of which, as we have already seen, was a conquest of Trajan, and the only province beyond the river. If we inquire into the present state of those countries, we shall find that, on the left hand of the Danube, Temeswar and Transylvania have been annexed, after many revolutions, to the crown of Hungary; whilst the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia acknowledge the supremacy of the Ottoman Porte. On the right hand of the Danube, Mæsia, which, during the middle ages, was broken into the barbarian kingdoms of Servia and Bulgaria, is again united in Turkish slavery.

After the Danube took in the waters of the Teyss and the Save, it gained the name Ister, at least among the Greeks. It used to separate Mæsia and Dacia, the latter of which, as we have already seen, was conquered by Trajan and was the only province beyond the river. If we look at the current status of those areas, we will see that, on the left side of the Danube, Temeswar and Transylvania have been added, after many ups and downs, to the crown of Hungary; while the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia recognize the authority of the Ottoman Porte. On the right side of the Danube, Mæsia, which was fragmented during the Middle Ages into the barbarian kingdoms of Servia and Bulgaria, is once again united under Turkish rule.

The appellation of Roumelia, which is still bestowed by the Turks on the extensive countries of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece, preserves the memory of their ancient state under the Roman empire. In the time of the Antonines, the martial regions of Thrace, from the mountains of Hæmus and Rhodope, to the Bosphorus and the Hellespont, had assumed the form of a province. Notwithstanding the change of masters and of religion, the new city of Rome, founded by Constantine on the banks of the Bosphorus, has ever since remained the capital of a great monarchy. The kingdom of Macedonia, which, under the reign of Alexander, gave laws to Asia, derived more solid advantages from the policy of the two Philips; and with its dependencies of Epirus and Thessaly, extended from the Ægean to the Ionian Sea. When we reflect on the fame of Thebes and Argos, of Sparta and Athens, we can scarcely persuade ourselves, that so many immortal republics of ancient Greece were lost in a single province of the Roman empire, which, from the superior influence of the Achæan league, was usually denominated the province of Achaia.

The name Roumelia, still used by the Turks for the large areas of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece, keeps alive the memory of their ancient state during the Roman Empire. During the time of the Antonines, the rugged regions of Thrace, from the Hæmus and Rhodope mountains to the Bosphorus and the Hellespont, had become a province. Despite the change in rulers and religions, the new city of Rome, established by Constantine on the banks of the Bosphorus, has remained the capital of a significant monarchy ever since. The kingdom of Macedonia, which under Alexander's rule set laws for Asia, gained more lasting benefits from the strategies of the two Philips and included Epirus and Thessaly, stretching from the Aegean to the Ionian Sea. When we think about the fame of Thebes, Argos, Sparta, and Athens, it's hard to believe that so many legendary republics of ancient Greece were absorbed into a single province of the Roman Empire, which, due to the strong influence of the Achæan league, was commonly referred to as the province of Achaia.

Such was the state of Europe under the Roman emperors. The provinces of Asia, without excepting the transient conquests of Trajan, are all comprehended within the limits of the Turkish power. But, instead of following the arbitrary divisions of despotism and ignorance, it will be safer for us, as well as more agreeable, to observe the indelible characters of nature. The name of Asia Minor is attributed with some propriety to the peninsula, which, confined betwixt the Euxine and the Mediterranean, advances from the Euphrates towards Europe. The most extensive and flourishing district, westward of Mount Taurus and the River Halys, was dignified by the Romans with the exclusive title of Asia. The jurisdiction of that province extended over the ancient monarchies of Troy, Lydia, and Phrygia, the maritime countries of the Pamphylians, Lycians, and Carians, and the Grecian colonies of Ionia, which equalled in arts, though not in arms, the glory of their parent. The kingdoms of Bithynia and Pontus possessed the northern side of the peninsula from Constantinople to Trebizond. On the opposite side, the province of Cilicia was terminated by the mountains of Syria: the inland country, separated from the Roman Asia by the River Halys, and from Armenia by the Euphrates, had once formed the independent kingdom of Cappadocia. In this place we may observe, that the northern shores of the Euxine, beyond Trebizond in Asia, and beyond the Danube in Europe, acknowledged the sovereignty of the emperors, and received at their hands either tributary princes or Roman garrisons. Budzak, Crim Tartary, Circassia, and Mingrelia, are the modern appellations of those savage countries.

Such was the state of Europe under the Roman emperors. The provinces of Asia, including the short-lived conquests of Trajan, are all under Turkish control now. However, instead of adhering to the arbitrary divisions of tyranny and ignorance, it’s better and more enjoyable for us to recognize the lasting traits of nature. The name Asia Minor properly refers to the peninsula, which lies between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, stretching from the Euphrates toward Europe. The most extensive and prosperous area west of Mount Taurus and the Halys River was designated by the Romans as Asia. This province's jurisdiction included the ancient kingdoms of Troy, Lydia, and Phrygia, the coastal regions of the Pamphylians, Lycians, and Carians, and the Greek colonies of Ionia, which were renowned for their arts, though not military strength, matching the glory of their homeland. The kingdoms of Bithynia and Pontus occupied the northern part of the peninsula from Constantinople to Trebizond. On the opposite side, the province of Cilicia ended at the mountains of Syria: the inland area, separated from Roman Asia by the Halys River and from Armenia by the Euphrates, once formed the independent kingdom of Cappadocia. Here, we observe that the northern shores of the Black Sea, beyond Trebizond in Asia and beyond the Danube in Europe, acknowledged the emperors’ sovereignty, receiving either tributary rulers or Roman military garrisons. Budzak, Crimea, Circassia, and Mingrelia are the modern names for those wild regions.

Under the successors of Alexander, Syria was the seat of the Seleucidæ, who reigned over Upper Asia, till the successful revolt of the Parthians confined their dominions between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean. When Syria became subject to the Romans, it formed the eastern frontier of their empire: nor did that province, in its utmost latitude, know any other bounds than the mountains of Cappadocia to the north, and towards the south, the confines of Egypt, and the Red Sea. Phœnicia and Palestine were sometimes annexed to, and sometimes separated from, the jurisdiction of Syria. The former of these was a narrow and rocky coast; the latter was a territory scarcely superior to Wales, either in fertility or extent. * Yet Phœnicia and Palestine will forever live in the memory of mankind; since America, as well as Europe, has received letters from the one, and religion from the other. A sandy desert, alike destitute of wood and water, skirts along the doubtful confine of Syria, from the Euphrates to the Red Sea. The wandering life of the Arabs was inseparably connected with their independence; and wherever, on some spots less barren than the rest, they ventured to for many settled habitations, they soon became subjects to the Roman empire.

Under the successors of Alexander, Syria was ruled by the Seleucids, who controlled Upper Asia until the successful revolt of the Parthians limited their territory between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean. When Syria fell under Roman control, it became the eastern edge of their empire, stretching as far north as the mountains of Cappadocia and south to the borders of Egypt and the Red Sea. Phoenicia and Palestine were sometimes part of and sometimes separate from the authority of Syria. Phoenicia had a narrow, rocky coastline, while Palestine was only slightly larger than Wales in terms of fertility and size. Yet, Phoenicia and Palestine will always be remembered by humanity; both America and Europe have gained writing from one and religion from the other. A sandy desert, lacking wood and water, stretches along the uncertain border of Syria from the Euphrates to the Red Sea. The nomadic life of the Arabs was closely tied to their independence, and wherever they established more permanent settlements in slightly less barren areas, they quickly became subjects of the Roman Empire.

The geographers of antiquity have frequently hesitated to what portion of the globe they should ascribe Egypt. By its situation that celebrated kingdom is included within the immense peninsula of Africa; but it is accessible only on the side of Asia, whose revolutions, in almost every period of history, Egypt has humbly obeyed. A Roman præfect was seated on the splendid throne of the Ptolemies; and the iron sceptre of the Mamelukes is now in the hands of a Turkish pacha. The Nile flows down the country, above five hundred miles from the tropic of Cancer to the Mediterranean, and marks on either side the extent of fertility by the measure of its inundations. Cyrene, situate towards the west, and along the sea-coast, was first a Greek colony, afterwards a province of Egypt, and is now lost in the desert of Barca. *

The geographers of ancient times often struggled to determine which part of the globe to assign to Egypt. Located within the vast peninsula of Africa, this renowned kingdom is only accessible from the side of Asia, which Egypt has historically submissively followed through various changes. A Roman governor sat on the magnificent throne of the Ptolemies; now, the iron rule of the Mamelukes is held by a Turkish commander. The Nile flows through the country, extending over five hundred miles from the tropic of Cancer to the Mediterranean, marking the area of fertility along its banks through its seasonal flooding. Cyrene, located to the west along the coastline, was initially a Greek colony, later became a province of Egypt, and is now buried in the desert of Barca.

From Cyrene to the ocean, the coast of Africa extends above fifteen hundred miles; yet so closely is it pressed between the Mediterranean and the Sahara, or sandy desert, that its breadth seldom exceeds fourscore or a hundred miles. The eastern division was considered by the Romans as the more peculiar and proper province of Africa. Till the arrival of the Phœnician colonies, that fertile country was inhabited by the Libyans, the most savage of mankind. Under the immediate jurisdiction of Carthage, it became the centre of commerce and empire; but the republic of Carthage is now degenerated into the feeble and disorderly states of Tripoli and Tunis. The military government of Algiers oppresses the wide extent of Numidia, as it was once united under Massinissa and Jugurtha; but in the time of Augustus, the limits of Numidia were contracted; and, at least, two thirds of the country acquiesced in the name of Mauritania, with the epithet of Cæsariensis. The genuine Mauritania, or country of the Moors, which, from the ancient city of Tingi, or Tangier, was distinguished by the appellation of Tingitana, is represented by the modern kingdom of Fez. Salle, on the Ocean, so infamous at present for its piratical depredations, was noticed by the Romans, as the extreme object of their power, and almost of their geography. A city of their foundation may still be discovered near Mequinez, the residence of the barbarian whom we condescend to style the Emperor of Morocco; but it does not appear, that his more southern dominions, Morocco itself, and Segelmessa, were ever comprehended within the Roman province. The western parts of Africa are intersected by the branches of Mount Atlas, a name so idly celebrated by the fancy of poets; but which is now diffused over the immense ocean that rolls between the ancient and the new continent.

From Cyrene to the ocean, the coast of Africa stretches over fifteen hundred miles; yet it is tightly wedged between the Mediterranean and the Sahara Desert, so its width rarely goes beyond eighty to a hundred miles. The Romans viewed the eastern part as the most distinct and appropriate region of Africa. Before the arrival of the Phoenician colonies, that lush land was occupied by the Libyans, who were among the most savage people. Under Carthage's direct control, it became the hub of trade and empire; however, the republic of Carthage has now declined into the weak and disorganized states of Tripoli and Tunis. The military rule of Algiers oppresses the vast region of Numidia, which was once united under Massinissa and Jugurtha; but during Augustus's reign, the borders of Numidia shrank, and at least two-thirds of the territory fell under the name Mauritania, specifically Mauritania Cæsariensis. True Mauritania, or the land of the Moors, which was known as Tingitana from the ancient city of Tingi, or Tangier, is now represented by the modern kingdom of Fez. Salle, now notorious for its piracy, was noted by the Romans as the farthest reach of their power and nearly of their geographical knowledge. A city they founded can still be found near Mequinez, the home of the barbarian we call the Emperor of Morocco; however, it seems that his more southern territories, Morocco itself and Segelmessa, were never part of the Roman province. The western part of Africa is divided by the branches of Mount Atlas, a name romanticized in poetry; but it now stretches over the vast ocean that lies between the old and the new continents.

Having now finished the circuit of the Roman empire, we may observe, that Africa is divided from Spain by a narrow strait of about twelve miles, through which the Atlantic flows into the Mediterranean. The columns of Hercules, so famous among the ancients, were two mountains which seemed to have been torn asunder by some convulsion of the elements; and at the foot of the European mountain, the fortress of Gibraltar is now seated. The whole extent of the Mediterranean Sea, its coasts and its islands, were comprised within the Roman dominion. Of the larger islands, the two Baleares, which derive their name of Majorca and Minorca from their respective size, are subject at present, the former to Spain, the latter to Great Britain. * It is easier to deplore the fate, than to describe the actual condition, of Corsica. Two Italian sovereigns assume a regal title from Sardinia and Sicily. Crete, or Candia, with Cyprus, and most of the smaller islands of Greece and Asia, have been subdued by the Turkish arms, whilst the little rock of Malta defies their power, and has emerged, under the government of its military Order, into fame and opulence.

Having now completed our journey through the Roman Empire, we can see that Africa is separated from Spain by a narrow strait about twelve miles wide, where the Atlantic flows into the Mediterranean. The famous Columns of Hercules from ancient times were two mountains that appeared to have been split apart by some natural disaster; at the base of the European mountain sits the fortress of Gibraltar. The entire Mediterranean Sea, along with its coasts and islands, was under Roman control. Among the larger islands, the two Balearic Islands, named Majorca and Minorca based on their size, are currently governed by Spain and Great Britain, respectively. * It's easier to lament the situation than to describe how Corsica actually is now. Two Italian rulers claim a royal title from Sardinia and Sicily. Crete, or Candia, along with Cyprus and most of the smaller islands in Greece and Asia, have been conquered by the Turks, while the small island of Malta stands strong against their power and has achieved fame and wealth under its military Order.

This long enumeration of provinces, whose broken fragments have formed so many powerful kingdoms, might almost induce us to forgive the vanity or ignorance of the ancients. Dazzled with the extensive sway, the irresistible strength, and the real or affected moderation of the emperors, they permitted themselves to despise, and sometimes to forget, the outlying countries which had been left in the enjoyment of a barbarous independence; and they gradually usurped the license of confounding the Roman monarchy with the globe of the earth. But the temper, as well as knowledge, of a modern historian, require a more sober and accurate language. He may impress a juster image of the greatness of Rome, by observing that the empire was above two thousand miles in breadth, from the wall of Antoninus and the northern limits of Dacia, to Mount Atlas and the tropic of Cancer; that it extended in length more than three thousand miles from the Western Ocean to the Euphrates; that it was situated in the finest part of the Temperate Zone, between the twenty-fourth and fifty-sixth degrees of northern latitude; and that it was supposed to contain above sixteen hundred thousand square miles, for the most part of fertile and well-cultivated land.

This long list of provinces, whose scattered pieces have formed many powerful kingdoms, might almost make us forgive the arrogance or ignorance of the ancients. Blinded by the vast control, the undeniable strength, and the genuine or feigned moderation of the emperors, they allowed themselves to look down on, and sometimes forget, the distant regions that enjoyed a rough form of independence; and they gradually took the liberty of confusing the Roman monarchy with the entire world. However, the mindset and knowledge of a modern historian demand a more measured and precise language. He can convey a clearer picture of Rome's greatness by noting that the empire was over two thousand miles wide, stretching from the wall of Antoninus and the northern borders of Dacia to Mount Atlas and the Tropic of Cancer; that it spanned over three thousand miles in length from the Western Ocean to the Euphrates; that it was located in the most desirable part of the Temperate Zone, between the twenty-fourth and fifty-sixth degrees of northern latitude; and that it was believed to cover over one million six hundred thousand square miles, mostly of fertile and well-cultivated land.





Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The Antonines.—Part I.

Of The Union And Internal Prosperity Of The Roman Empire, In
The Age Of The Antonines.
Of The Union And Internal Prosperity Of The Roman Empire, In  
The Age Of The Antonines.

It is not alone by the rapidity, or extent of conquest, that we should estimate the greatness of Rome. The sovereign of the Russian deserts commands a larger portion of the globe. In the seventh summer after his passage of the Hellespont, Alexander erected the Macedonian trophies on the banks of the Hyphasis. Within less than a century, the irresistible Zingis, and the Mogul princes of his race, spread their cruel devastations and transient empire from the Sea of China, to the confines of Egypt and Germany. But the firm edifice of Roman power was raised and preserved by the wisdom of ages. The obedient provinces of Trajan and the Antonines were united by laws, and adorned by arts. They might occasionally suffer from the partial abuse of delegated authority; but the general principle of government was wise, simple, and beneficent. They enjoyed the religion of their ancestors, whilst in civil honors and advantages they were exalted, by just degrees, to an equality with their conquerors.

It’s not just the speed or size of their conquests that defines the greatness of Rome. The ruler of the Russian steppes controls a much larger area of the world. In the seventh summer after crossing the Hellespont, Alexander built Macedonian trophies on the banks of the Hyphasis. In less than a century, the unstoppable Genghis Khan and his Mongol descendants spread their brutal destruction and short-lived empire from the Sea of China to the borders of Egypt and Germany. But the solid structure of Roman power was built and sustained through the wisdom of ages. The loyal provinces under Trajan and the Antonines were connected by laws and enriched by arts. While they might have occasionally suffered from the misuse of power by those in authority, the overall system of governance was wise, straightforward, and beneficial. They maintained the religion of their ancestors, and in terms of civil honors and benefits, they were gradually raised to a level of equality with their conquerors.

I. The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.

I. The approach of the emperors and the senate regarding religion was happily supported by the insights of the educated and the customs of the superstitious among their subjects. The different forms of worship that existed in the Roman world were seen by the people as equally valid; by philosophers, as equally untrue; and by officials, as equally beneficial. As a result, tolerance led to not just mutual understanding, but even religious harmony.

The superstition of the people was not imbittered by any mixture of theological rancor; nor was it confined by the chains of any speculative system. The devout polytheist, though fondly attached to his national rites, admitted with implicit faith the different religions of the earth. Fear, gratitude, and curiosity, a dream or an omen, a singular disorder, or a distant journey, perpetually disposed him to multiply the articles of his belief, and to enlarge the list of his protectors. The thin texture of the Pagan mythology was interwoven with various but not discordant materials. As soon as it was allowed that sages and heroes, who had lived or who had died for the benefit of their country, were exalted to a state of power and immortality, it was universally confessed, that they deserved, if not the adoration, at least the reverence, of all mankind. The deities of a thousand groves and a thousand streams possessed, in peace, their local and respective influence; nor could the Romans who deprecated the wrath of the Tiber, deride the Egyptian who presented his offering to the beneficent genius of the Nile. The visible powers of nature, the planets, and the elements were the same throughout the universe. The invisible governors of the moral world were inevitably cast in a similar mould of fiction and allegory. Every virtue, and even vice, acquired its divine representative; every art and profession its patron, whose attributes, in the most distant ages and countries, were uniformly derived from the character of their peculiar votaries. A republic of gods of such opposite tempers and interests required, in every system, the moderating hand of a supreme magistrate, who, by the progress of knowledge and flattery, was gradually invested with the sublime perfections of an Eternal Parent, and an Omnipotent Monarch. Such was the mild spirit of antiquity, that the nations were less attentive to the difference, than to the resemblance, of their religious worship. The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian, as they met before their respective altars, easily persuaded themselves, that under various names, and with various ceremonies, they adored the same deities. The elegant mythology of Homer gave a beautiful, and almost a regular form, to the polytheism of the ancient world.

The people's superstitions weren't tainted by any theological bitterness, nor were they bound by any rigid belief system. The devoted polytheist, while deeply connected to their national rituals, accepted with complete faith the various religions around the world. Fear, gratitude, curiosity—a dream or an omen, a strange illness, or a long journey—constantly led them to expand their beliefs and widen the list of their protectors. The fragile fabric of Pagan mythology was woven with diverse but harmonious elements. Once it was accepted that sages and heroes, who had lived or died for their country’s benefit, were elevated to a state of power and immortality, it was generally acknowledged that they deserved, if not worship, at least the respect of all humanity. The deities of countless forests and streams maintained their local influence in peace; Romans who feared the wrath of the Tiber couldn't mock the Egyptians offering gifts to the generous spirit of the Nile. The visible powers of nature, the planets, and the elements were the same across the universe. The unseen rulers of the moral world were inevitably crafted from similar tales and symbols. Every virtue, and even vice, had its divine representative; every skill and profession had its patron, whose traits were consistently drawn from the nature of their specific followers throughout the ages and in different lands. A republic of gods with such conflicting temperaments and interests needed, in every belief system, the balancing influence of a supreme ruler who, over time, gained the sublime attributes of an Eternal Parent and an Omnipotent Monarch through knowledge and flattery. The gentle spirit of antiquity led nations to focus more on the similarities than the differences in their religious practices. The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian, as they gathered before their respective altars, easily convinced themselves that under different names and ceremonies, they were all worshipping the same gods. The elegant mythology of Homer gave a beautiful and almost structured form to the polytheism of the ancient world.

The philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from the nature of man, rather than from that of God. They meditated, however, on the Divine Nature, as a very curious and important speculation; and in the profound inquiry, they displayed the strength and weakness of the human understanding. Of the four most celebrated schools, the Stoics and the Platonists endeavored to reconcile the jaring interests of reason and piety. They have left us the most sublime proofs of the existence and perfections of the first cause; but, as it was impossible for them to conceive the creation of matter, the workman in the Stoic philosophy was not sufficiently distinguished from the work; whilst, on the contrary, the spiritual God of Plato and his disciples resembled an idea, rather than a substance. The opinions of the Academics and Epicureans were of a less religious cast; but whilst the modest science of the former induced them to doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny, the providence of a Supreme Ruler. The spirit of inquiry, prompted by emulation, and supported by freedom, had divided the public teachers of philosophy into a variety of contending sects; but the ingenious youth, who, from every part, resorted to Athens, and the other seats of learning in the Roman empire, were alike instructed in every school to reject and to despise the religion of the multitude. How, indeed, was it possible that a philosopher should accept, as divine truths, the idle tales of the poets, and the incoherent traditions of antiquity; or that he should adore, as gods, those imperfect beings whom he must have despised, as men? Against such unworthy adversaries, Cicero condescended to employ the arms of reason and eloquence; but the satire of Lucian was a much more adequate, as well as more efficacious, weapon. We may be well assured, that a writer, conversant with the world, would never have ventured to expose the gods of his country to public ridicule, had they not already been the objects of secret contempt among the polished and enlightened orders of society.

The philosophers of Greece based their morals on human nature rather than on God. However, they also reflected on the Divine Nature as a fascinating and significant topic; in their deep exploration, they showcased both the strengths and weaknesses of human understanding. Among the four most well-known schools, the Stoics and the Platonists tried to reconcile the conflicting interests of reason and faith. They provided us with the most profound evidence of the existence and perfection of the first cause; however, since they couldn't conceive the creation of matter, the creator in Stoic philosophy was not clearly differentiated from the creation itself. In contrast, the spiritual God of Plato and his followers resembled an idea more than a substance. The views of the Academics and Epicureans were less religious; while the cautious nature of the former led them to doubt, the straightforward ignorance of the latter drove them to deny the providence of a Supreme Ruler. The spirit of inquiry, fueled by competition and supported by freedom, split public philosophy teachers into various conflicting sects; yet, the clever students from all over who flocked to Athens and other centers of learning in the Roman Empire were taught in every school to reject and look down on the religion of the masses. How could any philosopher accept, as divine truths, the silly stories of the poets and the disjointed traditions of the past? Or how could he worship as gods those flawed beings he must have viewed with disdain as mere humans? Against such unworthy opponents, Cicero chose to use reason and eloquence, but Lucian's satire was a much more suitable and effective weapon. We can be confident that an author familiar with society would never have dared to publicly mock the gods of his nation if they hadn't already been secretly scorned by the cultured and enlightened segments of society.

Notwithstanding the fashionable irreligion which prevailed in the age of the Antonines, both the interest of the priests and the credulity of the people were sufficiently respected. In their writings and conversation, the philosophers of antiquity asserted the independent dignity of reason; but they resigned their actions to the commands of law and of custom. Viewing, with a smile of pity and indulgence, the various errors of the vulgar, they diligently practised the ceremonies of their fathers, devoutly frequented the temples of the gods; and sometimes condescending to act a part on the theatre of superstition, they concealed the sentiments of an atheist under the sacerdotal robes. Reasoners of such a temper were scarcely inclined to wrangle about their respective modes of faith, or of worship. It was indifferent to them what shape the folly of the multitude might choose to assume; and they approached with the same inward contempt, and the same external reverence, the altars of the Libyan, the Olympian, or the Capitoline Jupiter.

Despite the trendy irreligion of the Antonine era, the interests of the priests and the gullibility of the people were still respected. In their writings and discussions, ancient philosophers emphasized the independent value of reason; however, they followed the rules of law and tradition in their actions. They viewed the various mistakes of the common people with a mix of pity and tolerance, diligently practicing the rituals of their ancestors and regularly visiting the temples of the gods. Occasionally, they even played a role in the theater of superstition, hiding their atheistic beliefs under the attire of priests. Thinkers like these were rarely inclined to argue about their specific beliefs or forms of worship. It didn't matter to them what kind of foolishness the masses embraced; they approached the altars of the Libyan, Olympian, or Capitoline Jupiter with the same inner disdain and outer respect.

It is not easy to conceive from what motives a spirit of persecution could introduce itself into the Roman councils. The magistrates could not be actuated by a blind, though honest bigotry, since the magistrates were themselves philosophers; and the schools of Athens had given laws to the senate. They could not be impelled by ambition or avarice, as the temporal and ecclesiastical powers were united in the same hands. The pontiffs were chosen among the most illustrious of the senators; and the office of Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by the emperors themselves. They knew and valued the advantages of religion, as it is connected with civil government. They encouraged the public festivals which humanize the manners of the people. They managed the arts of divination as a convenient instrument of policy; and they respected, as the firmest bond of society, the useful persuasion, that, either in this or in a future life, the crime of perjury is most assuredly punished by the avenging gods. But whilst they acknowledged the general advantages of religion, they were convinced that the various modes of worship contributed alike to the same salutary purposes; and that, in every country, the form of superstition, which had received the sanction of time and experience, was the best adapted to the climate, and to its inhabitants. Avarice and taste very frequently despoiled the vanquished nations of the elegant statues of their gods, and the rich ornaments of their temples; but, in the exercise of the religion which they derived from their ancestors, they uniformly experienced the indulgence, and even protection, of the Roman conquerors. The province of Gaul seems, and indeed only seems, an exception to this universal toleration. Under the specious pretext of abolishing human sacrifices, the emperors Tiberius and Claudius suppressed the dangerous power of the Druids: but the priests themselves, their gods and their altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final destruction of Paganism.

It’s hard to understand what could drive a spirit of persecution to emerge within the Roman councils. The officials couldn’t be motivated by blind, albeit sincere, bigotry since they were philosophers themselves, and the schools of Athens had shaped the senate’s laws. They weren’t driven by ambition or greed, as both political and religious authority were held by the same people. The pontiffs were selected from among the most distinguished senators, and the role of Supreme Pontiff was often held by the emperors. They recognized and appreciated the benefits of religion as it relates to civil governance. They supported public festivals that brought civility to the people. They manipulated divination as a useful political tool and upheld the belief that, whether in this life or the next, the crime of perjury would definitely be punished by vengeful gods as the strongest bond of society. However, while they acknowledged the overall benefits of religion, they were convinced that different worship practices all served the same beneficial purposes, and that in every region, the form of superstition that had gained acceptance over time was best suited to its climate and people. Greed and taste often stripped conquered nations of the beautiful statues of their gods and the lavish adornments of their temples; yet, in practicing the religion inherited from their ancestors, they consistently found leniency, and even protection, from Roman conquerors. The province of Gaul seems, but only seems, to be an exception to this widespread tolerance. Under the misleading justification of ending human sacrifices, emperors Tiberius and Claudius dismantled the powerful influence of the Druids; however, the priests, their gods, and their altars continued to exist quietly until the ultimate downfall of Paganism.

Rome, the capital of a great monarchy, was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favorite superstitions of their native country. Every city in the empire was justified in maintaining the purity of its ancient ceremonies; and the Roman senate, using the common privilege, sometimes interposed, to check this inundation of foreign rites. * The Egyptian superstition, of all the most contemptible and abject, was frequently prohibited: the temples of Serapis and Isis demolished, and their worshippers banished from Rome and Italy. But the zeal of fanaticism prevailed over the cold and feeble efforts of policy. The exiles returned, the proselytes multiplied, the temples were restored with increasing splendor, and Isis and Serapis at length assumed their place among the Roman Deities. Nor was this indulgence a departure from the old maxims of government. In the purest ages of the commonwealth, Cybele and Æsculapius had been invited by solemn embassies; and it was customary to tempt the protectors of besieged cities, by the promise of more distinguished honors than they possessed in their native country. Rome gradually became the common temple of her subjects; and the freedom of the city was bestowed on all the gods of mankind.

Rome, the capital of a powerful monarchy, was constantly filled with citizens and visitors from all over the world, who brought and enjoyed the popular superstitions of their homelands. Every city in the empire had the right to maintain the integrity of its ancient rituals; and the Roman senate, exercising this common privilege, sometimes intervened to limit the flood of foreign customs. The Egyptian superstition, being the most despised and pitiful, was often banned: the temples of Serapis and Isis were destroyed, and their worshippers were exiled from Rome and Italy. However, the fervor of fanaticism overcame the weak and tepid efforts of policy. The exiles returned, new converts multiplied, the temples were rebuilt with even greater grandeur, and eventually, Isis and Serapis took their place among the Roman gods. This leniency didn't go against the old principles of governance. In the earliest days of the republic, Cybele and Æsculapius had been invited by official embassies; it was common to entice the protectors of besieged cities with the promise of greater honors than they held in their homeland. Rome gradually became the shared sanctuary of her subjects, and the freedom of the city was granted to all the gods of humanity.

II. The narrow policy of preserving, without any foreign mixture, the pure blood of the ancient citizens, had checked the fortune, and hastened the ruin, of Athens and Sparta. The aspiring genius of Rome sacrificed vanity to ambition, and deemed it more prudent, as well as honorable, to adopt virtue and merit for her own wheresoever they were found, among slaves or strangers, enemies or barbarians. During the most flourishing æra of the Athenian commonwealth, the number of citizens gradually decreased from about thirty to twenty-one thousand. If, on the contrary, we study the growth of the Roman republic, we may discover, that, notwithstanding the incessant demands of wars and colonies, the citizens, who, in the first census of Servius Tullius, amounted to no more than eighty-three thousand, were multiplied, before the commencement of the social war, to the number of four hundred and sixty-three thousand men, able to bear arms in the service of their country. When the allies of Rome claimed an equal share of honors and privileges, the senate indeed preferred the chance of arms to an ignominious concession. The Samnites and the Lucanians paid the severe penalty of their rashness; but the rest of the Italian states, as they successively returned to their duty, were admitted into the bosom of the republic, and soon contributed to the ruin of public freedom. Under a democratical government, the citizens exercise the powers of sovereignty; and those powers will be first abused, and afterwards lost, if they are committed to an unwieldy multitude. But when the popular assemblies had been suppressed by the administration of the emperors, the conquerors were distinguished from the vanquished nations, only as the first and most honorable order of subjects; and their increase, however rapid, was no longer exposed to the same dangers. Yet the wisest princes, who adopted the maxims of Augustus, guarded with the strictest care the dignity of the Roman name, and diffused the freedom of the city with a prudent liberality.

II. The narrow policy of preserving the pure blood of the ancient citizens without any foreign influence led to the decline and quickened the downfall of Athens and Sparta. The ambitious spirit of Rome prioritized ambition over pride and found it wiser, as well as honorable, to embrace virtue and merit wherever they appeared, whether among slaves, strangers, enemies, or barbarians. During the peak of the Athenian republic, the number of citizens gradually decreased from about thirty thousand to twenty-one thousand. In contrast, if we look at the growth of the Roman republic, we can see that, despite the constant demands of wars and colonies, the citizens, who initially numbered only eighty-three thousand in the first census of Servius Tullius, had grown to four hundred sixty-three thousand men capable of military service before the start of the social war. When Rome's allies demanded equal honors and privileges, the senate preferred military conflict over making a humiliating concession. The Samnites and the Lucanians faced severe consequences for their rashness, but the other Italian states that eventually returned to their duty were welcomed into the republic and soon contributed to the loss of public freedom. In a democratic government, the citizens hold sovereign power; but these powers will first be abused and then lost if given to an unmanageable crowd. When the emperors suppressed the popular assemblies, the conquerors were differentiated from the defeated nations solely as the first and most honorable class of subjects, and their rapid growth was no longer subjected to the same risks. However, the wisest rulers, who followed Augustus's principles, carefully protected the dignity of the Roman name and generously spread the freedom of the city with wise liberality.





Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The Antonines.—Part II.

Till the privileges of Romans had been progressively extended to all the inhabitants of the empire, an important distinction was preserved between Italy and the provinces. The former was esteemed the centre of public unity, and the firm basis of the constitution. Italy claimed the birth, or at least the residence, of the emperors and the senate. The estates of the Italians were exempt from taxes, their persons from the arbitrary jurisdiction of governors. Their municipal corporations, formed after the perfect model of the capital, * were intrusted, under the immediate eye of the supreme power, with the execution of the laws. From the foot of the Alps to the extremity of Calabria, all the natives of Italy were born citizens of Rome. Their partial distinctions were obliterated, and they insensibly coalesced into one great nation, united by language, manners, and civil institutions, and equal to the weight of a powerful empire. The republic gloried in her generous policy, and was frequently rewarded by the merit and services of her adopted sons. Had she always confined the distinction of Romans to the ancient families within the walls of the city, that immortal name would have been deprived of some of its noblest ornaments. Virgil was a native of Mantua; Horace was inclined to doubt whether he should call himself an Apulian or a Lucanian; it was in Padua that an historian was found worthy to record the majestic series of Roman victories. The patriot family of the Catos emerged from Tusculum; and the little town of Arpinum claimed the double honor of producing Marius and Cicero, the former of whom deserved, after Romulus and Camillus, to be styled the Third Founder of Rome; and the latter, after saving his country from the designs of Catiline, enabled her to contend with Athens for the palm of eloquence.

Until the rights of Romans were gradually extended to all the people in the empire, a significant distinction existed between Italy and the provinces. The former was viewed as the heart of public unity and the solid foundation of the constitution. Italy was regarded as the birthplace, or at least the home, of the emperors and the senate. The properties of Italians were free from taxes, and their personal matters were protected from the arbitrary rule of governors. Their local governments, modeled closely after the capital, were entrusted, under the watchful eye of the supreme authority, with enforcing the laws. From the base of the Alps to the southern tip of Calabria, all natives of Italy were born citizens of Rome. Their regional differences faded away, and they gradually merged into one large nation, united by language, customs, and civil institutions, and equal to the weight of a powerful empire. The republic took pride in its generous policies and was often rewarded with the contributions and services of its adopted citizens. Had it always restricted the title of Romans to the ancient families within the city's walls, that immortal name would have lacked some of its finest figures. Virgil hailed from Mantua; Horace was unsure whether to identify as Apulian or Lucanian; it was in Padua that a historian emerged worthy of documenting the grand series of Roman victories. The patriotic family of the Catos came from Tusculum; and the small town of Arpinum enjoyed the double honor of producing both Marius and Cicero, the former of whom deserved, after Romulus and Camillus, to be called the Third Founder of Rome; and the latter, after saving his country from Catiline's schemes, allowed her to compete with Athens for the title of the best in eloquence.

The provinces of the empire (as they have been described in the preceding chapter) were destitute of any public force, or constitutional freedom. In Etruria, in Greece, and in Gaul, it was the first care of the senate to dissolve those dangerous confederacies, which taught mankind that, as the Roman arms prevailed by division, they might be resisted by union. Those princes, whom the ostentation of gratitude or generosity permitted for a while to hold a precarious sceptre, were dismissed from their thrones, as soon as they had performed their appointed task of fashioning to the yoke the vanquished nations. The free states and cities which had embraced the cause of Rome were rewarded with a nominal alliance, and insensibly sunk into real servitude. The public authority was everywhere exercised by the ministers of the senate and of the emperors, and that authority was absolute, and without control. But the same salutary maxims of government, which had secured the peace and obedience of Italy were extended to the most distant conquests. A nation of Romans was gradually formed in the provinces, by the double expedient of introducing colonies, and of admitting the most faithful and deserving of the provincials to the freedom of Rome.

The provinces of the empire (as described in the previous chapter) lacked any public force or constitutional freedom. In Etruria, Greece, and Gaul, the senate's first priority was to break up those dangerous alliances that showed people that, while the Roman military succeeded through division, they could be challenged through unity. Those leaders, who were allowed to hold a shaky reign due to a show of gratitude or generosity, were removed from power as soon as they had completed their task of subjugating the conquered nations. The free states and cities that supported Rome were offered a symbolic alliance and gradually fell into genuine servitude. Public authority was exercised everywhere by the agents of the senate and emperors, and that authority was absolute and unchecked. However, the same effective principles of governance that maintained peace and obedience in Italy were applied to the farthest conquests. A Roman population was slowly formed in the provinces through a combination of establishing colonies and granting freedom to the most loyal and deserving of the provincial people.

“Wheresoever the Roman conquers, he inhabits,” is a very just observation of Seneca, confirmed by history and experience. The natives of Italy, allured by pleasure or by interest, hastened to enjoy the advantages of victory; and we may remark, that, about forty years after the reduction of Asia, eighty thousand Romans were massacred in one day, by the cruel orders of Mithridates. These voluntary exiles were engaged, for the most part, in the occupations of commerce, agriculture, and the farm of the revenue. But after the legions were rendered permanent by the emperors, the provinces were peopled by a race of soldiers; and the veterans, whether they received the reward of their service in land or in money, usually settled with their families in the country, where they had honorably spent their youth. Throughout the empire, but more particularly in the western parts, the most fertile districts, and the most convenient situations, were reserved for the establishment of colonies; some of which were of a civil, and others of a military nature. In their manners and internal policy, the colonies formed a perfect representation of their great parent; and they were soon endeared to the natives by the ties of friendship and alliance, they effectually diffused a reverence for the Roman name, and a desire, which was seldom disappointed, of sharing, in due time, its honors and advantages. The municipal cities insensibly equalled the rank and splendor of the colonies; and in the reign of Hadrian, it was disputed which was the preferable condition, of those societies which had issued from, or those which had been received into, the bosom of Rome. The right of Latium, as it was called, * conferred on the cities to which it had been granted, a more partial favor. The magistrates only, at the expiration of their office, assumed the quality of Roman citizens; but as those offices were annual, in a few years they circulated round the principal families. Those of the provincials who were permitted to bear arms in the legions; those who exercised any civil employment; all, in a word, who performed any public service, or displayed any personal talents, were rewarded with a present, whose value was continually diminished by the increasing liberality of the emperors. Yet even, in the age of the Antonines, when the freedom of the city had been bestowed on the greater number of their subjects, it was still accompanied with very solid advantages. The bulk of the people acquired, with that title, the benefit of the Roman laws, particularly in the interesting articles of marriage, testaments, and inheritances; and the road of fortune was open to those whose pretensions were seconded by favor or merit. The grandsons of the Gauls, who had besieged Julius Cæsar in Alesia, commanded legions, governed provinces, and were admitted into the senate of Rome. Their ambition, instead of disturbing the tranquillity of the state, was intimately connected with its safety and greatness.

“Wherever the Romans conquer, they settle,” is a reasonable observation by Seneca, backed by history and experience. The people of Italy, drawn by pleasure or self-interest, rushed to benefit from victory; and we can note that, about forty years after conquering Asia, eighty thousand Romans were killed in a single day due to the ruthless orders of Mithridates. Most of these voluntary exiles were involved in trade, farming, and tax collection. However, after the emperors made the legions a permanent fixture, the provinces were populated by soldiers, and the veterans, whether compensated with land or money, typically established themselves with their families where they had honorably spent their youth. Throughout the empire, especially in the west, the most fertile lands and prime locations were set aside for colonization—some with civilian purposes and others with military ones. In their customs and internal governance, the colonies mirrored their great parent; they quickly became endearing to the locals through friendship and alliances, effectively spreading respect for the Roman name and a desire for its honors and benefits, which were rarely unfulfilled. The municipal cities gradually matched the status and grandeur of the colonies; during Hadrian’s reign, there was debate over which was the superior condition: those societies that had originated from Rome or those integrated into it. The right of Latium, as it was known, granted special privileges to the cities that received it. Only the magistrates, after their term, could call themselves Roman citizens; but since these positions were annual, they circulated among the main families in a few years. Provincials allowed to serve in the legions, those in civil roles, and everyone who performed public service or showcased personal talent were rewarded, although the value of these rewards decreased due to the emperors’ increasing generosity. Yet, even during the era of the Antonines, when many subjects were granted citizenship, this came with substantial benefits. The majority gained the advantage of Roman laws with this title, especially regarding marriage, wills, and inheritance; and those with the right connections or merits had the path to prosperity opened for them. The grandsons of the Gauls who besieged Julius Caesar in Alesia commanded legions, governed provinces, and were welcomed into the Roman Senate. Their ambition, rather than disrupting the state’s peace, was closely linked to its safety and greatness.

So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over national manners, that it was their most serious care to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use of the Latin tongue. The ancient dialects of Italy, the Sabine, the Etruscan, and the Venetian, sunk into oblivion; but in the provinces, the east was less docile than the west to the voice of its victorious preceptors. This obvious difference marked the two portions of the empire with a distinction of colors, which, though it was in some degree concealed during the meridian splendor of prosperity, became gradually more visible, as the shades of night descended upon the Roman world. The western countries were civilized by the same hands which subdued them. As soon as the barbarians were reconciled to obedience, their minds were open to any new impressions of knowledge and politeness. The language of Virgil and Cicero, though with some inevitable mixture of corruption, was so universally adopted in Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Pannonia, that the faint traces of the Punic or Celtic idioms were preserved only in the mountains, or among the peasants. Education and study insensibly inspired the natives of those countries with the sentiments of Romans; and Italy gave fashions, as well as laws, to her Latin provincials. They solicited with more ardor, and obtained with more facility, the freedom and honors of the state; supported the national dignity in letters and in arms; and at length, in the person of Trajan, produced an emperor whom the Scipios would not have disowned for their countryman. The situation of the Greeks was very different from that of the barbarians. The former had been long since civilized and corrupted. They had too much taste to relinquish their language, and too much vanity to adopt any foreign institutions. Still preserving the prejudices, after they had lost the virtues, of their ancestors, they affected to despise the unpolished manners of the Roman conquerors, whilst they were compelled to respect their superior wisdom and power. Nor was the influence of the Grecian language and sentiments confined to the narrow limits of that once celebrated country. Their empire, by the progress of colonies and conquest, had been diffused from the Adriatic to the Euphrates and the Nile. Asia was covered with Greek cities, and the long reign of the Macedonian kings had introduced a silent revolution into Syria and Egypt. In their pompous courts, those princes united the elegance of Athens with the luxury of the East, and the example of the court was imitated, at an humble distance, by the higher ranks of their subjects. Such was the general division of the Roman empire into the Latin and Greek languages. To these we may add a third distinction for the body of the natives in Syria, and especially in Egypt, the use of their ancient dialects, by secluding them from the commerce of mankind, checked the improvements of those barbarians. The slothful effeminacy of the former exposed them to the contempt, the sullen ferociousness of the latter excited the aversion, of the conquerors. Those nations had submitted to the Roman power, but they seldom desired or deserved the freedom of the city: and it was remarked, that more than two hundred and thirty years elapsed after the ruin of the Ptolemies, before an Egyptian was admitted into the senate of Rome.

So aware were the Romans of how language influenced national behavior that they prioritized spreading the use of Latin as their military conquests advanced. The old dialects of Italy, like Sabine, Etruscan, and Venetian, faded into obscurity; however, in the provinces, the eastern regions were less receptive to the guidance of their conquerors compared to the west. This clear distinction marked the two parts of the empire with different characteristics, which, while somewhat hidden during the height of prosperity, became increasingly apparent as darkness fell over the Roman world. The western territories were civilized by the very forces that conquered them. Once the barbarians accepted their authority, they became open to new ideas of knowledge and civility. The language of Virgil and Cicero, despite some inevitable corruption, was widely adopted in Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Pannonia, such that only faint traces of Punic or Celtic languages remained in the mountains or among the peasants. Education and learning gradually instilled Roman sentiments in the people of those regions, and Italy influenced not just laws, but also culture among her Latin provincials. They actively sought and easily obtained the freedoms and honors of the state, upheld national pride in literature and military, and ultimately, with the emergence of Trajan, produced an emperor whom even the Scipios would have recognized as one of their own. The situation for the Greeks was quite different from that of the barbarians. The Greeks had long been civilized but also corrupted. They had too much appreciation for their own language to abandon it and too much pride to adopt foreign customs. While they retained the biases of their ancestors, having lost their virtues, they pretended to disdain the crude ways of their Roman conquerors, even though they had to respect their superior intelligence and power. The influence of Greek language and ideas extended far beyond the confines of that once celebrated region. Their empire, through the expansion of colonies and conquest, spread from the Adriatic to the Euphrates and the Nile. Asia was dotted with Greek cities, and the long rule of the Macedonian kings brought about a quiet transformation in Syria and Egypt. In their grand courts, those kings combined the elegance of Athens with the luxury of the East, and their example was imitated, albeit on a smaller scale, by the upper classes of their subjects. Thus, the Roman empire was generally divided between the Latin and Greek languages. We can also note a third distinction for the native populations in Syria, particularly in Egypt, where the use of their ancient dialects kept them isolated from the broader world and hindered their development. The lethargic softness of some elicited contempt, whereas the grim ferocity of others provoked disdain from their conquerors. These nations had submitted to Roman control, but they rarely sought or earned the privileges of citizenship; it was noted that more than two hundred and thirty years passed after the fall of the Ptolemies before an Egyptian was allowed to join the Roman Senate.

It is a just though trite observation, that victorious Rome was herself subdued by the arts of Greece. Those immortal writers who still command the admiration of modern Europe, soon became the favorite object of study and imitation in Italy and the western provinces. But the elegant amusements of the Romans were not suffered to interfere with their sound maxims of policy. Whilst they acknowledged the charms of the Greek, they asserted the dignity of the Latin tongue, and the exclusive use of the latter was inflexibly maintained in the administration of civil as well as military government. The two languages exercised at the same time their separate jurisdiction throughout the empire: the former, as the natural idiom of science; the latter, as the legal dialect of public transactions. Those who united letters with business were equally conversant with both; and it was almost impossible, in any province, to find a Roman subject, of a liberal education, who was at once a stranger to the Greek and to the Latin language.

It's a well-known but often-overlooked fact that victorious Rome was ultimately influenced by the arts of Greece. Those timeless writers who still capture the admiration of modern Europe quickly became a popular subject of study and emulation in Italy and the western provinces. However, the refined entertainments of the Romans did not interfere with their solid principles of governance. While they recognized the allure of Greek, they insisted on the importance of the Latin language, maintaining its exclusive use in both civil and military administration. The two languages held their distinct roles throughout the empire: the former serving as the natural language of science, and the latter as the legal language of public affairs. Those who combined education with practical work were adept in both languages, making it nearly impossible in any province to find a Roman citizen of liberal education who was unfamiliar with both Greek and Latin.

It was by such institutions that the nations of the empire insensibly melted away into the Roman name and people. But there still remained, in the centre of every province and of every family, an unhappy condition of men who endured the weight, without sharing the benefits, of society. In the free states of antiquity, the domestic slaves were exposed to the wanton rigor of despotism. The perfect settlement of the Roman empire was preceded by ages of violence and rapine. The slaves consisted, for the most part, of barbarian captives, * taken in thousands by the chance of war, purchased at a vile price, accustomed to a life of independence, and impatient to break and to revenge their fetters. Against such internal enemies, whose desperate insurrections had more than once reduced the republic to the brink of destruction, the most severe regulations, and the most cruel treatment, seemed almost justified by the great law of self-preservation. But when the principal nations of Europe, Asia, and Africa were united under the laws of one sovereign, the source of foreign supplies flowed with much less abundance, and the Romans were reduced to the milder but more tedious method of propagation. * In their numerous families, and particularly in their country estates, they encouraged the marriage of their slaves. The sentiments of nature, the habits of education, and the possession of a dependent species of property, contributed to alleviate the hardships of servitude. The existence of a slave became an object of greater value, and though his happiness still depended on the temper and circumstances of the master, the humanity of the latter, instead of being restrained by fear, was encouraged by the sense of his own interest. The progress of manners was accelerated by the virtue or policy of the emperors; and by the edicts of Hadrian and the Antonines, the protection of the laws was extended to the most abject part of mankind. The jurisdiction of life and death over the slaves, a power long exercised and often abused, was taken out of private hands, and reserved to the magistrates alone. The subterraneous prisons were abolished; and, upon a just complaint of intolerable treatment, the injured slave obtained either his deliverance, or a less cruel master.

It was through these institutions that the nations of the empire gradually merged into the Roman identity and culture. However, in every province and family, there remained a tragic group of people who bore the burden of society without enjoying its benefits. In the free states of ancient times, household slaves faced the arbitrary cruelty of despots. The complete establishment of the Roman empire was preceded by years of violence and plunder. Most slaves were barbarian captives, taken by the thousands during wars, bought for a cheap price, used to living independently, and eager to break free and take revenge on their oppressors. In light of these internal threats, whose desperate revolts had almost destroyed the republic multiple times, strict regulations and harsh treatment seemed almost justified by the principle of self-preservation. But when the main nations of Europe, Asia, and Africa came under the authority of one ruler, the influx of foreign supplies decreased significantly, leading the Romans to rely on the slower but gentler method of procreation. In their large households, especially on their rural estates, they encouraged the marriage of their slaves. Natural feelings, educational customs, and the ownership of dependent property helped ease the burdens of slavery. The life of a slave became more valued, and although their happiness still depended on the mood and situation of their masters, the compassion of the latter, rather than being limited by fear, was motivated by self-interest. The evolution of social norms sped up through the virtue or policies of the emperors; and with the decrees of Hadrian and the Antonines, legal protection was extended to the most downtrodden people. The power of life and death over slaves, which had long been misused and abused, was taken from private individuals and assigned to magistrates only. Underground prisons were put to an end; and if a slave made a reasonable complaint about intolerable treatment, they gained either their freedom or a less cruel owner.

Hope, the best comfort of our imperfect condition, was not denied to the Roman slave; and if he had any opportunity of rendering himself either useful or agreeable, he might very naturally expect that the diligence and fidelity of a few years would be rewarded with the inestimable gift of freedom. The benevolence of the master was so frequently prompted by the meaner suggestions of vanity and avarice, that the laws found it more necessary to restrain than to encourage a profuse and undistinguishing liberality, which might degenerate into a very dangerous abuse. It was a maxim of ancient jurisprudence, that a slave had not any country of his own; he acquired with his liberty an admission into the political society of which his patron was a member. The consequences of this maxim would have prostituted the privileges of the Roman city to a mean and promiscuous multitude. Some seasonable exceptions were therefore provided; and the honorable distinction was confined to such slaves only as, for just causes, and with the approbation of the magistrate, should receive a solemn and legal manumission. Even these chosen freedmen obtained no more than the private rights of citizens, and were rigorously excluded from civil or military honors. Whatever might be the merit or fortune of their sons, they likewise were esteemed unworthy of a seat in the senate; nor were the traces of a servile origin allowed to be completely obliterated till the third or fourth generation. Without destroying the distinction of ranks, a distant prospect of freedom and honors was presented, even to those whom pride and prejudice almost disdained to number among the human species.

Hope, the best comfort for our flawed existence, wasn't denied to the Roman slave; and if he had any chance to make himself either useful or likable, he could reasonably expect that hard work and loyalty over a few years would earn him the invaluable gift of freedom. The kindness of the master was often influenced by the lesser motivations of vanity and greed, leading the laws to focus more on restraining than encouraging generous and indiscriminate acts of giving, which could easily turn into a serious abuse. An old legal principle held that a slave had no country of his own; he gained entry into the political community of which his owner was a part once he was freed. The implications of this principle could have diluted the privileges of the Roman city by opening them up to a common and mixed population. Therefore, some timely exceptions were established; the respectable distinction was limited to those slaves who, for valid reasons and with the approval of a magistrate, would receive a formal and legal emancipation. Even these special freedmen enjoyed no more than the basic rights of citizens and were strictly barred from civil or military honors. No matter how deserving or fortunate their children were, they too were deemed unworthy of a seat in the senate; and the marks of a servile background were not allowed to be completely erased until the third or fourth generation. Without abolishing the social hierarchy, a distant hope for freedom and honors was offered, even to those whom pride and prejudice hardly recognized as human.

It was once proposed to discriminate the slaves by a peculiar habit; but it was justly apprehended that there might be some danger in acquainting them with their own numbers. Without interpreting, in their utmost strictness, the liberal appellations of legions and myriads, we may venture to pronounce, that the proportion of slaves, who were valued as property, was more considerable than that of servants, who can be computed only as an expense. The youths of a promising genius were instructed in the arts and sciences, and their price was ascertained by the degree of their skill and talents. Almost every profession, either liberal or mechanical, might be found in the household of an opulent senator. The ministers of pomp and sensuality were multiplied beyond the conception of modern luxury. It was more for the interest of the merchant or manufacturer to purchase, than to hire his workmen; and in the country, slaves were employed as the cheapest and most laborious instruments of agriculture. To confirm the general observation, and to display the multitude of slaves, we might allege a variety of particular instances. It was discovered, on a very melancholy occasion, that four hundred slaves were maintained in a single palace of Rome. The same number of four hundred belonged to an estate which an African widow, of a very private condition, resigned to her son, whilst she reserved for herself a much larger share of her property. A freedman, under the name of Augustus, though his fortune had suffered great losses in the civil wars, left behind him three thousand six hundred yoke of oxen, two hundred and fifty thousand head of smaller cattle, and what was almost included in the description of cattle, four thousand one hundred and sixteen slaves.

It was once suggested to distinguish the slaves by a unique habit, but it was rightly feared that this could pose a danger by making them aware of their own numbers. Without taking too literally the grand titles of legions and myriads, we can say that the proportion of slaves, who were seen as property, was greater than that of servants, who were viewed merely as an expense. Young people with talent were taught arts and sciences, and their value was determined by their skill and talents. Almost every profession, whether skilled or unskilled, could be found in the household of a wealthy senator. The numbers of those who catered to luxury and excess were beyond modern imagination. It was more beneficial for merchants or manufacturers to buy than to hire their workers; in the countryside, slaves were used as the cheapest and most hardworking tools for agriculture. To back up this general observation and highlight the vast number of slaves, we could provide various specific examples. It was sadly revealed that four hundred slaves were maintained in a single palace in Rome. The same number of four hundred belonged to an estate that an African widow, of very humble means, passed on to her son while keeping for herself a much larger portion of her wealth. A freedman, known as Augustus, despite suffering significant financial losses during the civil wars, left behind three thousand six hundred yoke of oxen, two hundred and fifty thousand head of smaller livestock, and what was almost considered livestock, four thousand one hundred and sixteen slaves.

The number of subjects who acknowledged the laws of Rome, of citizens, of provincials, and of slaves, cannot now be fixed with such a degree of accuracy, as the importance of the object would deserve. We are informed, that when the Emperor Claudius exercised the office of censor, he took an account of six millions nine hundred and forty-five thousand Roman citizens, who, with the proportion of women and children, must have amounted to about twenty millions of souls. The multitude of subjects of an inferior rank was uncertain and fluctuating. But, after weighing with attention every circumstance which could influence the balance, it seems probable that there existed, in the time of Claudius, about twice as many provincials as there were citizens, of either sex, and of every age; and that the slaves were at least equal in number to the free inhabitants of the Roman world. * The total amount of this imperfect calculation would rise to about one hundred and twenty millions of persons; a degree of population which possibly exceeds that of modern Europe, and forms the most numerous society that has ever been united under the same system of government.

The number of people who recognized the laws of Rome, including citizens, provincials, and slaves, can’t be pinpointed with the accuracy that the importance of the issue deserves. We know that when Emperor Claudius served as censor, he counted six million nine hundred forty-five thousand Roman citizens, who, with women and children included, likely totaled around twenty million individuals. The number of subjects of lower status was uncertain and varied. However, after considering all relevant factors, it seems likely that during Claudius's time, there were about twice as many provincials as there were citizens, of all genders and ages; and that the number of slaves was at least equal to that of the free inhabitants of the Roman world. * This rough estimate would bring the total population to around one hundred twenty million people, a number that might surpass that of modern Europe and represents the largest society ever united under a single system of government.





Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The Antonines.—Part III.

Domestic peace and union were the natural consequences of the moderate and comprehensive policy embraced by the Romans. If we turn our eyes towards the monarchies of Asia, we shall behold despotism in the centre, and weakness in the extremities; the collection of the revenue, or the administration of justice, enforced by the presence of an army; hostile barbarians established in the heart of the country, hereditary satraps usurping the dominion of the provinces, and subjects inclined to rebellion, though incapable of freedom. But the obedience of the Roman world was uniform, voluntary, and permanent. The vanquished nations, blended into one great people, resigned the hope, nay, even the wish, of resuming their independence, and scarcely considered their own existence as distinct from the existence of Rome. The established authority of the emperors pervaded without an effort the wide extent of their dominions, and was exercised with the same facility on the banks of the Thames, or of the Nile, as on those of the Tyber. The legions were destined to serve against the public enemy, and the civil magistrate seldom required the aid of a military force. In this state of general security, the leisure, as well as opulence, both of the prince and people, were devoted to improve and to adorn the Roman empire.

Domestic peace and unity were the natural results of the balanced and inclusive policies adopted by the Romans. If we look towards the monarchies of Asia, we see tyranny at the center and weakness at the edges; the collection of taxes or the administration of justice is maintained by the presence of an army; hostile outsiders are settled in the heart of the nation, hereditary governors take control of the provinces, and citizens are prone to rebellion, yet unable to achieve freedom. However, the obedience of the Roman world was consistent, voluntary, and enduring. The conquered nations, merged into one large populace, gave up the hope, even the desire, to regain their independence, and barely viewed their own existence as separate from that of Rome. The established authority of the emperors flowed effortlessly throughout their vast territories and was exercised with the same ease along the banks of the Thames or the Nile as it was along the Tiber. The legions were meant to fight against external enemies, and the civil magistrate rarely needed military support. In this environment of overall security, the leisure and wealth of both the emperor and the people were dedicated to improving and embellishing the Roman Empire.

Among the innumerable monuments of architecture constructed by the Romans, how many have escaped the notice of history, how few have resisted the ravages of time and barbarism! And yet, even the majestic ruins that are still scattered over Italy and the provinces, would be sufficient to prove that those countries were once the seat of a polite and powerful empire. Their greatness alone, or their beauty, might deserve our attention: but they are rendered more interesting, by two important circumstances, which connect the agreeable history of the arts with the more useful history of human manners. Many of those works were erected at private expense, and almost all were intended for public benefit.

Among the countless architectural monuments built by the Romans, how many have gone unnoticed in history, and how few have withstood the wear and tear of time and barbarism! And yet, even the impressive ruins still found throughout Italy and the provinces are enough to show that these areas were once the heart of a cultured and powerful empire. Their grandeur or beauty alone would warrant our interest, but they become even more fascinating due to two key factors that tie the enjoyable history of the arts to the more practical history of human behavior. Many of these works were funded privately, and almost all were designed for the public good.

It is natural to suppose that the greatest number, as well as the most considerable of the Roman edifices, were raised by the emperors, who possessed so unbounded a command both of men and money. Augustus was accustomed to boast that he had found his capital of brick, and that he had left it of marble. The strict economy of Vespasian was the source of his magnificence. The works of Trajan bear the stamp of his genius. The public monuments with which Hadrian adorned every province of the empire, were executed not only by his orders, but under his immediate inspection. He was himself an artist; and he loved the arts, as they conduced to the glory of the monarch. They were encouraged by the Antonines, as they contributed to the happiness of the people. But if the emperors were the first, they were not the only architects of their dominions. Their example was universally imitated by their principal subjects, who were not afraid of declaring to the world that they had spirit to conceive, and wealth to accomplish, the noblest undertakings. Scarcely had the proud structure of the Coliseum been dedicated at Rome, before the edifices, of a smaller scale indeed, but of the same design and materials, were erected for the use, and at the expense, of the cities of Capua and Verona. The inscription of the stupendous bridge of Alcantara attests that it was thrown over the Tagus by the contribution of a few Lusitanian communities. When Pliny was intrusted with the government of Bithynia and Pontus, provinces by no means the richest or most considerable of the empire, he found the cities within his jurisdiction striving with each other in every useful and ornamental work, that might deserve the curiosity of strangers, or the gratitude of their citizens. It was the duty of the proconsul to supply their deficiencies, to direct their taste, and sometimes to moderate their emulation. The opulent senators of Rome and the provinces esteemed it an honor, and almost an obligation, to adorn the splendor of their age and country; and the influence of fashion very frequently supplied the want of taste or generosity. Among a crowd of these private benefactors, we may select Herodes Atticus, an Athenian citizen, who lived in the age of the Antonines. Whatever might be the motive of his conduct, his magnificence would have been worthy of the greatest kings.

It’s reasonable to think that the largest and most impressive Roman buildings were built by the emperors, who had unlimited control over both people and money. Augustus liked to brag that he had found his capital made of brick and that he had transformed it into marble. Vespasian's strict economy led to his magnificence. The projects of Trajan reflect his genius. The public monuments Hadrian decorated every province of the empire with were completed not only by his orders but also under his direct supervision. He was an artist himself and had a passion for the arts as they enhanced the glory of the emperor. The Antonines supported the arts because they contributed to the well-being of the people. However, while the emperors were the first architects of their territories, they certainly weren't the only ones. Their example was widely copied by their prominent subjects, who weren’t shy about publicizing their ambition to envision and fund great projects. Almost immediately after the impressive Coliseum was dedicated in Rome, similar buildings—though smaller—were constructed in Capua and Verona using the same design and materials. The inscription on the grand Alcantara bridge confirms that it was built over the Tagus with support from a few Lusitanian communities. When Pliny was put in charge of Bithynia and Pontus, two provinces that were by no means the wealthiest or most significant in the empire, he found the cities under his governance competing with each other in various useful and decorative projects that would pique the interest of visitors or earn the appreciation of their citizens. It was the proconsul's duty to address any shortcomings, guide their tastes, and sometimes temper their rivalry. Wealthy senators from Rome and the provinces considered it an honor, and almost a duty, to enhance the grandeur of their time and homeland; and the influence of trends often compensated for a lack of taste or generosity. Among the many private benefactors, we can highlight Herodes Atticus, a citizen of Athens who lived during the Antonine period. Regardless of his motivations, his lavishness would have been impressive even for the greatest kings.

The family of Herod, at least after it had been favored by fortune, was lineally descended from Cimon and Miltiades, Theseus and Cecrops, Æacus and Jupiter. But the posterity of so many gods and heroes was fallen into the most abject state. His grandfather had suffered by the hands of justice, and Julius Atticus, his father, must have ended his life in poverty and contempt, had he not discovered an immense treasure buried under an old house, the last remains of his patrimony. According to the rigor of the law, the emperor might have asserted his claim, and the prudent Atticus prevented, by a frank confession, the officiousness of informers. But the equitable Nerva, who then filled the throne, refused to accept any part of it, and commanded him to use, without scruple, the present of fortune. The cautious Athenian still insisted, that the treasure was too considerable for a subject, and that he knew not how to use it. Abuse it then, replied the monarch, with a good-natured peevishness; for it is your own. Many will be of opinion, that Atticus literally obeyed the emperor’s last instructions; since he expended the greatest part of his fortune, which was much increased by an advantageous marriage, in the service of the public. He had obtained for his son Herod the prefecture of the free cities of Asia; and the young magistrate, observing that the town of Troas was indifferently supplied with water, obtained from the munificence of Hadrian three hundred myriads of drachms, (about a hundred thousand pounds,) for the construction of a new aqueduct. But in the execution of the work, the charge amounted to more than double the estimate, and the officers of the revenue began to murmur, till the generous Atticus silenced their complaints, by requesting that he might be permitted to take upon himself the whole additional expense.

The family of Herod, at least after enjoying some good fortune, was directly descended from Cimon and Miltiades, Theseus and Cecrops, Æacus and Jupiter. However, the descendants of so many gods and heroes had fallen into a terrible state. His grandfather had suffered due to the law, and Julius Atticus, his father, would have died in poverty and disgrace if he hadn't found a huge treasure buried under an old house, the last remnants of his inheritance. According to strict legal rules, the emperor could have claimed it, but the wise Atticus avoided the meddling of informers by openly admitting the find. However, the fair-minded Nerva, who was then the emperor, refused to take any part of it and told him to use the gift from fortune freely. The cautious Athenian still insisted that the treasure was too significant for a regular citizen and that he didn't know how to use it. Then just waste it, replied the emperor, half-jokingly, since it belongs to you. Many might think that Atticus took the emperor’s last advice literally because he spent most of his wealth, which grew significantly due to a beneficial marriage, on public service. He had secured a prefecture in the free cities of Asia for his son Herod; and the young magistrate, noticing that the town of Troas lacked sufficient water supply, obtained from Hadrian a generous grant of three hundred myriads of drachms (about a hundred thousand pounds) for building a new aqueduct. But during the construction, costs exceeded the original estimates by more than double, and the tax officials started to complain until the generous Atticus quieted their protests by asking to cover the entire extra expense himself.

The ablest preceptors of Greece and Asia had been invited by liberal rewards to direct the education of young Herod. Their pupil soon became a celebrated orator, according to the useless rhetoric of that age, which, confining itself to the schools, disdained to visit either the Forum or the Senate. He was honored with the consulship at Rome: but the greatest part of his life was spent in a philosophic retirement at Athens, and his adjacent villas; perpetually surrounded by sophists, who acknowledged, without reluctance, the superiority of a rich and generous rival. The monuments of his genius have perished; some considerable ruins still preserve the fame of his taste and munificence: modern travellers have measured the remains of the stadium which he constructed at Athens. It was six hundred feet in length, built entirely of white marble, capable of admitting the whole body of the people, and finished in four years, whilst Herod was president of the Athenian games. To the memory of his wife Regilla he dedicated a theatre, scarcely to be paralleled in the empire: no wood except cedar, very curiously carved, was employed in any part of the building. The Odeum, * designed by Pericles for musical performances, and the rehearsal of new tragedies, had been a trophy of the victory of the arts over barbaric greatness; as the timbers employed in the construction consisted chiefly of the masts of the Persian vessels. Notwithstanding the repairs bestowed on that ancient edifice by a king of Cappadocia, it was again fallen to decay. Herod restored its ancient beauty and magnificence. Nor was the liberality of that illustrious citizen confined to the walls of Athens. The most splendid ornaments bestowed on the temple of Neptune in the Isthmus, a theatre at Corinth, a stadium at Delphi, a bath at Thermopylæ, and an aqueduct at Canusium in Italy, were insufficient to exhaust his treasures. The people of Epirus, Thessaly, Euboea, Boeotia, and Peloponnesus, experienced his favors; and many inscriptions of the cities of Greece and Asia gratefully style Herodes Atticus their patron and benefactor.

The most skilled teachers from Greece and Asia were invited with generous rewards to guide the education of young Herod. His student quickly became a well-known orator, following the pointless rhetoric of that time, which remained confined to academia and neglected both the Forum and the Senate. He was honored with the consulship in Rome, but most of his life was spent in a philosophical retreat in Athens and his nearby villas, always surrounded by sophists who readily acknowledged the superiority of their wealthy and generous rival. The works of his genius have been lost, but some significant ruins still showcase his taste and generosity: modern travelers have measured the remains of the stadium he built in Athens. It was six hundred feet long, constructed entirely of white marble, capable of accommodating the entire populace, and completed in four years while Herod served as president of the Athenian games. In memory of his wife Regilla, he dedicated a theater that was unmatched in the empire; only carefully carved cedar wood was used in any part of the structure. The Odeum, designed by Pericles for musical performances and rehearsals of new tragedies, had stood as a monument to the victory of the arts over barbaric might, as its construction primarily used the masts from Persian ships. Despite repairs made to that ancient building by a king of Cappadocia, it fell into disrepair once more. Herod restored its former beauty and grandeur. His generosity, however, was not limited to Athens. He adorned the temple of Neptune in the Isthmus, a theater in Corinth, a stadium in Delphi, a bath in Thermopylae, and an aqueduct in Canusium, Italy, without exhausting his wealth. The people of Epirus, Thessaly, Euboea, Boeotia, and Peloponnesus benefited from his kindness, and many inscriptions from the cities of Greece and Asia gratefully refer to Herodes Atticus as their patron and benefactor.

In the commonwealths of Athens and Rome, the modest simplicity of private houses announced the equal condition of freedom; whilst the sovereignty of the people was represented in the majestic edifices designed to the public use; nor was this republican spirit totally extinguished by the introduction of wealth and monarchy. It was in works of national honor and benefit, that the most virtuous of the emperors affected to display their magnificence. The golden palace of Nero excited a just indignation, but the vast extent of ground which had been usurped by his selfish luxury was more nobly filled under the succeeding reigns by the Coliseum, the baths of Titus, the Claudian portico, and the temples dedicated to the goddess of Peace, and to the genius of Rome. These monuments of architecture, the property of the Roman people, were adorned with the most beautiful productions of Grecian painting and sculpture; and in the temple of Peace, a very curious library was open to the curiosity of the learned. * At a small distance from thence was situated the Forum of Trajan. It was surrounded by a lofty portico, in the form of a quadrangle, into which four triumphal arches opened a noble and spacious entrance: in the centre arose a column of marble, whose height, of one hundred and ten feet, denoted the elevation of the hill that had been cut away. This column, which still subsists in its ancient beauty, exhibited an exact representation of the Dacian victories of its founder. The veteran soldier contemplated the story of his own campaigns, and by an easy illusion of national vanity, the peaceful citizen associated himself to the honors of the triumph. All the other quarters of the capital, and all the provinces of the empire, were embellished by the same liberal spirit of public magnificence, and were filled with amphitheatres, theatres, temples, porticoes, triumphal arches, baths and aqueducts, all variously conducive to the health, the devotion, and the pleasures of the meanest citizen. The last mentioned of those edifices deserve our peculiar attention. The boldness of the enterprise, the solidity of the execution, and the uses to which they were subservient, rank the aqueducts among the noblest monuments of Roman genius and power. The aqueducts of the capital claim a just preeminence; but the curious traveller, who, without the light of history, should examine those of Spoleto, of Metz, or of Segovia, would very naturally conclude that those provincial towns had formerly been the residence of some potent monarch. The solitudes of Asia and Africa were once covered with flourishing cities, whose populousness, and even whose existence, was derived from such artificial supplies of a perennial stream of fresh water.

In the city-states of Athens and Rome, the simple and modest design of private homes reflected the equal status of freedom, while the power of the people was embodied in the grand buildings meant for public use. This spirit of republicanism didn't vanish completely with the rise of wealth and monarchy. The most honorable emperors showcased their grandeur through works that served national pride and benefit. Nero's golden palace sparked rightful outrage, but the vast area taken over by his extravagant lifestyle was more nobly filled by the Coliseum, the baths of Titus, the Claudian portico, and the temples dedicated to the goddess of Peace and the spirit of Rome. These architectural wonders, owned by the Roman people, were embellished with stunning examples of Greek painting and sculpture; in the temple of Peace, a remarkable library was accessible to scholars. Just a short distance away was the Forum of Trajan, encircled by a tall portico in a quadrangle shape, with four triumphal arches providing a grand entrance. In the center stood a marble column, one hundred and ten feet tall, signifying the height of the hill that had been removed. This column, which still stands beautifully today, depicted the Dacian victories of its creator. The veteran soldier viewed the story of his own campaigns, and through a sense of national pride, the peaceful citizen felt connected to the glory of the triumph. Every part of the capital and all the provinces of the empire were enhanced by this generous spirit of public grandeur, filled with amphitheaters, theaters, temples, porticoes, triumphal arches, baths, and aqueducts, all contributing to the health, devotion, and enjoyment of even the most humble citizen. The last-mentioned buildings deserve special attention. The audacity of their construction, the strength of their design, and their practical use make the aqueducts some of the finest monuments of Roman ingenuity and power. The aqueducts of the capital hold a notable prominence; however, a curious traveler, without the benefit of history, who examined those of Spoleto, Metz, or Segovia would likely conclude that those towns were once home to some powerful monarch. The once-bustling regions of Asia and Africa were filled with thriving cities, whose population and very existence relied on such engineered supplies of a constant flow of fresh water.

We have computed the inhabitants, and contemplated the public works, of the Roman empire. The observation of the number and greatness of its cities will serve to confirm the former, and to multiply the latter. It may not be unpleasing to collect a few scattered instances relative to that subject without forgetting, however, that from the vanity of nations and the poverty of language, the vague appellation of city has been indifferently bestowed on Rome and upon Laurentum.

We have counted the people and looked at the public works of the Roman Empire. Noting the number and size of its cities will help confirm our previous findings and expand on them. It might be nice to gather a few random examples related to this topic, but we must remember that due to national pride and the limitations of language, the vague term "city" has been equally applied to both Rome and Laurentum.

I. Ancient Italy is said to have contained eleven hundred and ninety-seven cities; and for whatsoever æra of antiquity the expression might be intended, there is not any reason to believe the country less populous in the age of the Antonines, than in that of Romulus. The petty states of Latium were contained within the metropolis of the empire, by whose superior influence they had been attracted. * Those parts of Italy which have so long languished under the lazy tyranny of priests and viceroys, had been afflicted only by the more tolerable calamities of war; and the first symptoms of decay which they experienced, were amply compensated by the rapid improvements of the Cisalpine Gaul. The splendor of Verona may be traced in its remains: yet Verona was less celebrated than Aquileia or Padua, Milan or Ravenna. II. The spirit of improvement had passed the Alps, and been felt even in the woods of Britain, which were gradually cleared away to open a free space for convenient and elegant habitations. York was the seat of government; London was already enriched by commerce; and Bath was celebrated for the salutary effects of its medicinal waters. Gaul could boast of her twelve hundred cities; and though, in the northern parts, many of them, without excepting Paris itself, were little more than the rude and imperfect townships of a rising people, the southern provinces imitated the wealth and elegance of Italy. Many were the cities of Gaul, Marseilles, Arles, Nismes, Narbonne, Thoulouse, Bourdeaux, Autun, Vienna, Lyons, Langres, and Treves, whose ancient condition might sustain an equal, and perhaps advantageous comparison with their present state. With regard to Spain, that country flourished as a province, and has declined as a kingdom. Exhausted by the abuse of her strength, by America, and by superstition, her pride might possibly be confounded, if we required such a list of three hundred and sixty cities, as Pliny has exhibited under the reign of Vespasian. III. Three hundred African cities had once acknowledged the authority of Carthage, nor is it likely that their numbers diminished under the administration of the emperors: Carthage itself rose with new splendor from its ashes; and that capital, as well as Capua and Corinth, soon recovered all the advantages which can be separated from independent sovereignty. IV. The provinces of the East present the contrast of Roman magnificence with Turkish barbarism. The ruins of antiquity scattered over uncultivated fields, and ascribed, by ignorance, to the power of magic, scarcely afford a shelter to the oppressed peasant or wandering Arab. Under the reign of the Cæsars, the proper Asia alone contained five hundred populous cities, enriched with all the gifts of nature, and adorned with all the refinements of art. Eleven cities of Asia had once disputed the honor of dedicating a temple of Tiberius, and their respective merits were examined by the senate. Four of them were immediately rejected as unequal to the burden; and among these was Laodicea, whose splendor is still displayed in its ruins. Laodicea collected a very considerable revenue from its flocks of sheep, celebrated for the fineness of their wool, and had received, a little before the contest, a legacy of above four hundred thousand pounds by the testament of a generous citizen. If such was the poverty of Laodicea, what must have been the wealth of those cities, whose claim appeared preferable, and particularly of Pergamus, of Smyrna, and of Ephesus, who so long disputed with each other the titular primacy of Asia? The capitals of Syria and Egypt held a still superior rank in the empire; Antioch and Alexandria looked down with disdain on a crowd of dependent cities, and yielded, with reluctance, to the majesty of Rome itself.

I. Ancient Italy is said to have had 1,197 cities; and regardless of which era of antiquity the term refers to, there’s no reason to think the country was less populated during the age of the Antonines than in the time of Romulus. The small states of Latium were encompassed within the empire's metropolis, drawn in by its superior influence. Those parts of Italy that have long suffered under the lazy tyranny of priests and viceroys were only affected by the more bearable hardships of war; and the initial signs of decline they faced were more than offset by the swift advancements in Cisalpine Gaul. The splendor of Verona can still be seen in its ruins, yet it was less renowned than Aquileia, Padua, Milan, or Ravenna. II. The spirit of progress had crossed the Alps and reached even the forests of Britain, which were gradually cleared to create space for comfortable and elegant homes. York was the seat of government; London was already thriving from trade; and Bath was famous for the healing properties of its waters. Gaul could boast of 1,200 cities, and although many in the northern regions, including Paris, were little more than rough and unrefined settlements of a growing populace, the southern provinces emulated the wealth and sophistication of Italy. There were many cities in Gaul: Marseilles, Arles, Nîmes, Narbonne, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Autun, Vienna, Lyons, Langres, and Trier, whose ancient conditions could be favorably compared to their current state. As for Spain, the country thrived as a province but has since declined as a kingdom. Worn down by misusing its strength, by America, and by superstition, its pride might indeed be challenged if we were to demand a list of 360 cities, like the one Pliny provided during Vespasian's reign. III. Three hundred African cities once recognized the authority of Carthage, and it’s unlikely their numbers diminished under imperial rule: Carthage itself rose again, shining anew from its ruins; and that capital, along with Capua and Corinth, soon regained all the advantages tied to independent sovereignty. IV. The provinces of the East provide a stark contrast between Roman grandeur and Turkish barbarism. The ancient ruins scattered over uncultivated lands, often mistakenly attributed to magic, scarcely provide shelter for oppressed peasants or wandering Arabs. Under the reign of the Cæsars, Asia alone housed 500 populous cities, blessed with nature's gifts and adorned with art's refinements. Eleven cities in Asia once vied for the honor of dedicating a temple to Tiberius, and their merits were evaluated by the senate. Four of them were immediately ruled out as insufficient, including Laodicea, whose splendor still shines through its ruins. Laodicea generated significant revenue from its flocks of sheep, known for their fine wool, and had shortly before the contest received a legacy of over £400,000 from a generous citizen. If Laodicea was that impoverished, what must have been the wealth of the cities that seemed more deserving, particularly Pergamus, Smyrna, and Ephesus, who long contended for the title of Asia's foremost city? The capitals of Syria and Egypt held an even higher status in the empire; Antioch and Alexandria looked down on a host of lesser cities and reluctantly submitted to the authority of Rome itself.





Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The Antonines.—Part IV.

All these cities were connected with each other, and with the capital, by the public highways, which, issuing from the Forum of Rome, traversed Italy, pervaded the provinces, and were terminated only by the frontiers of the empire. If we carefully trace the distance from the wall of Antoninus to Rome, and from thence to Jerusalem, it will be found that the great chain of communication, from the north-west to the south-east point of the empire, was drawn out to the length of four thousand and eighty Roman miles. The public roads were accurately divided by mile-stones, and ran in a direct line from one city to another, with very little respect for the obstacles either of nature or private property. Mountains were perforated, and bold arches thrown over the broadest and most rapid streams. The middle part of the road was raised into a terrace which commanded the adjacent country, consisted of several strata of sand, gravel, and cement, and was paved with large stones, or, in some places near the capital, with granite. Such was the solid construction of the Roman highways, whose firmness has not entirely yielded to the effort of fifteen centuries. They united the subjects of the most distant provinces by an easy and familiar intercourse; but their primary object had been to facilitate the marches of the legions; nor was any country considered as completely subdued, till it had been rendered, in all its parts, pervious to the arms and authority of the conqueror. The advantage of receiving the earliest intelligence, and of conveying their orders with celerity, induced the emperors to establish, throughout their extensive dominions, the regular institution of posts. Houses were everywhere erected at the distance only of five or six miles; each of them was constantly provided with forty horses, and by the help of these relays, it was easy to travel a hundred miles in a day along the Roman roads. * The use of posts was allowed to those who claimed it by an Imperial mandate; but though originally intended for the public service, it was sometimes indulged to the business or conveniency of private citizens. Nor was the communication of the Roman empire less free and open by sea than it was by land. The provinces surrounded and enclosed the Mediterranean: and Italy, in the shape of an immense promontory, advanced into the midst of that great lake. The coasts of Italy are, in general, destitute of safe harbors; but human industry had corrected the deficiencies of nature; and the artificial port of Ostia, in particular, situate at the mouth of the Tyber, and formed by the emperor Claudius, was a useful monument of Roman greatness. From this port, which was only sixteen miles from the capital, a favorable breeze frequently carried vessels in seven days to the columns of Hercules, and in nine or ten, to Alexandria in Egypt.

All these cities were connected to each other and to the capital by public highways that began at the Forum of Rome, stretched across Italy, reached into the provinces, and ended only at the borders of the empire. If we measure the distance from the wall of Antoninus to Rome, and then to Jerusalem, we find that the main communication route, running from the northwest to the southeast corner of the empire, extended over four thousand and eighty Roman miles. The public roads were marked with mile-stones and went straight from city to city, without much regard for natural obstacles or private property. Mountains were tunneled through, and grand arches spanned the widest and swiftest rivers. The middle of the road was built up like a terrace that overlooked the surrounding land, made of layers of sand, gravel, and cement, and was paved with large stones, or in some areas close to the capital, with granite. This was the sturdy construction of the Roman highways, whose strength has not entirely faded after fifteen centuries. They connected people from the farthest provinces, allowing for easy and familiar travel, but their main purpose was to help the legions move. No country was seen as fully conquered until it was accessible to the arms and authority of the conqueror. The need for quick communication and the ability to send orders rapidly prompted emperors to set up a regular postal system across their vast territories. Houses were built every five or six miles, each regularly stocked with forty horses, enabling travel of a hundred miles in a day on the Roman roads. The use of posts was granted to those who had an Imperial mandate; while originally meant for public service, it was sometimes extended to private citizens for their convenience. The communication within the Roman empire was just as open by sea as it was by land. The provinces surrounded the Mediterranean, and Italy, shaped like a massive promontory, jutted into the middle of that great sea. The coasts of Italy generally lacked safe harbors, but human effort had improved upon nature's shortcomings; the artificial port of Ostia, especially, located at the mouth of the Tiber and created by Emperor Claudius, was a testament to Roman achievement. From this port, which was only sixteen miles from the capital, a favorable breeze often carried ships to the columns of Hercules in seven days and to Alexandria in Egypt in nine or ten.

Whatever evils either reason or declamation have imputed to extensive empire, the power of Rome was attended with some beneficial consequences to mankind; and the same freedom of intercourse which extended the vices, diffused likewise the improvements, of social life. In the more remote ages of antiquity, the world was unequally divided. The East was in the immemorial possession of arts and luxury; whilst the West was inhabited by rude and warlike barbarians, who either disdained agriculture, or to whom it was totally unknown. Under the protection of an established government, the productions of happier climates, and the industry of more civilized nations, were gradually introduced into the western countries of Europe; and the natives were encouraged, by an open and profitable commerce, to multiply the former, as well as to improve the latter. It would be almost impossible to enumerate all the articles, either of the animal or the vegetable reign, which were successively imported into Europe from Asia and Egypt: but it will not be unworthy of the dignity, and much less of the utility, of an historical work, slightly to touch on a few of the principal heads. 1. Almost all the flowers, the herbs, and the fruits, that grow in our European gardens, are of foreign extraction, which, in many cases, is betrayed even by their names: the apple was a native of Italy, and when the Romans had tasted the richer flavor of the apricot, the peach, the pomegranate, the citron, and the orange, they contented themselves with applying to all these new fruits the common denomination of apple, discriminating them from each other by the additional epithet of their country. 2. In the time of Homer, the vine grew wild in the island of Sicily, and most probably in the adjacent continent; but it was not improved by the skill, nor did it afford a liquor grateful to the taste, of the savage inhabitants. A thousand years afterwards, Italy could boast, that of the fourscore most generous and celebrated wines, more than two thirds were produced from her soil. The blessing was soon communicated to the Narbonnese province of Gaul; but so intense was the cold to the north of the Cevennes, that, in the time of Strabo, it was thought impossible to ripen the grapes in those parts of Gaul. This difficulty, however, was gradually vanquished; and there is some reason to believe, that the vineyards of Burgundy are as old as the age of the Antonines. 3. The olive, in the western world, followed the progress of peace, of which it was considered as the symbol. Two centuries after the foundation of Rome, both Italy and Africa were strangers to that useful plant: it was naturalized in those countries; and at length carried into the heart of Spain and Gaul. The timid errors of the ancients, that it required a certain degree of heat, and could only flourish in the neighborhood of the sea, were insensibly exploded by industry and experience. 4. The cultivation of flax was transported from Egypt to Gaul, and enriched the whole country, however it might impoverish the particular lands on which it was sown. 5. The use of artificial grasses became familiar to the farmers both of Italy and the provinces, particularly the Lucerne, which derived its name and origin from Media. The assured supply of wholesome and plentiful food for the cattle during winter, multiplied the number of the docks and herds, which in their turn contributed to the fertility of the soil. To all these improvements may be added an assiduous attention to mines and fisheries, which, by employing a multitude of laborious hands, serve to increase the pleasures of the rich and the subsistence of the poor. The elegant treatise of Columella describes the advanced state of the Spanish husbandry under the reign of Tiberius; and it may be observed, that those famines, which so frequently afflicted the infant republic, were seldom or never experienced by the extensive empire of Rome. The accidental scarcity, in any single province, was immediately relieved by the plenty of its more fortunate neighbors.

Whatever evils either reason or rhetoric have attributed to a vast empire, the power of Rome brought about some positive effects for humanity; and the same level of interaction that spread vices also shared the advancements of social life. In the far ancient times, the world was unevenly divided. The East held an age-old wealth of arts and luxury, while the West was home to rough and warlike tribes who either looked down on farming or were completely unfamiliar with it. Under the protection of a stable government, the products of better climates and the hard work of more civilized nations were gradually brought into the western regions of Europe; and the locals were encouraged, through open and profitable trade, to increase the former as well as enhance the latter. It would be nearly impossible to list all the items, both animal and vegetable, that were brought into Europe from Asia and Egypt over time. However, it is worthwhile to briefly mention a few key examples. 1. Almost all the flowers, herbs, and fruits found in our European gardens come from abroad, often evident in their names: the apple originated in Italy, and once the Romans tasted the richer flavors of the apricot, peach, pomegranate, citron, and orange, they generalizingly referred to all these new fruits as "apple," distinguishing them by adding their country’s name. 2. In Homer's time, the vine grew wild on the island of Sicily, and probably the nearby mainland; but it wasn't cultivated skillfully, nor did it produce a wine that was enjoyable to the savage locals. A thousand years later, Italy could proudly claim that of the eighty most renowned and celebrated wines, more than two-thirds were produced from its own land. This blessing later reached the Narbonnese province of Gaul; however, the cold in northern Gaul was so severe that, during Strabo’s time, it was deemed impossible to mature grapes there. This challenge was gradually overcome, and there’s reason to believe that the vineyards of Burgundy date back to the Antonine era. 3. The olive tree in the western world followed the path of peace, symbolizing it. Two centuries after Rome was founded, neither Italy nor Africa knew that useful plant; it became established in those regions and eventually spread into central Spain and Gaul. The ancient misconceptions that it needed a certain amount of warmth and could only thrive near the sea were slowly disproven by effort and experience. 4. The cultivation of flax moved from Egypt to Gaul, enriching the whole country even if it depleted the specific lands where it was grown. 5. The practice of using artificial grasses became common among farmers in Italy and the provinces, especially lucerne, which got its name and origin from Media. Regular access to nutritious and abundant food for livestock during winter increased the number of livestock, which in turn enhanced the fertility of the soil. Additionally, there was careful attention to mines and fisheries, which, by employing many hardworking hands, helped increase the wealth of the rich and the livelihoods of the poor. The elegant work of Columella describes the advanced state of Spanish agriculture during Tiberius's reign, and it’s notable that the famines which often plagued the young republic were rarely felt in the vast Roman empire. Any accidental shortage in one province was quickly alleviated by the abundance of its more fortunate neighbors.

Agriculture is the foundation of manufactures; since the productions of nature are the materials of art. Under the Roman empire, the labor of an industrious and ingenious people was variously, but incessantly, employed in the service of the rich. In their dress, their table, their houses, and their furniture, the favorites of fortune united every refinement of conveniency, of elegance, and of splendor, whatever could soothe their pride or gratify their sensuality. Such refinements, under the odious name of luxury, have been severely arraigned by the moralists of every age; and it might perhaps be more conducive to the virtue, as well as happiness, of mankind, if all possessed the necessaries, and none the superfluities, of life. But in the present imperfect condition of society, luxury, though it may proceed from vice or folly, seems to be the only means that can correct the unequal distribution of property. The diligent mechanic, and the skilful artist, who have obtained no share in the division of the earth, receive a voluntary tax from the possessors of land; and the latter are prompted, by a sense of interest, to improve those estates, with whose produce they may purchase additional pleasures. This operation, the particular effects of which are felt in every society, acted with much more diffusive energy in the Roman world. The provinces would soon have been exhausted of their wealth, if the manufactures and commerce of luxury had not insensibly restored to the industrious subjects the sums which were exacted from them by the arms and authority of Rome. As long as the circulation was confined within the bounds of the empire, it impressed the political machine with a new degree of activity, and its consequences, sometimes beneficial, could never become pernicious.

Agriculture is the basis of manufacturing because natural resources provide the materials for art. During the Roman Empire, the hard work of a skilled and creative population was constantly used to serve the wealthy. The fortunate combined every luxury of comfort, style, and grandeur in their clothing, food, homes, and furnishings to satisfy their pride and indulge their senses. These luxuries, often criticized by moralists throughout history, might actually benefit the well-being and virtue of humanity if everyone had what they needed and no one had excess. However, in today's flawed society, luxury, even if born from vice or foolishness, appears to be the only way to address the unequal distribution of wealth. The hardworking laborers and talented artists, who do not have land, receive a voluntary contribution from landowners; these landowners are motivated by self-interest to enhance their estates so they can enjoy greater pleasures. This process, which affects every society, had an even more significant impact in the Roman world. The provinces would have quickly run out of wealth if luxury manufacturing and trade hadn't gradually returned funds to hardworking citizens that had been taken from them by the military and authority of Rome. As long as the flow of wealth stayed within the empire, it energized the political system and its effects, although sometimes mixed, were never harmful.

But it is no easy task to confine luxury within the limits of an empire. The most remote countries of the ancient world were ransacked to supply the pomp and delicacy of Rome. The forests of Scythia afforded some valuable furs. Amber was brought over land from the shores of the Baltic to the Danube; and the barbarians were astonished at the price which they received in exchange for so useless a commodity. There was a considerable demand for Babylonian carpets, and other manufactures of the East; but the most important and unpopular branch of foreign trade was carried on with Arabia and India. Every year, about the time of the summer solstice, a fleet of a hundred and twenty vessels sailed from Myos-hormos, a port of Egypt, on the Red Sea. By the periodical assistance of the monsoons, they traversed the ocean in about forty days. The coast of Malabar, or the island of Ceylon, was the usual term of their navigation, and it was in those markets that the merchants from the more remote countries of Asia expected their arrival. The return of the fleet of Egypt was fixed to the months of December or January; and as soon as their rich cargo had been transported on the backs of camels, from the Red Sea to the Nile, and had descended that river as far as Alexandria, it was poured, without delay, into the capital of the empire. The objects of oriental traffic were splendid and trifling; silk, a pound of which was esteemed not inferior in value to a pound of gold; precious stones, among which the pearl claimed the first rank after the diamond; and a variety of aromatics, that were consumed in religious worship and the pomp of funerals. The labor and risk of the voyage was rewarded with almost incredible profit; but the profit was made upon Roman subjects, and a few individuals were enriched at the expense of the public. As the natives of Arabia and India were contented with the productions and manufactures of their own country, silver, on the side of the Romans, was the principal, if not the only * instrument of commerce. It was a complaint worthy of the gravity of the senate, that, in the purchase of female ornaments, the wealth of the state was irrecoverably given away to foreign and hostile nations. The annual loss is computed, by a writer of an inquisitive but censorious temper, at upwards of eight hundred thousand pounds sterling. Such was the style of discontent, brooding over the dark prospect of approaching poverty. And yet, if we compare the proportion between gold and silver, as it stood in the time of Pliny, and as it was fixed in the reign of Constantine, we shall discover within that period a very considerable increase. There is not the least reason to suppose that gold was become more scarce; it is therefore evident that silver was grown more common; that whatever might be the amount of the Indian and Arabian exports, they were far from exhausting the wealth of the Roman world; and that the produce of the mines abundantly supplied the demands of commerce.

But it isn't easy to keep luxury within the boundaries of an empire. The farthest regions of the ancient world were plundered to provide the extravagance and refinement of Rome. The forests of Scythia offered some valuable furs. Amber was transported over land from the shores of the Baltic to the Danube, and the locals were amazed at the price they received for such a seemingly useless item. There was a high demand for Babylonian carpets and other products from the East, but the most significant yet unpopular trade was with Arabia and India. Every year, around the summer solstice, a fleet of 120 ships set sail from Myos-hormos, a port in Egypt located on the Red Sea. Thanks to the seasonal monsoons, they crossed the ocean in about 40 days. The coast of Malabar or the island of Ceylon was the typical destination, where merchants from more distant Asian countries anticipated their arrival. The fleet would return in December or January; as soon as their valuable cargo was transported by camel from the Red Sea to the Nile and sailed down to Alexandria, it was quickly poured into the capital of the empire. The goods from the East were both luxurious and trivial—silk, with a pound valued as highly as a pound of gold; precious stones, with pearls ranking just below diamonds; and various aromatic substances used in religious ceremonies and grand funerals. The labor and risks of the journey brought almost unbelievable profits, but those profits primarily benefited a few individuals at the expense of the public. Since the people of Arabia and India were satisfied with their own products and crafts, silver was the main, if not the only, means of trade for the Romans. There was a serious complaint in the senate that the purchasing of women's jewelry was causing the wealth of the state to be irreversibly handed over to foreign and hostile nations. One critical writer estimated the annual loss at over eight hundred thousand pounds sterling. Such was the tone of discontent, looming over the grim outlook of impending poverty. However, when we compare the value of gold and silver during Pliny's time to that set during Constantine's reign, we see a significant increase over that period. There is no reason to believe that gold became rarer; it’s clear that silver became more abundant and that no matter the volume of Indian and Arabian exports, they were far from draining the wealth of the Roman world. The output from the mines more than met the demands of trade.

Notwithstanding the propensity of mankind to exalt the past, and to depreciate the present, the tranquil and prosperous state of the empire was warmly felt, and honestly confessed, by the provincials as well as Romans. “They acknowledged that the true principles of social life, laws, agriculture, and science, which had been first invented by the wisdom of Athens, were now firmly established by the power of Rome, under whose auspicious influence the fiercest barbarians were united by an equal government and common language. They affirm, that with the improvement of arts, the human species were visibly multiplied. They celebrate the increasing splendor of the cities, the beautiful face of the country, cultivated and adorned like an immense garden; and the long festival of peace which was enjoyed by so many nations, forgetful of the ancient animosities, and delivered from the apprehension of future danger.” Whatever suspicions may be suggested by the air of rhetoric and declamation, which seems to prevail in these passages, the substance of them is perfectly agreeable to historic truth.

Despite humanity's tendency to glorify the past and downplay the present, both the provincials and Romans genuinely appreciated and acknowledged the peaceful and prosperous condition of the empire. “They recognized that the fundamental principles of social life, laws, agriculture, and science, first developed by the wisdom of Athens, were now securely established by the power of Rome, under which even the fiercest barbarians were united by a common government and language. They assert that with advancements in the arts, the human population visibly increased. They celebrate the growing splendor of the cities, the beautiful landscape, cultivated and adorned like a massive garden; and the lengthy period of peace enjoyed by so many nations, who had forgotten past hostilities and were free from the fear of future threats.” Whatever doubts may arise from the rhetorical and declamatory tone of these statements, the essence of them aligns perfectly with historical truth.

It was scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. This long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated. The natives of Europe were brave and robust. Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Illyricum supplied the legions with excellent soldiers, and constituted the real strength of the monarchy. Their personal valor remained, but they no longer possessed that public courage which is nourished by the love of independence, the sense of national honor, the presence of danger, and the habit of command. They received laws and governors from the will of their sovereign, and trusted for their defence to a mercenary army. The posterity of their boldest leaders was contented with the rank of citizens and subjects. The most aspiring spirits resorted to the court or standard of the emperors; and the deserted provinces, deprived of political strength or union, insensibly sunk into the languid indifference of private life.

It was nearly impossible for people at the time to see the hidden causes of decay and corruption behind the public happiness. This long period of peace and the consistent governance of the Romans injected a slow and secret poison into the core of the empire. People’s minds gradually became uniform, the spark of creativity was snuffed out, and even the military spirit faded away. The natives of Europe were brave and strong. Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Illyricum provided the legions with great soldiers and made up the actual strength of the monarchy. Their personal bravery remained, but they no longer had that public courage fueled by independence, national pride, the presence of danger, and experience in leadership. They received laws and leaders based on their ruler's wishes and relied on a mercenary army for protection. The descendants of their most daring leaders were satisfied with being citizens and subjects. The most ambitious individuals turned to the emperors' courts or military banners, while the neglected provinces, stripped of political power and unity, gradually fell into a weary indifference to private life.

The love of letters, almost inseparable from peace and refinement, was fashionable among the subjects of Hadrian and the Antonines, who were themselves men of learning and curiosity. It was diffused over the whole extent of their empire; the most northern tribes of Britons had acquired a taste for rhetoric; Homer as well as Virgil were transcribed and studied on the banks of the Rhine and Danube; and the most liberal rewards sought out the faintest glimmerings of literary merit. The sciences of physic and astronomy were successfully cultivated by the Greeks; the observations of Ptolemy and the writings of Galen are studied by those who have improved their discoveries and corrected their errors; but if we except the inimitable Lucian, this age of indolence passed away without having produced a single writer of original genius, or who excelled in the arts of elegant composition.* The authority of Plato and Aristotle, of Zeno and Epicurus, still reigned in the schools; and their systems, transmitted with blind deference from one generation of disciples to another, precluded every generous attempt to exercise the powers, or enlarge the limits, of the human mind. The beauties of the poets and orators, instead of kindling a fire like their own, inspired only cold and servile imitations: or if any ventured to deviate from those models, they deviated at the same time from good sense and propriety. On the revival of letters, the youthful vigor of the imagination, after a long repose, national emulation, a new religion, new languages, and a new world, called forth the genius of Europe. But the provincials of Rome, trained by a uniform artificial foreign education, were engaged in a very unequal competition with those bold ancients, who, by expressing their genuine feelings in their native tongue, had already occupied every place of honor. The name of Poet was almost forgotten; that of Orator was usurped by the sophists. A cloud of critics, of compilers, of commentators, darkened the face of learning, and the decline of genius was soon followed by the corruption of taste.

The love of letters, closely linked to peace and refinement, was popular among the subjects of Hadrian and the Antonines, who were themselves educated and curious individuals. It spread throughout their entire empire; the northern tribes of Britons had developed a liking for rhetoric; both Homer and Virgil were transcribed and studied along the Rhine and Danube; and the most generous rewards sought out even the faintest signs of literary talent. The sciences of medicine and astronomy flourished among the Greeks; the observations of Ptolemy and the writings of Galen are studied by those who have built upon their discoveries and corrected their mistakes; but aside from the unmatched Lucian, this era of laziness came and went without producing a single writer of original talent or anyone who excelled in elegant writing. The authority of Plato and Aristotle, Zeno and Epicurus, still dominated the schools; their teachings, passed down blindly from one generation of students to the next, stifled every bold effort to use or expand the powers of the human mind. The beauty of the poets and orators, instead of igniting a similar passion, merely inspired cold and subservient imitations: or when someone dared to stray from those examples, they also strayed from good judgment and propriety. When letters were revived, the youthful energy of imagination, after a long hiatus, national pride, a new religion, new languages, and a new world reignited the genius of Europe. However, the provincials of Rome, shaped by a consistent and artificial foreign education, faced an uphill battle against those bold ancients, who had already claimed every place of honor by expressing their true feelings in their native language. The title of Poet was almost forgotten; the title of Orator was taken over by the sophists. A swarm of critics, compilers, and commentators overshadowed the world of learning, and the decline of genius was quickly followed by a deterioration of taste.

The sublime Longinus, who, in somewhat a later period, and in the court of a Syrian queen, preserved the spirit of ancient Athens, observes and laments this degeneracy of his contemporaries, which debased their sentiments, enervated their courage, and depressed their talents. “In the same manner,” says he, “as some children always remain pygmies, whose infant limbs have been too closely confined, thus our tender minds, fettered by the prejudices and habits of a just servitude, are unable to expand themselves, or to attain that well-proportioned greatness which we admire in the ancients; who, living under a popular government, wrote with the same freedom as they acted.” This diminutive stature of mankind, if we pursue the metaphor, was daily sinking below the old standard, and the Roman world was indeed peopled by a race of pygmies; when the fierce giants of the north broke in, and mended the puny breed. They restored a manly spirit of freedom; and after the revolution of ten centuries, freedom became the happy parent of taste and science.

The great Longinus, who later on in the court of a Syrian queen, kept the spirit of ancient Athens alive, observes and mourns the decline of his contemporaries, which lowered their feelings, weakened their bravery, and stifled their talents. “Just like certain children who always remain small because their growing limbs have been too tightly restricted, our delicate minds, constrained by the biases and habits of a rightful servitude, are unable to grow or to achieve the balanced greatness that we admire in the ancients, who, living in a democracy, wrote with the same freedom they acted.” This diminished state of humanity, if we follow the metaphor, was constantly falling below the old standard, and the Roman world was truly filled with a race of small people; until the fierce giants from the north came in and improved the weak stock. They restored a strong spirit of freedom; and after the cycle of ten centuries, freedom became the fortunate foundation of taste and science.





Chapter III: The Constitution In The Age Of The Antonines.—Part I.

Of The Constitution Of The Roman Empire, In The Age Of The
Antonines.
Of The Constitution Of The Roman Empire, In The Age Of The Antonines.

The obvious definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state, in which a single person, by whatsoever name he may be distinguished, is intrusted with the execution of the laws, the management of the revenue, and the command of the army. But, unless public liberty is protected by intrepid and vigilant guardians, the authority of so formidable a magistrate will soon degenerate into despotism. The influence of the clergy, in an age of superstition, might be usefully employed to assert the rights of mankind; but so intimate is the connection between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been seen on the side of the people. * A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises of an aspiring prince.

The clear definition of a monarchy seems to be a state where a single person, no matter what title they hold, is responsible for enforcing the laws, managing the finances, and commanding the military. However, unless public freedom is safeguarded by courageous and watchful protectors, the power of such a strong leader will quickly turn into tyranny. In a time of superstition, the clergy's influence could be used to uphold human rights, but the close relationship between the throne and the church means that the church's support is rarely found with the people. A military nobility and strong-willed commoners, armed, protective of their property, and organized into constitutional assemblies, create the only balance capable of maintaining a free system against the ambitions of an aspiring ruler.

Every barrier of the Roman constitution had been levelled by the vast ambition of the dictator; every fence had been extirpated by the cruel hand of the triumvir. After the victory of Actium, the fate of the Roman world depended on the will of Octavianus, surnamed Cæsar, by his uncle’s adoption, and afterwards Augustus, by the flattery of the senate. The conqueror was at the head of forty-four veteran legions, conscious of their own strength, and of the weakness of the constitution, habituated, during twenty years’ civil war, to every act of blood and violence, and passionately devoted to the house of Cæsar, from whence alone they had received, and expected the most lavish rewards. The provinces, long oppressed by the ministers of the republic, sighed for the government of a single person, who would be the master, not the accomplice, of those petty tyrants. The people of Rome, viewing, with a secret pleasure, the humiliation of the aristocracy, demanded only bread and public shows; and were supplied with both by the liberal hand of Augustus. The rich and polite Italians, who had almost universally embraced the philosophy of Epicurus, enjoyed the present blessings of ease and tranquillity, and suffered not the pleasing dream to be interrupted by the memory of their old tumultuous freedom. With its power, the senate had lost its dignity; many of the most noble families were extinct. The republicans of spirit and ability had perished in the field of battle, or in the proscription . The door of the assembly had been designedly left open, for a mixed multitude of more than a thousand persons, who reflected disgrace upon their rank, instead of deriving honor from it.

Every barrier of the Roman constitution had been knocked down by the dictator's immense ambition; every safeguard had been wiped out by the brutal actions of the triumvir. After the victory at Actium, the fate of the Roman world lay in the hands of Octavianus, known as Caesar due to his uncle’s adoption, and later Augustus, thanks to the senate’s flattery. The conqueror was in charge of forty-four seasoned legions, aware of their own strength and the constitutional weakness, trained through two decades of civil war to accept every act of bloodshed and violence, and fiercely loyal to the house of Caesar, from which they alone had received and expected generous rewards. The provinces, long suffering under the rule of the republic's officials, yearned for a single ruler, who would be the master, not the accomplice, of those minor tyrants. The people of Rome, secretly pleased by the downfall of the aristocracy, only asked for bread and public entertainment; both of which were generously provided by Augustus. The wealthy and sophisticated Italians, who had almost universally adopted Epicurean philosophy, enjoyed the current blessings of comfort and peace, refusing to let the happy dream be disturbed by memories of their chaotic past freedoms. With its power, the senate had lost its dignity; many noble families had died out. The spirited and capable republicans had perished in battle or due to the proscription. The assembly doors had been intentionally left open for a mixed crowd of over a thousand people, who brought shame to their status instead of earning respect from it.

The reformation of the senate was one of the first steps in which Augustus laid aside the tyrant, and professed himself the father of his country. He was elected censor; and, in concert with his faithful Agrippa, he examined the list of the senators, expelled a few members, * whose vices or whose obstinacy required a public example, persuaded near two hundred to prevent the shame of an expulsion by a voluntary retreat, raised the qualification of a senator to about ten thousand pounds, created a sufficient number of patrician families, and accepted for himself the honorable title of Prince of the Senate, which had always been bestowed, by the censors, on the citizen the most eminent for his honors and services. But whilst he thus restored the dignity, he destroyed the independence, of the senate. The principles of a free constitution are irrecoverably lost, when the legislative power is nominated by the executive.

The reform of the senate was one of the first moves Augustus made to shed the image of a tyrant and declare himself the father of his country. He was elected censor and, along with his loyal supporter Agrippa, reviewed the list of senators, expelled a few members whose vices or stubbornness needed to set a public example, and convinced nearly two hundred to avoid being expelled by stepping down voluntarily. He raised the qualification for being a senator to about ten thousand pounds, created a sufficient number of patrician families, and accepted the respectable title of Prince of the Senate, which had always been given by the censors to the citizen with the most honors and services. However, while he restored the senate's dignity, he compromised its independence. The principles of a free constitution are permanently lost when the legislative power is appointed by the executive.

Before an assembly thus modelled and prepared, Augustus pronounced a studied oration, which displayed his patriotism, and disguised his ambition. “He lamented, yet excused, his past conduct. Filial piety had required at his hands the revenge of his father’s murder; the humanity of his own nature had sometimes given way to the stern laws of necessity, and to a forced connection with two unworthy colleagues: as long as Antony lived, the republic forbade him to abandon her to a degenerate Roman, and a barbarian queen. He was now at liberty to satisfy his duty and his inclination. He solemnly restored the senate and people to all their ancient rights; and wished only to mingle with the crowd of his fellow-citizens, and to share the blessings which he had obtained for his country.”

Before an assembly that was carefully set up, Augustus gave a well-prepared speech, showcasing his patriotism while masking his ambition. “He expressed sorrow but justified his past actions. His duty as a son required him to avenge his father’s murder; his own humane nature occasionally yielded to the harsh realities of necessity and his forced association with two unworthy partners: as long as Antony was alive, the republic prevented him from leaving her in the hands of a corrupted Roman and a barbarian queen. He was now free to fulfill both his duty and his desires. He officially restored the senate and the people to all their former rights and wished only to blend in with his fellow citizens and enjoy the blessings he had secured for his country.”

It would require the pen of Tacitus (if Tacitus had assisted at this assembly) to describe the various emotions of the senate, those that were suppressed, and those that were affected. It was dangerous to trust the sincerity of Augustus; to seem to distrust it was still more dangerous. The respective advantages of monarchy and a republic have often divided speculative inquirers; the present greatness of the Roman state, the corruption of manners, and the license of the soldiers, supplied new arguments to the advocates of monarchy; and these general views of government were again warped by the hopes and fears of each individual. Amidst this confusion of sentiments, the answer of the senate was unanimous and decisive. They refused to accept the resignation of Augustus; they conjured him not to desert the republic, which he had saved. After a decent resistance, the crafty tyrant submitted to the orders of the senate; and consented to receive the government of the provinces, and the general command of the Roman armies, under the well-known names of Proconsul and Imperator. But he would receive them only for ten years. Even before the expiration of that period, he hope that the wounds of civil discord would be completely healed, and that the republic, restored to its pristine health and vigor, would no longer require the dangerous interposition of so extraordinary a magistrate. The memory of this comedy, repeated several times during the life of Augustus, was preserved to the last ages of the empire, by the peculiar pomp with which the perpetual monarchs of Rome always solemnized the tenth years of their reign.

It would take the skill of Tacitus (if he had been at this meeting) to capture the range of emotions in the senate—both the ones that were hidden and those that were put on. It was risky to trust Augustus's sincerity; even appearing to doubt it was riskier. The ongoing debate about the benefits of monarchy versus a republic had often split thinkers; the current power of the Roman state, the moral decay, and the freedom of the soldiers offered new arguments for monarchy, with individual hopes and fears further twisting the general views on governance. In the midst of this emotional chaos, the senate's response was unanimous and clear. They rejected Augustus's resignation and urged him not to abandon the republic he had saved. After some reluctant resistance, the cunning leader agreed to the senate's demands and accepted the leadership of the provinces and overall command of the Roman armies, under the familiar titles of Proconsul and Imperator. However, he would only take these roles for ten years. Even before that time was up, he hoped that the wounds from civil strife would be fully healed and that the republic, restored to its former strength and vigor, would no longer need the risky intervention of such an extraordinary leader. The memory of this farce, played out several times during Augustus's life, was kept alive through the special celebrations held by Rome's perpetual monarchs on the tenth anniversaries of their reigns.

Without any violation of the principles of the constitution, the general of the Roman armies might receive and exercise an authority almost despotic over the soldiers, the enemies, and the subjects of the republic. With regard to the soldiers, the jealousy of freedom had, even from the earliest ages of Rome, given way to the hopes of conquest, and a just sense of military discipline. The dictator, or consul, had a right to command the service of the Roman youth; and to punish an obstinate or cowardly disobedience by the most severe and ignominious penalties, by striking the offender out of the list of citizens, by confiscating his property, and by selling his person into slavery. The most sacred rights of freedom, confirmed by the Porcian and Sempronian laws, were suspended by the military engagement. In his camp the general exercised an absolute power of life and death; his jurisdiction was not confined by any forms of trial, or rules of proceeding, and the execution of the sentence was immediate and without appeal. The choice of the enemies of Rome was regularly decided by the legislative authority. The most important resolutions of peace and war were seriously debated in the senate, and solemnly ratified by the people. But when the arms of the legions were carried to a great distance from Italy, the general assumed the liberty of directing them against whatever people, and in whatever manner, they judged most advantageous for the public service. It was from the success, not from the justice, of their enterprises, that they expected the honors of a triumph. In the use of victory, especially after they were no longer controlled by the commissioners of the senate, they exercised the most unbounded despotism. When Pompey commanded in the East, he rewarded his soldiers and allies, dethroned princes, divided kingdoms, founded colonies, and distributed the treasures of Mithridates. On his return to Rome, he obtained, by a single act of the senate and people, the universal ratification of all his proceedings. Such was the power over the soldiers, and over the enemies of Rome, which was either granted to, or assumed by, the generals of the republic. They were, at the same time, the governors, or rather monarchs, of the conquered provinces, united the civil with the military character, administered justice as well as the finances, and exercised both the executive and legislative power of the state.

Without violating the principles of the constitution, the general of the Roman armies could hold and exercise almost tyrannical authority over the soldiers, enemies, and citizens of the republic. Regarding the soldiers, the desire for freedom had, even from the early days of Rome, given way to the ambition for conquest and a strong sense of military discipline. The dictator or consul had the right to command the service of young Romans and to punish stubborn or cowardly disobedience with severe and shameful penalties, such as stripping the offender of citizenship, confiscating their property, and selling them into slavery. The most fundamental rights of freedom, confirmed by the Porcian and Sempronian laws, were put on hold due to military service. In his camp, the general held absolute power over life and death; his jurisdiction was not limited by any trial procedures or rules, and sentences were carried out immediately without appeal. The choice of Rome's enemies was typically decided by legislative authority. The senate would seriously discuss the most important decisions regarding peace and war and the people would solemnly ratify them. However, when the legions were far from Italy, the general took the liberty to direct them against whichever people and in whatever way they deemed most beneficial for public service. They sought honors for their triumphs based on success, not justice. In victory, especially after no longer being controlled by senate commissioners, they exercised extreme despotism. When Pompey commanded in the East, he rewarded his soldiers and allies, deposed kings, divided kingdoms, founded colonies, and distributed the treasures of Mithridates. Upon returning to Rome, he gained universal approval for all his actions through a single decree from the senate and the people. Such was the power over soldiers and enemies of Rome that was either granted to or taken by the generals of the republic. They were effectively governors, or rather monarchs, of the conquered provinces, blending civil and military roles, administering justice and finances, and exercising both executive and legislative power of the state.

From what has already been observed in the first chapter of this work, some notion may be formed of the armies and provinces thus intrusted to the ruling hand of Augustus. But as it was impossible that he could personally command the regions of so many distant frontiers, he was indulged by the senate, as Pompey had already been, in the permission of devolving the execution of his great office on a sufficient number of lieutenants. In rank and authority these officers seemed not inferior to the ancient proconsuls; but their station was dependent and precarious. They received and held their commissions at the will of a superior, to whose auspicious influence the merit of their action was legally attributed. They were the representatives of the emperor. The emperor alone was the general of the republic, and his jurisdiction, civil as well as military, extended over all the conquests of Rome. It was some satisfaction, however, to the senate, that he always delegated his power to the members of their body. The imperial lieutenants were of consular or prætorian dignity; the legions were commanded by senators, and the præfecture of Egypt was the only important trust committed to a Roman knight.

Based on what we've seen in the first chapter of this work, you can get an idea of the armies and provinces that Augustus was in charge of. Since it was impossible for him to personally oversee all those distant regions, the senate allowed him, just like they had for Pompey, to delegate the execution of his significant responsibilities to a sufficient number of lieutenants. In terms of rank and authority, these officers were similar to the old proconsuls, but their positions were dependent and uncertain. They received and retained their commissions at the discretion of a superior, whose favorable influence was legally tied to their performance. They acted as representatives of the emperor. The emperor was the sole general of the republic, and his jurisdiction, both civil and military, covered all Roman conquests. Still, it brought some satisfaction to the senate that he consistently delegated his power to its members. The imperial lieutenants held consular or prætorian rank; the legions were led by senators, and the only significant responsibility given to a Roman knight was the governorship of Egypt.

Within six days after Augustus had been compelled to accept so very liberal a grant, he resolved to gratify the pride of the senate by an easy sacrifice. He represented to them, that they had enlarged his powers, even beyond that degree which might be required by the melancholy condition of the times. They had not permitted him to refuse the laborious command of the armies and the frontiers; but he must insist on being allowed to restore the more peaceful and secure provinces to the mild administration of the civil magistrate. In the division of the provinces, Augustus provided for his own power and for the dignity of the republic. The proconsuls of the senate, particularly those of Asia, Greece, and Africa, enjoyed a more honorable character than the lieutenants of the emperor, who commanded in Gaul or Syria. The former were attended by lictors, the latter by soldiers. * A law was passed, that wherever the emperor was present, his extraordinary commission should supersede the ordinary jurisdiction of the governor; a custom was introduced, that the new conquests belonged to the imperial portion; and it was soon discovered that the authority of the Prince, the favorite epithet of Augustus, was the same in every part of the empire.

Within six days of Augustus being forced to accept such a generous grant, he decided to appease the senate's pride with an easy concession. He pointed out that they had expanded his powers even more than what might have been needed given the grim state of the times. They didn’t allow him to refuse the demanding command of the armies and borders; however, he insisted on being allowed to return the more peaceful and stable provinces to the gentle administration of civil officials. In dividing the provinces, Augustus ensured both his own power and the dignity of the republic. The proconsuls from the senate, especially those from Asia, Greece, and Africa, held a more esteemed status than the emperor's lieutenants who commanded in Gaul or Syria. The former were accompanied by lictors, while the latter were accompanied by soldiers. * A law was enacted stating that wherever the emperor was present, his extraordinary authority would take precedence over the regular jurisdiction of the governor; it became customary that new conquests belonged to the imperial domain; and it quickly became clear that the authority of the Prince, Augustus's preferred title, was the same throughout the entire empire.

In return for this imaginary concession, Augustus obtained an important privilege, which rendered him master of Rome and Italy. By a dangerous exception to the ancient maxims, he was authorized to preserve his military command, supported by a numerous body of guards, even in time of peace, and in the heart of the capital. His command, indeed, was confined to those citizens who were engaged in the service by the military oath; but such was the propensity of the Romans to servitude, that the oath was voluntarily taken by the magistrates, the senators, and the equestrian order, till the homage of flattery was insensibly converted into an annual and solemn protestation of fidelity.

In exchange for this fictional concession, Augustus gained a significant privilege that made him the master of Rome and Italy. By a risky exception to the old principles, he was allowed to keep his military command, backed by a large group of guards, even during peacetime, right in the center of the capital. His command was technically limited to those citizens who had taken a military oath; however, the tendency of the Romans toward servitude was so strong that magistrates, senators, and the equestrian class willingly took the oath, until the flattery turned into an annual and formal pledge of loyalty.

Although Augustus considered a military force as the firmest foundation, he wisely rejected it, as a very odious instrument of government. It was more agreeable to his temper, as well as to his policy, to reign under the venerable names of ancient magistracy, and artfully to collect, in his own person, all the scattered rays of civil jurisdiction. With this view, he permitted the senate to confer upon him, for his life, the powers of the consular and tribunitian offices, which were, in the same manner, continued to all his successors. The consuls had succeeded to the kings of Rome, and represented the dignity of the state. They superintended the ceremonies of religion, levied and commanded the legions, gave audience to foreign ambassadors, and presided in the assemblies both of the senate and people. The general control of the finances was intrusted to their care; and though they seldom had leisure to administer justice in person, they were considered as the supreme guardians of law, equity, and the public peace. Such was their ordinary jurisdiction; but whenever the senate empowered the first magistrate to consult the safety of the commonwealth, he was raised by that decree above the laws, and exercised, in the defence of liberty, a temporary despotism. The character of the tribunes was, in every respect, different from that of the consuls. The appearance of the former was modest and humble; but their persons were sacred and inviolable. Their force was suited rather for opposition than for action. They were instituted to defend the oppressed, to pardon offences, to arraign the enemies of the people, and, when they judged it necessary, to stop, by a single word, the whole machine of government. As long as the republic subsisted, the dangerous influence, which either the consul or the tribune might derive from their respective jurisdiction, was diminished by several important restrictions. Their authority expired with the year in which they were elected; the former office was divided between two, the latter among ten persons; and, as both in their private and public interest they were averse to each other, their mutual conflicts contributed, for the most part, to strengthen rather than to destroy the balance of the constitution. * But when the consular and tribunitian powers were united, when they were vested for life in a single person, when the general of the army was, at the same time, the minister of the senate and the representative of the Roman people, it was impossible to resist the exercise, nor was it easy to define the limits, of his imperial prerogative.

Although Augustus viewed a military force as the strongest foundation, he wisely turned it down, seeing it as a very undesirable tool of government. It suited his nature and his strategy better to rule under the respected titles of ancient magistrates while skillfully gathering all the fragmented powers of civil authority into his own hands. To achieve this, he allowed the senate to grant him, for life, the powers of the consular and tribune offices, which were similarly given to all his successors. The consuls had taken over from the kings of Rome and represented the dignity of the state. They oversaw religious ceremonies, raised and commanded the legions, listened to foreign ambassadors, and presided over assemblies of both the senate and the people. They were entrusted with the overall control of finances; and although they rarely had time to administer justice themselves, they were regarded as the ultimate guardians of the law, fairness, and public peace. This was their usual authority; however, whenever the senate allowed the chief magistrate to consider the safety of the republic, he was elevated by that decree above the laws and exercised, in defense of liberty, a temporary form of dictatorship. The role of the tribunes was completely different from that of the consuls. The tribunes appeared modest and humble, but their person was considered sacred and untouchable. Their power was more suited for opposition than for action. They were created to protect the oppressed, to forgive offenses, to accuse the enemies of the people, and, when they deemed it necessary, to halt the entire workings of government with a single word. As long as the republic lasted, the potential dangerous influence that either the consul or the tribune could derive from their respective powers was limited by several significant restrictions. Their authority ended with the year they were elected; the consulship was shared between two people, while the tribunate was divided among ten; and since both in their private and public interests were generally at odds with each other, their conflicts mostly helped to strengthen rather than weaken the balance of the constitution. * But when the powers of the consul and tribune were combined, when they were held for life by one individual, and when the general of the army was simultaneously the minister of the senate and the representative of the Roman people, it became impossible to oppose the exercise of his authority, nor was it easy to define the boundaries of his imperial privileges.

To these accumulated honors, the policy of Augustus soon added the splendid as well as important dignities of supreme pontiff, and of censor. By the former he acquired the management of the religion, and by the latter a legal inspection over the manners and fortunes, of the Roman people. If so many distinct and independent powers did not exactly unite with each other, the complaisance of the senate was prepared to supply every deficiency by the most ample and extraordinary concessions. The emperors, as the first ministers of the republic, were exempted from the obligation and penalty of many inconvenient laws: they were authorized to convoke the senate, to make several motions in the same day, to recommend candidates for the honors of the state, to enlarge the bounds of the city, to employ the revenue at their discretion, to declare peace and war, to ratify treaties; and by a most comprehensive clause, they were empowered to execute whatsoever they should judge advantageous to the empire, and agreeable to the majesty of things private or public, human of divine.

To these accumulated honors, Augustus's policy soon added the significant and impressive roles of supreme pontiff and censor. With the former, he took charge of religious affairs, and with the latter, he gained legal oversight of the behavior and fortunes of the Roman people. Although these distinct and independent powers didn’t perfectly align, the senate was ready to fill any gaps with generous and extraordinary concessions. The emperors, as the top officials of the republic, were exempt from many burdensome laws’ obligations and penalties: they could call the senate, propose multiple motions in one day, endorse candidates for state honors, expand the city's boundaries, use the revenue at their discretion, declare war and peace, and approve treaties; and through a very broad clause, they were given the power to carry out whatever they deemed beneficial for the empire and in line with the dignity of both private and public matters, whether human or divine.

When all the various powers of executive government were committed to the Imperial magistrate, the ordinary magistrates of the commonwealth languished in obscurity, without vigor, and almost without business. The names and forms of the ancient administration were preserved by Augustus with the most anxious care. The usual number of consuls, prætors, and tribunes, were annually invested with their respective ensigns of office, and continued to discharge some of their least important functions. Those honors still attracted the vain ambition of the Romans; and the emperors themselves, though invested for life with the powers of the consulship, frequently aspired to the title of that annual dignity, which they condescended to share with the most illustrious of their fellow-citizens. In the election of these magistrates, the people, during the reign of Augustus, were permitted to expose all the inconveniences of a wild democracy. That artful prince, instead of discovering the least symptom of impatience, humbly solicited their suffrages for himself or his friends, and scrupulously practised all the duties of an ordinary candidate. But we may venture to ascribe to his councils the first measure of the succeeding reign, by which the elections were transferred to the senate. The assemblies of the people were forever abolished, and the emperors were delivered from a dangerous multitude, who, without restoring liberty, might have disturbed, and perhaps endangered, the established government.

When all the various powers of executive government were handed over to the Imperial magistrate, the ordinary officials of the commonwealth faded into obscurity, lacking energy and almost completely without tasks. Augustus took great care to preserve the names and structures of the ancient administration. Each year, the usual number of consuls, prætors, and tribunes were appointed with their respective symbols of office and continued to carry out some of their least significant duties. These positions still drew the vain ambitions of the Romans; and the emperors themselves, although holding the powers of the consulship for life, often aimed for the title of that annual position, which they condescended to share with their most distinguished fellow citizens. During Augustus's reign, the people were allowed to express all the downsides of an unrestrained democracy in the elections for these officials. That clever leader, instead of showing any signs of impatience, humbly requested their votes for himself or his friends and carefully followed all the responsibilities of a typical candidate. However, we can attribute to his policies the first action of the subsequent reign, which shifted the elections to the senate. The gatherings of the people were permanently abolished, freeing the emperors from a potentially threatening crowd that, without restoring freedom, could have disrupted and perhaps jeopardized the established government.

By declaring themselves the protectors of the people, Marius and Cæsar had subverted the constitution of their country. But as soon as the senate had been humbled and disarmed, such an assembly, consisting of five or six hundred persons, was found a much more tractable and useful instrument of dominion. It was on the dignity of the senate that Augustus and his successors founded their new empire; and they affected, on every occasion, to adopt the language and principles of Patricians. In the administration of their own powers, they frequently consulted the great national council, and seemed to refer to its decision the most important concerns of peace and war. Rome, Italy, and the internal provinces, were subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the senate. With regard to civil objects, it was the supreme court of appeal; with regard to criminal matters, a tribunal, constituted for the trial of all offences that were committed by men in any public station, or that affected the peace and majesty of the Roman people. The exercise of the judicial power became the most frequent and serious occupation of the senate; and the important causes that were pleaded before them afforded a last refuge to the spirit of ancient eloquence. As a council of state, and as a court of justice, the senate possessed very considerable prerogatives; but in its legislative capacity, in which it was supposed virtually to represent the people, the rights of sovereignty were acknowledged to reside in that assembly. Every power was derived from their authority, every law was ratified by their sanction. Their regular meetings were held on three stated days in every month, the Calends, the Nones, and the Ides. The debates were conducted with decent freedom; and the emperors themselves, who gloried in the name of senators, sat, voted, and divided with their equals.

By claiming to be the protectors of the people, Marius and Cæsar disrupted the constitution of their country. However, once the senate had been weakened and disarmed, a gathering of five or six hundred people turned out to be a much more manageable and effective tool for control. Augustus and his successors built their new empire on the dignity of the senate; they consistently pretended to adopt the language and principles of the Patricians. In managing their own powers, they often sought advice from the national council and appeared to delegate the most crucial matters of peace and war to its decisions. Rome, Italy, and the internal provinces fell under the direct authority of the senate. For civil issues, it was the highest court of appeal; for criminal cases, it served as a tribunal for trying offenses committed by public officials or that threatened the peace and dignity of the Roman people. The exercise of judicial power became the senate's most regular and serious role, and the significant cases presented to them provided a final refuge for the spirit of ancient eloquence. As both a state council and a court of justice, the senate held considerable powers; however, in its legislative role, which was expected to represent the people, the rights of sovereignty were recognized to belong to that assembly. Every power came from their authority, and every law was confirmed by their approval. Their regular meetings were held on three specific days each month: the Calends, the Nones, and the Ides. Debates were conducted with a sense of respectful freedom; the emperors themselves, who took pride in being called senators, sat, voted, and participated equally with their peers.

To resume, in a few words, the system of the Imperial government; as it was instituted by Augustus, and maintained by those princes who understood their own interest and that of the people, it may be defined an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a commonwealth. The masters of the Roman world surrounded their throne with darkness, concealed their irresistible strength, and humbly professed themselves the accountable ministers of the senate, whose supreme decrees they dictated and obeyed.

To sum up, in simple terms, the system of the Imperial government; as it was established by Augustus and upheld by those rulers who recognized their own interests and those of the people, it can be described as an absolute monarchy masked by the appearance of a commonwealth. The rulers of the Roman world surrounded their power with secrecy, hid their unstoppable strength, and modestly claimed to be the accountable servants of the senate, whose ultimate decisions they dictated and followed.

The face of the court corresponded with the forms of the administration. The emperors, if we except those tyrants whose capricious folly violated every law of nature and decency, disdained that pomp and ceremony which might offend their countrymen, but could add nothing to their real power. In all the offices of life, they affected to confound themselves with their subjects, and maintained with them an equal intercourse of visits and entertainments. Their habit, their palace, their table, were suited only to the rank of an opulent senator. Their family, however numerous or splendid, was composed entirely of their domestic slaves and freedmen. Augustus or Trajan would have blushed at employing the meanest of the Romans in those menial offices, which, in the household and bedchamber of a limited monarch, are so eagerly solicited by the proudest nobles of Britain.

The court's atmosphere matched the government structure. The emperors, except for those tyrants whose unpredictable madness broke every rule of nature and decency, rejected the grand ceremonies that might upset their people but didn't enhance their true authority. In all areas of life, they pretended to blend in with their citizens, maintaining equal exchanges of visits and social events. Their clothing, their palace, and their meals were only fit for a wealthy senator. However, their family, no matter how large or impressive, was made up entirely of their household slaves and freedmen. Augustus or Trajan would have felt embarrassed to have even the lowest-ranking Romans perform menial tasks in a way that royal families in Britain sought after from the most distinguished nobles.

The deification of the emperors is the only instance in which they departed from their accustomed prudence and modesty. The Asiatic Greeks were the first inventors, the successors of Alexander the first objects, of this servile and impious mode of adulation. * It was easily transferred from the kings to the governors of Asia; and the Roman magistrates very frequently were adored as provincial deities, with the pomp of altars and temples, of festivals and sacrifices. It was natural that the emperors should not refuse what the proconsuls had accepted; and the divine honors which both the one and the other received from the provinces, attested rather the despotism than the servitude of Rome. But the conquerors soon imitated the vanquished nations in the arts of flattery; and the imperious spirit of the first Cæsar too easily consented to assume, during his lifetime, a place among the tutelar deities of Rome. The milder temper of his successor declined so dangerous an ambition, which was never afterwards revived, except by the madness of Caligula and Domitian. Augustus permitted indeed some of the provincial cities to erect temples to his honor, on condition that they should associate the worship of Rome with that of the sovereign; he tolerated private superstition, of which he might be the object; but he contented himself with being revered by the senate and the people in his human character, and wisely left to his successor the care of his public deification. A regular custom was introduced, that on the decease of every emperor who had neither lived nor died like a tyrant, the senate by a solemn decree should place him in the number of the gods: and the ceremonies of his apotheosis were blended with those of his funeral. This legal, and, as it should seem, injudicious profanation, so abhorrent to our stricter principles, was received with a very faint murmur, by the easy nature of Polytheism; but it was received as an institution, not of religion, but of policy. We should disgrace the virtues of the Antonines by comparing them with the vices of Hercules or Jupiter. Even the characters of Cæsar or Augustus were far superior to those of the popular deities. But it was the misfortune of the former to live in an enlightened age, and their actions were too faithfully recorded to admit of such a mixture of fable and mystery, as the devotion of the vulgar requires. As soon as their divinity was established by law, it sunk into oblivion, without contributing either to their own fame, or to the dignity of succeeding princes.

The worship of emperors is the only time they strayed from their usual prudence and humility. The Asiatic Greeks were the first to invent this servile and irreverent form of flattery, which the successors of Alexander quickly adopted. It easily shifted from kings to governors of Asia, and Roman officials were often worshipped as local gods, complete with altars, temples, festivals, and sacrifices. It was only natural that emperors wouldn’t reject what proconsuls accepted; the divine honors given to both showed more of Rome’s tyranny than its subjugation. However, conquerors soon copied the conquered nations in the art of flattery, and the bold nature of the first Caesar too easily agreed to take a place among Rome's guardian deities while still alive. The more moderate nature of his successor avoided such a dangerous ambition, which was never attempted again until the madness of Caligula and Domitian. Augustus did allow some provincial cities to build temples in his honor, as long as they included the worship of Rome alongside his own; he accepted personal superstition directed at him, but he preferred to be honored as a human by the senate and people, wisely leaving the responsibility of his public deification to his successor. A consistent practice began, that when any emperor died who hadn’t lived or died like a tyrant, the senate would officially declare him among the gods: the ceremonies of his deification would be combined with his funeral rites. This legal, and seemingly unwise, desecration, so repugnant to our stricter values, was accepted with minimal dissent by the accommodating nature of Polytheism; but it was viewed as an institutional practice, not a matter of faith. We would diminish the virtues of the Antonines by comparing them to the faults of Hercules or Jupiter. Even the characters of Caesar or Augustus were far superior to those of popular deities. But it was unfortunate for the former to live in an enlightened age, where their deeds were recorded too accurately to allow for the mixture of myth and mystery that common devotion craves. Once their divinity was established by law, it faded into obscurity, contributing neither to their own legacy nor to the stature of future rulers.

In the consideration of the Imperial government, we have frequently mentioned the artful founder, under his well-known title of Augustus, which was not, however, conferred upon him till the edifice was almost completed. The obscure name of Octavianus he derived from a mean family, in the little town of Aricia. It was stained with the blood of the proscription; and he was desirous, had it been possible, to erase all memory of his former life. The illustrious surname of Cæsar he had assumed, as the adopted son of the dictator: but he had too much good sense, either to hope to be confounded, or to wish to be compared with that extraordinary man. It was proposed in the senate to dignify their minister with a new appellation; and after a serious discussion, that of Augustus was chosen, among several others, as being the most expressive of the character of peace and sanctity, which he uniformly affected. Augustus was therefore a personal, Cæsar a family distinction. The former should naturally have expired with the prince on whom it was bestowed; and however the latter was diffused by adoption and female alliance, Nero was the last prince who could allege any hereditary claim to the honors of the Julian line. But, at the time of his death, the practice of a century had inseparably connected those appellations with the Imperial dignity, and they have been preserved by a long succession of emperors, Romans, Greeks, Franks, and Germans, from the fall of the republic to the present time. A distinction was, however, soon introduced. The sacred title of Augustus was always reserved for the monarch, whilst the name of Cæsar was more freely communicated to his relations; and, from the reign of Hadrian, at least, was appropriated to the second person in the state, who was considered as the presumptive heir of the empire. *

In the consideration of the Imperial government, we have often mentioned the clever founder, known by his famous title of Augustus, which was not, however, given to him until the structure was nearly finished. The obscure name of Octavianus came from a humble family in the small town of Aricia. It was tainted with the blood of the proscription, and he wanted, if it were possible, to erase all memory of his former life. He had taken on the illustrious surname of Cæsar as the adopted son of the dictator; however, he was smart enough not to hope to be confused with or compared to that remarkable man. In the senate, it was suggested to honor their minister with a new title, and after a serious debate, the title of Augustus was chosen, among several others, as it best reflected the character of peace and sanctity that he consistently portrayed. Augustus was therefore a personal title, while Cæsar was a family distinction. The former should have naturally ended with the prince to whom it was granted; and, although the latter was spread through adoption and female lineage, Nero was the last prince who could claim any hereditary right to the honors of the Julian line. However, by the time of his death, a century of practice had inextricably linked those titles to the Imperial dignity, and they have been maintained by a long line of emperors, Romans, Greeks, Franks, and Germans, from the fall of the republic to now. A distinction was soon made, however. The sacred title of Augustus was always reserved for the monarch, while the name of Cæsar was more readily given to his relatives; and, from at least the reign of Hadrian, it was designated for the second person in the state, who was seen as the presumptive heir to the empire.





Chapter III: The Constitution In The Age Of The Antonines.—Part II.

The tender respect of Augustus for a free constitution which he had destroyed, can only be explained by an attentive consideration of the character of that subtle tyrant. A cool head, an unfeeling heart, and a cowardly disposition, prompted him at the age of nineteen to assume the mask of hypocrisy, which he never afterwards laid aside. With the same hand, and probably with the same temper, he signed the proscription of Cicero, and the pardon of Cinna. His virtues, and even his vices, were artificial; and according to the various dictates of his interest, he was at first the enemy, and at last the father, of the Roman world. When he framed the artful system of the Imperial authority, his moderation was inspired by his fears. He wished to deceive the people by an image of civil liberty, and the armies by an image of civil government.

The gentle respect Augustus had for a free constitution that he had destroyed can only be understood by closely examining the character of that cunning tyrant. With a cool head, an unfeeling heart, and a cowardly nature, he chose to wear the mask of hypocrisy at the age of nineteen, a mask he never took off again. With the same hand, and likely with the same mindset, he signed the order for Cicero's execution and the pardon for Cinna. His virtues, and even his flaws, were fake; depending on his interests, he was initially the enemy and ultimately the father of the Roman world. When he created the clever system of Imperial authority, his moderation came from his fears. He wanted to mislead the people with an illusion of civil liberty and the armies with an illusion of civil governance.

I. The death of Cæsar was ever before his eyes. He had lavished wealth and honors on his adherents; but the most favored friends of his uncle were in the number of the conspirators. The fidelity of the legions might defend his authority against open rebellion; but their vigilance could not secure his person from the dagger of a determined republican; and the Romans, who revered the memory of Brutus, would applaud the imitation of his virtue. Cæsar had provoked his fate, as much as by the ostentation of his power, as by his power itself. The consul or the tribune might have reigned in peace. The title of king had armed the Romans against his life. Augustus was sensible that mankind is governed by names; nor was he deceived in his expectation, that the senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedom. A feeble senate and enervated people cheerfully acquiesced in the pleasing illusion, as long as it was supported by the virtue, or even by the prudence, of the successors of Augustus. It was a motive of self-preservation, not a principle of liberty, that animated the conspirators against Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. They attacked the person of the tyrant, without aiming their blow at the authority of the emperor.

I. The death of Caesar was always on his mind. He had spent wealth and given honors to his supporters; however, the closest friends of his uncle were among the conspirators. The loyalty of the legions could defend his power against outright rebellion, but their watchfulness couldn't protect him from the knife of a determined republican. The Romans, who honored the memory of Brutus, would praise the imitation of his virtue. Caesar had brought his downfall upon himself, not just through the display of his power, but through the power itself. The consul or the tribune could have ruled peacefully. The title of king had turned the Romans against his life. Augustus understood that people are influenced by names; he was not mistaken in thinking that the senate and the people would accept servitude, as long as they were respectfully told they still enjoyed their ancient freedom. A weak senate and weakened people willingly went along with this comforting illusion, as long as it was upheld by the virtue or even the wisdom of Augustus's successors. It was self-preservation, not a principle of liberty, that drove the conspirators against Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. They targeted the tyrant himself, without challenging the authority of the emperor.

There appears, indeed, one memorable occasion, in which the senate, after seventy years of patience, made an ineffectual attempt to re-assume its long-forgotten rights. When the throne was vacant by the murder of Caligula, the consuls convoked that assembly in the Capitol, condemned the memory of the Cæsars, gave the watchword liberty to the few cohorts who faintly adhered to their standard, and during eight-and-forty hours acted as the independent chiefs of a free commonwealth. But while they deliberated, the prætorian guards had resolved. The stupid Claudius, brother of Germanicus, was already in their camp, invested with the Imperial purple, and prepared to support his election by arms. The dream of liberty was at an end; and the senate awoke to all the horrors of inevitable servitude. Deserted by the people, and threatened by a military force, that feeble assembly was compelled to ratify the choice of the prætorians, and to embrace the benefit of an amnesty, which Claudius had the prudence to offer, and the generosity to observe.

There was, in fact, one memorable moment when the senate, after seventy years of waiting, made a failed attempt to reclaim its long-lost rights. When Caligula was murdered and the throne was vacant, the consuls called that assembly together in the Capitol, condemned the memory of the Cæsars, gave the watchword liberty to the few cohorts that weakly supported them, and for forty-eight hours acted as the independent leaders of a free republic. But while they debated, the praetorian guards had already made their decision. The dull Claudius, brother of Germanicus, was already in their camp, dressed in the Imperial purple, and ready to back his election with force. The dream of freedom was over; and the senate realized it was facing the grim reality of unavoidable servitude. Abandoned by the people and threatened by military power, that weak assembly had to ratify the choice of the praetorians and accept the offer of an amnesty that Claudius wisely proposed and generously honored.

II. The insolence of the armies inspired Augustus with fears of a still more alarming nature. The despair of the citizens could only attempt, what the power of the soldiers was, at any time, able to execute. How precarious was his own authority over men whom he had taught to violate every social duty! He had heard their seditious clamors; he dreaded their calmer moments of reflection. One revolution had been purchased by immense rewards; but a second revolution might double those rewards. The troops professed the fondest attachment to the house of Cæsar; but the attachments of the multitude are capricious and inconstant. Augustus summoned to his aid whatever remained in those fierce minds of Roman prejudices; enforced the rigor of discipline by the sanction of law; and, interposing the majesty of the senate between the emperor and the army, boldly claimed their allegiance, as the first magistrate of the republic.

II. The arrogance of the armies filled Augustus with even greater fears. The hopelessness of the citizens could only attempt what the soldiers could do at any moment. How fragile was his own control over men he had taught to disregard all social responsibilities! He had heard their rebellious outcries; he feared their quieter moments of thought. One revolution had cost him a fortune in rewards; but a second revolution might require even more. The troops claimed to have a deep loyalty to the house of Caesar; however, the loyalties of the masses are fickle and unreliable. Augustus called upon whatever remnants of Roman values remained in those fierce minds; he strengthened the severity of discipline by reinforcing it with laws; and, placing the authority of the senate between himself and the army, he boldly asserted their loyalty, as the highest official of the republic.

During a long period of two hundred and twenty years from the establishment of this artful system to the death of Commodus, the dangers inherent to a military government were, in a great measure, suspended. The soldiers were seldom roused to that fatal sense of their own strength, and of the weakness of the civil authority, which was, before and afterwards, productive of such dreadful calamities. Caligula and Domitian were assassinated in their palace by their own domestics: * the convulsions which agitated Rome on the death of the former, were confined to the walls of the city. But Nero involved the whole empire in his ruin. In the space of eighteen months, four princes perished by the sword; and the Roman world was shaken by the fury of the contending armies. Excepting only this short, though violent eruption of military license, the two centuries from Augustus to Commodus passed away unstained with civil blood, and undisturbed by revolutions. The emperor was elected by the authority of the senate, and the consent of the soldiers. The legions respected their oath of fidelity; and it requires a minute inspection of the Roman annals to discover three inconsiderable rebellions, which were all suppressed in a few months, and without even the hazard of a battle.

For two hundred and twenty years, from the establishment of this clever system to the death of Commodus, the risks that come with a military government were largely put on hold. The soldiers were rarely aware of their own power and the weakness of the civil authority, which had previously and subsequently caused terrible disasters. Caligula and Domitian were killed in their palace by their own staff: the chaos that erupted in Rome after the death of Caligula was limited to the city's walls. But Nero dragged the entire empire down with him. In just eighteen months, four emperors were killed by violence, and the Roman world was thrown into chaos by warring armies. Aside from this brief but intense outbreak of military disorder, the two centuries from Augustus to Commodus went by without civil bloodshed or significant unrest. The emperor was chosen with the authority of the senate and the support of the soldiers. The legions honored their oath of loyalty, and a close look at Roman history reveals only three minor rebellions, which were quickly crushed within a few months and without the risk of battle.

In elective monarchies, the vacancy of the throne is a moment big with danger and mischief. The Roman emperors, desirous to spare the legions that interval of suspense, and the temptation of an irregular choice, invested their designed successor with so large a share of present power, as should enable him, after their decease, to assume the remainder, without suffering the empire to perceive the change of masters. Thus Augustus, after all his fairer prospects had been snatched from him by untimely deaths, rested his last hopes on Tiberius, obtained for his adopted son the censorial and tribunitian powers, and dictated a law, by which the future prince was invested with an authority equal to his own, over the provinces and the armies. Thus Vespasian subdued the generous mind of his eldest son. Titus was adored by the eastern legions, which, under his command, had recently achieved the conquest of Judæa. His power was dreaded, and, as his virtues were clouded by the intemperance of youth, his designs were suspected. Instead of listening to such unworthy suspicions, the prudent monarch associated Titus to the full powers of the Imperial dignity; and the grateful son ever approved himself the humble and faithful minister of so indulgent a father.

In elective monarchies, the moment a throne becomes vacant is filled with danger and chaos. The Roman emperors, wanting to avoid the uncertainty of that waiting period and the risk of an irregular choice, gave their intended successor enough power to ensure that after their death, he could take on the rest of the authority without the empire noticing the change in leadership. For example, after all his better prospects were taken from him by early deaths, Augustus put his last hopes in Tiberius, securing for his adopted son the powers of censor and tribune, and established a law that granted the future prince authority equal to his own over the provinces and armies. Similarly, Vespasian managed the ambitious nature of his eldest son. Titus was beloved by the eastern legions, who had recently conquered Judea under his command. His power was feared, and because his virtues were overshadowed by youthful excess, his ambitions were questioned. Instead of giving in to such baseless doubts, the wise leader made Titus a full partner in the imperial authority; and the grateful son consistently proved himself to be a humble and loyal servant of such a kind father.

The good sense of Vespasian engaged him indeed to embrace every measure that might confirm his recent and precarious elevation. The military oath, and the fidelity of the troops, had been consecrated, by the habits of a hundred years, to the name and family of the Cæsars; and although that family had been continued only by the fictitious rite of adoption, the Romans still revered, in the person of Nero, the grandson of Germanicus, and the lineal successor of Augustus. It was not without reluctance and remorse, that the prætorian guards had been persuaded to abandon the cause of the tyrant. The rapid downfall of Galba, Otho, and Vitellus, taught the armies to consider the emperors as the creatures of their will, and the instruments of their license. The birth of Vespasian was mean: his grandfather had been a private soldier, his father a petty officer of the revenue; his own merit had raised him, in an advanced age, to the empire; but his merit was rather useful than shining, and his virtues were disgraced by a strict and even sordid parsimony. Such a prince consulted his true interest by the association of a son, whose more splendid and amiable character might turn the public attention from the obscure origin, to the future glories, of the Flavian house. Under the mild administration of Titus, the Roman world enjoyed a transient felicity, and his beloved memory served to protect, above fifteen years, the vices of his brother Domitian.

The good judgment of Vespasian led him to adopt every strategy that could secure his recent and uncertain rise to power. The military oath and the loyalty of the troops had been tied for a hundred years to the name and legacy of the Cæsars; and even though that family had continued only through the artificial practice of adoption, the Romans still respected Nero, the grandson of Germanicus and the direct successor of Augustus. The praetorian guards were persuaded to turn against the tyrant, but not without hesitation and guilt. The swift downfalls of Galba, Otho, and Vitellus taught the armies to see emperors as products of their own will and tools for their pleasure. Vespasian's origins were humble: his grandfather was a common soldier, his father a low-level revenue officer; he rose to power later in life through his own efforts, but those efforts were more practical than outstanding, and his virtues were tainted by a strict and even miserly frugality. This type of ruler sought his best interest by associating with a son whose more impressive and likable character could shift public focus from their modest beginnings to the future greatness of the Flavian dynasty. Under the gentle rule of Titus, the Roman world experienced a brief period of happiness, and his cherished memory helped shield the vices of his brother Domitian for over fifteen years.

Nerva had scarcely accepted the purple from the assassins of Domitian, before he discovered that his feeble age was unable to stem the torrent of public disorders, which had multiplied under the long tyranny of his predecessor. His mild disposition was respected by the good; but the degenerate Romans required a more vigorous character, whose justice should strike terror into the guilty. Though he had several relations, he fixed his choice on a stranger. He adopted Trajan, then about forty years of age, and who commanded a powerful army in the Lower Germany; and immediately, by a decree of the senate, declared him his colleague and successor in the empire. It is sincerely to be lamented, that whilst we are fatigued with the disgustful relation of Nero’s crimes and follies, we are reduced to collect the actions of Trajan from the glimmerings of an abridgment, or the doubtful light of a panegyric. There remains, however, one panegyric far removed beyond the suspicion of flattery. Above two hundred and fifty years after the death of Trajan, the senate, in pouring out the customary acclamations on the accession of a new emperor, wished that he might surpass the felicity of Augustus, and the virtue of Trajan.

Nerva had barely taken the throne from the assassins of Domitian before he realized that his frail age couldn’t handle the wave of public chaos that had grown under his predecessor’s long rule. His gentle nature was respected by the decent people, but the corrupt Romans needed a stronger leader, someone whose sense of justice would instill fear in the wrongdoers. Although he had several relatives, he chose a stranger. He adopted Trajan, who was around forty years old and led a powerful army in Lower Germany; and right away, through a senate decree, he named him his partner and successor in the empire. It’s truly unfortunate that while we are overwhelmed with the distasteful account of Nero’s crimes and foolishness, we are left to piece together Trajan's actions from brief summaries or questionable praises. Nevertheless, there is one tribute that is free from any suspicion of flattery. Over two hundred and fifty years after Trajan’s death, the senate, while offering the usual cheers for the new emperor, hoped he would exceed the happiness of Augustus and the virtue of Trajan.

We may readily believe, that the father of his country hesitated whether he ought to intrust the various and doubtful character of his kinsman Hadrian with sovereign power. In his last moments the arts of the empress Plotina either fixed the irresolution of Trajan, or boldly supposed a fictitious adoption; the truth of which could not be safely disputed, and Hadrian was peaceably acknowledged as his lawful successor. Under his reign, as has been already mentioned, the empire flourished in peace and prosperity. He encouraged the arts, reformed the laws, asserted military discipline, and visited all his provinces in person. His vast and active genius was equally suited to the most enlarged views, and the minute details of civil policy. But the ruling passions of his soul were curiosity and vanity. As they prevailed, and as they were attracted by different objects, Hadrian was, by turns, an excellent prince, a ridiculous sophist, and a jealous tyrant. The general tenor of his conduct deserved praise for its equity and moderation. Yet in the first days of his reign, he put to death four consular senators, his personal enemies, and men who had been judged worthy of empire; and the tediousness of a painful illness rendered him, at last, peevish and cruel. The senate doubted whether they should pronounce him a god or a tyrant; and the honors decreed to his memory were granted to the prayers of the pious Antoninus.

We can easily believe that the father of his country hesitated about whether to trust the varied and uncertain character of his relative Hadrian with supreme power. In his final moments, the influence of Empress Plotina either strengthened Trajan’s indecision or boldly claimed a fabricated adoption; the legitimacy of which couldn't be safely questioned, and Hadrian was peacefully recognized as his rightful successor. Under his rule, as previously mentioned, the empire thrived in peace and prosperity. He supported the arts, reformed the laws, upheld military discipline, and personally visited all his provinces. His vast and active intellect was well-suited for both broad visions and the intricate details of civil governance. However, the dominant traits of his character were curiosity and vanity. As these traits prevailed and were drawn to different things, Hadrian could be an exceptional ruler, a foolish sophist, and a jealous tyrant all at once. Generally, his conduct was commendable for its fairness and moderation. Yet in the early days of his reign, he executed four consular senators, personal enemies who had once been deemed worthy of ruling, and the burden of a painful illness eventually made him irritable and cruel. The senate was uncertain whether to regard him as a god or a tyrant; and the honors given in his memory were granted due to the prayers of the devout Antoninus.

The caprice of Hadrian influenced his choice of a successor. After revolving in his mind several men of distinguished merit, whom he esteemed and hated, he adopted Ælius Verus a gay and voluptuous nobleman, recommended by uncommon beauty to the lover of Antinous. But whilst Hadrian was delighting himself with his own applause, and the acclamations of the soldiers, whose consent had been secured by an immense donative, the new Cæsar was ravished from his embraces by an untimely death. He left only one son. Hadrian commended the boy to the gratitude of the Antonines. He was adopted by Pius; and, on the accession of Marcus, was invested with an equal share of sovereign power. Among the many vices of this younger Verus, he possessed one virtue; a dutiful reverence for his wiser colleague, to whom he willingly abandoned the ruder cares of empire. The philosophic emperor dissembled his follies, lamented his early death, and cast a decent veil over his memory.

The whims of Hadrian influenced his choice of a successor. After considering several highly respected individuals, whom he both admired and despised, he chose Ælius Verus, a charming and decadent nobleman, favored for his extraordinary beauty that appealed to the lover of Antinous. But while Hadrian was reveling in his own praise and the cheers of the soldiers, who had been won over with a huge donation, the new Cæsar was suddenly taken from him by an early death. He left behind only one son. Hadrian entrusted the boy to the kindness of the Antonines. He was adopted by Pius; and when Marcus came to power, he was given an equal share of authority. Despite the many faults of this younger Verus, he had one notable quality; a respectful deference for his wiser counterpart, to whom he willingly left the tougher responsibilities of ruling. The philosophical emperor overlooked his shortcomings, mourned his untimely death, and discreetly honored his memory.

As soon as Hadrian’s passion was either gratified or disappointed, he resolved to deserve the thanks of posterity, by placing the most exalted merit on the Roman throne. His discerning eye easily discovered a senator about fifty years of age, blameless in all the offices of life; and a youth of about seventeen, whose riper years opened a fair prospect of every virtue: the elder of these was declared the son and successor of Hadrian, on condition, however, that he himself should immediately adopt the younger. The two Antonines (for it is of them that we are now speaking,) governed the Roman world forty-two years, with the same invariable spirit of wisdom and virtue. Although Pius had two sons, he preferred the welfare of Rome to the interest of his family, gave his daughter Faustina, in marriage to young Marcus, obtained from the senate the tribunitian and proconsular powers, and, with a noble disdain, or rather ignorance of jealousy, associated him to all the labors of government. Marcus, on the other hand, revered the character of his benefactor, loved him as a parent, obeyed him as his sovereign, and, after he was no more, regulated his own administration by the example and maxims of his predecessor. Their united reigns are possibly the only period of history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole object of government.

As soon as Hadrian’s passion was either fulfilled or thwarted, he decided he wanted to earn the gratitude of future generations by putting the highest talent on the Roman throne. He quickly identified a senator around fifty years old, who had a spotless record in all his duties, and a young man of about seventeen, whose future held great promise for every virtue. The older man was announced as Hadrian's son and successor, with the condition that he would immediately adopt the younger one. The two Antonines (the ones we’re talking about) ruled the Roman world for forty-two years with a consistent spirit of wisdom and virtue. Even though Pius had two sons, he prioritized the well-being of Rome over his family’s interests, married his daughter Faustina to young Marcus, secured the tribunitian and proconsular powers from the senate, and, with a noble indifference, or even ignorance, towards jealousy, included him in all government responsibilities. Marcus, in turn, honored his benefactor’s character, loved him like a father, obeyed him as his ruler, and after his passing, shaped his own governance based on the example and principles of his predecessor. Their combined reigns might be the only time in history when the happiness of a great people was the sole focus of governance.

Titus Antoninus Pius has been justly denominated a second Numa. The same love of religion, justice, and peace, was the distinguishing characteristic of both princes. But the situation of the latter opened a much larger field for the exercise of those virtues. Numa could only prevent a few neighboring villages from plundering each other’s harvests. Antoninus diffused order and tranquillity over the greatest part of the earth. His reign is marked by the rare advantage of furnishing very few materials for history; which is, indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind. In private life, he was an amiable, as well as a good man. The native simplicity of his virtue was a stranger to vanity or affectation. He enjoyed with moderation the conveniences of his fortune, and the innocent pleasures of society; and the benevolence of his soul displayed itself in a cheerful serenity of temper.

Titus Antoninus Pius has rightfully been called a second Numa. Both rulers shared a strong love for religion, justice, and peace, which set them apart. However, the situation of the latter allowed for a much broader application of those virtues. Numa could only stop a few neighboring villages from raiding each other's crops. Antoninus brought order and calm to most of the world. His reign is notable for providing very few historical records, as history often consists mainly of people's crimes, mistakes, and misfortunes. In his personal life, he was both kind and a good person. The natural simplicity of his character was free from vanity or pretense. He enjoyed the benefits of his wealth and the simple joys of companionship with moderation, and his kind nature was reflected in his cheerful and peaceful demeanor.

The virtue of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus was of severer and more laborious kind. It was the well-earned harvest of many a learned conference, of many a patient lecture, and many a midnight lucubration. At the age of twelve years he embraced the rigid system of the Stoics, which taught him to submit his body to his mind, his passions to his reason; to consider virtue as the only good, vice as the only evil, all things external as things indifferent. His meditations, composed in the tumult of the camp, are still extant; and he even condescended to give lessons of philosophy, in a more public manner than was perhaps consistent with the modesty of sage, or the dignity of an emperor. But his life was the noblest commentary on the precepts of Zeno. He was severe to himself, indulgent to the imperfections of others, just and beneficent to all mankind. He regretted that Avidius Cassius, who excited a rebellion in Syria, had disappointed him, by a voluntary death, * of the pleasure of converting an enemy into a friend; and he justified the sincerity of that sentiment, by moderating the zeal of the senate against the adherents of the traitor. War he detested, as the disgrace and calamity of human nature; but when the necessity of a just defence called upon him to take up arms, he readily exposed his person to eight winter campaigns, on the frozen banks of the Danube, the severity of which was at last fatal to the weakness of his constitution. His memory was revered by a grateful posterity, and above a century after his death, many persons preserved the image of Marcus Antoninus among those of their household gods.

The virtue of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus was tougher and more demanding. It was the hard-earned result of many learned discussions, countless patient lectures, and many late-night studies. At the age of twelve, he adopted the strict philosophy of the Stoics, which taught him to prioritize his mind over his body, to control his emotions with reason, and to view virtue as the only true good, vice as the only true evil, and everything external as unimportant. His meditations, written during the chaos of the camp, still exist today; he even took the step to teach philosophy more publicly than might be considered appropriate for a wise man or an emperor. However, his life was the best example of Zeno's teachings. He was strict with himself, forgiving of others' flaws, fair and kind to everyone. He regretted that Avidius Cassius, who sparked a rebellion in Syria, had let him down by choosing to die rather than allowing him the opportunity to turn an enemy into a friend; he supported that feeling by calming the senate’s anger against the traitor’s supporters. He hated war, seeing it as a shame and disaster for humanity, but when the need for a just defense required him to fight, he willingly faced eight winter campaigns along the frozen banks of the Danube, where the harsh conditions ultimately took a toll on his health. He was honored by a grateful future generation, and over a century after his death, many people kept the image of Marcus Antoninus alongside their household gods.

If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded involuntary respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honor of restoring the republic, had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom.

If a person were asked to identify the period in history when humanity was at its happiest and most prosperous, they would undoubtedly point to the time between the death of Domitian and the rise of Commodus. During this era, the vast Roman Empire was ruled with absolute power, guided by virtue and wisdom. The armies were kept in check by the strong yet gentle leadership of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority inspired genuine respect. The civil administration was carefully maintained by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, who cherished the idea of liberty and saw themselves as accountable servants of the laws. These rulers deserved the honor of restoring the republic, had the Romans of their time been capable of enjoying true freedom.

The labors of these monarchs were overpaid by the immense reward that inseparably waited on their success; by the honest pride of virtue, and by the exquisite delight of beholding the general happiness of which they were the authors. A just but melancholy reflection imbittered, however, the noblest of human enjoyments. They must often have recollected the instability of a happiness which depended on the character of single man. The fatal moment was perhaps approaching, when some licentious youth, or some jealous tyrant, would abuse, to the destruction, that absolute power, which they had exerted for the benefit of their people. The ideal restraints of the senate and the laws might serve to display the virtues, but could never correct the vices, of the emperor. The military force was a blind and irresistible instrument of oppression; and the corruption of Roman manners would always supply flatterers eager to applaud, and ministers prepared to serve, the fear or the avarice, the lust or the cruelty, of their master.

The efforts of these kings really paid off because of the huge rewards that came with their success; the genuine pride of doing the right thing, and the pure joy of seeing the happiness they created for everyone. However, a just but sad thought often spoiled the greatest of human pleasures. They must have frequently remembered how fragile that happiness was, depending as it did on the character of a single person. The dangerous moment might be coming when some reckless young person or jealous tyrant would misuse the absolute power that they had used for the good of their people. The ideal checks of the senate and the laws could highlight the virtues, but they could never fix the emperor's vices. The military force was a blind and unstoppable tool of oppression, and the decline of Roman values would always bring out flatterers eager to praise and officials ready to cater to the fear or greed, lust or cruelty, of their leader.

These gloomy apprehensions had been already justified by the experience of the Romans. The annals of the emperors exhibit a strong and various picture of human nature, which we should vainly seek among the mixed and doubtful characters of modern history. In the conduct of those monarchs we may trace the utmost lines of vice and virtue; the most exalted perfection, and the meanest degeneracy of our own species. The golden age of Trajan and the Antonines had been preceded by an age of iron. It is almost superfluous to enumerate the unworthy successors of Augustus. Their unparalleled vices, and the splendid theatre on which they were acted, have saved them from oblivion. The dark, unrelenting Tiberius, the furious Caligula, the feeble Claudius, the profligate and cruel Nero, the beastly Vitellius, and the timid, inhuman Domitian, are condemned to everlasting infamy. During fourscore years (excepting only the short and doubtful respite of Vespasian’s reign) Rome groaned beneath an unremitting tyranny, which exterminated the ancient families of the republic, and was fatal to almost every virtue and every talent that arose in that unhappy period.

These gloomy fears were already proven true by the experience of the Romans. The records of the emperors paint a vivid and diverse picture of human nature that we would struggle to find among the mixed and uncertain figures of modern history. In the actions of those rulers, we can identify the extremes of vice and virtue; the highest ideals and the lowest degeneracy of our species. The golden age of Trajan and the Antonines followed a harsh era. It's almost unnecessary to list the unworthy successors of Augustus. Their unparalleled vices and the grand stage on which they performed have kept them from being forgotten. The dark, relentless Tiberius, the raging Caligula, the weak Claudius, the reckless and cruel Nero, the beastly Vitellius, and the cowardly, inhumane Domitian are doomed to eternal disgrace. For eighty years (aside from the brief and uncertain relief during Vespasian's reign), Rome suffered under an unending tyranny, which wiped out the ancient families of the republic and was deadly to nearly every virtue and talent that emerged in that unfortunate time.

Under the reign of these monsters, the slavery of the Romans was accompanied with two peculiar circumstances, the one occasioned by their former liberty, the other by their extensive conquests, which rendered their condition more completely wretched than that of the victims of tyranny in any other age or country. From these causes were derived, 1. The exquisite sensibility of the sufferers; and, 2. The impossibility of escaping from the hand of the oppressor.

Under the rule of these monsters, the slavery of the Romans came with two unique factors: one was their past freedom, and the other was their vast conquests, which made their situation even more miserable than that of the victims of oppression in any other time or place. From these factors arose, 1. The intense sensitivity of the sufferers; and, 2. The inability to escape from the oppressor's grip.

I. When Persia was governed by the descendants of Sefi, a race of princes whose wanton cruelty often stained their divan, their table, and their bed, with the blood of their favorites, there is a saying recorded of a young nobleman, that he never departed from the sultan’s presence, without satisfying himself whether his head was still on his shoulders. The experience of every day might almost justify the scepticism of Rustan. Yet the fatal sword, suspended above him by a single thread, seems not to have disturbed the slumbers, or interrupted the tranquillity, of the Persian. The monarch’s frown, he well knew, could level him with the dust; but the stroke of lightning or apoplexy might be equally fatal; and it was the part of a wise man to forget the inevitable calamities of human life in the enjoyment of the fleeting hour. He was dignified with the appellation of the king’s slave; had, perhaps, been purchased from obscure parents, in a country which he had never known; and was trained up from his infancy in the severe discipline of the seraglio. His name, his wealth, his honors, were the gift of a master, who might, without injustice, resume what he had bestowed. Rustan’s knowledge, if he possessed any, could only serve to confirm his habits by prejudices. His language afforded not words for any form of government, except absolute monarchy. The history of the East informed him, that such had ever been the condition of mankind. The Koran, and the interpreters of that divine book, inculcated to him, that the sultan was the descendant of the prophet, and the vicegerent of heaven; that patience was the first virtue of a Mussulman, and unlimited obedience the great duty of a subject.

I. When Persia was ruled by the descendants of Sefi, a line of princes whose reckless cruelty often stained their council, their meals, and their beds with the blood of their favorites, there’s a saying about a young nobleman that he never left the sultan’s presence without making sure his head was still on his shoulders. The daily experiences of life could almost validate Rustan’s skepticism. Yet, despite the deadly sword hanging over him by a single thread, it didn’t seem to disturb the peace or tranquility of the Persian. He knew that the monarch’s frown could bring him down to dust; however, a stroke of lightning or a heart attack could be just as deadly, and it was wise to forget the unavoidable misfortunes of life and enjoy the present moment. He was referred to as the king’s slave; he may have been bought from unknown parents in a land he had never seen and had been raised from childhood in the strict discipline of the seraglio. His name, wealth, and honors were the gifts of a master who could, without wrong, take back what he had given. Rustan’s knowledge, if he had any, would only reinforce his habits with biases. His language offered no terms for any form of government other than absolute monarchy. Eastern history taught him that this had always been the state of humanity. The Koran and its interpreters conveyed to him that the sultan was the descendant of the prophet and the representative of heaven; that patience was the foremost virtue of a Muslim, and total obedience was the primary duty of a subject.

The minds of the Romans were very differently prepared for slavery. Oppressed beneath the weight of their own corruption and of military violence, they for a long while preserved the sentiments, or at least the ideas, of their free-born ancestors. The education of Helvidius and Thrasea, of Tacitus and Pliny, was the same as that of Cato and Cicero. From Grecian philosophy, they had imbibed the justest and most liberal notions of the dignity of human nature, and the origin of civil society. The history of their own country had taught them to revere a free, a virtuous, and a victorious commonwealth; to abhor the successful crimes of Cæsar and Augustus; and inwardly to despise those tyrants whom they adored with the most abject flattery. As magistrates and senators they were admitted into the great council, which had once dictated laws to the earth, whose authority was so often prostituted to the vilest purposes of tyranny. Tiberius, and those emperors who adopted his maxims, attempted to disguise their murders by the formalities of justice, and perhaps enjoyed a secret pleasure in rendering the senate their accomplice as well as their victim. By this assembly, the last of the Romans were condemned for imaginary crimes and real virtues. Their infamous accusers assumed the language of independent patriots, who arraigned a dangerous citizen before the tribunal of his country; and the public service was rewarded by riches and honors. The servile judges professed to assert the majesty of the commonwealth, violated in the person of its first magistrate, whose clemency they most applauded when they trembled the most at his inexorable and impending cruelty. The tyrant beheld their baseness with just contempt, and encountered their secret sentiments of detestation with sincere and avowed hatred for the whole body of the senate.

The mindset of the Romans was very different when it came to slavery. Burdened by their own corruption and military violence, they managed to hold on to the feelings, or at least the ideas, of their free-born ancestors for quite a while. The education of Helvidius and Thrasea, of Tacitus and Pliny, was just like that of Cato and Cicero. From Greek philosophy, they absorbed the clearest and most progressive ideas about human dignity and the origins of civil society. The history of their own country taught them to respect a free, virtuous, and victorious republic; to detest the successful crimes of Cæsar and Augustus; and to secretly scorn those tyrants whom they flattered the most. As magistrates and senators, they were part of the great council that once set laws for the world, whose authority was often misused for the worst forms of tyranny. Tiberius and the emperors who followed his principles tried to mask their murders with legal procedures, perhaps taking secret pleasure in making the senate both their accomplice and their victim. This assembly condemned the last Romans for made-up crimes and genuine virtues. Their notorious accusers spoke like independent patriots, accusing a dangerous citizen in front of his nation; and the public service was rewarded with wealth and honors. The subservient judges claimed to uphold the dignity of the republic, which was violated in the person of its top magistrate, whose mercy they praised the most while fearing his relentless and looming cruelty. The tyrant looked at their cowardice with rightful disdain and met their hidden feelings of loathing with open and genuine hatred for the entire senate.

II. The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind. A modern tyrant, who should find no resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restrain from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of his allies, and the apprehension of his enemies. The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge. But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when the empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the senate, or to were out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen bank of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly. On every side he was encompassed with a vast extent of sea and land, which he could never hope to traverse without being discovered, seized, and restored to his irritated master. Beyond the frontiers, his anxious view could discover nothing, except the ocean, inhospitable deserts, hostile tribes of barbarians, of fierce manners and unknown language, or dependent kings, who would gladly purchase the emperor’s protection by the sacrifice of an obnoxious fugitive. “Wherever you are,” said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, “remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror.”

II. The way Europe is divided into several independent states, which are connected through shared religion, language, and customs, has really positive effects on people's freedom. A modern tyrant who faces no resistance from himself or his people would soon feel a gentle check from the example of his peers, the fear of criticism, the counsel of his allies, and the worry about his enemies. The person he is targeting, escaping the limits of his rule, would easily find safety in a better place, a new fortune that matches their worth, the freedom to express grievances, and maybe even a chance for revenge. But when the Roman Empire controlled the world, and that power fell to a single ruler, the world became a bleak prison for his foes. Those enslaved by imperial tyranny, whether forced to wear their gilded chains in Rome and the Senate or to live in exile on the desolate island of Seriphus or the icy banks of the Danube, awaited their fate in silent despair. Resisting was deadly, and escaping was impossible. They were surrounded by vast seas and lands, which they could never hope to cross without being caught, seized, and returned to their angry master. Beyond the borders, all they could see were the ocean, inhospitable deserts, hostile tribes of fierce barbarians speaking unfamiliar languages, or client kings who would be happy to gain the emperor's protection by turning in an unwanted fugitive. "Wherever you are," Cicero once told the exiled Marcellus, "remember that you are still at the mercy of the conqueror."





Chapter IV: The Cruelty, Follies And Murder Of Commodus.—Part I.

     The Cruelty, Follies, And Murder Of Commodus. Election Of
     Pertinax—His Attempts To Reform The State—His Assassination
     By The Prætorian Guards.
     The Cruelty, Follies, And Murder Of Commodus. Election Of
     Pertinax—His Attempts To Reform The State—His Assassination
     By The Praetorian Guards.

The mildness of Marcus, which the rigid discipline of the Stoics was unable to eradicate, formed, at the same time, the most amiable, and the only defective part of his character. His excellent understanding was often deceived by the unsuspecting goodness of his heart. Artful men, who study the passions of princes, and conceal their own, approached his person in the disguise of philosophic sanctity, and acquired riches and honors by affecting to despise them. His excessive indulgence to his brother, * his wife, and his son, exceeded the bounds of private virtue, and became a public injury, by the example and consequences of their vices.

The gentleness of Marcus, which the strict discipline of the Stoics couldn’t eliminate, was both the most charming and the only flawed aspect of his character. His great intelligence was often fooled by the naive kindness of his heart. Cunning individuals, who understand the emotions of leaders while hiding their own, approached him pretending to be wise and philosophical, gaining wealth and prestige by pretending to look down on them. His excessive leniency toward his brother, his wife, and his son went beyond personal virtue and became a public harm due to the influence and consequences of their wrongdoings.

Faustina, the daughter of Pius and the wife of Marcus, has been as much celebrated for her gallantries as for her beauty. The grave simplicity of the philosopher was ill calculated to engage her wanton levity, or to fix that unbounded passion for variety, which often discovered personal merit in the meanest of mankind. The Cupid of the ancients was, in general, a very sensual deity; and the amours of an empress, as they exact on her side the plainest advances, are seldom susceptible of much sentimental delicacy. Marcus was the only man in the empire who seemed ignorant or insensible of the irregularities of Faustina; which, according to the prejudices of every age, reflected some disgrace on the injured husband. He promoted several of her lovers to posts of honor and profit, and during a connection of thirty years, invariably gave her proofs of the most tender confidence, and of a respect which ended not with her life. In his Meditations, he thanks the gods, who had bestowed on him a wife so faithful, so gentle, and of such a wonderful simplicity of manners. The obsequious senate, at his earnest request, declared her a goddess. She was represented in her temples, with the attributes of Juno, Venus, and Ceres; and it was decreed, that, on the day of their nuptials, the youth of either sex should pay their vows before the altar of their chaste patroness.

Faustina, the daughter of Pius and wife of Marcus, has been celebrated for both her charm and her beauty. The serious nature of the philosopher didn’t suit her carefree attitude, nor could it satisfy her endless desire for variety, which often led her to appreciate even the most ordinary people. The Cupid of ancient times was generally a very sensual figure; and the affairs of an empress, as they required the most straightforward advances, rarely involved much sentimental subtlety. Marcus was the one person in the empire who seemed unaware or unconcerned about Faustina's indiscretions, which, according to the societal norms of every era, brought some shame to the wronged husband. He promoted several of her lovers to positions of honor and wealth, and throughout their thirty-year relationship, he consistently showed her the deepest trust and respect, which continued even after her death. In his Meditations, he expresses gratitude to the gods for giving him a wife so loyal, so kind, and with such astonishing simplicity in her conduct. The obliging senate, at his strong request, declared her a goddess. She was depicted in her temples with the qualities of Juno, Venus, and Ceres; and it was mandated that, on the day of their wedding, young people of both genders should pay their respects at the altar of their chaste patroness.

The monstrous vices of the son have cast a shade on the purity of the father’s virtues. It has been objected to Marcus, that he sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own family, rather than in the republic. Nothing however, was neglected by the anxious father, and by the men of virtue and learning whom he summoned to his assistance, to expand the narrow mind of young Commodus, to correct his growing vices, and to render him worthy of the throne for which he was designed. But the power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous. The distasteful lesson of a grave philosopher was, in a moment, obliterated by the whisper of a profligate favorite; and Marcus himself blasted the fruits of this labored education, by admitting his son, at the age of fourteen or fifteen, to a full participation of the Imperial power. He lived but four years afterwards: but he lived long enough to repent a rash measure, which raised the impetuous youth above the restraint of reason and authority.

The terrible flaws of the son have overshadowed the father's virtuous qualities. People have criticized Marcus for sacrificing the happiness of millions for his affection towards a worthless boy; they argue that he chose a family member as his successor instead of someone from the republic. However, the worried father, along with the virtuous and knowledgeable men he called upon for help, did everything to broaden the limited mindset of young Commodus, to correct his growing flaws, and to make him worthy of the throne meant for him. Unfortunately, the power of teaching is rarely effective except in those fortunate individuals where it’s almost unnecessary. The unpleasant lesson from a serious philosopher could be quickly erased by the influence of a corrupt favorite; and Marcus himself undermined the benefits of this painstaking education by allowing his son, at just fourteen or fifteen, to fully share in imperial power. He only lived four more years after that, but it was enough time for him to regret a hasty decision that put the impulsive young man beyond the reach of reason and authority.

Most of the crimes which disturb the internal peace of society, are produced by the restraints which the necessary but unequal laws of property have imposed on the appetites of mankind, by confining to a few the possession of those objects that are coveted by many. Of all our passions and appetites, the love of power is of the most imperious and unsociable nature, since the pride of one man requires the submission of the multitude. In the tumult of civil discord, the laws of society lose their force, and their place is seldom supplied by those of humanity. The ardor of contention, the pride of victory, the despair of success, the memory of past injuries, and the fear of future dangers, all contribute to inflame the mind, and to silence the voice of pity. From such motives almost every page of history has been stained with civil blood; but these motives will not account for the unprovoked cruelties of Commodus, who had nothing to wish and every thing to enjoy. The beloved son of Marcus succeeded to his father, amidst the acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he ascended the throne, the happy youth saw round him neither competitor to remove, nor enemies to punish. In this calm, elevated station, it was surely natural that he should prefer the love of mankind to their detestation, the mild glories of his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero and Domitian.

Most of the crimes that disrupt the internal peace of society are caused by the restrictions that the necessary but unequal property laws place on people's desires, by limiting to a few the ownership of things that many want. Of all our passions and desires, the love of power is the most demanding and antisocial since one person's pride requires the submission of the masses. In the chaos of civil conflict, social laws lose their influence, and they're rarely replaced by the laws of humanity. The intensity of conflict, the pride of victory, the despair of failure, the memory of past wrongs, and the fear of future threats all fuel the mind and silence the voice of compassion. For these reasons, almost every page of history has been marked by civil bloodshed; however, these reasons don’t explain the unprovoked cruelty of Commodus, who had nothing to wish for and everything to enjoy. The beloved son of Marcus took over from his father to the cheers of the senate and army; and when he rose to the throne, the fortunate young man had no competitors to eliminate or enemies to punish. In this calm, elevated position, it was only natural for him to prefer being loved by the people over being hated, and to favor the peaceful achievements of his five predecessors over the shameful fates of Nero and Domitian.

Yet Commodus was not, as he has been represented, a tiger born with an insatiate thirst of human blood, and capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions. Nature had formed him of a weak rather than a wicked disposition. His simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his attendants, who gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty, which at first obeyed the dictates of others, degenerated into habit, and at length became the ruling passion of his soul.

Yet Commodus was not, as he's been portrayed, a ruthless beast with an endless thirst for human blood, capable of the most brutal actions from a young age. Nature made him more weak than wicked. His innocence and shyness made him dependent on his attendants, who gradually twisted his mind. His cruelty, which initially followed the suggestions of others, turned into a habit and eventually became the dominant force in his soul.

Upon the death of his father, Commodus found himself embarrassed with the command of a great army, and the conduct of a difficult war against the Quadi and Marcomanni. The servile and profligate youths whom Marcus had banished, soon regained their station and influence about the new emperor. They exaggerated the hardships and dangers of a campaign in the wild countries beyond the Danube; and they assured the indolent prince that the terror of his name, and the arms of his lieutenants, would be sufficient to complete the conquest of the dismayed barbarians, or to impose such conditions as were more advantageous than any conquest. By a dexterous application to his sensual appetites, they compared the tranquillity, the splendor, the refined pleasures of Rome, with the tumult of a Pannonian camp, which afforded neither leisure nor materials for luxury. Commodus listened to the pleasing advice; but whilst he hesitated between his own inclination and the awe which he still retained for his father’s counsellors, the summer insensibly elapsed, and his triumphal entry into the capital was deferred till the autumn. His graceful person, popular address, and imagined virtues, attracted the public favor; the honorable peace which he had recently granted to the barbarians, diffused a universal joy; his impatience to revisit Rome was fondly ascribed to the love of his country; and his dissolute course of amusements was faintly condemned in a prince of nineteen years of age.

Upon his father's death, Commodus felt awkward about leading a large army and managing a tough war against the Quadi and Marcomanni. The arrogant and reckless young people that Marcus had exiled quickly regained their power and influence with the new emperor. They exaggerated the struggles and dangers of campaigning in the wild territories beyond the Danube and convinced the lazy prince that the fear of his name and the strength of his generals would be enough to fully conquer the intimidated barbarians or impose terms better than any victory. By cleverly appealing to his indulgent desires, they compared the peace, luxury, and refined pleasures of Rome to the chaos of a Pannonian camp, which offered neither comfort nor luxury. Commodus enjoyed their flattering advice; however, as he wavered between his own desires and the respect he still felt for his father’s advisors, the summer quietly slipped away, delaying his grand entrance into the capital until autumn. His charming appearance, engaging manner, and perceived virtues won public favor; the honorable peace he had recently established with the barbarians brought widespread joy; his eagerness to return to Rome was fondly interpreted as love for his country; and his extravagant leisure activities were only mildly criticized for a 19-year-old prince.

During the three first years of his reign, the forms, and even the spirit, of the old administration, were maintained by those faithful counsellors, to whom Marcus had recommended his son, and for whose wisdom and integrity Commodus still entertained a reluctant esteem. The young prince and his profligate favorites revelled in all the license of sovereign power; but his hands were yet unstained with blood; and he had even displayed a generosity of sentiment, which might perhaps have ripened into solid virtue. A fatal incident decided his fluctuating character.

During the first three years of his rule, the structures and even the essence of the old administration were upheld by the loyal advisors that Marcus had entrusted to his son, and for whose wisdom and integrity Commodus still had a hesitant respect. The young prince and his reckless favorites indulged in the freedoms of royal power; yet his hands were still clean of blood, and he had even shown a generosity of spirit that might have developed into real virtue. A tragic event ultimately determined his inconsistent character.

One evening, as the emperor was returning to the palace, through a dark and narrow portico in the amphitheatre, an assassin, who waited his passage, rushed upon him with a drawn sword, loudly exclaiming, “The senate sends you this.” The menace prevented the deed; the assassin was seized by the guards, and immediately revealed the authors of the conspiracy. It had been formed, not in the state, but within the walls of the palace. Lucilla, the emperor’s sister, and widow of Lucius Verus, impatient of the second rank, and jealous of the reigning empress, had armed the murderer against her brother’s life. She had not ventured to communicate the black design to her second husband, Claudius Pompeiarus, a senator of distinguished merit and unshaken loyalty; but among the crowd of her lovers (for she imitated the manners of Faustina) she found men of desperate fortunes and wild ambition, who were prepared to serve her more violent, as well as her tender passions. The conspirators experienced the rigor of justice, and the abandoned princess was punished, first with exile, and afterwards with death.

One evening, as the emperor was making his way back to the palace through a dark and narrow passage in the amphitheater, an assassin who was waiting for him jumped out with a drawn sword, shouting, “The senate sends you this.” The threat stopped the attack; the guards seized the assassin, who quickly revealed the people behind the conspiracy. It had been planned, not by the state, but within the palace walls. Lucilla, the emperor’s sister and widow of Lucius Verus, tired of being in a lower position and envious of the current empress, had set the assassin against her brother. She hadn't dared to share her wicked plan with her second husband, Claudius Pompeiarus, a senator known for his honor and loyalty; instead, among her numerous lovers (as she copied Faustina's ways), she found men with desperate ambitions and risky aspirations who were ready to indulge both her darker and more romantic desires. The conspirators faced the full force of justice, and the disgraced princess was first exiled and then sentenced to death.

But the words of the assassin sunk deep into the mind of Commodus, and left an indelible impression of fear and hatred against the whole body of the senate. * Those whom he had dreaded as importunate ministers, he now suspected as secret enemies. The Delators, a race of men discouraged, and almost extinguished, under the former reigns, again became formidable, as soon as they discovered that the emperor was desirous of finding disaffection and treason in the senate. That assembly, whom Marcus had ever considered as the great council of the nation, was composed of the most distinguished of the Romans; and distinction of every kind soon became criminal. The possession of wealth stimulated the diligence of the informers; rigid virtue implied a tacit censure of the irregularities of Commodus; important services implied a dangerous superiority of merit; and the friendship of the father always insured the aversion of the son. Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse.

But the assassin's words struck deep in Commodus's mind, leaving a lasting impression of fear and hatred towards the entire senate. Those he had once viewed as annoying officials, he now suspected as hidden enemies. The informers, a group of men previously discouraged and nearly wiped out during the earlier reigns, became a threat again when they realized that the emperor wanted to uncover disloyalty and treason in the senate. That assembly, which Marcus had always seen as the nation's main council, was made up of the most distinguished Romans; and having any sort of distinction quickly became a crime. Wealth drove the informers' eagerness; strict virtue hinted at a silent criticism of Commodus's irregularities; exceptional services suggested a dangerous superiority; and the friendship of the father guaranteed the son’s animosity. Suspicion was as good as proof; trial meant condemnation. The execution of a notable senator led to the deaths of anyone who might mourn or seek revenge for him; and once Commodus had tasted human blood, he became incapable of feeling pity or remorse.

Of these innocent victims of tyranny, none died more lamented than the two brothers of the Quintilian family, Maximus and Condianus; whose fraternal love has saved their names from oblivion, and endeared their memory to posterity. Their studies and their occupations, their pursuits and their pleasures, were still the same. In the enjoyment of a great estate, they never admitted the idea of a separate interest: some fragments are now extant of a treatise which they composed in common; and in every action of life it was observed that their two bodies were animated by one soul. The Antonines, who valued their virtues, and delighted in their union, raised them, in the same year, to the consulship; and Marcus afterwards intrusted to their joint care the civil administration of Greece, and a great military command, in which they obtained a signal victory over the Germans. The kind cruelty of Commodus united them in death.

Of these innocent victims of tyranny, none were mourned more than the two brothers from the Quintilian family, Maximus and Condianus; their brotherly love has kept their names from fading away and made their memory cherished by future generations. Their studies and activities, their goals and joys, remained unchanged. While enjoying a vast estate, they never considered their interests to be separate: some fragments of a joint treatise they wrote together still exist; and in everything they did, it was evident that their two bodies were driven by one soul. The Antonines, who appreciated their virtues and enjoyed their bond, elevated them to the consulship in the same year; and later, Marcus entrusted them with the civil administration of Greece and a significant military command, where they achieved a remarkable victory over the Germans. The kind cruelty of Commodus brought them together in death.

The tyrant’s rage, after having shed the noblest blood of the senate, at length recoiled on the principal instrument of his cruelty. Whilst Commodus was immersed in blood and luxury, he devolved the detail of the public business on Perennis, a servile and ambitious minister, who had obtained his post by the murder of his predecessor, but who possessed a considerable share of vigor and ability. By acts of extortion, and the forfeited estates of the nobles sacrificed to his avarice, he had accumulated an immense treasure. The Prætorian guards were under his immediate command; and his son, who already discovered a military genius, was at the head of the Illyrian legions. Perennis aspired to the empire; or what, in the eyes of Commodus, amounted to the same crime, he was capable of aspiring to it, had he not been prevented, surprised, and put to death. The fall of a minister is a very trifling incident in the general history of the empire; but it was hastened by an extraordinary circumstance, which proved how much the nerves of discipline were already relaxed. The legions of Britain, discontented with the administration of Perennis, formed a deputation of fifteen hundred select men, with instructions to march to Rome, and lay their complaints before the emperor. These military petitioners, by their own determined behaviour, by inflaming the divisions of the guards, by exaggerating the strength of the British army, and by alarming the fears of Commodus, exacted and obtained the minister’s death, as the only redress of their grievances. This presumption of a distant army, and their discovery of the weakness of government, was a sure presage of the most dreadful convulsions.

The tyrant’s fury, after spilling the noble blood of the senate, eventually turned against the main agent of his cruelty. While Commodus was caught up in bloodshed and luxury, he handed over the details of public affairs to Perennis, a servile and ambitious minister who got his position through the murder of his predecessor, but who had a significant amount of energy and skill. Through extortion and the confiscated estates of nobles sacrificed to his greed, he amassed a huge fortune. The Praetorian guards were directly under his command, and his son, who was already showing military talent, led the Illyrian legions. Perennis aimed for the empire; or, in Commodus’s eyes, he was guilty of aspiring to it, had he not been caught off guard, surprised, and killed. The downfall of a minister is usually a minor event in the broader history of the empire; however, it was accelerated by an extraordinary situation that revealed how much the discipline had already weakened. The legions in Britain, unhappy with Perennis’s rule, sent a delegation of fifteen hundred select soldiers with orders to march to Rome and present their grievances to the emperor. These military petitioners used their determined actions, fanned the divisions among the guards, exaggerated the strength of the British army, and stirred Commodus’s fears, demanding and achieving the minister’s death as the only solution to their complaints. This boldness from a distant army and their revelation of the government’s weakness were clear signs of impending chaos.

The negligence of the public administration was betrayed, soon afterwards, by a new disorder, which arose from the smallest beginnings. A spirit of desertion began to prevail among the troops: and the deserters, instead of seeking their safety in flight or concealment, infested the highways. Maternus, a private soldier, of a daring boldness above his station, collected these bands of robbers into a little army, set open the prisons, invited the slaves to assert their freedom, and plundered with impunity the rich and defenceless cities of Gaul and Spain. The governors of the provinces, who had long been the spectators, and perhaps the partners, of his depredations, were, at length, roused from their supine indolence by the threatening commands of the emperor. Maternus found that he was encompassed, and foresaw that he must be overpowered. A great effort of despair was his last resource. He ordered his followers to disperse, to pass the Alps in small parties and various disguises, and to assemble at Rome, during the licentious tumult of the festival of Cybele. To murder Commodus, and to ascend the vacant throne, was the ambition of no vulgar robber. His measures were so ably concerted that his concealed troops already filled the streets of Rome. The envy of an accomplice discovered and ruined this singular enterprise, in a moment when it was ripe for execution.

The neglect of the public administration quickly led to a new chaos that started from small beginnings. A sense of abandonment took hold among the troops; instead of fleeing or hiding, the deserters began to swarm the highways. Maternus, a private soldier with a daring spirit beyond his rank, gathered these groups of outlaws into a small army, broke open the prisons, invited slaves to claim their freedom, and looted the wealthy and defenseless cities of Gaul and Spain without facing any consequences. The governors of the provinces, who had been passive observers and perhaps even complicit in his crimes, were eventually stirred from their complacency by the emperor's threatening orders. Maternus realized he was surrounded and knew he would soon be defeated. In a desperate last resort, he commanded his followers to scatter, cross the Alps in small groups and various disguises, and meet in Rome during the chaotic festivities of the festival of Cybele. His goal was to assassinate Commodus and take the vacant throne, which was not the ambition of an ordinary thief. His plans were so cleverly devised that his hidden troops were already filling the streets of Rome. However, the jealousy of an accomplice exposed and destroyed this unique scheme at the moment it was ready for execution.

Suspicious princes often promote the last of mankind, from a vain persuasion, that those who have no dependence, except on their favor, will have no attachment, except to the person of their benefactor. Cleander, the successor of Perennis, was a Phrygian by birth; of a nation over whose stubborn, but servile temper, blows only could prevail. He had been sent from his native country to Rome, in the capacity of a slave. As a slave he entered the Imperial palace, rendered himself useful to his master’s passions, and rapidly ascended to the most exalted station which a subject could enjoy. His influence over the mind of Commodus was much greater than that of his predecessor; for Cleander was devoid of any ability or virtue which could inspire the emperor with envy or distrust. Avarice was the reigning passion of his soul, and the great principle of his administration. The rank of Consul, of Patrician, of Senator, was exposed to public sale; and it would have been considered as disaffection, if any one had refused to purchase these empty and disgraceful honors with the greatest part of his fortune. In the lucrative provincial employments, the minister shared with the governor the spoils of the people. The execution of the laws was penal and arbitrary. A wealthy criminal might obtain, not only the reversal of the sentence by which he was justly condemned, but might likewise inflict whatever punishment he pleased on the accuser, the witnesses, and the judge.

Suspicious rulers often elevate the last remaining people, driven by the belief that those who rely solely on their approval won't form any attachments except to their benefactor. Cleander, who succeeded Perennis, was originally from Phrygia; a nation known for its stubborn yet submissive nature, where only harsh treatment could have an effect. He was sent from his homeland to Rome as a slave. As a slave, he entered the Imperial palace, became useful to his master's desires, and quickly rose to the highest position a subject could hold. His influence over Emperor Commodus was much stronger than that of his predecessor because Cleander lacked any skills or virtues that might make the emperor feel envious or suspicious. Greed was the driving force in his life and the main principle of his governance. The titles of Consul, Patrician, and Senator were openly sold, and it would have been seen as disloyalty if anyone refused to buy these meaningless and shameful honors with most of their wealth. In profitable provincial positions, the minister shared the plunder from the people with the governor. The enforcement of laws was cruel and arbitrary. A wealthy criminal could not only get their just sentence overturned but could also impose whatever punishment they wanted on the accuser, witnesses, and the judge.

By these means, Cleander, in the space of three years, had accumulated more wealth than had ever yet been possessed by any freedman. Commodus was perfectly satisfied with the magnificent presents which the artful courtier laid at his feet in the most seasonable moments. To divert the public envy, Cleander, under the emperor’s name, erected baths, porticos, and places of exercise, for the use of the people. He flattered himself that the Romans, dazzled and amused by this apparent liberality, would be less affected by the bloody scenes which were daily exhibited; that they would forget the death of Byrrhus, a senator to whose superior merit the late emperor had granted one of his daughters; and that they would forgive the execution of Arrius Antoninus, the last representative of the name and virtues of the Antonines. The former, with more integrity than prudence, had attempted to disclose, to his brother-in-law, the true character of Cleander. An equitable sentence pronounced by the latter, when proconsul of Asia, against a worthless creature of the favorite, proved fatal to him. After the fall of Perennis, the terrors of Commodus had, for a short time, assumed the appearance of a return to virtue. He repealed the most odious of his acts; loaded his memory with the public execration, and ascribed to the pernicious counsels of that wicked minister all the errors of his inexperienced youth. But his repentance lasted only thirty days; and, under Cleander’s tyranny, the administration of Perennis was often regretted.

By these means, Cleander, over the course of three years, had gathered more wealth than any freedman had ever owned. Commodus was completely satisfied with the lavish gifts that the clever courtier presented at just the right moments. To distract the public from their jealousy, Cleander, under the emperor's name, built baths, colonnades, and workout facilities for the people. He convinced himself that the Romans, dazzled and entertained by this apparent generosity, would be less troubled by the bloody events happening daily; that they would forget the death of Byrrhus, a senator who, because of his outstanding merit, had been granted one of the emperor’s daughters; and that they would overlook the execution of Arrius Antoninus, the last representative of the Antonine name and virtues. The former, showing more integrity than caution, had tried to reveal Cleander's true nature to his brother-in-law. A fair judgment made by the latter, while serving as proconsul of Asia, against a worthless associate of Cleander’s proved fatal for him. After Perennis's downfall, Commodus's fears briefly seemed to indicate a return to virtue. He rejected the most detestable of his decisions; burdened his memory with public hatred, and blamed all his youthful mistakes on the harmful advice of that wicked minister. However, his remorse lasted only thirty days, and under Cleander’s tyranny, people often longed for the days of Perennis's administration.





Chapter IV: The Cruelty, Follies And Murder Of Commodus.—Part II.

Pestilence and famine contributed to fill up the measure of the calamities of Rome. The first could be only imputed to the just indignation of the gods; but a monopoly of corn, supported by the riches and power of the minister, was considered as the immediate cause of the second. The popular discontent, after it had long circulated in whispers, broke out in the assembled circus. The people quitted their favorite amusements for the more delicious pleasure of revenge, rushed in crowds towards a palace in the suburbs, one of the emperor’s retirements, and demanded, with angry clamors, the head of the public enemy. Cleander, who commanded the Prætorian guards, ordered a body of cavalry to sally forth, and disperse the seditious multitude. The multitude fled with precipitation towards the city; several were slain, and many more were trampled to death; but when the cavalry entered the streets, their pursuit was checked by a shower of stones and darts from the roofs and windows of the houses. The foot guards, who had been long jealous of the prerogatives and insolence of the Prætorian cavalry, embraced the party of the people. The tumult became a regular engagement, and threatened a general massacre. The Prætorians, at length, gave way, oppressed with numbers; and the tide of popular fury returned with redoubled violence against the gates of the palace, where Commodus lay, dissolved in luxury, and alone unconscious of the civil war. It was death to approach his person with the unwelcome news. He would have perished in this supine security, had not two women, his eldest sister Fadilla, and Marcia, the most favored of his concubines, ventured to break into his presence. Bathed in tears, and with dishevelled hair, they threw themselves at his feet; and with all the pressing eloquence of fear, discovered to the affrighted emperor the crimes of the minister, the rage of the people, and the impending ruin, which, in a few minutes, would burst over his palace and person. Commodus started from his dream of pleasure, and commanded that the head of Cleander should be thrown out to the people. The desired spectacle instantly appeased the tumult; and the son of Marcus might even yet have regained the affection and confidence of his subjects.

Pestilence and famine added to the suffering of Rome. The first could only be blamed on the rightful anger of the gods, but a corn monopoly, backed by the wealth and power of the minister, was seen as the direct cause of the second. After long simmering in whispers, public discontent erupted in the arena. People abandoned their favorite entertainment for the more satisfying thrill of revenge, crowding towards a palace in the suburbs, one of the emperor’s retreats, and angrily demanding the head of the public enemy. Cleander, who led the Praetorian guards, ordered cavalry to charge out and disperse the rebellious crowd. The crowd fled hurriedly back to the city; several were killed, and many more trampled to death. However, when the cavalry entered the streets, their pursuit was halted by a barrage of stones and projectiles from rooftops and windows. The foot soldiers, who had long been resentful of the privileges and arrogance of the Praetorian cavalry, sided with the people. The chaos escalated into a full-blown confrontation, threatening a massive slaughter. Eventually, the Praetorians fell back, overwhelmed by the numbers, and the wave of public rage surged back with renewed intensity towards the palace gates, where Commodus was immersed in luxury, blissfully unaware of the civil unrest. It would have been fatal to approach him with the troubling news. He would have perished in this careless comfort, had not two women—his eldest sister Fadilla and Marcia, his most favored concubine—braved a visit to him. In tears and with hair disheveled, they threw themselves at his feet and, with all the urgent urgency of fear, revealed to the terrified emperor the crimes of the minister, the anger of the people, and the looming disaster that would soon engulf his palace and himself. Commodus suddenly snapped out of his indulgent daze and ordered that Cleander’s head be thrown out to the crowd. This sought-after spectacle quickly calmed the uproar, and the son of Marcus could still have regained the love and trust of his subjects.

But every sentiment of virtue and humanity was extinct in the mind of Commodus. Whilst he thus abandoned the reins of empire to these unworthy favorites, he valued nothing in sovereign power, except the unbounded license of indulging his sensual appetites. His hours were spent in a seraglio of three hundred beautiful women, and as many boys, of every rank, and of every province; and, wherever the arts of seduction proved ineffectual, the brutal lover had recourse to violence. The ancient historians have expatiated on these abandoned scenes of prostitution, which scorned every restraint of nature or modesty; but it would not be easy to translate their too faithful descriptions into the decency of modern language. The intervals of lust were filled up with the basest amusements. The influence of a polite age, and the labor of an attentive education, had never been able to infuse into his rude and brutish mind the least tincture of learning; and he was the first of the Roman emperors totally devoid of taste for the pleasures of the understanding. Nero himself excelled, or affected to excel, in the elegant arts of music and poetry: nor should we despise his pursuits, had he not converted the pleasing relaxation of a leisure hour into the serious business and ambition of his life. But Commodus, from his earliest infancy, discovered an aversion to whatever was rational or liberal, and a fond attachment to the amusements of the populace; the sports of the circus and amphitheatre, the combats of gladiators, and the hunting of wild beasts. The masters in every branch of learning, whom Marcus provided for his son, were heard with inattention and disgust; whilst the Moors and Parthians, who taught him to dart the javelin and to shoot with the bow, found a disciple who delighted in his application, and soon equalled the most skilful of his instructors in the steadiness of the eye and the dexterity of the hand.

But every sense of virtue and humanity was gone in the mind of Commodus. While he left control of the empire to these unworthy favorites, he valued nothing in sovereign power except the unlimited freedom to indulge his sensual desires. He spent his time in a harem of three hundred beautiful women and as many boys from every background and province; and whenever the arts of seduction failed, the brutal lover resorted to violence. Ancient historians have elaborated on these depraved scenes of prostitution, which ignored all natural and modest restraints; but translating their candid descriptions into modern decent language would be quite challenging. The moments between lust were filled with the lowest forms of entertainment. The influence of a refined era and the efforts of a dedicated education never managed to instill even a hint of learning into his rough and brutish mind; he was the first of the Roman emperors completely lacking an appreciation for intellectual pleasures. Nero himself excelled, or pretended to excel, in the elegant arts of music and poetry: we shouldn't dismiss his pursuits, had he not turned a pleasant pastime into the serious business and ambition of his life. But Commodus, from his earliest childhood, showed a dislike for anything rational or enlightened, and a strong preference for the entertainments of the masses; the games of the circus and amphitheater, the fights of gladiators, and the hunting of wild beasts. The masters in every field of learning, whom Marcus arranged for his son, were ignored with boredom and distaste; while the Moors and Parthians, who taught him to throw the javelin and shoot with the bow, found a student who was eager to learn and soon matched the most skilled of his instructors in steadiness of eye and agility of hand.

The servile crowd, whose fortune depended on their master’s vices, applauded these ignoble pursuits. The perfidious voice of flattery reminded him, that by exploits of the same nature, by the defeat of the Nemæan lion, and the slaughter of the wild boar of Erymanthus, the Grecian Hercules had acquired a place among the gods, and an immortal memory among men. They only forgot to observe, that, in the first ages of society, when the fiercer animals often dispute with man the possession of an unsettled country, a successful war against those savages is one of the most innocent and beneficial labors of heroism. In the civilized state of the Roman empire, the wild beasts had long since retired from the face of man, and the neighborhood of populous cities. To surprise them in their solitary haunts, and to transport them to Rome, that they might be slain in pomp by the hand of an emperor, was an enterprise equally ridiculous for the prince and oppressive for the people. Ignorant of these distinctions, Commodus eagerly embraced the glorious resemblance, and styled himself (as we still read on his medals ) the Roman Hercules. * The club and the lion’s hide were placed by the side of the throne, amongst the ensigns of sovereignty; and statues were erected, in which Commodus was represented in the character, and with the attributes, of the god, whose valor and dexterity he endeavored to emulate in the daily course of his ferocious amusements.

The obedient crowd, whose fortunes relied on their master’s flaws, cheered these dishonorable activities. The deceitful voice of flattery reminded him that through similar exploits, like defeating the Nemean lion and killing the wild boar of Erymanthos, the Greek Hercules had earned a spot among the gods and a lasting legacy among people. They overlooked the fact that, in the early days of society, when fierce animals often contested humans for control of unclaimed land, fighting against those wild creatures was considered one of the most honorable and beneficial acts of heroism. In the civilized Roman Empire, wild beasts had long since withdrawn from human presence and the vicinity of crowded cities. To hunt them down in their isolated habitats and bring them to Rome to be killed in a grand spectacle by an emperor was a venture equally absurd for the ruler and burdensome for the people. Unaware of these distinctions, Commodus eagerly embraced the glorified comparison and called himself (as we still see on his coins) the Roman Hercules. The club and the lion’s hide were placed beside the throne among symbols of sovereignty, and statues were erected depicting Commodus in the guise and with the attributes of the god, whose bravery and skill he tried to mirror in his daily brutal entertainments.

Elated with these praises, which gradually extinguished the innate sense of shame, Commodus resolved to exhibit before the eyes of the Roman people those exercises, which till then he had decently confined within the walls of his palace, and to the presence of a few favorites. On the appointed day, the various motives of flattery, fear, and curiosity, attracted to the amphitheatre an innumerable multitude of spectators; and some degree of applause was deservedly bestowed on the uncommon skill of the Imperial performer. Whether he aimed at the head or heart of the animal, the wound was alike certain and mortal. With arrows whose point was shaped into the form of crescent, Commodus often intercepted the rapid career, and cut asunder the long, bony neck of the ostrich. A panther was let loose; and the archer waited till he had leaped upon a trembling malefactor. In the same instant the shaft flew, the beast dropped dead, and the man remained unhurt. The dens of the amphitheatre disgorged at once a hundred lions: a hundred darts from the unerring hand of Commodus laid them dead as they run raging round the Arena. Neither the huge bulk of the elephant, nor the scaly hide of the rhinoceros, could defend them from his stroke. Æthiopia and India yielded their most extraordinary productions; and several animals were slain in the amphitheatre, which had been seen only in the representations of art, or perhaps of fancy. In all these exhibitions, the securest precautions were used to protect the person of the Roman Hercules from the desperate spring of any savage, who might possibly disregard the dignity of the emperor and the sanctity of the god.*

Elated by the praise that gradually diminished his natural sense of shame, Commodus decided to showcase his skills to the Roman people, which until then he had modestly kept within the walls of his palace and only shared with a few close friends. On the designated day, a massive crowd gathered at the amphitheater, driven by motives of flattery, fear, and curiosity; the Imperial performer received some applause for his remarkable talent. Whether he aimed for the animal's head or heart, his shots were always effective and lethal. With arrows shaped like crescents, Commodus often intercepted the swift movements of an ostrich, slicing through its long, bony neck. A panther was released, and the archer waited until it pounced on a terrified criminal. At that moment, his arrow flew, the beast fell dead, and the man remained unharmed. The amphitheater unleashed a hundred lions at once: a hundred darts from Commodus's precise aim brought them down as they charged around the Arena. Neither the massive size of the elephant nor the tough skin of the rhinoceros could shield them from his shots. Ethiopia and India provided their most exotic creatures, and several animals were slain in the amphitheater that had only been seen in art or perhaps in the imagination. Throughout these displays, every safety measure was taken to protect the Roman Hercules from the desperate leap of any wild animal that might disregard the emperor's dignity and the reverence of the god.*

But the meanest of the populace were affected with shame and indignation when they beheld their sovereign enter the lists as a gladiator, and glory in a profession which the laws and manners of the Romans had branded with the justest note of infamy. He chose the habit and arms of the Secutor, whose combat with the Retiarius formed one of the most lively scenes in the bloody sports of the amphitheatre. The Secutor was armed with a helmet, sword, and buckler; his naked antagonist had only a large net and a trident; with the one he endeavored to entangle, with the other to despatch his enemy. If he missed the first throw, he was obliged to fly from the pursuit of the Secutor, till he had prepared his net for a second cast. The emperor fought in this character seven hundred and thirty-five several times. These glorious achievements were carefully recorded in the public acts of the empire; and that he might omit no circumstance of infamy, he received from the common fund of gladiators a stipend so exorbitant that it became a new and most ignominious tax upon the Roman people. It may be easily supposed, that in these engagements the master of the world was always successful; in the amphitheatre, his victories were not often sanguinary; but when he exercised his skill in the school of gladiators, or his own palace, his wretched antagonists were frequently honored with a mortal wound from the hand of Commodus, and obliged to seal their flattery with their blood. He now disdained the appellation of Hercules. The name of Paulus, a celebrated Secutor, was the only one which delighted his ear. It was inscribed on his colossal statues, and repeated in the redoubled acclamations of the mournful and applauding senate. Claudius Pompeianus, the virtuous husband of Lucilla, was the only senator who asserted the honor of his rank. As a father, he permitted his sons to consult their safety by attending the amphitheatre. As a Roman, he declared, that his own life was in the emperor’s hands, but that he would never behold the son of Marcus prostituting his person and dignity. Notwithstanding his manly resolution Pompeianus escaped the resentment of the tyrant, and, with his honor, had the good fortune to preserve his life.

But the lowest members of society were hit with shame and anger when they saw their ruler enter the arena as a gladiator, taking pride in a profession that Roman laws and customs had deemed utterly disgraceful. He chose the outfit and weapons of the Secutor, whose fight with the Retiarius was one of the most vibrant scenes in the bloody events of the amphitheater. The Secutor was equipped with a helmet, sword, and shield, while his naked opponent had only a large net and a trident; with the net, he tried to entangle, and with the trident, he aimed to kill his enemy. If he missed the first throw, he had to flee from the Secutor until he prepared his net for another attempt. The emperor fought in this role seven hundred thirty-five times. These glorious feats were meticulously recorded in the public records of the empire, and to ensure he didn’t miss any aspect of disgrace, he took from the common fund of gladiators a pay so excessive that it turned into a new and shameful tax on the Roman people. It’s easy to assume that in these matches, the ruler of the world always triumphed; in the arena, his victories were rarely bloody, but when he showcased his skills in the gladiator school or his own palace, his unfortunate opponents often ended up with fatal wounds at the hands of Commodus, forced to pay for their flattery with their blood. He now rejected the title of Hercules. The name of Paulus, a famous Secutor, was the only one that pleased him. It was engraved on his giant statues and echoed in the repeated cheers of the mournful yet applauding senate. Claudius Pompeianus, the honorable husband of Lucilla, was the only senator who defended his dignity. As a father, he allowed his sons to ensure their safety by going to the amphitheater. As a Roman, he stated that his own life was in the emperor’s hands, but he would never watch the son of Marcus degrading himself and his position. Despite his brave stance, Pompeianus escaped the tyrant's wrath and, along with his honor, was fortunate enough to keep his life.

Commodus had now attained the summit of vice and infamy. Amidst the acclamations of a flattering court, he was unable to disguise from himself, that he had deserved the contempt and hatred of every man of sense and virtue in his empire. His ferocious spirit was irritated by the consciousness of that hatred, by the envy of every kind of merit, by the just apprehension of danger, and by the habit of slaughter, which he contracted in his daily amusements. History has preserved a long list of consular senators sacrificed to his wanton suspicion, which sought out, with peculiar anxiety, those unfortunate persons connected, however remotely, with the family of the Antonines, without sparing even the ministers of his crimes or pleasures. His cruelty proved at last fatal to himself. He had shed with impunity the noblest blood of Rome: he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own domestics. Marcia, his favorite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and Lætus, his Prætorian præfect, alarmed by the fate of their companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either from the mad caprice of the tyrant, * or the sudden indignation of the people. Marcia seized the occasion of presenting a draught of wine to her lover, after he had fatigued himself with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired to sleep; but whilst he was laboring with the effects of poison and drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered his chamber, and strangled him without resistance. The body was secretly conveyed out of the palace, before the least suspicion was entertained in the city, or even in the court, of the emperor’s death. Such was the fate of the son of Marcus, and so easy was it to destroy a hated tyrant, who, by the artificial powers of government, had oppressed, during thirteen years, so many millions of subjects, each of whom was equal to their master in personal strength and personal abilities.

Commodus had now reached the peak of vice and infamy. Surrounded by the praise of a sycophantic court, he couldn't hide from himself that he had earned the contempt and hatred of every sensible and virtuous person in his empire. His ruthless nature was aggravated by the awareness of that hatred, by the envy of any kind of merit, by the justified fear of danger, and by his habit of violence, which he indulged in as part of his daily entertainment. History has recorded a long list of consular senators who were sacrificed to his reckless suspicions, particularly targeting those unfortunate enough to be connected, even distantly, to the family of the Antonines, showing no mercy even to the accomplices in his crimes or pleasures. His cruelty ultimately led to his own downfall. He had shed the noblest blood of Rome without consequence, and he met his end as soon as he became feared by his own household. Marcia, his favorite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and Lætus, his Praetorian prefect, terrified by the fate of their friends and predecessors, decided to stop the destruction that loomed over them every hour, whether from the lunatic whims of the tyrant, or the sudden rage of the people. Marcia took the opportunity to offer her lover a drink of wine after he returned tired from hunting wild animals. Commodus went to sleep; but while he was struggling with the effects of poison and drunkenness, a strong young man, a professional wrestler, entered his room and strangled him without any resistance. The body was secretly taken out of the palace before anyone in the city or even in the court suspected the emperor was dead. Such was the fate of Marcus's son, and it was so easy to eliminate a despised tyrant who, through the artificial powers of government, had oppressed millions of subjects for thirteen years, each of whom was as capable as he was.

The measures of the conspirators were conducted with the deliberate coolness and celerity which the greatness of the occasion required. They resolved instantly to fill the vacant throne with an emperor whose character would justify and maintain the action that had been committed. They fixed on Pertinax, præfect of the city, an ancient senator of consular rank, whose conspicuous merit had broke through the obscurity of his birth, and raised him to the first honors of the state. He had successively governed most of the provinces of the empire; and in all his great employments, military as well as civil, he had uniformly distinguished himself by the firmness, the prudence, and the integrity of his conduct. He now remained almost alone of the friends and ministers of Marcus; and when, at a late hour of the night, he was awakened with the news, that the chamberlain and the præfect were at his door, he received them with intrepid resignation, and desired they would execute their master’s orders. Instead of death, they offered him the throne of the Roman world. During some moments he distrusted their intentions and assurances. Convinced at length of the death of Commodus, he accepted the purple with a sincere reluctance, the natural effect of his knowledge both of the duties and of the dangers of the supreme rank.

The conspirators acted with the level-headedness and speed required by the seriousness of the situation. They quickly decided to fill the vacant throne with an emperor whose character would validate and uphold their actions. They chose Pertinax, the city’s prefect, a seasoned senator of consular status, whose notable achievements had lifted him from humble beginnings to the highest ranks of the state. He had governed most of the provinces in the empire and had consistently shown firmness, wisdom, and integrity in all his significant roles, both military and civil. He was now nearly the last of Marcus's friends and advisors; when he was awakened late at night by the news that the chamberlain and the prefect were at his door, he faced them with calm acceptance and asked them to carry out their master’s orders. Instead of a death sentence, they offered him the throne of the Roman Empire. For a moment, he questioned their intentions and promises. Once he was convinced of Commodus's death, he reluctantly accepted the crown, fully aware of both the responsibilities and the dangers that came with the highest office.

Lætus conducted without delay his new emperor to the camp of the Prætorians, diffusing at the same time through the city a seasonable report that Commodus died suddenly of an apoplexy; and that the virtuous Pertinax had already succeeded to the throne. The guards were rather surprised than pleased with the suspicious death of a prince, whose indulgence and liberality they alone had experienced; but the emergency of the occasion, the authority of their præfect, the reputation of Pertinax, and the clamors of the people, obliged them to stifle their secret discontents, to accept the donative promised by the new emperor, to swear allegiance to him, and with joyful acclamations and laurels in their hands to conduct him to the senate house, that the military consent might be ratified by the civil authority.

Lætus quickly took the new emperor to the camp of the Praetorians, spreading a timely rumor throughout the city that Commodus had suddenly died of a stroke and that the virtuous Pertinax had already taken the throne. The guards were more surprised than happy about the suspicious death of a prince, whose generosity and kindness they had solely experienced; however, the urgency of the situation, the authority of their prefect, Pertinax's good reputation, and the cries of the people forced them to suppress their private grievances, accept the bonus promised by the new emperor, pledge their loyalty to him, and, with cheers and laurels in their hands, escort him to the senate house so that military approval could be confirmed by civil authority.

This important night was now far spent; with the dawn of day, and the commencement of the new year, the senators expected a summons to attend an ignominious ceremony. * In spite of all remonstrances, even of those of his creatures who yet preserved any regard for prudence or decency, Commodus had resolved to pass the night in the gladiators’ school, and from thence to take possession of the consulship, in the habit and with the attendance of that infamous crew. On a sudden, before the break of day, the senate was called together in the temple of Concord, to meet the guards, and to ratify the election of a new emperor. For a few minutes they sat in silent suspense, doubtful of their unexpected deliverance, and suspicious of the cruel artifices of Commodus: but when at length they were assured that the tyrant was no more, they resigned themselves to all the transports of joy and indignation. Pertinax, who modestly represented the meanness of his extraction, and pointed out several noble senators more deserving than himself of the empire, was constrained by their dutiful violence to ascend the throne, and received all the titles of Imperial power, confirmed by the most sincere vows of fidelity. The memory of Commodus was branded with eternal infamy. The names of tyrant, of gladiator, of public enemy resounded in every corner of the house. They decreed in tumultuous votes, that his honors should be reversed, his titles erased from the public monuments, his statues thrown down, his body dragged with a hook into the stripping room of the gladiators, to satiate the public fury; and they expressed some indignation against those officious servants who had already presumed to screen his remains from the justice of the senate. But Pertinax could not refuse those last rites to the memory of Marcus, and the tears of his first protector Claudius Pompeianus, who lamented the cruel fate of his brother-in-law, and lamented still more that he had deserved it.

This important night was now well advanced; with the dawn and the start of the new year, the senators anticipated a call to attend a shameful ceremony. In spite of all protests, even from those loyal to him who still cared about prudence or decency, Commodus had decided to spend the night in the gladiators' school, and from there to assume the consulship, dressed like and accompanied by that infamous group. Suddenly, before daybreak, the senate was gathered in the temple of Concord to meet the guards and confirm the election of a new emperor. For a few minutes, they sat in silent uncertainty, unsure of their unexpected rescue and wary of Commodus's cruel schemes: but when they were finally assured that the tyrant was gone, they surrendered to all the feelings of joy and outrage. Pertinax, who humbly acknowledged his lowly origins and pointed out several noble senators more deserving of the empire than himself, found himself compelled by their respectful insistence to take the throne, receiving all the titles of imperial power, backed by the most heartfelt vows of loyalty. The memory of Commodus was marked with everlasting disgrace. The terms "tyrant," "gladiator," and "public enemy" echoed throughout the chamber. They hastily voted to revoke his honors, erase his titles from public records, tear down his statues, and drag his body with a hook into the gladiators' dressing room to quench the people's rage; they also expressed some outrage towards those dutiful servants who had already attempted to shield his remains from the senate's justice. However, Pertinax could not deny the last rites to the memory of Marcus, nor the tears of his first protector Claudius Pompeianus, who mourned the tragic fate of his brother-in-law and lamented even more that he had earned it.

These effusions of impotent rage against a dead emperor, whom the senate had flattered when alive with the most abject servility, betrayed a just but ungenerous spirit of revenge. The legality of these decrees was, however, supported by the principles of the Imperial constitution. To censure, to depose, or to punish with death, the first magistrate of the republic, who had abused his delegated trust, was the ancient and undoubted prerogative of the Roman senate; but the feeble assembly was obliged to content itself with inflicting on a fallen tyrant that public justice, from which, during his life and reign, he had been shielded by the strong arm of military despotism. *

These expressions of powerless anger towards a dead emperor, whom the senate had flattered with extreme subservience while he was alive, revealed a legitimate but unkind desire for revenge. However, the legality of these decrees was backed by the principles of the Imperial constitution. To criticize, to remove, or to punish with death the chief official of the republic, who had misused his authority, was the long-standing and unquestionable right of the Roman senate; but the weak assembly had to settle for administering to a fallen tyrant the public justice that he had been protected from during his life and reign by the strong hand of military dictatorship.

Pertinax found a nobler way of condemning his predecessor’s memory; by the contrast of his own virtues with the vices of Commodus. On the day of his accession, he resigned over to his wife and son his whole private fortune; that they might have no pretence to solicit favors at the expense of the state. He refused to flatter the vanity of the former with the title of Augusta; or to corrupt the inexperienced youth of the latter by the rank of Cæsar. Accurately distinguishing between the duties of a parent and those of a sovereign, he educated his son with a severe simplicity, which, while it gave him no assured prospect of the throne, might in time have rendered him worthy of it. In public, the behavior of Pertinax was grave and affable. He lived with the virtuous part of the senate, (and, in a private station, he had been acquainted with the true character of each individual,) without either pride or jealousy; considered them as friends and companions, with whom he had shared the danger of the tyranny, and with whom he wished to enjoy the security of the present time. He very frequently invited them to familiar entertainments, the frugality of which was ridiculed by those who remembered and regretted the luxurious prodigality of Commodus.

Pertinax found a better way to condemn his predecessor’s memory by highlighting his own virtues in contrast to the vices of Commodus. On the day he took office, he handed over his entire personal fortune to his wife and son, so they wouldn't have any reason to seek favors at the state's expense. He refused to feed the former’s vanity with the title of Augusta or corrupt the young heir with the title of Cæsar. Clearly recognizing the difference between being a parent and being a ruler, he raised his son with strict simplicity, which, while it didn't guarantee him a shot at the throne, could have made him deserving of it over time. In public, Pertinax acted seriously yet kindly. He associated with the honorable members of the senate, having known their true characters even before he was in office, without showing pride or jealousy; he regarded them as friends and companions, with whom he had faced the dangers of tyranny, and with whom he wanted to share the safety of the present. He often invited them to casual gatherings, which were mocked by those who longed for the lavish excesses of Commodus.

To heal, as far as it was possible, the wounds inflicted by the hand of tyranny, was the pleasing, but melancholy, task of Pertinax. The innocent victims, who yet survived, were recalled from exile, released from prison, and restored to the full possession of their honors and fortunes. The unburied bodies of murdered senators (for the cruelty of Commodus endeavored to extend itself beyond death) were deposited in the sepulchres of their ancestors; their memory was justified and every consolation was bestowed on their ruined and afflicted families. Among these consolations, one of the most grateful was the punishment of the Delators; the common enemies of their master, of virtue, and of their country. Yet even in the inquisition of these legal assassins, Pertinax proceeded with a steady temper, which gave every thing to justice, and nothing to popular prejudice and resentment.

To heal, as much as possible, the wounds caused by tyranny was the sad but rewarding job of Pertinax. The innocent victims who survived were brought back from exile, released from prison, and restored to their full honors and fortunes. The unburied bodies of murdered senators (since Commodus's cruelty tried to continue even after death) were placed in their family tombs; their memory was honored, and every consolation was given to their devastated families. Among these comforts, one of the most appreciated was the punishment of the Delators, the common enemies of their master, virtue, and their country. Yet, even while investigating these legal assassins, Pertinax maintained a calm demeanor, prioritizing justice over popular bias and resentment.

The finances of the state demanded the most vigilant care of the emperor. Though every measure of injustice and extortion had been adopted, which could collect the property of the subject into the coffers of the prince, the rapaciousness of Commodus had been so very inadequate to his extravagance, that, upon his death, no more than eight thousand pounds were found in the exhausted treasury, to defray the current expenses of government, and to discharge the pressing demand of a liberal donative, which the new emperor had been obliged to promise to the Prætorian guards. Yet under these distressed circumstances, Pertinax had the generous firmness to remit all the oppressive taxes invented by Commodus, and to cancel all the unjust claims of the treasury; declaring, in a decree of the senate, “that he was better satisfied to administer a poor republic with innocence, than to acquire riches by the ways of tyranny and dishonor.” Economy and industry he considered as the pure and genuine sources of wealth; and from them he soon derived a copious supply for the public necessities. The expense of the household was immediately reduced to one half. All the instruments of luxury Pertinax exposed to public auction, gold and silver plate, chariots of a singular construction, a superfluous wardrobe of silk and embroidery, and a great number of beautiful slaves of both sexes; excepting only, with attentive humanity, those who were born in a state of freedom, and had been ravished from the arms of their weeping parents. At the same time that he obliged the worthless favorites of the tyrant to resign a part of their ill-gotten wealth, he satisfied the just creditors of the state, and unexpectedly discharged the long arrears of honest services. He removed the oppressive restrictions which had been laid upon commerce, and granted all the uncultivated lands in Italy and the provinces to those who would improve them; with an exemption from tribute during the term of ten years.

The state’s finances required the emperor's closest attention. Even though every unfair tactic and extortion was used to funnel the subjects’ wealth into the prince's treasury, Commodus's greed fell far short of matching his lavish spending. When he died, only about eight thousand pounds were found in the depleted treasury to cover ongoing government expenses and fulfill the promise of a generous gift to the Praetorian guards. Yet, despite these difficult circumstances, Pertinax showed admirable strength by abolishing all the heavy taxes introduced by Commodus and wiping away the unjust claims of the treasury. He stated in a senate decree, “I would rather run a struggling republic with integrity than gain wealth through tyranny and dishonor.” He saw frugality and hard work as the true sources of wealth, and from them, he quickly obtained a substantial supply for public needs. Household expenses were immediately cut in half. Pertinax put luxury items up for public auction, including gold and silver plates, uniquely designed chariots, an excessive wardrobe of silk and embroidery, and many beautiful slaves of both genders, except for those who were free-born and had been taken from their grieving parents. At the same time, he required the unworthy favorites of the tyrant to give up part of their ill-gotten wealth, and he satisfied the rightful creditors of the state, clearing the long-standing debts for honest services. He lifted the harsh restrictions on commerce and granted all uncultivated lands in Italy and the provinces to anyone willing to develop them, exempting them from taxes for ten years.

Such a uniform conduct had already secured to Pertinax the noblest reward of a sovereign, the love and esteem of his people. Those who remembered the virtues of Marcus were happy to contemplate in their new emperor the features of that bright original; and flattered themselves, that they should long enjoy the benign influence of his administration. A hasty zeal to reform the corrupted state, accompanied with less prudence than might have been expected from the years and experience of Pertinax, proved fatal to himself and to his country. His honest indiscretion united against him the servile crowd, who found their private benefit in the public disorders, and who preferred the favor of a tyrant to the inexorable equality of the laws.

Such consistent behavior had already earned Pertinax the greatest reward a ruler can receive: the love and respect of his people. Those who remembered Marcus's virtues were pleased to see those qualities reflected in their new emperor and hoped they would continue to benefit from his kind governance for a long time. However, an impulsive desire to reform the corrupted state, coupled with less caution than one might expect from Pertinax's age and experience, ended up being disastrous for him and for his country. His sincere but reckless actions turned the subservient crowd against him, as they found personal gain in the public chaos and preferred the favor of a tyrant over the strictness of the laws.

Amidst the general joy, the sullen and angry countenance of the Prætorian guards betrayed their inward dissatisfaction. They had reluctantly submitted to Pertinax; they dreaded the strictness of the ancient discipline, which he was preparing to restore; and they regretted the license of the former reign. Their discontents were secretly fomented by Lætus, their præfect, who found, when it was too late, that his new emperor would reward a servant, but would not be ruled by a favorite. On the third day of his reign, the soldiers seized on a noble senator, with a design to carry him to the camp, and to invest him with the Imperial purple. Instead of being dazzled by the dangerous honor, the affrighted victim escaped from their violence, and took refuge at the feet of Pertinax. A short time afterwards, Sosius Falco, one of the consuls of the year, a rash youth, but of an ancient and opulent family, listened to the voice of ambition; and a conspiracy was formed during a short absence of Pertinax, which was crushed by his sudden return to Rome, and his resolute behavior. Falco was on the point of being justly condemned to death as a public enemy had he not been saved by the earnest and sincere entreaties of the injured emperor, who conjured the senate, that the purity of his reign might not be stained by the blood even of a guilty senator.

Amidst the general happiness, the moody and angry faces of the Praetorian guards revealed their inner dissatisfaction. They had reluctantly accepted Pertinax as their leader; they feared the strictness of the old discipline he was planning to restore, and they missed the freedoms of the previous reign. Their grievances were secretly stirred up by Lætus, their prefect, who realized too late that his new emperor would reward a servant but would not be controlled by a favorite. On the third day of his reign, the soldiers captured a noble senator, intending to bring him to the camp and crown him with the Imperial purple. Instead of being tempted by the risky honor, the terrified senator escaped their grasp and sought refuge at Pertinax’s feet. Shortly after, Sosius Falco, one of the consuls for the year, an impulsive young man from an old and wealthy family, gave in to his ambition; a conspiracy was hatched during Pertinax’s brief absence, which was quickly suppressed by his sudden return to Rome and his determined stance. Falco was on the verge of being rightfully sentenced to death as a public enemy, but he was saved by the passionate and genuine pleas of the wronged emperor, who urged the senate not to mar the integrity of his reign with the blood of even a guilty senator.

These disappointments served only to irritate the rage of the Prætorian guards. On the twenty-eighth of March, eighty-six days only after the death of Commodus, a general sedition broke out in the camp, which the officers wanted either power or inclination to suppress. Two or three hundred of the most desperate soldiers marched at noonday, with arms in their hands and fury in their looks, towards the Imperial palace. The gates were thrown open by their companions upon guard, and by the domestics of the old court, who had already formed a secret conspiracy against the life of the too virtuous emperor. On the news of their approach, Pertinax, disdaining either flight or concealment, advanced to meet his assassins; and recalled to their minds his own innocence, and the sanctity of their recent oath. For a few moments they stood in silent suspense, ashamed of their atrocious design, and awed by the venerable aspect and majestic firmness of their sovereign, till at length, the despair of pardon reviving their fury, a barbarian of the country of Tongress levelled the first blow against Pertinax, who was instantly despatched with a multitude of wounds. His head, separated from his body, and placed on a lance, was carried in triumph to the Prætorian camp, in the sight of a mournful and indignant people, who lamented the unworthy fate of that excellent prince, and the transient blessings of a reign, the memory of which could serve only to aggravate their approaching misfortunes.

These disappointments only fueled the anger of the Praetorian guards. On March 28th, just eighty-six days after Commodus's death, a massive riot broke out in the camp, which the officers either didn't have the power or the desire to stop. A couple of hundred of the most desperate soldiers marched at noon, armed and furious, towards the Imperial palace. The gates were opened by their fellow guards and the servants of the old court, who had already plotted in secret against the life of the too virtuous emperor. When they learned of the soldiers' approach, Pertinax, refusing to flee or hide, stepped forward to confront his attackers; he reminded them of his own innocence and their recent oath. For a moment, they stood in tense silence, ashamed of their horrific plan and intimidated by the dignified appearance and strength of their sovereign. But eventually, despair over the chance of being forgiven reignited their fury, and a soldier from Tongress delivered the first blow against Pertinax, who was quickly overwhelmed and killed with multiple wounds. His head was severed and raised on a pike, carried triumphantly to the Praetorian camp, while a sorrowful and furious crowd looked on, mourning the unjust fate of that great prince and the fleeting blessings of a reign, the memory of which would only deepen their impending misfortunes.





Chapter V: Sale Of The Empire To Didius Julianus.—Part I.

Public Sale Of The Empire To Didius Julianus By The
Prætorian Guards—Clodius Albinus In Britain, Pescennius
Niger In Syria, And Septimius Severus In Pannonia, Declare
Against The Murderers Of Pertinax—Civil Wars And Victory Of
Severus Over His Three Rivals—Relaxation Of Discipline—New
Maxims Of Government.
Public Sale of the Empire to Didius Julianus by the Praetorian Guards—Clodius Albinus in Britain, Pescennius Niger in Syria, and Septimius Severus in Pannonia declare against the murderers of Pertinax—Civil wars and the victory of Severus over his three rivals—Relaxation of discipline—New principles of governance.

The power of the sword is more sensibly felt in an extensive monarchy, than in a small community. It has been calculated by the ablest politicians, that no state, without being soon exhausted, can maintain above the hundredth part of its members in arms and idleness. But although this relative proportion may be uniform, the influence of the army over the rest of the society will vary according to the degree of its positive strength. The advantages of military science and discipline cannot be exerted, unless a proper number of soldiers are united into one body, and actuated by one soul. With a handful of men, such a union would be ineffectual; with an unwieldy host, it would be impracticable; and the powers of the machine would be alike destroyed by the extreme minuteness or the excessive weight of its springs. To illustrate this observation, we need only reflect, that there is no superiority of natural strength, artificial weapons, or acquired skill, which could enable one man to keep in constant subjection one hundred of his fellow-creatures: the tyrant of a single town, or a small district, would soon discover that a hundred armed followers were a weak defence against ten thousand peasants or citizens; but a hundred thousand well-disciplined soldiers will command, with despotic sway, ten millions of subjects; and a body of ten or fifteen thousand guards will strike terror into the most numerous populace that ever crowded the streets of an immense capital.

The power of the sword is more clearly felt in a large monarchy than in a small community. Skilled politicians have calculated that no state can maintain more than one percent of its population in arms and idleness without quickly exhausting its resources. While this ratio may remain consistent, the army's influence over society will change depending on its actual strength. The benefits of military science and discipline can only be realized if a sufficient number of soldiers are united as one and motivated by a shared purpose. With just a few men, such unity would be ineffective; with an unwieldy mass, it would be impractical; and the machine’s effectiveness would be compromised by either extreme smallness or excessive weight of its components. To illustrate this point, consider that no amount of natural strength, advanced weaponry, or acquired skill could allow one person to keep a hundred of his peers constantly under control: the ruler of a small town or district would quickly find that a hundred armed followers would provide weak protection against ten thousand peasants or citizens. However, a hundred thousand well-trained soldiers can dominate ten million subjects with absolute power, and a force of ten to fifteen thousand guards can instill fear in the largest crowd that has ever filled the streets of a vast city.

The Prætorian bands, whose licentious fury was the first symptom and cause of the decline of the Roman empire, scarcely amounted to the last-mentioned number.* They derived their institution from Augustus. That crafty tyrant, sensible that laws might color, but that arms alone could maintain, his usurped dominion, had gradually formed this powerful body of guards, in constant readiness to protect his person, to awe the senate, and either to prevent or to crush the first motions of rebellion. He distinguished these favored troops by a double pay and superior privileges; but, as their formidable aspect would at once have alarmed and irritated the Roman people, three cohorts only were stationed in the capital, whilst the remainder was dispersed in the adjacent towns of Italy. But after fifty years of peace and servitude, Tiberius ventured on a decisive measure, which forever rivetted the fetters of his country. Under the fair pretences of relieving Italy from the heavy burden of military quarters, and of introducing a stricter discipline among the guards, he assembled them at Rome, in a permanent camp, which was fortified with skilful care, and placed on a commanding situation.

The Praetorian Guard, whose reckless violence was the first sign and reason for the decline of the Roman Empire, barely reached the previously mentioned number.* They were established by Augustus. That cunning tyrant, aware that laws could only go so far but that armed forces could truly maintain his seized power, gradually formed this powerful group of guards, always ready to protect him, intimidate the senate, and either prevent or crush any signs of rebellion. He rewarded these favored troops with double pay and special privileges; however, to avoid alarming or angering the Roman people, only three cohorts were stationed in the capital, while the rest were spread across nearby towns in Italy. But after fifty years of peace and subservience, Tiberius took a bold step that permanently shackled his country. Under the pretenses of relieving Italy from the burden of military encampments and enforcing stricter discipline among the guards, he assembled them in Rome, creating a permanent camp that was skillfully fortified and placed in a strategic location.

Such formidable servants are always necessary, but often fatal to the throne of despotism. By thus introducing the Prætorian guards as it were into the palace and the senate, the emperors taught them to perceive their own strength, and the weakness of the civil government; to view the vices of their masters with familiar contempt, and to lay aside that reverential awe, which distance only, and mystery, can preserve towards an imaginary power. In the luxurious idleness of an opulent city, their pride was nourished by the sense of their irresistible weight; nor was it possible to conceal from them, that the person of the sovereign, the authority of the senate, the public treasure, and the seat of empire, were all in their hands. To divert the Prætorian bands from these dangerous reflections, the firmest and best established princes were obliged to mix blandishments with commands, rewards with punishments, to flatter their pride, indulge their pleasures, connive at their irregularities, and to purchase their precarious faith by a liberal donative; which, since the elevation of Claudius, was enacted as a legal claim, on the accession of every new emperor.

Such powerful servants are always needed, but they can often be deadly for a despotic throne. By bringing the Praetorian Guards into the palace and the senate, the emperors made them recognize their own strength and the weakness of the civil government; they learned to look at their masters' flaws with casual disdain and to lose the respect that distance and mystery once maintained towards an imagined authority. In the luxurious laziness of a wealthy city, their pride grew from knowing their undeniable influence; it was impossible for them to ignore that the person of the ruler, the power of the senate, the public treasury, and the seat of government were all in their control. To distract the Praetorian Guard from these dangerous thoughts, even the strongest and most established rulers had to combine flattery with commands, rewards with punishments, appease their pride, indulge their pleasures, overlook their misconduct, and buy their unstable loyalty with generous gifts; since the rise of Claudius, this had become a legal expectation with the accession of every new emperor.

The advocate of the guards endeavored to justify by arguments the power which they asserted by arms; and to maintain that, according to the purest principles of the constitution, their consent was essentially necessary in the appointment of an emperor. The election of consuls, of generals, and of magistrates, however it had been recently usurped by the senate, was the ancient and undoubted right of the Roman people. But where was the Roman people to be found? Not surely amongst the mixed multitude of slaves and strangers that filled the streets of Rome; a servile populace, as devoid of spirit as destitute of property. The defenders of the state, selected from the flower of the Italian youth, and trained in the exercise of arms and virtue, were the genuine representatives of the people, and the best entitled to elect the military chief of the republic. These assertions, however defective in reason, became unanswerable when the fierce Prætorians increased their weight, by throwing, like the barbarian conqueror of Rome, their swords into the scale.

The guards' advocate tried to justify by argument the power they claimed by force, insisting that according to the core principles of the constitution, their consent was essential in the appointment of an emperor. The election of consuls, generals, and magistrates, which had recently been taken over by the senate, was traditionally the unquestionable right of the Roman people. But where could the Roman people actually be found? Certainly not among the mixed crowd of slaves and strangers who filled the streets of Rome; a servile population, lacking both spirit and wealth. The defenders of the state, chosen from the best of the Italian youth and trained in both arms and virtue, were the true representatives of the people and the most qualified to elect the military leader of the republic. These claims, though weak in reasoning, became undeniable when the fierce Prætorians bolstered their force by, like the barbarian conqueror of Rome, throwing their swords into the mix.

The Prætorians had violated the sanctity of the throne by the atrocious murder of Pertinax; they dishonored the majesty of it by their subsequent conduct. The camp was without a leader, for even the præfect Lætus, who had excited the tempest, prudently declined the public indignation. Amidst the wild disorder, Sulpicianus, the emperor’s father-in-law, and governor of the city, who had been sent to the camp on the first alarm of mutiny, was endeavoring to calm the fury of the multitude, when he was silenced by the clamorous return of the murderers, bearing on a lance the head of Pertinax. Though history has accustomed us to observe every principle and every passion yielding to the imperious dictates of ambition, it is scarcely credible that, in these moments of horror, Sulpicianus should have aspired to ascend a throne polluted with the recent blood of so near a relation and so excellent a prince. He had already begun to use the only effectual argument, and to treat for the Imperial dignity; but the more prudent of the Prætorians, apprehensive that, in this private contract, they should not obtain a just price for so valuable a commodity, ran out upon the ramparts; and, with a loud voice, proclaimed that the Roman world was to be disposed of to the best bidder by public auction.

The Praetorians had violated the sanctity of the throne with the brutal murder of Pertinax; they dishonored it even more with their behavior afterward. The camp was without a leader, as even the prefect Laetus, who had stirred up the chaos, wisely avoided the public wrath. Amid the chaos, Sulpicianus, the emperor’s father-in-law and governor of the city, who had been sent to the camp when the first signs of mutiny appeared, was trying to calm the angry crowd when he was drowned out by the raucous return of the murderers, carrying Pertinax's head on a lance. While history shows us that ambition often overrides all principles and passions, it's hard to believe that in such horrifying moments Sulpicianus would want to claim a throne stained with the blood of a close relative and a noble ruler. He had already started using the only effective argument and was negotiating for the imperial position; however, the more cautious Praetorians, fearing they wouldn't get a fair price for such a valuable asset in a private deal, rushed out onto the ramparts and loudly declared that the Roman world would be sold to the highest bidder at a public auction.

This infamous offer, the most insolent excess of military license, diffused a universal grief, shame, and indignation throughout the city. It reached at length the ears of Didius Julianus, a wealthy senator, who, regardless of the public calamities, was indulging himself in the luxury of the table. His wife and his daughter, his freedmen and his parasites, easily convinced him that he deserved the throne, and earnestly conjured him to embrace so fortunate an opportunity. The vain old man hastened to the Prætorian camp, where Sulpicianus was still in treaty with the guards, and began to bid against him from the foot of the rampart. The unworthy negotiation was transacted by faithful emissaries, who passed alternately from one candidate to the other, and acquainted each of them with the offers of his rival. Sulpicianus had already promised a donative of five thousand drachms (above one hundred and sixty pounds) to each soldier; when Julian, eager for the prize, rose at once to the sum of six thousand two hundred and fifty drachms, or upwards of two hundred pounds sterling. The gates of the camp were instantly thrown open to the purchaser; he was declared emperor, and received an oath of allegiance from the soldiers, who retained humanity enough to stipulate that he should pardon and forget the competition of Sulpicianus. *

This notorious offer, the most shameless abuse of military power, spread a wave of grief, shame, and anger throughout the city. It eventually reached Didius Julianus, a rich senator, who, ignoring the public crisis, was indulging in a lavish feast. His wife, daughter, freedmen, and sycophants easily convinced him that he deserved the throne and urged him to seize such a fortunate opportunity. The vain old man hurried to the Prætorian camp, where Sulpicianus was still negotiating with the guards, and started to bid against him from the foot of the rampart. This disgraceful deal was carried out by reliable messengers who alternated between the two candidates, informing each of the other's offers. Sulpicianus had already promised a payout of five thousand drachms (over one hundred and sixty pounds) to each soldier when Julian, eager for the prize, immediately raised his offer to six thousand two hundred and fifty drachms, or more than two hundred pounds sterling. The gates of the camp were instantly opened to the buyer; he was declared emperor and received an oath of loyalty from the soldiers, who had enough humanity to ask that he pardon and forget Sulpicianus’s bid.

It was now incumbent on the Prætorians to fulfil the conditions of the sale. They placed their new sovereign, whom they served and despised, in the centre of their ranks, surrounded him on every side with their shields, and conducted him in close order of battle through the deserted streets of the city. The senate was commanded to assemble; and those who had been the distinguished friends of Pertinax, or the personal enemies of Julian, found it necessary to affect a more than common share of satisfaction at this happy revolution. After Julian had filled the senate house with armed soldiers, he expatiated on the freedom of his election, his own eminent virtues, and his full assurance of the affections of the senate. The obsequious assembly congratulated their own and the public felicity; engaged their allegiance, and conferred on him all the several branches of the Imperial power. From the senate Julian was conducted, by the same military procession, to take possession of the palace. The first objects that struck his eyes, were the abandoned trunk of Pertinax, and the frugal entertainment prepared for his supper. The one he viewed with indifference, the other with contempt. A magnificent feast was prepared by his order, and he amused himself, till a very late hour, with dice, and the performances of Pylades, a celebrated dancer. Yet it was observed, that after the crowd of flatterers dispersed, and left him to darkness, solitude, and terrible reflection, he passed a sleepless night; revolving most probably in his mind his own rash folly, the fate of his virtuous predecessor, and the doubtful and dangerous tenure of an empire which had not been acquired by merit, but purchased by money.

It was now up to the Praetorians to follow through on the sale's conditions. They positioned their new ruler, whom they served and looked down on, at the center of their ranks, surrounded him with their shields, and marched him in tight formation through the empty streets of the city. The senate was ordered to gather; and those who had been close allies of Pertinax, or personal adversaries of Julian, felt it necessary to show an exaggerated sense of satisfaction at this fortunate change. After Julian filled the senate house with armed soldiers, he spoke at length about the freedom of his election, his own great qualities, and his complete confidence in the senate's support. The compliant assembly congratulated themselves and the public on their good fortune, pledged their loyalty, and granted him all the different aspects of imperial power. From the senate, Julian was taken, in the same military procession, to take over the palace. The first things he noticed were the abandoned body of Pertinax and the simple meal prepared for his dinner. He regarded one with indifference and the other with contempt. A lavish feast was set up at his command, and he entertained himself, late into the night, with dice games and the performances of Pylades, a famous dancer. However, it was noted that after the crowd of sycophants left him alone in darkness, solitude, and troubling thoughts, he spent a sleepless night, likely reflecting on his own reckless behavior, the fate of his virtuous predecessor, and the uncertain and perilous grip on an empire that had not been earned through merit but bought with money.

He had reason to tremble. On the throne of the world he found himself without a friend, and even without an adherent. The guards themselves were ashamed of the prince whom their avarice had persuaded them to accept; nor was there a citizen who did not consider his elevation with horror, as the last insult on the Roman name. The nobility, whose conspicuous station, and ample possessions, exacted the strictest caution, dissembled their sentiments, and met the affected civility of the emperor with smiles of complacency and professions of duty. But the people, secure in their numbers and obscurity, gave a free vent to their passions. The streets and public places of Rome resounded with clamors and imprecations. The enraged multitude affronted the person of Julian, rejected his liberality, and, conscious of the impotence of their own resentment, they called aloud on the legions of the frontiers to assert the violated majesty of the Roman empire.

He had every reason to be scared. Sitting on the world’s throne, he found himself completely alone, without a single friend or supporter. Even the guards felt embarrassed for the prince whom their greed had led them to accept; there wasn’t a citizen who didn’t view his rise to power as a final insult to the Roman name. The nobility, with their prominent positions and substantial wealth, had to be very careful, hiding their true feelings while they met the emperor’s false politeness with forced smiles and claims of loyalty. But the common people, feeling safe in their numbers and anonymity, expressed their feelings openly. The streets and public spaces of Rome echoed with shouts and curses. The furious crowd confronted Julian, rejected his generosity, and, aware of their own powerlessness, loudly called on the legions at the borders to defend the violated majesty of the Roman Empire.

The public discontent was soon diffused from the centre to the frontiers of the empire. The armies of Britain, of Syria, and of Illyricum, lamented the death of Pertinax, in whose company, or under whose command, they had so often fought and conquered. They received with surprise, with indignation, and perhaps with envy, the extraordinary intelligence, that the Prætorians had disposed of the empire by public auction; and they sternly refused to ratify the ignominious bargain. Their immediate and unanimous revolt was fatal to Julian, but it was fatal at the same time to the public peace, as the generals of the respective armies, Clodius Albinus, Pescennius Niger, and Septimius Severus, were still more anxious to succeed than to revenge the murdered Pertinax. Their forces were exactly balanced. Each of them was at the head of three legions, with a numerous train of auxiliaries; and however different in their characters, they were all soldiers of experience and capacity.

The public discontent quickly spread from the center to the edges of the empire. The armies of Britain, Syria, and Illyricum mourned the death of Pertinax, under whom they had fought and conquered many times. They were shocked, angry, and maybe even envious when they heard the surprising news that the Praetorians had sold the empire at a public auction. They firmly refused to accept this disgraceful deal. Their immediate and united rebellion was deadly for Julian, but it also harmed the peace of the public, as the leaders of the respective armies—Clodius Albinus, Pescennius Niger, and Septimius Severus—were more focused on gaining power than on avenging the murdered Pertinax. Their forces were evenly matched. Each commanded three legions, along with a large group of auxiliaries; and although they had different personalities, they were all experienced and capable soldiers.

Clodius Albinus, governor of Britain, surpassed both his competitors in the nobility of his extraction, which he derived from some of the most illustrious names of the old republic. But the branch from which he claimed his descent was sunk into mean circumstances, and transplanted into a remote province. It is difficult to form a just idea of his true character. Under the philosophic cloak of austerity, he stands accused of concealing most of the vices which degrade human nature. But his accusers are those venal writers who adored the fortune of Severus, and trampled on the ashes of an unsuccessful rival. Virtue, or the appearances of virtue, recommended Albinus to the confidence and good opinion of Marcus; and his preserving with the son the same interest which he had acquired with the father, is a proof at least that he was possessed of a very flexible disposition. The favor of a tyrant does not always suppose a want of merit in the object of it; he may, without intending it, reward a man of worth and ability, or he may find such a man useful to his own service. It does not appear that Albinus served the son of Marcus, either as the minister of his cruelties, or even as the associate of his pleasures. He was employed in a distant honorable command, when he received a confidential letter from the emperor, acquainting him of the treasonable designs of some discontented generals, and authorizing him to declare himself the guardian and successor of the throne, by assuming the title and ensigns of Cæsar. The governor of Britain wisely declined the dangerous honor, which would have marked him for the jealousy, or involved him in the approaching ruin, of Commodus. He courted power by nobler, or, at least, by more specious arts. On a premature report of the death of the emperor, he assembled his troops; and, in an eloquent discourse, deplored the inevitable mischiefs of despotism, described the happiness and glory which their ancestors had enjoyed under the consular government, and declared his firm resolution to reinstate the senate and people in their legal authority. This popular harangue was answered by the loud acclamations of the British legions, and received at Rome with a secret murmur of applause. Safe in the possession of his little world, and in the command of an army less distinguished indeed for discipline than for numbers and valor, Albinus braved the menaces of Commodus, maintained towards Pertinax a stately ambiguous reserve, and instantly declared against the usurpation of Julian. The convulsions of the capital added new weight to his sentiments, or rather to his professions of patriotism. A regard to decency induced him to decline the lofty titles of Augustus and Emperor; and he imitated perhaps the example of Galba, who, on a similar occasion, had styled himself the Lieutenant of the senate and people.

Clodius Albinus, the governor of Britain, was more distinguished than his rivals due to his noble heritage, which traced back to some of the most renowned names of the old republic. However, the branch of his family he came from had fallen into humble circumstances and had moved to a distant province. It’s hard to get a clear idea of his true character. Behind a facade of philosophical seriousness, he was accused of hiding many of the flaws that degrade human nature. But his accusers were those corrupt writers who admired Severus's fortune and disdained the memory of a failed rival. Albinus’s appearance of virtue earned him the trust and respect of Marcus, and his ability to maintain the same favor with Marcus’s son suggests he had a very adaptable nature. Gaining the favor of a tyrant doesn’t always mean there’s a lack of merit in the favored individual; a capable person can be appreciated for their value, even unintentionally. There’s no evidence that Albinus served Marcus’s son as a tool for his cruelties or even shared in his pleasures. He was in a distant, respectable position when he got a secret letter from the emperor, informing him about the treasonous plans of some disgruntled generals and letting him claim the title and symbols of Cæsar. The governor of Britain wisely turned down this risky honor, which could have made him a target of Commodus’s jealousy or dragged him into Commodus’s impending downfall. He sought power through nobler, or at least more deceptive, means. Following an early report of the emperor's death, he gathered his troops and gave a passionate speech lamenting the inevitable disasters of tyranny, praising the happiness and glory their ancestors enjoyed under a consular government, and vowing to restore the senate and people to their rightful authority. This popular speech was met with loud cheers from the British legions and received a quiet applause in Rome. Secure in his small world and in command of an army that, while not particularly disciplined, was known for its numbers and bravery, Albinus stood up to Commodus’s threats, maintained a dignified ambiguity toward Pertinax, and quickly opposed Julian’s usurpation. The turmoil in the capital gave extra weight to his statements, or rather, to his claims of patriotism. Out of a sense of decency, he chose to avoid grand titles like Augustus and Emperor, and he perhaps followed Galba’s example, who had referred to himself as the Lieutenant of the senate and people during a similar situation.

Personal merit alone had raised Pescennius Niger, from an obscure birth and station, to the government of Syria; a lucrative and important command, which in times of civil confusion gave him a near prospect of the throne. Yet his parts seem to have been better suited to the second than to the first rank; he was an unequal rival, though he might have approved himself an excellent lieutenant, to Severus, who afterwards displayed the greatness of his mind by adopting several useful institutions from a vanquished enemy. In his government Niger acquired the esteem of the soldiers and the love of the provincials. His rigid discipline fortified the valor and confirmed the obedience of the former, whilst the voluptuous Syrians were less delighted with the mild firmness of his administration, than with the affability of his manners, and the apparent pleasure with which he attended their frequent and pompous festivals. As soon as the intelligence of the atrocious murder of Pertinax had reached Antioch, the wishes of Asia invited Niger to assume the Imperial purple and revenge his death. The legions of the eastern frontier embraced his cause; the opulent but unarmed provinces, from the frontiers of Æthiopia to the Hadriatic, cheerfully submitted to his power; and the kings beyond the Tigris and the Euphrates congratulated his election, and offered him their homage and services. The mind of Niger was not capable of receiving this sudden tide of fortune: he flattered himself that his accession would be undisturbed by competition and unstained by civil blood; and whilst he enjoyed the vain pomp of triumph, he neglected to secure the means of victory. Instead of entering into an effectual negotiation with the powerful armies of the West, whose resolution might decide, or at least must balance, the mighty contest; instead of advancing without delay towards Rome and Italy, where his presence was impatiently expected, Niger trifled away in the luxury of Antioch those irretrievable moments which were diligently improved by the decisive activity of Severus.

Personal achievement alone had lifted Pescennius Niger from a humble background to the governorship of Syria, a valuable and significant position that during times of civil unrest offered him a close chance at the throne. However, his abilities seemed better suited for being a deputy rather than a leader; he was an uneven competitor, though he might have proven to be an exceptional second-in-command to Severus, who later showed great character by adopting several beneficial policies from a defeated foe. During his governorship, Niger earned the respect of the soldiers and the affection of the locals. His strict discipline strengthened the courage and ensured the obedience of the former, while the indulgent Syrians were more charmed by the friendliness of his personality and the joy he took in attending their elaborate and frequent celebrations. Once news of the brutal murder of Pertinax reached Antioch, the people of Asia encouraged Niger to take on the imperial role and avenge his death. The legions positioned along the eastern frontier rallied behind him; the wealthy but unarmed provinces, from the edges of Ethiopia to the Adriatic, willingly accepted his authority, and the kings beyond the Tigris and Euphrates congratulated him on his election and offered their loyalty and support. Niger's mind couldn't handle this sudden wave of fortune: he mistakenly believed that his rise would be free from rivalry and bloodshed; and while he reveled in the empty glory of victory, he failed to secure the means to triumph. Instead of effectively negotiating with the powerful armies of the West, whose decisions could determine, or at least balance, this monumental struggle; instead of hastening towards Rome and Italy, where he was eagerly awaited, Niger wasted precious moments in the luxury of Antioch that were being actively seized by Severus’s decisive actions.

The country of Pannonia and Dalmatia, which occupied the space between the Danube and the Hadriatic, was one of the last and most difficult conquests of the Romans. In the defence of national freedom, two hundred thousand of these barbarians had once appeared in the field, alarmed the declining age of Augustus, and exercised the vigilant prudence of Tiberius at the head of the collected force of the empire. The Pannonians yielded at length to the arms and institutions of Rome. Their recent subjection, however, the neighborhood, and even the mixture, of the unconquered tribes, and perhaps the climate, adapted, as it has been observed, to the production of great bodies and slow minds, all contributed to preserve some remains of their original ferocity, and under the tame and uniform countenance of Roman provincials, the hardy features of the natives were still to be discerned. Their warlike youth afforded an inexhaustible supply of recruits to the legions stationed on the banks of the Danube, and which, from a perpetual warfare against the Germans and Sarmazans, were deservedly esteemed the best troops in the service.

The regions of Pannonia and Dalmatia, which lay between the Danube and the Adriatic Sea, were among the last and toughest areas for the Romans to conquer. At one point, two hundred thousand of these tribesmen took to the battlefield, challenging the waning power of Augustus and testing the careful strategy of Tiberius, who led the empire’s gathered forces. Eventually, the Pannonians submitted to Roman arms and governance. However, their recent defeat, proximity to unconquered tribes, and possibly the climate—which, as noted, nurtured large bodies and slower minds—kept some traces of their original fierceness intact. Even under the subdued and uniform appearance of Roman provinces, the rugged features of the natives were still noticeable. Their youthful warriors provided an endless supply of recruits for the legions stationed along the Danube, which, constantly engaged in battles against the Germans and Sarmatians, were rightly considered the best troops in the field.

The Pannonian army was at this time commanded by Septimius Severus, a native of Africa, who, in the gradual ascent of private honors, had concealed his daring ambition, which was never diverted from its steady course by the allurements of pleasure, the apprehension of danger, or the feelings of humanity. On the first news of the murder of Pertinax, he assembled his troops, painted in the most lively colors the crime, the insolence, and the weakness of the Prætorian guards, and animated the legions to arms and to revenge. He concluded (and the peroration was thought extremely eloquent) with promising every soldier about four hundred pounds; an honorable donative, double in value to the infamous bribe with which Julian had purchased the empire. The acclamations of the army immediately saluted Severus with the names of Augustus, Pertinax, and Emperor; and he thus attained the lofty station to which he was invited, by conscious merit and a long train of dreams and omens, the fruitful offsprings either of his superstition or policy.

The Pannonian army was at this time led by Septimius Severus, a native of Africa, who, while gradually climbing the ranks of private honors, had hidden his bold ambition. He was never swayed from his steady path by the temptations of pleasure, fear of danger, or feelings of compassion. As soon as he heard about Pertinax's murder, he gathered his troops and vividly described the crime, the arrogance, and the weakness of the Prætorian guards, motivating the legions to take up arms and seek revenge. He ended his speech (which was considered very persuasive) by promising each soldier about four hundred pounds; a generous bonus, double the amount of the shameful bribe that Julian had used to secure the empire. The army's cheers immediately hailed Severus with the titles of Augustus, Pertinax, and Emperor; and he thus achieved the high position to which he was called, through his proven merit and a long history of dreams and omens, either stemming from his superstition or his strategic thinking.

The new candidate for empire saw and improved the peculiar advantage of his situation. His province extended to the Julian Alps, which gave an easy access into Italy; and he remembered the saying of Augustus, that a Pannonian army might in ten days appear in sight of Rome. By a celerity proportioned to the greatness of the occasion, he might reasonably hope to revenge Pertinax, punish Julian, and receive the homage of the senate and people, as their lawful emperor, before his competitors, separated from Italy by an immense tract of sea and land, were apprised of his success, or even of his election. During the whole expedition, he scarcely allowed himself any moments for sleep or food; marching on foot, and in complete armor, at the head of his columns, he insinuated himself into the confidence and affection of his troops, pressed their diligence, revived their spirits, animated their hopes, and was well satisfied to share the hardships of the meanest soldier, whilst he kept in view the infinite superiority of his reward.

The new candidate for the empire recognized and took advantage of his unique position. His territory reached the Julian Alps, granting easy access into Italy; he recalled Augustus's saying that a Pannonian army could reach Rome in ten days. With a speed fitting the significance of the moment, he reasonably hoped to avenge Pertinax, punish Julian, and gain the respect of the senate and the people as their rightful emperor, all before his rivals, separated from Italy by a vast expanse of sea and land, knew about his success or even his election. Throughout the entire expedition, he barely allowed himself time for sleep or food; marching on foot and fully armed at the front of his troops, he earned their trust and loyalty, encouraged their hard work, boosted their morale, inspired their hopes, and was content to endure the same hardships as the lowest soldier, all while keeping his eye on the immense rewards that awaited him.

The wretched Julian had expected, and thought himself prepared, to dispute the empire with the governor of Syria; but in the invincible and rapid approach of the Pannonian legions, he saw his inevitable ruin. The hasty arrival of every messenger increased his just apprehensions. He was successively informed, that Severus had passed the Alps; that the Italian cities, unwilling or unable to oppose his progress, had received him with the warmest professions of joy and duty; that the important place of Ravenna had surrendered without resistance, and that the Hadriatic fleet was in the hands of the conqueror. The enemy was now within two hundred and fifty miles of Rome; and every moment diminished the narrow span of life and empire allotted to Julian.

The unfortunate Julian had anticipated, and believed he was ready, to contest the empire with the governor of Syria; but with the unstoppable and swift advance of the Pannonian legions, he recognized his unavoidable downfall. The quick arrival of each messenger heightened his legitimate fears. He was repeatedly informed that Severus had crossed the Alps; that the Italian cities, either unwilling or unable to resist him, had welcomed him with the warmest expressions of happiness and loyalty; that the crucial city of Ravenna had surrendered without a fight, and that the Adriatic fleet was now under the control of the conqueror. The enemy was now just two hundred fifty miles from Rome, and with each passing moment, the limited time left for Julian's life and reign shrank even further.

He attempted, however, to prevent, or at least to protract, his ruin. He implored the venal faith of the Prætorians, filled the city with unavailing preparations for war, drew lines round the suburbs, and even strengthened the fortifications of the palace; as if those last intrenchments could be defended, without hope of relief, against a victorious invader. Fear and shame prevented the guards from deserting his standard; but they trembled at the name of the Pannonian legions, commanded by an experienced general, and accustomed to vanquish the barbarians on the frozen Danube. They quitted, with a sigh, the pleasures of the baths and theatres, to put on arms, whose use they had almost forgotten, and beneath the weight of which they were oppressed. The unpractised elephants, whose uncouth appearance, it was hoped, would strike terror into the army of the north, threw their unskilful riders; and the awkward evolutions of the marines, drawn from the fleet of Misenum, were an object of ridicule to the populace; whilst the senate enjoyed, with secret pleasure, the distress and weakness of the usurper.

He tried, however, to stop or at least delay his downfall. He begged for the untrustworthy loyalty of the Praetorians, filled the city with pointless preparations for war, drew boundaries around the suburbs, and even reinforced the palace defenses; as if those last barriers could hold out, without any hope of help, against a victorious attacker. Fear and shame kept the guards from abandoning his banner; but they shook at the mention of the Pannonian legions, led by an experienced general, who were used to defeating the barbarians on the frozen Danube. With a sigh, they left the comforts of the baths and theaters to put on weapons they had almost forgotten how to use, and they were weighed down by their heavy gear. The inexperienced elephants, whose odd looks were meant to scare the northern army, threw off their clumsy riders; and the awkward movements of the marines, pulled from the fleet at Misenum, were a laughingstock for the public; while the senate secretly enjoyed the distress and weakness of the usurper.

Every motion of Julian betrayed his trembling perplexity. He insisted that Severus should be declared a public enemy by the senate. He entreated that the Pannonian general might be associated to the empire. He sent public ambassadors of consular rank to negotiate with his rival; he despatched private assassins to take away his life. He designed that the Vestal virgins, and all the colleges of priests, in their sacerdotal habits, and bearing before them the sacred pledges of the Roman religion, should advance in solemn procession to meet the Pannonian legions; and, at the same time, he vainly tried to interrogate, or to appease, the fates, by magic ceremonies and unlawful sacrifices.

Every movement of Julian revealed his anxious confusion. He demanded that Severus be declared a public enemy by the senate. He pleaded for the Pannonian general to be included in the empire. He sent public ambassadors of consular rank to negotiate with his rival; he dispatched private assassins to take his life. He planned for the Vestal virgins and all the priestly colleges, in their ceremonial robes and carrying the sacred symbols of Roman religion, to march in a solemn procession to greet the Pannonian legions; at the same time, he futilely tried to question or placate the fates through magical rituals and forbidden sacrifices.





Chapter V: Sale Of The Empire To Didius Julianus.—Part II.

Severus, who dreaded neither his arms nor his enchantments, guarded himself from the only danger of secret conspiracy, by the faithful attendance of six hundred chosen men, who never quitted his person or their cuirasses, either by night or by day, during the whole march. Advancing with a steady and rapid course, he passed, without difficulty, the defiles of the Apennine, received into his party the troops and ambassadors sent to retard his progress, and made a short halt at Interamnia, about seventy miles from Rome. His victory was already secure, but the despair of the Prætorians might have rendered it bloody; and Severus had the laudable ambition of ascending the throne without drawing the sword. His emissaries, dispersed in the capital, assured the guards, that provided they would abandon their worthless prince, and the perpetrators of the murder of Pertinax, to the justice of the conqueror, he would no longer consider that melancholy event as the act of the whole body. The faithless Prætorians, whose resistance was supported only by sullen obstinacy, gladly complied with the easy conditions, seized the greatest part of the assassins, and signified to the senate, that they no longer defended the cause of Julian. That assembly, convoked by the consul, unanimously acknowledged Severus as lawful emperor, decreed divine honors to Pertinax, and pronounced a sentence of deposition and death against his unfortunate successor. Julian was conducted into a private apartment of the baths of the palace, and beheaded as a common criminal, after having purchased, with an immense treasure, an anxious and precarious reign of only sixty-six days. The almost incredible expedition of Severus, who, in so short a space of time, conducted a numerous army from the banks of the Danube to those of the Tyber, proves at once the plenty of provisions produced by agriculture and commerce, the goodness of the roads, the discipline of the legions, and the indolent, subdued temper of the provinces.

Severus, who was not afraid of his weapons or magic, protected himself from the only threat of secret plots by having six hundred loyal soldiers with him, who never left his side or took off their armor, day or night, throughout the entire journey. He moved steadily and quickly, easily passing through the mountain passes of the Apennines, taking in soldiers and ambassadors sent to slow him down, and made a brief stop at Interamnia, about seventy miles from Rome. His victory was almost guaranteed, but the desperation of the Praetorians could have made it bloody; Severus wanted to take the throne without resorting to violence. His agents, spread throughout the capital, assured the guards that if they would hand over their useless prince and those responsible for Pertinax's murder to the conqueror's justice, he would no longer see that tragic event as the act of everyone. The untrustworthy Praetorians, whose resistance was based solely on stubbornness, happily accepted the simple terms, captured most of the assassins, and informed the senate that they were no longer defending Julian's cause. The assembly, called by the consul, unanimously recognized Severus as the legitimate emperor, granted divine honors to Pertinax, and declared Julian deposed and sentenced to death. Julian was taken to a private room in the palace baths and executed like a common criminal, after spending a vast fortune for a troubled and brief reign of only sixty-six days. The almost unbelievable journey of Severus, who moved a large army from the banks of the Danube to the Tiber in such a short time, demonstrates the abundance of resources from agriculture and trade, the quality of the roads, the discipline of the legions, and the complacent, subdued nature of the provinces.

The first cares of Severus were bestowed on two measures, the one dictated by policy, the other by decency; the revenge, and the honors, due to the memory of Pertinax. Before the new emperor entered Rome, he issued his commands to the Prætorian guards, directing them to wait his arrival on a large plain near the city, without arms, but in the habits of ceremony, in which they were accustomed to attend their sovereign. He was obeyed by those haughty troops, whose contrition was the effect of their just terrors. A chosen part of the Illyrian army encompassed them with levelled spears. Incapable of flight or resistance, they expected their fate in silent consternation. Severus mounted the tribunal, sternly reproached them with perfidy and cowardice, dismissed them with ignominy from the trust which they had betrayed, despoiled them of their splendid ornaments, and banished them, on pain of death, to the distance of a hundred miles from the capital. During the transaction, another detachment had been sent to seize their arms, occupy their camp, and prevent the hasty consequences of their despair.

Severus's first priorities focused on two actions: one driven by strategy and the other by decency; the revenge and honors owed to Pertinax's memory. Before the new emperor arrived in Rome, he ordered the Praetorian guards to meet him in a large field near the city, unarmed but dressed in their ceremonial attire, as they were used to when attending their emperor. The proud soldiers complied, their remorse stemming from their rightful fears. A select group from the Illyrian army surrounded them with pointed spears. Unable to flee or fight back, they awaited their fate in shocked silence. Severus took his position at the tribunal, harshly accusing them of betrayal and cowardice, dismissing them in disgrace from the trust they had violated, stripping them of their magnificent decorations, and banishing them, under threat of death, a hundred miles from the capital. During this process, another unit had been dispatched to seize their weapons, take over their camp, and avert the rash outcomes of their despair.

The funeral and consecration of Pertinax was next solemnized with every circumstance of sad magnificence. The senate, with a melancholy pleasure, performed the last rites to that excellent prince, whom they had loved, and still regretted. The concern of his successor was probably less sincere; he esteemed the virtues of Pertinax, but those virtues would forever have confined his ambition to a private station. Severus pronounced his funeral oration with studied eloquence, inward satisfaction, and well-acted sorrow; and by this pious regard to his memory, convinced the credulous multitude, that he alone was worthy to supply his place. Sensible, however, that arms, not ceremonies, must assert his claim to the empire, he left Rome at the end of thirty days, and without suffering himself to be elated by this easy victory, prepared to encounter his more formidable rivals.

The funeral and consecration of Pertinax were solemnly held with all the sad grandeur expected. The senate, with a heavy heart, honored the last rites of that remarkable leader they had admired and still missed. The feelings of his successor were likely less genuine; he recognized Pertinax's virtues, but those qualities would have kept him from seeking power. Severus delivered the eulogy with careful eloquence, inner satisfaction, and convincingly mournful expressions; through this respectful tribute to Pertinax, he convinced the gullible crowd that he alone deserved to take his place. Yet, realizing that it was military strength, not ceremonies, that would secure his claim to the throne, he left Rome after thirty days and, without letting this easy win go to his head, prepared to face his tougher opponents.

The uncommon abilities and fortune of Severus have induced an elegant historian to compare him with the first and greatest of the Cæsars. The parallel is, at least, imperfect. Where shall we find, in the character of Severus, the commanding superiority of soul, the generous clemency, and the various genius, which could reconcile and unite the love of pleasure, the thirst of knowledge, and the fire of ambition? In one instance only, they may be compared, with some degree of propriety, in the celerity of their motions, and their civil victories. In less than four years, Severus subdued the riches of the East, and the valor of the West. He vanquished two competitors of reputation and ability, and defeated numerous armies, provided with weapons and discipline equal to his own. In that age, the art of fortification, and the principles of tactics, were well understood by all the Roman generals; and the constant superiority of Severus was that of an artist, who uses the same instruments with more skill and industry than his rivals. I shall not, however, enter into a minute narrative of these military operations; but as the two civil wars against Niger and against Albinus were almost the same in their conduct, event, and consequences, I shall collect into one point of view the most striking circumstances, tending to develop the character of the conqueror and the state of the empire.

The unique talents and success of Severus have led a distinguished historian to liken him to the first and greatest of the Caesars. This comparison, however, is far from perfect. Where can we find in Severus’s character the dominant strength of spirit, the generous mercy, and the diverse genius that could harmonize a love of pleasure, a thirst for knowledge, and an intense ambition? They can only be compared in their speed and their civil victories. In less than four years, Severus conquered the wealth of the East and the bravery of the West. He defeated two notable rivals and overcame numerous armies equipped with weapons and training equal to his own. In that era, Roman generals were well-versed in the art of fortification and the principles of tactics, and Severus’s constant advantage was that of an artist who skillfully wields the same tools as his competitors with greater proficiency and effort. However, I won't delve into a detailed account of these military campaigns; instead, since the two civil wars against Niger and Albinus were almost identical in their execution, outcomes, and repercussions, I will summarize the most notable aspects that highlight the character of the conqueror and the condition of the empire.

Falsehood and insincerity, unsuitable as they seem to the dignity of public transactions, offend us with a less degrading idea of meanness, than when they are found in the intercourse of private life. In the latter, they discover a want of courage; in the other, only a defect of power: and, as it is impossible for the most able statesmen to subdue millions of followers and enemies by their own personal strength, the world, under the name of policy, seems to have granted them a very liberal indulgence of craft and dissimulation. Yet the arts of Severus cannot be justified by the most ample privileges of state reason. He promised only to betray, he flattered only to ruin; and however he might occasionally bind himself by oaths and treaties, his conscience, obsequious to his interest, always released him from the inconvenient obligation.

Lies and insincerity, although they seem unworthy of the dignity of public affairs, bother us less with a notion of meanness than when they appear in personal relationships. In the former, they reveal a lack of courage; in the latter, merely a lack of power. Since it’s impossible for even the most skilled politicians to control millions of followers and enemies using only their personal strength, society, under the label of policy, seems to allow them a generous amount of trickery and deceit. However, the tactics of Severus cannot be excused by the broad privileges of state interests. He only promised to betray, flattered only to destroy; and no matter how often he might tie himself to oaths and agreements, his conscience, obedient to his self-interest, always freed him from those inconvenient obligations.

If his two competitors, reconciled by their common danger, had advanced upon him without delay, perhaps Severus would have sunk under their united effort. Had they even attacked him, at the same time, with separate views and separate armies, the contest might have been long and doubtful. But they fell, singly and successively, an easy prey to the arts as well as arms of their subtle enemy, lulled into security by the moderation of his professions, and overwhelmed by the rapidity of his action. He first marched against Niger, whose reputation and power he the most dreaded: but he declined any hostile declarations, suppressed the name of his antagonist, and only signified to the senate and people his intention of regulating the eastern provinces. In private, he spoke of Niger, his old friend and intended successor, with the most affectionate regard, and highly applauded his generous design of revenging the murder of Pertinax. To punish the vile usurper of the throne, was the duty of every Roman general. To persevere in arms, and to resist a lawful emperor, acknowledged by the senate, would alone render him criminal. The sons of Niger had fallen into his hands among the children of the provincial governors, detained at Rome as pledges for the loyalty of their parents. As long as the power of Niger inspired terror, or even respect, they were educated with the most tender care, with the children of Severus himself; but they were soon involved in their father’s ruin, and removed first by exile, and afterwards by death, from the eye of public compassion.

If his two rivals, united by their shared threat, had attacked him without delay, Severus might have been overwhelmed by their combined efforts. Even if they had attacked him simultaneously, with different strategies and separate forces, the struggle could have been protracted and uncertain. However, they fell one by one, easily falling victim to both the clever tactics and military strength of their crafty opponent, lulled into a false sense of security by his seemingly moderate statements, and caught off guard by the swiftness of his actions. He first directed his campaign against Niger, the man he feared the most for his reputation and power: he avoided making any hostile declarations, omitted mentioning his rival's name, and simply informed the senate and the people of his plans to manage the eastern provinces. In private, he referred to Niger, his former friend and intended successor, with deep affection, praising his noble effort to avenge Pertinax's murder. Punishing the dishonorable usurper of the throne was every Roman general's duty. Continuing to fight and resisting a legitimate emperor recognized by the senate would make him the real criminal. Niger’s sons had become captives among the children of the provincial governors, held in Rome as guarantees of their parents' loyalty. While Niger’s influence still evoked fear or even respect, they were raised with the utmost care alongside Severus's own children; but soon, they were caught up in their father’s downfall and were removed first by exile and then by death, out of sight of public sympathy.

Whilst Severus was engaged in his eastern war, he had reason to apprehend that the governor of Britain might pass the sea and the Alps, occupy the vacant seat of empire, and oppose his return with the authority of the senate and the forces of the West. The ambiguous conduct of Albinus, in not assuming the Imperial title, left room for negotiation. Forgetting, at once, his professions of patriotism, and the jealousy of sovereign power, he accepted the precarious rank of Cæsar, as a reward for his fatal neutrality. Till the first contest was decided, Severus treated the man, whom he had doomed to destruction, with every mark of esteem and regard. Even in the letter, in which he announced his victory over Niger, he styles Albinus the brother of his soul and empire, sends him the affectionate salutations of his wife Julia, and his young family, and entreats him to preserve the armies and the republic faithful to their common interest. The messengers charged with this letter were instructed to accost the Cæsar with respect, to desire a private audience, and to plunge their daggers into his heart. The conspiracy was discovered, and the too credulous Albinus, at length, passed over to the continent, and prepared for an unequal contest with his rival, who rushed upon him at the head of a veteran and victorious army.

While Severus was busy with his war in the east, he had reason to worry that the governor of Britain might cross the sea and the Alps, seize the vacant throne, and challenge his return with the backing of the senate and the forces of the West. Albinus's unclear actions in not claiming the Imperial title left space for negotiation. He soon forgot his claims of patriotism and jealousy over sovereign power and accepted the risky title of Cæsar as a reward for his dangerous neutrality. Until the first battle was settled, Severus treated the man he had marked for destruction with utmost respect and regard. Even in the letter announcing his victory over Niger, he referred to Albinus as the brother of his soul and empire, sent him warm greetings from his wife Julia and their young family, and urged him to keep the armies and the republic loyal to their shared interests. The messengers sent with this letter were instructed to approach the Cæsar with respect, request a private meeting, and then stab him in the heart. The conspiracy was uncovered, and the overly trusting Albinus eventually crossed over to the continent, preparing for an uneven battle with his rival, who charged at him leading a seasoned and victorious army.

The military labors of Severus seem inadequate to the importance of his conquests. Two engagements, * the one near the Hellespont, the other in the narrow defiles of Cilicia, decided the fate of his Syrian competitor; and the troops of Europe asserted their usual ascendant over the effeminate natives of Asia. The battle of Lyons, where one hundred and fifty thousand Romans were engaged, was equally fatal to Albinus. The valor of the British army maintained, indeed, a sharp and doubtful contest, with the hardy discipline of the Illyrian legions. The fame and person of Severus appeared, during a few moments, irrecoverably lost, till that warlike prince rallied his fainting troops, and led them on to a decisive victory. The war was finished by that memorable day.

The military efforts of Severus seem insufficient compared to the significance of his victories. Two battles, one near the Hellespont and the other in the narrow passes of Cilicia, determined the fate of his rival in Syria; and the soldiers from Europe showed their usual dominance over the soft native troops of Asia. The battle of Lyons, in which one hundred and fifty thousand Romans fought, was equally disastrous for Albinus. The courage of the British army managed to maintain a fierce and uncertain struggle against the tough discipline of the Illyrian legions. For a brief moment, Severus's reputation and life seemed irretrievably lost until that valiant prince rallied his weary troops and led them to a decisive victory. The war concluded with that historic day.

The civil wars of modern Europe have been distinguished, not only by the fierce animosity, but likewise by the obstinate perseverance, of the contending factions. They have generally been justified by some principle, or, at least, colored by some pretext, of religion, freedom, or loyalty. The leaders were nobles of independent property and hereditary influence. The troops fought like men interested in the decision of the quarrel; and as military spirit and party zeal were strongly diffused throughout the whole community, a vanquished chief was immediately supplied with new adherents, eager to shed their blood in the same cause. But the Romans, after the fall of the republic, combated only for the choice of masters. Under the standard of a popular candidate for empire, a few enlisted from affection, some from fear, many from interest, none from principle. The legions, uninflamed by party zeal, were allured into civil war by liberal donatives, and still more liberal promises. A defeat, by disabling the chief from the performance of his engagements, dissolved the mercenary allegiance of his followers, and left them to consult their own safety by a timely desertion of an unsuccessful cause. It was of little moment to the provinces, under whose name they were oppressed or governed; they were driven by the impulsion of the present power, and as soon as that power yielded to a superior force, they hastened to implore the clemency of the conqueror, who, as he had an immense debt to discharge, was obliged to sacrifice the most guilty countries to the avarice of his soldiers. In the vast extent of the Roman empire, there were few fortified cities capable of protecting a routed army; nor was there any person, or family, or order of men, whose natural interest, unsupported by the powers of government, was capable of restoring the cause of a sinking party.

The civil wars of modern Europe have been marked not only by intense hostility but also by the stubborn determination of the conflicting sides. They were typically justified by some principle or at least masked by pretexts of religion, freedom, or loyalty. The leaders were nobles with independent wealth and inherited influence. The soldiers fought like people who really cared about the outcome of the conflict; and since military spirit and party loyalty were strong throughout society, a defeated leader was quickly given new supporters eager to fight for the same cause. However, after the fall of the Roman Republic, Romans only fought for the choice of their leaders. Under the banner of a popular candidate for power, a few joined out of loyalty, some out of fear, and many out of self-interest, but none for principle. The legions, lacking party loyalty, were drawn into civil war by generous payments and even more enticing promises. A defeat, by preventing the leader from fulfilling his obligations, ended the mercenary loyalty of his followers, who then looked out for their own safety by abandoning a losing cause. It mattered little to the provinces whether they were oppressed or governed; they were driven by the current power, and as soon as that power fell to a stronger force, they quickly sought the mercy of the conqueror, who, burdened with a huge debt, had to hand over the most guilty regions to the greed of his soldiers. In the vast Roman Empire, there were few fortified cities that could protect a defeated army; nor was there any individual, family, or group whose natural interests, without government support, could revive the cause of a failing party.

Yet, in the contest between Niger and Severus, a single city deserves an honorable exception. As Byzantium was one of the greatest passages from Europe into Asia, it had been provided with a strong garrison, and a fleet of five hundred vessels was anchored in the harbor. The impetuosity of Severus disappointed this prudent scheme of defence; he left to his generals the siege of Byzantium, forced the less guarded passage of the Hellespont, and, impatient of a meaner enemy, pressed forward to encounter his rival. Byzantium, attacked by a numerous and increasing army, and afterwards by the whole naval power of the empire, sustained a siege of three years, and remained faithful to the name and memory of Niger. The citizens and soldiers (we know not from what cause) were animated with equal fury; several of the principal officers of Niger, who despaired of, or who disdained, a pardon, had thrown themselves into this last refuge: the fortifications were esteemed impregnable, and, in the defence of the place, a celebrated engineer displayed all the mechanic powers known to the ancients. Byzantium, at length, surrendered to famine. The magistrates and soldiers were put to the sword, the walls demolished, the privileges suppressed, and the destined capital of the East subsisted only as an open village, subject to the insulting jurisdiction of Perinthus. The historian Dion, who had admired the flourishing, and lamented the desolate, state of Byzantium, accused the revenge of Severus, for depriving the Roman people of the strongest bulwark against the barbarians of Pontus and Asia The truth of this observation was but too well justified in the succeeding age, when the Gothic fleets covered the Euxine, and passed through the undefined Bosphorus into the centre of the Mediterranean.

Yet, in the rivalry between Niger and Severus, one city stands out as an exception worth mentioning. Byzantium, a vital link from Europe to Asia, was well defended with a strong garrison and a fleet of five hundred ships anchored in its harbor. Severus’s impulsiveness undermined this careful defense strategy; he left the siege of Byzantium to his generals, took the less protected route across the Hellespont, and impatiently moved to confront his opponent. Byzantium, attacked by a large and growing army, and later by the full naval strength of the empire, endured a three-year siege while remaining loyal to Niger. The citizens and soldiers, for reasons unknown to us, fought with equal fervor. Several of Niger’s top officers, either hopeless or contemptuous of forgiveness, retreated to this last stronghold. The city’s defenses were considered unassailable, and a renowned engineer showcased all the ancient technical skills in defending it. Ultimately, Byzantium fell to starvation. The officials and soldiers were executed, the walls were torn down, the rights were revoked, and what was intended to be the capital of the East became just an open village, governed by the humiliating authority of Perinthus. The historian Dion, who had once admired Byzantium’s prosperity and mourned its ruin, criticized Severus’s vengeance for robbing the Roman people of their most formidable defense against the barbarian threats from Pontus and Asia. The validity of this statement was starkly proven in the following era, when Gothic fleets filled the Euxine and navigated through the Bosphorus into the heart of the Mediterranean.

Both Niger and Albinus were discovered and put to death in their flight from the field of battle. Their fate excited neither surprise nor compassion. They had staked their lives against the chance of empire, and suffered what they would have inflicted; nor did Severus claim the arrogant superiority of suffering his rivals to live in a private station. But his unforgiving temper, stimulated by avarice, indulged a spirit of revenge, where there was no room for apprehension. The most considerable of the provincials, who, without any dislike to the fortunate candidate, had obeyed the governor under whose authority they were accidentally placed, were punished by death, exile, and especially by the confiscation of their estates. Many cities of the East were stripped of their ancient honors, and obliged to pay, into the treasury of Severus, four times the amount of the sums contributed by them for the service of Niger.

Both Niger and Albinus were caught and executed while trying to escape from the battlefield. No one was shocked or felt pity for them. They had risked their lives for a shot at power and faced the consequences they would have imposed on others; Severus didn’t feel the need to flaunt his superiority by allowing his rivals to live quietly. However, his unforgiving nature, fueled by greed, allowed him to seek revenge where there was nothing to fear. The most prominent locals, who had followed the governor they were placed under without any resentment towards the victorious candidate, were punished with death, exile, and particularly with the confiscation of their properties. Many cities in the East lost their long-held privileges and were forced to pay Severus four times what they had previously contributed for Niger’s campaign.

Till the final decision of the war, the cruelty of Severus was, in some measure, restrained by the uncertainty of the event, and his pretended reverence for the senate. The head of Albinus, accompanied with a menacing letter, announced to the Romans that he was resolved to spare none of the adherents of his unfortunate competitors. He was irritated by the just suspicion that he had never possessed the affections of the senate, and he concealed his old malevolence under the recent discovery of some treasonable correspondences. Thirty-five senators, however, accused of having favored the party of Albinus, he freely pardoned, and, by his subsequent behavior, endeavored to convince them, that he had forgotten, as well as forgiven, their supposed offences. But, at the same time, he condemned forty-one other senators, whose names history has recorded; their wives, children, and clients attended them in death, * and the noblest provincials of Spain and Gaul were involved in the same ruin. Such rigid justice—for so he termed it—was, in the opinion of Severus, the only conduct capable of insuring peace to the people or stability to the prince; and he condescended slightly to lament, that to be mild, it was necessary that he should first be cruel.

Until the war's final decision, Severus's cruelty was somewhat held back by the uncertainty of the outcome and his feigned respect for the senate. The head of Albinus, along with a threatening letter, informed the Romans that he was determined to spare none of the supporters of his unfortunate rivals. He was frustrated by the rightful suspicion that he had never had the support of the senate, and he masked his longstanding hostility with the recent discovery of some treasonous communications. However, he freely pardoned thirty-five senators accused of having supported Albinus’s side, and through his subsequent actions, he tried to show them that he had forgotten, as well as forgiven, their alleged offenses. At the same time, he condemned forty-one other senators, whose names are recorded in history; their wives, children, and clients died alongside them, and the most distinguished citizens of Spain and Gaul faced the same fate. Such strict justice—what he called it—was, in Severus's opinion, the only way to ensure peace for the people or stability for the ruler; he even pretended to regret that to be gentle, he first had to be harsh.

The true interest of an absolute monarch generally coincides with that of his people. Their numbers, their wealth, their order, and their security, are the best and only foundations of his real greatness; and were he totally devoid of virtue, prudence might supply its place, and would dictate the same rule of conduct. Severus considered the Roman empire as his property, and had no sooner secured the possession, than he bestowed his care on the cultivation and improvement of so valuable an acquisition. Salutary laws, executed with inflexible firmness, soon corrected most of the abuses with which, since the death of Marcus, every part of the government had been infected. In the administration of justice, the judgments of the emperor were characterized by attention, discernment, and impartiality; and whenever he deviated from the strict line of equity, it was generally in favor of the poor and oppressed; not so much indeed from any sense of humanity, as from the natural propensity of a despot to humble the pride of greatness, and to sink all his subjects to the same common level of absolute dependence. His expensive taste for building, magnificent shows, and above all a constant and liberal distribution of corn and provisions, were the surest means of captivating the affection of the Roman people. The misfortunes of civil discord were obliterated. The calm of peace and prosperity was once more experienced in the provinces; and many cities, restored by the munificence of Severus, assumed the title of his colonies, and attested by public monuments their gratitude and felicity. The fame of the Roman arms was revived by that warlike and successful emperor, and he boasted, with a just pride, that, having received the empire oppressed with foreign and domestic wars, he left it established in profound, universal, and honorable peace.

The true interests of an absolute monarch usually align with those of his people. Their numbers, wealth, order, and security are the best and only foundations of his real greatness; and even if he lacks virtue, prudence could take its place and dictate the same behavior. Severus viewed the Roman Empire as his own property, and as soon as he secured it, he focused on cultivating and improving this valuable acquisition. Effective laws enforced with strict firmness quickly corrected many of the issues that had plagued the government since Marcus's death. In administering justice, the emperor's decisions were marked by care, insight, and fairness; and whenever he strayed from strict equity, it was usually to favor the poor and oppressed, not so much out of humanity, but from a despot's natural tendency to humble the proud and level all his subjects into a state of absolute dependence. His costly tastes for building, grand displays, and especially a constant and generous distribution of grain and provisions were the surest ways to win the affection of the Roman people. The troubles of civil conflict faded away. The tranquility of peace and prosperity returned to the provinces; many cities, revitalized by Severus's generosity, proudly declared themselves his colonies and publicly displayed their gratitude and happiness through monuments. The reputation of the Roman army was revived by that warlike and successful emperor, and he proudly declared that, having inherited an empire burdened by foreign and domestic wars, he left it in a state of deep, universal, and honorable peace.

Although the wounds of civil war appeared completely healed, its mortal poison still lurked in the vitals of the constitution. Severus possessed a considerable share of vigor and ability; but the daring soul of the first Cæsar, or the deep policy of Augustus, were scarcely equal to the task of curbing the insolence of the victorious legions. By gratitude, by misguided policy, by seeming necessity, Severus was reduced to relax the nerves of discipline. The vanity of his soldiers was flattered with the honor of wearing gold rings; their ease was indulged in the permission of living with their wives in the idleness of quarters. He increased their pay beyond the example of former times, and taught them to expect, and soon to claim, extraordinary donatives on every public occasion of danger or festivity. Elated by success, enervated by luxury, and raised above the level of subjects by their dangerous privileges, they soon became incapable of military fatigue, oppressive to the country, and impatient of a just subordination. Their officers asserted the superiority of rank by a more profuse and elegant luxury. There is still extant a letter of Severus, lamenting the licentious stage of the army, * and exhorting one of his generals to begin the necessary reformation from the tribunes themselves; since, as he justly observes, the officer who has forfeited the esteem, will never command the obedience, of his soldiers. Had the emperor pursued the train of reflection, he would have discovered, that the primary cause of this general corruption might be ascribed, not indeed to the example, but to the pernicious indulgence, however, of the commander-in-chief.

Although the wounds of civil war seemed completely healed, its deadly effects still lingered in the core of the constitution. Severus had a good amount of energy and skill; however, the bold spirit of the first Caesar or the strategic depth of Augustus were hardly enough to manage the arrogance of the victorious legions. Due to gratitude, misguided policies, and perceived necessity, Severus found himself compelled to ease the strictness of discipline. The pride of his soldiers was boosted with the prestige of wearing gold rings; their comfort was catered to by allowing them to live with their wives in the laziness of the barracks. He raised their pay beyond what was customary in previous times and led them to expect—and soon demand—extra rewards during every public moment of danger or celebration. Boosted by success, weakened by luxury, and elevated above ordinary citizens by their dangerous privileges, they quickly became unable to withstand military hardships, burdensome to the nation, and impatient with rightful authority. Their officers displayed their rank through even more extravagant and sophisticated luxury. A letter from Severus still exists, lamenting the uncontrolled behavior of the army and urging one of his generals to start the necessary reforms with the tribunes themselves; as he rightly points out, an officer who has lost respect will never command the obedience of his soldiers. If the emperor had continued this line of thought, he would have realized that the main reason for this widespread corruption could be attributed not to the example set by others, but rather to the harmful indulgence of the commander-in-chief.

The Prætorians, who murdered their emperor and sold the empire, had received the just punishment of their treason; but the necessary, though dangerous, institution of guards was soon restored on a new model by Severus, and increased to four times the ancient number. Formerly these troops had been recruited in Italy; and as the adjacent provinces gradually imbibed the softer manners of Rome, the levies were extended to Macedonia, Noricum, and Spain. In the room of these elegant troops, better adapted to the pomp of courts than to the uses of war, it was established by Severus, that from all the legions of the frontiers, the soldiers most distinguished for strength, valor, and fidelity, should be occasionally draughted; and promoted, as an honor and reward, into the more eligible service of the guards. By this new institution, the Italian youth were diverted from the exercise of arms, and the capital was terrified by the strange aspect and manners of a multitude of barbarians. But Severus flattered himself, that the legions would consider these chosen Prætorians as the representatives of the whole military order; and that the present aid of fifty thousand men, superior in arms and appointments to any force that could be brought into the field against them, would forever crush the hopes of rebellion, and secure the empire to himself and his posterity.

The Praetorians, who killed their emperor and sold the empire, faced the fitting punishment for their betrayal. However, the essential, though risky, establishment of guards was quickly reinstated in a new form by Severus, and their numbers were increased to four times the original amount. Previously, these troops had been recruited from Italy, and as the nearby provinces gradually adopted the more refined ways of Rome, the recruitment extended to Macedonia, Noricum, and Spain. Instead of these sophisticated troops, which were better suited for courtly functions than for warfare, Severus decided to draft soldiers from all the frontier legions who were most distinguished for strength, bravery, and loyalty; they were then promoted, as a form of honor and reward, to the more prestigious guard service. This new system distracted Italian youth from military training, and the capital became alarmed by the unfamiliar appearance and behavior of a large number of foreigners. Nevertheless, Severus believed that the legions would view these chosen Praetorians as representatives of the entire military, and that having fifty thousand men who were better equipped and armed than any force that could be mustered against them would permanently eliminate any hopes of rebellion and secure the empire for himself and his heirs.

The command of these favored and formidable troops soon became the first office of the empire. As the government degenerated into military despotism, the Prætorian Præfect, who in his origin had been a simple captain of the guards, * was placed not only at the head of the army, but of the finances, and even of the law. In every department of administration, he represented the person, and exercised the authority, of the emperor. The first præfect who enjoyed and abused this immense power was Plautianus, the favorite minister of Severus. His reign lasted above ten years, till the marriage of his daughter with the eldest son of the emperor, which seemed to assure his fortune, proved the occasion of his ruin. The animosities of the palace, by irritating the ambition and alarming the fears of Plautianus, threatened to produce a revolution, and obliged the emperor, who still loved him, to consent with reluctance to his death. After the fall of Plautianus, an eminent lawyer, the celebrated Papinian, was appointed to execute the motley office of Prætorian Præfect.

The command of these elite and powerful troops quickly became the top position in the empire. As the government turned into a military dictatorship, the Praetorian Prefect, who originally was just a captain of the guards, was put not only in charge of the army but also of the finances and even the law. In every area of administration, he represented the emperor's person and wielded his authority. The first prefect to enjoy and misuse this enormous power was Plautianus, the favored minister of Severus. His reign lasted over ten years, until the marriage of his daughter to the emperor's eldest son, which appeared to secure his future, ended up being the cause of his downfall. The rivalries at court, by stirring up Plautianus's ambition and triggering his fears, threatened to spark a revolution, forcing the emperor, who still cared for him, to reluctantly agree to his execution. After Plautianus's fall, a prominent lawyer, the well-known Papinian, was appointed to carry out the mixed duties of Praetorian Prefect.

Till the reign of Severus, the virtue and even the good sense of the emperors had been distinguished by their zeal or affected reverence for the senate, and by a tender regard to the nice frame of civil policy instituted by Augustus. But the youth of Severus had been trained in the implicit obedience of camps, and his riper years spent in the despotism of military command. His haughty and inflexible spirit could not discover, or would not acknowledge, the advantage of preserving an intermediate power, however imaginary, between the emperor and the army. He disdained to profess himself the servant of an assembly that detested his person and trembled at his frown; he issued his commands, where his requests would have proved as effectual; assumed the conduct and style of a sovereign and a conqueror, and exercised, without disguise, the whole legislative, as well as the executive power.

Until the reign of Severus, the virtues and even the common sense of the emperors were marked by their enthusiasm or feigned respect for the senate, along with a careful consideration of the delicate civil policies established by Augustus. However, Severus was raised in the strict discipline of military camps, and his adult life was spent under the tyranny of military rule. His proud and unyielding nature couldn’t see, or wouldn’t accept, the benefit of maintaining an imaginary balance of power between the emperor and the army. He looked down on the idea of being a servant to a body that despised him and quaked at his anger; he gave orders when polite requests would have worked just as well, took on the demeanor and title of a ruler and conqueror, and openly exercised all legislative and executive power without any pretenses.

The victory over the senate was easy and inglorious. Every eye and every passion were directed to the supreme magistrate, who possessed the arms and treasure of the state; whilst the senate, neither elected by the people, nor guarded by military force, nor animated by public spirit, rested its declining authority on the frail and crumbling basis of ancient opinion. The fine theory of a republic insensibly vanished, and made way for the more natural and substantial feelings of monarchy. As the freedom and honors of Rome were successively communicated to the provinces, in which the old government had been either unknown, or was remembered with abhorrence, the tradition of republican maxims was gradually obliterated. The Greek historians of the age of the Antonines observe, with a malicious pleasure, that although the sovereign of Rome, in compliance with an obsolete prejudice, abstained from the name of king, he possessed the full measure of regal power. In the reign of Severus, the senate was filled with polished and eloquent slaves from the eastern provinces, who justified personal flattery by speculative principles of servitude. These new advocates of prerogative were heard with pleasure by the court, and with patience by the people, when they inculcated the duty of passive obedience, and descanted on the inevitable mischiefs of freedom. The lawyers and historians concurred in teaching, that the Imperial authority was held, not by the delegated commission, but by the irrevocable resignation of the senate; that the emperor was freed from the restraint of civil laws, could command by his arbitrary will the lives and fortunes of his subjects, and might dispose of the empire as of his private patrimony. The most eminent of the civil lawyers, and particularly Papinian, Paulus, and Ulpian, flourished under the house of Severus; and the Roman jurisprudence, having closely united itself with the system of monarchy, was supposed to have attained its full majority and perfection.

The victory over the senate was simple and unremarkable. Everyone's attention and emotions were focused on the supreme leader, who had control over the state's weapons and wealth. Meanwhile, the senate, which wasn’t elected by the people, lacked military protection and was not inspired by public spirit, relied on the fragile and outdated support of old opinions. The ideal of a republic gradually faded away, making room for the more natural and substantial feelings associated with monarchy. As the freedoms and honors of Rome were spread out to provinces where the old government was either unknown or remembered with disgust, the tradition of republican ideals slowly disappeared. The Greek historians from the time of the Antonines noted, with some delight, that although the ruler of Rome, out of an outdated bias, refrained from calling himself king, he wielded the full extent of kingly power. During Severus's reign, the senate became filled with polished and eloquent slaves from the eastern provinces, who justified their flattery with theoretical ideas of servitude. These new supporters of authority were welcomed by the court and tolerated by the people as they promoted the idea of passive obedience and discussed the unavoidable dangers of freedom. Lawyers and historians agreed that Imperial power was not based on a mandate but rather on the irreversible resignation of the senate; the emperor was not bound by civil laws, could unilaterally dictate the lives and fortunes of his subjects, and could manage the empire as if it were his private estate. The most notable civil lawyers, particularly Papinian, Paulus, and Ulpian, thrived under the Severan dynasty, and Roman law, having closely intertwined with the monarchy, was believed to have achieved its full development and perfection.

The contemporaries of Severus in the enjoyment of the peace and glory of his reign, forgave the cruelties by which it had been introduced. Posterity, who experienced the fatal effects of his maxims and example, justly considered him as the principal author of the decline of the Roman empire.

The people living during Severus's reign, who enjoyed its peace and glory, overlooked the brutal ways it came about. However, later generations, who felt the negative impact of his policies and actions, rightly viewed him as a key factor in the decline of the Roman Empire.





Chapter VI: Death Of Severus, Tyranny Of Caracalla, Usurpation Of Macrinus.—Part I.

The Death Of Severus.—Tyranny Of Caracalla.—Usurpation
Of Macrinus.—Follies Of Elagabalus.—Virtues Of Alexander
Severus.—Licentiousness Of The Army.—General State Of The
Roman Finances.
The Death of Severus. — Tyranny of Caracalla. — Usurpation of Macrinus. — Follies of Elagabalus. — Virtues of Alexander Severus. — Lawlessness of the Army. — Overall Condition of the Roman Finances.

The ascent to greatness, however steep and dangerous, may entertain an active spirit with the consciousness and exercise of its own powers: but the possession of a throne could never yet afford a lasting satisfaction to an ambitious mind. This melancholy truth was felt and acknowledged by Severus. Fortune and merit had, from an humble station, elevated him to the first place among mankind. “He had been all things,” as he said himself, “and all was of little value.” Distracted with the care, not of acquiring, but of preserving an empire, oppressed with age and infirmities, careless of fame, and satiated with power, all his prospects of life were closed. The desire of perpetuating the greatness of his family was the only remaining wish of his ambition and paternal tenderness.

The climb to greatness, no matter how steep and dangerous, can energize a driven person with the awareness and use of their own abilities. However, having a throne has never truly brought lasting satisfaction to an ambitious mind. Severus recognized and accepted this sad truth. Luck and talent had taken him from a lowly position to the top of the world. “I have been everything,” as he put it, “and none of it meant much.” Burdened not by the pursuit but by the maintenance of an empire, weighed down by age and illness, indifferent to fame, and tired of power, all his hopes for life were shut off. The only lasting wish he had left, driven by his ambition and fatherly affection, was to ensure the greatness of his family continued.

Like most of the Africans, Severus was passionately addicted to the vain studies of magic and divination, deeply versed in the interpretation of dreams and omens, and perfectly acquainted with the science of judicial astrology; which, in almost every age except the present, has maintained its dominion over the mind of man. He had lost his first wife, while he was governor of the Lionnese Gaul. In the choice of a second, he sought only to connect himself with some favorite of fortune; and as soon as he had discovered that the young lady of Emesa in Syria had a royal nativity, he solicited and obtained her hand. Julia Domna (for that was her name) deserved all that the stars could promise her. She possessed, even in advanced age, the attractions of beauty, and united to a lively imagination a firmness of mind, and strength of judgment, seldom bestowed on her sex. Her amiable qualities never made any deep impression on the dark and jealous temper of her husband; but in her son’s reign, she administered the principal affairs of the empire, with a prudence that supported his authority, and with a moderation that sometimes corrected his wild extravagancies. Julia applied herself to letters and philosophy, with some success, and with the most splendid reputation. She was the patroness of every art, and the friend of every man of genius. The grateful flattery of the learned has celebrated her virtues; but, if we may credit the scandal of ancient history, chastity was very far from being the most conspicuous virtue of the empress Julia.

Like most Africans, Severus was deeply obsessed with the pointless pursuits of magic and divination. He was well-versed in interpreting dreams and omens and had a solid understanding of judicial astrology, which, in nearly every era except for this one, has dominated human thought. He lost his first wife while serving as governor of Lyon in Gaul. When searching for a second wife, he aimed to marry someone who was favored by fortune; as soon as he found out that the young woman from Emesa in Syria had a royal birth chart, he requested and received her hand in marriage. Julia Domna (that was her name) was worthy of all that the stars could promise. Even in her later years, she had the allure of beauty and combined a lively imagination with a strong mind and sound judgment, which were rarely found in women. Despite her charming qualities, she couldn't profoundly change her husband’s dark and jealous nature. However, during her son's reign, she managed the empire's main affairs with a level of wisdom that upheld his power and a moderation that sometimes kept his reckless behavior in check. Julia was dedicated to literature and philosophy, achieving notable success and earning an impressive reputation. She supported all forms of art and was a friend to every talented individual. The appreciative praise of scholars celebrated her virtues; however, if we can believe the gossip from ancient history, chastity was far from the most prominent virtue of Empress Julia.

Two sons, Caracalla and Geta, were the fruit of this marriage, and the destined heirs of the empire. The fond hopes of the father, and of the Roman world, were soon disappointed by these vain youths, who displayed the indolent security of hereditary princes; and a presumption that fortune would supply the place of merit and application. Without any emulation of virtue or talents, they discovered, almost from their infancy, a fixed and implacable antipathy for each other.

Two sons, Caracalla and Geta, were born from this marriage and were the intended heirs of the empire. The father's hopes, along with those of the Roman world, were quickly dashed by these self-centered youths, who showed the lazy confidence of inherited royalty and an assumption that luck would make up for lack of skill and effort. Without any desire to emulate virtue or talent, they revealed, almost from their childhood, a deep and unrelenting hatred for each other.

Their aversion, confirmed by years, and fomented by the arts of their interested favorites, broke out in childish, and gradually in more serious competitions; and, at length, divided the theatre, the circus, and the court, into two factions, actuated by the hopes and fears of their respective leaders. The prudent emperor endeavored, by every expedient of advice and authority, to allay this growing animosity. The unhappy discord of his sons clouded all his prospects, and threatened to overturn a throne raised with so much labor, cemented with so much blood, and guarded with every defence of arms and treasure. With an impartial hand he maintained between them an exact balance of favor, conferred on both the rank of Augustus, with the revered name of Antoninus; and for the first time the Roman world beheld three emperors. Yet even this equal conduct served only to inflame the contest, whilst the fierce Caracalla asserted the right of primogeniture, and the milder Geta courted the affections of the people and the soldiers. In the anguish of a disappointed father, Severus foretold that the weaker of his sons would fall a sacrifice to the stronger; who, in his turn, would be ruined by his own vices.

Their dislike, confirmed over the years and fueled by the schemes of their self-serving favorites, erupted into childish squabbles that gradually turned into more serious rivalries. Eventually, this division split the theater, the circus, and the court into two factions driven by the hopes and fears of their respective leaders. The cautious emperor tried every possible means of advice and authority to reduce this growing hostility. The unfortunate conflict between his sons overshadowed all his hopes and threatened to topple a throne built with so much effort, cemented with so much blood, and protected by all kinds of arms and wealth. He carefully maintained a fair balance of favor between them, granting both the title of Augustus along with the respected name of Antoninus; for the first time, the Roman world saw three emperors. Yet, even this impartial treatment only intensified the competition, as the aggressive Caracalla claimed the right of the firstborn, while the gentler Geta sought the affection of the people and the soldiers. In the pain of a disappointed father, Severus predicted that the weaker son would become a victim to the stronger, who in turn would be destroyed by his own flaws.

In these circumstances the intelligence of a war in Britain, and of an invasion of the province by the barbarians of the North, was received with pleasure by Severus. Though the vigilance of his lieutenants might have been sufficient to repel the distant enemy, he resolved to embrace the honorable pretext of withdrawing his sons from the luxury of Rome, which enervated their minds and irritated their passions; and of inuring their youth to the toils of war and government. Notwithstanding his advanced age, (for he was above threescore,) and his gout, which obliged him to be carried in a litter, he transported himself in person into that remote island, attended by his two sons, his whole court, and a formidable army. He immediately passed the walls of Hadrian and Antoninus, and entered the enemy’s country, with a design of completing the long attempted conquest of Britain. He penetrated to the northern extremity of the island, without meeting an enemy. But the concealed ambuscades of the Caledonians, who hung unseen on the rear and flanks of his army, the coldness of the climate and the severity of a winter march across the hills and morasses of Scotland, are reported to have cost the Romans above fifty thousand men. The Caledonians at length yielded to the powerful and obstinate attack, sued for peace, and surrendered a part of their arms, and a large tract of territory. But their apparent submission lasted no longer than the present terror. As soon as the Roman legions had retired, they resumed their hostile independence. Their restless spirit provoked Severus to send a new army into Caledonia, with the most bloody orders, not to subdue, but to extirpate the natives. They were saved by the death of their haughty enemy.

In this situation, Severus welcomed the news of a war in Britain and an invasion of the province by northern barbarians. Even though his lieutenants could have kept the distant enemy at bay, he decided to use the honorable excuse of pulling his sons away from the luxury of Rome, which softened their minds and stirred their passions; he aimed to toughen them up for the hardships of war and governance. Despite his age (he was over sixty) and his gout, which forced him to be carried in a litter, he personally traveled to that distant island with his two sons, his entire court, and a powerful army. He quickly moved past the walls of Hadrian and Antoninus and entered enemy territory to finally achieve the long-desired conquest of Britain. He reached the northern tip of the island without encountering any enemies. However, the hidden ambushes of the Caledonians, who lurked unseen behind and beside his army, along with the harsh climate and the brutal winter march over the hills and swamps of Scotland, reportedly cost the Romans over fifty thousand men. Eventually, the Caledonians surrendered to the intense and relentless attack, sought peace, and gave up some of their weapons and a large area of land. But their apparent submission didn't last long; as soon as the Roman legions left, they returned to their hostile independence. Their restless nature pushed Severus to send another army into Caledonia with cruel orders not to conquer, but to eradicate the locals. They were ultimately saved by the death of their proud enemy.

This Caledonian war, neither marked by decisive events, nor attended with any important consequences, would ill deserve our attention; but it is supposed, not without a considerable degree of probability, that the invasion of Severus is connected with the most shining period of the British history or fable. Fingal, whose fame, with that of his heroes and bards, has been revived in our language by a recent publication, is said to have commanded the Caledonians in that memorable juncture, to have eluded the power of Severus, and to have obtained a signal victory on the banks of the Carun, in which the son of the King of the World, Caracul, fled from his arms along the fields of his pride. Something of a doubtful mist still hangs over these Highland traditions; nor can it be entirely dispelled by the most ingenious researches of modern criticism; but if we could, with safety, indulge the pleasing supposition, that Fingal lived, and that Ossian sung, the striking contrast of the situation and manners of the contending nations might amuse a philosophic mind. The parallel would be little to the advantage of the more civilized people, if we compared the unrelenting revenge of Severus with the generous clemency of Fingal; the timid and brutal cruelty of Caracalla with the bravery, the tenderness, the elegant genius of Ossian; the mercenary chiefs, who, from motives of fear or interest, served under the imperial standard, with the free-born warriors who started to arms at the voice of the king of Morven; if, in a word, we contemplated the untutored Caledonians, glowing with the warm virtues of nature, and the degenerate Romans, polluted with the mean vices of wealth and slavery.

This Caledonian war, which wasn't marked by decisive events or significant consequences, might not deserve our attention; however, it's believed, with a fair amount of certainty, that Severus's invasion is linked to a standout period in British history or myth. Fingal, whose fame, alongside that of his heroes and bards, has been brought back to life in our language by a recent publication, is said to have led the Caledonians during that remarkable time, evading Severus's power and securing an impressive victory by the banks of the Carun, where the son of the King of the World, Caracul, fled from him across the fields of his pride. There's still a bit of uncertainty surrounding these Highland legends; even the most clever efforts of modern criticism can't completely clear it up. But if we could safely entertain the nice thought that Fingal was real and that Ossian sang, the distinct differences in the situations and customs of the opposing nations might intrigue a thoughtful mind. The comparison wouldn’t favor the more civilized people much if we looked at Severus's relentless vengeance versus Fingal's noble mercy; the fearful and cruel nature of Caracalla compared to the courage, kindness, and artistic genius of Ossian; the mercenary leaders who, out of fear or self-interest, served under the imperial banner, versus the free warriors who took up arms at the call of the king of Morven; if, in short, we considered the unrefined Caledonians, filled with the genuine virtues of nature, against the degenerate Romans, tainted by the petty vices of wealth and slavery.

The declining health and last illness of Severus inflamed the wild ambition and black passions of Caracalla’s soul. Impatient of any delay or division of empire, he attempted, more than once, to shorten the small remainder of his father’s days, and endeavored, but without success, to excite a mutiny among the troops. The old emperor had often censured the misguided lenity of Marcus, who, by a single act of justice, might have saved the Romans from the tyranny of his worthless son. Placed in the same situation, he experienced how easily the rigor of a judge dissolves away in the tenderness of a parent. He deliberated, he threatened, but he could not punish; and this last and only instance of mercy was more fatal to the empire than a long series of cruelty. The disorder of his mind irritated the pains of his body; he wished impatiently for death, and hastened the instant of it by his impatience. He expired at York in the sixty-fifth year of his life, and in the eighteenth of a glorious and successful reign. In his last moments he recommended concord to his sons, and his sons to the army. The salutary advice never reached the heart, or even the understanding, of the impetuous youths; but the more obedient troops, mindful of their oath of allegiance, and of the authority of their deceased master, resisted the solicitations of Caracalla, and proclaimed both brothers emperors of Rome. The new princes soon left the Caledonians in peace, returned to the capital, celebrated their father’s funeral with divine honors, and were cheerfully acknowledged as lawful sovereigns, by the senate, the people, and the provinces. Some preeminence of rank seems to have been allowed to the elder brother; but they both administered the empire with equal and independent power.

The declining health and final illness of Severus fueled the intense ambition and dark passions of Caracalla. Frustrated by any delay or division of power, he tried multiple times to cut short his father's remaining days and unsuccessfully stirred up a mutiny among the troops. The aging emperor had frequently criticized the misguided leniency of Marcus, who, with a single act of justice, could have saved the Romans from the tyranny of his unworthy son. In the same situation, Severus realized how easily the strictness of a judge fades in the softness of a parent. He deliberated and threatened, but he couldn’t bring himself to punish; this final act of mercy ultimately proved more harmful to the empire than a long streak of cruelty. His mental turmoil worsened his physical pain; he impatiently yearned for death, hastening its arrival with his restlessness. He passed away in York at the age of sixty-five, after eighteen years of a glorious and successful reign. In his last moments, he urged harmony between his sons and between his sons and the army. Unfortunately, his wise advice never resonated with the impetuous young men; however, the more loyal troops, honoring their oath of allegiance and the authority of their deceased leader, resisted Caracalla's demands and declared both brothers emperors of Rome. The new rulers soon left the Caledonians in peace, returned to the capital, paid divine honors to their father at his funeral, and were warmly accepted as legitimate rulers by the senate, the people, and the provinces. It seems some rank was given to the elder brother, but they both governed the empire with equal and independent power.

Such a divided form of government would have proved a source of discord between the most affectionate brothers. It was impossible that it could long subsist between two implacable enemies, who neither desired nor could trust a reconciliation. It was visible that one only could reign, and that the other must fall; and each of them, judging of his rival’s designs by his own, guarded his life with the most jealous vigilance from the repeated attacks of poison or the sword. Their rapid journey through Gaul and Italy, during which they never ate at the same table, or slept in the same house, displayed to the provinces the odious spectacle of fraternal discord. On their arrival at Rome, they immediately divided the vast extent of the imperial palace. No communication was allowed between their apartments; the doors and passages were diligently fortified, and guards posted and relieved with the same strictness as in a besieged place. The emperors met only in public, in the presence of their afflicted mother; and each surrounded by a numerous train of armed followers. Even on these occasions of ceremony, the dissimulation of courts could ill disguise the rancor of their hearts.

Such a divided government would have been a source of conflict between even the closest brothers. It was unlikely that it could last long between two relentless enemies, who neither wanted nor trusted a reconciliation. It was clear that only one could rule, and the other must fall; each judged his rival’s intentions by his own and guarded his life with extreme caution against repeated threats of poison or attack. Their swift journey through Gaul and Italy, during which they never shared a meal or slept in the same house, showed the provinces a disturbing display of sibling conflict. Upon arriving in Rome, they immediately split the massive imperial palace. No communication was allowed between their suites; the doors and passageways were carefully fortified, with guards stationed and rotated as strictly as in a besieged area. The emperors only met in public, in front of their distressed mother, each surrounded by a large group of armed followers. Even during these ceremonial occasions, the facade of courtly behavior could hardly hide the bitterness in their hearts.

This latent civil war already distracted the whole government, when a scheme was suggested that seemed of mutual benefit to the hostile brothers. It was proposed, that since it was impossible to reconcile their minds, they should separate their interest, and divide the empire between them. The conditions of the treaty were already drawn with some accuracy. It was agreed that Caracalla, as the elder brother should remain in possession of Europe and the western Africa; and that he should relinquish the sovereignty of Asia and Egypt to Geta, who might fix his residence at Alexandria or Antioch, cities little inferior to Rome itself in wealth and greatness; that numerous armies should be constantly encamped on either side of the Thracian Bosphorus, to guard the frontiers of the rival monarchies; and that the senators of European extraction should acknowledge the sovereign of Rome, whilst the natives of Asia followed the emperor of the East. The tears of the empress Julia interrupted the negotiation, the first idea of which had filled every Roman breast with surprise and indignation. The mighty mass of conquest was so intimately united by the hand of time and policy, that it required the most forcible violence to rend it asunder. The Romans had reason to dread, that the disjointed members would soon be reduced by a civil war under the dominion of one master; but if the separation was permanent, the division of the provinces must terminate in the dissolution of an empire whose unity had hitherto remained inviolate.

This ongoing civil war had already distracted the entire government when a plan was proposed that seemed beneficial for both warring brothers. It was suggested that, since it was impossible to reconcile their differences, they should separate their interests and divide the empire between them. The terms of the agreement were outlined with some detail. It was decided that Caracalla, as the older brother, would keep control of Europe and western Africa while giving up sovereignty over Asia and Egypt to Geta, who could establish his residence in Alexandria or Antioch, cities nearly as wealthy and significant as Rome itself. It was also agreed that several armies would be stationed on both sides of the Thracian Bosphorus to protect the borders of the rival kingdoms, and that senators from Europe would recognize the Roman sovereign while the people of Asia would follow the emperor of the East. The tears of Empress Julia interrupted the negotiations, which had initially filled every Roman heart with surprise and anger. The vast territory gained through conquest had become so tightly connected through time and policy that it would take significant force to break it apart. The Romans feared that the fragmented pieces would quickly fall under the control of one ruler through civil war, but if the separation was permanent, the division of the provinces would ultimately lead to the collapse of an empire that had so far remained unified.

Had the treaty been carried into execution, the sovereign of Europe might soon have been the conqueror of Asia; but Caracalla obtained an easier, though a more guilty, victory. He artfully listened to his mother’s entreaties, and consented to meet his brother in her apartment, on terms of peace and reconciliation. In the midst of their conversation, some centurions, who had contrived to conceal themselves, rushed with drawn swords upon the unfortunate Geta. His distracted mother strove to protect him in her arms; but, in the unavailing struggle, she was wounded in the hand, and covered with the blood of her younger son, while she saw the elder animating and assisting the fury of the assassins. As soon as the deed was perpetrated, Caracalla, with hasty steps, and horror in his countenance, ran towards the Prætorian camp, as his only refuge, and threw himself on the ground before the statues of the tutelar deities. The soldiers attempted to raise and comfort him. In broken and disordered words he informed them of his imminent danger, and fortunate escape; insinuating that he had prevented the designs of his enemy, and declared his resolution to live and die with his faithful troops. Geta had been the favorite of the soldiers; but complaint was useless, revenge was dangerous, and they still reverenced the son of Severus. Their discontent died away in idle murmurs, and Caracalla soon convinced them of the justice of his cause, by distributing in one lavish donative the accumulated treasures of his father’s reign. The real sentiments of the soldiers alone were of importance to his power or safety. Their declaration in his favor commanded the dutiful professions of the senate. The obsequious assembly was always prepared to ratify the decision of fortune; * but as Caracalla wished to assuage the first emotions of public indignation, the name of Geta was mentioned with decency, and he received the funeral honors of a Roman emperor. Posterity, in pity to his misfortune, has cast a veil over his vices. We consider that young prince as the innocent victim of his brother’s ambition, without recollecting that he himself wanted power, rather than inclination, to consummate the same attempts of revenge and murder.

Had the treaty been put into action, Europe’s ruler might have soon become Asia’s conqueror; however, Caracalla achieved an easier, though more shameful, victory. He cleverly listened to his mother’s pleas and agreed to meet his brother in her room, under the pretense of peace and reconciliation. During their conversation, some centurions, who had managed to hide, suddenly charged at the unfortunate Geta with drawn swords. His frantic mother tried to protect him, but in the futile struggle, she was wounded in the hand and covered in her younger son’s blood, while she witnessed the elder encouraging the assassins. Once the act was done, Caracalla quickly ran towards the Prætorian camp, his face showing horror, and threw himself on the ground before the statues of the protective deities. The soldiers tried to lift and comfort him. In broken, disordered words, he told them about his imminent danger and fortunate escape; suggesting that he had thwarted his enemy’s plans and declared his intention to live and die with his loyal troops. Geta had been a favorite among the soldiers; but complaining was pointless, revenge was risky, and they still respected Severus’s son. Their discontent faded into idle murmurs, and Caracalla soon showed them the legitimacy of his cause by handing out a lavish gift of the accumulated wealth from his father’s reign. The true feelings of the soldiers were what mattered for his power or safety. Their support for him ensured the senate’s obedient declarations. The compliant assembly was always ready to approve the outcome of fate; but since Caracalla wanted to calm the initial public outrage, Geta’s name was mentioned respectfully, and he received the funeral honors of a Roman emperor. Later generations, feeling pity for his misfortune, have downplayed his flaws. We view that young prince as the innocent victim of his brother’s ambition, without remembering that he lacked the desire for power rather than the inclination to take part in the same acts of revenge and murder.

The crime went not unpunished. Neither business, nor pleasure, nor flattery, could defend Caracalla from the stings of a guilty conscience; and he confessed, in the anguish of a tortured mind, that his disordered fancy often beheld the angry forms of his father and his brother rising into life, to threaten and upbraid him. The consciousness of his crime should have induced him to convince mankind, by the virtues of his reign, that the bloody deed had been the involuntary effect of fatal necessity. But the repentance of Caracalla only prompted him to remove from the world whatever could remind him of his guilt, or recall the memory of his murdered brother. On his return from the senate to the palace, he found his mother in the company of several noble matrons, weeping over the untimely fate of her younger son. The jealous emperor threatened them with instant death; the sentence was executed against Fadilla, the last remaining daughter of the emperor Marcus; * and even the afflicted Julia was obliged to silence her lamentations, to suppress her sighs, and to receive the assassin with smiles of joy and approbation. It was computed that, under the vague appellation of the friends of Geta, above twenty thousand persons of both sexes suffered death. His guards and freedmen, the ministers of his serious business, and the companions of his looser hours, those who by his interest had been promoted to any commands in the army or provinces, with the long connected chain of their dependants, were included in the proscription; which endeavored to reach every one who had maintained the smallest correspondence with Geta, who lamented his death, or who even mentioned his name. Helvius Pertinax, son to the prince of that name, lost his life by an unseasonable witticism. It was a sufficient crime of Thrasea Priscus to be descended from a family in which the love of liberty seemed an hereditary quality. The particular causes of calumny and suspicion were at length exhausted; and when a senator was accused of being a secret enemy to the government, the emperor was satisfied with the general proof that he was a man of property and virtue. From this well-grounded principle he frequently drew the most bloody inferences.

The crime went unpunished. Neither business, pleasure, nor flattery could shield Caracalla from the nagging guilt of his conscience. He admitted, in the turmoil of his tormented mind, that his disordered imagination often conjured the angry figures of his father and brother, rising to confront and accuse him. The awareness of his crime should have motivated him to prove to the world, through the virtues of his reign, that the bloody act was an unintended result of unavoidable necessity. But Caracalla's remorse only drove him to eliminate anything that reminded him of his guilt or recalled memories of his murdered brother. On his way back from the senate to the palace, he found his mother with several noblewomen, crying over the untimely death of her younger son. The jealous emperor threatened them with immediate execution; the sentence was carried out against Fadilla, the last remaining daughter of Emperor Marcus; and even the grieving Julia was forced to stifle her mourning, suppress her sighs, and welcome the assassin with smiles of joy and approval. It was estimated that, under the vague label of "the friends of Geta," more than twenty thousand people of all genders were put to death. His guards and freedmen, the ministers of his serious affairs, and the friends of his leisurely times, along with those who had been promoted to any command in the military or provinces through his influence, along with their long chain of dependents, were all included in the purge; it aimed to target anyone who had even the slightest connection with Geta, who mourned his death, or who mentioned his name. Helvius Pertinax, the son of the prince of that name, lost his life due to an ill-timed joke. It was enough of a crime for Thrasea Priscus to come from a family known for its love of freedom. The specific reasons for slander and suspicion eventually ran out; and when a senator was accused of being a secret enemy of the government, the emperor was satisfied with the general proof that he was a man of means and integrity. From this flawed logic, he often drew the bloodiest conclusions.





Chapter VI: Death Of Severus, Tyranny Of Caracalla, Usurpation Of Macrinus.—Part II.

The execution of so many innocent citizens was bewailed by the secret tears of their friends and families. The death of Papinian, the Prætorian Præfect, was lamented as a public calamity. During the last seven years of Severus, he had exercised the most important offices of the state, and, by his salutary influence, guided the emperor’s steps in the paths of justice and moderation. In full assurance of his virtue and abilities, Severus, on his death-bed, had conjured him to watch over the prosperity and union of the Imperial family. The honest labors of Papinian served only to inflame the hatred which Caracalla had already conceived against his father’s minister. After the murder of Geta, the Præfect was commanded to exert the powers of his skill and eloquence in a studied apology for that atrocious deed. The philosophic Seneca had condescended to compose a similar epistle to the senate, in the name of the son and assassin of Agrippina. “That it was easier to commit than to justify a parricide,” was the glorious reply of Papinian; who did not hesitate between the loss of life and that of honor. Such intrepid virtue, which had escaped pure and unsullied from the intrigues of courts, the habits of business, and the arts of his profession, reflects more lustre on the memory of Papinian, than all his great employments, his numerous writings, and the superior reputation as a lawyer, which he has preserved through every age of the Roman jurisprudence.

The execution of so many innocent citizens was mourned by the hidden tears of their friends and families. The death of Papinian, the Prætorian Præfect, was seen as a public tragedy. During the last seven years of Severus's reign, he held the most important positions in the government and, with his positive influence, guided the emperor toward justice and moderation. Confident in Papinian's character and skills, Severus, on his deathbed, urged him to look after the well-being and unity of the Imperial family. However, Papinian's honest efforts only fueled Caracalla's existing hatred for his father's advisor. After Geta's murder, the Præfect was ordered to use his skills and eloquence to craft a formal excuse for that awful act. The philosopher Seneca also agreed to write a similar letter to the senate on behalf of Agrippina's son and killer. “It’s easier to commit than to justify a parricide,” was Papinian’s bold response; he refused to choose between losing his life and losing his honor. Such fearless virtue, which remained pure and untarnished despite the intrigues of politics, the demands of business, and the manipulative tactics of his profession, adds more glory to Papinian's legacy than all his high-ranking positions, his many writings, and the esteemed reputation as a lawyer that he has maintained throughout every era of Roman law.

It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity of the Romans, and in the worst of times the consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active, and their vice indolent. Augustus, Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus visited their extensive dominions in person, and their progress was marked by acts of wisdom and beneficence. The tyranny of Tiberius, Nero, and Domitian, who resided almost constantly at Rome, or in the adjacent was confined to the senatorial and equestrian orders. But Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the murder of Geta. The rest of his reign was spent in the several provinces of the empire, particularly those of the East, and every province was by turns the scene of his rapine and cruelty. The senators, compelled by fear to attend his capricious motions, were obliged to provide daily entertainments at an immense expense, which he abandoned with contempt to his guards; and to erect, in every city, magnificent palaces and theatres, which he either disdained to visit, or ordered immediately thrown down. The most wealthy families were ruined by partial fines and confiscations, and the great body of his subjects oppressed by ingenious and aggravated taxes. In the midst of peace, and upon the slightest provocation, he issued his commands, at Alexandria, in Egypt for a general massacre. From a secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers, without distinguishing the number or the crime of the sufferers; since as he coolly informed the senate, allthe Alexandrians, those who had perished, and those who had escaped, were alike guilty.

It had previously been the unique blessing of the Romans, and even in the worst times a source of comfort, that the emperors were actively virtuous, while their vices were more passive. Augustus, Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus personally toured their vast territories, and their journeys were marked by wisdom and acts of kindness. The tyranny of Tiberius, Nero, and Domitian, who mostly stayed in Rome or its nearby areas, primarily affected the senatorial and equestrian classes. But Caracalla was a universal enemy to humanity. He left Rome (and never returned) about a year after the murder of Geta. The rest of his reign was spent in various provinces of the empire, especially in the East, where each province experienced his plundering and cruelty in turn. The senators, driven by fear, had to follow his unpredictable demands and were forced to throw lavish parties at an enormous cost, which he treated with disdain, leaving them to his guards. They also had to build grand palaces and theaters in every city, which he showed either no interest in visiting or ordered to be destroyed immediately. The richest families were devastated by targeted fines and confiscations, while the majority of his subjects were burdened with complicated and harsh taxes. In the midst of peace, and at the slightest provocation, he ordered a general massacre in Alexandria, Egypt. From a secure position in the temple of Serapis, he watched and directed the slaughter of many thousands of citizens and strangers alike, without bothering to count the dead or consider the reasons behind their suffering; as he coldly informed the senate, all the Alexandrians, both those who died and those who escaped, were equally guilty.

The wise instructions of Severus never made any lasting impression on the mind of his son, who, although not destitute of imagination and eloquence, was equally devoid of judgment and humanity. One dangerous maxim, worthy of a tyrant, was remembered and abused by Caracalla. “To secure the affections of the army, and to esteem the rest of his subjects as of little moment.” But the liberality of the father had been restrained by prudence, and his indulgence to the troops was tempered by firmness and authority. The careless profusion of the son was the policy of one reign, and the inevitable ruin both of the army and of the empire. The vigor of the soldiers, instead of being confirmed by the severe discipline of camps, melted away in the luxury of cities. The excessive increase of their pay and donatives exhausted the state to enrich the military order, whose modesty in peace, and service in war, is best secured by an honorable poverty. The demeanor of Caracalla was haughty and full of pride; but with the troops he forgot even the proper dignity of his rank, encouraged their insolent familiarity, and, neglecting the essential duties of a general, affected to imitate the dress and manners of a common soldier.

The wise advice of Severus never left a lasting impact on his son, who, while not lacking in imagination and eloquence, was equally short on judgment and compassion. One dangerous saying, fit for a tyrant, was remembered and misused by Caracalla: “To win the army’s favor, and to regard the rest of his subjects as unimportant.” However, the father’s generosity was checked by caution, and his leniency towards the troops was balanced by strength and authority. The reckless extravagance of the son was the policy of one reign, leading to the inevitable downfall of both the army and the empire. Instead of being strengthened by the strict discipline of camps, the soldiers' vigor waned in the luxury of cities. The excessive rise in their pay and bonuses drained the state’s resources to enrich the military, whose modesty in peace and effectiveness in war is best maintained by honorable poverty. Caracalla's behavior was arrogant and prideful; yet with the troops, he lost even the appropriate dignity of his rank, encouraged their rude familiarity, and, neglecting the essential responsibilities of a general, pretended to adopt the attire and habits of a common soldier.

It was impossible that such a character, and such conduct as that of Caracalla, could inspire either love or esteem; but as long as his vices were beneficial to the armies, he was secure from the danger of rebellion. A secret conspiracy, provoked by his own jealousy, was fatal to the tyrant. The Prætorian præfecture was divided between two ministers. The military department was intrusted to Adventus, an experienced rather than able soldier; and the civil affairs were transacted by Opilius Macrinus, who, by his dexterity in business, had raised himself, with a fair character, to that high office. But his favor varied with the caprice of the emperor, and his life might depend on the slightest suspicion, or the most casual circumstance. Malice or fanaticism had suggested to an African, deeply skilled in the knowledge of futurity, a very dangerous prediction, that Macrinus and his son were destined to reign over the empire. The report was soon diffused through the province; and when the man was sent in chains to Rome, he still asserted, in the presence of the præfect of the city, the faith of his prophecy. That magistrate, who had received the most pressing instructions to inform himself of the successors of Caracalla, immediately communicated the examination of the African to the Imperial court, which at that time resided in Syria. But, notwithstanding the diligence of the public messengers, a friend of Macrinus found means to apprise him of the approaching danger. The emperor received the letters from Rome; and as he was then engaged in the conduct of a chariot race, he delivered them unopened to the Prætorian Præfect, directing him to despatch the ordinary affairs, and to report the more important business that might be contained in them. Macrinus read his fate, and resolved to prevent it. He inflamed the discontents of some inferior officers, and employed the hand of Martialis, a desperate soldier, who had been refused the rank of centurion. The devotion of Caracalla prompted him to make a pilgrimage from Edessa to the celebrated temple of the Moon at Carrhæ. * He was attended by a body of cavalry: but having stopped on the road for some necessary occasion, his guards preserved a respectful distance, and Martialis, approaching his person under a presence of duty, stabbed him with a dagger. The bold assassin was instantly killed by a Scythian archer of the Imperial guard. Such was the end of a monster whose life disgraced human nature, and whose reign accused the patience of the Romans. The grateful soldiers forgot his vices, remembered only his partial liberality, and obliged the senate to prostitute their own dignity and that of religion, by granting him a place among the gods. Whilst he was upon earth, Alexander the Great was the only hero whom this god deemed worthy his admiration. He assumed the name and ensigns of Alexander, formed a Macedonian phalanx of guards, persecuted the disciples of Aristotle, and displayed, with a puerile enthusiasm, the only sentiment by which he discovered any regard for virtue or glory. We can easily conceive, that after the battle of Narva, and the conquest of Poland, Charles XII. (though he still wanted the more elegant accomplishments of the son of Philip) might boast of having rivalled his valor and magnanimity; but in no one action of his life did Caracalla express the faintest resemblance of the Macedonian hero, except in the murder of a great number of his own and of his father’s friends.

It was impossible for someone like Caracalla, with his behavior, to inspire love or respect; however, as long as his wrongdoings benefited the army, he was safe from rebellion. A secret plot, fueled by his own jealousy, ultimately led to the tyrant's downfall. The Prætorian prefecture was split between two officials. The military side was handled by Adventus, an experienced but not particularly talented soldier, while Opilius Macrinus managed civil affairs. He had climbed the ranks through skillful maneuvering in business and had a positive reputation. But his favor with the emperor was unpredictable, and his life hinged on the slightest hint of suspicion or random circumstances. An African, well-versed in predicting the future, provocatively claimed that Macrinus and his son were fated to rule the empire. This rumor quickly spread throughout the province; even when the man was sent to Rome in chains, he maintained his prophetic claims in front of the city's prefect. This magistrate, under strict orders to report on Caracalla's possible successors, brought the African's claims to the Imperial court, which was based in Syria at the time. However, despite the messengers' urgency, a friend of Macrinus managed to warn him of the imminent threat. The emperor received the letters from Rome while overseeing a chariot race and chose to give them unopened to the Prætorian Prefect, instructing him to handle routine matters and report on anything significant inside. Macrinus understood his fate and decided to take action. He stirred up the grievances of some lower-ranking officers and enlisted Martialis, a desperate soldier who had been denied the rank of centurion. Caracalla's devotion led him to journey from Edessa to the famous Moon temple at Carrhæ. He was accompanied by a cavalry unit but, having stopped en route for a short time, his guards kept a respectful distance. Martialis approached him under the guise of duty and stabbed him with a dagger. The bold assassin was quickly killed by a Scythian archer from the Imperial guard. This marked the end of a monster whose life tarnished humanity and whose reign tested the Romans' patience. Grateful soldiers overlooked his vices, remembered only his partial generosity, and pressured the senate to dishonor itself and religion by granting him a spot among the gods. When he was alive, Alexander the Great was the only hero Caracalla admired. He adopted Alexander's name and symbols, formed a Macedonian phalanx of guards, targeted the followers of Aristotle, and showed, with childish enthusiasm, the only sentiment that revealed any appreciation for virtue or glory. It's easy to imagine that after the battle of Narva and conquering Poland, Charles XII (though lacking some of the refinement of Philip's son) could boast of matching Alexander's bravery and nobility. But Caracalla never resembled the Macedonian hero in any of his actions, except for the killing of many of his own and his father’s friends.

After the extinction of the house of Severus, the Roman world remained three days without a master. The choice of the army (for the authority of a distant and feeble senate was little regarded) hung in anxious suspense, as no candidate presented himself whose distinguished birth and merit could engage their attachment and unite their suffrages. The decisive weight of the Prætorian guards elevated the hopes of their præfects, and these powerful ministers began to assert their legal claim to fill the vacancy of the Imperial throne. Adventus, however, the senior præfect, conscious of his age and infirmities, of his small reputation, and his smaller abilities, resigned the dangerous honor to the crafty ambition of his colleague Macrinus, whose well-dissembled grief removed all suspicion of his being accessary to his master’s death. The troops neither loved nor esteemed his character. They cast their eyes around in search of a competitor, and at last yielded with reluctance to his promises of unbounded liberality and indulgence. A short time after his accession, he conferred on his son Diadumenianus, at the age of only ten years, the Imperial title, and the popular name of Antoninus. The beautiful figure of the youth, assisted by an additional donative, for which the ceremony furnished a pretext, might attract, it was hoped, the favor of the army, and secure the doubtful throne of Macrinus.

After the fall of the Severan dynasty, the Roman world was left without a leader for three days. The army, disregarding the weak and distant Senate, was filled with uncertainty since no candidate emerged with the noble lineage and skills to win their loyalty and votes. The dominant influence of the Praetorian Guard raised the hopes of their prefects, and these powerful figures began to push their legal claims to fill the empty Imperial throne. However, Adventus, the senior prefect, aware of his age and health issues, along with his limited reputation and lesser abilities, decided to step aside and let his ambitious colleague Macrinus take the opportunity. Macrinus managed to conceal his involvement in his predecessor’s death with a convincing display of sorrow. The troops didn’t like or respect him, but they reluctantly accepted his promises of endless generosity and lenience. Shortly after he took power, he gave his ten-year-old son Diadumenianus the title of Emperor and the popular name Antoninus. They hoped that the young boy's attractive appearance, along with a generous donation that the ceremony allowed as pretext, would win the army's favor and stabilize Macrinus’s shaky throne.

The authority of the new sovereign had been ratified by the cheerful submission of the senate and provinces. They exulted in their unexpected deliverance from a hated tyrant, and it seemed of little consequence to examine into the virtues of the successor of Caracalla. But as soon as the first transports of joy and surprise had subsided, they began to scrutinize the merits of Macrinus with a critical severity, and to arraign the hasty choice of the army. It had hitherto been considered as a fundamental maxim of the constitution, that the emperor must be always chosen in the senate, and the sovereign power, no longer exercised by the whole body, was always delegated to one of its members. But Macrinus was not a senator. The sudden elevation of the Prætorian præfects betrayed the meanness of their origin; and the equestrian order was still in possession of that great office, which commanded with arbitrary sway the lives and fortunes of the senate. A murmur of indignation was heard, that a man, whose obscure extraction had never been illustrated by any signal service, should dare to invest himself with the purple, instead of bestowing it on some distinguished senator, equal in birth and dignity to the splendor of the Imperial station. As soon as the character of Macrinus was surveyed by the sharp eye of discontent, some vices, and many defects, were easily discovered. The choice of his ministers was in many instances justly censured, and the dissatisfied people, with their usual candor, accused at once his indolent tameness and his excessive severity.

The authority of the new ruler had been confirmed by the happy agreement of the senate and provinces. They rejoiced in their unexpected escape from a despised tyrant, and it seemed unimportant to question the abilities of Caracalla's successor. However, once the initial excitement and surprise wore off, they began to examine Macrinus's qualifications with a critical eye and to criticize the army's rushed decision. It had always been seen as a foundational principle of the constitution that an emperor must be chosen from the senate, and that the sovereign power, no longer held by the entire body, was always given to one of its members. But Macrinus was not a senator. The quick rise of the Praetorian prefects revealed the lowliness of their origins, and the equestrian order still held the powerful position that ruled the lives and fortunes of the senate with unchecked authority. A wave of outrage was heard that a man, whose humble background had never been highlighted by any notable achievement, would dare to take on the imperial purple instead of granting it to a respected senator, equal in rank and dignity to the grandeur of the Imperial role. As soon as the character of Macrinus was examined by the vigilant eye of discontent, some flaws and many shortcomings were readily apparent. His selection of ministers was often justly criticized, and the disgruntled populace, with their usual bluntness, accused him of both lazy complacency and harsh severity.

His rash ambition had climbed a height where it was difficult to stand with firmness, and impossible to fall without instant destruction. Trained in the arts of courts and the forms of civil business, he trembled in the presence of the fierce and undisciplined multitude, over whom he had assumed the command; his military talents were despised, and his personal courage suspected; a whisper that circulated in the camp, disclosed the fatal secret of the conspiracy against the late emperor, aggravated the guilt of murder by the baseness of hypocrisy, and heightened contempt by detestation. To alienate the soldiers, and to provoke inevitable ruin, the character of a reformer was only wanting; and such was the peculiar hardship of his fate, that Macrinus was compelled to exercise that invidious office. The prodigality of Caracalla had left behind it a long train of ruin and disorder; and if that worthless tyrant had been capable of reflecting on the sure consequences of his own conduct, he would perhaps have enjoyed the dark prospect of the distress and calamities which he bequeathed to his successors.

His reckless ambition had reached a point where it was hard to stay steady and impossible to fall without immediate disaster. Trained in the ways of courts and civil matters, he felt shaky in front of the fierce and undisciplined crowd he had taken charge of; his military skills were undervalued, and his bravery questioned. A rumor circulating in the camp revealed the deadly secret of the plot against the late emperor, deepening the guilt of murder with the shame of hypocrisy and intensifying contempt with hatred. To turn the soldiers against him and invite certain destruction, all he lacked was the persona of a reformer; and such was the cruel twist of his fate that Macrinus had to take on that undesirable role. Caracalla's extravagant spending had left a long trail of devastation and chaos behind; and if that worthless tyrant had been capable of considering the inevitable results of his actions, he might have grasped the grim reality of the suffering and disasters he left for his successors.

In the management of this necessary reformation, Macrinus proceeded with a cautious prudence, which would have restored health and vigor to the Roman army in an easy and almost imperceptible manner. To the soldiers already engaged in the service, he was constrained to leave the dangerous privileges and extravagant pay given by Caracalla; but the new recruits were received on the more moderate though liberal establishment of Severus, and gradually formed to modesty and obedience. One fatal error destroyed the salutary effects of this judicious plan. The numerous army, assembled in the East by the late emperor, instead of being immediately dispersed by Macrinus through the several provinces, was suffered to remain united in Syria, during the winter that followed his elevation. In the luxurious idleness of their quarters, the troops viewed their strength and numbers, communicated their complaints, and revolved in their minds the advantages of another revolution. The veterans, instead of being flattered by the advantageous distinction, were alarmed by the first steps of the emperor, which they considered as the presage of his future intentions. The recruits, with sullen reluctance, entered on a service, whose labors were increased while its rewards were diminished by a covetous and unwarlike sovereign. The murmurs of the army swelled with impunity into seditious clamors; and the partial mutinies betrayed a spirit of discontent and disaffection that waited only for the slightest occasion to break out on every side into a general rebellion. To minds thus disposed, the occasion soon presented itself.

In managing this necessary reform, Macrinus acted with careful caution, which could have easily restored health and strength to the Roman army in a subtle way. To the soldiers already serving, he had to keep the risky privileges and high pay given by Caracalla; however, the new recruits were welcomed under the more moderate yet generous terms established by Severus, gradually being shaped towards modesty and obedience. One critical mistake undermined the positive effects of this smart strategy. The large army gathered in the East by the late emperor, instead of being promptly dispersed by Macrinus across different provinces, was allowed to stay united in Syria during the winter following his rise to power. In the comfortable idleness of their quarters, the troops recognized their size and strength, shared their grievances, and contemplated the benefits of another revolution. The veterans, rather than feeling valued by their privileged status, were worried by the initial actions of the emperor, viewing them as signals of his future plans. The recruits, reluctantly, took on a role where their responsibilities increased while their rewards decreased under a greedy and unmilitary ruler. The army's complaints grew unchecked into rebellious shouts, and the partial mutinies revealed a sense of discontent and dissatisfaction that was just waiting for the slightest provocation to erupt into a general uprising. For minds in this state, the right opportunity soon arose.

The empress Julia had experienced all the vicissitudes of fortune. From an humble station she had been raised to greatness, only to taste the superior bitterness of an exalted rank. She was doomed to weep over the death of one of her sons, and over the life of the other. The cruel fate of Caracalla, though her good sense must have long taught her to expect it, awakened the feelings of a mother and of an empress. Notwithstanding the respectful civility expressed by the usurper towards the widow of Severus, she descended with a painful struggle into the condition of a subject, and soon withdrew herself, by a voluntary death, from the anxious and humiliating dependence. * Julia Mæsa, her sister, was ordered to leave the court and Antioch. She retired to Emesa with an immense fortune, the fruit of twenty years’ favor accompanied by her two daughters, Soæmias and Mamæ, each of whom was a widow, and each had an only son. Bassianus, for that was the name of the son of Soæmias, was consecrated to the honorable ministry of high priest of the Sun; and this holy vocation, embraced either from prudence or superstition, contributed to raise the Syrian youth to the empire of Rome. A numerous body of troops was stationed at Emesa; and as the severe discipline of Macrinus had constrained them to pass the winter encamped, they were eager to revenge the cruelty of such unaccustomed hardships. The soldiers, who resorted in crowds to the temple of the Sun, beheld with veneration and delight the elegant dress and figure of the young pontiff; they recognized, or they thought that they recognized, the features of Caracalla, whose memory they now adored. The artful Mæsa saw and cherished their rising partiality, and readily sacrificing her daughter’s reputation to the fortune of her grandson, she insinuated that Bassianus was the natural son of their murdered sovereign. The sums distributed by her emissaries with a lavish hand silenced every objection, and the profusion sufficiently proved the affinity, or at least the resemblance, of Bassianus with the great original. The young Antoninus (for he had assumed and polluted that respectable name) was declared emperor by the troops of Emesa, asserted his hereditary right, and called aloud on the armies to follow the standard of a young and liberal prince, who had taken up arms to revenge his father’s death and the oppression of the military order.

The empress Julia had gone through all the ups and downs of life. She transformed from a humble background to greatness, only to experience the bitter reality of high status. She was forced to grieve the death of one son and the life of another. The harsh fate of Caracalla, which her common sense must have prepared her for, stirred the emotions of both a mother and an empress. Despite the polite respect shown by the usurper towards Severus's widow, she struggled painfully to accept her position as a subject and quickly chose to end her life to escape the anxiety and humiliation of dependence. Julia Mæsa, her sister, was ordered to leave the court and Antioch. She moved to Emesa with a vast fortune, accrued over twenty years, bringing along her two daughters, Soæmias and Mamæ, both widows and each with an only son. Bassianus, Soæmias's son, was appointed to the honorable role of high priest of the Sun; whether out of wisdom or superstition, this sacred role helped elevate the young Syrian man to the Roman Empire. A large number of troops were stationed at Emesa, and after enduring the harsh winter under Macrinus's strict discipline, they were eager for revenge against such ruthless treatment. Crowds of soldiers flocked to the temple of the Sun, where they admired and celebrated the elegant appearance of the young priest; they recognized, or believed they recognized, the features of Caracalla, whom they now revered. The cunning Mæsa noticed and nurtured their growing favoritism, and without hesitation sacrificed her daughter's reputation for her grandson's fortune, suggesting that Bassianus was the legitimate son of their slain ruler. The money her agents distributed generously silenced any objections, and the lavishness was enough to prove the connection, or at least the resemblance, of Bassianus to the great original. The young Antoninus (for he took on and tarnished that respectable name) was proclaimed emperor by the troops of Emesa, claimed his rightful heritage, and called out to the armies to rally behind the banner of a young and generous prince who had taken up arms to avenge his father's death and the military’s oppression.

Whilst a conspiracy of women and eunuchs was concerted with prudence, and conducted with rapid vigor, Macrinus, who, by a decisive motion, might have crushed his infant enemy, floated between the opposite extremes of terror and security, which alike fixed him inactive at Antioch. A spirit of rebellion diffused itself through all the camps and garrisons of Syria, successive detachments murdered their officers, and joined the party of the rebels; and the tardy restitution of military pay and privileges was imputed to the acknowledged weakness of Macrinus. At length he marched out of Antioch, to meet the increasing and zealous army of the young pretender. His own troops seemed to take the field with faintness and reluctance; but, in the heat of the battle, the Prætorian guards, almost by an involuntary impulse, asserted the superiority of their valor and discipline. The rebel ranks were broken; when the mother and grandmother of the Syrian prince, who, according to their eastern custom, had attended the army, threw themselves from their covered chariots, and, by exciting the compassion of the soldiers, endeavored to animate their drooping courage. Antoninus himself, who, in the rest of his life, never acted like a man, in this important crisis of his fate, approved himself a hero, mounted his horse, and, at the head of his rallied troops, charged sword in hand among the thickest of the enemy; whilst the eunuch Gannys, * whose occupations had been confined to female cares and the soft luxury of Asia, displayed the talents of an able and experienced general. The battle still raged with doubtful violence, and Macrinus might have obtained the victory, had he not betrayed his own cause by a shameful and precipitate flight. His cowardice served only to protract his life a few days, and to stamp deserved ignominy on his misfortunes. It is scarcely necessary to add, that his son Diadumenianus was involved in the same fate. As soon as the stubborn Prætorians could be convinced that they fought for a prince who had basely deserted them, they surrendered to the conqueror: the contending parties of the Roman army, mingling tears of joy and tenderness, united under the banners of the imagined son of Caracalla, and the East acknowledged with pleasure the first emperor of Asiatic extraction.

While a plot involving women and eunuchs was carefully planned and quickly executed, Macrinus, who could have decisively crushed his young rival, found himself caught between fear and false security, rendering him inactive in Antioch. A spirit of rebellion spread throughout all the camps and garrison in Syria, with groups of soldiers killing their officers and joining the rebels. The delayed payment of military salaries and benefits was blamed on Macrinus's recognized weakness. Eventually, he marched out of Antioch to confront the growing and determined army of the young pretender. His own troops appeared to take the field reluctantly; however, during the heat of battle, the Praetorian guards instinctively demonstrated their superior bravery and discipline. The rebel forces were shattered when the mother and grandmother of the Syrian prince, adhering to their eastern customs, left their covered chariots and, appealing to the soldiers’ compassion, tried to inspire their faltering courage. Antoninus, who throughout the rest of his life did not act decisively, proved himself a hero during this crucial moment, mounted his horse, and led his rallied troops into battle, sword in hand, against the enemy. Meanwhile, the eunuch Gannys, whose previous duties had been restricted to women’s matters and the luxuries of Asia, revealed himself to be a skilled and experienced general. The battle continued to rage with uncertain intensity, and Macrinus could have achieved victory had he not betrayed his own side with a shameful and hasty retreat. His cowardice only extended his life for a few more days and brought him well-deserved disgrace. It is hardly necessary to mention that his son Diadumenianus met the same fate. As soon as the stubborn Praetorians were convinced they were fighting for a prince who had treacherously abandoned them, they surrendered to the victor; the warring factions of the Roman army, mixing tears of joy and compassion, united under the banners of the supposed son of Caracalla, and the East welcomed the first emperor of Asian descent with enthusiasm.

The letters of Macrinus had condescended to inform the senate of the slight disturbance occasioned by an impostor in Syria, and a decree immediately passed, declaring the rebel and his family public enemies; with a promise of pardon, however, to such of his deluded adherents as should merit it by an immediate return to their duty. During the twenty days that elapsed from the declaration of the victory of Antoninus (for in so short an interval was the fate of the Roman world decided,) the capital and the provinces, more especially those of the East, were distracted with hopes and fears, agitated with tumult, and stained with a useless effusion of civil blood, since whosoever of the rivals prevailed in Syria must reign over the empire. The specious letters in which the young conqueror announced his victory to the obedient senate were filled with professions of virtue and moderation; the shining examples of Marcus and Augustus, he should ever consider as the great rule of his administration; and he affected to dwell with pride on the striking resemblance of his own age and fortunes with those of Augustus, who in the earliest youth had revenged, by a successful war, the murder of his father. By adopting the style of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, son of Antoninus and grandson of Severus, he tacitly asserted his hereditary claim to the empire; but, by assuming the tribunitian and proconsular powers before they had been conferred on him by a decree of the senate, he offended the delicacy of Roman prejudice. This new and injudicious violation of the constitution was probably dictated either by the ignorance of his Syrian courtiers, or the fierce disdain of his military followers.

The letters from Macrinus had deigned to inform the Senate about the minor unrest caused by a fake in Syria, and a decree was swiftly passed, declaring the rebel and his family public enemies; however, it included a promise of pardon for any of his misled followers who could prove their worth by quickly returning to their duties. During the twenty days that passed from the announcement of Antoninus's victory (for in such a brief time, the fate of the Roman world was decided), the capital and the provinces, especially those in the East, were filled with hopes and fears, churned with chaos, and marked by a pointless spillage of civil blood, as whoever triumphed in Syria would rule the empire. The elaborate letters in which the young victor proclaimed his victory to the submissive Senate were full of claims of virtue and moderation; he pledged to always regard the commendable examples of Marcus and Augustus as the main guidelines of his governance, and he took pride in the striking similarities between his own youth and circumstances and those of Augustus, who, in his early years, avenged his father’s murder through a successful war. By using the title of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, son of Antoninus and grandson of Severus, he implicitly claimed his hereditary right to the empire; but by taking on the powers of tribune and proconsul before they were officially granted to him by a Senate decree, he ruffled the sensitivities of Roman traditions. This new and ill-advised breach of the constitution was likely driven either by the ignorance of his Syrian advisors or the intense contempt of his military supporters.

As the attention of the new emperor was diverted by the most trifling amusements, he wasted many months in his luxurious progress from Syria to Italy, passed at Nicomedia his first winter after his victory, and deferred till the ensuing summer his triumphal entry into the capital. A faithful picture, however, which preceded his arrival, and was placed by his immediate order over the altar of Victory in the senate house, conveyed to the Romans the just but unworthy resemblance of his person and manners. He was drawn in his sacerdotal robes of silk and gold, after the loose flowing fashion of the Medes and Phœnicians; his head was covered with a lofty tiara, his numerous collars and bracelets were adorned with gems of an inestimable value. His eyebrows were tinged with black, and his cheeks painted with an artificial red and white. The grave senators confessed with a sigh, that, after having long experienced the stern tyranny of their own countrymen, Rome was at length humbled beneath the effeminate luxury of Oriental despotism.

As the new emperor got caught up in the most trivial entertainments, he spent many months on his lavish journey from Syria to Italy, spending his first winter after his victory in Nicomedia and postponing his grand entrance into the capital until the following summer. However, a faithful portrait that was made before his arrival and hung at his command over the altar of Victory in the senate house gave the Romans a fitting but unflattering likeness of his appearance and behavior. He was depicted in his priestly robes of silk and gold, styled in the loose-flowing manner of the Medes and Phoenicians; his head was adorned with a tall tiara, and his many collars and bracelets were embellished with gems of immense value. His eyebrows were dyed black, and his cheeks were painted with artificial red and white. The serious senators admitted with a sigh that, after enduring the harsh tyranny of their fellow countrymen for so long, Rome had finally fallen under the soft luxury of Eastern despotism.

The Sun was worshipped at Emesa, under the name of Elagabalus, and under the form of a black conical stone, which, as it was universally believed, had fallen from heaven on that sacred place. To this protecting deity, Antoninus, not without some reason, ascribed his elevation to the throne. The display of superstitious gratitude was the only serious business of his reign. The triumph of the god of Emesa over all the religions of the earth, was the great object of his zeal and vanity; and the appellation of Elagabalus (for he presumed as pontiff and favorite to adopt that sacred name) was dearer to him than all the titles of Imperial greatness. In a solemn procession through the streets of Rome, the way was strewed with gold dust; the black stone, set in precious gems, was placed on a chariot drawn by six milk-white horses richly caparisoned. The pious emperor held the reins, and, supported by his ministers, moved slowly backwards, that he might perpetually enjoy the felicity of the divine presence. In a magnificent temple raised on the Palatine Mount, the sacrifices of the god Elagabalus were celebrated with every circumstance of cost and solemnity. The richest wines, the most extraordinary victims, and the rarest aromatics, were profusely consumed on his altar. Around the altar, a chorus of Syrian damsels performed their lascivious dances to the sound of barbarian music, whilst the gravest personages of the state and army, clothed in long Phœnician tunics, officiated in the meanest functions, with affected zeal and secret indignation.

The Sun was worshipped in Emesa, known as Elagabalus, and represented by a black conical stone that was widely believed to have fallen from the sky at that holy site. Antoninus, not without good reason, credited this protective deity for his rise to the throne. His reign was primarily marked by displays of superstitious gratitude. The triumph of the god of Emesa over all other religions was his main focus and ambition; he valued the name Elagabalus (which he took on as a high priest and favorite) more than any imperial title. During a grand procession through the streets of Rome, the path was covered with gold dust; the black stone, adorned with precious gems, was placed on a chariot pulled by six pure white horses elegantly dressed. The devout emperor held the reins, and, with the support of his ministers, moved slowly backward, wanting to always relish the happiness of being in the divine presence. In a stunning temple built on the Palatine Hill, the sacrifices to the god Elagabalus were carried out with great expense and solemnity. The finest wines, unique animals, and rare fragrances were lavishly offered at his altar. Surrounding the altar, a group of Syrian girls entertained with seductive dances to the sounds of exotic music, while the most serious figures from the state and military, dressed in long Phoenician tunics, performed the simplest tasks with pretentious enthusiasm and hidden resentment.





Chapter VI: Death Of Severus, Tyranny Of Caracalla, Usurpation Of Macrinus.—Part III.

To this temple, as to the common centre of religious worship, the Imperial fanatic attempted to remove the Ancilia, the Palladium, and all the sacred pledges of the faith of Numa. A crowd of inferior deities attended in various stations the majesty of the god of Emesa; but his court was still imperfect, till a female of distinguished rank was admitted to his bed. Pallas had been first chosen for his consort; but as it was dreaded lest her warlike terrors might affright the soft delicacy of a Syrian deity, the Moon, adored by the Africans under the name of Astarte, was deemed a more suitable companion for the Sun. Her image, with the rich offerings of her temple as a marriage portion, was transported with solemn pomp from Carthage to Rome, and the day of these mystic nuptials was a general festival in the capital and throughout the empire.

To this temple, serving as the central hub of worship, the Imperial fanatic tried to take away the Ancilia, the Palladium, and all the sacred symbols of Numa's faith. A crowd of lesser deities surrounded the majesty of the god of Emesa; however, his court felt incomplete until a woman of high rank was welcomed to his bed. Pallas was initially selected as his partner; but since there were concerns that her fierce nature might frighten the gentle disposition of a Syrian deity, the Moon, worshiped by Africans as Astarte, was considered a better match for the Sun. Her image, along with the lavish offerings from her temple as a marriage gift, was ceremoniously brought from Carthage to Rome, and the day of this mystical wedding became a grand festival celebrated in the capital and across the empire.

A rational voluptuary adheres with invariable respect to the temperate dictates of nature, and improves the gratifications of sense by social intercourse, endearing connections, and the soft coloring of taste and the imagination. But Elagabalus, (I speak of the emperor of that name,) corrupted by his youth, his country, and his fortune, abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures with ungoverned fury, and soon found disgust and satiety in the midst of his enjoyments. The inflammatory powers of art were summoned to his aid: the confused multitude of women, of wines, and of dishes, and the studied variety of attitude and sauces, served to revive his languid appetites. New terms and new inventions in these sciences, the only ones cultivated and patronized by the monarch, signalized his reign, and transmitted his infamy to succeeding times. A capricious prodigality supplied the want of taste and elegance; and whilst Elagabalus lavished away the treasures of his people in the wildest extravagance, his own voice and that of his flatterers applauded a spirit of magnificence unknown to the tameness of his predecessors. To confound the order of seasons and climates, to sport with the passions and prejudices of his subjects, and to subvert every law of nature and decency, were in the number of his most delicious amusements. A long train of concubines, and a rapid succession of wives, among whom was a vestal virgin, ravished by force from her sacred asylum, were insufficient to satisfy the impotence of his passions. The master of the Roman world affected to copy the dress and manners of the female sex, preferred the distaff to the sceptre, and dishonored the principal dignities of the empire by distributing them among his numerous lovers; one of whom was publicly invested with the title and authority of the emperor’s, or, as he more properly styled himself, of the empress’s husband.

A rational hedonist consistently respects the moderate guidelines of nature and enhances sensory pleasures through social interactions, strong connections, and the enriching influence of taste and imagination. However, Elagabalus (I’m referring to the emperor by that name), spoiled by his youth, his homeland, and his wealth, gave in to the most extreme pleasures with uncontrollable intensity, quickly finding himself bored and disgusted by his indulgences. He called upon extravagant arts for help: a chaotic assortment of women, wines, and dishes, along with elaborate presentations of food and drink, aimed to rekindle his waning desires. New jargon and fresh innovations in these sectors, the only ones the king focused on and supported, marked his reign and ensured his notoriety endured through future generations. A whimsical extravagance filled the gaps where taste and refinement should have been, and while Elagabalus squandered his people's riches on the wildest excesses, he and his sycophants praised a sense of grandeur unheard of in the more subdued reigns of his predecessors. Messing with the natural order of seasons and climates, playing with the emotions and biases of his subjects, and breaking every rule of nature and decency became some of his most enjoyable pastimes. A long line of mistresses and a swift succession of wives, one of whom was a vestal virgin forcibly taken from her sacred sanctuary, were not enough to fulfill his unquenchable desires. The ruler of the Roman Empire tried to mimic the clothing and behaviors of women, favored the spinning wheel over the scepter, and tarnished the main honors of the empire by distributing them among his many lovers; one of whom was publicly given the title and authority of the emperor’s, or as he more fittingly called himself, the empress’s husband.

It may seem probable, the vices and follies of Elagabalus have been adorned by fancy, and blackened by prejudice. Yet, confining ourselves to the public scenes displayed before the Roman people, and attested by grave and contemporary historians, their inexpressible infamy surpasses that of any other age or country. The license of an eastern monarch is secluded from the eye of curiosity by the inaccessible walls of his seraglio. The sentiments of honor and gallantry have introduced a refinement of pleasure, a regard for decency, and a respect for the public opinion, into the modern courts of Europe; * but the corrupt and opulent nobles of Rome gratified every vice that could be collected from the mighty conflux of nations and manners. Secure of impunity, careless of censure, they lived without restraint in the patient and humble society of their slaves and parasites. The emperor, in his turn, viewing every rank of his subjects with the same contemptuous indifference, asserted without control his sovereign privilege of lust and luxury.

It may seem likely that the vices and foolishness of Elagabalus have been exaggerated by imagination and tarnished by bias. However, if we focus on the public acts witnessed by the Roman people and confirmed by serious contemporary historians, their shocking disgrace exceeds that of any other time or place. The excesses of an Eastern monarch are hidden from public scrutiny by the impenetrable walls of his harem. The ideals of honor and romance have brought a sophistication of pleasure, a sense of decency, and consideration for public opinion into the modern courts of Europe; * but the corrupt and wealthy nobles of Rome indulged in every vice they could gather from the vast mix of nations and cultures. Confident of being above accountability and indifferent to criticism, they lived freely amidst the submissive and obedient company of their slaves and sycophants. The emperor, in his turn, looked down on every class of his subjects with the same dismissive apathy and unrestrainedly claimed his sovereign rights to indulgence and extravagance.

The most worthless of mankind are not afraid to condemn in others the same disorders which they allow in themselves; and can readily discover some nice difference of age, character, or station, to justify the partial distinction. The licentious soldiers, who had raised to the throne the dissolute son of Caracalla, blushed at their ignominious choice, and turned with disgust from that monster, to contemplate with pleasure the opening virtues of his cousin Alexander, the son of Mamæa. The crafty Mæsa, sensible that her grandson Elagabalus must inevitably destroy himself by his own vices, had provided another and surer support of her family. Embracing a favorable moment of fondness and devotion, she had persuaded the young emperor to adopt Alexander, and to invest him with the title of Cæsar, that his own divine occupations might be no longer interrupted by the care of the earth. In the second rank that amiable prince soon acquired the affections of the public, and excited the tyrant’s jealousy, who resolved to terminate the dangerous competition, either by corrupting the manners, or by taking away the life, of his rival. His arts proved unsuccessful; his vain designs were constantly discovered by his own loquacious folly, and disappointed by those virtuous and faithful servants whom the prudence of Mamæa had placed about the person of her son. In a hasty sally of passion, Elagabalus resolved to execute by force what he had been unable to compass by fraud, and by a despotic sentence degraded his cousin from the rank and honors of Cæsar. The message was received in the senate with silence, and in the camp with fury. The Prætorian guards swore to protect Alexander, and to revenge the dishonored majesty of the throne. The tears and promises of the trembling Elagabalus, who only begged them to spare his life, and to leave him in the possession of his beloved Hierocles, diverted their just indignation; and they contented themselves with empowering their præfects to watch over the safety of Alexander, and the conduct of the emperor.

The most worthless people have no problem condemning others for the same faults they allow in themselves, easily finding some trivial differences in age, character, or status to justify their biased judgments. The reckless soldiers who had put the corrupt son of Caracalla on the throne were ashamed of their terrible choice and turned with disgust from that monster to admire the promising virtues of his cousin Alexander, the son of Mamæa. The cunning Mæsa, knowing that her grandson Elagabalus would inevitably ruin himself with his own vices, had arranged for a more stable support for her family. Seizing a moment of affection and loyalty, she convinced the young emperor to adopt Alexander and to give him the title of Cæsar, so that his divine responsibilities wouldn’t be interrupted by earthly concerns. In this second-ranking position, the charming prince quickly won the public's affection, stirring the tyrant’s jealousy, who decided to end this dangerous competition either by corrupting his rival's character or by taking his life. His schemes were unsuccessful; his foolishness continually exposed his empty plans and was thwarted by the virtuous and loyal servants that Mamæa had placed around her son. In a fit of rage, Elagabalus decided to take by force what he could not achieve through deceit, and with a despotic decision, he stripped his cousin of the rank and honors of Cæsar. The message was met with silence in the senate and anger in the camp. The Prætorian guards vowed to protect Alexander and avenge the dishonor of the throne. The tears and pleas of the frightened Elagabalus, who only begged them to spare his life and allow him to keep his beloved Hierocles, softened their rightful outrage; they settled for giving their commanders authority to ensure Alexander's safety and manage the emperor's actions.

It was impossible that such a reconciliation should last, or that even the mean soul of Elagabalus could hold an empire on such humiliating terms of dependence. He soon attempted, by a dangerous experiment, to try the temper of the soldiers. The report of the death of Alexander, and the natural suspicion that he had been murdered, inflamed their passions into fury, and the tempest of the camp could only be appeased by the presence and authority of the popular youth. Provoked at this new instance of their affection for his cousin, and their contempt for his person, the emperor ventured to punish some of the leaders of the mutiny. His unseasonable severity proved instantly fatal to his minions, his mother, and himself. Elagabalus was massacred by the indignant Prætorians, his mutilated corpse dragged through the streets of the city, and thrown into the Tiber. His memory was branded with eternal infamy by the senate; the justice of whose decree has been ratified by posterity.

It was impossible for such a reconciliation to last, or for even the weak-minded Elagabalus to maintain control over an empire under such humiliating terms of dependence. He soon tried to test the soldiers' loyalty through a risky move. The news of Alexander's death, combined with the natural suspicion that he had been murdered, stirred their emotions into a frenzy, and only the presence and influence of the popular youth could calm the chaos in the camp. Angered by this new display of their loyalty to his cousin and their disdain for him, the emperor decided to discipline some of the leaders of the uprising. His ill-timed harshness ended up being fatal for his supporters, his mother, and himself. Elagabalus was killed by the furious Praetorians, his disfigured body dragged through the streets of the city and tossed into the Tiber. The senate condemned his memory to eternal shame, a judgment that has been upheld by history.

In the room of Elagabalus, his cousin Alexander was raised to the throne by the Prætorian guards. His relation to the family of Severus, whose name he assumed, was the same as that of his predecessor; his virtue and his danger had already endeared him to the Romans, and the eager liberality of the senate conferred upon him, in one day, the various titles and powers of the Imperial dignity. But as Alexander was a modest and dutiful youth, of only seventeen years of age, the reins of government were in the hands of two women, of his mother, Mamæa, and of Mæsa, his grandmother. After the death of the latter, who survived but a short time the elevation of Alexander, Mamæa remained the sole regent of her son and of the empire.

In Elagabalus's room, his cousin Alexander was raised to the throne by the Praetorian guards. His connection to the Severus family, whose name he took on, was the same as his predecessor's; his virtues and the risks he faced had already made him popular with the Romans, and the eager generosity of the senate granted him, in just one day, the various titles and powers of the Imperial position. However, since Alexander was a modest and responsible young man, only seventeen years old, the control of the government was in the hands of two women: his mother, Mamæa, and his grandmother, Mæsa. After the death of Mæsa, who lived only a short time after Alexander's rise, Mamæa became the sole regent for her son and the empire.

In every age and country, the wiser, or at least the stronger, of the two sexes, has usurped the powers of the state, and confined the other to the cares and pleasures of domestic life. In hereditary monarchies, however, and especially in those of modern Europe, the gallant spirit of chivalry, and the law of succession, have accustomed us to allow a singular exception; and a woman is often acknowledged the absolute sovereign of a great kingdom, in which she would be deemed incapable of exercising the smallest employment, civil or military. But as the Roman emperors were still considered as the generals and magistrates of the republic, their wives and mothers, although distinguished by the name of Augusta, were never associated to their personal honors; and a female reign would have appeared an inexpiable prodigy in the eyes of those primitive Romans, who married without love, or loved without delicacy and respect. The haughty Agrippina aspired, indeed, to share the honors of the empire which she had conferred on her son; but her mad ambition, detested by every citizen who felt for the dignity of Rome, was disappointed by the artful firmness of Seneca and Burrhus. The good sense, or the indifference, of succeeding princes, restrained them from offending the prejudices of their subjects; and it was reserved for the profligate Elagabalus to discharge the acts of the senate with the name of his mother Soæmias, who was placed by the side of the consuls, and subscribed, as a regular member, the decrees of the legislative assembly. Her more prudent sister, Mamæa, declined the useless and odious prerogative, and a solemn law was enacted, excluding women forever from the senate, and devoting to the infernal gods the head of the wretch by whom this sanction should be violated. The substance, not the pageantry, of power, was the object of Mamæa’s manly ambition. She maintained an absolute and lasting empire over the mind of her son, and in his affection the mother could not brook a rival. Alexander, with her consent, married the daughter of a patrician; but his respect for his father-in-law, and love for the empress, were inconsistent with the tenderness of interest of Mamæa. The patrician was executed on the ready accusation of treason, and the wife of Alexander driven with ignominy from the palace, and banished into Africa.

In every era and country, the wiser, or at least the stronger, of the two sexes has taken control of the government, pushing the other into the responsibilities and joys of home life. However, in hereditary monarchies, especially in modern Europe, the noble spirit of chivalry and the laws of succession have created a unique exception; a woman is often recognized as the sole ruler of a vast kingdom while being considered unfit to handle even the smallest civil or military duties. But just as the Roman emperors were seen as generals and magistrates of the republic, their wives and mothers, though honored with the title of Augusta, were never part of their personal accolades; a female reign would have seemed like an unforgivable anomaly to those early Romans, who married without love or loved without delicacy and respect. The proud Agrippina aimed to share in the honors of the empire she had given to her son; however, her reckless ambition, loathed by every citizen who valued the dignity of Rome, was thwarted by the shrewd resolve of Seneca and Burrhus. The common sense, or indifference, of the following rulers kept them from offending the biases of their subjects; it was left to the debauched Elagabalus to issue the acts of the senate under the name of his mother Soæmias, who was seated beside the consuls and signed as a regular member of the legislative assembly. Her more cautious sister, Mamæa, rejected the pointless and detested privilege, and a formal law was established, permanently excluding women from the senate and dooming to the underworld the head of anyone who dared to break this rule. Mamæa sought the essence, not the spectacle, of power. She held complete and enduring influence over her son's mind, and as his mother, she could not tolerate a rival. Alexander, with her approval, married the daughter of a patrician; however, his respect for his father-in-law and love for the empress conflicted with Mamæa's interests. The patrician was executed on the swift charge of treason, and Alexander's wife was disgracefully expelled from the palace and banished to Africa.

Notwithstanding this act of jealous cruelty, as well as some instances of avarice, with which Mamæa is charged, the general tenor of her administration was equally for the benefit of her son and of the empire. With the approbation of the senate, she chose sixteen of the wisest and most virtuous senators as a perpetual council of state, before whom every public business of moment was debated and determined. The celebrated Ulpian, equally distinguished by his knowledge of, and his respect for, the laws of Rome, was at their head; and the prudent firmness of this aristocracy restored order and authority to the government. As soon as they had purged the city from foreign superstition and luxury, the remains of the capricious tyranny of Elagabalus, they applied themselves to remove his worthless creatures from every department of the public administration, and to supply their places with men of virtue and ability. Learning, and the love of justice, became the only recommendations for civil offices; valor, and the love of discipline, the only qualifications for military employments.

Despite this act of jealous cruelty and some accusations of greed against Mamæa, the overall direction of her leadership was beneficial for both her son and the empire. With the support of the senate, she selected sixteen of the wisest and most virtuous senators to serve as a permanent council of state, where all significant public matters were discussed and decided. The renowned Ulpian, known for both his legal expertise and respect for Roman law, led them; and the wise and firm guidance of this group restored order and authority to the government. Once they had removed foreign superstition and the excesses left by Elagabalus, they set about ousting his inept associates from every area of public administration and replacing them with capable and honorable individuals. Knowledge and a commitment to justice became the main qualifications for civil positions, while bravery and a dedication to discipline were the only requirements for military roles.

But the most important care of Mamæa and her wise counsellors, was to form the character of the young emperor, on whose personal qualities the happiness or misery of the Roman world must ultimately depend. The fortunate soil assisted, and even prevented, the hand of cultivation. An excellent understanding soon convinced Alexander of the advantages of virtue, the pleasure of knowledge, and the necessity of labor. A natural mildness and moderation of temper preserved him from the assaults of passion, and the allurements of vice. His unalterable regard for his mother, and his esteem for the wise Ulpian, guarded his unexperienced youth from the poison of flattery. *

But the most important task for Mamæa and her wise advisors was to shape the character of the young emperor, whose personal qualities would ultimately determine the happiness or suffering of the Roman world. The favorable environment helped, and even made it easier, for him to grow. An excellent mind quickly made Alexander aware of the benefits of virtue, the joy of knowledge, and the importance of hard work. His natural kindness and balanced temperament protected him from the dangers of passion and the temptations of vice. His unwavering love for his mother and respect for the wise Ulpian kept his inexperienced youth safe from the poison of flattery.

The simple journal of his ordinary occupations exhibits a pleasing picture of an accomplished emperor, and, with some allowance for the difference of manners, might well deserve the imitation of modern princes. Alexander rose early: the first moments of the day were consecrated to private devotion, and his domestic chapel was filled with the images of those heroes, who, by improving or reforming human life, had deserved the grateful reverence of posterity. But as he deemed the service of mankind the most acceptable worship of the gods, the greatest part of his morning hours was employed in his council, where he discussed public affairs, and determined private causes, with a patience and discretion above his years. The dryness of business was relieved by the charms of literature; and a portion of time was always set apart for his favorite studies of poetry, history, and philosophy. The works of Virgil and Horace, the republics of Plato and Cicero, formed his taste, enlarged his understanding, and gave him the noblest ideas of man and government. The exercises of the body succeeded to those of the mind; and Alexander, who was tall, active, and robust, surpassed most of his equals in the gymnastic arts. Refreshed by the use of the bath and a slight dinner, he resumed, with new vigor, the business of the day; and, till the hour of supper, the principal meal of the Romans, he was attended by his secretaries, with whom he read and answered the multitude of letters, memorials, and petitions, that must have been addressed to the master of the greatest part of the world. His table was served with the most frugal simplicity, and whenever he was at liberty to consult his own inclination, the company consisted of a few select friends, men of learning and virtue, amongst whom Ulpian was constantly invited. Their conversation was familiar and instructive; and the pauses were occasionally enlivened by the recital of some pleasing composition, which supplied the place of the dancers, comedians, and even gladiators, so frequently summoned to the tables of the rich and luxurious Romans. The dress of Alexander was plain and modest, his demeanor courteous and affable: at the proper hours his palace was open to all his subjects, but the voice of a crier was heard, as in the Eleusinian mysteries, pronouncing the same salutary admonition: “Let none enter these holy walls, unless he is conscious of a pure and innocent mind.”

The straightforward journal of his everyday activities paints a positive image of a skilled emperor, and, with some consideration for the differences in behavior, could easily inspire modern leaders to follow his example. Alexander woke up early: the first moments of his day were dedicated to personal prayer, and his home chapel was filled with images of heroes who had earned the lasting respect of future generations by improving or reforming human life. However, he considered serving humanity the best form of worship, so most of his morning was spent in council, discussing public matters and resolving private issues with a patience and wisdom beyond his years. The dry nature of his work was balanced by the pleasures of literature, and he always set aside time for his favorite pursuits like poetry, history, and philosophy. The works of Virgil and Horace, and the ideas from Plato and Cicero, shaped his taste, broadened his understanding, and provided him with inspiring concepts of humanity and governance. Physical exercise followed mental activity; Alexander, who was tall, agile, and strong, excelled in gymnastic skills compared to most of his peers. After refreshing himself with a bath and a light dinner, he tackled the day's responsibilities with renewed energy, and until supper—the main meal for the Romans—he was accompanied by his secretaries, with whom he read and replied to countless letters, memorials, and petitions sent to the ruler of much of the world. His meals were served simply, and when he had the opportunity to choose, he would dine with a small circle of carefully selected friends, learned and virtuous individuals, including Ulpian, who was always invited. Their conversations were casual yet enlightening, occasionally broken up by the recitation of enjoyable pieces, which replaced the dancers, comedians, and even gladiators often summoned to entertain the wealthy and extravagant Romans. Alexander’s attire was plain and modest, and his behavior was friendly and approachable. At the appropriate times, his palace was open to all his subjects, but there was a crier announcing, as in the Eleusinian mysteries, a reminder: “Let none enter these holy walls unless they are aware of a pure and innocent mind.”

Such a uniform tenor of life, which left not a moment for vice or folly, is a better proof of the wisdom and justice of Alexander’s government, than all the trifling details preserved in the compilation of Lampridius. Since the accession of Commodus, the Roman world had experienced, during the term of forty years, the successive and various vices of four tyrants. From the death of Elagabalus, it enjoyed an auspicious calm of thirteen years. * The provinces, relieved from the oppressive taxes invented by Caracalla and his pretended son, flourished in peace and prosperity, under the administration of magistrates who were convinced by experience that to deserve the love of the subjects was their best and only method of obtaining the favor of their sovereign. While some gentle restraints were imposed on the innocent luxury of the Roman people, the price of provisions and the interest of money, were reduced by the paternal care of Alexander, whose prudent liberality, without distressing the industrious, supplied the wants and amusements of the populace. The dignity, the freedom, the authority of the senate was restored; and every virtuous senator might approach the person of the emperor without a fear and without a blush.

Such a consistent way of life, which left no time for wrongdoing or foolishness, is a stronger testament to the wisdom and fairness of Alexander’s rule than all the trivial details found in Lampridius’s accounts. Since Commodus took power, the Roman Empire had endured forty years plagued by the successive and varied vices of four tyrants. However, after Elagabalus’s death, there was a fortunate period of thirteen years marked by peace. The provinces, freed from the heavy taxes created by Caracalla and his supposed son, thrived in peace and prosperity under leaders who knew that earning the people's love was the best way to gain their ruler's favor. While some mild restrictions were placed on the harmless indulgences of the Roman citizens, the prices of food and interest rates were lowered thanks to Alexander’s attentive governance, which, without burdening the hardworking, met the needs and leisure of the people. The dignity, freedom, and power of the senate were restored, and any virtuous senator could approach the emperor without fear or embarrassment.

The name of Antoninus, ennobled by the virtues of Pius and Marcus, had been communicated by adoption to the dissolute Verus, and by descent to the cruel Commodus. It became the honorable appellation of the sons of Severus, was bestowed on young Diadumenianus, and at length prostituted to the infamy of the high priest of Emesa. Alexander, though pressed by the studied, and, perhaps, sincere importunity of the senate, nobly refused the borrowed lustre of a name; whilst in his whole conduct he labored to restore the glories and felicity of the age of the genuine Antonines.

The name Antoninus, elevated by the qualities of Pius and Marcus, was passed down by adoption to the reckless Verus, and by birth to the brutal Commodus. It became the respectable title for the sons of Severus, was given to young Diadumenianus, and eventually tarnished by the disgrace of the high priest of Emesa. Alexander, though pressured by the persistent, and maybe even genuine, requests of the senate, nobly turned down the borrowed prestige of the name; meanwhile, in all of his actions, he worked to restore the greatness and happiness of the era of the true Antonines.

In the civil administration of Alexander, wisdom was enforced by power, and the people, sensible of the public felicity, repaid their benefactor with their love and gratitude. There still remained a greater, a more necessary, but a more difficult enterprise; the reformation of the military order, whose interest and temper, confirmed by long impunity, rendered them impatient of the restraints of discipline, and careless of the blessings of public tranquillity. In the execution of his design, the emperor affected to display his love, and to conceal his fear of the army. The most rigid economy in every other branch of the administration supplied a fund of gold and silver for the ordinary pay and the extraordinary rewards of the troops. In their marches he relaxed the severe obligation of carrying seventeen days’ provision on their shoulders. Ample magazines were formed along the public roads, and as soon as they entered the enemy’s country, a numerous train of mules and camels waited on their haughty laziness. As Alexander despaired of correcting the luxury of his soldiers, he attempted, at least, to direct it to objects of martial pomp and ornament, fine horses, splendid armor, and shields enriched with silver and gold. He shared whatever fatigues he was obliged to impose, visited, in person, the sick and wounded, preserved an exact register of their services and his own gratitude, and expressed on every occasion, the warmest regard for a body of men, whose welfare, as he affected to declare, was so closely connected with that of the state. By the most gentle arts he labored to inspire the fierce multitude with a sense of duty, and to restore at least a faint image of that discipline to which the Romans owed their empire over so many other nations, as warlike and more powerful than themselves. But his prudence was vain, his courage fatal, and the attempt towards a reformation served only to inflame the ills it was meant to cure.

In Alexander's civil administration, wisdom was backed by power, and the people, aware of their collective happiness, showed their love and gratitude to their benefactor. However, there remained a bigger, more essential, yet more challenging task: reforming the military order, whose interests and mindset, solidified by years of unchecked behavior, made them resistant to the rules of discipline and indifferent to the benefits of public peace. In pursuing this goal, the emperor tried to show his affection while hiding his fear of the army. A strict budget in other areas of governance provided funds for the regular pay and extra rewards for the troops. During their marches, he eased the strict requirement of carrying seventeen days' worth of supplies. Large supplies were set up along the major roads, and as soon as they entered enemy territory, a large convoy of mules and camels catered to their demanding comfort. Since Alexander lost hope in changing the luxury of his soldiers, he at least tried to channel it into things of military glory and decoration like fine horses, impressive armor, and shields decorated with silver and gold. He shared in the hardships he imposed, personally visited the sick and wounded, kept a detailed record of their services and his own appreciation, and consistently expressed deep respect for a group of men whose well-being, he claimed, was closely tied to that of the state. By using gentle tactics, he worked to instill a sense of duty in the fierce crowd and to restore even a hint of the discipline that enabled the Romans to dominate so many other nations that were just as warlike and powerful. Yet, his caution proved ineffective, his bravery turned disastrous, and the effort to reform only served to exacerbate the problems it was meant to resolve.

The Prætorian guards were attached to the youth of Alexander. They loved him as a tender pupil, whom they had saved from a tyrant’s fury, and placed on the Imperial throne. That amiable prince was sensible of the obligation; but as his gratitude was restrained within the limits of reason and justice, they soon were more dissatisfied with the virtues of Alexander, than they had ever been with the vices of Elagabalus. Their præfect, the wise Ulpian, was the friend of the laws and of the people; he was considered as the enemy of the soldiers, and to his pernicious counsels every scheme of reformation was imputed. Some trifling accident blew up their discontent into a furious mutiny; and the civil war raged, during three days, in Rome, whilst the life of that excellent minister was defended by the grateful people. Terrified, at length, by the sight of some houses in flames, and by the threats of a general conflagration, the people yielded with a sigh, and left the virtuous but unfortunate Ulpian to his fate. He was pursued into the Imperial palace, and massacred at the feet of his master, who vainly strove to cover him with the purple, and to obtain his pardon from the inexorable soldiers. * Such was the deplorable weakness of government, that the emperor was unable to revenge his murdered friend and his insulted dignity, without stooping to the arts of patience and dissimulation. Epagathus, the principal leader of the mutiny, was removed from Rome, by the honorable employment of præfect of Egypt: from that high rank he was gently degraded to the government of Crete; and when at length, his popularity among the guards was effaced by time and absence, Alexander ventured to inflict the tardy but deserved punishment of his crimes. Under the reign of a just and virtuous prince, the tyranny of the army threatened with instant death his most faithful ministers, who were suspected of an intention to correct their intolerable disorders. The historian Dion Cassius had commanded the Pannonian legions with the spirit of ancient discipline. Their brethren of Rome, embracing the common cause of military license, demanded the head of the reformer. Alexander, however, instead of yielding to their seditious clamors, showed a just sense of his merit and services, by appointing him his colleague in the consulship, and defraying from his own treasury the expense of that vain dignity: but as was justly apprehended, that if the soldiers beheld him with the ensigns of his office, they would revenge the insult in his blood, the nominal first magistrate of the state retired, by the emperor’s advice, from the city, and spent the greatest part of his consulship at his villas in Campania.

The Praetorian guards were loyal to Alexander in his youth. They cared for him like a beloved pupil, having saved him from a tyrant's wrath and placed him on the Imperial throne. That kind prince was aware of their loyalty, but his gratitude was measured by reason and justice, which soon led them to be more unhappy with Alexander's good qualities than they had ever been with Elagabalus's bad ones. Their leader, the wise Ulpian, was a friend of the laws and the people, but was seen as an enemy by the soldiers, with all attempts at reform blamed on his harmful advice. A minor incident sparked their discontent into a violent mutiny, and civil war broke out in Rome for three days, while the grateful citizens defended the life of that excellent minister. Finally alarmed by the sight of burning buildings and the threats of a citywide fire, the people surrendered with a sigh, leaving the virtuous but unfortunate Ulpian to his fate. He was chased into the Imperial palace and killed at his master's feet, who futilely tried to cover him with the purple robe and plead for his pardon from the unyielding soldiers. Such was the tragic weakness of the government that the emperor couldn't take revenge for his murdered friend and dishonored dignity without resorting to patience and deceit. Epagathus, the main instigator of the mutiny, was removed from Rome and given the respectable position of prefect of Egypt; he was later gently demoted to govern Crete, and when his popularity among the guards faded over time and distance, Alexander finally dared to deliver the overdue but deserved punishment for his crimes. Under the reign of a fair and virtuous prince, the army's tyranny threatened immediate death to his most loyal ministers, who were suspected of wanting to address their unbearable misconduct. The historian Dion Cassius had commanded the Pannonian legions with the discipline of ancient times. Their fellow soldiers in Rome, in favor of military laxity, demanded the reformer's head. However, instead of yielding to their rebellious cries, Alexander recognized his merit and contributions by appointing him as his colleague in the consulship, covering the costs of that empty honor from his own funds. But fearing that if the soldiers saw him in his official robes, they would take revenge by shedding his blood, the nominal first magistrate of the state withdrew from the city on the emperor's advice and spent most of his consulship at his villas in Campania.





Chapter VI: Death Of Severus, Tyranny Of Caracalla, Usurpation Of Macrinus.—Part IV.

The lenity of the emperor confirmed the insolence of the troops; the legions imitated the example of the guards, and defended their prerogative of licentiousness with the same furious obstinacy. The administration of Alexander was an unavailing struggle against the corruption of his age. In llyricum, in Mauritania, in Armenia, in Mesopotamia, in Germany, fresh mutinies perpetually broke out; his officers were murdered, his authority was insulted, and his life at last sacrificed to the fierce discontents of the army. One particular fact well deserves to be recorded, as it illustrates the manners of the troops, and exhibits a singular instance of their return to a sense of duty and obedience. Whilst the emperor lay at Antioch, in his Persian expedition, the particulars of which we shall hereafter relate, the punishment of some soldiers, who had been discovered in the baths of women, excited a sedition in the legion to which they belonged. Alexander ascended his tribunal, and with a modest firmness represented to the armed multitude the absolute necessity, as well as his inflexible resolution, of correcting the vices introduced by his impure predecessor, and of maintaining the discipline, which could not be relaxed without the ruin of the Roman name and empire. Their clamors interrupted his mild expostulation. “Reserve your shout,” said the undaunted emperor, “till you take the field against the Persians, the Germans, and the Sarmatians. Be silent in the presence of your sovereign and benefactor, who bestows upon you the corn, the clothing, and the money of the provinces. Be silent, or I shall no longer style you soldiers , but citizens, if those indeed who disclaim the laws of Rome deserve to be ranked among the meanest of the people.” His menaces inflamed the fury of the legion, and their brandished arms already threatened his person. “Your courage,” resumed the intrepid Alexander, “would be more nobly displayed in the field of battle; me you may destroy, you cannot intimidate; and the severe justice of the republic would punish your crime and revenge my death.” The legion still persisted in clamorous sedition, when the emperor pronounced, with a loud voice, the decisive sentence, “Citizens! lay down your arms, and depart in peace to your respective habitations.” The tempest was instantly appeased: the soldiers, filled with grief and shame, silently confessed the justice of their punishment, and the power of discipline, yielded up their arms and military ensigns, and retired in confusion, not to their camp, but to the several inns of the city. Alexander enjoyed, during thirty days, the edifying spectacle of their repentance; nor did he restore them to their former rank in the army, till he had punished with death those tribunes whose connivance had occasioned the mutiny. The grateful legion served the emperor whilst living, and revenged him when dead.

The leniency of the emperor confirmed the arrogance of the troops; the legions copied the guards and fiercely defended their right to behave badly. Alexander's administration was an ineffective fight against the corruption of his time. In Illyricum, Mauritania, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Germany, new mutinies broke out constantly; his officers were killed, his authority was disrespected, and eventually, his life was sacrificed due to the army's intense discontent. One particular event deserves mention, as it highlights the troops' behavior and shows a rare moment of their return to duty and obedience. While the emperor was in Antioch for his Persian campaign, the details of which we will discuss later, the punishment of some soldiers caught in the women's baths sparked a riot in their legion. Alexander took his place on the platform and, with modest firmness, explained to the armed crowd the absolute necessity and his unwavering commitment to correcting the vices introduced by his immoral predecessor and maintaining discipline, which could not be relaxed without destroying the Roman name and empire. Their shouts interrupted his calm explanation. “Save your shouting,” said the fearless emperor, “until you face the Persians, Germans, and Sarmatians. Be quiet in front of your sovereign and benefactor, who provides you with grain, clothing, and money from the provinces. Be silent, or I will no longer call you soldiers, but citizens, if those who reject the laws of Rome deserve to be counted among the lowest of the people.” His threats only fueled the fury of the legion, and their raised weapons threatened him directly. “Your bravery,” continued the fearless Alexander, “would be better displayed on the battlefield; you can kill me, but you cannot scare me; and the harsh justice of the republic would punish your crime and avenge my death.” The legion still persisted in their loud revolt when the emperor loudly declared the final decree, “Citizens! Lay down your arms and go home in peace.” The uproar was immediately calmed: the soldiers, filled with sorrow and shame, silently acknowledged the fairness of their punishment and the power of discipline, surrendered their arms and military standards, and left in embarrassment, not returning to their camp, but heading to various inns in the city. Alexander enjoyed for thirty days the impressive sight of their remorse; he did not allow them to return to their previous rank in the army until he had executed those tribunes whose negligence caused the mutiny. The grateful legion served the emperor during his life and avenged him after his death.

The resolutions of the multitude generally depend on a moment; and the caprice of passion might equally determine the seditious legion to lay down their arms at the emperor’s feet, or to plunge them into his breast. Perhaps, if this singular transaction had been investigated by the penetration of a philosopher, we should discover the secret causes which on that occasion authorized the boldness of the prince, and commanded the obedience of the troops; and perhaps, if it had been related by a judicious historian, we should find this action, worthy of Cæsar himself, reduced nearer to the level of probability and the common standard of the character of Alexander Severus. The abilities of that amiable prince seem to have been inadequate to the difficulties of his situation, the firmness of his conduct inferior to the purity of his intentions. His virtues, as well as the vices of Elagabalus, contracted a tincture of weakness and effeminacy from the soft climate of Syria, of which he was a native; though he blushed at his foreign origin, and listened with a vain complacency to the flattering genealogists, who derived his race from the ancient stock of Roman nobility. The pride and avarice of his mother cast a shade on the glories of his reign; and by exacting from his riper years the same dutiful obedience which she had justly claimed from his unexperienced youth, Mamæa exposed to public ridicule both her son’s character and her own. The fatigues of the Persian war irritated the military discontent; the unsuccessful event * degraded the reputation of the emperor as a general, and even as a soldier. Every cause prepared, and every circumstance hastened, a revolution, which distracted the Roman empire with a long series of intestine calamities.

The decisions of the crowd often rely on a moment; and the whims of passion could just as easily lead the rebellious group to either surrender their weapons at the emperor’s feet or drive them into his chest. Maybe, if a philosopher had looked deeply into this unique event, we would uncover the underlying reasons that led to the prince's audacity and commanded the troops' obedience; and perhaps, if a discerning historian had recounted it, we would see this act, worthy of Cæsar himself, brought closer to the reality and typical behavior of Alexander Severus. That likable prince’s skills seemed insufficient to handle the challenges he faced, and his strong resolve fell short of his noble intentions. His virtues, much like Elagabalus's vices, carried a hint of weakness and softness from his native Syria’s gentle climate; even though he felt embarrassed by his foreign roots and listened with vain pride to the flattering family historians who traced his lineage back to ancient Roman nobility. The pride and greed of his mother overshadowed the achievements of his reign; and by demanding from him in his adult years the same obedient behavior she had rightly expected from him in his youth, Mamæa risked public mockery of both her son and herself. The stresses from the Persian war stirred up military discontent; the failed outcomes tarnished the emperor's reputation as both a general and a soldier. Every contributing factor paved the way for a revolution that plunged the Roman empire into a prolonged period of internal strife.

The dissolute tyranny of Commodus, the civil wars occasioned by his death, and the new maxims of policy introduced by the house of Severus, had all contributed to increase the dangerous power of the army, and to obliterate the faint image of laws and liberty that was still impressed on the minds of the Romans. The internal change, which undermined the foundations of the empire, we have endeavored to explain with some degree of order and perspicuity. The personal characters of the emperors, their victories, laws, follies, and fortunes, can interest us no farther than as they are connected with the general history of the Decline and Fall of the monarchy. Our constant attention to that great object will not suffer us to overlook a most important edict of Antoninus Caracalla, which communicated to all the free inhabitants of the empire the name and privileges of Roman citizens. His unbounded liberality flowed not, however, from the sentiments of a generous mind; it was the sordid result of avarice, and will naturally be illustrated by some observations on the finances of that state, from the victorious ages of the commonwealth to the reign of Alexander Severus.

The reckless tyranny of Commodus, the civil wars triggered by his death, and the new policies introduced by the Severan dynasty all contributed to the dangerous rise of military power and erased the faint remnants of laws and freedom that still lingered in the minds of the Romans. The internal changes that weakened the foundations of the empire have been explained with some clarity and organization. The personal traits of the emperors, their victories, laws, mistakes, and fortunes can only interest us as they relate to the broader story of the Decline and Fall of the monarchy. Our focus on that significant topic will not let us miss a crucial decree from Antoninus Caracalla, which granted the name and privileges of Roman citizens to all free inhabitants of the empire. However, his excessive generosity did not stem from noble intentions; it was a greedy move, which will naturally be clarified by some insights into the finances of the state, from the victorious times of the republic to the reign of Alexander Severus.

The siege of Veii in Tuscany, the first considerable enterprise of the Romans, was protracted to the tenth year, much less by the strength of the place than by the unskilfulness of the besiegers. The unaccustomed hardships of so many winter campaigns, at the distance of near twenty miles from home, required more than common encouragements; and the senate wisely prevented the clamors of the people, by the institution of a regular pay for the soldiers, which was levied by a general tribute, assessed according to an equitable proportion on the property of the citizens. During more than two hundred years after the conquest of Veii, the victories of the republic added less to the wealth than to the power of Rome. The states of Italy paid their tribute in military service only, and the vast force, both by sea and land, which was exerted in the Punic wars, was maintained at the expense of the Romans themselves. That high-spirited people (such is often the generous enthusiasm of freedom) cheerfully submitted to the most excessive but voluntary burdens, in the just confidence that they should speedily enjoy the rich harvest of their labors. Their expectations were not disappointed. In the course of a few years, the riches of Syracuse, of Carthage, of Macedonia, and of Asia, were brought in triumph to Rome. The treasures of Perseus alone amounted to near two millions sterling, and the Roman people, the sovereign of so many nations, was forever delivered from the weight of taxes. The increasing revenue of the provinces was found sufficient to defray the ordinary establishment of war and government, and the superfluous mass of gold and silver was deposited in the temple of Saturn, and reserved for any unforeseen emergency of the state.

The siege of Veii in Tuscany, the first major campaign of the Romans, lasted for ten years, not so much because of the strength of the city but due to the inexperience of the attackers. The harsh realities of so many winter campaigns, nearly twenty miles from home, required more encouragement than usual; the senate wisely addressed the complaints of the people by establishing regular pay for the soldiers, funded through a general tax, which was fairly assessed based on the citizens' property. For over two hundred years after the conquest of Veii, the republic's victories contributed more to Rome's power than to its wealth. The states of Italy paid their tribute solely through military service, and the immense forces used in the Punic wars were supported by the Romans themselves. That spirited populace (such is often the noble enthusiasm that comes with freedom) willingly accepted even the heaviest but voluntary burdens, confident that they would soon reap the rewards of their efforts. Their hopes were fulfilled. Within a few years, the treasures of Syracuse, Carthage, Macedonia, and Asia were triumphantly brought back to Rome. The spoils from Perseus alone amounted to nearly two million pounds sterling, and the Roman people, rulers of many nations, were permanently freed from tax burdens. The increasing revenue from the provinces was enough to cover the regular costs of war and governance, while the surplus gold and silver was stored in the temple of Saturn, kept for any unexpected state emergencies.

History has never, perhaps, suffered a greater or more irreparable injury than in the loss of the curious register * bequeathed by Augustus to the senate, in which that experienced prince so accurately balanced the revenues and expenses of the Roman empire. Deprived of this clear and comprehensive estimate, we are reduced to collect a few imperfect hints from such of the ancients as have accidentally turned aside from the splendid to the more useful parts of history. We are informed that, by the conquests of Pompey, the tributes of Asia were raised from fifty to one hundred and thirty-five millions of drachms; or about four millions and a half sterling. Under the last and most indolent of the Ptolemies, the revenue of Egypt is said to have amounted to twelve thousand five hundred talents; a sum equivalent to more than two millions and a half of our money, but which was afterwards considerably improved by the more exact economy of the Romans, and the increase of the trade of Æthiopia and India. Gaul was enriched by rapine, as Egypt was by commerce, and the tributes of those two great provinces have been compared as nearly equal to each other in value. The ten thousand Euboic or Phœnician talents, about four millions sterling, which vanquished Carthage was condemned to pay within the term of fifty years, were a slight acknowledgment of the superiority of Rome, and cannot bear the least proportion with the taxes afterwards raised both on the lands and on the persons of the inhabitants, when the fertile coast of Africa was reduced into a province.

History has never really suffered a greater or more permanent loss than with the disappearance of the detailed record left by Augustus to the senate, where that knowledgeable leader meticulously documented the revenues and expenses of the Roman Empire. Without this clear and comprehensive overview, we’re left to piece together a few incomplete pieces of information from those ancient historians who occasionally shifted their focus from grand events to more practical aspects of history. We learn that, thanks to Pompey’s conquests, the tributes from Asia increased from fifty to one hundred and thirty-five million drachms, or around four and a half million pounds. Under the last and most lazy of the Ptolemies, Egypt's revenue was said to be twelve thousand five hundred talents, equivalent to more than two and a half million of our pounds, but this was later improved significantly by the more precise administration of the Romans and the rise in trade with Ethiopia and India. Gaul grew wealthy through plunder, just as Egypt did through trade, and the tributes from these two vast provinces were considered nearly equal in value. The ten thousand Euboic or Phoenician talents, about four million pounds, that the defeated Carthage was ordered to pay over a period of fifty years were a mere acknowledgment of Rome’s superiority and pale in comparison to the taxes imposed later on both the land and the people when the rich coast of Africa was turned into a province.

Spain, by a very singular fatality, was the Peru and Mexico of the old world. The discovery of the rich western continent by the Phœnicians, and the oppression of the simple natives, who were compelled to labor in their own mines for the benefit of strangers, form an exact type of the more recent history of Spanish America. The Phœnicians were acquainted only with the sea-coast of Spain; avarice, as well as ambition, carried the arms of Rome and Carthage into the heart of the country, and almost every part of the soil was found pregnant with copper, silver, and gold. * Mention is made of a mine near Carthagena which yielded every day twenty-five thousand drachmas of silver, or about three hundred thousand pounds a year. Twenty thousand pound weight of gold was annually received from the provinces of Asturia, Gallicia, and Lusitania.

Spain, by a very unique twist of fate, was the Peru and Mexico of the old world. The discovery of the rich western continent by the Phoenicians and the exploitation of the simple natives, who were forced to work in their own mines for the benefit of outsiders, perfectly mirrors the more recent history of Spanish America. The Phoenicians only knew the coastline of Spain; greed, as well as ambition, drove the armies of Rome and Carthage into the interior, discovering that almost every part of the land was rich in copper, silver, and gold. * There are reports of a mine near Cartagena that produced twenty-five thousand drachmas of silver daily, which amounts to about three hundred thousand pounds a year. Annually, twenty thousand pounds of gold were obtained from the provinces of Asturias, Galicia, and Lusitania.

We want both leisure and materials to pursue this curious inquiry through the many potent states that were annihilated in the Roman empire. Some notion, however, may be formed of the revenue of the provinces where considerable wealth had been deposited by nature, or collected by man, if we observe the severe attention that was directed to the abodes of solitude and sterility. Augustus once received a petition from the inhabitants of Gyarus, humbly praying that they might be relieved from one third of their excessive impositions. Their whole tax amounted indeed to no more than one hundred and fifty drachms, or about five pounds: but Gyarus was a little island, or rather a rock, of the Ægean Sea, destitute of fresh water and every necessary of life, and inhabited only by a few wretched fishermen.

We want both the time and resources to explore this interesting inquiry into the many significant regions that were wiped out in the Roman Empire. However, we can get some idea of the wealth of the provinces where considerable riches were either provided by nature or gathered by people if we look at the intense focus that was given to places that were barren and desolate. Augustus once received a request from the people of Gyarus, humbly asking to be relieved from one-third of their heavy taxes. Their total tax was only one hundred and fifty drachms, which is roughly five pounds; however, Gyarus was a small island, or rather a rocky outcrop, in the Aegean Sea, lacking fresh water and all basic necessities, inhabited only by a few struggling fishermen.

From the faint glimmerings of such doubtful and scattered lights, we should be inclined to believe, 1st, That (with every fair allowance for the differences of times and circumstances) the general income of the Roman provinces could seldom amount to less than fifteen or twenty millions of our money; and, 2dly, That so ample a revenue must have been fully adequate to all the expenses of the moderate government instituted by Augustus, whose court was the modest family of a private senator, and whose military establishment was calculated for the defence of the frontiers, without any aspiring views of conquest, or any serious apprehension of a foreign invasion.

From the faint glimmers of such uncertain and scattered lights, we might be inclined to believe, first, that (with reasonable consideration for the differences in times and circumstances) the overall income of the Roman provinces could rarely be less than fifteen or twenty million of our money; and, secondly, that such a substantial revenue must have been more than enough to cover all the expenses of the moderate government set up by Augustus, whose court resembled the modest household of a private senator, and whose military setup was designed for the defense of the frontiers, without any ambitious intentions of conquest, or serious fears of a foreign invasion.

Notwithstanding the seeming probability of both these conclusions, the latter of them at least is positively disowned by the language and conduct of Augustus. It is not easy to determine whether, on this occasion, he acted as the common father of the Roman world, or as the oppressor of liberty; whether he wished to relieve the provinces, or to impoverish the senate and the equestrian order. But no sooner had he assumed the reins of government, than he frequently intimated the insufficiency of the tributes, and the necessity of throwing an equitable proportion of the public burden upon Rome and Italy. In the prosecution of this unpopular design, he advanced, however, by cautious and well-weighed steps. The introduction of customs was followed by the establishment of an excise, and the scheme of taxation was completed by an artful assessment on the real and personal property of the Roman citizens, who had been exempted from any kind of contribution above a century and a half.

Despite the apparent likelihood of both conclusions, at least the latter is clearly rejected by the words and actions of Augustus. It's not easy to tell whether he acted as the common father of the Roman world or as the oppressor of freedom; whether he wanted to support the provinces or weaken the senate and the equestrian class. However, as soon as he took control of the government, he often pointed out the inadequacy of the taxes and the need to share a fair portion of the public burden with Rome and Italy. In pursuing this unpopular agenda, he moved forward cautiously and thoughtfully. The introduction of customs duties was soon followed by the establishment of an excise tax, and the plan for taxation was completed with a clever assessment on the real and personal property of Roman citizens, who had been exempt from any kind of tax for over a century and a half.

I. In a great empire like that of Rome, a natural balance of money must have gradually established itself. It has been already observed, that as the wealth of the provinces was attracted to the capital by the strong hand of conquest and power, so a considerable part of it was restored to the industrious provinces by the gentle influence of commerce and arts. In the reign of Augustus and his successors, duties were imposed on every kind of merchandise, which through a thousand channels flowed to the great centre of opulence and luxury; and in whatsoever manner the law was expressed, it was the Roman purchaser, and not the provincial merchant, who paid the tax. The rate of the customs varied from the eighth to the fortieth part of the value of the commodity; and we have a right to suppose that the variation was directed by the unalterable maxims of policy; that a higher duty was fixed on the articles of luxury than on those of necessity, and that the productions raised or manufactured by the labor of the subjects of the empire were treated with more indulgence than was shown to the pernicious, or at least the unpopular, commerce of Arabia and India. There is still extant a long but imperfect catalogue of eastern commodities, which about the time of Alexander Severus were subject to the payment of duties; cinnamon, myrrh, pepper, ginger, and the whole tribe of aromatics; a great variety of precious stones, among which the diamond was the most remarkable for its price, and the emerald for its beauty; Parthian and Babylonian leather, cottons, silks, both raw and manufactured, ebony ivory, and eunuchs. We may observe that the use and value of those effeminate slaves gradually rose with the decline of the empire.

I. In a vast empire like Rome, a natural balance of money must have developed over time. It has already been noted that as the wealth from the provinces was drawn to the capital through conquest and power, a significant portion was returned to the hardworking provinces through trade and the arts. During the reign of Augustus and his successors, taxes were placed on all kinds of goods that flowed through many channels to the main hub of wealth and luxury; and regardless of how the law was written, it was the Roman buyer, not the provincial seller, who paid the tax. The customs rates varied from one-eighth to one-fortieth of the item's value, and we can assume that this variation was guided by established policies; that higher taxes were set on luxury items compared to necessities, and that goods produced or made by the empire's laborers received more favorable treatment than the undesirable, or at least unpopular, trade from Arabia and India. There still exists a lengthy but incomplete list of eastern goods that were taxed around the time of Alexander Severus; including cinnamon, myrrh, pepper, ginger, and various aromatics; a wide range of precious stones, with diamonds being noted for their cost and emeralds for their beauty; leather from Parthia and Babylon, as well as cotton, silks (both raw and finished), ebony, ivory, and eunuchs. We can see that the demand and worth of these effeminate slaves gradually increased as the empire declined.

II. The excise, introduced by Augustus after the civil wars, was extremely moderate, but it was general. It seldom exceeded one per cent.; but it comprehended whatever was sold in the markets or by public auction, from the most considerable purchases of lands and houses, to those minute objects which can only derive a value from their infinite multitude and daily consumption. Such a tax, as it affects the body of the people, has ever been the occasion of clamor and discontent. An emperor well acquainted with the wants and resources of the state was obliged to declare, by a public edict, that the support of the army depended in a great measure on the produce of the excise.*

II. The tax, introduced by Augustus after the civil wars, was quite reasonable, but it was widespread. It rarely went above one percent; however, it included everything sold in markets or at public auctions, from major purchases of land and houses to those small items that only gain value due to their vast numbers and daily consumption. Such a tax, as it impacts the general population, has always sparked outcry and dissatisfaction. An emperor who understood the needs and resources of the state had to announce through a public statement that the army's support largely depended on the revenue from this tax.*

III. When Augustus resolved to establish a permanent military force for the defence of his government against foreign and domestic enemies, he instituted a peculiar treasury for the pay of the soldiers, the rewards of the veterans, and the extra-ordinary expenses of war. The ample revenue of the excise, though peculiarly appropriated to those uses, was found inadequate. To supply the deficiency, the emperor suggested a new tax of five per cent. on all legacies and inheritances. But the nobles of Rome were more tenacious of property than of freedom. Their indignant murmurs were received by Augustus with his usual temper. He candidly referred the whole business to the senate, and exhorted them to provide for the public service by some other expedient of a less odious nature. They were divided and perplexed. He insinuated to them, that their obstinacy would oblige him to propose a general land tax and capitation. They acquiesced in silence. The new imposition on legacies and inheritances was, however, mitigated by some restrictions. It did not take place unless the object was of a certain value, most probably of fifty or a hundred pieces of gold; nor could it be exacted from the nearest of kin on the father’s side. When the rights of nature and property were thus secured, it seemed reasonable, that a stranger, or a distant relation, who acquired an unexpected accession of fortune, should cheerfully resign a twentieth part of it, for the benefit of the state.

III. When Augustus decided to set up a permanent military force to protect his government from both foreign and domestic threats, he created a special treasury to cover soldiers' pay, veterans' rewards, and extraordinary war expenses. However, the generous revenue from the excise tax, designated for these purposes, proved to be insufficient. To address this shortfall, the emperor proposed a new tax of five percent on all inheritances and legacies. But the nobles of Rome cared more about their property than their freedom. Augustus received their angry complaints with his usual composure. He openly brought the issue to the senate and encouraged them to find a different, less objectionable way to fund the public service. They were conflicted and confused. He hinted that their resistance would force him to suggest a general land tax and poll tax. They accepted this in silence. Nonetheless, the new tax on inheritances and legacies was softened by certain restrictions. It would only apply if the inheritance was of a specific value, likely fifty or a hundred gold pieces; and it could not be collected from close relatives on the father's side. With the rights of nature and property secured, it seemed reasonable for a stranger or a distant relative who unexpectedly came into wealth to willingly contribute one-twentieth of it for the state's benefit.

Such a tax, plentiful as it must prove in every wealthy community, was most happily suited to the situation of the Romans, who could frame their arbitrary wills, according to the dictates of reason or caprice, without any restraint from the modern fetters of entails and settlements. From various causes, the partiality of paternal affection often lost its influence over the stern patriots of the commonwealth, and the dissolute nobles of the empire; and if the father bequeathed to his son the fourth part of his estate, he removed all ground of legal complaint. But a rich childish old man was a domestic tyrant, and his power increased with his years and infirmities. A servile crowd, in which he frequently reckoned prætors and consuls, courted his smiles, pampered his avarice, applauded his follies, served his passions, and waited with impatience for his death. The arts of attendance and flattery were formed into a most lucrative science; those who professed it acquired a peculiar appellation; and the whole city, according to the lively descriptions of satire, was divided between two parties, the hunters and their game. Yet, while so many unjust and extravagant wills were every day dictated by cunning and subscribed by folly, a few were the result of rational esteem and virtuous gratitude. Cicero, who had so often defended the lives and fortunes of his fellow-citizens, was rewarded with legacies to the amount of a hundred and seventy thousand pounds; nor do the friends of the younger Pliny seem to have been less generous to that amiable orator. Whatever was the motive of the testator, the treasury claimed, without distinction, the twentieth part of his estate: and in the course of two or three generations, the whole property of the subject must have gradually passed through the coffers of the state.

Such a tax, abundant as it would be in every wealthy community, was very well suited to the situation of the Romans. They could create their own arbitrary decisions based on reason or whim, without any limits from the modern constraints of estates and settlements. For various reasons, the bias of parental affection often lost its power over the strict patriots of the republic and the reckless nobles of the empire. If a father left a fourth of his estate to his son, he eliminated any grounds for legal complaints. However, a wealthy, childish old man became a tyrant at home, and his power grew as he aged and became frail. A subservient crowd—often including prætors and consuls—sought his favor, indulged his greed, praised his foolishness, fulfilled his desires, and eagerly awaited his death. The skills of service and flattery turned into a highly profitable profession, with those who practiced it acquiring a special title. The entire city, as satirists vividly illustrated, was divided into two groups: the hunters and their prey. Yet, while so many unjust and outrageous wills were dictated by cunning and signed by foolishness daily, a few came from genuine respect and virtuous gratitude. Cicero, who frequently defended the lives and fortunes of his fellow citizens, was rewarded with legacies amounting to one hundred and seventy thousand pounds; nor did the friends of the younger Pliny appear to be less generous to that charming orator. Whatever the motives of the testators, the treasury claimed, without distinction, one-fifth of their estate, and over two or three generations, the entire wealth of the populace must have gradually passed into the state’s coffers.

In the first and golden years of the reign of Nero, that prince, from a desire of popularity, and perhaps from a blind impulse of benevolence, conceived a wish of abolishing the oppression of the customs and excise. The wisest senators applauded his magnanimity: but they diverted him from the execution of a design which would have dissolved the strength and resources of the republic. Had it indeed been possible to realize this dream of fancy, such princes as Trajan and the Antonines would surely have embraced with ardor the glorious opportunity of conferring so signal an obligation on mankind. Satisfied, however, with alleviating the public burden, they attempted not to remove it. The mildness and precision of their laws ascertained the rule and measure of taxation, and protected the subject of every rank against arbitrary interpretations, antiquated claims, and the insolent vexation of the farmers of the revenue. For it is somewhat singular, that, in every age, the best and wisest of the Roman governors persevered in this pernicious method of collecting the principal branches at least of the excise and customs.

In the early and glorious years of Nero's reign, the prince, motivated by a desire for popularity and perhaps a genuine impulse to do good, wanted to end the oppression of customs and excise taxes. The wisest senators praised his noble intentions, but they steered him away from carrying out a plan that would have weakened the strength and resources of the republic. If it had been possible to make this dream a reality, leaders like Trajan and the Antonines would have eagerly taken the chance to provide such a significant benefit to humanity. However, instead of completely removing the burden, they settled for easing it. The fairness and clarity of their laws established a consistent and fair method of taxation, protecting citizens of all ranks from arbitrary interpretations, outdated claims, and the rude harassment of tax collectors. It is somewhat unusual that, throughout history, the best and most enlightened Roman governors continued to use this damaging method of collecting at least the main sources of customs and excise taxes.

The sentiments, and, indeed, the situation, of Caracalla were very different from those of the Antonines. Inattentive, or rather averse, to the welfare of his people, he found himself under the necessity of gratifying the insatiate avarice which he had excited in the army. Of the several impositions introduced by Augustus, the twentieth on inheritances and legacies was the most fruitful, as well as the most comprehensive. As its influence was not confined to Rome or Italy, the produce continually increased with the gradual extension of the Roman City. The new citizens, though charged, on equal terms, with the payment of new taxes, which had not affected them as subjects, derived an ample compensation from the rank they obtained, the privileges they acquired, and the fair prospect of honors and fortune that was thrown open to their ambition. But the favor which implied a distinction was lost in the prodigality of Caracalla, and the reluctant provincials were compelled to assume the vain title, and the real obligations, of Roman citizens. * Nor was the rapacious son of Severus contented with such a measure of taxation as had appeared sufficient to his moderate predecessors. Instead of a twentieth, he exacted a tenth of all legacies and inheritances; and during his reign (for the ancient proportion was restored after his death) he crushed alike every part of the empire under the weight of his iron sceptre.

The feelings and situation of Caracalla were very different from those of the Antonines. Unconcerned, or rather uninterested, in the well-being of his people, he felt the need to satisfy the endless greed he had stirred up in the army. Among the various taxes introduced by Augustus, the one-twentieth tax on inheritances and legacies was the most profitable and extensive. Its impact wasn't limited to Rome or Italy; the revenue steadily increased as the Roman Empire expanded. The new citizens, although subject to the burden of new taxes that didn't affect them as subjects, received considerable benefits from the status they gained, the privileges they acquired, and the promising opportunities for honors and wealth that opened up to their ambitions. However, the distinction that came with this favor was overshadowed by Caracalla's extravagance, and the unwilling provinces were forced to take on the empty title and the actual responsibilities of Roman citizens. Nor was the greedy son of Severus satisfied with the level of taxation that seemed sufficient for his moderate predecessors. Instead of one-twentieth, he demanded one-tenth of all legacies and inheritances; and during his rule (the old rate was reinstated after his death), he crushed every part of the empire under the weight of his iron grip.

When all the provincials became liable to the peculiar impositions of Roman citizens, they seemed to acquire a legal exemption from the tributes which they had paid in their former condition of subjects. Such were not the maxims of government adopted by Caracalla and his pretended son. The old as well as the new taxes were, at the same time, levied in the provinces. It was reserved for the virtue of Alexander to relieve them in a great measure from this intolerable grievance, by reducing the tributes to a thirteenth part of the sum exacted at the time of his accession. It is impossible to conjecture the motive that engaged him to spare so trifling a remnant of the public evil; but the noxious weed, which had not been totally eradicated, again sprang up with the most luxuriant growth, and in the succeeding age darkened the Roman world with its deadly shade. In the course of this history, we shall be too often summoned to explain the land tax, the capitation, and the heavy contributions of corn, wine, oil, and meat, which were exacted from the provinces for the use of the court, the army, and the capital.

When all the provinces became subject to the unique taxes imposed on Roman citizens, they seemed to gain a legal exemption from the tributes they had paid as subjects before. However, these weren't the policies followed by Caracalla and his supposed son. Both old and new taxes were collected in the provinces at the same time. It was Alexander's virtue that significantly eased this unbearable burden by cutting the tributes down to a thirteenth of what was demanded when he took power. It's hard to guess why he chose to spare such a small portion of the public issue; nevertheless, the harmful problem, which hadn't been completely removed, grew back even more vigorously, casting a dark shadow over the Roman world in the following age. Throughout this history, we will often need to discuss the land tax, the poll tax, and the heavy contributions of grain, wine, oil, and meat that were collected from the provinces for the benefit of the court, the army, and the capital.

As long as Rome and Italy were respected as the centre of government, a national spirit was preserved by the ancient, and insensibly imbibed by the adopted, citizens. The principal commands of the army were filled by men who had received a liberal education, were well instructed in the advantages of laws and letters, and who had risen, by equal steps, through the regular succession of civil and military honors. To their influence and example we may partly ascribe the modest obedience of the legions during the two first centuries of the Imperial history.

As long as Rome and Italy were seen as the center of government, a national spirit was maintained by the natives and unconsciously absorbed by the adopted citizens. Key military positions were held by individuals who had received a good education, understood the importance of laws and literature, and had advanced through the normal progression of civil and military honors. We can partly attribute the disciplined obedience of the legions during the first two centuries of Imperial history to their influence and example.

But when the last enclosure of the Roman constitution was trampled down by Caracalla, the separation of professions gradually succeeded to the distinction of ranks. The more polished citizens of the internal provinces were alone qualified to act as lawyers and magistrates. The rougher trade of arms was abandoned to the peasants and barbarians of the frontiers, who knew no country but their camp, no science but that of war, no civil laws, and scarcely those of military discipline. With bloody hands, savage manners, and desperate resolutions, they sometimes guarded, but much oftener subverted, the throne of the emperors.

But when Caracalla trampled the last barrier of the Roman constitution, the separation of professions gradually replaced the distinction of social classes. Only the more refined citizens of the internal provinces were qualified to serve as lawyers and magistrates. The rougher task of fighting was left to the peasants and barbarians of the frontiers, who knew no land but their camp, no knowledge but that of war, no civil laws, and hardly even those of military discipline. With bloodied hands, savage behavior, and desperate resolve, they sometimes protected, but more often undermined, the throne of the emperors.





Chapter VII: Tyranny Of Maximin, Rebellion, Civil Wars, Death Of Maximin.—Part I.

The Elevation And Tyranny Of Maximin.—Rebellion In Africa
And Italy, Under The Authority Of The Senate.—Civil Wars And
Seditions.—Violent Deaths Of Maximin And His Son, Of Maximus
And Balbinus, And Of The Three Gordians.—Usurpation And
Secular Games Of Philip.
The Rise and Rule of Maximin. — Revolt in Africa and Italy, Under the Senate's Authority. — Civil Wars and Unrest. — Violent Deaths of Maximin and His Son, Maximus and Balbinus, and the Three Gordians. — Usurpation and the Secular Games of Philip.

Of the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate without an indignant smile, that, on the father’s decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master.

Of all the different types of government that have existed in the world, a hereditary monarchy seems to be the most ridiculous. Can we really talk about how, after the father's death, the nation's wealth, like a herd of cattle, is passed down to his infant son, who is still a stranger to everyone, including himself? And that the bravest warriors and the smartest politicians give up their right to rule and approach the royal crib on their knees, swearing loyalty? Satire and speeches can make these obvious points look grand, but in our more serious discussions, we’ll recognize a useful bias that creates a system of succession separate from human emotions. We’ll willingly accept any solution that takes away the dangerous, and frankly unrealistic, power of the masses to choose their leader.

In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us, that in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous part of the people. The army is the only order of men sufficiently united to concur in the same sentiments, and powerful enough to impose them on the rest of their fellow-citizens; but the temper of soldiers, habituated at once to violence and to slavery, renders them very unfit guardians of a legal, or even a civil constitution. Justice, humanity, or political wisdom, are qualities they are too little acquainted with in themselves, to appreciate them in others. Valor will acquire their esteem, and liberality will purchase their suffrage; but the first of these merits is often lodged in the most savage breasts; the latter can only exert itself at the expense of the public; and both may be turned against the possessor of the throne, by the ambition of a daring rival.

In the comfortable shade of retirement, we can easily come up with ideal forms of government where the leadership is always given to the most deserving, through the honest and unbiased votes of the entire community. However, experience proves these dreams wrong and shows us that in a large society, the choice of a leader will never fall to the wisest or the most numerous group of people. The military is the only group that is unified enough to share the same opinions and strong enough to impose those views on the rest of the citizens; however, the mindset of soldiers, who are used to both violence and submission, makes them very poor protectors of a lawful or even a civil government. Justice, compassion, or political insight are qualities they are not familiar with in themselves, so they struggle to recognize them in others. Courage will earn their respect, and generosity will win their support; but the former quality is often found in the most brutal individuals, while the latter can only be shown at the expense of the public, and both can be turned against the ruler by the ambition of a bold rival.

The superior prerogative of birth, when it has obtained the sanction of time and popular opinion, is the plainest and least invidious of all distinctions among mankind. The acknowledged right extinguishes the hopes of faction, and the conscious security disarms the cruelty of the monarch. To the firm establishment of this idea we owe the peaceful succession and mild administration of European monarchies. To the defect of it we must attribute the frequent civil wars, through which an Asiatic despot is obliged to cut his way to the throne of his fathers. Yet, even in the East, the sphere of contention is usually limited to the princes of the reigning house, and as soon as the more fortunate competitor has removed his brethren by the sword and the bowstring, he no longer entertains any jealousy of his meaner subjects. But the Roman empire, after the authority of the senate had sunk into contempt, was a vast scene of confusion. The royal, and even noble, families of the provinces had long since been led in triumph before the car of the haughty republicans. The ancient families of Rome had successively fallen beneath the tyranny of the Cæsars; and whilst those princes were shackled by the forms of a commonwealth, and disappointed by the repeated failure of their posterity, it was impossible that any idea of hereditary succession should have taken root in the minds of their subjects. The right to the throne, which none could claim from birth, every one assumed from merit. The daring hopes of ambition were set loose from the salutary restraints of law and prejudice; and the meanest of mankind might, without folly, entertain a hope of being raised by valor and fortune to a rank in the army, in which a single crime would enable him to wrest the sceptre of the world from his feeble and unpopular master. After the murder of Alexander Severus, and the elevation of Maximin, no emperor could think himself safe upon the throne, and every barbarian peasant of the frontier might aspire to that august, but dangerous station.

The high privilege of birth, once validated by time and public opinion, is the simplest and least resentful of all distinctions among people. This recognized right dampens the ambitions of factions and the assurance it brings neutralizes the cruelty of the ruler. We owe the peaceful succession and gentle governance of European monarchies to the solid establishment of this idea. Its absence explains the frequent civil wars that force an Asian despot to fight his way to his ancestors' throne. However, even in the East, disputes are usually confined to the members of the ruling family, and once the more fortunate contender has eliminated his brothers with sword and poison, he no longer has any jealousy towards his lesser subjects. In contrast, the Roman Empire, after the Senate's authority had descended into contempt, was a chaotic arena. The royal and even noble families of the provinces had long been paraded as trophies before the arrogant republicans. The ancient families of Rome had repeatedly succumbed to the tyranny of the Caesars; and while those princes were restricted by the rules of a republic and frustrated by the continuous failures of their heirs, it was impossible for anyone to develop the idea of hereditary succession in their minds. The right to the throne, which no one could claim by birth, was assumed by merit. The ambitious dreams were freed from the beneficial restraints of law and tradition; and even the lowest people could, without being foolish, hope to rise through bravery and luck to a position in the military where one single crime could allow him to seize the world's scepter from his weak and unpopular ruler. After the assassination of Alexander Severus and the rise of Maximin, no emperor felt secure on the throne, and every barbarian peasant on the frontier could aspire to that prestigious yet perilous position.

About thirty-two years before that event, the emperor Severus, returning from an eastern expedition, halted in Thrace, to celebrate, with military games, the birthday of his younger son, Geta. The country flocked in crowds to behold their sovereign, and a young barbarian of gigantic stature earnestly solicited, in his rude dialect, that he might be allowed to contend for the prize of wrestling. As the pride of discipline would have been disgraced in the overthrow of a Roman soldier by a Thracian peasant, he was matched with the stoutest followers of the camp, sixteen of whom he successively laid on the ground. His victory was rewarded by some trifling gifts, and a permission to enlist in the troops. The next day, the happy barbarian was distinguished above a crowd of recruits, dancing and exulting after the fashion of his country. As soon as he perceived that he had attracted the emperor’s notice, he instantly ran up to his horse, and followed him on foot, without the least appearance of fatigue, in a long and rapid career. “Thracian,” said Severus with astonishment, “art thou disposed to wrestle after thy race?” “Most willingly, sir,” replied the unwearied youth; and, almost in a breath, overthrew seven of the strongest soldiers in the army. A gold collar was the prize of his matchless vigor and activity, and he was immediately appointed to serve in the horseguards who always attended on the person of the sovereign.

About thirty-two years before that event, Emperor Severus, returning from an eastern campaign, stopped in Thrace to celebrate his younger son Geta's birthday with military games. The local people gathered in large numbers to see their ruler, and a tall young barbarian eagerly requested, in his rough language, to be allowed to compete for the wrestling prize. To avoid the embarrassment of a Roman soldier being defeated by a Thracian peasant, he was paired up with the strongest members of the army, and he took down sixteen of them one after the other. His victory earned him a few small gifts and the chance to join the troops. The next day, the joyful barbarian stood out among a group of recruits, dancing and celebrating in his traditional style. When he noticed that he had caught the emperor’s attention, he quickly ran up to his horse and followed him on foot, showing no signs of tiredness, in a long and swift race. “Thracian,” said Severus in amazement, “are you willing to wrestle after your race?” “Absolutely, sir,” replied the tireless youth, and almost in one breath, he toppled seven of the strongest soldiers in the army. A gold collar was awarded for his unmatched strength and agility, and he was immediately assigned to serve in the horseguards that always accompanied the emperor.

Maximin, for that was his name, though born on the territories of the empire, descended from a mixed race of barbarians. His father was a Goth, and his mother of the nation of the Alani. He displayed on every occasion a valor equal to his strength; and his native fierceness was soon tempered or disguised by the knowledge of the world. Under the reign of Severus and his son, he obtained the rank of centurion, with the favor and esteem of both those princes, the former of whom was an excellent judge of merit. Gratitude forbade Maximin to serve under the assassin of Caracalla. Honor taught him to decline the effeminate insults of Elagabalus. On the accession of Alexander he returned to court, and was placed by that prince in a station useful to the service, and honorable to himself. The fourth legion, to which he was appointed tribune, soon became, under his care, the best disciplined of the whole army. With the general applause of the soldiers, who bestowed on their favorite hero the names of Ajax and Hercules, he was successively promoted to the first military command; and had not he still retained too much of his savage origin, the emperor might perhaps have given his own sister in marriage to the son of Maximin.

Maximin, that was his name, was born within the empire’s territories but came from a mixed heritage of barbarians. His father was a Goth, and his mother was from the Alani tribe. He consistently showed bravery to match his strength, and over time, his natural fierceness was softened or hidden by his worldly knowledge. During the reign of Severus and his son, he rose to the rank of centurion, earning the favor and respect of both princes, especially Severus, who was a great judge of character. Out of gratitude, Maximin refused to serve under the assassin of Caracalla, and his sense of honor led him to reject the degrading insults from Elagabalus. When Alexander took the throne, Maximin returned to court and was appointed to a position that was both beneficial to the service and honorable for him. The fourth legion, where he was made tribune, quickly became the best-trained unit in the entire army under his leadership. With the soldiers’ enthusiastic support, who nicknamed their favorite hero Ajax and Hercules, he was promoted to the highest military command; and had he not still held on to too much of his wild background, the emperor might have considered marrying his own sister to Maximin’s son.

Instead of securing his fidelity, these favors served only to inflame the ambition of the Thracian peasant, who deemed his fortune inadequate to his merit, as long as he was constrained to acknowledge a superior. Though a stranger to real wisdom, he was not devoid of a selfish cunning, which showed him that the emperor had lost the affection of the army, and taught him to improve their discontent to his own advantage. It is easy for faction and calumny to shed their poison on the administration of the best of princes, and to accuse even their virtues by artfully confounding them with those vices to which they bear the nearest affinity. The troops listened with pleasure to the emissaries of Maximin. They blushed at their own ignominious patience, which, during thirteen years, had supported the vexatious discipline imposed by an effeminate Syrian, the timid slave of his mother and of the senate. It was time, they cried, to cast away that useless phantom of the civil power, and to elect for their prince and general a real soldier, educated in camps, exercised in war, who would assert the glory, and distribute among his companions the treasures, of the empire. A great army was at that time assembled on the banks of the Rhine, under the command of the emperor himself, who, almost immediately after his return from the Persian war, had been obliged to march against the barbarians of Germany. The important care of training and reviewing the new levies was intrusted to Maximin. One day, as he entered the field of exercise, the troops, either from a sudden impulse, or a formed conspiracy, saluted him emperor, silenced by their loud acclamations his obstinate refusal, and hastened to consummate their rebellion by the murder of Alexander Severus.

Instead of securing his loyalty, these favors only fueled the ambition of the Thracian peasant, who believed his fortune was too small for his worth as long as he had to acknowledge someone above him. Although he was unfamiliar with true wisdom, he wasn't devoid of selfish cunning, which showed him that the emperor had lost the army's affection and taught him how to turn their discontent to his advantage. It's easy for factions and slander to poison the administration of even the best rulers and to accuse their virtues by cleverly confusing them with the vices they closely resemble. The troops listened with excitement to the messengers of Maximin. They felt embarrassed by their own shameful patience, which had supported the annoying discipline enforced by an overly soft Syrian, a timid slave to his mother and the senate for thirteen years. It was time, they cried, to throw away that useless illusion of civil power and to choose a true soldier as their prince and general, someone trained in battle who would defend the glory and share the empire's treasures with his comrades. A large army was gathered at that time on the banks of the Rhine, under the command of the emperor himself, who had almost immediately after returning from the Persian war been forced to march against the German barbarians. The crucial task of training and reviewing the new recruits was given to Maximin. One day, as he entered the training grounds, the troops, either from a spontaneous impulse or a planned conspiracy, declared him emperor, drowning out his stubborn refusal with loud cheers, and rushed to complete their rebellion by murdering Alexander Severus.

The circumstances of his death are variously related. The writers, who suppose that he died in ignorance of the ingratitude and ambition of Maximin affirm that, after taking a frugal repast in the sight of the army, he retired to sleep, and that, about the seventh hour of the day, a part of his own guards broke into the imperial tent, and, with many wounds, assassinated their virtuous and unsuspecting prince. If we credit another, and indeed a more probable account, Maximin was invested with the purple by a numerous detachment, at the distance of several miles from the head-quarters; and he trusted for success rather to the secret wishes than to the public declarations of the great army. Alexander had sufficient time to awaken a faint sense of loyalty among the troops; but their reluctant professions of fidelity quickly vanished on the appearance of Maximin, who declared himself the friend and advocate of the military order, and was unanimously acknowledged emperor of the Romans by the applauding legions. The son of Mamæa, betrayed and deserted, withdrew into his tent, desirous at least to conceal his approaching fate from the insults of the multitude. He was soon followed by a tribune and some centurions, the ministers of death; but instead of receiving with manly resolution the inevitable stroke, his unavailing cries and entreaties disgraced the last moments of his life, and converted into contempt some portion of the just pity which his innocence and misfortunes must inspire. His mother, Mamæa, whose pride and avarice he loudly accused as the cause of his ruin, perished with her son. The most faithful of his friends were sacrificed to the first fury of the soldiers. Others were reserved for the more deliberate cruelty of the usurper; and those who experienced the mildest treatment, were stripped of their employments, and ignominiously driven from the court and army.

The details surrounding his death are told in different ways. Some writers, who believe he died unaware of Maximin's betrayal and ambition, state that after having a simple meal in front of the army, he went to sleep. Around the seventh hour of the day, some of his own guards broke into the imperial tent and fatally attacked their virtuous and unsuspecting prince. If we believe another account, which seems more likely, Maximin was proclaimed emperor by a large group several miles away from the main camp, and he relied more on the secret desires of the troops than their public support. Alexander had a brief chance to rekindle some loyalty among the soldiers, but their hesitant promises quickly faded when Maximin appeared, claiming to be their ally and defender. He was enthusiastically recognized as the emperor of the Romans by the cheering legions. The son of Mamæa, betrayed and abandoned, retreated to his tent, wanting to shield himself from the jeers of the crowd as he faced his impending doom. He was soon followed by a tribune and some centurions, the bearers of his death sentence; yet instead of facing his fate with courage, his desperate cries and pleas brought shame to his final moments and turned some of the rightful sympathy for his innocence and misfortunes into disdain. His mother, Mamæa, whom he openly blamed for his downfall due to her pride and greed, met the same fate as her son. The most loyal of his friends were sacrificed to the soldiers' initial rage. Others were kept around to face the more calculated cruelty of the usurper, while those who received the mildest treatment lost their positions and were disgracefully expelled from the court and army.

The former tyrants, Caligula and Nero, Commodus, and Caracalla, were all dissolute and unexperienced youths, educated in the purple, and corrupted by the pride of empire, the luxury of Rome, and the perfidious voice of flattery. The cruelty of Maximin was derived from a different source, the fear of contempt. Though he depended on the attachment of the soldiers, who loved him for virtues like their own, he was conscious that his mean and barbarian origin, his savage appearance, and his total ignorance of the arts and institutions of civil life, formed a very unfavorable contrast with the amiable manners of the unhappy Alexander. He remembered, that, in his humbler fortune, he had often waited before the door of the haughty nobles of Rome, and had been denied admittance by the insolence of their slaves. He recollected too the friendship of a few who had relieved his poverty, and assisted his rising hopes. But those who had spurned, and those who had protected, the Thracian, were guilty of the same crime, the knowledge of his original obscurity. For this crime many were put to death; and by the execution of several of his benefactors, Maximin published, in characters of blood, the indelible history of his baseness and ingratitude.

The former tyrants, Caligula and Nero, Commodus, and Caracalla, were all reckless and inexperienced young men, raised in luxury, and corrupted by imperial pride, the excesses of Rome, and the deceitful flatteries of others. Maximin's cruelty came from a different place—his fear of being looked down upon. Even though he relied on the loyalty of the soldiers, who admired him for virtues similar to their own, he was painfully aware that his lowly and barbaric background, his rough appearance, and his complete lack of knowledge about the arts and institutions of civilized life were a stark contrast to the charming demeanor of the unfortunate Alexander. He remembered that in his earlier life, he often waited outside the doors of proud Roman nobles, only to be turned away by their arrogant slaves. He also recalled the few friends who had helped him through his poverty and supported his aspirations. But both those who rejected him and those who aided the Thracian were guilty of the same offense—knowing about his humble beginnings. Because of this, many lost their lives, and by executing several of his benefactors, Maximin revealed, in bloody letters, the lasting story of his shame and ingratitude.

The dark and sanguinary soul of the tyrant was open to every suspicion against those among his subjects who were the most distinguished by their birth or merit. Whenever he was alarmed with the sound of treason, his cruelty was unbounded and unrelenting. A conspiracy against his life was either discovered or imagined, and Magnus, a consular senator, was named as the principal author of it. Without a witness, without a trial, and without an opportunity of defence, Magnus, with four thousand of his supposed accomplices, was put to death. Italy and the whole empire were infested with innumerable spies and informers. On the slightest accusation, the first of the Roman nobles, who had governed provinces, commanded armies, and been adorned with the consular and triumphal ornaments, were chained on the public carriages, and hurried away to the emperor’s presence. Confiscation, exile, or simple death, were esteemed uncommon instances of his lenity. Some of the unfortunate sufferers he ordered to be sewed up in the hides of slaughtered animals, others to be exposed to wild beasts, others again to be beaten to death with clubs. During the three years of his reign, he disdained to visit either Rome or Italy. His camp, occasionally removed from the banks of the Rhine to those of the Danube, was the seat of his stern despotism, which trampled on every principle of law and justice, and was supported by the avowed power of the sword. No man of noble birth, elegant accomplishments, or knowledge of civil business, was suffered near his person; and the court of a Roman emperor revived the idea of those ancient chiefs of slaves and gladiators, whose savage power had left a deep impression of terror and detestation.

The dark and bloody nature of the tyrant made him suspicious of the noblest among his subjects, whether due to their birth or achievements. Whenever he heard any hint of betrayal, his cruelty knew no bounds. A plot against his life was either discovered or imagined, and Magnus, a high-ranking senator, was named as the main conspirator. Without a witness, a trial, or even a chance to defend himself, Magnus and four thousand of his supposed accomplices were executed. Italy and the entire empire were crawling with spies and informers. At the slightest accusation, prominent Roman nobles—who had governed provinces, commanded armies, and received consular and triumphal honors—were chained to public carts and rushed to the emperor. Confiscation of property, exile, or simple death were seen as rare acts of his mercy. Some of the unfortunate victims were ordered to be sewn into the hides of slaughtered animals, others were exposed to wild animals, while others were beaten to death with clubs. Throughout his three-year reign, he arrogantly refused to visit either Rome or Italy. His camp, occasionally moved from the banks of the Rhine to those of the Danube, served as the center of his harsh tyranny, trampling on every principle of law and justice, and upheld by the open power of the sword. No man of noble birth, refined skills, or knowledge of civil affairs was allowed near him; the court of a Roman emperor recalled the ancient leaders of slaves and gladiators, whose brutal power left a lasting mark of fear and hatred.

As long as the cruelty of Maximin was confined to the illustrious senators, or even to the bold adventurers, who in the court or army expose themselves to the caprice of fortune, the body of the people viewed their sufferings with indifference, or perhaps with pleasure. But the tyrant’s avarice, stimulated by the insatiate desires of the soldiers, at length attacked the public property. Every city of the empire was possessed of an independent revenue, destined to purchase corn for the multitude, and to supply the expenses of the games and entertainments. By a single act of authority, the whole mass of wealth was at once confiscated for the use of the Imperial treasury. The temples were stripped of their most valuable offerings of gold and silver, and the statues of gods, heroes, and emperors, were melted down and coined into money. These impious orders could not be executed without tumults and massacres, as in many places the people chose rather to die in the defence of their altars, than to behold in the midst of peace their cities exposed to the rapine and cruelty of war. The soldiers themselves, among whom this sacrilegious plunder was distributed, received it with a blush; and hardened as they were in acts of violence, they dreaded the just reproaches of their friends and relations. Throughout the Roman world a general cry of indignation was heard, imploring vengeance on the common enemy of human kind; and at length, by an act of private oppression, a peaceful and unarmed province was driven into rebellion against him.

As long as Maximin's cruelty was directed at the distinguished senators or the daring adventurers in the court or army who risked everything, the general public viewed their suffering with indifference, or maybe even with amusement. But the tyrant’s greed, fueled by the endless desires of the soldiers, eventually targeted public property. Every city in the empire had its own revenue meant to buy grain for the populace and cover the costs of games and entertainment. With one command, all that wealth was confiscated for the Imperial treasury. The temples were stripped of their most valuable gold and silver offerings, and the statues of gods, heroes, and emperors were melted down and turned into money. These disgraceful orders led to riots and massacres, as many people preferred to die defending their altars rather than watch their cities suffer from the pillaging and brutality of war in times of peace. The soldiers, who received this sacrilegious plunder, felt ashamed; despite their experience with violence, they feared the rightful accusations from their friends and family. Across the Roman world, a widespread outcry of anger demanded vengeance against the common enemy of mankind, and eventually, due to a personal act of oppression, a peaceful and unarmed province was pushed into rebellion against him.

The procurator of Africa was a servant worthy of such a master, who considered the fines and confiscations of the rich as one of the most fruitful branches of the Imperial revenue. An iniquitous sentence had been pronounced against some opulent youths of that country, the execution of which would have stripped them of far the greater part of their patrimony. In this extremity, a resolution that must either complete or prevent their ruin, was dictated by despair. A respite of three days, obtained with difficulty from the rapacious treasurer, was employed in collecting from their estates a great number of slaves and peasants blindly devoted to the commands of their lords, and armed with the rustic weapons of clubs and axes. The leaders of the conspiracy, as they were admitted to the audience of the procurator, stabbed him with the daggers concealed under their garments, and, by the assistance of their tumultuary train, seized on the little town of Thysdrus, and erected the standard of rebellion against the sovereign of the Roman empire. They rested their hopes on the hatred of mankind against Maximin, and they judiciously resolved to oppose to that detested tyrant an emperor whose mild virtues had already acquired the love and esteem of the Romans, and whose authority over the province would give weight and stability to the enterprise. Gordianus, their proconsul, and the object of their choice, refused, with unfeigned reluctance, the dangerous honor, and begged with tears, that they would suffer him to terminate in peace a long and innocent life, without staining his feeble age with civil blood. Their menaces compelled him to accept the Imperial purple, his only refuge, indeed, against the jealous cruelty of Maximin; since, according to the reasoning of tyrants, those who have been esteemed worthy of the throne deserve death, and those who deliberate have already rebelled.

The governor of Africa was a loyal servant who served a master that viewed the fines and confiscations of the wealthy as a key source of Imperial income. An unjust verdict had been issued against some rich young men from that region, a decision that would have taken away most of their inheritance. In this desperate situation, they were forced into a decision that could either save or doom them. They managed to get a difficult three-day delay from the greedy treasurer, which they used to gather a large group of slaves and peasants completely loyal to their lords, armed with simple weapons like clubs and axes. When the leaders of the uprising were admitted to see the governor, they attacked him with daggers hidden in their clothing, and with the help of their chaotic followers, they took control of the small town of Thysdrus and raised the flag of rebellion against the Roman Empire. They placed their hopes on the public's dislike of Maximin and wisely decided to oppose that hated tyrant with an emperor whose kind character had already won the love and respect of the Romans, and whose authority in the province would lend support and stability to their cause. Gordianus, their proconsul and the one they had chosen, initially refused the dangerous honor with genuine regret, pleading with tears for them to allow him to end his long and innocent life peacefully, without shedding civil blood in his old age. Their threats forced him to accept the Imperial authority, which was his only real protection against Maximin's jealous cruelty; as tyrants reason, those deemed worthy of the throne deserve to die, and anyone who hesitates has already rebelled.

The family of Gordianus was one of the most illustrious of the Roman senate. On the father’s side he was descended from the Gracchi; on his mother’s, from the emperor Trajan. A great estate enabled him to support the dignity of his birth, and in the enjoyment of it, he displayed an elegant taste and beneficent disposition. The palace in Rome, formerly inhabited by the great Pompey, had been, during several generations, in the possession of Gordian’s family. It was distinguished by ancient trophies of naval victories, and decorated with the works of modern painting. His villa on the road to Præneste was celebrated for baths of singular beauty and extent, for three stately rooms of a hundred feet in length, and for a magnificent portico, supported by two hundred columns of the four most curious and costly sorts of marble. The public shows exhibited at his expense, and in which the people were entertained with many hundreds of wild beasts and gladiators, seem to surpass the fortune of a subject; and whilst the liberality of other magistrates was confined to a few solemn festivals at Rome, the magnificence of Gordian was repeated, when he was ædile, every month in the year, and extended, during his consulship, to the principal cities of Italy. He was twice elevated to the last-mentioned dignity, by Caracalla and by Alexander; for he possessed the uncommon talent of acquiring the esteem of virtuous princes, without alarming the jealousy of tyrants. His long life was innocently spent in the study of letters and the peaceful honors of Rome; and, till he was named proconsul of Africa by the voice of the senate and the approbation of Alexander, he appears prudently to have declined the command of armies and the government of provinces. * As long as that emperor lived, Africa was happy under the administration of his worthy representative: after the barbarous Maximin had usurped the throne, Gordianus alleviated the miseries which he was unable to prevent. When he reluctantly accepted the purple, he was above fourscore years old; a last and valuable remains of the happy age of the Antonines, whose virtues he revived in his own conduct, and celebrated in an elegant poem of thirty books. With the venerable proconsul, his son, who had accompanied him into Africa as his lieutenant, was likewise declared emperor. His manners were less pure, but his character was equally amiable with that of his father. Twenty-two acknowledged concubines, and a library of sixty-two thousand volumes, attested the variety of his inclinations; and from the productions which he left behind him, it appears that the former as well as the latter were designed for use rather than for ostentation. The Roman people acknowledged in the features of the younger Gordian the resemblance of Scipio Africanus, recollected with pleasure that his mother was the granddaughter of Antoninus Pius, and rested the public hope on those latent virtues which had hitherto, as they fondly imagined, lain concealed in the luxurious indolence of private life.

The Gordianus family was one of the most prominent in the Roman Senate. On his father’s side, he descended from the Gracchi; on his mother’s, from Emperor Trajan. A large estate allowed him to uphold the dignity of his birth, and he showed a refined taste and generous nature in enjoying it. The palace in Rome, once occupied by the great Pompey, had been in Gordian’s family for several generations. It was adorned with ancient trophies from naval victories and decorated with beautiful modern artwork. His villa on the road to Præneste was famous for its stunning and extensive baths, three magnificent rooms each a hundred feet long, and an impressive portico supported by two hundred columns made from four unique and expensive types of marble. The public events he funded, which entertained the people with hundreds of wild animals and gladiators, seemed beyond what a private citizen could afford. While the generosity of other officials was typically limited to a few major festivals in Rome, Gordian’s splendor was seen every month during his time as aedile and extended to the main cities of Italy during his consulship. He was appointed consul twice, by Caracalla and by Alexander, as he had the rare ability to gain the respect of virtuous rulers without provoking the jealousy of tyrants. He spent his long life innocently focusing on literature and the peaceful honors of Rome; until he was appointed proconsul of Africa by the Senate’s vote and Alexander’s approval, he wisely avoided commanding armies and governing provinces. * As long as that emperor lived, Africa thrived under his capable leadership; after the brutal Maximin seized the throne, Gordianus eased the hardships he couldn't prevent. When he reluctantly took the title of emperor, he was over eighty years old—a last valuable remnant of the glorious era of the Antonines, whose virtues he mirrored in his behavior and celebrated in a brilliant thirty-book poem. Alongside the esteemed proconsul, his son, who had served as his lieutenant in Africa, was also declared emperor. While his son’s character was less virtuous, it was equally likable. His twenty-two recognized concubines and a vast library of sixty-two thousand volumes indicated a range of interests; the works he produced suggested that both were intended for practical purposes rather than show. The Roman people saw in the younger Gordian a resemblance to Scipio Africanus, were pleased to note that his mother was the granddaughter of Antoninus Pius, and placed public hope in the hidden virtues they fondly imagined were lurking beneath the luxurious idleness of his private life.

As soon as the Gordians had appeased the first tumult of a popular election, they removed their court to Carthage. They were received with the acclamations of the Africans, who honored their virtues, and who, since the visit of Hadrian, had never beheld the majesty of a Roman emperor. But these vain acclamations neither strengthened nor confirmed the title of the Gordians. They were induced by principle, as well as interest, to solicit the approbation of the senate; and a deputation of the noblest provincials was sent, without delay, to Rome, to relate and justify the conduct of their countrymen, who, having long suffered with patience, were at length resolved to act with vigor. The letters of the new princes were modest and respectful, excusing the necessity which had obliged them to accept the Imperial title; but submitting their election and their fate to the supreme judgment of the senate.

As soon as the Gordians had calmed the initial chaos of a popular election, they moved their court to Carthage. They were welcomed with cheers from the Africans, who admired their virtues and had not seen the grandeur of a Roman emperor since Hadrian's visit. However, these empty cheers did not strengthen or legitimize the Gordians' rule. They were motivated by both principle and self-interest to seek approval from the senate; thus, a group of the most distinguished locals was urgently sent to Rome to explain and justify the actions of their fellow countrymen, who had endured hardships patiently but were now determined to take action. The letters from the new rulers were humble and respectful, explaining the necessity that forced them to accept the Imperial title, while also putting their election and fate in the hands of the senate.

The inclinations of the senate were neither doubtful nor divided. The birth and noble alliances of the Gordians had intimately connected them with the most illustrious houses of Rome. Their fortune had created many dependants in that assembly, their merit had acquired many friends. Their mild administration opened the flattering prospect of the restoration, not only of the civil but even of the republican government. The terror of military violence, which had first obliged the senate to forget the murder of Alexander, and to ratify the election of a barbarian peasant, now produced a contrary effect, and provoked them to assert the injured rights of freedom and humanity. The hatred of Maximin towards the senate was declared and implacable; the tamest submission had not appeased his fury, the most cautious innocence would not remove his suspicions; and even the care of their own safety urged them to share the fortune of an enterprise, of which (if unsuccessful) they were sure to be the first victims. These considerations, and perhaps others of a more private nature, were debated in a previous conference of the consuls and the magistrates. As soon as their resolution was decided, they convoked in the temple of Castor the whole body of the senate, according to an ancient form of secrecy, calculated to awaken their attention, and to conceal their decrees. “Conscript fathers,” said the consul Syllanus, “the two Gordians, both of consular dignity, the one your proconsul, the other your lieutenant, have been declared emperors by the general consent of Africa. Let us return thanks,” he boldly continued, “to the youth of Thysdrus; let us return thanks to the faithful people of Carthage, our generous deliverers from a horrid monster—Why do you hear me thus coolly, thus timidly? Why do you cast those anxious looks on each other? Why hesitate? Maximin is a public enemy! may his enmity soon expire with him, and may we long enjoy the prudence and felicity of Gordian the father, the valor and constancy of Gordian the son!” The noble ardor of the consul revived the languid spirit of the senate. By a unanimous decree, the election of the Gordians was ratified, Maximin, his son, and his adherents, were pronounced enemies of their country, and liberal rewards were offered to whomsoever had the courage and good fortune to destroy them.

The senate's feelings were clear and united. The Gordians' noble birth and connections linked them closely with the most distinguished families in Rome. Their good fortune created many supporters among the senators, and their merits earned them numerous friends. Their gentle rule hinted at the possibility of restoring not just civil government but even republican governance. The fear of military force, which initially forced the senate to overlook Alexander's murder and approve the election of a common peasant, now had the opposite effect, spurring them to defend the rights of freedom and humanity. Maximin's hatred for the senate was open and relentless; even the most passive compliance couldn't calm his rage, and their utmost innocence did nothing to dispel his doubts. Their concern for their own safety also pushed them to align with the outcome of a risky venture, since they knew they would be the prime victims if it failed. These thoughts, along with possibly some private matters, were discussed in a prior meeting of the consuls and magistrates. Once they reached a decision, they summoned the entire senate to the temple of Castor, using an old method of secrecy designed to capture their focus and hide their plans. "Conscript fathers," the consul Syllanus began, "the two Gordians, both holding consular rank, one your proconsul, the other your lieutenant, have been declared emperors by the unanimous agreement of Africa. Let us express our gratitude," he boldly urged, "to the youth of Thysdrus; let us thank the loyal people of Carthage, our generous saviors from a dreadful monster—Why are you all so calm, so hesitant? Why exchange those worried glances? Why the indecision? Maximin is a public enemy! May his hostility vanish with him, and may we long enjoy the wisdom and happiness of Gordian the father, the courage and resolve of Gordian the son!" The consul's passionate appeal rekindled the fading spirit of the senate. With a unanimous vote, they confirmed the election of the Gordians, declared Maximin, his son, and their supporters enemies of the state, and offered generous rewards to anyone brave and fortunate enough to eliminate them.

During the emperor’s absence, a detachment of the Prætorian guards remained at Rome, to protect, or rather to command, the capital. The præfect Vitalianus had signalized his fidelity to Maximin, by the alacrity with which he had obeyed, and even prevented the cruel mandates of the tyrant. His death alone could rescue the authority of the senate, and the lives of the senators from a state of danger and suspense. Before their resolves had transpired, a quæstor and some tribunes were commissioned to take his devoted life. They executed the order with equal boldness and success; and, with their bloody daggers in their hands, ran through the streets, proclaiming to the people and the soldiers the news of the happy revolution. The enthusiasm of liberty was seconded by the promise of a large donative, in lands and money; the statues of Maximin were thrown down; the capital of the empire acknowledged, with transport, the authority of the two Gordians and the senate; and the example of Rome was followed by the rest of Italy.

During the emperor’s absence, a group of Prætorian guards stayed in Rome to protect, or rather to control, the capital. The prefect Vitalianus had shown his loyalty to Maximin by quickly obeying and even stopping the cruel orders of the tyrant. Only his death could save the authority of the senate and the lives of the senators from danger and uncertainty. Before their plans could be revealed, a quaestor and some tribunes were given the task of taking his devoted life. They carried out the order with equal courage and success; armed with their bloody daggers, they ran through the streets, announcing to the people and soldiers the news of the fortunate revolution. The excitement for liberty was amplified by the promise of a generous donation in land and cash; the statues of Maximin were torn down; the capital of the empire joyfully recognized the authority of the two Gordians and the senate; and Rome’s example was followed by the rest of Italy.

A new spirit had arisen in that assembly, whose long patience had been insulted by wanton despotism and military license. The senate assumed the reins of government, and, with a calm intrepidity, prepared to vindicate by arms the cause of freedom. Among the consular senators recommended by their merit and services to the favor of the emperor Alexander, it was easy to select twenty, not unequal to the command of an army, and the conduct of a war. To these was the defence of Italy intrusted. Each was appointed to act in his respective department, authorized to enroll and discipline the Italian youth; and instructed to fortify the ports and highways, against the impending invasion of Maximin. A number of deputies, chosen from the most illustrious of the senatorian and equestrian orders, were despatched at the same time to the governors of the several provinces, earnestly conjuring them to fly to the assistance of their country, and to remind the nations of their ancient ties of friendship with the Roman senate and people. The general respect with which these deputies were received, and the zeal of Italy and the provinces in favor of the senate, sufficiently prove that the subjects of Maximin were reduced to that uncommon distress, in which the body of the people has more to fear from oppression than from resistance. The consciousness of that melancholy truth, inspires a degree of persevering fury, seldom to be found in those civil wars which are artificially supported for the benefit of a few factious and designing leaders.

A new spirit had emerged in that assembly, whose long patience had been insulted by reckless tyranny and military excess. The senate took control of the government and, with calm courage, prepared to defend the cause of freedom with arms. Among the consular senators, distinguished by their merit and service to Emperor Alexander, it was easy to choose twenty capable of commanding an army and leading a war. The defense of Italy was entrusted to these leaders. Each was assigned to manage their specific area, given authority to recruit and train the youth of Italy, and tasked with strengthening the ports and roads against the looming invasion of Maximin. At the same time, several representatives, selected from the most distinguished of the senatorial and equestrian ranks, were sent to the governors of the various provinces, urgently urging them to assist their country and to remind other nations of their longstanding friendships with the Roman senate and people. The general respect shown to these representatives, along with Italy and the provinces' enthusiasm for the senate, clearly demonstrated that Maximin's subjects were facing an unusual crisis, where the populace had more to fear from oppression than from resistance. The awareness of this sad truth generates a level of persistent rage, rarely seen in civil wars that are artificially fueled for the benefit of a few factional and manipulative leaders.

For while the cause of the Gordians was embraced with such diffusive ardor, the Gordians themselves were no more. The feeble court of Carthage was alarmed by the rapid approach of Capelianus, governor of Mauritania, who, with a small band of veterans, and a fierce host of barbarians, attacked a faithful, but unwarlike province. The younger Gordian sallied out to meet the enemy at the head of a few guards, and a numerous undisciplined multitude, educated in the peaceful luxury of Carthage. His useless valor served only to procure him an honorable death on the field of battle. His aged father, whose reign had not exceeded thirty-six days, put an end to his life on the first news of the defeat. Carthage, destitute of defence, opened her gates to the conqueror, and Africa was exposed to the rapacious cruelty of a slave, obliged to satisfy his unrelenting master with a large account of blood and treasure.

For while the cause of the Gordians was embraced with such widespread enthusiasm, the Gordians themselves were gone. The weak court of Carthage was alarmed by the rapid advance of Capelianus, governor of Mauritania, who, with a small group of veterans and a fierce crowd of barbarians, attacked a loyal but unmilitary province. The younger Gordian went out to confront the enemy with just a few guards and a large, untrained crowd, raised in the sheltered luxury of Carthage. His misguided bravery only earned him an honorable death on the battlefield. His elderly father, whose reign had lasted less than thirty-six days, ended his own life upon hearing the news of the defeat. Carthage, lacking defenses, opened its gates to the conqueror, and Africa was left vulnerable to the greedy cruelty of a slave, forced to satisfy his relentless master with a heavy toll of blood and treasure.

The fate of the Gordians filled Rome with just but unexpected terror. The senate, convoked in the temple of Concord, affected to transact the common business of the day; and seemed to decline, with trembling anxiety, the consideration of their own and the public danger. A silent consternation prevailed in the assembly, till a senator, of the name and family of Trajan, awakened his brethren from their fatal lethargy. He represented to them that the choice of cautious, dilatory measures had been long since out of their power; that Maximin, implacable by nature, and exasperated by injuries, was advancing towards Italy, at the head of the military force of the empire; and that their only remaining alternative was either to meet him bravely in the field, or tamely to expect the tortures and ignominious death reserved for unsuccessful rebellion. “We have lost,” continued he, “two excellent princes; but unless we desert ourselves, the hopes of the republic have not perished with the Gordians. Many are the senators whose virtues have deserved, and whose abilities would sustain, the Imperial dignity. Let us elect two emperors, one of whom may conduct the war against the public enemy, whilst his colleague remains at Rome to direct the civil administration. I cheerfully expose myself to the danger and envy of the nomination, and give my vote in favor of Maximus and Balbinus. Ratify my choice, conscript fathers, or appoint in their place, others more worthy of the empire.” The general apprehension silenced the whispers of jealousy; the merit of the candidates was universally acknowledged; and the house resounded with the sincere acclamations of “Long life and victory to the emperors Maximus and Balbinus. You are happy in the judgment of the senate; may the republic be happy under your administration!”

The fate of the Gordians struck a mix of fear and uncertainty in Rome. The senate, gathered in the temple of Concord, pretended to go about their usual business of the day, while they anxiously avoided addressing the dangers facing both themselves and the public. A heavy silence filled the room until a senator from the Trajan family jolted his colleagues out of their dangerous complacency. He pointed out that they had long lost the chance for cautious, slow decisions; that Maximin, naturally relentless and fueled by past grievances, was marching toward Italy with the empire's military forces; and that their only options left were to confront him courageously in battle, or to passively wait for the torment and disgrace that awaited them for failing in rebellion. “We have lost,” he continued, “two great leaders; but unless we give up on ourselves, the hopes of the republic haven't died with the Gordians. There are many senators whose talents deserve and could support the Imperial role. Let's elect two emperors: one can lead the fight against our enemy while the other manages civil affairs in Rome. I willingly put myself at risk for this nomination and vote for Maximus and Balbinus. Confirm my choice, conscript fathers, or choose others who are more deserving of the empire.” The widespread fear hushed any whispers of jealousy; the candidates' qualifications were recognized by all, and the chamber echoed with genuine cheers of “Long live and win for the emperors Maximus and Balbinus! You have the senate's approval; may the republic thrive under your leadership!”





Chapter VII: Tyranny Of Maximin, Rebellion, Civil Wars, Death Of Maximin.—Part II.

The virtues and the reputation of the new emperors justified the most sanguine hopes of the Romans. The various nature of their talents seemed to appropriate to each his peculiar department of peace and war, without leaving room for jealous emulation. Balbinus was an admired orator, a poet of distinguished fame, and a wise magistrate, who had exercised with innocence and applause the civil jurisdiction in almost all the interior provinces of the empire. His birth was noble, his fortune affluent, his manners liberal and affable. In him the love of pleasure was corrected by a sense of dignity, nor had the habits of ease deprived him of a capacity for business. The mind of Maximus was formed in a rougher mould. By his valor and abilities he had raised himself from the meanest origin to the first employments of the state and army. His victories over the Sarmatians and the Germans, the austerity of his life, and the rigid impartiality of his justice, while he was a Præfect of the city, commanded the esteem of a people whose affections were engaged in favor of the more amiable Balbinus. The two colleagues had both been consuls, (Balbinus had twice enjoyed that honorable office,) both had been named among the twenty lieutenants of the senate; and since the one was sixty and the other seventy-four years old, they had both attained the full maturity of age and experience.

The qualities and reputation of the new emperors sparked the most optimistic hopes among the Romans. The different talents each of them possessed seemed to fit them perfectly for their specific roles in peace and war, leaving no room for jealousy. Balbinus was a respected speaker, a well-known poet, and a wise magistrate who had carried out civil duties with integrity and admiration across almost all the inner provinces of the empire. He came from a noble background, was financially well-off, and had a friendly and generous demeanor. In him, the love for enjoyment was balanced by a sense of responsibility, and his comfortable lifestyle hadn’t diminished his ability to handle serious matters. Maximus, on the other hand, had a tougher background. Through his bravery and skills, he rose from very humble beginnings to some of the highest positions in the state and military. His victories over the Sarmatians and Germans, along with his disciplined lifestyle and fair justice as a city prefect, earned him the respect of the public, who generally favored the more likable Balbinus. Both men had served as consuls (with Balbinus holding that esteemed position twice), and they were both among the twenty lieutenants of the senate. Since one was sixty and the other seventy-four, they had both reached a significant level of age and experience.

After the senate had conferred on Maximus and Balbinus an equal portion of the consular and tribunitian powers, the title of Fathers of their country, and the joint office of Supreme Pontiff, they ascended to the Capitol to return thanks to the gods, protectors of Rome. The solemn rites of sacrifice were disturbed by a sedition of the people. The licentious multitude neither loved the rigid Maximus, nor did they sufficiently fear the mild and humane Balbinus. Their increasing numbers surrounded the temple of Jupiter; with obstinate clamors they asserted their inherent right of consenting to the election of their sovereign; and demanded, with an apparent moderation, that, besides the two emperors, chosen by the senate, a third should be added of the family of the Gordians, as a just return of gratitude to those princes who had sacrificed their lives for the republic. At the head of the city-guards, and the youth of the equestrian order, Maximus and Balbinus attempted to cut their way through the seditious multitude. The multitude, armed with sticks and stones, drove them back into the Capitol. It is prudent to yield when the contest, whatever may be the issue of it, must be fatal to both parties. A boy, only thirteen years of age, the grandson of the elder, and nephew * of the younger Gordian, was produced to the people, invested with the ornaments and title of Cæsar. The tumult was appeased by this easy condescension; and the two emperors, as soon as they had been peaceably acknowledged in Rome, prepared to defend Italy against the common enemy.

After the senate granted Maximus and Balbinus equal consular and tribunitian powers, the title of Fathers of their Country, and the joint role of Supreme Pontiff, they went up to the Capitol to thank the gods, protectors of Rome. The formal sacrificial rites were interrupted by a public disturbance. The unruly crowd neither respected the stern Maximus nor fully feared the gentle Balbinus. Their growing numbers surrounded the temple of Jupiter; with persistent shouts, they claimed their right to have a say in the election of their ruler and demanded, with apparent moderation, that in addition to the two emperors chosen by the senate, a third emperor should be added from the family of the Gordians, as a fitting tribute to those rulers who had given their lives for the republic. Leading the city guards and the youth of the equestrian order, Maximus and Balbinus tried to work their way through the rebellious crowd. Armed with sticks and stones, the crowd pushed them back into the Capitol. It’s wise to back down when the struggle, regardless of the outcome, will be disastrous for both sides. A boy, just thirteen years old, the grandson of the elder Gordian and nephew of the younger Gordian, was presented to the people, adorned with the symbols and title of Cæsar. This easy concession calmed the uproar, and as soon as the two emperors were peacefully recognized in Rome, they prepared to defend Italy against the common enemy.

Whilst in Rome and Africa, revolutions succeeded each other with such amazing rapidity, that the mind of Maximin was agitated by the most furious passions. He is said to have received the news of the rebellion of the Gordians, and of the decree of the senate against him, not with the temper of a man, but the rage of a wild beast; which, as it could not discharge itself on the distant senate, threatened the life of his son, of his friends, and of all who ventured to approach his person. The grateful intelligence of the death of the Gordians was quickly followed by the assurance that the senate, laying aside all hopes of pardon or accommodation, had substituted in their room two emperors, with whose merit he could not be unacquainted. Revenge was the only consolation left to Maximin, and revenge could only be obtained by arms. The strength of the legions had been assembled by Alexander from all parts of the empire. Three successful campaigns against the Germans and the Sarmatians, had raised their fame, confirmed their discipline, and even increased their numbers, by filling the ranks with the flower of the barbarian youth. The life of Maximin had been spent in war, and the candid severity of history cannot refuse him the valor of a soldier, or even the abilities of an experienced general. It might naturally be expected, that a prince of such a character, instead of suffering the rebellion to gain stability by delay, should immediately have marched from the banks of the Danube to those of the Tyber, and that his victorious army, instigated by contempt for the senate, and eager to gather the spoils of Italy, should have burned with impatience to finish the easy and lucrative conquest. Yet as far as we can trust to the obscure chronology of that period, it appears that the operations of some foreign war deferred the Italian expedition till the ensuing spring. From the prudent conduct of Maximin, we may learn that the savage features of his character have been exaggerated by the pencil of party, that his passions, however impetuous, submitted to the force of reason, and that the barbarian possessed something of the generous spirit of Sylla, who subdued the enemies of Rome before he suffered himself to revenge his private injuries.

While in Rome and Africa, revolutions followed one after another with such incredible speed that Maximin was overwhelmed by intense emotions. It's said that when he heard about the Gordians' rebellion and the senate's decree against him, he reacted not like a rational man but like a furious beast; unable to lash out at the distant senate, he threatened the lives of his son, friends, and anyone who dared to come near him. The joyful news of the Gordians' deaths was quickly followed by the announcement that the senate, giving up all hopes of mercy or reconciliation, had appointed two new emperors whom he must have known of. Revenge was the only comfort left for Maximin, and that could only be satisfied through warfare. Alexander had gathered the strength of the legions from all over the empire. Three successful campaigns against the Germans and Sarmatians had boosted their reputation, solidified their discipline, and even increased their numbers by enlisting the best of the barbarian youth. Maximin had spent his life in battle, and even the strict honesty of history cannot deny him the courage of a soldier or the skills of an experienced general. It would be natural to expect that a prince of such stature, rather than allowing the rebellion to gain strength through delay, would have immediately marched from the banks of the Danube to those of the Tiber, and that his victorious army, motivated by disdain for the senate and eager to seize the riches of Italy, would have been burning with impatience to complete the easy and rewarding conquest. However, as far as we can rely on the unclear timelines of that time, it seems that the activities of some foreign war postponed the Italian campaign until the following spring. From Maximin's wise actions, we can see that the brutal aspects of his character have been exaggerated by partisan storytelling, that his passions, though intense, yielded to reason, and that the barbarian had some of the noble spirit of Sylla, who defeated Rome's enemies before he sought revenge for his personal grievances.

When the troops of Maximin, advancing in excellent order, arrived at the foot of the Julian Alps, they were terrified by the silence and desolation that reigned on the frontiers of Italy. The villages and open towns had been abandoned on their approach by the inhabitants, the cattle was driven away, the provisions removed or destroyed, the bridges broken down, nor was any thing left which could afford either shelter or subsistence to an invader. Such had been the wise orders of the generals of the senate: whose design was to protract the war, to ruin the army of Maximin by the slow operation of famine, and to consume his strength in the sieges of the principal cities of Italy, which they had plentifully stored with men and provisions from the deserted country. Aquileia received and withstood the first shock of the invasion. The streams that issue from the head of the Hadriatic Gulf, swelled by the melting of the winter snows, opposed an unexpected obstacle to the arms of Maximin. At length, on a singular bridge, constructed with art and difficulty, of large hogsheads, he transported his army to the opposite bank, rooted up the beautiful vineyards in the neighborhood of Aquileia, demolished the suburbs, and employed the timber of the buildings in the engines and towers, with which on every side he attacked the city. The walls, fallen to decay during the security of a long peace, had been hastily repaired on this sudden emergency: but the firmest defence of Aquileia consisted in the constancy of the citizens; all ranks of whom, instead of being dismayed, were animated by the extreme danger, and their knowledge of the tyrant’s unrelenting temper. Their courage was supported and directed by Crispinus and Menophilus, two of the twenty lieutenants of the senate, who, with a small body of regular troops, had thrown themselves into the besieged place. The army of Maximin was repulsed in repeated attacks, his machines destroyed by showers of artificial fire; and the generous enthusiasm of the Aquileians was exalted into a confidence of success, by the opinion that Belenus, their tutelar deity, combated in person in the defence of his distressed worshippers.

When Maximin's troops, moving in neat formation, reached the base of the Julian Alps, they were struck by the eerie silence and emptiness along the borders of Italy. The villages and towns had been deserted by the residents, the livestock had been driven away, supplies were either removed or destroyed, the bridges were broken, and nothing was left that could provide shelter or food for an invader. This was the clever strategy of the senate's generals: they intended to drag out the war, weaken Maximin's army through the slow toll of starvation, and exhaust his strength by laying siege to the major cities of Italy, which they had stocked with soldiers and supplies from the abandoned countryside. Aquileia braced for and withstood the initial assault of the invasion. The rivers flowing from the head of the Adriatic Gulf, swollen from the melting winter snow, presented an unexpected barrier to Maximin's forces. Eventually, using a uniquely constructed bridge made from large barrels, he managed to get his army to the other side, uprooted the lovely vineyards around Aquileia, destroyed the suburbs, and used the timber from the buildings to build siege engines and towers to attack the city from all sides. The walls, which had decayed during a long period of peace, were hastily repaired in response to this sudden crisis; but the main strength of Aquileia lay in the determination of its citizens, who were not daunted but rather spurred on by the grave danger and their awareness of the tyrant's ruthless nature. Their morale was bolstered and guided by Crispinus and Menophilus, two of the twenty lieutenants of the senate, who had joined the defenders with a small group of regular troops. Maximin's army was pushed back in repeated assaults, his siege machines destroyed by waves of artificial fire; and the spirited determination of the Aquileians transformed into a belief in their victory, fueled by the notion that Belenus, their protective deity, was personally fighting for his beleaguered followers.

The emperor Maximus, who had advanced as far as Ravenna, to secure that important place, and to hasten the military preparations, beheld the event of the war in the more faithful mirror of reason and policy. He was too sensible, that a single town could not resist the persevering efforts of a great army; and he dreaded, lest the enemy, tired with the obstinate resistance of Aquileia, should on a sudden relinquish the fruitless siege, and march directly towards Rome. The fate of the empire and the cause of freedom must then be committed to the chance of a battle; and what arms could he oppose to the veteran legions of the Rhine and Danube? Some troops newly levied among the generous but enervated youth of Italy; and a body of German auxiliaries, on whose firmness, in the hour of trial, it was dangerous to depend. In the midst of these just alarms, the stroke of domestic conspiracy punished the crimes of Maximin, and delivered Rome and the senate from the calamities that would surely have attended the victory of an enraged barbarian.

The emperor Maximus, who had advanced as far as Ravenna to secure that important location and speed up military preparations, saw the situation of the war through the clearer lens of reason and strategy. He understood that a single town could not withstand the relentless efforts of a large army; he feared that the enemy, exhausted from the stubborn resistance of Aquileia, might suddenly abandon the pointless siege and march straight to Rome. The fate of the empire and the cause of freedom would then depend on the outcome of a battle, and what forces could he put against the seasoned legions from the Rhine and Danube? Some troops freshly raised from the noble yet weakened youth of Italy, along with a group of German auxiliaries, whose reliability in a critical moment was uncertain. Amidst these legitimate fears, the blow of a domestic conspiracy avenged the wrongs of Maximin and saved Rome and the Senate from the disasters that would have certainly followed the victory of an enraged barbarian.

The people of Aquileia had scarcely experienced any of the common miseries of a siege; their magazines were plentifully supplied, and several fountains within the walls assured them of an inexhaustible resource of fresh water. The soldiers of Maximin were, on the contrary, exposed to the inclemency of the season, the contagion of disease, and the horrors of famine. The open country was ruined, the rivers filled with the slain, and polluted with blood. A spirit of despair and disaffection began to diffuse itself among the troops; and as they were cut off from all intelligence, they easily believed that the whole empire had embraced the cause of the senate, and that they were left as devoted victims to perish under the impregnable walls of Aquileia. The fierce temper of the tyrant was exasperated by disappointments, which he imputed to the cowardice of his army; and his wanton and ill-timed cruelty, instead of striking terror, inspired hatred, and a just desire of revenge. A party of Prætorian guards, who trembled for their wives and children in the camp of Alba, near Rome, executed the sentence of the senate. Maximin, abandoned by his guards, was slain in his tent, with his son (whom he had associated to the honors of the purple), Anulinus the præfect, and the principal ministers of his tyranny. The sight of their heads, borne on the point of spears, convinced the citizens of Aquileia that the siege was at an end; the gates of the city were thrown open, a liberal market was provided for the hungry troops of Maximin, and the whole army joined in solemn protestations of fidelity to the senate and the people of Rome, and to their lawful emperors Maximus and Balbinus. Such was the deserved fate of a brutal savage, destitute, as he has generally been represented, of every sentiment that distinguishes a civilized, or even a human being. The body was suited to the soul. The stature of Maximin exceeded the measure of eight feet, and circumstances almost incredible are related of his matchless strength and appetite. Had he lived in a less enlightened age, tradition and poetry might well have described him as one of those monstrous giants, whose supernatural power was constantly exerted for the destruction of mankind.

The people of Aquileia hardly faced the typical hardships of a siege; their supplies were plentiful, and several fountains within the walls ensured they had an endless supply of fresh water. In contrast, Maximin's soldiers suffered from harsh weather, disease, and the horrors of hunger. The countryside was devastated, the rivers filled with the dead, and tainted with blood. A sense of despair and discontent started to spread among the troops; cut off from all news, they easily believed the entire empire had sided with the senate, leaving them as doomed victims to die under the impenetrable walls of Aquileia. The tyrant's furious temperament grew worse with his disappointments, which he blamed on the cowardice of his army. His reckless and ill-timed cruelty instead of instilling fear, triggered hatred and a legitimate desire for revenge. A group of Praetorian guards, fearing for their families back at the camp in Alba near Rome, carried out the senate's sentence. Maximin, abandoned by his guards, was killed in his tent along with his son (whom he had associated with the honors of the purple), Anulinus the prefect, and the key officials of his tyranny. The sight of their heads on the points of spears convinced the citizens of Aquileia that the siege was over; the city gates were thrown open, a generous market was set up for the starving troops of Maximin, and the entire army pledged their loyalty to the senate and the people of Rome, and to their rightful emperors Maximus and Balbinus. Such was the deserved fate of a brutal savage, generally depicted as lacking every sentiment that defines a civilized or even a human being. His body matched his soul. Maximin was over eight feet tall, and almost unbelievable stories are told of his unmatched strength and appetite. If he had lived in a less enlightened age, legend and poetry could easily have depicted him as one of those monstrous giants, whose supernatural power was always used to harm humanity.

It is easier to conceive than to describe the universal joy of the Roman world on the fall of the tyrant, the news of which is said to have been carried in four days from Aquileia to Rome. The return of Maximus was a triumphal procession; his colleague and young Gordian went out to meet him, and the three princes made their entry into the capital, attended by the ambassadors of almost all the cities of Italy, saluted with the splendid offerings of gratitude and superstition, and received with the unfeigned acclamations of the senate and people, who persuaded themselves that a golden age would succeed to an age of iron. The conduct of the two emperors corresponded with these expectations. They administered justice in person; and the rigor of the one was tempered by the other’s clemency. The oppressive taxes with which Maximin had loaded the rights of inheritance and succession, were repealed, or at least moderated. Discipline was revived, and with the advice of the senate many wise laws were enacted by their imperial ministers, who endeavored to restore a civil constitution on the ruins of military tyranny. “What reward may we expect for delivering Rome from a monster?” was the question asked by Maximus, in a moment of freedom and confidence. Balbinus answered it without hesitation—“The love of the senate, of the people, and of all mankind.” “Alas!” replied his more penetrating colleague—“alas! I dread the hatred of the soldiers, and the fatal effects of their resentment.” His apprehensions were but too well justified by the event.

It’s easier to imagine than to describe the widespread joy in the Roman world at the fall of the tyrant, which is said to have taken just four days to reach Rome from Aquileia. Maximus's return was like a victory parade; his colleague and young Gordian went out to greet him, and the three rulers entered the capital together, accompanied by ambassadors from nearly all the cities of Italy, welcomed with lavish gifts of gratitude and superstition, and received with genuine cheers from the senate and the people, who convinced themselves that a golden age would follow the age of iron. The actions of the two emperors matched these expectations. They personally upheld justice, with one emperor’s strictness balanced by the other’s mercy. The heavy taxes that Maximin had imposed on inheritance and succession rights were either repealed or at least eased. Order was restored, and with the senate’s guidance, many wise laws were created by their imperial ministers, who sought to rebuild a civil government from the ashes of military tyranny. “What reward can we expect for freeing Rome from a monster?” Maximus asked during a moment of openness and confidence. Balbinus replied instantly, “The love of the senate, the people, and all humanity.” “Oh!” responded his more insightful colleague, “Oh! I fear the soldiers' hatred and the dire consequences of their anger.” His fears were sadly justified by what happened next.

Whilst Maximus was preparing to defend Italy against the common foe, Balbinus, who remained at Rome, had been engaged in scenes of blood and intestine discord. Distrust and jealousy reigned in the senate; and even in the temples where they assembled, every senator carried either open or concealed arms. In the midst of their deliberations, two veterans of the guards, actuated either by curiosity or a sinister motive, audaciously thrust themselves into the house, and advanced by degrees beyond the altar of Victory. Gallicanus, a consular, and Mæcenas, a Prætorian senator, viewed with indignation their insolent intrusion: drawing their daggers, they laid the spies (for such they deemed them) dead at the foot of the altar, and then, advancing to the door of the senate, imprudently exhorted the multitude to massacre the Prætorians, as the secret adherents of the tyrant. Those who escaped the first fury of the tumult took refuge in the camp, which they defended with superior advantage against the reiterated attacks of the people, assisted by the numerous bands of gladiators, the property of opulent nobles. The civil war lasted many days, with infinite loss and confusion on both sides. When the pipes were broken that supplied the camp with water, the Prætorians were reduced to intolerable distress; but in their turn they made desperate sallies into the city, set fire to a great number of houses, and filled the streets with the blood of the inhabitants. The emperor Balbinus attempted, by ineffectual edicts and precarious truces, to reconcile the factions at Rome. But their animosity, though smothered for a while, burnt with redoubled violence. The soldiers, detesting the senate and the people, despised the weakness of a prince, who wanted either the spirit or the power to command the obedience of his subjects.

While Maximus was getting ready to defend Italy against the common enemy, Balbinus, who stayed in Rome, was caught up in bloody internal conflicts. Distrust and jealousy filled the senate, and even in the temples where they gathered, every senator carried weapons, either openly or hidden. In the middle of their discussions, two veterans of the guards, driven by either curiosity or a hidden agenda, boldly pushed their way into the assembly and slowly moved beyond the altar of Victory. Gallicanus, a consular, and Mæcenas, a Praetorian senator, looked on in anger at their rude interruption: drawing their daggers, they killed the intruders (as they saw them) at the foot of the altar, and then, recklessly moving to the senate's entrance, urged the crowd to slaughter the Praetorians, branding them as secret supporters of the tyrant. Those who managed to escape the initial chaos took refuge in the camp, which they defended with a significant advantage against the repeated attacks from the people, backed by numerous groups of gladiators owned by wealthy nobles. The civil war dragged on for many days, with immense losses and confusion on both sides. When the pipes supplying the camp with water were broken, the Praetorians faced unbearable hardship; yet, in retaliation, they launched desperate attacks into the city, setting fire to many homes and flooding the streets with the blood of its residents. Emperor Balbinus tried, through ineffective orders and uncertain truces, to reconcile the factions in Rome. But their hatred, although temporarily subdued, flared up with increased fury. The soldiers, hating the senate and the people, scorned the weakness of a ruler who lacked either the will or the ability to enforce his subjects' obedience.

After the tyrant’s death, his formidable army had acknowledged, from necessity rather than from choice, the authority of Maximus, who transported himself without delay to the camp before Aquileia. As soon as he had received their oath of fidelity, he addressed them in terms full of mildness and moderation; lamented, rather than arraigned the wild disorders of the times, and assured the soldiers, that of all their past conduct the senate would remember only their generous desertion of the tyrant, and their voluntary return to their duty. Maximus enforced his exhortations by a liberal donative, purified the camp by a solemn sacrifice of expiation, and then dismissed the legions to their several provinces, impressed, as he hoped, with a lively sense of gratitude and obedience. But nothing could reconcile the haughty spirit of the Prætorians. They attended the emperors on the memorable day of their public entry into Rome; but amidst the general acclamations, the sullen, dejected countenance of the guards sufficiently declared that they considered themselves as the object, rather than the partners, of the triumph. When the whole body was united in their camp, those who had served under Maximin, and those who had remained at Rome, insensibly communicated to each other their complaints and apprehensions. The emperors chosen by the army had perished with ignominy; those elected by the senate were seated on the throne. The long discord between the civil and military powers was decided by a war, in which the former had obtained a complete victory. The soldiers must now learn a new doctrine of submission to the senate; and whatever clemency was affected by that politic assembly, they dreaded a slow revenge, colored by the name of discipline, and justified by fair pretences of the public good. But their fate was still in their own hands; and if they had courage to despise the vain terrors of an impotent republic, it was easy to convince the world, that those who were masters of the arms, were masters of the authority, of the state.

After the tyrant died, his powerful army had accepted, out of necessity rather than choice, the leadership of Maximus, who quickly made his way to the camp outside Aquileia. Once he received their oath of loyalty, he addressed them with kindness and restraint; he lamented, rather than condemned, the chaotic state of affairs and assured the soldiers that the senate would only remember their brave abandonment of the tyrant and their voluntary return to duty. Maximus reinforced his appeals with a generous bonus, purified the camp through a solemn sacrifice, and then sent the legions back to their provinces, hoping to leave them feeling grateful and obedient. However, nothing could calm the proud spirits of the Praetorians. They accompanied the emperors on the memorable day of their public entrance into Rome, but amid the general cheers, the gloomy, downcast expressions of the guards clearly showed that they saw themselves as the subjects, not the partners, of the triumph. When the entire group gathered in their camp, those who had served under Maximin and those who had stayed in Rome gradually shared their complaints and fears with each other. The emperors chosen by the army had met with disgrace; those appointed by the senate were now on the throne. The long-standing conflict between civil and military power had been settled by a war, in which the former emerged victorious. The soldiers now had to learn a new lesson in submitting to the senate; and whatever mercy that shrewd assembly pretended to show, they feared a slow revenge, masked under the guise of discipline and justified by claims of the public good. But their fate was still in their own hands; if they had the courage to disregard the empty threats of an ineffective republic, it would be easy to show the world that those who controlled the arms were the true masters of authority in the state.

When the senate elected two princes, it is probable that, besides the declared reason of providing for the various emergencies of peace and war, they were actuated by the secret desire of weakening by division the despotism of the supreme magistrate. Their policy was effectual, but it proved fatal both to their emperors and to themselves. The jealousy of power was soon exasperated by the difference of character. Maximus despised Balbinus as a luxurious noble, and was in his turn disdained by his colleague as an obscure soldier. Their silent discord was understood rather than seen; but the mutual consciousness prevented them from uniting in any vigorous measures of defence against their common enemies of the Prætorian camp. The whole city was employed in the Capitoline games, and the emperors were left almost alone in the palace. On a sudden, they were alarmed by the approach of a troop of desperate assassins. Ignorant of each other’s situation or designs (for they already occupied very distant apartments), afraid to give or to receive assistance, they wasted the important moments in idle debates and fruitless recriminations. The arrival of the guards put an end to the vain strife. They seized on these emperors of the senate, for such they called them with malicious contempt, stripped them of their garments, and dragged them in insolent triumph through the streets of Rome, with the design of inflicting a slow and cruel death on these unfortunate princes. The fear of a rescue from the faithful Germans of the Imperial guards shortened their tortures; and their bodies, mangled with a thousand wounds, were left exposed to the insults or to the pity of the populace.

When the senate elected two princes, it's likely that, aside from the stated reason of addressing various emergencies of peace and war, they were secretly motivated by a desire to weaken the power of the supreme leader through division. Their strategy was effective, but it ultimately led to disaster for both their emperors and themselves. The rivalry for power quickly intensified due to their differing personalities. Maximus looked down on Balbinus as a wealthy noble, while Balbinus in turn regarded Maximus as just a nameless soldier. Their unspoken conflict was more felt than seen; however, their awareness of each other's disdain prevented them from teaming up to take strong actions against their shared enemies in the Praetorian camp. The entire city was caught up in the Capitoline games, leaving the emperors nearly alone in the palace. Suddenly, they were startled by the arrival of a group of ruthless assassins. Unaware of each other's situations or plans (since they were already in separate parts of the palace), and too scared to offer or ask for help, they wasted critical time on pointless arguments and blame. The arrival of the guards ended their futile struggle. They captured these senators' emperors, as they called them mockingly, stripped them of their clothes, and dragged them through the streets of Rome in a humiliating display, intending to impose a slow and brutal death on these unfortunate leaders. The threat of rescue from the loyal Germans in the Imperial guards cut their suffering short; their bodies, covered in countless wounds, were left out in the open for the public to mock or mourn.

In the space of a few months, six princes had been cut off by the sword. Gordian, who had already received the title of Cæsar, was the only person that occurred to the soldiers as proper to fill the vacant throne. They carried him to the camp, and unanimously saluted him Augustus and Emperor. His name was dear to the senate and people; his tender age promised a long impunity of military license; and the submission of Rome and the provinces to the choice of the Prætorian guards saved the republic, at the expense indeed of its freedom and dignity, from the horrors of a new civil war in the heart of the capital.

In just a few months, six princes had been killed by the sword. Gordian, who had already been named Cæsar, was the only one the soldiers thought was fit to take the empty throne. They brought him to the camp and unanimously hailed him as Augustus and Emperor. His name was beloved by the senate and the people; his young age suggested a long time without military rebellion; and the loyalty of Rome and the provinces to the choice of the Prætorian guards spared the republic, though at the cost of its freedom and dignity, from the horrors of a new civil war in the heart of the capital.

As the third Gordian was only nineteen years of age at the time of his death, the history of his life, were it known to us with greater accuracy than it really is, would contain little more than the account of his education, and the conduct of the ministers, who by turns abused or guided the simplicity of his unexperienced youth. Immediately after his accession, he fell into the hands of his mother’s eunuchs, that pernicious vermin of the East, who, since the days of Elagabalus, had infested the Roman palace. By the artful conspiracy of these wretches, an impenetrable veil was drawn between an innocent prince and his oppressed subjects, the virtuous disposition of Gordian was deceived, and the honors of the empire sold without his knowledge, though in a very public manner, to the most worthless of mankind. We are ignorant by what fortunate accident the emperor escaped from this ignominious slavery, and devolved his confidence on a minister, whose wise counsels had no object except the glory of his sovereign and the happiness of the people. It should seem that love and learning introduced Misitheus to the favor of Gordian. The young prince married the daughter of his master of rhetoric, and promoted his father-in-law to the first offices of the empire. Two admirable letters that passed between them are still extant. The minister, with the conscious dignity of virtue, congratulates Gordian that he is delivered from the tyranny of the eunuchs, and still more that he is sensible of his deliverance. The emperor acknowledges, with an amiable confusion, the errors of his past conduct; and laments, with singular propriety, the misfortune of a monarch from whom a venal tribe of courtiers perpetually labor to conceal the truth.

As the third Gordian was only nineteen when he died, the story of his life, if we knew it in more detail than we actually do, would mainly just cover his education and how the ministers around him either exploited or guided the naivety of his untrained youth. Right after he became emperor, he fell under the control of his mother’s eunuchs, those harmful pests from the East, who had been a problem in the Roman palace since the time of Elagabalus. Through a clever conspiracy by these schemers, a thick wall was constructed between an innocent prince and his suffering subjects; Gordian's good nature was manipulated, and the honors of the empire were sold off without his knowledge, even though it was done quite publicly, to the most worthless of people. We don’t know how the emperor managed to break free from this disgraceful control and came to trust a minister whose only goal was the glory of his sovereign and the welfare of the people. It seems that love and learning brought Misitheus into Gordian’s good graces. The young prince married the daughter of his rhetoric teacher and promoted his father-in-law to top positions in the empire. Two remarkable letters exchanged between them still exist. The minister, with the quiet dignity of virtue, congratulates Gordian for being freed from the eunuchs' tyranny, and even more so, for being aware of his own liberation. The emperor acknowledges, somewhat embarrassed, the mistakes of his past and appropriately mourns the misfortune of a ruler who is constantly deceived by a corrupt group of courtiers desperately trying to hide the truth.

The life of Misitheus had been spent in the profession of letters, not of arms; yet such was the versatile genius of that great man, that, when he was appointed Prætorian Præfect, he discharged the military duties of his place with vigor and ability. The Persians had invaded Mesopotamia, and threatened Antioch. By the persuasion of his father-in-law, the young emperor quitted the luxury of Rome, opened, for the last time recorded in history, the temple of Janus, and marched in person into the East. On his approach, with a great army, the Persians withdrew their garrisons from the cities which they had already taken, and retired from the Euphrates to the Tigris. Gordian enjoyed the pleasure of announcing to the senate the first success of his arms, which he ascribed, with a becoming modesty and gratitude, to the wisdom of his father and Præfect. During the whole expedition, Misitheus watched over the safety and discipline of the army; whilst he prevented their dangerous murmurs by maintaining a regular plenty in the camp, and by establishing ample magazines of vinegar, bacon, straw, barley, and wheat in all the cities of the frontier. But the prosperity of Gordian expired with Misitheus, who died of a flux, not without very strong suspicions of poison. Philip, his successor in the præfecture, was an Arab by birth, and consequently, in the earlier part of his life, a robber by profession. His rise from so obscure a station to the first dignities of the empire, seems to prove that he was a bold and able leader. But his boldness prompted him to aspire to the throne, and his abilities were employed to supplant, not to serve, his indulgent master. The minds of the soldiers were irritated by an artificial scarcity, created by his contrivance in the camp; and the distress of the army was attributed to the youth and incapacity of the prince. It is not in our power to trace the successive steps of the secret conspiracy and open sedition, which were at length fatal to Gordian. A sepulchral monument was erected to his memory on the spot where he was killed, near the conflux of the Euphrates with the little river Aboras. The fortunate Philip, raised to the empire by the votes of the soldiers, found a ready obedience from the senate and the provinces.

The life of Misitheus was dedicated to literature rather than warfare; yet his incredible talent allowed him, when he became Prætorian Præfect, to handle military responsibilities with energy and skill. The Persians invaded Mesopotamia and threatened Antioch. Persuaded by his father-in-law, the young emperor left the luxury of Rome, opened the temple of Janus for the last time recorded in history, and personally marched into the East. As he approached with a large army, the Persians withdrew their troops from the cities they had captured and retreated from the Euphrates to the Tigris. Gordian proudly informed the senate of his first victory, which he humbly credited to the wisdom of his father and Præfect. Throughout the campaign, Misitheus ensured the safety and discipline of the army, preventing discontent by keeping the camp well-supplied and establishing ample stores of vinegar, bacon, straw, barley, and wheat in all the frontier cities. However, Gordian's success ended with Misitheus, who died from a fever, with strong suspicions of poisoning. Philip, who succeeded him as Præfect, was of Arab descent and had been a robber in his early life. His rise from such low beginnings to high positions in the empire suggests he was a daring and capable leader. However, his ambition drove him to seek the throne, using his talents to undermine instead of support his lenient ruler. The soldiers grew restless due to an artificial shortage he created in the camp, blaming the distress of the army on the youth and inexperience of the emperor. We cannot trace the exact steps of the secret conspiracy and open rebellion that ultimately led to Gordian’s downfall. A burial monument was erected to honor him at the site of his death, near where the Euphrates merges with the small river Aboras. The fortunate Philip, who rose to power with the soldiers' support, quickly gained the senator's and provinces' loyalty.

We cannot forbear transcribing the ingenious, though somewhat fanciful description, which a celebrated writer of our own times has traced of the military government of the Roman empire. “What in that age was called the Roman empire, was only an irregular republic, not unlike the aristocracy of Algiers, where the militia, possessed of the sovereignty, creates and deposes a magistrate, who is styled a Dey. Perhaps, indeed, it may be laid down as a general rule, that a military government is, in some respects, more republican than monarchical. Nor can it be said that the soldiers only partook of the government by their disobedience and rebellions. The speeches made to them by the emperors, were they not at length of the same nature as those formerly pronounced to the people by the consuls and the tribunes? And although the armies had no regular place or forms of assembly; though their debates were short, their action sudden, and their resolves seldom the result of cool reflection, did they not dispose, with absolute sway, of the public fortune? What was the emperor, except the minister of a violent government, elected for the private benefit of the soldiers?

We can't help but share the clever, though somewhat imaginative, description given by a famous contemporary writer regarding the military governance of the Roman Empire. "What was referred to as the Roman Empire back then was really just a chaotic republic, similar to the aristocracy of Algiers, where the military held the power and could create or remove a leader known as a Dey. It could even be said as a general rule that a military government is, in some ways, more republican than a monarchy. It's also not true that soldiers only influenced the government through their disobedience and revolts. The speeches delivered to them by the emperors were quite similar to those previously given to the public by consuls and tribunes. And even though the armies lacked a formal space or structured meetings, their discussions were brief, their actions impulsive, and their decisions rarely stemmed from careful thought, they still held complete control over the nation's fortunes. What was the emperor, if not a minister of a forceful government chosen for the soldiers' personal gain?"

“When the army had elected Philip, who was Prætorian præfect to the third Gordian, the latter demanded that he might remain sole emperor; he was unable to obtain it. He requested that the power might be equally divided between them; the army would not listen to his speech. He consented to be degraded to the rank of Cæsar; the favor was refused him. He desired, at least, he might be appointed Prætorian præfect; his prayer was rejected. Finally, he pleaded for his life. The army, in these several judgments, exercised the supreme magistracy.” According to the historian, whose doubtful narrative the President De Montesquieu has adopted, Philip, who, during the whole transaction, had preserved a sullen silence, was inclined to spare the innocent life of his benefactor; till, recollecting that his innocence might excite a dangerous compassion in the Roman world, he commanded, without regard to his suppliant cries, that he should be seized, stripped, and led away to instant death. After a moment’s pause, the inhuman sentence was executed.

“When the army chose Philip, who was the Prætorian prefect to the third Gordian, the latter insisted that he wanted to be the sole emperor; he couldn't get it. He asked for the power to be shared equally between them, but the army ignored his plea. He agreed to be downgraded to the rank of Cæsar; that request was denied. He at least asked to be appointed Prætorian prefect; his request was rejected. In the end, he begged for his life. The army, in these various decisions, exercised the highest authority.” According to the historian, whose questionable account President De Montesquieu has used, Philip, who had remained silent throughout the whole ordeal, was initially inclined to spare the innocent life of his benefactor; but then, remembering that his innocence might invoke dangerous sympathy in the Roman world, he ordered, without regard for the man's desperate pleas, that he be captured, stripped, and taken away for immediate execution. After a brief pause, the cruel sentence was carried out.





Chapter VII: Tyranny Of Maximin, Rebellion, Civil Wars, Death Of Maximin.—Part III.

On his return from the East to Rome, Philip, desirous of obliterating the memory of his crimes, and of captivating the affections of the people, solemnized the secular games with infinite pomp and magnificence. Since their institution or revival by Augustus, they had been celebrated by Claudius, by Domitian, and by Severus, and were now renewed the fifth time, on the accomplishment of the full period of a thousand years from the foundation of Rome. Every circumstance of the secular games was skillfully adapted to inspire the superstitious mind with deep and solemn reverence. The long interval between them exceeded the term of human life; and as none of the spectators had already seen them, none could flatter themselves with the expectation of beholding them a second time. The mystic sacrifices were performed, during three nights, on the banks of the Tyber; and the Campus Martius resounded with music and dances, and was illuminated with innumerable lamps and torches. Slaves and strangers were excluded from any participation in these national ceremonies. A chorus of twenty-seven youths, and as many virgins, of noble families, and whose parents were both alive, implored the propitious gods in favor of the present, and for the hope of the rising generation; requesting, in religious hymns, that according to the faith of their ancient oracles, they would still maintain the virtue, the felicity, and the empire of the Roman people. The magnificence of Philip’s shows and entertainments dazzled the eyes of the multitude. The devout were employed in the rites of superstition, whilst the reflecting few revolved in their anxious minds the past history and the future fate of the empire.

On his return from the East to Rome, Philip, eager to erase the memory of his crimes and win the people's affection, celebrated the secular games with great pomp and grandeur. Since their introduction or revival by Augustus, they had been held by Claudius, Domitian, and Severus, and were now being celebrated for the fifth time, marking a thousand years since the founding of Rome. Every detail of the secular games was carefully designed to instill a profound sense of reverence in the superstitious audience. The long gap between these events exceeded a human lifetime; since none of the spectators had witnessed them before, none could hope to see them again. Mystic sacrifices were conducted over three nights along the banks of the Tiber, while the Campus Martius echoed with music and dancing, illuminated by countless lamps and torches. Slaves and foreigners were barred from participating in these national celebrations. A choir of twenty-seven young men and an equal number of young women from noble families, whose parents were both alive, called upon the favorable gods for the present and for the hopes of future generations, asking, through sacred hymns, that in accordance with their ancient oracles, the gods would continue to uphold the virtue, prosperity, and empire of the Roman people. The grandeur of Philip’s spectacles and entertainment dazzled the crowd. The devout engaged in superstitious rituals, while the thoughtful few pondered the empire's past and its future.

Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tyber, ten centuries had already elapsed. During the four first ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government: by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, were dissolved into the common mass of mankind, and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name, without adopting the spirit, of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios.

Since Romulus, along with a small group of shepherds and outlaws, established himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries have passed. During the first four ages, the Romans, through the challenging experience of poverty, developed the virtues of warfare and governance. Through the strong application of these virtues and the favor of fortune, they established, over the following three centuries, an absolute empire over numerous lands in Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years have been marked by a facade of prosperity and internal decline. The community of soldiers, officials, and lawmakers that made up the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people became merged into the general population and confused with the millions of subjugated provincials, who bore the name of Romans without embodying their spirit. A hired army, raised from among the subjects and barbarians at the borders, was the only group that maintained and misused their independence. Through their chaotic elections, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab was elevated to the throne of Rome and granted absolute power over the conquests and the lands of the Scipios.

The limits of the Roman empire still extended from the Western Ocean to the Tigris, and from Mount Atlas to the Rhine and the Danube. To the undiscerning eye of the vulgar, Philip appeared a monarch no less powerful than Hadrian or Augustus had formerly been. The form was still the same, but the animating health and vigor were fled. The industry of the people was discouraged and exhausted by a long series of oppression. The discipline of the legions, which alone, after the extinction of every other virtue, had propped the greatness of the state, was corrupted by the ambition, or relaxed by the weakness, of the emperors. The strength of the frontiers, which had always consisted in arms rather than in fortifications, was insensibly undermined; and the fairest provinces were left exposed to the rapaciousness or ambition of the barbarians, who soon discovered the decline of the Roman empire.

The boundaries of the Roman Empire still stretched from the Western Ocean to the Tigris, and from Mount Atlas to the Rhine and the Danube. To the untrained eye of the common people, Philip seemed as powerful a ruler as Hadrian or Augustus had once been. The appearance was still the same, but the vibrant energy and strength were gone. The people's efforts were discouraged and drained by a long history of oppression. The discipline of the legions, which alone had supported the empire's greatness after all other virtues had faded, was weakened by the ambition or laxity of the emperors. The strength of the borders, which had always relied on military power instead of fortifications, was gradually eroded; and the most prosperous provinces were left vulnerable to the greed or ambition of the barbarians, who quickly recognized the decline of the Roman Empire.





Chapter VIII: State Of Persia And Restoration Of The Monarchy.—Part I.

Of The State Of Persia After The Restoration Of The Monarchy
By Artaxerxes.
Of The State Of Persia After The Restoration Of The Monarchy  
By Artaxerxes.

Whenever Tacitus indulges himself in those beautiful episodes, in which he relates some domestic transaction of the Germans or of the Parthians, his principal object is to relieve the attention of the reader from a uniform scene of vice and misery. From the reign of Augustus to the time of Alexander Severus, the enemies of Rome were in her bosom—the tyrants and the soldiers; and her prosperity had a very distant and feeble interest in the revolutions that might happen beyond the Rhine and the Euphrates. But when the military order had levelled, in wild anarchy, the power of the prince, the laws of the senate, and even the discipline of the camp, the barbarians of the North and of the East, who had long hovered on the frontier, boldly attacked the provinces of a declining monarchy. Their vexatious inroads were changed into formidable irruptions, and, after a long vicissitude of mutual calamities, many tribes of the victorious invaders established themselves in the provinces of the Roman Empire. To obtain a clearer knowledge of these great events, we shall endeavor to form a previous idea of the character, forces, and designs of those nations who avenged the cause of Hannibal and Mithridates.

Whenever Tacitus shares those captivating stories about the domestic affairs of the Germans or the Parthians, his main goal is to shift the reader's focus away from a consistent backdrop of vice and suffering. From the reign of Augustus to the time of Alexander Severus, Rome's enemies were entrenched within—its tyrants and soldiers; and Rome's prosperity had little connection to the upheavals occurring beyond the Rhine and the Euphrates. However, when the military hierarchy dismantled the power of the prince, the laws of the senate, and even the order of the camp, the northern and eastern barbarians, who had long lingered at the borders, boldly attacked the provinces of a declining monarchy. Their annoying raids turned into significant invasions, and after a long cycle of shared disasters, many tribes of these victorious invaders settled in the provinces of the Roman Empire. To gain a clearer understanding of these major events, we will first look at the character, strength, and intentions of those nations that avenged Hannibal and Mithridates.

In the more early ages of the world, whilst the forest that covered Europe afforded a retreat to a few wandering savages, the inhabitants of Asia were already collected into populous cities, and reduced under extensive empires the seat of the arts, of luxury, and of despotism. The Assyrians reigned over the East, till the sceptre of Ninus and Semiramis dropped from the hands of their enervated successors. The Medes and the Babylonians divided their power, and were themselves swallowed up in the monarchy of the Persians, whose arms could not be confined within the narrow limits of Asia. Followed, as it is said, by two millions of men, Xerxes, the descendant of Cyrus, invaded Greece. Thirty thousand soldiers, under the command of Alexander, the son of Philip, who was intrusted by the Greeks with their glory and revenge, were sufficient to subdue Persia. The princes of the house of Seleucus usurped and lost the Macedonian command over the East. About the same time, that, by an ignominious treaty, they resigned to the Romans the country on this side Mount Tarus, they were driven by the Parthians, * an obscure horde of Scythian origin, from all the provinces of Upper Asia. The formidable power of the Parthians, which spread from India to the frontiers of Syria, was in its turn subverted by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes; the founder of a new dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides, governed Persia till the invasion of the Arabs. This great revolution, whose fatal influence was soon experienced by the Romans, happened in the fourth year of Alexander Severus, two hundred and twenty-six years after the Christian era.

In the early days of the world, while the forests of Europe provided refuge for a few wandering tribes, the people of Asia had already formed large cities and were under vast empires, which were centers of art, luxury, and tyranny. The Assyrians ruled over the East until the power of Ninus and Semiramis faded away in the hands of their weakened successors. The Medes and Babylonians shared power but were eventually overtaken by the Persian empire, whose military ambitions extended far beyond Asia. Xerxes, a descendant of Cyrus, invaded Greece with an army reportedly numbering two million. In contrast, thirty thousand soldiers, led by Alexander, the son of Philip, who was entrusted with the Greeks' honor and desire for revenge, were enough to conquer Persia. The Seleucus dynasty gained and then lost control over the East. Around the same time, they shamefully gave up the territory on this side of Mount Taurus to the Romans through a humiliating treaty and were pushed back by the Parthians, a little-known group of Scythian origin, from all the regions of Upper Asia. The powerful Parthian empire, which stretched from India to the borders of Syria, was ultimately overturned by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, the founder of a new dynasty that governed Persia under the name Sassanides until the Arab invasion. This significant change, which soon affected the Romans, occurred in the fourth year of Alexander Severus, two hundred and twenty-six years after the Christian era.

Artaxerxes had served with great reputation in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the Parthians, and it appears that he was driven into exile and rebellion by royal ingratitude, the customary reward for superior merit. His birth was obscure, and the obscurity equally gave room to the aspersions of his enemies, and the flattery of his adherents. If we credit the scandal of the former, Artaxerxes sprang from the illegitimate commerce of a tanner’s wife with a common soldier. The latter represent him as descended from a branch of the ancient kings of Persia, though time and misfortune had gradually reduced his ancestors to the humble station of private citizens. As the lineal heir of the monarchy, he asserted his right to the throne, and challenged the noble task of delivering the Persians from the oppression under which they groaned above five centuries since the death of Darius. The Parthians were defeated in three great battles. * In the last of these their king Artaban was slain, and the spirit of the nation was forever broken. The authority of Artaxerxes was solemnly acknowledged in a great assembly held at Balch in Khorasan. Two younger branches of the royal house of Arsaces were confounded among the prostrate satraps. A third, more mindful of ancient grandeur than of present necessity, attempted to retire, with a numerous train of vessels, towards their kinsman, the king of Armenia; but this little army of deserters was intercepted, and cut off, by the vigilance of the conqueror, who boldly assumed the double diadem, and the title of King of Kings, which had been enjoyed by his predecessor. But these pompous titles, instead of gratifying the vanity of the Persian, served only to admonish him of his duty, and to inflame in his soul the ambition of restoring in their full splendor, the religion and empire of Cyrus.

Artaxerxes had built a solid reputation while serving in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the Parthians. It seems he was forced into exile and rebellion due to the ingratitude of the royalty, which is the usual reward for someone with exceptional talent. His origins were humble, and this obscurity allowed both his enemies to cast doubts on him and his supporters to praise him excessively. If we believe the gossip from his detractors, Artaxerxes was born from an affair between a tanner’s wife and a common soldier. On the other hand, his supporters claim he descended from a branch of the ancient Persian kings, even though time and misfortune had diminished his family to the position of ordinary citizens. As the rightful heir to the monarchy, he claimed his right to the throne and took on the noble task of freeing the Persians from the oppression they had suffered for over five centuries since the death of Darius. The Parthians were defeated in three significant battles. In the last one, their king Artaban was killed, and the spirit of the nation was broken forever. Artaxerxes' authority was officially recognized at a large gathering in Balch, Khorasan. Two younger branches of the royal Arsaces family were among the defeated satraps. A third branch, focused more on their ancient glory than current needs, tried to retreat with a large number of ships toward their relative, the king of Armenia. However, this small army of deserters was intercepted and destroyed by the vigilance of the conqueror, who boldly took the double crown and the title of King of Kings, which his predecessor had held. Yet, these grand titles, rather than satisfying the Persian's pride, only reminded him of his duty and fueled his ambition to restore the full glory of the religion and empire of Cyrus.

I. During the long servitude of Persia under the Macedonian and the Parthian yoke, the nations of Europe and Asia had mutually adopted and corrupted each other’s superstitions. The Arsacides, indeed, practised the worship of the Magi; but they disgraced and polluted it with a various mixture of foreign idolatry. * The memory of Zoroaster, the ancient prophet and philosopher of the Persians, was still revered in the East; but the obsolete and mysterious language, in which the Zendavesta was composed, opened a field of dispute to seventy sects, who variously explained the fundamental doctrines of their religion, and were all indifferently derided by a crowd of infidels, who rejected the divine mission and miracles of the prophet. To suppress the idolaters, reunite the schismatics, and confute the unbelievers, by the infallible decision of a general council, the pious Artaxerxes summoned the Magi from all parts of his dominions. These priests, who had so long sighed in contempt and obscurity obeyed the welcome summons; and, on the appointed day, appeared, to the number of about eighty thousand. But as the debates of so tumultuous an assembly could not have been directed by the authority of reason, or influenced by the art of policy, the Persian synod was reduced, by successive operations, to forty thousand, to four thousand, to four hundred, to forty, and at last to seven Magi, the most respected for their learning and piety. One of these, Erdaviraph, a young but holy prelate, received from the hands of his brethren three cups of soporiferous wine. He drank them off, and instantly fell into a long and profound sleep. As soon as he waked, he related to the king and to the believing multitude, his journey to heaven, and his intimate conferences with the Deity. Every doubt was silenced by this supernatural evidence; and the articles of the faith of Zoroaster were fixed with equal authority and precision. A short delineation of that celebrated system will be found useful, not only to display the character of the Persian nation, but to illustrate many of their most important transactions, both in peace and war, with the Roman empire.

I. During the long period of Persian rule under the Macedonian and Parthian empires, the countries of Europe and Asia blended and corrupted each other's beliefs. The Arsacides practiced the worship of the Magi, but they tainted it with a mix of foreign idolatries. The legacy of Zoroaster, the ancient prophet and philosopher of the Persians, was still honored in the East; however, the outdated and mysterious language of the Zendavesta led to disputes among seventy sects, each interpreting the core principles of their religion differently, all of which were openly mocked by a crowd of skeptics who rejected the prophet's divine mission and miracles. To eliminate idolaters, reunite the divided sects, and disprove the nonbelievers through the final say of a general council, the devout Artaxerxes called upon the Magi from all corners of his realm. These priests, who had long lived in disdain and obscurity, responded to his call; on the designated day, around eighty thousand gathered. But as the debates among such a chaotic group couldn’t be guided by reason or strategy, the Persian assembly dwindled through several rounds to forty thousand, then to four thousand, then to four hundred, to forty, and finally to seven Magi, the most esteemed for their knowledge and piety. One of these, Erdaviraph, a young yet holy prelate, received three cups of sedative wine from his peers. He drank them and quickly fell into a deep sleep. When he woke up, he shared with the king and the faithful crowd his journey to heaven and his close conversations with God. This miraculous evidence silenced all doubt, and the principles of Zoroaster's faith were established with equal authority and clarity. A brief overview of that renowned system will be helpful, not only to showcase the character of the Persian nation but also to shed light on many of their significant events, both in times of peace and war, with the Roman Empire.

The great and fundamental article of the system was the celebrated doctrine of the two principles; a bold and injudicious attempt of Eastern philosophy to reconcile the existence of moral and physical evil with the attributes of a beneficent Creator and Governor of the world. The first and original Being, in whom, or by whom, the universe exists, is denominated in the writings of Zoroaster, Time without bounds; but it must be confessed, that this infinite substance seems rather a metaphysical abstraction of the mind than a real object endowed with self-consciousness, or possessed of moral perfections. From either the blind or the intelligent operation of this infinite Time, which bears but too near an affinity with the chaos of the Greeks, the two secondary but active principles of the universe were from all eternity produced, Ormusd and Ahriman, each of them possessed of the powers of creation, but each disposed, by his invariable nature, to exercise them with different designs. * The principle of good is eternally absorbed in light; the principle of evil eternally buried in darkness. The wise benevolence of Ormusd formed man capable of virtue, and abundantly provided his fair habitation with the materials of happiness. By his vigilant providence, the motion of the planets, the order of the seasons, and the temperate mixture of the elements, are preserved. But the malice of Ahriman has long since pierced Ormusd’s egg; or, in other words, has violated the harmony of his works. Since that fatal eruption, the most minute articles of good and evil are intimately intermingled and agitated together; the rankest poisons spring up amidst the most salutary plants; deluges, earthquakes, and conflagrations attest the conflict of Nature, and the little world of man is perpetually shaken by vice and misfortune. Whilst the rest of human kind are led away captives in the chains of their infernal enemy, the faithful Persian alone reserves his religious adoration for his friend and protector Ormusd, and fights under his banner of light, in the full confidence that he shall, in the last day, share the glory of his triumph. At that decisive period, the enlightened wisdom of goodness will render the power of Ormusd superior to the furious malice of his rival. Ahriman and his followers, disarmed and subdued, will sink into their native darkness; and virtue will maintain the eternal peace and harmony of the universe.

The main and foundational concept of the system was the well-known idea of the two principles; a bold and ill-advised attempt by Eastern philosophy to reconcile the presence of moral and physical evil with the qualities of a caring Creator and ruler of the world. The first and original Being, in whom or through whom the universe exists, is referred to in Zoroaster's writings as Time without bounds; however, it must be acknowledged that this infinite substance seems more like a metaphysical concept of the mind than a real entity with self-awareness or moral qualities. From either the blind or intelligent action of this infinite Time, which is too closely related to the chaos described by the Greeks, the two secondary but active principles of the universe were created for all eternity, Ormusd and Ahriman, each possessing the power of creation but each inclined, by their unchanging nature, to use it for different purposes. * The principle of good is eternally immersed in light; the principle of evil is eternally trapped in darkness. The wise benevolence of Ormusd made man capable of virtue and generously filled his beautiful home with the ingredients for happiness. Through his vigilant care, the movement of the planets, the order of the seasons, and the proper blend of the elements are maintained. But Ahriman's malice has long ago breached Ormusd's egg; in other words, it has disturbed the harmony of his creations. Since that disastrous event, every element of good and evil has become deeply mixed and intertwined; the most toxic poisons grow among the healthiest plants; floods, earthquakes, and fires bear witness to Nature's conflict, and the small world of humanity is constantly shaken by vice and misfortune. While the rest of humanity is led away as captives in the chains of their evil enemy, the faithful Persian alone dedicates his religious devotion to his friend and protector Ormusd, fighting under his banner of light, fully confident that he will, on the final day, share in the glory of his victory. At that crucial time, the enlightened wisdom of goodness will make Ormusd's power greater than the furious malice of his rival. Ahriman and his followers, disarmed and defeated, will return to their native darkness; and virtue will uphold the eternal peace and harmony of the universe.





Chapter VIII: State Of Persia And Restoration Of The Monarchy.—Part II.

The theology of Zoroaster was darkly comprehended by foreigners, and even by the far greater number of his disciples; but the most careless observers were struck with the philosophic simplicity of the Persian worship. “That people,” said Herodotus, “rejects the use of temples, of altars, and of statues, and smiles at the folly of those nations who imagine that the gods are sprung from, or bear any affinity with, the human nature. The tops of the highest mountains are the places chosen for sacrifices. Hymns and prayers are the principal worship; the Supreme God, who fills the wide circle of heaven, is the object to whom they are addressed.” Yet, at the same time, in the true spirit of a polytheist, he accuseth them of adoring Earth, Water, Fire, the Winds, and the Sun and Moon. But the Persians of every age have denied the charge, and explained the equivocal conduct, which might appear to give a color to it. The elements, and more particularly Fire, Light, and the Sun, whom they called Mithra, were the objects of their religious reverence because they considered them as the purest symbols, the noblest productions, and the most powerful agents of the Divine Power and Nature.

The theology of Zoroaster was poorly understood by outsiders, as well as by most of his followers; however, even the most casual observers noticed the philosophical simplicity of Persian worship. “That people,” said Herodotus, “do not use temples, altars, or statues, and they mock the foolishness of those nations that believe the gods are derived from or related to human nature. They choose the tops of the tallest mountains for sacrifices. Hymns and prayers are their main form of worship; the Supreme God, who fills the vast expanse of heaven, is the one they address.” Yet, in true polytheistic fashion, he accused them of worshipping the Earth, Water, Fire, the Winds, and the Sun and Moon. But Persians of all ages have denied this accusation and clarified the ambiguous practices that might seem to support it. The elements, especially Fire, Light, and the Sun, whom they called Mithra, were viewed as the purest symbols, the highest creations, and the most powerful agents of Divine Power and Nature.

Every mode of religion, to make a deep and lasting impression on the human mind, must exercise our obedience, by enjoining practices of devotion, for which we can assign no reason; and must acquire our esteem, by inculcating moral duties analogous to the dictates of our own hearts. The religion of Zoroaster was abundantly provided with the former and possessed a sufficient portion of the latter. At the age of puberty, the faithful Persian was invested with a mysterious girdle, the badge of the divine protection; and from that moment all the actions of his life, even the most indifferent, or the most necessary, were sanctified by their peculiar prayers, ejaculations, or genuflections; the omission of which, under any circumstances, was a grievous sin, not inferior in guilt to the violation of the moral duties. The moral duties, however, of justice, mercy, liberality, &c., were in their turn required of the disciple of Zoroaster, who wished to escape the persecution of Ahriman, and to live with Ormusd in a blissful eternity, where the degree of felicity will be exactly proportioned to the degree of virtue and piety.

Every form of religion, to leave a deep and lasting mark on the human mind, must demand our obedience by requiring acts of devotion that we can't fully explain; it must also earn our respect by promoting moral duties that align with our own feelings. The religion of Zoroaster was well-equipped with the first element and had a decent amount of the second. At puberty, a faithful Persian was given a mysterious girdle, symbolizing divine protection; from that moment on, every action in his life, even the most trivial or essential, was made sacred through specific prayers, invocations, or gestures. Failing to perform these rites, no matter the situation, was considered a serious sin, comparable to breaking moral obligations. However, the moral responsibilities of justice, compassion, generosity, etc., were also expected of the Zoroastrian disciple who wanted to avoid the wrath of Ahriman and live eternally with Ormusd in bliss, where the level of happiness would directly reflect the level of virtue and devotion.

But there are some remarkable instances in which Zoroaster lays aside the prophet, assumes the legislator, and discovers a liberal concern for private and public happiness, seldom to be found among the grovelling or visionary schemes of superstition. Fasting and celibacy, the common means of purchasing the divine favor, he condemns with abhorrence as a criminal rejection of the best gifts of Providence. The saint, in the Magian religion, is obliged to beget children, to plant useful trees, to destroy noxious animals, to convey water to the dry lands of Persia, and to work out his salvation by pursuing all the labors of agriculture. * We may quote from the Zendavesta a wise and benevolent maxim, which compensates for many an absurdity. “He who sows the ground with care and diligence acquires a greater stock of religious merit than he could gain by the repetition of ten thousand prayers.” In the spring of every year a festival was celebrated, destined to represent the primitive equality, and the present connection, of mankind. The stately kings of Persia, exchanging their vain pomp for more genuine greatness, freely mingled with the humblest but most useful of their subjects. On that day the husbandmen were admitted, without distinction, to the table of the king and his satraps. The monarch accepted their petitions, inquired into their grievances, and conversed with them on the most equal terms. “From your labors,” was he accustomed to say, (and to say with truth, if not with sincerity,) “from your labors we receive our subsistence; you derive your tranquillity from our vigilance: since, therefore, we are mutually necessary to each other, let us live together like brothers in concord and love.” Such a festival must indeed have degenerated, in a wealthy and despotic empire, into a theatrical representation; but it was at least a comedy well worthy of a royal audience, and which might sometimes imprint a salutary lesson on the mind of a young prince.

But there are some striking examples where Zoroaster puts aside the role of a prophet and takes on that of a legislator, showing a genuine concern for both personal and public happiness, which is rarely found in the lowly or fanciful ideas of superstition. He strongly condemns fasting and celibacy—common methods to seek divine favor—as a wrongful rejection of the best gifts from Providence. In the Magian religion, a saint is expected to have children, plant useful trees, eliminate harmful animals, bring water to the arid lands of Persia, and earn his salvation through hard work in agriculture. * We can quote a wise and compassionate saying from the Zendavesta that makes up for many of its absurdities: “He who diligently cultivates the land gains more religious merit than he could through repeating ten thousand prayers.” Every spring, a festival was held to reflect the original equality and current connection among people. The prestigious kings of Persia would set aside their empty grandeur and mingle freely with the humblest yet most valuable of their subjects. On that day, farmers were welcomed without discrimination to dine with the king and his governors. The monarch listened to their requests, learned about their issues, and spoke with them on equal footing. “From your hard work,” he would often say (truthfully, if not sincerely), “we gain our sustenance; you find your peace through our vigilance: since we are both essential to one another, let’s live together like brothers in harmony and love.” This festival may have turned, in a wealthy and oppressive empire, into a staged show; however, it was at least a performance worthy of a royal audience, which could sometimes leave a valuable lesson for a young prince.

Had Zoroaster, in all his institutions, invariably supported this exalted character, his name would deserve a place with those of Numa and Confucius, and his system would be justly entitled to all the applause, which it has pleased some of our divines, and even some of our philosophers, to bestow on it. But in that motley composition, dictated by reason and passion, by enthusiasm and by selfish motives, some useful and sublime truths were disgraced by a mixture of the most abject and dangerous superstition. The Magi, or sacerdotal order, were extremely numerous, since, as we have already seen, fourscore thousand of them were convened in a general council. Their forces were multiplied by discipline. A regular hierarchy was diffused through all the provinces of Persia; and the Archimagus, who resided at Balch, was respected as the visible head of the church, and the lawful successor of Zoroaster. The property of the Magi was very considerable. Besides the less invidious possession of a large tract of the most fertile lands of Media, they levied a general tax on the fortunes and the industry of the Persians. “Though your good works,” says the interested prophet, “exceed in number the leaves of the trees, the drops of rain, the stars in the heaven, or the sands on the sea-shore, they will all be unprofitable to you, unless they are accepted by the destour, or priest. To obtain the acceptation of this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay him tithes of all you possess, of your goods, of your lands, and of your money. If the destour be satisfied, your soul will escape hell tortures; you will secure praise in this world and happiness in the next. For the destours are the teachers of religion; they know all things, and they deliver all men.” *

Had Zoroaster consistently upheld this high standard in all his teachings, his name would rightfully belong alongside those of Numa and Confucius, and his system would truly deserve all the praise that some of our religious leaders and even some philosophers have given it. However, in that mixed collection, shaped by reason and emotion, enthusiasm and selfish motives, some valuable and profound truths were tainted by a blend of the most shameful and dangerous superstitions. The Magi, or priestly class, were extremely numerous, as we've previously noted, with eighty thousand of them gathered for a general council. Their influence grew through discipline. A structured hierarchy spread across all the provinces of Persia, and the Archimagus, who lived in Balch, was respected as the visible leader of the church and the legitimate successor of Zoroaster. The wealth of the Magi was quite substantial. Apart from their less contentious ownership of a large area of the most fertile land in Media, they imposed a general tax on the wealth and labor of the Persians. “Even if your good deeds,” says the self-serving prophet, “are more numerous than the leaves on trees, the drops of rain, the stars in the sky, or the grains of sand on the shore, they will all be worthless to you unless they are accepted by the destour, or priest. To gain acceptance from this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay him tithes from everything you have—your possessions, your land, and your money. If the destour is satisfied, your soul will avoid torture in hell; you will receive praise in this life and happiness in the next. For the destours are the teachers of religion; they know everything and guide everyone.”

These convenient maxims of reverence and implicit faith were doubtless imprinted with care on the tender minds of youth; since the Magi were the masters of education in Persia, and to their hands the children even of the royal family were intrusted. The Persian priests, who were of a speculative genius, preserved and investigated the secrets of Oriental philosophy; and acquired, either by superior knowledge, or superior art, the reputation of being well versed in some occult sciences, which have derived their appellation from the Magi. Those of more active dispositions mixed with the world in courts and cities; and it is observed, that the administration of Artaxerxes was in a great measure directed by the counsels of the sacerdotal order, whose dignity, either from policy or devotion, that prince restored to its ancient splendor.

These handy sayings about respect and trust were likely carefully taught to the impressionable minds of children, as the Magi were the educators in Persia, entrusted with even the royal family's kids. The Persian priests, known for their thoughtful nature, preserved and explored the secrets of Eastern philosophy and gained a reputation for being knowledgeable in some hidden sciences associated with the Magi. Those with more energetic personalities engaged with society in courts and cities, and it is noted that Artaxerxes’ rule was largely influenced by the advice of the priestly class, whose status that prince restored to its former glory, whether for political reasons or devotion.

The first counsel of the Magi was agreeable to the unsociable genius of their faith, to the practice of ancient kings, and even to the example of their legislator, who had fallen a victim to a religious war, excited by his own intolerant zeal. By an edict of Artaxerxes, the exercise of every worship, except that of Zoroaster, was severely prohibited. The temples of the Parthians, and the statues of their deified monarchs, were thrown down with ignominy. The sword of Aristotle (such was the name given by the Orientals to the polytheism and philosophy of the Greeks) was easily broken; the flames of persecution soon reached the more stubborn Jews and Christians; nor did they spare the heretics of their own nation and religion. The majesty of Ormusd, who was jealous of a rival, was seconded by the despotism of Artaxerxes, who could not suffer a rebel; and the schismatics within his vast empire were soon reduced to the inconsiderable number of eighty thousand. * This spirit of persecution reflects dishonor on the religion of Zoroaster; but as it was not productive of any civil commotion, it served to strengthen the new monarchy, by uniting all the various inhabitants of Persia in the bands of religious zeal.

The first council of the Magi aligned with their isolated beliefs, the customs of ancient kings, and even the actions of their lawgiver, who had become a victim of a religious conflict fueled by his own extreme zeal. An edict from Artaxerxes strictly banned the practice of all religions except for that of Zoroaster. The temples of the Parthians and the statues of their deified kings were destroyed in disgrace. The sword of Aristotle (as the Orientals referred to the polytheism and philosophy of the Greeks) was easily defeated; the flames of persecution quickly reached the more stubborn Jews and Christians, and they didn't spare the heretics within their own nation and faith. The power of Ormusd, who was intolerant of rivals, was reinforced by the tyranny of Artaxerxes, who could not tolerate a rebel; soon, the dissenters within his vast empire dwindled to a mere eighty thousand. * This spirit of persecution brings shame to the religion of Zoroaster; however, since it did not lead to any civil unrest, it helped to solidify the new monarchy by uniting all the diverse people of Persia under the banner of religious zeal.

II. Artaxerxes, by his valor and conduct, had wrested the sceptre of the East from the ancient royal family of Parthia. There still remained the more difficult task of establishing, throughout the vast extent of Persia, a uniform and vigorous administration. The weak indulgence of the Arsacides had resigned to their sons and brothers the principal provinces, and the greatest offices of the kingdom in the nature of hereditary possessions. The vitaxæ, or eighteen most powerful satraps, were permitted to assume the regal title; and the vain pride of the monarch was delighted with a nominal dominion over so many vassal kings. Even tribes of barbarians in their mountains, and the Greek cities of Upper Asia, within their walls, scarcely acknowledged, or seldom obeyed, any superior; and the Parthian empire exhibited, under other names, a lively image of the feudal system which has since prevailed in Europe. But the active victor, at the head of a numerous and disciplined army, visited in person every province of Persia. The defeat of the boldest rebels, and the reduction of the strongest fortifications, diffused the terror of his arms, and prepared the way for the peaceful reception of his authority. An obstinate resistance was fatal to the chiefs; but their followers were treated with lenity. A cheerful submission was rewarded with honors and riches, but the prudent Artaxerxes, suffering no person except himself to assume the title of king, abolished every intermediate power between the throne and the people. His kingdom, nearly equal in extent to modern Persia, was, on every side, bounded by the sea, or by great rivers; by the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Araxes, the Oxus, and the Indus, by the Caspian Sea, and the Gulf of Persia. That country was computed to contain, in the last century, five hundred and fifty-four cities, sixty thousand villages, and about forty millions of souls. If we compare the administration of the house of Sassan with that of the house of Sefi, the political influence of the Magian with that of the Mahometan religion, we shall probably infer, that the kingdom of Artaxerxes contained at least as great a number of cities, villages, and inhabitants. But it must likewise be confessed, that in every age the want of harbors on the sea-coast, and the scarcity of fresh water in the inland provinces, have been very unfavorable to the commerce and agriculture of the Persians; who, in the calculation of their numbers, seem to have indulged one of the meanest, though most common, artifices of national vanity.

II. Artaxerxes, through his bravery and leadership, had taken control of the Eastern empire from the ancient royal family of Parthia. He still faced the more challenging task of creating a consistent and strong administration across the vast territories of Persia. The weak indulgence of the Arsacides had allowed their sons and brothers to inherit the main provinces and the highest positions in the kingdom like hereditary possessions. The vitaxæ, or the eighteen most powerful satraps, were allowed to use the royal title; and the king took pride in having a nominal rule over so many vassal kings. Even barbarian tribes in their mountains and the Greek cities of Upper Asia barely recognized or seldom obeyed any authority. The Parthian empire, under different names, reflected a lively version of the feudal system that later shaped Europe. However, the active victor, leading a large and disciplined army, personally visited every province in Persia. Defeating the most daring rebels and capturing the strongest fortresses spread fear of his power and paved the way for the peaceful acceptance of his rule. Stubborn resistance was tragic for the leaders, but their followers were treated leniently. Cheerful compliance was rewarded with honors and wealth, but the wise Artaxerxes made sure that only he held the title of king and eliminated any intermediate powers between the throne and the people. His kingdom, nearly equal in size to modern Persia, was surrounded on all sides by the sea or large rivers; the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Araxes, the Oxus, and the Indus, along with the Caspian Sea and the Gulf of Persia. In the last century, that territory was believed to have contained five hundred and fifty-four cities, sixty thousand villages, and about forty million people. If we compare the administration of the Sassanian dynasty with that of the Safavid dynasty, and the political influence of the Magian religion with that of Islam, we might conclude that the kingdom of Artaxerxes had at least as many cities, villages, and inhabitants. However, it should also be acknowledged that throughout various ages, the lack of harbors on the coast and the limited availability of fresh water in the interior regions have been very detrimental to Persian commerce and agriculture; they seem to have indulged in one of the most common, yet most pitiful, tricks of national pride when calculating their numbers.

As soon as the ambitious mind of Artaxerxes had triumphed ever the resistance of his vassals, he began to threaten the neighboring states, who, during the long slumber of his predecessors, had insulted Persia with impunity. He obtained some easy victories over the wild Scythians and the effeminate Indians; but the Romans were an enemy, who, by their past injuries and present power, deserved the utmost efforts of his arms. A forty years’ tranquillity, the fruit of valor and moderation, had succeeded the victories of Trajan. During the period that elapsed from the accession of Marcus to the reign of Alexander, the Roman and the Parthian empires were twice engaged in war; and although the whole strength of the Arsacides contended with a part only of the forces of Rome, the event was most commonly in favor of the latter. Macrinus, indeed, prompted by his precarious situation and pusillanimous temper, purchased a peace at the expense of near two millions of our money; but the generals of Marcus, the emperor Severus, and his son, erected many trophies in Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. Among their exploits, the imperfect relation of which would have unseasonably interrupted the more important series of domestic revolutions, we shall only mention the repeated calamities of the two great cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon.

As soon as Artaxerxes' ambitious mind overcame the resistance of his vassals, he started to threaten the neighboring states that had insulted Persia without consequences during the long reign of his predecessors. He achieved some easy victories over the fierce Scythians and the effeminate Indians, but the Romans were an enemy that, due to their past wrongs and current strength, warranted his best efforts. After forty years of peace, a result of bravery and moderation, following Trajan's victories, both the Roman and Parthian empires were involved in war twice from the time Marcus came to power until Alexander's reign. Despite the Arsacides putting forth their full strength while Rome sent only part of its forces, outcomes were typically favorable to Rome. Macrinus, motivated by his unstable situation and timid nature, bought peace for almost two million of our money. However, the generals of Marcus, Emperor Severus, and his son erected many trophies in Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. Among their achievements, which we won't detail to avoid interrupting the more critical narrative of domestic revolutions, we will only mention the repeated disasters that befell the two major cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon.

Seleucia, on the western bank of the Tigris, about forty-five miles to the north of ancient Babylon, was the capital of the Macedonian conquests in Upper Asia. Many ages after the fall of their empire, Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian colony, arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom. The independent republic was governed by a senate of three hundred nobles; the people consisted of six hundred thousand citizens; the walls were strong, and as long as concord prevailed among the several orders of the state, they viewed with contempt the power of the Parthian: but the madness of faction was sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony. The Parthian monarchs, like the Mogul sovereigns of Hindostan, delighted in the pastoral life of their Scythian ancestors; and the Imperial camp was frequently pitched in the plain of Ctesiphon, on the eastern bank of the Tigris, at the distance of only three miles from Seleucia. The innumerable attendants on luxury and despotism resorted to the court, and the little village of Ctesiphon insensibly swelled into a great city. Under the reign of Marcus, the Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia. They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of three hundred thousand of the inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph. Seleucia, already exhausted by the neighborhood of a too powerful rival, sunk under the fatal blow; but Ctesiphon, in about thirty-three years, had sufficiently recovered its strength to maintain an obstinate siege against the emperor Severus. The city was, however, taken by assault; the king, who defended it in person, escaped with precipitation; a hundred thousand captives, and a rich booty, rewarded the fatigues of the Roman soldiers. Notwithstanding these misfortunes, Ctesiphon succeeded to Babylon and to Seleucia, as one of the great capitals of the East. In summer, the monarch of Persia enjoyed at Ecbatana the cool breezes of the mountains of Media; but the mildness of the climate engaged him to prefer Ctesiphon for his winter residence.

Seleucia, on the western bank of the Tigris and about forty-five miles north of ancient Babylon, was the capital of the Macedonian conquests in Upper Asia. Many years after the fall of their empire, Seleucia still showcased the true essence of a Greek colony, including its arts, military honor, and love of freedom. The independent republic was run by a senate of three hundred nobles, and its population consisted of six hundred thousand citizens. The city had strong walls, and as long as there was harmony among the various groups of the state, they looked down on the power of the Parthians. However, the madness of faction occasionally led them to seek the risky help of their common enemy, who was almost at their doorstep. The Parthian kings, like the Mughal rulers of Hindostan, enjoyed the pastoral lifestyle of their Scythian ancestors, and their imperial camp was often set up in the plain of Ctesiphon, just three miles away from Seleucia. The countless attendants of luxury and tyranny flocked to the court, and the small village of Ctesiphon gradually grew into a large city. During Marcus's reign, Roman generals advanced as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia. The Greek colony welcomed them as friends, but they attacked the stronghold of the Parthian kings as enemies; yet both cities faced the same fate. The plundering and burning of Seleucia, along with the massacre of three hundred thousand of its residents, marred the triumph of the Romans. Seleucia, already weakened by its powerful neighbor, collapsed under this devastating strike, but Ctesiphon, after about thirty-three years, managed to regain enough strength to endure a fierce siege from Emperor Severus. The city was eventually captured by assault; the king, who defended it personally, fled in a hurry, leaving behind a hundred thousand captives and a wealth of plunder that rewarded the efforts of the Roman soldiers. Despite these calamities, Ctesiphon succeeded Babylon and Seleucia as one of the major capitals of the East. In summer, the Persian king enjoyed the cool mountain breezes at Ecbatana, but he preferred Ctesiphon as his winter residence due to its mild climate.

From these successful inroads the Romans derived no real or lasting benefit; nor did they attempt to preserve such distant conquests, separated from the provinces of the empire by a large tract of intermediate desert. The reduction of the kingdom of Osrhoene was an acquisition of less splendor indeed, but of a far more solid advantage. That little state occupied the northern and most fertile part of Mesopotamia, between the Euphrates and the Tigris. Edessa, its capital, was situated about twenty miles beyond the former of those rivers; and the inhabitants, since the time of Alexander, were a mixed race of Greeks, Arabs, Syrians, and Armenians. The feeble sovereigns of Osrhoene, placed on the dangerous verge of two contending empires, were attached from inclination to the Parthian cause; but the superior power of Rome exacted from them a reluctant homage, which is still attested by their medals. After the conclusion of the Parthian war under Marcus, it was judged prudent to secure some substantial pledges of their doubtful fidelity. Forts were constructed in several parts of the country, and a Roman garrison was fixed in the strong town of Nisibis. During the troubles that followed the death of Commodus, the princes of Osrhoene attempted to shake off the yoke; but the stern policy of Severus confirmed their dependence, and the perfidy of Caracalla completed the easy conquest. Abgarus, the last king of Edessa, was sent in chains to Rome, his dominions reduced into a province, and his capital dignified with the rank of colony; and thus the Romans, about ten years before the fall of the Parthian monarchy, obtained a firm and permanent establishment beyond the Euphrates.

From these successful incursions, the Romans gained no real or lasting benefit; nor did they try to maintain such distant conquests, which were separated from the provinces of the empire by a vast area of desert. The conquest of the kingdom of Osrhoene was less glamorous but offered much more solid advantages. This small state occupied the northern and most fertile part of Mesopotamia, nestled between the Euphrates and the Tigris. Edessa, its capital, was located about twenty miles beyond the Euphrates, and the inhabitants had been a mixed race of Greeks, Arabs, Syrians, and Armenians since the time of Alexander. The weak rulers of Osrhoene, positioned on the precarious border of two opposing empires, favored the Parthian cause; however, Rome's superior power forced them to offer reluctant tribute, which is still reflected in their coins. After the Parthian war under Marcus, it was deemed wise to secure some substantial tokens of their questionable loyalty. Forts were built in various parts of the region, and a Roman garrison was established in the stronghold of Nisibis. During the turmoil that followed Commodus's death, the princes of Osrhoene tried to break free from Roman control; but Severus’s strict policies solidified their subjugation, and Caracalla’s treachery completed the easy conquest. Abgarus, the last king of Edessa, was sent in chains to Rome, his lands turned into a province, and his capital granted the status of a colony; thus, around ten years before the fall of the Parthian monarchy, the Romans secured a firm and lasting foothold beyond the Euphrates.

Prudence as well as glory might have justified a war on the side of Artaxerxes, had his views been confined to the defence or acquisition of a useful frontier. but the ambitious Persian openly avowed a far more extensive design of conquest; and he thought himself able to support his lofty pretensions by the arms of reason as well as by those of power. Cyrus, he alleged, had first subdued, and his successors had for a long time possessed, the whole extent of Asia, as far as the Propontis and the Ægean Sea; the provinces of Caria and Ionia, under their empire, had been governed by Persian satraps, and all Egypt, to the confines of Æthiopia, had acknowledged their sovereignty. Their rights had been suspended, but not destroyed, by a long usurpation; and as soon as he received the Persian diadem, which birth and successful valor had placed upon his head, the first great duty of his station called upon him to restore the ancient limits and splendor of the monarchy. The Great King, therefore, (such was the haughty style of his embassies to the emperor Alexander,) commanded the Romans instantly to depart from all the provinces of his ancestors, and, yielding to the Persians the empire of Asia, to content themselves with the undisturbed possession of Europe. This haughty mandate was delivered by four hundred of the tallest and most beautiful of the Persians; who, by their fine horses, splendid arms, and rich apparel, displayed the pride and greatness of their master. Such an embassy was much less an offer of negotiation than a declaration of war. Both Alexander Severus and Artaxerxes, collecting the military force of the Roman and Persian monarchies, resolved in this important contest to lead their armies in person.

Prudence and glory could have justified a war on the side of Artaxerxes if his ambitions had been limited to defending or expanding a useful frontier. However, the ambitious Persian openly declared a much broader plan for conquest, believing he could support his lofty claims with both reason and power. He argued that Cyrus had first subdued and his successors had long controlled all of Asia, extending to the Propontis and the Aegean Sea; the provinces of Caria and Ionia had been ruled by Persian governors, and all of Egypt, up to the borders of Ethiopia, had acknowledged their authority. Their rights had been overlooked but not erased due to a long period of usurpation. As soon as he received the Persian crown—a position granted by birth and proven valor—his primary duty was to restore the old boundaries and glory of the empire. Thus, the Great King (as he arrogantly referred to himself in his messages to Emperor Alexander) commanded the Romans to immediately withdraw from all the provinces of his ancestors and to yield the Asian territories to the Persians, allowing themselves to maintain uninterrupted control over Europe. This arrogant order was delivered by four hundred of the tallest and most striking Persians, who showcased their master's pride and power through their magnificent horses, splendid armor, and lavish clothing. This embassy was less of a negotiation offer and more of a declaration of war. Both Alexander Severus and Artaxerxes, gathering the military might of the Roman and Persian empires, decided to personally lead their troops in this crucial conflict.

If we credit what should seem the most authentic of all records, an oration, still extant, and delivered by the emperor himself to the senate, we must allow that the victory of Alexander Severus was not inferior to any of those formerly obtained over the Persians by the son of Philip. The army of the Great King consisted of one hundred and twenty thousand horse, clothed in complete armor of steel; of seven hundred elephants, with towers filled with archers on their backs, and of eighteen hundred chariots armed with scythes. This formidable host, the like of which is not to be found in eastern history, and has scarcely been imagined in eastern romance, was discomfited in a great battle, in which the Roman Alexander proved himself an intrepid soldier and a skilful general. The Great King fled before his valor; an immense booty, and the conquest of Mesopotamia, were the immediate fruits of this signal victory. Such are the circumstances of this ostentatious and improbable relation, dictated, as it too plainly appears, by the vanity of the monarch, adorned by the unblushing servility of his flatterers, and received without contradiction by a distant and obsequious senate. Far from being inclined to believe that the arms of Alexander obtained any memorable advantage over the Persians, we are induced to suspect that all this blaze of imaginary glory was designed to conceal some real disgrace.

If we trust the most authentic record of all, a speech still available, delivered by the emperor himself to the senate, we have to accept that Alexander Severus's victory was just as great as any won over the Persians by Philip's son. The Great King's army had one hundred and twenty thousand cavalry, all fully armored in steel; seven hundred elephants with towers full of archers on their backs; and eighteen hundred chariots armed with scythes. This formidable force, unlike anything found in eastern history and barely imagined in eastern stories, was defeated in a major battle, where the Roman Alexander showed himself to be a brave soldier and a skilled general. The Great King fled before his bravery; an enormous amount of loot and the conquest of Mesopotamia were the immediate results of this remarkable victory. These are the circumstances of this showy and unlikely account, clearly dictated by the monarch's vanity, embellished by the shameless flattery of his supporters, and accepted without question by a distant and submissive senate. Rather than believing that Alexander's forces achieved any significant advantage over the Persians, we suspect that all this display of imagined glory was meant to hide some real disgrace.

Our suspicions are confirmed by the authority of a contemporary historian, who mentions the virtues of Alexander with respect, and his faults with candor. He describes the judicious plan which had been formed for the conduct of the war. Three Roman armies were destined to invade Persia at the same time, and by different roads. But the operations of the campaign, though wisely concerted, were not executed either with ability or success. The first of these armies, as soon as it had entered the marshy plains of Babylon, towards the artificial conflux of the Euphrates and the Tigris, was encompassed by the superior numbers, and destroyed by the arrows of the enemy. The alliance of Chosroes, king of Armenia, and the long tract of mountainous country, in which the Persian cavalry was of little service, opened a secure entrance into the heart of Media, to the second of the Roman armies. These brave troops laid waste the adjacent provinces, and by several successful actions against Artaxerxes, gave a faint color to the emperor’s vanity. But the retreat of this victorious army was imprudent, or at least unfortunate. In repassing the mountains, great numbers of soldiers perished by the badness of the roads, and the severity of the winter season. It had been resolved, that whilst these two great detachments penetrated into the opposite extremes of the Persian dominions, the main body, under the command of Alexander himself, should support their attack, by invading the centre of the kingdom. But the unexperienced youth, influenced by his mother’s counsels, and perhaps by his own fears, deserted the bravest troops, and the fairest prospect of victory; and after consuming in Mesopotamia an inactive and inglorious summer, he led back to Antioch an army diminished by sickness, and provoked by disappointment. The behavior of Artaxerxes had been very different. Flying with rapidity from the hills of Media to the marshes of the Euphrates, he had everywhere opposed the invaders in person; and in either fortune had united with the ablest conduct the most undaunted resolution. But in several obstinate engagements against the veteran legions of Rome, the Persian monarch had lost the flower of his troops. Even his victories had weakened his power. The favorable opportunities of the absence of Alexander, and of the confusions that followed that emperor’s death, presented themselves in vain to his ambition. Instead of expelling the Romans, as he pretended, from the continent of Asia, he found himself unable to wrest from their hands the little province of Mesopotamia.

Our suspicions are confirmed by a modern historian who discusses Alexander's strengths with respect and his weaknesses openly. He outlines the sensible plan that was made for conducting the war. Three Roman armies were meant to invade Persia simultaneously and via different routes. However, although the campaign was well thought out, it wasn't carried out effectively or successfully. The first army, upon entering the swampy plains of Babylon near where the Euphrates and Tigris rivers meet, was surrounded by superior numbers and defeated by the enemy's arrows. The alliance with Chosroes, king of Armenia, and the lengthy mountainous terrain, where the Persian cavalry was less effective, provided a safe route into the heart of Media for the second Roman army. These brave soldiers devastated the nearby provinces and won several battles against Artaxerxes, giving a slight boost to the emperor’s pride. However, the retreat of this victorious army was either unwise or simply unfortunate. While crossing back over the mountains, many soldiers died due to the terrible conditions of the roads and the harsh winter weather. It had been decided that while these two major detachments ventured into opposite ends of the Persian territories, the main force, led by Alexander himself, would support their advance by attacking the center of the kingdom. But the inexperienced young man, swayed by his mother’s advice and perhaps his own fears, abandoned his bravest troops and the best chance for victory. After spending a stagnant and dishonorable summer in Mesopotamia, he returned to Antioch with an army weakened by illness and demoralized by disappointment. Artaxerxes behaved quite differently. He rushed from the hills of Media to the marshes of the Euphrates, directly confronting the invaders at every turn, mixing skillful tactics with unwavering resolve. However, in several fierce battles against Rome's seasoned legions, the Persian king had lost many of his best soldiers. Even his victories had diminished his strength. The opportunities that arose during Alexander's absence and the turmoil that followed the emperor’s death were wasted on his ambition. Instead of driving the Romans out of Asia as he claimed he would, he discovered that he couldn't even take back the small province of Mesopotamia.

The reign of Artaxerxes, which, from the last defeat of the Parthians, lasted only fourteen years, forms a memorable æra in the history of the East, and even in that of Rome. His character seems to have been marked by those bold and commanding features, that generally distinguish the princes who conquer, from those who inherit, an empire. Till the last period of the Persian monarchy, his code of laws was respected as the groundwork of their civil and religious policy. Several of his sayings are preserved. One of them in particular discovers a deep insight into the constitution of government. “The authority of the prince,” said Artaxerxes, “must be defended by a military force; that force can only be maintained by taxes; all taxes must, at last, fall upon agriculture; and agriculture can never flourish except under the protection of justice and moderation.” Artaxerxes bequeathed his new empire, and his ambitious designs against the Romans, to Sapor, a son not unworthy of his great father; but those designs were too extensive for the power of Persia, and served only to involve both nations in a long series of destructive wars and reciprocal calamities.

The reign of Artaxerxes, which lasted only fourteen years after the last defeat of the Parthians, marks a significant era in the history of the East and even in that of Rome. His character seems to have been defined by the bold and commanding traits that typically set apart conquerors from those who inherit an empire. Until the final days of the Persian monarchy, his code of laws was respected as the foundation of their civil and religious policies. Several of his sayings are preserved. One in particular shows a deep understanding of government. “The authority of the prince,” said Artaxerxes, “must be backed by military force; that force can only be sustained by taxes; all taxes will ultimately impact agriculture; and agriculture can never thrive without the support of justice and fairness.” Artaxerxes passed on his new empire and his ambitious plans against the Romans to Sapor, a son worthy of his great father; however, those plans were too ambitious for Persia's power and only led to a long cycle of destructive wars and mutual suffering for both nations.

The Persians, long since civilized and corrupted, were very far from possessing the martial independence, and the intrepid hardiness, both of mind and body, which have rendered the northern barbarians masters of the world. The science of war, that constituted the more rational force of Greece and Rome, as it now does of Europe, never made any considerable progress in the East. Those disciplined evolutions which harmonize and animate a confused multitude, were unknown to the Persians. They were equally unskilled in the arts of constructing, besieging, or defending regular fortifications. They trusted more to their numbers than to their courage; more to their courage than to their discipline. The infantry was a half-armed, spiritless crowd of peasants, levied in haste by the allurements of plunder, and as easily dispersed by a victory as by a defeat. The monarch and his nobles transported into the camp the pride and luxury of the seraglio. Their military operations were impeded by a useless train of women, eunuchs, horses, and camels; and in the midst of a successful campaign, the Persian host was often separated or destroyed by an unexpected famine.

The Persians, having long been civilized and corrupted, were far from possessing the military independence and fearless toughness, both mentally and physically, that made the northern barbarians rulers of the world. The art of war, which provided the more rational strength of Greece and Rome, and still does for Europe, never advanced much in the East. The organized movements that coordinate and energize a chaotic crowd were unknown to the Persians. They were also inexperienced in building, besieging, or defending proper fortifications. They relied more on their numbers than on their bravery; more on their bravery than on their training. The infantry was a poorly equipped, demoralized group of peasants, hastily gathered by the promise of loot, and just as easily scattered by a victory as by a defeat. The king and his nobles brought the pride and luxury of the palace to the battlefield. Their military efforts were hampered by a needless entourage of women, eunuchs, horses, and camels; and even during a successful campaign, the Persian army often faced separation or destruction due to an unforeseen famine.

But the nobles of Persia, in the bosom of luxury and despotism, preserved a strong sense of personal gallantry and national honor. From the age of seven years they were taught to speak truth, to shoot with the bow, and to ride; and it was universally confessed that in the two last of these arts they had made a more than common proficiency. The most distinguished youth were educated under the monarch’s eye, practised their exercises in the gate of his palace, and were severely trained up to the habits of temperance and obedience, in their long and laborious parties of hunting. In every province, the satrap maintained a like school of military virtue. The Persian nobles (so natural is the idea of feudal tenures) received from the king’s bounty lands and houses, on the condition of their service in war. They were ready on the first summons to mount on horseback, with a martial and splendid train of followers, and to join the numerous bodies of guards, who were carefully selected from among the most robust slaves, and the bravest adventurers of Asia. These armies, both of light and of heavy cavalry, equally formidable by the impetuosity of their charge and the rapidity of their motions, threatened, as an impending cloud, the eastern provinces of the declining empire of Rome.

But the nobles of Persia, immersed in luxury and tyranny, maintained a strong sense of personal bravery and national pride. From the age of seven, they were taught to speak the truth, shoot with a bow, and ride horses; it was widely recognized that they excelled particularly in the latter two skills. The most distinguished young men were educated under the watchful eye of the king, practiced their skills at the palace gates, and underwent rigorous training in temperance and obedience during their lengthy hunting trips. In every province, the satrap upheld a similar institution for military training. The Persian nobles, reflecting the idea of feudal landholding, received lands and homes from the king’s generosity in exchange for their service in battle. They were ready at a moment's notice to mount their horses, accompanied by a grand entourage, and join the numerous guards carefully chosen from the strongest slaves and the bravest adventurers in Asia. These armies, composed of both light and heavy cavalry, were equally threatening due to their fierce charges and swift movements, looming over the eastern provinces of the declining Roman Empire like an approaching storm.





Chapter IX: State Of Germany Until The Barbarians.—Part I.

The State Of Germany Till The Invasion Of The Barbarians In
The Time Of The Emperor Decius.
The Condition of Germany Before the Barbarian Invasion During the Reign of Emperor Decius.

The government and religion of Persia have deserved some notice, from their connection with the decline and fall of the Roman empire. We shall occasionally mention the Scythian or Sarmatian tribes, * which, with their arms and horses, their flocks and herds, their wives and families, wandered over the immense plains which spread themselves from the Caspian Sea to the Vistula, from the confines of Persia to those of Germany. But the warlike Germans, who first resisted, then invaded, and at length overturned the Western monarchy of Rome, will occupy a much more important place in this history, and possess a stronger, and, if we may use the expression, a more domestic, claim to our attention and regard. The most civilized nations of modern Europe issued from the woods of Germany; and in the rude institutions of those barbarians we may still distinguish the original principles of our present laws and manners. In their primitive state of simplicity and independence, the Germans were surveyed by the discerning eye, and delineated by the masterly pencil, of Tacitus, the first of historians who applied the science of philosophy to the study of facts. The expressive conciseness of his descriptions has served to exercise the diligence of innumerable antiquarians, and to excite the genius and penetration of the philosophic historians of our own times. The subject, however various and important, has already been so frequently, so ably, and so successfully discussed, that it is now grown familiar to the reader, and difficult to the writer. We shall therefore content ourselves with observing, and indeed with repeating, some of the most important circumstances of climate, of manners, and of institutions, which rendered the wild barbarians of Germany such formidable enemies to the Roman power.

The government and religion of Persia deserve attention because of their connection to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. We'll occasionally mention the Scythian or Sarmatian tribes, * who, along with their weapons and horses, flocks and herds, wives and families, roamed across the vast plains stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Vistula, from the borders of Persia to those of Germany. However, the warlike Germans, who first resisted, then invaded, and ultimately toppled the Western Roman monarchy, will play a much more significant role in this history and have a stronger, more personal claim to our attention and consideration. The most civilized nations of modern Europe emerged from the forests of Germany; and in the rough institutions of those barbarians, we can still identify the foundational principles of our current laws and customs. In their original state of simplicity and independence, the Germans were observed by the keen eye and skillfully portrayed by Tacitus, the first historian to apply philosophical inquiry to the study of facts. The clear and concise nature of his descriptions has inspired countless antiquarians and sparked the creativity and insight of contemporary philosophical historians. This topic, though diverse and significant, has already been discussed so frequently, skillfully, and successfully that it has become familiar to readers and challenging for writers. Therefore, we will settle for noting, and indeed repeating, some of the key aspects of climate, customs, and institutions that made the fierce barbarians of Germany such formidable adversaries to Roman power.

Ancient Germany, excluding from its independent limits the province westward of the Rhine, which had submitted to the Roman yoke, extended itself over a third part of Europe. Almost the whole of modern Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Livonia, Prussia, and the greater part of Poland, were peopled by the various tribes of one great nation, whose complexion, manners, and language denoted a common origin, and preserved a striking resemblance. On the west, ancient Germany was divided by the Rhine from the Gallic, and on the south, by the Danube, from the Illyrian, provinces of the empire. A ridge of hills, rising from the Danube, and called the Carpathian Mountains, covered Germany on the side of Dacia or Hungary. The eastern frontier was faintly marked by the mutual fears of the Germans and the Sarmatians, and was often confounded by the mixture of warring and confederating tribes of the two nations. In the remote darkness of the north, the ancients imperfectly descried a frozen ocean that lay beyond the Baltic Sea, and beyond the Peninsula, or islands of Scandinavia.

Ancient Germany, not including the area west of the Rhine that had accepted Roman rule, covered about a third of Europe. Almost all of modern Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Livonia, Prussia, and most of Poland were inhabited by various tribes of one large nation, whose appearance, customs, and language indicated a shared origin and maintained a strong similarity. To the west, ancient Germany was separated from Gaul by the Rhine, and to the south, it was separated from the Illyrian provinces of the empire by the Danube. A mountain range rising from the Danube, known as the Carpathian Mountains, bordered Germany on the Dacia or Hungary side. The eastern boundary was vaguely defined by the mutual fears of the Germans and the Sarmatians and was often blurred by the mixing of warring and allied tribes from both nations. In the distant, dark north, the ancients could barely make out a frozen ocean that lay beyond the Baltic Sea and the peninsula, or islands, of Scandinavia.

Some ingenious writers have suspected that Europe was much colder formerly than it is at present; and the most ancient descriptions of the climate of Germany tend exceedingly to confirm their theory. The general complaints of intense frost and eternal winter are perhaps little to be regarded, since we have no method of reducing to the accurate standard of the thermometer, the feelings, or the expressions, of an orator born in the happier regions of Greece or Asia. But I shall select two remarkable circumstances of a less equivocal nature. 1. The great rivers which covered the Roman provinces, the Rhine and the Danube, were frequently frozen over, and capable of supporting the most enormous weights. The barbarians, who often chose that severe season for their inroads, transported, without apprehension or danger, their numerous armies, their cavalry, and their heavy wagons, over a vast and solid bridge of ice. Modern ages have not presented an instance of a like phenomenon. 2. The reindeer, that useful animal, from whom the savage of the North derives the best comforts of his dreary life, is of a constitution that supports, and even requires, the most intense cold. He is found on the rock of Spitzberg, within ten degrees of the Pole; he seems to delight in the snows of Lapland and Siberia: but at present he cannot subsist, much less multiply, in any country to the south of the Baltic. In the time of Cæsar the reindeer, as well as the elk and the wild bull, was a native of the Hercynian forest, which then overshadowed a great part of Germany and Poland. The modern improvements sufficiently explain the causes of the diminution of the cold. These immense woods have been gradually cleared, which intercepted from the earth the rays of the sun. The morasses have been drained, and, in proportion as the soil has been cultivated, the air has become more temperate. Canada, at this day, is an exact picture of ancient Germany. Although situated in the same parallel with the finest provinces of France and England, that country experiences the most rigorous cold. The reindeer are very numerous, the ground is covered with deep and lasting snow, and the great river of St. Lawrence is regularly frozen, in a season when the waters of the Seine and the Thames are usually free from ice.

Some clever writers have suggested that Europe used to be much colder than it is today, and the oldest descriptions of the climate in Germany seem to support this theory. While the general complaints of extreme frost and endless winters might not hold much weight—since there's no way to measure the feelings or statements of a speaker from warmer regions like Greece or Asia accurately—I’ll highlight two notable facts that are harder to dispute. 1. The major rivers in the Roman provinces, the Rhine and the Danube, would often freeze over and were capable of supporting heavy weights. The barbarians often chose this harsh season to invade, moving their large armies, cavalry, and heavy wagons safely across vast, solid ice bridges. There hasn't been a similar occurrence in modern times. 2. The reindeer, a valuable animal that provides essential comforts for the northern tribes, thrives in and even needs extreme cold. They are found on the rocky island of Spitzbergen, just ten degrees from the North Pole, and seem to enjoy the snows of Lapland and Siberia. However, today, they cannot survive, let alone reproduce, in any areas south of the Baltic Sea. During Caesar's time, reindeer, along with elk and wild bulls, lived in the Hercynian forest, which covered much of Germany and Poland then. Modern developments explain the reasons for the reduced cold. These vast forests have gradually been cleared, letting more sunlight reach the earth. Swamps have been drained, and as the land has been cultivated, the air has become milder. Today, Canada closely resembles ancient Germany. Even though it lies parallel to some of the finest provinces of France and England, Canada experiences harsh cold. Reindeer are abundant, the ground is often covered in deep, lasting snow, and the St. Lawrence River regularly freezes in a season when the Seine and the Thames usually have no ice.

It is difficult to ascertain, and easy to exaggerate, the influence of the climate of ancient Germany over the minds and bodies of the natives. Many writers have supposed, and most have allowed, though, as it should seem, without any adequate proof, that the rigorous cold of the North was favorable to long life and generative vigor, that the women were more fruitful, and the human species more prolific, than in warmer or more temperate climates. We may assert, with greater confidence, that the keen air of Germany formed the large and masculine limbs of the natives, who were, in general, of a more lofty stature than the people of the South, gave them a kind of strength better adapted to violent exertions than to patient labor, and inspired them with constitutional bravery, which is the result of nerves and spirits. The severity of a winter campaign, that chilled the courage of the Roman troops, was scarcely felt by these hardy children of the North, who, in their turn, were unable to resist the summer heats, and dissolved away in languor and sickness under the beams of an Italian sun.

It’s hard to determine, and easy to overstate, how much the climate of ancient Germany affected the minds and bodies of its people. Many writers have assumed, and most have accepted, though it seems without any solid proof, that the harsh cold of the North contributed to longer life and reproductive strength, that women were more fertile, and that the human population was more abundant compared to those in warmer or more temperate climates. We can say with more certainty that the brisk air of Germany shaped the strong, masculine physiques of the locals, who were generally taller than the people from the South. This environment provided them with a type of strength that better suited them for intense physical activity rather than steady work and instilled in them a kind of innate bravery, which comes from strong nerves and spirit. The harshness of a winter campaign that diminished the courage of the Roman soldiers barely affected these tough children of the North, who, conversely, could not withstand the summer heat and became weak and ill under the rays of the Italian sun.





Chapter IX: State Of Germany Until The Barbarians.—Part II.

There is not anywhere upon the globe a large tract of country, which we have discovered destitute of inhabitants, or whose first population can be fixed with any degree of historical certainty. And yet, as the most philosophic minds can seldom refrain from investigating the infancy of great nations, our curiosity consumes itself in toilsome and disappointed efforts. When Tacitus considered the purity of the German blood, and the forbidding aspect of the country, he was disposed to pronounce those barbarians Indigenæ, or natives of the soil. We may allow with safety, and perhaps with truth, that ancient Germany was not originally peopled by any foreign colonies already formed into a political society; but that the name and nation received their existence from the gradual union of some wandering savages of the Hercynian woods. To assert those savages to have been the spontaneous production of the earth which they inhabited would be a rash inference, condemned by religion, and unwarranted by reason.

There isn't anywhere on the planet a large area of land that we’ve found lacking inhabitants or whose original population can be pinpointed with any historical accuracy. Yet, since the most thoughtful minds often can’t help but explore the beginnings of great nations, our curiosity gets lost in the exhausting and disappointing attempts. When Tacitus looked at the purity of German blood and the harsh landscape, he seemed inclined to call those people Indigenæ, or natives of the land. We can safely and perhaps truthfully assume that ancient Germany wasn’t originally populated by any established foreign colonies; instead, the name and nation emerged from the gradual merging of some wandering tribes from the Hercynian forests. To claim those tribes were a natural product of the land they inhabited would be a hasty conclusion, rejected by both religion and reason.

Such rational doubt is but ill suited with the genius of popular vanity. Among the nations who have adopted the Mosaic history of the world, the ark of Noah has been of the same use, as was formerly to the Greeks and Romans the siege of Troy. On a narrow basis of acknowledged truth, an immense but rude superstructure of fable has been erected; and the wild Irishman, as well as the wild Tartar, could point out the individual son of Japhet, from whose loins his ancestors were lineally descended. The last century abounded with antiquarians of profound learning and easy faith, who, by the dim light of legends and traditions, of conjectures and etymologies, conducted the great grandchildren of Noah from the Tower of Babel to the extremities of the globe. Of these judicious critics, one of the most entertaining was Olaus Rudbeck, professor in the university of Upsal. Whatever is celebrated either in history or fable this zealous patriot ascribes to his country. From Sweden (which formed so considerable a part of ancient Germany) the Greeks themselves derived their alphabetical characters, their astronomy, and their religion. Of that delightful region (for such it appeared to the eyes of a native) the Atlantis of Plato, the country of the Hyperboreans, the gardens of the Hesperides, the Fortunate Islands, and even the Elysian Fields, were all but faint and imperfect transcripts. A clime so profusely favored by Nature could not long remain desert after the flood. The learned Rudbeck allows the family of Noah a few years to multiply from eight to about twenty thousand persons. He then disperses them into small colonies to replenish the earth, and to propagate the human species. The German or Swedish detachment (which marched, if I am not mistaken, under the command of Askenaz, the son of Gomer, the son of Japhet) distinguished itself by a more than common diligence in the prosecution of this great work. The northern hive cast its swarms over the greatest part of Europe, Africa, and Asia; and (to use the author’s metaphor) the blood circulated from the extremities to the heart.

Such rational doubt doesn't really fit with the nature of popular vanity. Among the nations that have embraced the Mosaic history of the world, Noah's ark has served a similar purpose as the siege of Troy did for the Greeks and Romans. Built on a shaky foundation of accepted truth, a huge and crude structure of myths has been constructed; and both the wild Irishman and the wild Tartar could identify the specific son of Japheth from whom they claimed their ancestry. The last century was filled with antiquarians of deep knowledge and easy belief, who, using the faint light of legends, traditions, conjectures, and word origins, traced Noah’s great-grandchildren from the Tower of Babel to the corners of the earth. Among these insightful critics, one of the most entertaining was Olaus Rudbeck, a professor at the university of Upsal. He attributed everything celebrated in history or myth to his own country. From Sweden (which was a significant part of ancient Germany), the Greeks themselves derived their alphabet, astronomy, and religion. That lovely region (as it appeared to a local) was the Atlantis of Plato, the land of the Hyperboreans, the gardens of the Hesperides, the Fortunate Islands, and even the Elysian Fields, all of which were just faint and incomplete copies. A place so richly blessed by nature couldn’t remain desolate for long after the flood. The learned Rudbeck gives Noah’s family a few years to grow from eight to about twenty thousand people. He then spreads them into small colonies to repopulate the earth and continue the human race. The German or Swedish group (which, if I’m not mistaken, marched under Askenaz, the son of Gomer, the son of Japheth) showed remarkable dedication in carrying out this significant task. The northern hive sent its groups over most of Europe, Africa, and Asia; and (to use the author’s metaphor) the blood circulated from the farthest points back to the heart.

But all this well-labored system of German antiquities is annihilated by a single fact, too well attested to admit of any doubt, and of too decisive a nature to leave room for any reply. The Germans, in the age of Tacitus, were unacquainted with the use of letters; and the use of letters is the principal circumstance that distinguishes a civilized people from a herd of savages incapable of knowledge or reflection. Without that artificial help, the human memory soon dissipates or corrupts the ideas intrusted to her charge; and the nobler faculties of the mind, no longer supplied with models or with materials, gradually forget their powers; the judgment becomes feeble and lethargic, the imagination languid or irregular. Fully to apprehend this important truth, let us attempt, in an improved society, to calculate the immense distance between the man of learning and the illiterate peasant. The former, by reading and reflection, multiplies his own experience, and lives in distant ages and remote countries; whilst the latter, rooted to a single spot, and confined to a few years of existence, surpasses but very little his fellow-laborer, the ox, in the exercise of his mental faculties. The same, and even a greater, difference will be found between nations than between individuals; and we may safely pronounce, that without some species of writing, no people has ever preserved the faithful annals of their history, ever made any considerable progress in the abstract sciences, or ever possessed, in any tolerable degree of perfection, the useful and agreeable arts of life.

But all this detailed analysis of German antiquities is negated by a single fact, well-supported enough to leave no doubt and too conclusive to allow for any response. During Tacitus's time, the Germans didn't know how to read or write; literacy is the key factor that separates a civilized society from a group of savages who lack knowledge or critical thinking. Without that external support, human memory quickly fades or distorts the ideas it holds; and the more refined abilities of the mind, deprived of models or resources, gradually lose their strength; judgment becomes weak and sluggish, and imagination becomes dull or erratic. To fully grasp this significant truth, let's try to measure the vast gap between an educated person and an illiterate peasant in a developed society. The former, through reading and thinking, expands his own experiences and engages with distant times and far-off places; while the latter, stuck in one location and limited to a few years of life, hardly exceeds his fellow worker, the ox, in terms of mental capabilities. A similar, if not greater, disparity exists among nations compared to individuals; and we can safely say that without some form of writing, no society has ever successfully preserved accurate records of its history, made meaningful advancements in abstract sciences, or developed, to any significant degree, the useful and enjoyable arts of life.

Of these arts, the ancient Germans were wretchedly destitute. They passed their lives in a state of ignorance and poverty, which it has pleased some declaimers to dignify with the appellation of virtuous simplicity. * Modern Germany is said to contain about two thousand three hundred walled towns. In a much wider extent of country, the geographer Ptolemy could discover no more than ninety places which he decorates with the name of cities; though, according to our ideas, they would but ill deserve that splendid title. We can only suppose them to have been rude fortifications, constructed in the centre of the woods, and designed to secure the women, children, and cattle, whilst the warriors of the tribe marched out to repel a sudden invasion. But Tacitus asserts, as a well-known fact, that the Germans, in his time, had no cities; and that they affected to despise the works of Roman industry, as places of confinement rather than of security. Their edifices were not even contiguous, or formed into regular villas; each barbarian fixed his independent dwelling on the spot to which a plain, a wood, or a stream of fresh water, had induced him to give the preference. Neither stone, nor brick, nor tiles, were employed in these slight habitations. They were indeed no more than low huts, of a circular figure, built of rough timber, thatched with straw, and pierced at the top to leave a free passage for the smoke. In the most inclement winter, the hardy German was satisfied with a scanty garment made of the skin of some animal. The nations who dwelt towards the North clothed themselves in furs; and the women manufactured for their own use a coarse kind of linen. The game of various sorts, with which the forests of Germany were plentifully stocked, supplied its inhabitants with food and exercise. Their monstrous herds of cattle, less remarkable indeed for their beauty than for their utility, formed the principal object of their wealth. A small quantity of corn was the only produce exacted from the earth; the use of orchards or artificial meadows was unknown to the Germans; nor can we expect any improvements in agriculture from a people, whose prosperity every year experienced a general change by a new division of the arable lands, and who, in that strange operation, avoided disputes, by suffering a great part of their territory to lie waste and without tillage.

Of these skills, the ancient Germans were severely lacking. They lived in a state of ignorance and poverty, which some speakers have tried to elevate to the level of virtuous simplicity. Modern Germany is said to have around two thousand three hundred fortified towns. In a much larger area, the geographer Ptolemy could find only ninety places that he referred to as cities; however, by our standards, they would hardly deserve that title. We can only imagine them as crude fortifications built in the middle of forests, meant to protect women, children, and cattle while the tribal warriors went out to fend off sudden invasions. But Tacitus clearly states that the Germans, during his time, had no cities; they looked down on Roman industry, viewing these structures as prisons rather than safe havens. Their buildings weren't even close together or organized into proper villas; each barbarian set up his independent home wherever a plain, a forest, or a freshwater stream led him to choose. They didn’t use stone, brick, or tiles in these simple homes. They were essentially low huts with a circular shape, built from rough timber, thatched with straw, and had an opening at the top to let the smoke escape. Even in the harshest winters, the tough German was content with a minimal garment made from animal skin. The northern tribes dressed in furs, and women made their own coarse linen. The diverse game found in Germany's forests provided food and exercise for the people. Their massive herds of cattle, notable more for their usefulness than their beauty, were the main source of their wealth. Only a small amount of grain was harvested from the land; the Germans had no concept of orchards or artificial meadows, nor could we expect any advancements in farming from a society whose prosperity changed every year with a new division of arable land, and who avoided conflicts by allowing large parts of their land to remain uncultivated.

Gold, silver, and iron, were extremely scarce in Germany. Its barbarous inhabitants wanted both skill and patience to investigate those rich veins of silver, which have so liberally rewarded the attention of the princes of Brunswick and Saxony. Sweden, which now supplies Europe with iron, was equally ignorant of its own riches; and the appearance of the arms of the Germans furnished a sufficient proof how little iron they were able to bestow on what they must have deemed the noblest use of that metal. The various transactions of peace and war had introduced some Roman coins (chiefly silver) among the borderers of the Rhine and Danube; but the more distant tribes were absolutely unacquainted with the use of money, carried on their confined traffic by the exchange of commodities, and prized their rude earthen vessels as of equal value with the silver vases, the presents of Rome to their princes and ambassadors. To a mind capable of reflection, such leading facts convey more instruction, than a tedious detail of subordinate circumstances. The value of money has been settled by general consent to express our wants and our property, as letters were invented to express our ideas; and both these institutions, by giving a more active energy to the powers and passions of human nature, have contributed to multiply the objects they were designed to represent. The use of gold and silver is in a great measure factitious; but it would be impossible to enumerate the important and various services which agriculture, and all the arts, have received from iron, when tempered and fashioned by the operation of fire and the dexterous hand of man. Money, in a word, is the most universal incitement, iron the most powerful instrument, of human industry; and it is very difficult to conceive by what means a people, neither actuated by the one, nor seconded by the other, could emerge from the grossest barbarism.

Gold, silver, and iron were extremely rare in Germany. The people lacked the skill and patience needed to explore the rich silver veins that have generously rewarded the attention of the princes of Brunswick and Saxony. Sweden, which now provides Europe with iron, was just as unaware of its own wealth; the German's weaponry clearly showed how little iron they could allocate to what they must have seen as the finest use of that metal. Various peace and war dealings had brought some Roman coins, mostly silver, to the people along the Rhine and Danube rivers; however, the more remote tribes were completely unfamiliar with the concept of money, conducting their limited trade through bartering goods and valuing their crude earthenware as highly as the silver vessels gifted by Rome to their leaders and ambassadors. For anyone capable of thought, these key facts offer more insight than a lengthy recounting of lesser details. The value of money has been established by general agreement to represent our needs and possessions, much like letters were created to express our thoughts; both systems, by energizing human nature’s powers and emotions, have helped increase the variety of things they were meant to signify. The use of gold and silver is largely artificial; however, it would be impossible to list all the important and diverse benefits that agriculture and the various arts have gained from iron, once it is shaped and refined by fire and skilled human hands. In short, money is the most universal motivator, while iron is the most powerful tool for human work; it's hard to imagine how a people, driven by neither, could rise from the depths of barbarism.

If we contemplate a savage nation in any part of the globe, a supine indolence and a carelessness of futurity will be found to constitute their general character. In a civilized state every faculty of man is expanded and exercised; and the great chain of mutual dependence connects and embraces the several members of society. The most numerous portion of it is employed in constant and useful labor. The select few, placed by fortune above that necessity, can, however, fill up their time by the pursuits of interest or glory, by the improvement of their estate or of their understanding, by the duties, the pleasures, and even the follies of social life. The Germans were not possessed of these varied resources. The care of the house and family, the management of the land and cattle, were delegated to the old and the infirm, to women and slaves. The lazy warrior, destitute of every art that might employ his leisure hours, consumed his days and nights in the animal gratifications of sleep and food. And yet, by a wonderful diversity of nature, (according to the remark of a writer who had pierced into its darkest recesses,) the same barbarians are by turns the most indolent and the most restless of mankind. They delight in sloth, they detest tranquility. The languid soul, oppressed with its own weight, anxiously required some new and powerful sensation; and war and danger were the only amusements adequate to its fierce temper. The sound that summoned the German to arms was grateful to his ear. It roused him from his uncomfortable lethargy, gave him an active pursuit, and, by strong exercise of the body, and violent emotions of the mind, restored him to a more lively sense of his existence. In the dull intervals of peace, these barbarians were immoderately addicted to deep gaming and excessive drinking; both of which, by different means, the one by inflaming their passions, the other by extinguishing their reason, alike relieved them from the pain of thinking. They gloried in passing whole days and nights at table; and the blood of friends and relations often stained their numerous and drunken assemblies. Their debts of honor (for in that light they have transmitted to us those of play) they discharged with the most romantic fidelity. The desperate gamester, who had staked his person and liberty on a last throw of the dice, patiently submitted to the decision of fortune, and suffered himself to be bound, chastised, and sold into remote slavery, by his weaker but more lucky antagonist.

If we think about a savage nation anywhere in the world, we’ll find that general laziness and a lack of concern for the future define their character. In a civilized society, every human ability is developed and utilized; and a great chain of mutual dependence connects the various members of society. The largest portion of people is engaged in constant and productive work. Meanwhile, the lucky few who are above that necessity can spend their time on interests or glory, improving their status or knowledge, and enjoying the responsibilities, pleasures, and even the frivolities of social life. The Germans lacked these diverse resources. The care of the home and family and the management of land and livestock were left to the elderly, infirm, women, and slaves. The lazy warrior, lacking any skills to occupy his free time, wasted his days and nights indulging in sleep and food. Yet, by a fascinating twist of nature, as noted by a writer who explored its darkest corners, these same barbarians were at once the most lazy and the most restless people. They enjoyed idleness but hated peace. The sluggish soul, weighed down by its own heaviness, craved new and intense experiences; and war and danger were the only activities that satisfied its fierce nature. The sound that called the German to arms was music to his ears. It shook him from his uncomfortable stupor, gave him an active pursuit, and, through intense physical exertion and strong emotions, awakened his sense of existence. During the dull times of peace, these barbarians became excessively devoted to gambling and drinking; both of which, in different ways—one by inflaming their passions, the other by dulling their reason—helped them escape the discomfort of thinking. They took pride in spending entire days and nights at the table; and the blood of friends and relatives often marked their many drunken gatherings. They honored their debts of honor (as they viewed their gaming debts) with the most romantic fidelity. The desperate gambler, who had wagered his life and freedom on a final roll of the dice, patiently accepted fate's decision, allowing himself to be bound, punished, and sold into distant slavery by his weaker but luckier opponent.

Strong beer, a liquor extracted with very little art from wheat or barley, and corrupted (as it is strongly expressed by Tacitus) into a certain semblance of wine, was sufficient for the gross purposes of German debauchery. But those who had tasted the rich wines of Italy, and afterwards of Gaul, sighed for that more delicious species of intoxication. They attempted not, however, (as has since been executed with so much success,) to naturalize the vine on the banks of the Rhine and Danube; nor did they endeavor to procure by industry the materials of an advantageous commerce. To solicit by labor what might be ravished by arms, was esteemed unworthy of the German spirit. The intemperate thirst of strong liquors often urged the barbarians to invade the provinces on which art or nature had bestowed those much envied presents. The Tuscan who betrayed his country to the Celtic nations, attracted them into Italy by the prospect of the rich fruits and delicious wines, the productions of a happier climate. And in the same manner the German auxiliaries, invited into France during the civil wars of the sixteenth century, were allured by the promise of plenteous quarters in the provinces of Champaigne and Burgundy. Drunkenness, the most illiberal, but not the most dangerous of our vices, was sometimes capable, in a less civilized state of mankind, of occasioning a battle, a war, or a revolution.

Strong beer, a drink made with minimal skill from wheat or barley, and corrupted (as Tacitus vividly described) into a rough version of wine, was enough for the coarse pleasures of German excess. However, those who had enjoyed the fine wines of Italy and later those from Gaul longed for that more exquisite type of intoxication. They didn’t try, like has been successfully done since then, to grow the vine along the banks of the Rhine and Danube, nor did they seek to obtain through hard work the means for profitable trade. To labor for what could be seized by force was seen as beneath the German spirit. The uncontrollable desire for strong drinks often drove the barbarians to invade the regions blessed with those highly coveted gifts. The Tuscan who betrayed his homeland to the Celtic nations drew them into Italy with the allure of rich fruits and delicious wines produced in a more favorable climate. Similarly, the German auxiliaries, invited into France during the civil wars of the sixteenth century, were enticed by the promise of abundant accommodations in the regions of Champagne and Burgundy. Drunkenness, the least refined but not the most dangerous of our vices, could occasionally lead, in a less civilized era, to a battle, a war, or a revolution.

The climate of ancient Germany has been modified, and the soil fertilized, by the labor of ten centuries from the time of Charlemagne. The same extent of ground which at present maintains, in ease and plenty, a million of husbandmen and artificers, was unable to supply a hundred thousand lazy warriors with the simple necessaries of life. The Germans abandoned their immense forests to the exercise of hunting, employed in pasturage the most considerable part of their lands, bestowed on the small remainder a rude and careless cultivation, and then accused the scantiness and sterility of a country that refused to maintain the multitude of its inhabitants. When the return of famine severely admonished them of the importance of the arts, the national distress was sometimes alleviated by the emigration of a third, perhaps, or a fourth part of their youth. The possession and the enjoyment of property are the pledges which bind a civilized people to an improved country. But the Germans, who carried with them what they most valued, their arms, their cattle, and their women, cheerfully abandoned the vast silence of their woods for the unbounded hopes of plunder and conquest. The innumerable swarms that issued, or seemed to issue, from the great storehouse of nations, were multiplied by the fears of the vanquished, and by the credulity of succeeding ages. And from facts thus exaggerated, an opinion was gradually established, and has been supported by writers of distinguished reputation, that, in the age of Cæsar and Tacitus, the inhabitants of the North were far more numerous than they are in our days. A more serious inquiry into the causes of population seems to have convinced modern philosophers of the falsehood, and indeed the impossibility, of the supposition. To the names of Mariana and of Machiavel, we can oppose the equal names of Robertson and Hume.

The climate of ancient Germany has changed, and the soil has been enriched by the efforts of ten centuries since Charlemagne. The same area of land that currently supports a million farmers and workers in comfort and abundance used to struggle to provide for a hundred thousand idle warriors with basic necessities. The Germans left behind their vast forests for hunting, used most of their land for grazing, and gave the small remainder a rough and careless cultivation. Then they blamed the lack of resources and the infertility of their land for its inability to support the large number of people. When famine hit hard, reminding them of the importance of agriculture, the national crisis was sometimes eased by the emigration of around a third or a fourth of their youth. The ownership and enjoyment of property are what tie a civilized people to a developed country. However, the Germans, who took with them what they valued most—arms, livestock, and women—happily left the vast quiet of their forests for the limitless prospects of plunder and conquest. The countless waves that appeared to come from the great storehouse of nations were multiplied by the fears of the defeated and the gullibility of later generations. From these exaggerated accounts, a belief developed and was upheld by reputable writers that, during the time of Caesar and Tacitus, the Northern inhabitants were far more numerous than they are today. A deeper investigation into the causes of population has convinced modern thinkers of the inaccuracy, and indeed the impossibility, of that idea. Against the names of Mariana and Machiavelli, we can place the equally respected names of Robertson and Hume.

A warlike nation like the Germans, without either cities, letters, arts, or money, found some compensation for this savage state in the enjoyment of liberty. Their poverty secured their freedom, since our desires and our possessions are the strongest fetters of despotism. “Among the Suiones (says Tacitus) riches are held in honor. They are therefore subject to an absolute monarch, who, instead of intrusting his people with the free use of arms, as is practised in the rest of Germany, commits them to the safe custody, not of a citizen, or even of a freedman, but of a slave. The neighbors of the Suiones, the Sitones, are sunk even below servitude; they obey a woman.” In the mention of these exceptions, the great historian sufficiently acknowledges the general theory of government. We are only at a loss to conceive by what means riches and despotism could penetrate into a remote corner of the North, and extinguish the generous flame that blazed with such fierceness on the frontier of the Roman provinces, or how the ancestors of those Danes and Norwegians, so distinguished in latter ages by their unconquered spirit, could thus tamely resign the great character of German liberty. Some tribes, however, on the coast of the Baltic, acknowledged the authority of kings, though without relinquishing the rights of men, but in the far greater part of Germany, the form of government was a democracy, tempered, indeed, and controlled, not so much by general and positive laws, as by the occasional ascendant of birth or valor, of eloquence or superstition.

A warlike nation like the Germans, lacking cities, literature, arts, or wealth, found some relief from this brutal state in the enjoyment of freedom. Their poverty secured their liberty, as our desires and possessions are the strongest chains of tyranny. “Among the Suiones (says Tacitus), wealth is valued. They are therefore ruled by an absolute monarch, who, instead of allowing his people the free use of arms, as is done in the rest of Germany, places them in the care, not of a citizen or even a freedman, but a slave. The neighbors of the Suiones, the Sitones, are even further degraded; they follow a woman.” In mentioning these exceptions, the great historian adequately recognizes the general theory of government. We struggle to understand how wealth and tyranny could invade a remote part of the North and extinguish the noble spirit that burned so brightly at the edge of the Roman provinces, or how the ancestors of those Danes and Norwegians, later known for their unconquered spirit, could so easily give up the grand idea of German liberty. Some tribes along the Baltic coast recognized the authority of kings, but without giving up their rights as men; however, for the most part, the governance in Germany was democratic, shaped not so much by established laws, but by the occasional dominance of birth or valor, eloquence or superstition.

Civil governments, in their first institution, are voluntary associations for mutual defence. To obtain the desired end, it is absolutely necessary that each individual should conceive himself obliged to submit his private opinions and actions to the judgment of the greater number of his associates. The German tribes were contented with this rude but liberal outline of political society. As soon as a youth, born of free parents, had attained the age of manhood, he was introduced into the general council of his countrymen, solemnly invested with a shield and spear, and adopted as an equal and worthy member of the military commonwealth. The assembly of the warriors of the tribe was convened at stated seasons, or on sudden emergencies. The trial of public offences, the election of magistrates, and the great business of peace and war, were determined by its independent voice. Sometimes indeed, these important questions were previously considered and prepared in a more select council of the principal chieftains. The magistrates might deliberate and persuade, the people only could resolve and execute; and the resolutions of the Germans were for the most part hasty and violent. Barbarians accustomed to place their freedom in gratifying the present passion, and their courage in overlooking all future consequences, turned away with indignant contempt from the remonstrances of justice and policy, and it was the practice to signify by a hollow murmur their dislike of such timid counsels. But whenever a more popular orator proposed to vindicate the meanest citizen from either foreign or domestic injury, whenever he called upon his fellow-countrymen to assert the national honor, or to pursue some enterprise full of danger and glory, a loud clashing of shields and spears expressed the eager applause of the assembly. For the Germans always met in arms, and it was constantly to be dreaded, lest an irregular multitude, inflamed with faction and strong liquors, should use those arms to enforce, as well as to declare, their furious resolves. We may recollect how often the diets of Poland have been polluted with blood, and the more numerous party has been compelled to yield to the more violent and seditious.

Civil governments, in their initial formation, are voluntary groups for mutual protection. To achieve this goal, it’s essential that everyone feels obligated to submit their personal opinions and actions to the judgment of the majority. The German tribes were satisfied with this rough but fair outline of political society. Once a young man, born to free parents, reached adulthood, he was brought into the general council of his fellow countrymen, formally given a shield and spear, and accepted as an equal and worthy member of the military community. The assembly of the tribe’s warriors met at regular times or during emergencies. They decided on public offenses, elected officials, and managed the critical matters of peace and war through their independent voice. Sometimes, these significant issues were first discussed and prepared in a smaller council of leading chieftains. The officials could debate and persuade, but only the people could make decisions and take action; and the Germans’ resolutions were often impulsive and violent. Uncivilized people who found their freedom in satisfying immediate desires, and their bravery in ignoring future consequences, would express their disdain for appeals to justice and policy with a hollow murmur of disapproval. However, whenever a more charismatic speaker defended even the lowest citizen against any harm, whether foreign or domestic, or when he urged his fellow countrymen to uphold national honor or to undertake some risky and glorious venture, a loud clashing of shields and spears would show the assembly's enthusiastic approval. The Germans always gathered armed, and there was always the fear that a chaotic crowd, fueled by faction and strong drinks, would use those weapons to enforce, as well as declare, their furious decisions. We can remember how often the diets of Poland have been stained with blood, where the larger party has had to yield to the more aggressive and seditious.

A general of the tribe was elected on occasions of danger; and, if the danger was pressing and extensive, several tribes concurred in the choice of the same general. The bravest warrior was named to lead his countrymen into the field, by his example rather than by his commands. But this power, however limited, was still invidious. It expired with the war, and in time of peace the German tribes acknowledged not any supreme chief. Princes were, however, appointed, in the general assembly, to administer justice, or rather to compose differences, in their respective districts. In the choice of these magistrates, as much regard was shown to birth as to merit. To each was assigned, by the public, a guard, and a council of a hundred persons, and the first of the princes appears to have enjoyed a preeminence of rank and honor which sometimes tempted the Romans to compliment him with the regal title.

A general of the tribe was chosen during times of danger, and if the threat was significant, multiple tribes would agree on the same general. The bravest warrior was appointed to lead his people into battle, relying on his example more than his orders. However, this power, although limited, was still contentious. It ended with the war, and during peacetime, the German tribes did not recognize a supreme leader. Instead, princes were appointed in the general assembly to handle justice, or more accurately, to resolve disputes in their regions. When selecting these officials, equal emphasis was placed on lineage and merit. Each was assigned a guard and a council of a hundred people, and the leading prince seemed to have a rank and honor that occasionally led the Romans to refer to him with a royal title.

The comparative view of the powers of the magistrates, in two remarkable instances, is alone sufficient to represent the whole system of German manners. The disposal of the landed property within their district was absolutely vested in their hands, and they distributed it every year according to a new division. At the same time they were not authorized to punish with death, to imprison, or even to strike a private citizen. A people thus jealous of their persons, and careless of their possessions, must have been totally destitute of industry and the arts, but animated with a high sense of honor and independence.

The comparison of the powers held by the magistrates in two notable cases is enough to illustrate the entire system of German customs. They had complete control over the distribution of land within their area, reallocating it every year based on a new arrangement. However, they didn’t have the authority to execute, imprison, or even physically harm a private citizen. A society so protective of their individual rights but indifferent to their belongings must have lacked industriousness and artistic pursuits, yet was filled with a strong sense of honor and independence.





Chapter IX: State Of Germany Until The Barbarians.—Part III.

The Germans respected only those duties which they imposed on themselves. The most obscure soldier resisted with disdain the authority of the magistrates. ”The noblest youths blushed not to be numbered among the faithful companions of some renowned chief, to whom they devoted their arms and service. A noble emulation prevailed among the companions to obtain the first place in the esteem of their chief; amongst the chiefs, to acquire the greatest number of valiant companions. To be ever surrounded by a band of select youths was the pride and strength of the chiefs, their ornament in peace, their defence in war. The glory of such distinguished heroes diffused itself beyond the narrow limits of their own tribe. Presents and embassies solicited their friendship, and the fame of their arms often insured victory to the party which they espoused. In the hour of danger it was shameful for the chief to be surpassed in valor by his companions; shameful for the companions not to equal the valor of their chief. To survive his fall in battle was indelible infamy. To protect his person, and to adorn his glory with the trophies of their own exploits, were the most sacred of their duties. The chiefs combated for victory, the companions for the chief. The noblest warriors, whenever their native country was sunk into the laziness of peace, maintained their numerous bands in some distant scene of action, to exercise their restless spirit, and to acquire renown by voluntary dangers. Gifts worthy of soldiers—the warlike steed, the bloody and ever victorious lance—were the rewards which the companions claimed from the liberality of their chief. The rude plenty of his hospitable board was the only pay that hecould bestow, or they would accept. War, rapine, and the free-will offerings of his friends, supplied the materials of this munificence.” This institution, however it might accidentally weaken the several republics, invigorated the general character of the Germans, and even ripened amongst them all the virtues of which barbarians are susceptible; the faith and valor, the hospitality and the courtesy, so conspicuous long afterwards in the ages of chivalry. The honorable gifts, bestowed by the chief on his brave companions, have been supposed, by an ingenious writer, to contain the first rudiments of the fiefs, distributed after the conquest of the Roman provinces, by the barbarian lords among their vassals, with a similar duty of homage and military service. These conditions are, however, very repugnant to the maxims of the ancient Germans, who delighted in mutual presents, but without either imposing, or accepting, the weight of obligations.

The Germans only respected the duties they chose for themselves. The most ordinary soldier scoffed at the authority of the magistrates. The noblest young men weren’t embarrassed to be part of the loyal followers of a famous leader, to whom they dedicated their weapons and service. There was a strong sense of competition among the followers to win the chief’s approval, and among the chiefs to gather the largest number of brave followers. Being surrounded by a group of select young warriors was a source of pride and strength for the chiefs, their glory in times of peace and protection in times of war. The fame of such distinguished heroes spread beyond their own tribe. Gifts and envoys sought their friendship, and their reputation often guaranteed victory for the side they supported. In times of danger, it was shameful for a chief to be outdone in bravery by his followers, and shameful for the followers not to match their chief’s courage. Surviving the chief’s death in battle was a mark of eternal disgrace. Protecting him and enhancing his glory with trophies from their own exploits were their most sacred duties. The chiefs fought for victory, while the followers fought for the chief. The bravest warriors, whenever their homeland fell into the complacency of peace, kept their numerous bands engaged in distant conflicts to maintain their restless spirit and gain fame through voluntary risks. Rewards worthy of soldiers—the battle-ready horse, the bloody and always victorious spear—were what the followers claimed from their chief’s generosity. The abundant hospitality of his table was the only payment he could offer, or they would accept. War, plunder, and the free-will gifts from his friends provided the resources for this generosity. This system, regardless of how it might inadvertently weaken individual republics, strengthened the general character of the Germans, nurturing the virtues that barbarians could embody: faith, valor, hospitality, and courtesy, which would later be prominent in the ages of chivalry. The honorable gifts given by the chief to his brave followers have been thought by an insightful writer to be the earliest forms of the fiefs, distributed after the conquest of the Roman provinces by barbarian lords among their vassals, with similar duties of loyalty and military service. However, these conditions are quite contrary to the principles of the ancient Germans, who enjoyed giving mutual gifts without imposing or accepting burdensome obligations.

“In the days of chivalry, or more properly of romance, all the men were brave and all the women were chaste;” and notwithstanding the latter of these virtues is acquired and preserved with much more difficulty than the former, it is ascribed, almost without exception, to the wives of the ancient Germans. Polygamy was not in use, except among the princes, and among them only for the sake of multiplying their alliances. Divorces were prohibited by manners rather than by laws. Adulteries were punished as rare and inexpiable crimes; nor was seduction justified by example and fashion. We may easily discover that Tacitus indulges an honest pleasure in the contrast of barbarian virtue with the dissolute conduct of the Roman ladies; yet there are some striking circumstances that give an air of truth, or at least probability, to the conjugal faith and chastity of the Germans.

“In the days of chivalry, or more accurately, of romance, all the men were brave and all the women were virtuous;” and despite the fact that the latter quality is much harder to attain and maintain than the former, it is attributed, almost without exception, to the wives of the ancient Germans. Polygamy was not common, except among princes, and even then only for the purpose of strengthening their alliances. Divorces were more a matter of social norms than legal statutes. Adulteries were treated as rare and serious offenses; seduction was not excused by society or fashion. It's easy to see that Tacitus takes genuine pleasure in highlighting the contrast between the virtuous behavior of barbarians and the immoral behavior of Roman women; however, there are some notable factors that lend an air of credibility, or at least likelihood, to the marital loyalty and purity of the Germans.

Although the progress of civilization has undoubtedly contributed to assuage the fiercer passions of human nature, it seems to have been less favorable to the virtue of chastity, whose most dangerous enemy is the softness of the mind. The refinements of life corrupt while they polish the intercourse of the sexes. The gross appetite of love becomes most dangerous when it is elevated, or rather, indeed, disguised by sentimental passion. The elegance of dress, of motion, and of manners, gives a lustre to beauty, and inflames the senses through the imagination. Luxurious entertainments, midnight dances, and licentious spectacles, present at once temptation and opportunity to female frailty. From such dangers the unpolished wives of the barbarians were secured by poverty, solitude, and the painful cares of a domestic life. The German huts, open, on every side, to the eye of indiscretion or jealousy, were a better safeguard of conjugal fidelity than the walls, the bolts, and the eunuchs of a Persian harem. To this reason another may be added of a more honorable nature. The Germans treated their women with esteem and confidence, consulted them on every occasion of importance, and fondly believed, that in their breasts resided a sanctity and wisdom more than human. Some of the interpreters of fate, such as Velleda, in the Batavian war, governed, in the name of the deity, the fiercest nations of Germany. The rest of the sex, without being adored as goddesses, were respected as the free and equal companions of soldiers; associated even by the marriage ceremony to a life of toil, of danger, and of glory. In their great invasions, the camps of the barbarians were filled with a multitude of women, who remained firm and undaunted amidst the sound of arms, the various forms of destruction, and the honorable wounds of their sons and husbands. Fainting armies of Germans have, more than once, been driven back upon the enemy by the generous despair of the women, who dreaded death much less than servitude. If the day was irrecoverably lost, they well knew how to deliver themselves and their children, with their own hands, from an insulting victor. Heroines of such a cast may claim our admiration; but they were most assuredly neither lovely nor very susceptible of love. Whilst they affected to emulate the stern virtues of man, they must have resigned that attractive softness in which principally consist the charm and weakness of woman. Conscious pride taught the German females to suppress every tender emotion that stood in competition with honor, and the first honor of the sex has ever been that of chastity. The sentiments and conduct of these high-spirited matrons may, at once, be considered as a cause, as an effect, and as a proof of the general character of the nation. Female courage, however it may be raised by fanaticism, or confirmed by habit, can be only a faint and imperfect imitation of the manly valor that distinguishes the age or country in which it may be found.

Although civilization has certainly helped to ease the stronger passions of human nature, it seems to have been less beneficial to the virtue of chastity, which is most threatened by a soft mindset. The refinements of life corrupt relationships between the sexes while making them seem more polished. The raw desire for love becomes most perilous when it is elevated or, more accurately, disguised by sentimental feelings. The elegance of clothing, movement, and behavior enhances beauty and stirs the senses through imagination. Luxurious parties, late-night dances, and risqué shows create both temptation and opportunity for female vulnerability. The unrefined wives of barbarians were protected from such dangers by poverty, isolation, and the hard realities of domestic life. The open German huts, visible to the gaze of indiscretion or jealousy, served as a better safeguard for marital fidelity than the walls, locks, and eunuchs of a Persian harem. Another, more noble reason can be added. The Germans treated their women with respect and trust, consulted them on important matters, and fondly believed that they possessed a sanctity and wisdom beyond human understanding. Some women, like Velleda during the Batavian War, led the fiercest tribes of Germany in the name of the divine. Other women, while not worshipped as goddesses, were valued as free and equal partners of soldiers, sharing a life of toil, danger, and glory through marriage. During their great invasions, barbarian camps were filled with women who stood firm and unyielding amid the sounds of battle, the various forms of destruction, and the honorable wounds of their sons and husbands. Faint-hearted German armies have often been driven back to fight the enemy by the brave desperation of the women, who feared death far less than servitude. If defeat was inevitable, they knew how to rescue themselves and their children from an insulting victor. Heroines like these deserve our admiration, but they were certainly neither beautiful nor very inclined toward love. While they tried to emulate the stern virtues of men, they must have lost the attractive softness that is primarily what gives charm and gentleness to women. A sense of pride taught German women to suppress any tender emotions that conflicted with honor, and the highest honor for their gender has always been chastity. The feelings and actions of these strong women can, at the same time, be seen as a cause, an effect, and proof of the overall character of the nation. Female courage, no matter how it may be fueled by fanaticism or solidified by habit, can only be a faint and imperfect imitation of the manly valor that defines the era or region in which it exists.

The religious system of the Germans (if the wild opinions of savages can deserve that name) was dictated by their wants, their fears, and their ignorance. They adored the great visible objects and agents of nature, the Sun and the Moon, the Fire and the Earth; together with those imaginary deities, who were supposed to preside over the most important occupations of human life. They were persuaded, that, by some ridiculous arts of divination, they could discover the will of the superior beings, and that human sacrifices were the most precious and acceptable offering to their altars. Some applause has been hastily bestowed on the sublime notion, entertained by that people, of the Deity, whom they neither confined within the walls of the temple, nor represented by any human figure; but when we recollect, that the Germans were unskilled in architecture, and totally unacquainted with the art of sculpture, we shall readily assign the true reason of a scruple, which arose not so much from a superiority of reason, as from a want of ingenuity. The only temples in Germany were dark and ancient groves, consecrated by the reverence of succeeding generations. Their secret gloom, the imagined residence of an invisible power, by presenting no distinct object of fear or worship, impressed the mind with a still deeper sense of religious horror; and the priests, rude and illiterate as they were, had been taught by experience the use of every artifice that could preserve and fortify impressions so well suited to their own interest.

The religious beliefs of the Germans (if the wild ideas of savages can be called that) were shaped by their needs, fears, and lack of knowledge. They worshipped the major visible elements and forces of nature, like the Sun, the Moon, Fire, and the Earth, along with imaginary gods who were thought to oversee the most important aspects of human life. They believed that through some silly forms of divination, they could learn the desires of these higher beings and that human sacrifices were the most valuable and accepted offerings to their altars. Some praise has been quickly given to the noble idea held by this people of a Deity, whom they neither confined to the walls of a temple nor represented in any human form; however, when we consider that the Germans were inexperienced in architecture and completely unaware of the art of sculpture, it becomes clear that their hesitation stemmed not from a superior level of reason, but from a lack of creativity. The only temples in Germany were dark, ancient groves, honored by the reverence of later generations. Their secret darkness, viewed as the home of an unseen power, created a deeper sense of religious fear by not presenting any clear object of fear or worship; and the priests, as rough and uneducated as they were, learned from experience how to use every trick that could maintain and strengthen feelings that were perfectly aligned with their own interests.

The same ignorance, which renders barbarians incapable of conceiving or embracing the useful restraints of laws, exposes them naked and unarmed to the blind terrors of superstition. The German priests, improving this favorable temper of their countrymen, had assumed a jurisdiction even in temporal concerns, which the magistrate could not venture to exercise; and the haughty warrior patiently submitted to the lash of correction, when it was inflicted, not by any human power, but by the immediate order of the god of war. The defects of civil policy were sometimes supplied by the interposition of ecclesiastical authority. The latter was constantly exerted to maintain silence and decency in the popular assemblies; and was sometimes extended to a more enlarged concern for the national welfare. A solemn procession was occasionally celebrated in the present countries of Mecklenburgh and Pomerania. The unknown symbol of the Earth, covered with a thick veil, was placed on a carriage drawn by cows; and in this manner the goddess, whose common residence was in the Isles of Rugen, visited several adjacent tribes of her worshippers. During her progress the sound of war was hushed, quarrels were suspended, arms laid aside, and the restless Germans had an opportunity of tasting the blessings of peace and harmony. The truce of God, so often and so ineffectually proclaimed by the clergy of the eleventh century, was an obvious imitation of this ancient custom.

The same ignorance that makes barbarians unable to understand or accept the helpful limits of laws leaves them vulnerable and defenseless against the blind fears of superstition. The German priests, taking advantage of this mindset among their people, claimed authority even over worldly matters that the officials dared not touch; the proud warrior quietly accepted punishment, not from any human authority, but by direct command from the god of war. The shortcomings of civil governance were sometimes addressed by the intervention of religious authority. This authority was regularly used to enforce silence and decorum in public gatherings and occasionally expanded to take a greater interest in national welfare. A ceremonial procession was sometimes held in what are now the areas of Mecklenburgh and Pomerania. The mysterious symbol of the Earth, covered with a thick veil, was placed on a cart pulled by cows; in this way, the goddess, who normally resided in the Isles of Rugen, visited nearby tribes of her followers. During her journey, the sounds of battle ceased, disputes were paused, weapons were set aside, and the restless Germans experienced the benefits of peace and unity. The truce of God, frequently and unsuccessfully promoted by the clergy in the eleventh century, was clearly a copy of this ancient tradition.

But the influence of religion was far more powerful to inflame, than to moderate, the fierce passions of the Germans. Interest and fanaticism often prompted its ministers to sanctify the most daring and the most unjust enterprises, by the approbation of Heaven, and full assurances of success. The consecrated standards, long revered in the groves of superstition, were placed in the front of the battle; and the hostile army was devoted with dire execrations to the gods of war and of thunder. In the faith of soldiers (and such were the Germans) cowardice is the most unpardonable of sins. A brave man was the worthy favorite of their martial deities; the wretch who had lost his shield was alike banished from the religious and civil assemblies of his countrymen. Some tribes of the north seem to have embraced the doctrine of transmigration, others imagined a gross paradise of immortal drunkenness. All agreed that a life spent in arms, and a glorious death in battle, were the best preparations for a happy futurity, either in this or in another world.

But the influence of religion was much stronger at stirring up the fierce passions of the Germans than calming them down. Interest and fanaticism often drove its leaders to bless the boldest and most unjust actions, claiming the approval of Heaven and promising success. The sacred banners, long respected in the woods of superstition, were placed at the forefront of the battle; and the enemy army was cursed with terrifying imprecations to the gods of war and thunder. Among the soldiers (who were the Germans), cowardice was seen as the most unforgivable sin. A brave man was favored by their war gods; anyone who had lost his shield was shunned from both religious and civil gatherings of his fellow countrymen. Some northern tribes seemed to embrace the idea of reincarnation, while others envisioned a crude paradise of eternal drunkenness. All of them agreed that a life spent in battle and a glorious death in combat were the best preparations for a happy afterlife, whether in this world or the next.

The immortality so vainly promised by the priests, was, in some degree, conferred by the bards. That singular order of men has most deservedly attracted the notice of all who have attempted to investigate the antiquities of the Celts, the Scandinavians, and the Germans. Their genius and character, as well as the reverence paid to that important office, have been sufficiently illustrated. But we cannot so easily express, or even conceive, the enthusiasm of arms and glory which they kindled in the breast of their audience. Among a polished people a taste for poetry is rather an amusement of the fancy than a passion of the soul. And yet, when in calm retirement we peruse the combats described by Homer or Tasso, we are insensibly seduced by the fiction, and feel a momentary glow of martial ardor. But how faint, how cold is the sensation which a peaceful mind can receive from solitary study! It was in the hour of battle, or in the feast of victory, that the bards celebrated the glory of the heroes of ancient days, the ancestors of those warlike chieftains, who listened with transport to their artless but animated strains. The view of arms and of danger heightened the effect of the military song; and the passions which it tended to excite, the desire of fame, and the contempt of death, were the habitual sentiments of a German mind. *

The immortality that the priests promised so vainly was, in some way, granted by the bards. This unique group of individuals has rightfully caught the attention of everyone who has tried to explore the history of the Celts, Scandinavians, and Germans. Their talent and character, along with the respect given to that significant role, have been well-documented. However, it’s hard for us to express or even grasp the enthusiasm for battle and glory that they ignited in their audience. Among a refined society, an appreciation for poetry is often more of a pastime than a deep passion. Yet, when we quietly read about the battles described by Homer or Tasso, we are subtly drawn in by the stories and feel a brief rush of warrior spirit. But how faint and cold is the thrill that a peaceful mind can experience from studying alone! It was during battle or at the celebration of victory that the bards sang praises of the heroes from ancient times, the ancestors of those fierce leaders who listened eagerly to their simple yet spirited songs. The sight of weapons and danger intensified the impact of the martial songs, and the emotions they stirred—such as the longing for glory and the disdain for death—were the common feelings of a German mindset.

Such was the situation, and such were the manners of the ancient Germans. Their climate, their want of learning, of arts, and of laws, their notions of honor, of gallantry, and of religion, their sense of freedom, impatience of peace, and thirst of enterprise, all contributed to form a people of military heroes. And yet we find, that during more than two hundred and fifty years that elapsed from the defeat of Varus to the reign of Decius, these formidable barbarians made few considerable attempts, and not any material impression on the luxurious, and enslaved provinces of the empire. Their progress was checked by their want of arms and discipline, and their fury was diverted by the intestine divisions of ancient Germany.

Such was the situation, and such were the ways of the ancient Germans. Their climate, lack of education, arts, and laws, their ideas of honor, gallantry, and religion, their sense of freedom, impatience for peace, and desire for adventure all contributed to creating a people of military heroes. Yet, we see that for over two hundred and fifty years, from the defeat of Varus to the reign of Decius, these fierce barbarians made few significant attempts and had no real impact on the luxurious, enslaved provinces of the empire. Their progress was hampered by a lack of weapons and discipline, and their rage was redirected by the internal divisions within ancient Germany.

I. It has been observed, with ingenuity, and not without truth, that the command of iron soon gives a nation the command of gold. But the rude tribes of Germany, alike destitute of both those valuable metals, were reduced slowly to acquire, by their unassisted strength, the possession of the one as well as the other. The face of a German army displayed their poverty of iron. Swords, and the longer kind of lances, they could seldom use. Their frame (as they called them in their own language) were long spears headed with a sharp but narrow iron point, and which, as occasion required, they either darted from a distance, or pushed in close onset. With this spear, and with a shield, their cavalry was contented. A multitude of darts, scattered with incredible force, were an additional resource of the infantry. Their military dress, when they wore any, was nothing more than a loose mantle. A variety of colors was the only ornament of their wooden or osier shields. Few of the chiefs were distinguished by cuirasses, scarcely any by helmets. Though the horses of Germany were neither beautiful, swift, nor practised in the skilful evolutions of the Roman manege, several of the nations obtained renown by their cavalry; but, in general, the principal strength of the Germans consisted in their infantry, which was drawn up in several deep columns, according to the distinction of tribes and families. Impatient of fatigue and delay, these half-armed warriors rushed to battle with dissonant shouts and disordered ranks; and sometimes, by the effort of native valor, prevailed over the constrained and more artificial bravery of the Roman mercenaries. But as the barbarians poured forth their whole souls on the first onset, they knew not how to rally or to retire. A repulse was a sure defeat; and a defeat was most commonly total destruction. When we recollect the complete armor of the Roman soldiers, their discipline, exercises, evolutions, fortified camps, and military engines, it appears a just matter of surprise, how the naked and unassisted valor of the barbarians could dare to encounter, in the field, the strength of the legions, and the various troops of the auxiliaries, which seconded their operations. The contest was too unequal, till the introduction of luxury had enervated the vigor, and a spirit of disobedience and sedition had relaxed the discipline, of the Roman armies. The introduction of barbarian auxiliaries into those armies, was a measure attended with very obvious dangers, as it might gradually instruct the Germans in the arts of war and of policy. Although they were admitted in small numbers and with the strictest precaution, the example of Civilis was proper to convince the Romans, that the danger was not imaginary, and that their precautions were not always sufficient. During the civil wars that followed the death of Nero, that artful and intrepid Batavian, whom his enemies condescended to compare with Hannibal and Sertorius, formed a great design of freedom and ambition. Eight Batavian cohorts renowned in the wars of Britain and Italy, repaired to his standard. He introduced an army of Germans into Gaul, prevailed on the powerful cities of Treves and Langres to embrace his cause, defeated the legions, destroyed their fortified camps, and employed against the Romans the military knowledge which he had acquired in their service. When at length, after an obstinate struggle, he yielded to the power of the empire, Civilis secured himself and his country by an honorable treaty. The Batavians still continued to occupy the islands of the Rhine, the allies, not the servants, of the Roman monarchy.

I. It's been noted, with some insight and certainly some truth, that controlling iron often leads to controlling gold. However, the rough tribes of Germany, lacking both of these valuable metals, gradually managed to gain possession of both through their own strength. The appearance of a German army reflected their scarcity of iron. They rarely had swords or longer lances. Instead, they used long spears with a sharp but narrow iron tip, which they could either throw from afar or use in close combat. Their cavalry was equipped with a spear and a shield. The infantry had an advantage with a multitude of darts, launched with incredible force. Their military attire, when they wore any, consisted of nothing more than a loose cloak. The only decoration on their wooden or willow shields was a variety of colors. Few leaders had breastplates, and hardly any wore helmets. While German horses weren’t known for their beauty, speed, or skill like those trained in Roman circles, several tribes gained fame for their cavalry. Generally, though, the Germans' main strength lay in their infantry, lined up in deep columns based on tribal and familial distinctions. Eager and impatient, these semi-armed warriors charged into battle with chaotic shouts and disarrayed formations; sometimes, through sheer native bravery, they even overcame the more traditional and disciplined courage of Roman mercenaries. Yet, because the barbarians poured all their energy into their initial attack, they often struggled to regroup or retreat. A repulsion meant certain defeat, and defeat usually spelled total destruction. When we remember the full armor of Roman soldiers, their discipline, training, fortifications, and military machines, it’s surprising how the naked and unassisted bravery of the barbarians dared to confront the strength of the legions and the various auxiliary troops supporting them. The competition was heavily skewed until luxury weakened the vigor and a spirit of disobedience and rebellion undermined the discipline of the Roman armies. The inclusion of barbarian auxiliaries in those armies was a choice fraught with obvious risks, as it could gradually teach the Germans the arts of warfare and politics. Although they were allowed in small numbers and under strict controls, the example of Civilis was enough to show the Romans that the danger was real and their precautions were not always effective. During the civil wars that followed Nero's death, the clever and bold Batavian, whom his rivals likened to Hannibal and Sertorius, devised a grand plan driven by freedom and ambition. Eight Batavian cohorts, famous from the wars in Britain and Italy, rallied to his cause. He brought a German army into Gaul, convinced the influential cities of Treves and Langres to support him, defeated the legions, destroyed their fortified camps, and used the military expertise he had gained while serving them against the Romans. Eventually, after a fierce struggle, when he surrendered to the power of the empire, Civilis ensured his and his people's safety through a respectable treaty. The Batavians continued to occupy the islands of the Rhine, as allies rather than servants of the Roman Empire.

II. The strength of ancient Germany appears formidable, when we consider the effects that might have been produced by its united effort. The wide extent of country might very possibly contain a million of warriors, as all who were of age to bear arms were of a temper to use them. But this fierce multitude, incapable of concerting or executing any plan of national greatness, was agitated by various and often hostile intentions. Germany was divided into more than forty independent states; and, even in each state, the union of the several tribes was extremely loose and precarious. The barbarians were easily provoked; they knew not how to forgive an injury, much less an insult; their resentments were bloody and implacable. The casual disputes that so frequently happened in their tumultuous parties of hunting or drinking were sufficient to inflame the minds of whole nations; the private feuds of any considerable chieftains diffused itself among their followers and allies. To chastise the insolent, or to plunder the defenceless, were alike causes of war. The most formidable states of Germany affected to encompass their territories with a wide frontier of solitude and devastation. The awful distance preserved by their neighbors attested the terror of their arms, and in some measure defended them from the danger of unexpected incursions.

II. The power of ancient Germany seems impressive when we think about what could have been achieved through their united efforts. The vast land could have easily supported a million warriors, as everyone of fighting age was prepared to use their weapons. However, this fierce crowd, unable to organize or carry out any plan for national greatness, was driven by various and often conflicting motives. Germany was split into more than forty independent states; even within each state, the connections among the different tribes were very loose and uncertain. The tribes were quick to anger; they didn’t know how to forgive a wrong, let alone an insult; their grudges were violent and unyielding. The frequent disputes that arose during their wild hunting parties or drinking sessions were enough to ignite the passions of entire nations; the personal rivalries of any prominent leaders spread among their followers and allies. Punishing the insolent or robbing the defenseless were equally valid reasons for war. The most powerful states in Germany chose to surround their territories with a wide expanse of desolation and emptiness. The frightening distance maintained by their neighbors signified the fear of their might, which also somewhat protected them from the threat of sudden attacks.

“The Bructeri * (it is Tacitus who now speaks) were totally exterminated by the neighboring tribes, provoked by their insolence, allured by the hopes of spoil, and perhaps inspired by the tutelar deities of the empire. Above sixty thousand barbarians were destroyed; not by the Roman arms, but in our sight, and for our entertainment. May the nations, enemies of Rome, ever preserve this enmity to each other! We have now attained the utmost verge of prosperity, and have nothing left to demand of fortune, except the discord of the barbarians.”—These sentiments, less worthy of the humanity than of the patriotism of Tacitus, express the invariable maxims of the policy of his countrymen. They deemed it a much safer expedient to divide than to combat the barbarians, from whose defeat they could derive neither honor nor advantage. The money and negotiations of Rome insinuated themselves into the heart of Germany; and every art of seduction was used with dignity, to conciliate those nations whom their proximity to the Rhine or Danube might render the most useful friends as well as the most troublesome enemies. Chiefs of renown and power were flattered by the most trifling presents, which they received either as marks of distinction, or as the instruments of luxury. In civil dissensions the weaker faction endeavored to strengthen its interest by entering into secret connections with the governors of the frontier provinces. Every quarrel among the Germans was fomented by the intrigues of Rome; and every plan of union and public good was defeated by the stronger bias of private jealousy and interest.

“The Bructeri * (this is Tacitus speaking) were completely wiped out by the nearby tribes, stirred up by their arrogance, tempted by the promise of loot, and perhaps influenced by the protective deities of the empire. Over sixty thousand barbarians were killed; not by Roman forces, but right in front of us, and for our entertainment. May the nations that oppose Rome always keep this hostility towards each other! We have now reached the peak of prosperity and have nothing left to ask from fortune, except for the discord among the barbarians.” —These views, more reflective of Tacitus’ patriotism than his humanity, capture the consistent strategies of his fellow countrymen. They believed it was a much safer approach to divide the barbarians rather than fight them, since they could gain neither honor nor benefit from their defeat. The money and diplomacy of Rome worked their way into the heart of Germany, using every form of persuasion with dignity to win over those nations near the Rhine or Danube, who could be both useful allies and troublesome foes. Powerful chiefs were flattered with the most insignificant gifts, which they accepted as tokens of honor or tools for luxury. In times of civil strife, the weaker side tried to bolster its position by forming secret alliances with the governors of the border provinces. Every dispute among the Germans was stirred up by Roman intrigue, and every attempt at unity and public good was thwarted by the stronger pull of personal jealousy and self-interest.

The general conspiracy which terrified the Romans under the reign of Marcus Antoninus, comprehended almost all the nations of Germany, and even Sarmatia, from the mouth of the Rhine to that of the Danube. It is impossible for us to determine whether this hasty confederation was formed by necessity, by reason, or by passion; but we may rest assured, that the barbarians were neither allured by the indolence, nor provoked by the ambition, of the Roman monarch. This dangerous invasion required all the firmness and vigilance of Marcus. He fixed generals of ability in the several stations of attack, and assumed in person the conduct of the most important province on the Upper Danube. After a long and doubtful conflict, the spirit of the barbarians was subdued. The Quadi and the Marcomanni, who had taken the lead in the war, were the most severely punished in its catastrophe. They were commanded to retire five miles from their own banks of the Danube, and to deliver up the flower of the youth, who were immediately sent into Britain, a remote island, where they might be secure as hostages, and useful as soldiers. On the frequent rebellions of the Quadi and Marcomanni, the irritated emperor resolved to reduce their country into the form of a province. His designs were disappointed by death. This formidable league, however, the only one that appears in the two first centuries of the Imperial history, was entirely dissipated, without leaving any traces behind in Germany.

The widespread conspiracy that scared the Romans during the reign of Marcus Antoninus involved nearly all the tribes of Germany, and even Sarmatia, stretching from the mouth of the Rhine to the Danube. We can't say for sure if this quick alliance was formed out of necessity, reason, or passion; but we can be certain that the barbarians weren't enticed by the laziness or provoked by the ambition of the Roman emperor. This dangerous invasion called for all of Marcus's determination and vigilance. He appointed skilled generals to various attack points and personally took charge of the most crucial province along the Upper Danube. After a long and uncertain battle, the resolve of the barbarians was broken. The Quadi and the Marcomanni, who led the war, faced the harshest consequences in the end. They were ordered to retreat five miles from their side of the Danube and surrender their best young men, who were then sent to Britain, a distant island, where they could be held as hostages and trained as soldiers. After repeated rebellions by the Quadi and Marcomanni, the frustrated emperor decided to turn their land into a province. His plans were thwarted by his death. Nevertheless, this powerful alliance, the only significant one in the first two centuries of Imperial history, was completely dissolved without leaving any marks in Germany.

In the course of this introductory chapter, we have confined ourselves to the general outlines of the manners of Germany, without attempting to describe or to distinguish the various tribes which filled that great country in the time of Cæsar, of Tacitus, or of Ptolemy. As the ancient, or as new tribes successively present themselves in the series of this history, we shall concisely mention their origin, their situation, and their particular character. Modern nations are fixed and permanent societies, connected among themselves by laws and government, bound to their native soil by art and agriculture. The German tribes were voluntary and fluctuating associations of soldiers, almost of savages. The same territory often changed its inhabitants in the tide of conquest and emigration. The same communities, uniting in a plan of defence or invasion, bestowed a new title on their new confederacy. The dissolution of an ancient confederacy restored to the independent tribes their peculiar but long-forgotten appellation. A victorious state often communicated its own name to a vanquished people. Sometimes crowds of volunteers flocked from all parts to the standard of a favorite leader; his camp became their country, and some circumstance of the enterprise soon gave a common denomination to the mixed multitude. The distinctions of the ferocious invaders were perpetually varied by themselves, and confounded by the astonished subjects of the Roman empire.

In this introductory chapter, we've focused on the general overview of the customs of Germany, without trying to describe or differentiate the various tribes that inhabited that vast country during the times of Caesar, Tacitus, or Ptolemy. As the ancient or newer tribes appear throughout this history, we'll briefly cover their origins, locations, and unique characteristics. Modern nations are stable and permanent societies connected by laws and government, tied to their homeland through art and agriculture. The German tribes were more like flexible and voluntary groups of soldiers, almost like primitives. The same land frequently changed its people due to conquests and migrations. The same communities, coming together to defend or invade, would create a new title for their alliance. When an older alliance fell apart, the independent tribes often reclaimed their unique but long-forgotten names. A victorious state would often give its name to a defeated population. Occasionally, large groups of volunteers would gather from all around to support a popular leader; his camp became their home, and some aspect of the venture would soon provide a common name for the mixed crowd. The identities of the fierce invaders were constantly changing and often confused the amazed subjects of the Roman Empire.

Wars, and the administration of public affairs, are the principal subjects of history; but the number of persons interested in these busy scenes is very different, according to the different condition of mankind. In great monarchies, millions of obedient subjects pursue their useful occupations in peace and obscurity. The attention of the writer, as well as of the reader, is solely confined to a court, a capital, a regular army, and the districts which happen to be the occasional scene of military operations. But a state of freedom and barbarism, the season of civil commotions, or the situation of petty republics, raises almost every member of the community into action, and consequently into notice. The irregular divisions, and the restless motions, of the people of Germany, dazzle our imagination, and seem to multiply their numbers. The profuse enumeration of kings, of warriors, of armies and nations, inclines us to forget that the same objects are continually repeated under a variety of appellations, and that the most splendid appellations have been frequently lavished on the most inconsiderable objects.

Wars and the management of public affairs are the main topics of history; however, the number of people involved in these active events varies greatly depending on the condition of society. In large monarchies, millions of obedient subjects quietly go about their daily lives in peace and anonymity. The writer's and reader's focus is solely on the court, the capital, a regular army, and the areas that happen to be the site of military actions. But in times of freedom and chaos, during civil unrest, or in small republics, almost everyone in the community gets involved and, as a result, gains attention. The disorganized factions and constant movements of the people of Germany captivate our imagination and seem to amplify their numbers. The overwhelming list of kings, warriors, armies, and nations leads us to overlook that these subjects are often repeated under various names, and that the most impressive titles have frequently been given to the least significant figures.





Chapter X: Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian And Gallienus.—Part I.

The Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian, And
Gallienus.—The General Irruption Of The Barbarians.—The
Thirty Tyrants.
The Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian, and Gallienus.—The General Invasion of the Barbarians.—The Thirty Tyrants.

From the great secular games celebrated by Philip, to the death of the emperor Gallienus, there elapsed twenty years of shame and misfortune. During that calamitous period, every instant of time was marked, every province of the Roman world was afflicted, by barbarous invaders, and military tyrants, and the ruined empire seemed to approach the last and fatal moment of its dissolution. The confusion of the times, and the scarcity of authentic memorials, oppose equal difficulties to the historian, who attempts to preserve a clear and unbroken thread of narration. Surrounded with imperfect fragments, always concise, often obscure, and sometimes contradictory, he is reduced to collect, to compare, and to conjecture: and though he ought never to place his conjectures in the rank of facts, yet the knowledge of human nature, and of the sure operation of its fierce and unrestrained passions, might, on some occasions, supply the want of historical materials.

From the grand secular games celebrated by Philip to the death of Emperor Gallienus, twenty years of shame and misfortune passed. During this disastrous time, every moment was marked, and every province of the Roman world was struck by barbarian invaders and military tyrants, making the crumbling empire seem to be nearing its final collapse. The chaos of the times and the lack of reliable records pose equal challenges for the historian who tries to maintain a clear and continuous narrative. Surrounded by incomplete fragments that are often brief, unclear, and sometimes contradictory, he must collect, compare, and speculate; and while he should never treat his speculations as facts, his understanding of human nature and the predictable force of its fierce and unrestrained passions could sometimes fill the gaps left by insufficient historical materials.

There is not, for instance, any difficulty in conceiving, that the successive murders of so many emperors had loosened all the ties of allegiance between the prince and people; that all the generals of Philip were disposed to imitate the example of their master; and that the caprice of armies, long since habituated to frequent and violent revolutions, might every day raise to the throne the most obscure of their fellow-soldiers. History can only add, that the rebellion against the emperor Philip broke out in the summer of the year two hundred and forty-nine, among the legions of Mæsia; and that a subaltern officer, named Marinus, was the object of their seditious choice. Philip was alarmed. He dreaded lest the treason of the Mæsian army should prove the first spark of a general conflagration. Distracted with the consciousness of his guilt and of his danger, he communicated the intelligence to the senate. A gloomy silence prevailed, the effect of fear, and perhaps of disaffection; till at length Decius, one of the assembly, assuming a spirit worthy of his noble extraction, ventured to discover more intrepidity than the emperor seemed to possess. He treated the whole business with contempt, as a hasty and inconsiderate tumult, and Philip’s rival as a phantom of royalty, who in a very few days would be destroyed by the same inconstancy that had created him. The speedy completion of the prophecy inspired Philip with a just esteem for so able a counsellor; and Decius appeared to him the only person capable of restoring peace and discipline to an army whose tumultuous spirit did not immediately subside after the murder of Marinus. Decius, who long resisted his own nomination, seems to have insinuated the danger of presenting a leader of merit to the angry and apprehensive minds of the soldiers; and his prediction was again confirmed by the event. The legions of Mæsia forced their judge to become their accomplice. They left him only the alternative of death or the purple. His subsequent conduct, after that decisive measure, was unavoidable. He conducted, or followed, his army to the confines of Italy, whither Philip, collecting all his force to repel the formidable competitor whom he had raised up, advanced to meet him. The Imperial troops were superior in number; but the rebels formed an army of veterans, commanded by an able and experienced leader. Philip was either killed in the battle, or put to death a few days afterwards at Verona. His son and associate in the empire was massacred at Rome by the Prætorian guards; and the victorious Decius, with more favorable circumstances than the ambition of that age can usually plead, was universally acknowledged by the senate and provinces. It is reported, that, immediately after his reluctant acceptance of the title of Augustus, he had assured Philip, by a private message, of his innocence and loyalty, solemnly protesting, that, on his arrival on Italy, he would resign the Imperial ornaments, and return to the condition of an obedient subject. His professions might be sincere; but in the situation where fortune had placed him, it was scarcely possible that he could either forgive or be forgiven.

There’s no difficulty in understanding that the repeated murders of so many emperors had broken all loyalty between the ruler and the people; that all of Philip's generals were inclined to follow their leader’s example; and that the unpredictable nature of armies, long accustomed to frequent and violent upheavals, could easily elevate the most obscure of their fellow soldiers to the throne. History notes that the rebellion against Emperor Philip erupted in the summer of 249 AD among the legions in Mæsia, and a lower-ranking officer named Marinus was their seditious choice. Philip was alarmed. He feared the treachery of the Mæsian army could spark a larger uprising. Overcome by guilt and danger, he informed the senate. A heavy silence filled the room, the result of fear and possibly discontent, until Decius, a member of the assembly, demonstrated a courage that surpassed the emperor’s own. He dismissed the whole situation as a rash and thoughtless uproar, viewing Philip’s rival as merely an illusion of power that would soon be extinguished by the same instability that created him. The quick fulfillment of this prophecy earned Philip a genuine respect for such a capable advisor, and he saw Decius as the only one who could restore order and discipline to an army whose chaotic spirit didn’t calm down right after Marinus was killed. Decius, who initially resisted being nominated, hinted at the risk of providing the soldiers with a competent leader amid their anger and fear, and his prediction was proven right by the outcome. The Mæsian legions forced him to become their ally. They left him with only the choices of death or wearing the imperial purple. His actions following that decisive moment were unavoidable. He led, or followed, his army to the borders of Italy, where Philip, gathering all his forces to counter the formidable rival he had created, moved to confront him. The imperial troops were greater in number, but the rebels consisted of seasoned veterans led by a skilled and experienced commander. Philip was either killed in battle or executed a few days later in Verona. His son and co-ruler in the empire was slaughtered in Rome by the Praetorian guards. The victorious Decius, with more favorable circumstances than one might typically expect from the ambition of that time, was widely recognized by the senate and provinces. It’s said that immediately after reluctantly accepting the title of Augustus, he privately assured Philip of his innocence and loyalty, solemnly promising that when he arrived in Italy, he would relinquish the imperial insignia and return to being a loyal subject. His promises may have been sincere; however, given the circumstances he found himself in, it was hardly feasible for him to either forgive or be forgiven.

The emperor Decius had employed a few months in the works of peace and the administration of justice, when he was summoned to the banks of the Danube by the invasion of the Goths. This is the first considerable occasion in which history mentions that great people, who afterwards broke the Roman power, sacked the Capitol, and reigned in Gaul, Spain, and Italy. So memorable was the part which they acted in the subversion of the Western empire, that the name of Goths is frequently but improperly used as a general appellation of rude and warlike barbarism.

The emperor Decius had spent a few months focusing on peace and justice when he was called to the banks of the Danube due to the Goths' invasion. This was the first major instance in history where this powerful group, who later weakened Roman dominance, looted the Capitol and ruled over Gaul, Spain, and Italy. The role they played in the downfall of the Western Empire was so significant that the term Goths is often, though incorrectly, used as a blanket term for uncivilized and warlike barbarism.

In the beginning of the sixth century, and after the conquest of Italy, the Goths, in possession of present greatness, very naturally indulged themselves in the prospect of past and of future glory. They wished to preserve the memory of their ancestors, and to transmit to posterity their own achievements.

In the early sixth century, after conquering Italy, the Goths, enjoying their current power, naturally reveled in the memories of their past and envisioned future glory. They wanted to honor their ancestors and pass on their own accomplishments to future generations.

The principal minister of the court of Ravenna, the learned Cassiodorus, gratified the inclination of the conquerors in a Gothic history, which consisted of twelve books, now reduced to the imperfect abridgment of Jornandes. These writers passed with the most artful conciseness over the misfortunes of the nation, celebrated its successful valor, and adorned the triumph with many Asiatic trophies, that more properly belonged to the people of Scythia. On the faith of ancient songs, the uncertain, but the only memorials of barbarians, they deduced the first origin of the Goths from the vast island, or peninsula, of Scandinavia. * That extreme country of the North was not unknown to the conquerors of Italy: the ties of ancient consanguinity had been strengthened by recent offices of friendship; and a Scandinavian king had cheerfully abdicated his savage greatness, that he might pass the remainder of his days in the peaceful and polished court of Ravenna. Many vestiges, which cannot be ascribed to the arts of popular vanity, attest the ancient residence of the Goths in the countries beyond the Rhine. From the time of the geographer Ptolemy, the southern part of Sweden seems to have continued in the possession of the less enterprising remnant of the nation, and a large territory is even at present divided into east and west Gothland. During the middle ages, (from the ninth to the twelfth century,) whilst Christianity was advancing with a slow progress into the North, the Goths and the Swedes composed two distinct and sometimes hostile members of the same monarchy. The latter of these two names has prevailed without extinguishing the former. The Swedes, who might well be satisfied with their own fame in arms, have, in every age, claimed the kindred glory of the Goths. In a moment of discontent against the court of Rome, Charles the Twelfth insinuated, that his victorious troops were not degenerated from their brave ancestors, who had already subdued the mistress of the world.

The main minister of the court of Ravenna, the learned Cassiodorus, fulfilled the desires of the conquerors in a Gothic history, which had twelve books, now condensed into the flawed summary by Jornandes. These writers skillfully glossed over the nation's misfortunes, praised its successful bravery, and decorated the triumph with many trophies from Asia that really belonged to the Scythians. Based on ancient songs, the uncertain but only records from barbarians, they traced the origins of the Goths back to the vast island or peninsula of Scandinavia. That far northern land was familiar to the conquerors of Italy: ties of ancient kinship had been strengthened by recent acts of friendship, and a Scandinavian king willingly gave up his savage power to spend his later years in the peaceful and refined court of Ravenna. Many evidence, which can't be attributed to mere popular vanity, confirm the ancient presence of the Goths in the regions beyond the Rhine. Since the time of the geographer Ptolemy, the southern part of Sweden seems to have remained in the hands of the less adventurous remnants of the nation, and a large area is still divided into east and west Gothland. During the Middle Ages (from the ninth to the twelfth century), while Christianity was slowly spreading into the North, the Goths and the Swedes formed two distinct and sometimes rival factions within the same monarchy. The latter name has prevailed without erasing the former. The Swedes, proud of their own military reputation, have, throughout history, claimed the shared glory of the Goths. In a moment of discontent with the court of Rome, Charles the Twelfth suggested that his victorious troops had not descended from their brave ancestors, who had already defeated the mistress of the world.

Till the end of the eleventh century, a celebrated temple subsisted at Upsal, the most considerable town of the Swedes and Goths. It was enriched with the gold which the Scandinavians had acquired in their piratical adventures, and sanctified by the uncouth representations of the three principal deities, the god of war, the goddess of generation, and the god of thunder. In the general festival, that was solemnized every ninth year, nine animals of every species (without excepting the human) were sacrificed, and their bleeding bodies suspended in the sacred grove adjacent to the temple. The only traces that now subsist of this barbaric superstition are contained in the Edda, * a system of mythology, compiled in Iceland about the thirteenth century, and studied by the learned of Denmark and Sweden, as the most valuable remains of their ancient traditions.

Until the end of the eleventh century, a famous temple existed in Upsal, the largest town of the Swedes and Goths. It was decorated with the gold that the Scandinavians had gained through their pirate adventures and honored by the strange depictions of the three main gods: the god of war, the goddess of fertility, and the god of thunder. During the grand festival held every ninth year, nine animals of every species (including humans) were sacrificed, and their bloodied bodies were hung in the sacred grove next to the temple. The only remnants of this ancient superstition that remain today are found in the Edda, a collection of mythology compiled in Iceland around the thirteenth century, which is studied by scholars in Denmark and Sweden as the most important traces of their ancient traditions.

Notwithstanding the mysterious obscurity of the Edda, we can easily distinguish two persons confounded under the name of Odin; the god of war, and the great legislator of Scandinavia. The latter, the Mahomet of the North, instituted a religion adapted to the climate and to the people. Numerous tribes on either side of the Baltic were subdued by the invincible valor of Odin, by his persuasive eloquence, and by the fame which he acquired of a most skilful magician. The faith that he had propagated, during a long and prosperous life, he confirmed by a voluntary death. Apprehensive of the ignominious approach of disease and infirmity, he resolved to expire as became a warrior. In a solemn assembly of the Swedes and Goths, he wounded himself in nine mortal places, hastening away (as he asserted with his dying voice) to prepare the feast of heroes in the palace of the God of war.

Despite the mysterious obscurity of the Edda, we can easily identify two figures mixed up under the name of Odin: the god of war and the great legislator of Scandinavia. The latter, the Muhammad of the North, established a religion suited to the climate and the people. Numerous tribes on both sides of the Baltic were conquered by Odin's unbeatable courage, his persuasive speech, and his reputation as a highly skilled magician. The faith he spread throughout a long and successful life was confirmed by his voluntary death. Fearing the shameful approach of illness and weakness, he decided to die like a warrior. In a solemn gathering of the Swedes and Goths, he inflicted nine fatal wounds on himself, claiming with his dying words that he was heading to prepare the feast of heroes in the palace of the God of war.

The native and proper habitation of Odin is distinguished by the appellation of As-gard. The happy resemblance of that name with As-burg, or As-of, words of a similar signification, has given rise to an historical system of so pleasing a contexture, that we could almost wish to persuade ourselves of its truth. It is supposed that Odin was the chief of a tribe of barbarians which dwelt on the banks of the Lake Mæotis, till the fall of Mithridates and the arms of Pompey menaced the North with servitude. That Odin, yielding with indignant fury to a power he was unable to resist, conducted his tribe from the frontiers of the Asiatic Sarmatia into Sweden, with the great design of forming, in that inaccessible retreat of freedom, a religion and a people which, in some remote age, might be subservient to his immortal revenge; when his invincible Goths, armed with martial fanaticism, should issue in numerous swarms from the neighborhood of the Polar circle, to chastise the oppressors of mankind.

The native and rightful home of Odin is known as Asgard. The happy similarity of that name with Asburg or Asof, which have similar meanings, has inspired a historical narrative so appealing that we might almost wish to believe in its truth. It’s thought that Odin was the leader of a tribe of barbarians living by the shores of Lake Mæotis until the fall of Mithridates and the military might of Pompey threatened the North with enslavement. Odin, filled with angry defiance against a power he couldn’t fight, led his tribe from the borders of Asian Sarmatia into Sweden, with the grand plan of creating, in that hard-to-reach haven of freedom, a religion and a people that, in some distant future, might serve his immortal vengeance; when his unbeatable Goths, fueled by martial zeal, would pour forth in large numbers from the vicinity of the Polar Circle to punish the oppressors of humanity.

If so many successive generations of Goths were capable of preserving a faint tradition of their Scandinavian origin, we must not expect, from such unlettered barbarians, any distinct account of the time and circumstances of their emigration. To cross the Baltic was an easy and natural attempt. The inhabitants of Sweden were masters of a sufficient number of large vessels, with oars, and the distance is little more than one hundred miles from Carlscroon to the nearest ports of Pomerania and Prussia. Here, at length, we land on firm and historic ground. At least as early as the Christian æra, and as late as the age of the Antonines, the Goths were established towards the mouth of the Vistula, and in that fertile province where the commercial cities of Thorn, Elbing, Köningsberg, and Dantzick, were long afterwards founded. Westward of the Goths, the numerous tribes of the Vandals were spread along the banks of the Oder, and the sea-coast of Pomerania and Mecklenburgh. A striking resemblance of manners, complexion, religion, and language, seemed to indicate that the Vandals and the Goths were originally one great people. The latter appear to have been subdivided into Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Gepidæ. The distinction among the Vandals was more strongly marked by the independent names of Heruli, Burgundians, Lombards, and a variety of other petty states, many of which, in a future age, expanded themselves into powerful monarchies.

If so many generations of Goths were able to keep a faint memory of their Scandinavian roots, we shouldn't expect detailed accounts of when and how they migrated from these uneducated tribes. Crossing the Baltic Sea was an easy and natural move. The people of Sweden had enough large rowing boats, and the distance is just a little over one hundred miles from Carlscroon to the closest ports in Pomerania and Prussia. Here, we finally land on solid historical ground. As early as the start of the Christian era and as late as the time of the Antonines, the Goths had settled near the mouth of the Vistula River, in that fertile area where the trading cities of Thorn, Elbing, Köningsberg, and Dantzick would later be established. West of the Goths, the many tribes of the Vandals spread along the banks of the Oder River and the coast of Pomerania and Mecklenburgh. There was a noticeable similarity in customs, appearance, religion, and language, suggesting that the Vandals and Goths were originally part of one large group. The Goths were divided into Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Gepidæ. The Vandals were more clearly separated by the distinct names of Heruli, Burgundians, Lombards, and various other smaller states, many of which later grew into powerful kingdoms.

In the age of the Antonines, the Goths were still seated in Prussia. About the reign of Alexander Severus, the Roman province of Dacia had already experienced their proximity by frequent and destructive inroads. In this interval, therefore, of about seventy years we must place the second migration of the Goths from the Baltic to the Euxine; but the cause that produced it lies concealed among the various motives which actuate the conduct of unsettled barbarians. Either a pestilence or a famine, a victory or a defeat, an oracle of the gods or the eloquence of a daring leader, were sufficient to impel the Gothic arms on the milder climates of the south. Besides the influence of a martial religion, the numbers and spirit of the Goths were equal to the most dangerous adventures. The use of round bucklers and short swords rendered them formidable in a close engagement; the manly obedience which they yielded to hereditary kings, gave uncommon union and stability to their councils; and the renowned Amala, the hero of that age, and the tenth ancestor of Theodoric, king of Italy, enforced, by the ascendant of personal merit, the prerogative of his birth, which he derived from the Anses, or demigods of the Gothic nation.

In the time of the Antonines, the Goths were still living in Prussia. During Alexander Severus's reign, the Roman province of Dacia had already felt their presence through frequent and destructive raids. Therefore, over the span of about seventy years, we should place the second migration of the Goths from the Baltic to the Black Sea; however, the reasons for this migration are hidden among the various motivations of unsettled barbarians. A plague or a famine, a victory or a defeat, a prophecy from the gods, or the persuasive words of a bold leader could push the Goths toward the warmer southern climates. Besides the influence of a warrior culture, the numbers and spirit of the Goths were ready for even the most dangerous ventures. Their use of round shields and short swords made them formidable in close combat; their strong loyalty to hereditary kings provided unusual unity and stability to their leadership; and the famous Amala, the hero of that time and the tenth ancestor of Theodoric, king of Italy, asserted, through his personal merits, the rights of his noble birth, which traced back to the Anses, or demigods of the Gothic people.

The fame of a great enterprise excited the bravest warriors from all the Vandalic states of Germany, many of whom are seen a few years afterwards combating under the common standard of the Goths. The first motions of the emigrants carried them to the banks of the Prypec, a river universally conceived by the ancients to be the southern branch of the Borysthenes. The windings of that great stream through the plains of Poland and Russia gave a direction to their line of march, and a constant supply of fresh water and pasturage to their numerous herds of cattle. They followed the unknown course of the river, confident in their valor, and careless of whatever power might oppose their progress. The Bastarnæ and the Venedi were the first who presented themselves; and the flower of their youth, either from choice or compulsion, increased the Gothic army. The Bastarnæ dwelt on the northern side of the Carpathian Mountains: the immense tract of land that separated the Bastarnæ from the savages of Finland was possessed, or rather wasted, by the Venedi; we have some reason to believe that the first of these nations, which distinguished itself in the Macedonian war, and was afterwards divided into the formidable tribes of the Peucini, the Borani, the Carpi, &c., derived its origin from the Germans. * With better authority, a Sarmatian extraction may be assigned to the Venedi, who rendered themselves so famous in the middle ages. But the confusion of blood and manners on that doubtful frontier often perplexed the most accurate observers. As the Goths advanced near the Euxine Sea, they encountered a purer race of Sarmatians, the Jazyges, the Alani, and the Roxolani; and they were probably the first Germans who saw the mouths of the Borysthenes, and of the Tanais. If we inquire into the characteristic marks of the people of Germany and of Sarmatia, we shall discover that those two great portions of human kind were principally distinguished by fixed huts or movable tents, by a close dress or flowing garments, by the marriage of one or of several wives, by a military force, consisting, for the most part, either of infantry or cavalry; and above all, by the use of the Teutonic, or of the Sclavonian language; the last of which has been diffused by conquest, from the confines of Italy to the neighborhood of Japan.

The fame of a great venture attracted the bravest warriors from all the Vandal states in Germany, many of whom were later seen fighting under the common banner of the Goths. The first movements of the emigrants took them to the banks of the Prypec, a river that the ancients widely believed to be the southern branch of the Borysthenes. The winding path of that great river through the plains of Poland and Russia guided their journey and provided a constant supply of fresh water and grazing land for their many cattle. They followed the river’s unknown course, confident in their bravery and unfazed by any power that might stand in their way. The Bastarnæ and the Venedi were the first to confront them, and the best of their youth, either by choice or force, bolstered the Gothic army. The Bastarnæ lived on the northern side of the Carpathian Mountains, while the vast area separating them from the wild people of Finland was inhabited, or rather depleted, by the Venedi. We have some reason to believe that the first of these nations, which made a mark in the Macedonian war, later split into the formidable tribes of the Peucini, the Borani, the Carpi, etc., originated from the Germans. More authoritatively, a Sarmatian origin can be attributed to the Venedi, who gained fame in the Middle Ages. However, the mix of blood and cultures on that uncertain border often confused even the most careful observers. As the Goths approached the Black Sea, they encountered a purer group of Sarmatians: the Jazyges, the Alani, and the Roxolani; they were likely the first Germans to witness the mouths of the Borysthenes and the Tanais. If we look into the distinguishing features of the peoples of Germany and Sarmatia, we will find that these two major groups were primarily noted for their fixed homes or portable tents, their fitted clothing or flowing garments, their practice of marrying one or multiple wives, and a military force mostly made up of infantry or cavalry; and above all, their use of either the Teutonic or the Slavic language, the latter of which has spread through conquest from the borders of Italy to the vicinity of Japan.





Chapter X: Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian And Gallienus.—Part II.

The Goths were now in possession of the Ukraine, a country of considerable extent and uncommon fertility, intersected with navigable rivers, which, from either side, discharge themselves into the Borysthenes; and interspersed with large and lofty forests of oaks. The plenty of game and fish, the innumerable bee-hives deposited in the hollow of old trees, and in the cavities of rocks, and forming, even in that rude age, a valuable branch of commerce, the size of the cattle, the temperature of the air, the aptness of the soil for every species of grain, and the luxuriancy of the vegetation, all displayed the liberality of Nature, and tempted the industry of man. But the Goths withstood all these temptations, and still adhered to a life of idleness, of poverty, and of rapine.

The Goths now controlled Ukraine, a large and fertile country filled with navigable rivers that flow into the Borysthenes from both sides, and dotted with tall oak forests. The abundance of game and fish, the countless beehives found in old tree hollows and rock crevices, which even in that rough era made up a valuable part of trade, the size of the livestock, the pleasant climate, the soil’s suitability for all kinds of grain, and the richness of the vegetation all showcased Nature's generosity and encouraged human effort. But the Goths resisted all these opportunities and continued to live a life of idleness, poverty, and plundering.

The Scythian hordes, which, towards the east, bordered on the new settlements of the Goths, presented nothing to their arms, except the doubtful chance of an unprofitable victory. But the prospect of the Roman territories was far more alluring; and the fields of Dacia were covered with rich harvests, sown by the hands of an industrious, and exposed to be gathered by those of a warlike, people. It is probable that the conquests of Trajan, maintained by his successors, less for any real advantage than for ideal dignity, had contributed to weaken the empire on that side. The new and unsettled province of Dacia was neither strong enough to resist, nor rich enough to satiate, the rapaciousness of the barbarians. As long as the remote banks of the Niester were considered as the boundary of the Roman power, the fortifications of the Lower Danube were more carelessly guarded, and the inhabitants of Mæsia lived in supine security, fondly conceiving themselves at an inaccessible distance from any barbarian invaders. The irruptions of the Goths, under the reign of Philip, fatally convinced them of their mistake. The king, or leader, of that fierce nation, traversed with contempt the province of Dacia, and passed both the Niester and the Danube without encountering any opposition capable of retarding his progress. The relaxed discipline of the Roman troops betrayed the most important posts, where they were stationed, and the fear of deserved punishment induced great numbers of them to enlist under the Gothic standard. The various multitude of barbarians appeared, at length, under the walls of Marcianopolis, a city built by Trajan in honor of his sister, and at that time the capital of the second Mæsia. The inhabitants consented to ransom their lives and property by the payment of a large sum of money, and the invaders retreated back into their deserts, animated, rather than satisfied, with the first success of their arms against an opulent but feeble country. Intelligence was soon transmitted to the emperor Decius, that Cniva, king of the Goths, had passed the Danube a second time, with more considerable forces; that his numerous detachments scattered devastation over the province of Mæsia, whilst the main body of the army, consisting of seventy thousand Germans and Sarmatians, a force equal to the most daring achievements, required the presence of the Roman monarch, and the exertion of his military power.

The Scythian tribes to the east of the new settlements of the Goths offered little to their armies, except the uncertain chance of a pointless victory. However, the thought of Roman territories was much more tempting; the fields of Dacia were rich with crops, planted by hardworking people and ready to be harvested by a warring nation. It’s likely that Trajan's conquests, upheld by his successors more for pride than for any real benefit, had weakened the empire on that front. The new and unsettled province of Dacia wasn’t strong enough to defend itself or rich enough to satisfy the greed of the barbarians. As long as the distant banks of the Niester were viewed as the edge of Roman power, the defenses of the Lower Danube were carelessly overlooked, and the people of Mæsia lived in comfortable ignorance, believing they were well protected from any barbarian attacks. The invasions of the Goths during Philip's reign starkly revealed their error. The chieftain of that fierce tribe crossed the province of Dacia with ease and moved past both the Niester and the Danube without facing any significant resistance. The lax discipline of the Roman troops compromised key posts where they were stationed, and the fear of punishment drove many of them to join the Gothic ranks. Eventually, a large number of barbarians appeared at the walls of Marcianopolis, a city built by Trajan in honor of his sister and then the capital of the second Mæsia. The local residents agreed to pay a significant sum of money to save their lives and possessions, leading the invaders to retreat back into their territory, fueled, rather than content, by their initial success against a wealthy but weak land. News quickly reached Emperor Decius that Cniva, the king of the Goths, had crossed the Danube again with a larger force; his numerous detachments were wreaking havoc across the province of Mæsia, while the main army, made up of seventy thousand Germans and Sarmatians—an imposing force capable of major exploits—needed the presence of the Roman emperor and his military might.

Decius found the Goths engaged before Nicopolis, one of the many monuments of Trajan’s victories. On his approach they raised the siege, but with a design only of marching away to a conquest of greater importance, the siege of Philippopolis, a city of Thrace, founded by the father of Alexander, near the foot of Mount Hæmus. Decius followed them through a difficult country, and by forced marches; but when he imagined himself at a considerable distance from the rear of the Goths, Cniva turned with rapid fury on his pursuers. The camp of the Romans was surprised and pillaged, and, for the first time, their emperor fled in disorder before a troop of half-armed barbarians. After a long resistance, Philippopolis, destitute of succor, was taken by storm. A hundred thousand persons are reported to have been massacred in the sack of that great city. Many prisoners of consequence became a valuable accession to the spoil; and Priscus, a brother of the late emperor Philip, blushed not to assume the purple, under the protection of the barbarous enemies of Rome. The time, however, consumed in that tedious siege, enabled Decius to revive the courage, restore the discipline, and recruit the numbers of his troops. He intercepted several parties of Carpi, and other Germans, who were hastening to share the victory of their countrymen, intrusted the passes of the mountains to officers of approved valor and fidelity, repaired and strengthened the fortifications of the Danube, and exerted his utmost vigilance to oppose either the progress or the retreat of the Goths. Encouraged by the return of fortune, he anxiously waited for an opportunity to retrieve, by a great and decisive blow, his own glory, and that of the Roman arms.

Decius found the Goths camped outside Nicopolis, one of the many monuments to Trajan’s victories. When he approached, they lifted the siege, but only to march on to a more significant conquest, the siege of Philippopolis, a city in Thrace founded by Alexander's father, located near the foot of Mount Hæmus. Decius followed them through challenging terrain and made forced marches; however, when he thought he was a good distance behind the Goths, Cniva turned back with fierce speed to confront his pursuers. The Roman camp was caught off guard and raided, and for the first time, their emperor fled in chaos from a group of partially armed barbarians. After a lengthy defense, Philippopolis, lacking support, was captured. It’s reported that a hundred thousand people were killed during the plundering of that great city. Many important prisoners became valuable additions to the loot, and Priscus, a brother of the late emperor Philip, shamelessly donned the purple, under the protection of Rome's barbaric enemies. However, the time spent in that prolonged siege allowed Decius to boost his troops' morale, restore discipline, and increase their numbers. He intercepted several groups of Carpi and other Germans who were rushing to join their countrymen's victory, entrusted the mountain passes to reliable and brave officers, repaired and fortified the Danube’s defenses, and remained extremely vigilant to counter both the advance and retreat of the Goths. Encouraged by a change in fortune, he eagerly awaited an opportunity to recover his own glory and that of the Roman military with a significant and decisive strike.

At the same time when Decius was struggling with the violence of the tempest, his mind, calm and deliberate amidst the tumult of war, investigated the more general causes that, since the age of the Antonines, had so impetuously urged the decline of the Roman greatness. He soon discovered that it was impossible to replace that greatness on a permanent basis without restoring public virtue, ancient principles and manners, and the oppressed majesty of the laws. To execute this noble but arduous design, he first resolved to revive the obsolete office of censor; an office which, as long as it had subsisted in its pristine integrity, had so much contributed to the perpetuity of the state, till it was usurped and gradually neglected by the Cæsars. Conscious that the favor of the sovereign may confer power, but that the esteem of the people can alone bestow authority, he submitted the choice of the censor to the unbiased voice of the senate. By their unanimous votes, or rather acclamations, Valerian, who was afterwards emperor, and who then served with distinction in the army of Decius, was declared the most worthy of that exalted honor. As soon as the decree of the senate was transmitted to the emperor, he assembled a great council in his camp, and before the investiture of the censor elect, he apprised him of the difficulty and importance of his great office. “Happy Valerian,” said the prince to his distinguished subject, “happy in the general approbation of the senate and of the Roman republic! Accept the censorship of mankind; and judge of our manners. You will select those who deserve to continue members of the senate; you will restore the equestrian order to its ancient splendor; you will improve the revenue, yet moderate the public burdens. You will distinguish into regular classes the various and infinite multitude of citizens, and accurately view the military strength, the wealth, the virtue, and the resources of Rome. Your decisions shall obtain the force of laws. The army, the palace, the ministers of justice, and the great officers of the empire, are all subject to your tribunal. None are exempted, excepting only the ordinary consuls, the præfect of the city, the king of the sacrifices, and (as long as she preserves her chastity inviolate) the eldest of the vestal virgins. Even these few, who may not dread the severity, will anxiously solicit the esteem, of the Roman censor.”

At the same time Decius was battling the fierce storm, his mind remained calm and thoughtful amid the chaos of war. He explored the broader reasons that, since the time of the Antonines, had rapidly led to the decline of Rome's greatness. He soon realized that it would be impossible to restore that greatness for good without reviving public virtue, ancient principles, and the honored authority of the laws. To execute this noble but challenging plan, he first decided to bring back the outdated role of censor; a position that, while it had flourished in its original form, had significantly contributed to the stability of the state until it was taken over and gradually dismissed by the Caesars. Aware that the emperor’s favor can grant power, but only the people’s respect can provide true authority, he put the choice of the censor to a fair vote in the senate. With their unanimous votes, or more accurately, their cheers, Valerian, who later became emperor and was then serving commendably in Decius’s army, was chosen as the most deserving of this esteemed position. Once the senate's decree was sent to the emperor, he gathered a large council in his camp and, before the new censor was officially appointed, he informed him of the challenges and significance of his important role. “Congratulations, Valerian,” the emperor said to his distinguished subject, “you’re fortunate to have the support of the senate and the Roman republic! Accept the role of censor of the people; judge our behavior. You will choose who deserves to remain in the senate; you will restore the equestrian order to its former glory; you will enhance the revenue while easing the public burden. You will categorize the vast, diverse population of citizens and closely examine Rome’s military strength, wealth, virtue, and resources. Your decisions will carry the weight of law. The army, the palace, the ministers of justice, and the high officials of the empire are all under your authority. The only exceptions are the regular consuls, the prefect of the city, the king of the sacrifices, and (as long as she remains chaste) the eldest of the vestal virgins. Even these few, who may not fear your strictness, will eagerly seek the respect of the Roman censor.”

A magistrate, invested with such extensive powers, would have appeared not so much the minister, as the colleague of his sovereign. Valerian justly dreaded an elevation so full of envy and of suspicion. He modestly argued the alarming greatness of the trust, his own insufficiency, and the incurable corruption of the times. He artfully insinuated, that the office of censor was inseparable from the Imperial dignity, and that the feeble hands of a subject were unequal to the support of such an immense weight of cares and of power. The approaching event of war soon put an end to the prosecution of a project so specious, but so impracticable; and whilst it preserved Valerian from the danger, saved the emperor Decius from the disappointment, which would most probably have attended it. A censor may maintain, he can never restore, the morals of a state. It is impossible for such a magistrate to exert his authority with benefit, or even with effect, unless he is supported by a quick sense of honor and virtue in the minds of the people, by a decent reverence for the public opinion, and by a train of useful prejudices combating on the side of national manners. In a period when these principles are annihilated, the censorial jurisdiction must either sink into empty pageantry, or be converted into a partial instrument of vexatious oppression. It was easier to vanquish the Goths than to eradicate the public vices; yet even in the first of these enterprises, Decius lost his army and his life.

A magistrate with such extensive powers would seem less like a minister and more like a partner to his sovereign. Valerian rightly feared a position that was so filled with envy and suspicion. He humbly asserted the alarming magnitude of the responsibility, his own inadequacy, and the persistent corruption of the times. He cleverly suggested that the role of censor was inseparable from the Imperial authority, and that the weak hands of a subject could not bear such a massive burden of responsibilities and power. The impending war soon brought an end to a project that seemed appealing but was utterly impractical. This not only protected Valerian from danger but also spared Emperor Decius from the disappointment that likely would have followed. A censor can maintain, but can never restore, the morals of a state. It’s impossible for such a magistrate to wield his authority beneficially or even effectively unless he is backed by a strong sense of honor and virtue among the people, a mutual respect for public opinion, and a series of beneficial prejudices that support national customs. In a time when these principles are nonexistent, the authority of the censor must either fade into meaningless spectacle or become a tool of unfair oppression. It was easier to defeat the Goths than to eliminate the vices of the public; yet in the former endeavor, Decius lost both his army and his life.

The Goths were now, on every side, surrounded and pursued by the Roman arms. The flower of their troops had perished in the long siege of Philippopolis, and the exhausted country could no longer afford subsistence for the remaining multitude of licentious barbarians. Reduced to this extremity, the Goths would gladly have purchased, by the surrender of all their booty and prisoners, the permission of an undisturbed retreat. But the emperor, confident of victory, and resolving, by the chastisement of these invaders, to strike a salutary terror into the nations of the North, refused to listen to any terms of accommodation. The high-spirited barbarians preferred death to slavery. An obscure town of Mæsia, called Forum Terebronii, was the scene of the battle. The Gothic army was drawn up in three lines, and either from choice or accident, the front of the third line was covered by a morass. In the beginning of the action, the son of Decius, a youth of the fairest hopes, and already associated to the honors of the purple, was slain by an arrow, in the sight of his afflicted father; who, summoning all his fortitude, admonished the dismayed troops, that the loss of a single soldier was of little importance to the republic. The conflict was terrible; it was the combat of despair against grief and rage. The first line of the Goths at length gave way in disorder; the second, advancing to sustain it, shared its fate; and the third only remained entire, prepared to dispute the passage of the morass, which was imprudently attempted by the presumption of the enemy. “Here the fortune of the day turned, and all things became adverse to the Romans; the place deep with ooze, sinking under those who stood, slippery to such as advanced; their armor heavy, the waters deep; nor could they wield, in that uneasy situation, their weighty javelins. The barbarians, on the contrary, were inured to encounter in the bogs, their persons tall, their spears long, such as could wound at a distance.” In this morass the Roman army, after an ineffectual struggle, was irrecoverably lost; nor could the body of the emperor ever be found. Such was the fate of Decius, in the fiftieth year of his age; an accomplished prince, active in war and affable in peace; who, together with his son, has deserved to be compared, both in life and death, with the brightest examples of ancient virtue.

The Goths were now completely surrounded and chased by the Roman forces. The best of their troops had died during the long siege of Philippopolis, and the exhausted region could no longer provide for the remaining crowd of unruly barbarians. In this desperate situation, the Goths would have gladly surrendered all their loot and prisoners in exchange for a safe retreat. But the emperor, confident of victory and determined to punish these invaders to instill fear in the northern nations, refused to consider any terms for peace. The proud barbarians preferred death over slavery. An obscure town in Mæsia, named Forum Terebronii, was where the battle took place. The Gothic army was arranged in three lines, and either by choice or chance, the front of the third line was blocked by a marsh. At the start of the fight, the son of Decius, a promising young man already in line for the throne, was killed by an arrow in front of his grieving father, who, summoning all his strength, urged the shaken troops that the loss of one soldier was trivial for the republic. The battle was brutal; it was a fight of despair against sorrow and rage. The first line of the Goths eventually broke down in chaos; the second line, moving up to support it, met the same fate, leaving only the third line intact, ready to defend the marsh, which the enemy foolishly tried to cross. “Here the tide of battle turned, and everything became unfavorable for the Romans; the ground was muddy, sinking under those who stood, slippery for those who charged; their armor was heavy, the water deep; and they couldn’t effectively use their heavy javelins in such an awkward position. On the other hand, the barbarians were used to fighting in the swamps, tall and armed with long spears that could strike from a distance.” In that marsh, after a futile struggle, the Roman army was lost for good, and the body of the emperor was never recovered. This was the fate of Decius, who died at the age of fifty; a refined leader, skilled in war and approachable in peace; who, along with his son, deserves to be compared to the greatest examples of ancient virtue in both life and death.

This fatal blow humbled, for a very little time, the insolence of the legions. They appeared to have patiently expected, and submissively obeyed, the decree of the senate which regulated the succession to the throne. From a just regard for the memory of Decius, the Imperial title was conferred on Hostilianus, his only surviving son; but an equal rank, with more effectual power, was granted to Gallus, whose experience and ability seemed equal to the great trust of guardian to the young prince and the distressed empire. The first care of the new emperor was to deliver the Illyrian provinces from the intolerable weight of the victorious Goths. He consented to leave in their hands the rich fruits of their invasion, an immense booty, and what was still more disgraceful, a great number of prisoners of the highest merit and quality. He plentifully supplied their camp with every conveniency that could assuage their angry spirits or facilitate their so much wished-for departure; and he even promised to pay them annually a large sum of gold, on condition they should never afterwards infest the Roman territories by their incursions.

This devastating blow momentarily humbled the arrogance of the legions. They seemed to have patiently awaited and obediently followed the senate's decree that regulated the succession to the throne. Out of respect for Decius's memory, the imperial title was given to Hostilianus, his only surviving son; however, Gallus was granted an equal rank with more effective power, as his experience and skills appeared suitable for the significant role of guardian to the young prince and the troubled empire. The new emperor's first priority was to free the Illyrian provinces from the unbearable burden of the victorious Goths. He agreed to allow them to keep the substantial gains from their invasion, which included a huge amount of wealth and, even more disgracefully, a large number of high-quality prisoners. He generously provided their camp with everything they needed to calm their tempers and make their longed-for departure easier; he even promised to pay them a significant annual sum of gold, as long as they would not invade Roman lands again.

In the age of the Scipios, the most opulent kings of the earth, who courted the protection of the victorious commonwealth, were gratified with such trifling presents as could only derive a value from the hand that bestowed them; an ivory chair, a coarse garment of purple, an inconsiderable piece of plate, or a quantity of copper coin. After the wealth of nations had centred in Rome, the emperors displayed their greatness, and even their policy, by the regular exercise of a steady and moderate liberality towards the allies of the state. They relieved the poverty of the barbarians, honored their merit, and recompensed their fidelity. These voluntary marks of bounty were understood to flow, not from the fears, but merely from the generosity or the gratitude of the Romans; and whilst presents and subsidies were liberally distributed among friends and suppliants, they were sternly refused to such as claimed them as a debt. But this stipulation, of an annual payment to a victorious enemy, appeared without disguise in the light of an ignominious tribute; the minds of the Romans were not yet accustomed to accept such unequal laws from a tribe of barbarians; and the prince, who by a necessary concession had probably saved his country, became the object of the general contempt and aversion. The death of Hostilianus, though it happened in the midst of a raging pestilence, was interpreted as the personal crime of Gallus; and even the defeat of the later emperor was ascribed by the voice of suspicion to the perfidious counsels of his hated successor. The tranquillity which the empire enjoyed during the first year of his administration, served rather to inflame than to appease the public discontent; and as soon as the apprehensions of war were removed, the infamy of the peace was more deeply and more sensibly felt.

In the time of the Scipios, the richest kings in the world, who sought the protection of the victorious Roman Republic, were satisfied with small gifts that only had value because of who gave them; an ivory chair, a rough purple garment, a trivial piece of silverware, or a handful of copper coins. Once the wealth of nations concentrated in Rome, the emperors showcased their greatness—and even their strategy—through consistent and moderate generosity towards the state's allies. They helped ease the poverty of the barbarians, recognized their achievements, and rewarded their loyalty. These voluntary gifts were seen as coming not from fear, but from the generosity or gratitude of the Romans; while gifts and aid were generously given to friends and seekers, they were firmly denied to those who expected them as a right. However, this requirement for an annual payment to a defeated enemy was clearly seen as a shameful tribute; the Roman mindset was not ready to accept such unequal demands from barbarian tribes, and the emperor, who likely saved his country through this necessary concession, became the target of widespread scorn and hatred. The death of Hostilianus, which occurred during a widespread plague, was seen as the personal fault of Gallus; even the later emperor's defeat was blamed by public suspicion on the treacherous advice of his despised successor. The peace the empire experienced during the first year of his rule only served to heighten rather than calm public discontent, and as soon as fears of war subsided, the disgrace of the peace was felt even more deeply and acutely.

But the Romans were irritated to a still higher degree, when they discovered that they had not even secured their repose, though at the expense of their honor. The dangerous secret of the wealth and weakness of the empire had been revealed to the world. New swarms of barbarians, encouraged by the success, and not conceiving themselves bound by the obligation of their brethren, spread devastation through the Illyrian provinces, and terror as far as the gates of Rome. The defence of the monarchy, which seemed abandoned by the pusillanimous emperor, was assumed by Æmilianus, governor of Pannonia and Mæsia; who rallied the scattered forces, and revived the fainting spirits of the troops. The barbarians were unexpectedly attacked, routed, chased, and pursued beyond the Danube. The victorious leader distributed as a donative the money collected for the tribute, and the acclamations of the soldiers proclaimed him emperor on the field of battle. Gallus, who, careless of the general welfare, indulged himself in the pleasures of Italy, was almost in the same instant informed of the success, of the revolt, and of the rapid approach of his aspiring lieutenant. He advanced to meet him as far as the plains of Spoleto. When the armies came in sight of each other, the soldiers of Gallus compared the ignominious conduct of their sovereign with the glory of his rival. They admired the valor of Æmilianus; they were attracted by his liberality, for he offered a considerable increase of pay to all deserters. The murder of Gallus, and of his son Volusianus, put an end to the civil war; and the senate gave a legal sanction to the rights of conquest. The letters of Æmilianus to that assembly displayed a mixture of moderation and vanity. He assured them, that he should resign to their wisdom the civil administration; and, contenting himself with the quality of their general, would in a short time assert the glory of Rome, and deliver the empire from all the barbarians both of the North and of the East. His pride was flattered by the applause of the senate; and medals are still extant, representing him with the name and attributes of Hercules the Victor, and Mars the Avenger.

But the Romans were even more frustrated when they realized that they hadn't achieved peace, even at the cost of their honor. The dangerous secret of the empire's wealth and vulnerability was now exposed to the world. New waves of barbarians, encouraged by this success and feeling no obligation to their fellow countrymen, spread destruction through the Illyrian provinces and struck fear all the way to the gates of Rome. The defense of the empire, which seemed abandoned by the cowardly emperor, was taken up by Æmilianus, the governor of Pannonia and Mæsia; he gathered the scattered forces and boosted the morale of the troops. The barbarians were unexpectedly attacked, defeated, chased, and pursued beyond the Danube. The victorious leader distributed the tribute money as rewards, and the soldiers’ cheers declared him emperor on the battlefield. Gallus, who, indifferent to the common good, indulged in the pleasures of Italy, was shortly informed of the victory, the revolt, and the rapid return of his ambitious lieutenant. He went out to meet him as far as the plains of Spoleto. When the armies spotted each other, Gallus's soldiers contrasted their sovereign's disgraceful behavior with the glory of his rival. They admired Æmilianus's bravery and were attracted by his generosity, as he offered a significant pay increase to all deserters. The assassination of Gallus and his son Volusianus ended the civil war, and the senate officially recognized the rights of conquest. Æmilianus's letters to the assembly showed a mix of restraint and arrogance. He assured them that he would leave civil administration to their judgment and would be satisfied to be their general while soon reclaiming Rome's glory and freeing the empire from the barbarians of the North and East. His pride was stroked by the senate's praise, and medals still exist that depict him with the name and attributes of Hercules the Victor and Mars the Avenger.

If the new monarch possessed the abilities, he wanted the time, necessary to fulfil these splendid promises. Less than four months intervened between his victory and his fall. He had vanquished Gallus: he sunk under the weight of a competitor more formidable than Gallus. That unfortunate prince had sent Valerian, already distinguished by the honorable title of censor, to bring the legions of Gaul and Germany to his aid. Valerian executed that commission with zeal and fidelity; and as he arrived too late to save his sovereign, he resolved to revenge him. The troops of Æmilianus, who still lay encamped in the plains of Spoleto, were awed by the sanctity of his character, but much more by the superior strength of his army; and as they were now become as incapable of personal attachment as they had always been of constitutional principle, they readily imbrued their hands in the blood of a prince who so lately had been the object of their partial choice. The guilt was theirs, * but the advantage of it was Valerian’s; who obtained the possession of the throne by the means indeed of a civil war, but with a degree of innocence singular in that age of revolutions; since he owed neither gratitude nor allegiance to his predecessor, whom he dethroned.

If the new king had the skills, he just needed the time to keep those great promises. It was less than four months between his victory and his downfall. He had defeated Gallus but succumbed to a rival far more powerful than Gallus. That unfortunate prince had sent Valerian, who was already known for the honorable title of censor, to gather the legions from Gaul and Germany to help him. Valerian took on that mission with enthusiasm and loyalty, and because he arrived too late to save his ruler, he decided to take revenge. The troops of Æmilianus, who were still camped in the plains of Spoleto, were intimidated by Valerian's respected character, but even more by the greater strength of his army; and since they had become incapable of personal loyalty just as they had always been untrustworthy in principles, they quickly stained their hands with the blood of a prince who had recently been their favored choice. The guilt was theirs, but the benefit went to Valerian, who gained the throne through civil war, but with an unusual level of innocence in that era of upheaval, since he owed no gratitude or loyalty to the predecessor he overthrew.

Valerian was about sixty years of age when he was invested with the purple, not by the caprice of the populace, or the clamors of the army, but by the unanimous voice of the Roman world. In his gradual ascent through the honors of the state, he had deserved the favor of virtuous princes, and had declared himself the enemy of tyrants. His noble birth, his mild but unblemished manners, his learning, prudence, and experience, were revered by the senate and people; and if mankind (according to the observation of an ancient writer) had been left at liberty to choose a master, their choice would most assuredly have fallen on Valerian. Perhaps the merit of this emperor was inadequate to his reputation; perhaps his abilities, or at least his spirit, were affected by the languor and coldness of old age. The consciousness of his decline engaged him to share the throne with a younger and more active associate; the emergency of the times demanded a general no less than a prince; and the experience of the Roman censor might have directed him where to bestow the Imperial purple, as the reward of military merit. But instead of making a judicious choice, which would have confirmed his reign and endeared his memory, Valerian, consulting only the dictates of affection or vanity, immediately invested with the supreme honors his son Gallienus, a youth whose effeminate vices had been hitherto concealed by the obscurity of a private station. The joint government of the father and the son subsisted about seven, and the sole administration of Gallienus continued about eight, years. But the whole period was one uninterrupted series of confusion and calamity. As the Roman empire was at the same time, and on every side, attacked by the blind fury of foreign invaders, and the wild ambition of domestic usurpers, we shall consult order and perspicuity, by pursuing, not so much the doubtful arrangement of dates, as the more natural distribution of subjects. The most dangerous enemies of Rome, during the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, were, 1. The Franks; 2. The Alemanni; 3. The Goths; and, 4. The Persians. Under these general appellations, we may comprehend the adventures of less considerable tribes, whose obscure and uncouth names would only serve to oppress the memory and perplex the attention of the reader.

Valerian was about sixty years old when he was given the imperial purple, not due to the whims of the people or the cries of the army, but by the unanimous decision of the Roman world. Throughout his rise through the ranks of the state, he had earned the favor of righteous leaders and had openly opposed tyrants. His noble lineage, gentle yet impeccable character, knowledge, wisdom, and experience were respected by the Senate and the public; and if humanity (as noted by an ancient writer) had been free to choose a ruler, they would certainly have chosen Valerian. Perhaps the emperor's qualities didn’t match his reputation; maybe his skills, or at least his vigor, were diminished by the fatigue and chill of old age. Aware of his decline, he felt compelled to share power with a younger and more active partner; the crises of the time required both a general and a prince. The wisdom of the Roman censor might have guided him in selecting someone worthy of the imperial purple as a reward for military achievement. But rather than making a sensible choice that would have solidified his reign and honored his legacy, Valerian, swayed by affection or pride, quickly granted the highest honors to his son Gallienus, a young man whose effeminate flaws had previously been hidden by the anonymity of private life. The joint rule of father and son lasted about seven years, followed by Gallienus' sole rule for about eight years. However, this entire period was marked by an unbroken stream of chaos and disaster. The Roman Empire faced relentless attacks from foreign invaders and the reckless ambitions of domestic usurpers. To maintain clarity and organization, we will focus not on the uncertain order of dates but on a more natural categorization of events. The most dangerous threats to Rome during the rule of Valerian and Gallienus were: 1. The Franks; 2. The Alemanni; 3. The Goths; and 4. The Persians. Under these broad categories, we can include the actions of smaller tribes, whose obscure names would only confuse and overwhelm the reader.

I. As the posterity of the Franks compose one of the greatest and most enlightened nations of Europe, the powers of learning and ingenuity have been exhausted in the discovery of their unlettered ancestors. To the tales of credulity have succeeded the systems of fancy. Every passage has been sifted, every spot has been surveyed, that might possibly reveal some faint traces of their origin. It has been supposed that Pannonia, that Gaul, that the northern parts of Germany, gave birth to that celebrated colony of warriors. At length the most rational critics, rejecting the fictitious emigrations of ideal conquerors, have acquiesced in a sentiment whose simplicity persuades us of its truth. They suppose, that about the year two hundred and forty, a new confederacy was formed under the name of Franks, by the old inhabitants of the Lower Rhine and the Weser. * The present circle of Westphalia, the Landgraviate of Hesse, and the duchies of Brunswick and Luneburg, were the ancient seat of the Chauci, who, in their inaccessible morasses, defied the Roman arms; of the Cherusci, proud of the fame of Arminius; of the Catti, formidable by their firm and intrepid infantry; and of several other tribes of inferior power and renown. The love of liberty was the ruling passion of these Germans; the enjoyment of it their best treasure; the word that expressed that enjoyment the most pleasing to their ear. They deserved, they assumed, they maintained the honorable epithet of Franks, or Freemen; which concealed, though it did not extinguish, the peculiar names of the several states of the confederacy. Tacit consent, and mutual advantage, dictated the first laws of the union; it was gradually cemented by habit and experience. The league of the Franks may admit of some comparison with the Helvetic body; in which every canton, retaining its independent sovereignty, consults with its brethren in the common cause, without acknowledging the authority of any supreme head or representative assembly. But the principle of the two confederacies was extremely different. A peace of two hundred years has rewarded the wise and honest policy of the Swiss. An inconstant spirit, the thirst of rapine, and a disregard to the most solemn treaties, disgraced the character of the Franks.

I. The descendants of the Franks make up one of the greatest and most educated nations in Europe. A lot of effort has gone into uncovering the history of their unlettered ancestors. Folklore has shifted to imaginative theories. Every account has been examined, every location surveyed, looking for any signs of their origins. It's been suggested that Pannonia, Gaul, and northern Germany were the birthplace of this famous group of warriors. Eventually, the most rational critics, dismissing the mythical migrations of ideal conquerors, have accepted a more straightforward idea that seems true. They believe that around 240 AD, a new confederation was formed under the name of Franks by the old inhabitants of the Lower Rhine and the Weser. * The current regions of Westphalia, the Landgraviate of Hesse, and the duchies of Brunswick and Luneburg were once home to the Chauci, who boldly resisted Roman forces in their impenetrable marshes; the Cherusci, who took pride in the legacy of Arminius; the Catti, known for their strong and daring infantry; and several other tribes of lesser power and fame. The love of freedom was the driving passion of these Germans; enjoying it was their greatest treasure, and the word that captured that enjoyment was the sweetest to their ears. They earned, embraced, and kept the honorable title of Franks, or Freemen, which masked, though it didn’t erase, the unique identities of the various states within the confederation. Mutual agreement and shared benefits shaped the initial laws of the alliance, which grew stronger over time through habit and experience. The Frankish alliance can be somewhat compared to the Helvetic body, where each canton maintains its independence while working together on common issues, without acknowledging any single leader or representative assembly. However, the foundations of the two confederacies were very different. A lasting peace of two hundred years has rewarded the wise and honest policies of the Swiss, while the Franks were characterized by instability, a desire for plunder, and a disregard for even the most solemn agreements.





Chapter X: Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian And Gallienus.—Part III.

The Romans had long experienced the daring valor of the people of Lower Germany. The union of their strength threatened Gaul with a more formidable invasion, and required the presence of Gallienus, the heir and colleague of Imperial power. Whilst that prince, and his infant son Salonius, displayed, in the court of Treves, the majesty of the empire, its armies were ably conducted by their general, Posthumus, who, though he afterwards betrayed the family of Valerian, was ever faithful to the great interests of the monarchy. The treacherous language of panegyrics and medals darkly announces a long series of victories. Trophies and titles attest (if such evidence can attest) the fame of Posthumus, who is repeatedly styled the Conqueror of the Germans, and the Savior of Gaul.

The Romans had long faced the bold bravery of the people of Lower Germany. Their combined strength posed a significant threat to Gaul, necessitating the presence of Gallienus, the heir and co-ruler of the empire. While that ruler and his young son Salonius showcased the grandeur of the empire in the court of Treves, their armies were effectively led by their general, Posthumus, who, although he later betrayed the Valerian family, remained loyal to the greater interests of the monarchy. The deceptive praise of speeches and medals quietly hints at a lengthy series of victories. Trophies and titles confirm (if such proof can confirm) the renown of Posthumus, who is frequently referred to as the Conqueror of the Germans and the Savior of Gaul.

But a single fact, the only one indeed of which we have any distinct knowledge, erases, in a great measure, these monuments of vanity and adulation. The Rhine, though dignified with the title of Safeguard of the provinces, was an imperfect barrier against the daring spirit of enterprise with which the Franks were actuated. Their rapid devastations stretched from the river to the foot of the Pyrenees; nor were they stopped by those mountains. Spain, which had never dreaded, was unable to resist, the inroads of the Germans. During twelve years, the greatest part of the reign of Gallienus, that opulent country was the theatre of unequal and destructive hostilities. Tarragona, the flourishing capital of a peaceful province, was sacked and almost destroyed; and so late as the days of Orosius, who wrote in the fifth century, wretched cottages, scattered amidst the ruins of magnificent cities, still recorded the rage of the barbarians. When the exhausted country no longer supplied a variety of plunder, the Franks seized on some vessels in the ports of Spain, and transported themselves into Mauritania. The distant province was astonished with the fury of these barbarians, who seemed to fall from a new world, as their name, manners, and complexion, were equally unknown on the coast of Africa.

But one fact, the only one we really know for sure, largely wipes away these symbols of vanity and flattery. The Rhine, even though it was called the Safeguard of the provinces, was an imperfect barrier against the bold spirit of enterprise that drove the Franks. Their swift destruction spread from the river to the foot of the Pyrenees, and they weren't halted by those mountains. Spain, which had never feared before, was unable to withstand the invasions of the Germans. For twelve years, most of Gallienus's reign, that prosperous country was the scene of uneven and devastating conflicts. Tarragona, the thriving capital of a peaceful province, was looted and nearly destroyed; and even in the days of Orosius, who wrote in the fifth century, miserable cottages scattered among the ruins of magnificent cities still bore witness to the rage of the barbarians. When the exhausted country could no longer provide a variety of treasures, the Franks took some ships from the ports of Spain and transported themselves to Mauritania. The distant province was shocked by the fury of these barbarians, who seemed to have emerged from a new world, as their name, customs, and appearance were completely unfamiliar on the coast of Africa.

II. In that part of Upper Saxony, beyond the Elbe, which is at present called the Marquisate of Lusace, there existed, in ancient times, a sacred wood, the awful seat of the superstition of the Suevi. None were permitted to enter the holy precincts, without confessing, by their servile bonds and suppliant posture, the immediate presence of the sovereign Deity. Patriotism contributed, as well as devotion, to consecrate the Sonnenwald, or wood of the Semnones. It was universally believed, that the nation had received its first existence on that sacred spot. At stated periods, the numerous tribes who gloried in the Suevic blood, resorted thither by their ambassadors; and the memory of their common extraction was perpetrated by barbaric rites and human sacrifices. The wide-extended name of Suevi filled the interior countries of Germany, from the banks of the Oder to those of the Danube. They were distinguished from the other Germans by their peculiar mode of dressing their long hair, which they gathered into a rude knot on the crown of the head; and they delighted in an ornament that showed their ranks more lofty and terrible in the eyes of the enemy. Jealous as the Germans were of military renown, they all confessed the superior valor of the Suevi; and the tribes of the Usipetes and Tencteri, who, with a vast army, encountered the dictator Cæsar, declared that they esteemed it not a disgrace to have fled before a people to whose arms the immortal gods themselves were unequal.

II. In that part of Upper Saxony, beyond the Elbe, which is currently known as the Marquisate of Lusace, there was once a sacred forest, the fearsome center of the superstitions of the Suevi. No one was allowed to enter the holy grounds without acknowledging, through their servile bonds and submissive stance, the immediate presence of the supreme Deity. Patriotism played a role alongside devotion in honoring the Sonnenwald, or the wood of the Semnones. It was widely believed that the nation had its origins at that sacred site. At designated times, the many tribes proud of their Suevic heritage sent their ambassadors there; and the memory of their common ancestry was celebrated through barbaric rituals and human sacrifices. The extensive name of Suevi echoed throughout the interior regions of Germany, from the banks of the Oder to those of the Danube. They were set apart from other Germans by their unique way of styling their long hair, which they gathered into a rough knot on top of their heads; and they wore an ornament that made their ranks appear more elevated and intimidating to their enemies. While the Germans were fiercely protective of their military reputation, they all acknowledged the superior bravery of the Suevi; and the tribes of the Usipetes and Tencteri, who faced the dictator Caesar with a large army, claimed that they did not consider it disgraceful to retreat before a people whose strength was unmatched even by the immortal gods themselves.

In the reign of the emperor Caracalla, an innumerable swarm of Suevi appeared on the banks of the Main, and in the neighborhood of the Roman provinces, in quest either of food, of plunder, or of glory. The hasty army of volunteers gradually coalesced into a great and permanent nation, and, as it was composed from so many different tribes, assumed the name of Alemanni, * or Allmen, to denote at once their various lineage and their common bravery. The latter was soon felt by the Romans in many a hostile inroad. The Alemanni fought chiefly on horseback; but their cavalry was rendered still more formidable by a mixture of light infantry, selected from the bravest and most active of the youth, whom frequent exercise had inured to accompany the horsemen in the longest march, the most rapid charge, or the most precipitate retreat.

During the rule of Emperor Caracalla, a vast number of Suevi appeared along the banks of the Main and near the Roman provinces, searching for food, loot, or glory. The quick assembly of volunteers gradually formed a large and permanent nation, and since it was made up of so many different tribes, they took on the name Alemanni, * or Allmen, to reflect both their diverse heritage and their shared bravery. This bravery was soon experienced by the Romans through numerous hostile raids. The Alemanni primarily fought on horseback; however, their cavalry became even more formidable thanks to a mix of light infantry, selected from the bravest and most agile youth, who had trained to accompany the cavalry in long marches, swift charges, or hasty retreats.

This warlike people of Germans had been astonished by the immense preparations of Alexander Severus; they were dismayed by the arms of his successor, a barbarian equal in valor and fierceness to themselves. But still hovering on the frontiers of the empire, they increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna, and displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight of Rome.

This warlike group of Germans was shocked by the massive preparations of Alexander Severus; they were unsettled by the strength of his successor, a barbarian who was just as brave and fierce as they were. However, still lurking on the edges of the empire, they contributed to the overall chaos that followed Decius’s death. They dealt heavy damage to the wealthy provinces of Gaul; they were the first to pull back the curtain on the weak authority of Italy. A large group of the Alemanni crossed the Danube and moved through the Rhætian Alps into the plains of Lombardy, advancing as far as Ravenna, and proudly displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost within view of Rome.

The insult and the danger rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue. Both the emperors were engaged in far distant wars, Valerian in the East, and Gallienus on the Rhine. All the hopes and resources of the Romans were in themselves. In this emergency, the senators resumed the defence of the republic, drew out the Prætorian guards, who had been left to garrison the capital, and filled up their numbers, by enlisting into the public service the stoutest and most willing of the Plebeians. The Alemanni, astonished with the sudden appearance of an army more numerous than their own, retired into Germany, laden with spoil; and their retreat was esteemed as a victory by the unwarlike Romans.

The insult and the threat sparked a bit of their old courage in the senate. Both emperors were away fighting far-off battles, Valerian in the East and Gallienus along the Rhine. All the hopes and resources of the Romans depended on themselves. In this crisis, the senators took charge of defending the republic, called out the Praetorian guards—who had been left to protect the capital—and boosted their numbers by recruiting the strongest and most willing commoners. The Alemanni, surprised by the sudden appearance of an army larger than theirs, retreated back to Germany with their loot, and their withdrawal was seen as a victory by the peace-loving Romans.

When Gallienus received the intelligence that his capital was delivered from the barbarians, he was much less delighted than alarmed with the courage of the senate, since it might one day prompt them to rescue the public from domestic tyranny as well as from foreign invasion. His timid ingratitude was published to his subjects, in an edict which prohibited the senators from exercising any military employment, and even from approaching the camps of the legions. But his fears were groundless. The rich and luxurious nobles, sinking into their natural character, accepted, as a favor, this disgraceful exemption from military service; and as long as they were indulged in the enjoyment of their baths, their theatres, and their villas, they cheerfully resigned the more dangerous cares of empire to the rough hands of peasants and soldiers.

When Gallienus learned that his capital was safe from the barbarians, he was more alarmed than pleased by the bravery of the senate, knowing it could inspire them to free the public not just from foreign threats but from domestic tyranny as well. His fearful ingratitude was revealed to his subjects in an edict that banned senators from any military roles and even from going near the army camps. But his fears were unfounded. The wealthy and indulgent nobles, returning to their true nature, welcomed this shameful exemption from military duty as a privilege; as long as they could enjoy their baths, theaters, and villas, they happily left the more perilous responsibilities of ruling to the rough hands of peasants and soldiers.

Another invasion of the Alemanni, of a more formidable aspect, but more glorious event, is mentioned by a writer of the lower empire. Three hundred thousand are said to have been vanquished, in a battle near Milan, by Gallienus in person, at the head of only ten thousand Romans. We may, however, with great probability, ascribe this incredible victory either to the credulity of the historian, or to some exaggerated exploits of one of the emperor’s lieutenants. It was by arms of a very different nature, that Gallienus endeavored to protect Italy from the fury of the Germans. He espoused Pipa, the daughter of a king of the Marcomanni, a Suevic tribe, which was often confounded with the Alemanni in their wars and conquests. To the father, as the price of his alliance, he granted an ample settlement in Pannonia. The native charms of unpolished beauty seem to have fixed the daughter in the affections of the inconstant emperor, and the bands of policy were more firmly connected by those of love. But the haughty prejudice of Rome still refused the name of marriage to the profane mixture of a citizen and a barbarian; and has stigmatized the German princess with the opprobrious title of concubine of Gallienus.

Another invasion by the Alemanni, which was more serious but also a more glorious event, is noted by a writer from the later Roman Empire. It’s said that three hundred thousand were defeated in a battle near Milan by Gallienus himself, leading only ten thousand Romans. However, it’s likely that this incredible victory can be attributed either to the historian’s gullibility or to exaggerated achievements of one of the emperor's generals. Gallienus used a very different approach to defend Italy from the Germans’ aggression. He married Pipa, the daughter of a king of the Marcomanni, a Suevic tribe often confused with the Alemanni during their wars and conquests. To her father, as part of his alliance, he provided a large settlement in Pannonia. The natural attractiveness of the daughter seems to have captured the fickle emperor’s heart, and their political alliance was strengthened by love. But the proud bias of Rome still denied the title of marriage to the union of a citizen and a barbarian, branding the German princess with the derogatory label of Gallienus's concubine.

III. We have already traced the emigration of the Goths from Scandinavia, or at least from Prussia, to the mouth of the Borysthenes, and have followed their victorious arms from the Borysthenes to the Danube. Under the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, the frontier of the last-mentioned river was perpetually infested by the inroads of Germans and Sarmatians; but it was defended by the Romans with more than usual firmness and success. The provinces that were the seat of war, recruited the armies of Rome with an inexhaustible supply of hardy soldiers; and more than one of these Illyrian peasants attained the station, and displayed the abilities, of a general. Though flying parties of the barbarians, who incessantly hovered on the banks of the Danube, penetrated sometimes to the confines of Italy and Macedonia, their progress was commonly checked, or their return intercepted, by the Imperial lieutenants. But the great stream of the Gothic hostilities was diverted into a very different channel. The Goths, in their new settlement of the Ukraine, soon became masters of the northern coast of the Euxine: to the south of that inland sea were situated the soft and wealthy provinces of Asia Minor, which possessed all that could attract, and nothing that could resist, a barbarian conqueror.

III. We have already tracked the migration of the Goths from Scandinavia, or at least from Prussia, to the mouth of the Borysthenes, and have followed their victorious campaigns from the Borysthenes to the Danube. During the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, the border along the Danube was continually plagued by invasions from Germans and Sarmatians; however, the Romans defended it with more determination and success than usual. The provinces that experienced the war supplied the Roman armies with an endless stream of tough soldiers, and more than one of these Illyrian peasants rose to the rank and proved the skills of a general. Although small groups of barbarians, who constantly lingered along the banks of the Danube, sometimes made it into the borders of Italy and Macedonia, their advance was usually halted, or their retreats blocked, by the Imperial governors. But the main wave of Gothic aggression was redirected into a very different path. The Goths, in their new home in the Ukraine, quickly took control of the northern coast of the Euxine: to the south of that inland sea were the rich and fertile provinces of Asia Minor, which had everything to entice a barbarian conqueror and nothing to fend one off.

The banks of the Borysthenes are only sixty miles distant from the narrow entrance of the peninsula of Crim Tartary, known to the ancients under the name of Chersonesus Taurica. On that inhospitable shore, Euripides, embellishing with exquisite art the tales of antiquity, has placed the scene of one of his most affecting tragedies. The bloody sacrifices of Diana, the arrival of Orestes and Pylades, and the triumph of virtue and religion over savage fierceness, serve to represent an historical truth, that the Tauri, the original inhabitants of the peninsula, were, in some degree, reclaimed from their brutal manners by a gradual intercourse with the Grecian colonies, which settled along the maritime coast. The little kingdom of Bosphorus, whose capital was situated on the Straits, through which the Mæotis communicates itself to the Euxine, was composed of degenerate Greeks and half-civilized barbarians. It subsisted, as an independent state, from the time of the Peloponnesian war, was at last swallowed up by the ambition of Mithridates, and, with the rest of his dominions, sunk under the weight of the Roman arms. From the reign of Augustus, the kings of Bosphorus were the humble, but not useless, allies of the empire. By presents, by arms, and by a slight fortification drawn across the Isthmus, they effectually guarded, against the roving plunderers of Sarmatia, the access of a country which, from its peculiar situation and convenient harbors, commanded the Euxine Sea and Asia Minor. As long as the sceptre was possessed by a lineal succession of kings, they acquitted themselves of their important charge with vigilance and success. Domestic factions, and the fears, or private interest, of obscure usurpers, who seized on the vacant throne, admitted the Goths into the heart of Bosphorus. With the acquisition of a superfluous waste of fertile soil, the conquerors obtained the command of a naval force, sufficient to transport their armies to the coast of Asia. This ships used in the navigation of the Euxine were of a very singular construction. They were slight flat-bottomed barks framed of timber only, without the least mixture of iron, and occasionally covered with a shelving roof, on the appearance of a tempest. In these floating houses, the Goths carelessly trusted themselves to the mercy of an unknown sea, under the conduct of sailors pressed into the service, and whose skill and fidelity were equally suspicious. But the hopes of plunder had banished every idea of danger, and a natural fearlessness of temper supplied in their minds the more rational confidence, which is the just result of knowledge and experience. Warriors of such a daring spirit must have often murmured against the cowardice of their guides, who required the strongest assurances of a settled calm before they would venture to embark; and would scarcely ever be tempted to lose sight of the land. Such, at least, is the practice of the modern Turks; and they are probably not inferior, in the art of navigation, to the ancient inhabitants of Bosphorus.

The banks of the Borysthenes are only sixty miles away from the narrow entrance of the Crim Tartary peninsula, which the ancients called Chersonesus Taurica. On that unwelcoming shore, Euripides crafted one of his most moving tragedies, using beautiful art to enhance ancient stories. The bloody sacrifices to Diana, the arrival of Orestes and Pylades, and the victory of virtue and faith over brutal savagery illustrate a historical truth: the Tauri, the original residents of the peninsula, were somewhat civilized over time through their interactions with the Greek colonies that settled along the coast. The small kingdom of Bosphorus, with its capital located at the Straits connecting the Mæotis to the Euxine, was made up of degenerate Greeks and partially civilized barbarians. It existed as an independent state since the Peloponnesian War but was ultimately overtaken by Mithridates' ambition and, along with his other territories, fell to the might of the Roman army. From Augustus's reign onward, the kings of Bosphorus were humble yet valuable allies of the empire. Through gifts, military aid, and a simple fortification across the Isthmus, they successfully protected access to a region that, due to its unique position and favorable ports, controlled the Euxine Sea and Asia Minor from the predatory raiders of Sarmatia. As long as a legitimate line of kings held power, they managed their significant responsibilities with diligence and success. However, internal conflicts and the ambitions or personal interests of obscure usurpers who took the vacant throne allowed the Goths to invade the heart of Bosphorus. Along with seizing a surplus of fertile land, the conquerors gained control of a naval force large enough to transport their armies to the Asian coast. The ships used to navigate the Euxine were uniquely constructed—light, flat-bottomed boats made entirely of wood, with no iron at all, and occasionally covered by a sloping roof in case of storms. In these floating homes, the Goths recklessly surrendered themselves to the unpredictable sea, guided by sailors who were pressed into service and whose skills and loyalty were questionable. Yet, the lure of plunder overshadowed any thoughts of danger, and their natural fearlessness substituted for the more rational confidence that typically comes from knowledge and experience. Such daring warriors must have often grumbled about the cowardice of their leaders, who demanded strong assurances of calm weather before they were willing to set sail, and seldom dared to lose sight of land. This is still the practice of modern Turks, who are likely not inferior in navigation skills compared to the ancient inhabitants of Bosphorus.

The fleet of the Goths, leaving the coast of Circassia on the left hand, first appeared before Pityus, the utmost limits of the Roman provinces; a city provided with a convenient port, and fortified with a strong wall. Here they met with a resistance more obstinate than they had reason to expect from the feeble garrison of a distant fortress. They were repulsed; and their disappointment seemed to diminish the terror of the Gothic name. As long as Successianus, an officer of superior rank and merit, defended that frontier, all their efforts were ineffectual; but as soon as he was removed by Valerian to a more honorable but less important station, they resumed the attack of Pityus; and by the destruction of that city, obliterated the memory of their former disgrace.

The Gothic fleet, leaving the Circassian coast on the left, first appeared before Pityus, the farthest point of the Roman provinces; a city with a good port and surrounded by strong walls. Here, they faced tougher resistance than they expected from the weak garrison of a distant fortress. They were pushed back, and their disappointment seemed to lessen the fear associated with the Gothic name. As long as Successianus, a skilled and respected officer, defended that border, all their attempts were unsuccessful; but as soon as he was transferred by Valerian to a more prestigious but less significant role, they renewed their attack on Pityus, and by destroying that city, they erased the memory of their earlier defeat.

Circling round the eastern extremity of the Euxine Sea, the navigation from Pityus to Trebizond is about three hundred miles. The course of the Goths carried them in sight of the country of Colchis, so famous by the expedition of the Argonauts; and they even attempted, though without success, to pillage a rich temple at the mouth of the River Phasis. Trebizond, celebrated in the retreat of the ten thousand as an ancient colony of Greeks, derived its wealth and splendor from the magnificence of the emperor Hadrian, who had constructed an artificial port on a coast left destitute by nature of secure harbors. The city was large and populous; a double enclosure of walls seemed to defy the fury of the Goths, and the usual garrison had been strengthened by a reënforcement of ten thousand men. But there are not any advantages capable of supplying the absence of discipline and vigilance. The numerous garrison of Trebizond, dissolved in riot and luxury, disdained to guard their impregnable fortifications. The Goths soon discovered the supine negligence of the besieged, erected a lofty pile of fascines, ascended the walls in the silence of the night, and entered the defenceless city sword in hand. A general massacre of the people ensued, whilst the affrighted soldiers escaped through the opposite gates of the town. The most holy temples, and the most splendid edifices, were involved in a common destruction. The booty that fell into the hands of the Goths was immense: the wealth of the adjacent countries had been deposited in Trebizond, as in a secure place of refuge. The number of captives was incredible, as the victorious barbarians ranged without opposition through the extensive province of Pontus. The rich spoils of Trebizond filled a great fleet of ships that had been found in the port. The robust youth of the sea-coast were chained to the oar; and the Goths, satisfied with the success of their first naval expedition, returned in triumph to their new establishment in the kingdom of Bosphorus.

Circling around the eastern edge of the Black Sea, the journey from Pityus to Trebizond spans about three hundred miles. The path of the Goths brought them close to the land of Colchis, famous from the story of the Argonauts; they even attempted, though unsuccessfully, to loot a wealthy temple at the mouth of the Phasis River. Trebizond, known for the retreat of the Ten Thousand as an ancient Greek colony, gained its wealth and grandeur from the impressive work of Emperor Hadrian, who built an artificial port on a coast that lacked natural harbors. The city was large and populous; a double set of walls seemed to challenge the might of the Goths, and the usual garrison had been bolstered by an additional ten thousand men. However, no amount of resources can make up for a lack of discipline and vigilance. The numerous soldiers in Trebizond, lost in revelry and excess, neglected to guard their supposedly impregnable walls. The Goths quickly recognized the careless attitude of the defenders, built a tall stack of brush, climbed over the walls under the cover of night, and entered the defenseless city armed. A massive slaughter of the inhabitants followed, while the terrified soldiers fled through the town's opposite gates. The most sacred temples and the most impressive buildings were caught in the widespread destruction. The loot the Goths seized was enormous: the wealth of surrounding areas had been stored in Trebizond as a safe haven. The number of captives was astounding, as the victorious barbarians moved through the vast region of Pontus without facing any opposition. The rich spoils from Trebizond filled a large fleet of ships found in the harbor. Strong young men from the coastal area were chained to the oars, and the Goths, pleased with the success of their first naval expedition, returned triumphantly to their new settlement in the kingdom of Bosphorus.

The second expedition of the Goths was undertaken with greater powers of men and ships; but they steered a different course, and, disdaining the exhausted provinces of Pontus, followed the western coast of the Euxine, passed before the wide mouths of the Borysthenes, the Niester, and the Danube, and increasing their fleet by the capture of a great number of fishing barks, they approached the narrow outlet through which the Euxine Sea pours its waters into the Mediterranean, and divides the continents of Europe and Asia. The garrison of Chalcedon was encamped near the temple of Jupiter Urius, on a promontory that commanded the entrance of the Strait; and so inconsiderable were the dreaded invasions of the barbarians that this body of troops surpassed in number the Gothic army. But it was in numbers alone that they surpassed it. They deserted with precipitation their advantageous post, and abandoned the town of Chalcedon, most plentifully stored with arms and money, to the discretion of the conquerors. Whilst they hesitated whether they should prefer the sea or land, Europe or Asia, for the scene of their hostilities, a perfidious fugitive pointed out Nicomedia, * once the capital of the kings of Bithynia, as a rich and easy conquest. He guided the march which was only sixty miles from the camp of Chalcedon, directed the resistless attack, and partook of the booty; for the Goths had learned sufficient policy to reward the traitor whom they detested. Nice, Prusa, Apamæa, Cius, cities that had sometimes rivalled, or imitated, the splendor of Nicomedia, were involved in the same calamity, which, in a few weeks, raged without control through the whole province of Bithynia. Three hundred years of peace, enjoyed by the soft inhabitants of Asia, had abolished the exercise of arms, and removed the apprehension of danger. The ancient walls were suffered to moulder away, and all the revenue of the most opulent cities was reserved for the construction of baths, temples, and theatres.

The second Goth expedition was launched with more soldiers and ships, but they took a different route. Ignoring the depleted regions of Pontus, they followed the western coast of the Black Sea, passing the wide mouths of the Dnieper, Dniester, and Danube rivers. They boosted their fleet by capturing numerous fishing boats and approached the narrow outlet where the Black Sea flows into the Mediterranean, separating Europe and Asia. The garrison at Chalcedon was stationed near the temple of Jupiter Urius on a promontory that overlooked the entrance to the Strait. The feared barbarian invasions were so slight that this group of troops outnumbered the Gothic army. However, they only exceeded them in numbers. They quickly abandoned their advantageous position and left the town of Chalcedon, which was well-stocked with weapons and money, to the mercy of the conquerors. While they debated whether to focus their attacks on the sea or land, Europe or Asia, a treacherous deserter pointed out Nicomedia, once the capital of the kings of Bithynia, as an easy and lucrative target. He led the march just sixty miles from the camp at Chalcedon, directed the unstoppable assault, and took part in the spoils; the Goths had learned enough strategy to reward the traitor they despised. Nice, Prusa, Apamæa, Cius—cities that had once rivaled or copied the splendor of Nicomedia—fell victim to the same disaster, which spread uncontrollably throughout the province of Bithynia within a few weeks. Three hundred years of peace, enjoyed by the gentle people of Asia, had ended the practice of warfare and dispelled the fear of danger. The ancient walls were allowed to crumble, and all the wealth of the most prosperous cities was directed toward building baths, temples, and theaters.

When the city of Cyzicus withstood the utmost effort of Mithridates, it was distinguished by wise laws, a naval power of two hundred galleys, and three arsenals, of arms, of military engines, and of corn. It was still the seat of wealth and luxury; but of its ancient strength, nothing remained except the situation, in a little island of the Propontis, connected with the continent of Asia only by two bridges. From the recent sack of Prusa, the Goths advanced within eighteen miles of the city, which they had devoted to destruction; but the ruin of Cyzicus was delayed by a fortunate accident. The season was rainy, and the Lake Apolloniates, the reservoir of all the springs of Mount Olympus, rose to an uncommon height. The little river of Rhyndacus, which issues from the lake, swelled into a broad and rapid stream, and stopped the progress of the Goths. Their retreat to the maritime city of Heraclea, where the fleet had probably been stationed, was attended by a long train of wagons, laden with the spoils of Bithynia, and was marked by the flames of Nice and Nicomedia, which they wantonly burnt. Some obscure hints are mentioned of a doubtful combat that secured their retreat. But even a complete victory would have been of little moment, as the approach of the autumnal equinox summoned them to hasten their return. To navigate the Euxine before the month of May, or after that of September, is esteemed by the modern Turks the most unquestionable instance of rashness and folly.

When the city of Cyzicus withstand the ultimate effort of Mithridates, it was known for its wise laws, a naval fleet of two hundred ships, and three arsenals filled with weapons, military equipment, and grain. It was still a center of wealth and luxury; however, all that remained of its former strength was its location on a small island in the Propontis, connected to the Asian mainland by only two bridges. After the recent sack of Prusa, the Goths advanced within eighteen miles of the city, which they intended to destroy; but the downfall of Cyzicus was postponed by a fortunate event. The season was rainy, and Lake Apolloniates, which collects all the springs from Mount Olympus, rose to an unusually high level. The small river Rhyndacus, flowing out of the lake, became a wide and swift stream, halting the Goths' advance. Their retreat to the coastal city of Heraclea, where the fleet was likely stationed, was accompanied by a long line of wagons loaded with spoils from Bithynia, and was marked by the burning of Nice and Nicomedia, which they carelessly set on fire. There are some vague mentions of a questionable battle that helped secure their retreat. But even a complete victory would have mattered little, as the approach of the autumn equinox urged them to hurry back. Navigating the Euxine before May or after September is considered by the modern Turks to be a clear example of recklessness and folly.

When we are informed that the third fleet, equipped by the Goths in the ports of Bosphorus, consisted of five hundred sails of ships, our ready imagination instantly computes and multiplies the formidable armament; but, as we are assured by the judicious Strabo, that the piratical vessels used by the barbarians of Pontus and the Lesser Scythia, were not capable of containing more than twenty-five or thirty men we may safely affirm, that fifteen thousand warriors, at the most, embarked in this great expedition. Impatient of the limits of the Euxine, they steered their destructive course from the Cimmerian to the Thracian Bosphorus. When they had almost gained the middle of the Straits, they were suddenly driven back to the entrance of them; till a favorable wind, springing up the next day, carried them in a few hours into the placid sea, or rather lake, of the Propontis. Their landing on the little island of Cyzicus was attended with the ruin of that ancient and noble city. From thence issuing again through the narrow passage of the Hellespont, they pursued their winding navigation amidst the numerous islands scattered over the Archipelago, or the Ægean Sea. The assistance of captives and deserters must have been very necessary to pilot their vessels, and to direct their various incursions, as well on the coast of Greece as on that of Asia. At length the Gothic fleet anchored in the port of Piræus, five miles distant from Athens, which had attempted to make some preparations for a vigorous defence. Cleodamus, one of the engineers employed by the emperor’s orders to fortify the maritime cities against the Goths, had already begun to repair the ancient walls, fallen to decay since the time of Scylla. The efforts of his skill were ineffectual, and the barbarians became masters of the native seat of the muses and the arts. But while the conquerors abandoned themselves to the license of plunder and intemperance, their fleet, that lay with a slender guard in the harbor of Piræus, was unexpectedly attacked by the brave Daxippus, who, flying with the engineer Cleodamus from the sack of Athens, collected a hasty band of volunteers, peasants as well as soldiers, and in some measure avenged the calamities of his country.

When we hear that the third fleet, supplied by the Goths at the Bosphorus ports, had five hundred ships, it's easy to imagine a massive force. However, as the wise Strabo points out, the pirate ships used by the barbarians from Pontus and Lesser Scythia could only hold about twenty-five to thirty men each. So, we can safely say that at most, about fifteen thousand warriors set out on this large expedition. Eager to leave the Black Sea behind, they made their destructive way from the Cimmerian to the Thracian Bosphorus. Just as they were nearing the midpoint of the Straits, they were abruptly pushed back to the entrance. The next day, a favorable wind came up and quickly carried them into the calm waters of the Propontis, which is more like a lake. Their landing on the small island of Cyzicus led to the destruction of that ancient and prestigious city. From there, they passed through the narrow strait of the Hellespont and navigated around the many islands scattered across the Aegean Sea. They likely needed the help of captives and deserters to guide their ships and manage their various attacks along both the Greek and Asian coasts. Eventually, the Gothic fleet anchored at the port of Piræus, just five miles from Athens, which had tried to prepare for a strong defense. Cleodamus, one of the engineers ordered by the emperor to strengthen coastal cities against the Goths, had started repairing the ancient walls that had fallen into disrepair since the days of Scylla. Unfortunately, his efforts were in vain, and the barbarians took control of the birthplace of the Muses and the arts. But while the conquerors indulged in looting and excess, their fleet, lightly defended in the harbor of Piræus, was unexpectedly attacked by the valiant Daxippus, who, fleeing with engineer Cleodamus from the siege of Athens, gathered a quick group of volunteers, including both peasants and soldiers, and managed to partially avenge the suffering of his homeland.

But this exploit, whatever lustre it might shed on the declining age of Athens, served rather to irritate than to subdue the undaunted spirit of the northern invaders. A general conflagration blazed out at the same time in every district of Greece. Thebes and Argos, Corinth and Sparta, which had formerly waged such memorable wars against each other, were now unable to bring an army into the field, or even to defend their ruined fortifications. The rage of war, both by land and by sea, spread from the eastern point of Sunium to the western coast of Epirus. The Goths had already advanced within sight of Italy, when the approach of such imminent danger awakened the indolent Gallienus from his dream of pleasure. The emperor appeared in arms; and his presence seems to have checked the ardor, and to have divided the strength, of the enemy. Naulobatus, a chief of the Heruli, accepted an honorable capitulation, entered with a large body of his countrymen into the service of Rome, and was invested with the ornaments of the consular dignity, which had never before been profaned by the hands of a barbarian. Great numbers of the Goths, disgusted with the perils and hardships of a tedious voyage, broke into Mæsia, with a design of forcing their way over the Danube to their settlements in the Ukraine. The wild attempt would have proved inevitable destruction, if the discord of the Roman generals had not opened to the barbarians the means of an escape. The small remainder of this destroying host returned on board their vessels; and measuring back their way through the Hellespont and the Bosphorus, ravaged in their passage the shores of Troy, whose fame, immortalized by Homer, will probably survive the memory of the Gothic conquests. As soon as they found themselves in safety within the basin of the Euxine, they landed at Anchialus in Thrace, near the foot of Mount Hæmus; and, after all their toils, indulged themselves in the use of those pleasant and salutary hot baths. What remained of the voyage was a short and easy navigation. Such was the various fate of this third and greatest of their naval enterprises. It may seem difficult to conceive how the original body of fifteen thousand warriors could sustain the losses and divisions of so bold an adventure. But as their numbers were gradually wasted by the sword, by shipwrecks, and by the influence of a warm climate, they were perpetually renewed by troops of banditti and deserters, who flocked to the standard of plunder, and by a crowd of fugitive slaves, often of German or Sarmatian extraction, who eagerly seized the glorious opportunity of freedom and revenge. In these expeditions, the Gothic nation claimed a superior share of honor and danger; but the tribes that fought under the Gothic banners are sometimes distinguished and sometimes confounded in the imperfect histories of that age; and as the barbarian fleets seemed to issue from the mouth of the Tanais, the vague but familiar appellation of Scythians was frequently bestowed on the mixed multitude.

But this achievement, no matter how much glory it might bring to the declining period of Athens, actually served more to irritate than to overcome the fearless spirit of the northern invaders. At the same time, a massive blaze erupted across every region of Greece. Thebes, Argos, Corinth, and Sparta, which had once fought memorable wars against each other, were now unable to raise an army or even defend their ruined fortifications. The fury of war, both on land and at sea, spread from the eastern point of Sunium to the western coast of Epirus. The Goths had already advanced close to Italy when the threat of such imminent danger pulled the lethargic Gallienus from his indulgent life. The emperor took up arms; and his presence seemed to temper the enemy's enthusiasm and split their forces. Naulobatus, a leader of the Heruli, accepted a respectable deal, brought a large number of his countrymen into Roman service, and was honored with the titles of consular dignity, which had never before been sullied by a barbarian's touch. Many Goths, fed up with the dangers and hardships of a long journey, broke into Mæsia, intending to force their way across the Danube to their homes in Ukraine. This reckless move would have led to their certain destruction if the infighting among the Roman generals hadn’t opened a path for the barbarians to escape. The small remnant of this devastating group returned to their ships, retracing their route through the Hellespont and the Bosphorus, destroying the shores of Troy along the way, whose fame, immortalized by Homer, will likely outlive the memory of the Gothic invasions. Once they felt safe in the Euxine Sea, they landed at Anchialus in Thrace, close to Mount Hæmus, and after all their struggles, treated themselves to the enjoyable and healthful hot baths. The rest of the journey was a short and easy sail. Such was the varied fate of this third and greatest of their naval attempts. It may seem hard to picture how the original group of fifteen thousand warriors could endure the losses and divisions of such a daring expedition. But as their numbers gradually dwindled due to battle, shipwrecks, and the effects of a warm climate, they were constantly replenished by bands of outlaws and deserters who flocked to the plunder standard, along with many runaway slaves, often of German or Sarmatian origin, who eagerly took the chance for freedom and revenge. In these campaigns, the Gothic nation claimed a larger share of honor and risk; but the tribes fighting under the Gothic flags are sometimes distinguished and sometimes merged in the incomplete histories of that time; and as the barbarian fleets appeared to emerge from the mouth of the Tanais, the vague but familiar name of Scythians was often used for the mixed crowd.





Chapter X: Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian And Gallienus.—Part IV.

In the general calamities of mankind, the death of an individual, however exalted, the ruin of an edifice, however famous, are passed over with careless inattention. Yet we cannot forget that the temple of Diana at Ephesus, after having risen with increasing splendor from seven repeated misfortunes, was finally burnt by the Goths in their third naval invasion. The arts of Greece, and the wealth of Asia, had conspired to erect that sacred and magnificent structure. It was supported by a hundred and twenty-seven marble columns of the Ionic order. They were the gifts of devout monarchs, and each was sixty feet high. The altar was adorned with the masterly sculptures of Praxiteles, who had, perhaps, selected from the favorite legends of the place the birth of the divine children of Latona, the concealment of Apollo after the slaughter of the Cyclops, and the clemency of Bacchus to the vanquished Amazons. Yet the length of the temple of Ephesus was only four hundred and twenty-five feet, about two thirds of the measure of the church of St. Peter’s at Rome. In the other dimensions, it was still more inferior to that sublime production of modern architecture. The spreading arms of a Christian cross require a much greater breadth than the oblong temples of the Pagans; and the boldest artists of antiquity would have been startled at the proposal of raising in the air a dome of the size and proportions of the Pantheon. The temple of Diana was, however, admired as one of the wonders of the world. Successive empires, the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman, had revered its sanctity and enriched its splendor. But the rude savages of the Baltic were destitute of a taste for the elegant arts, and they despised the ideal terrors of a foreign superstition.

In the face of humanity's widespread disasters, the death of one person, no matter how prominent, or the destruction of a renowned building, often gets overlooked. Still, we can't forget that the Temple of Diana in Ephesus, which had risen in grandeur despite seven previous calamities, was ultimately destroyed by the Goths during their third naval attack. The artistic prowess of Greece and the riches of Asia came together to create that sacred and magnificent structure. It was supported by 127 marble columns in the Ionic style, a gift from devoted kings, each standing 60 feet tall. The altar featured masterful sculptures by Praxiteles, who possibly drew from the beloved legends of the area, like the birth of the divine children of Latona, Apollo’s hiding after defeating the Cyclops, and Bacchus's mercy toward the conquered Amazons. Nevertheless, the Temple of Ephesus measured only 425 feet long, about two-thirds the length of St. Peter’s Church in Rome. In other dimensions, it was even less impressive compared to that magnificent feat of modern architecture. The expansive arms of a Christian cross require a much wider space than the rectangular temples of pagans, and even the boldest artists of antiquity would have been daunted by the idea of constructing a dome as large and proportionate as that of the Pantheon. Nonetheless, the Temple of Diana was celebrated as one of the wonders of the world. Successive empires—Persian, Macedonian, and Roman—held its sacredness in high regard and contributed to its splendor. However, the uncivilized tribes of the Baltic lacked appreciation for fine arts and dismissed the imagined terrors of a foreign religion.

Another circumstance is related of these invasions, which might deserve our notice, were it not justly to be suspected as the fanciful conceit of a recent sophist. We are told that in the sack of Athens the Goths had collected all the libraries, and were on the point of setting fire to this funeral pile of Grecian learning, had not one of their chiefs, of more refined policy than his brethren, dissuaded them from the design; by the profound observation, that as long as the Greeks were addicted to the study of books, they would never apply themselves to the exercise of arms. The sagacious counsellor (should the truth of the fact be admitted) reasoned like an ignorant barbarian. In the most polite and powerful nations, genius of every kind has displayed itself about the same period; and the age of science has generally been the age of military virtue and success.

Another circumstance related to these invasions is worth noting, though it might just be seen as a fanciful idea from a recent thinker. It's said that during the sack of Athens, the Goths gathered all the libraries and were about to set fire to this massive pile of Greek knowledge, but one of their leaders, who was more politically savvy than his peers, convinced them not to go through with it. He pointed out that as long as the Greeks were focused on studying books, they wouldn't be turning their attention to warfare. The wise advisor (if we accept this account as true) thought like an uneducated barbarian. In the most cultured and powerful nations, creative genius has typically emerged around the same time; and typically, the age of scientific progress has also been an era of military strength and victory.

IV. The new sovereign of Persia, Artaxerxes and his son Sapor, had triumphed (as we have already seen) over the house of Arsaces. Of the many princes of that ancient race, Chosroes, king of Armenia, had alone preserved both his life and his independence. He defended himself by the natural strength of his country; by the perpetual resort of fugitives and malecontents; by the alliance of the Romans, and above all, by his own courage. Invincible in arms, during a thirty years’ war, he was at length assassinated by the emissaries of Sapor, king of Persia. The patriotic satraps of Armenia, who asserted the freedom and dignity of the crown, implored the protection of Rome in favor of Tiridates, the lawful heir. But the son of Chosroes was an infant, the allies were at a distance, and the Persian monarch advanced towards the frontier at the head of an irresistible force. Young Tiridates, the future hope of his country, was saved by the fidelity of a servant, and Armenia continued above twenty-seven years a reluctant province of the great monarchy of Persia. Elated with this easy conquest, and presuming on the distresses or the degeneracy of the Romans, Sapor obliged the strong garrisons of Carrhæ and Nisibis * to surrender, and spread devastation and terror on either side of the Euphrates.

IV. The new ruler of Persia, Artaxerxes, along with his son Sapor, had defeated the house of Arsaces, as we've already noted. Among the numerous princes of that ancient lineage, only Chosroes, the king of Armenia, managed to keep both his life and his independence. He defended himself with the natural fortifications of his land, the constant influx of refugees and discontented people, the support of the Romans, and above all, his own bravery. Unbeatable in battle throughout a thirty-year conflict, he was ultimately assassinated by agents of Sapor, the Persian king. The patriotic governors of Armenia, who championed the freedom and dignity of the crown, sought Roman protection for Tiridates, the rightful heir. However, Chosroes' son was just a baby, the allies were far away, and the Persian king advanced towards the border with an unstoppable army. Young Tiridates, the future hope of his nation, was rescued by the loyalty of a servant, and Armenia remained an unwilling province of the vast Persian Empire for over twenty-seven years. Fueled by this easy victory and confident in the troubles or weaknesses of the Romans, Sapor forced the strong garrisons of Carrhæ and Nisibis to surrender, unleashing devastation and fear on both sides of the Euphrates.

The loss of an important frontier, the ruin of a faithful and natural ally, and the rapid success of Sapor’s ambition, affected Rome with a deep sense of the insult as well as of the danger. Valerian flattered himself, that the vigilance of his lieutenants would sufficiently provide for the safety of the Rhine and of the Danube; but he resolved, notwithstanding his advanced age, to march in person to the defence of the Euphrates. During his progress through Asia Minor, the naval enterprises of the Goths were suspended, and the afflicted province enjoyed a transient and fallacious calm. He passed the Euphrates, encountered the Persian monarch near the walls of Edessa, was vanquished, and taken prisoner by Sapor. The particulars of this great event are darkly and imperfectly represented; yet, by the glimmering light which is afforded us, we may discover a long series of imprudence, of error, and of deserved misfortunes on the side of the Roman emperor. He reposed an implicit confidence in Macrianus, his Prætorian præfect. That worthless minister rendered his master formidable only to the oppressed subjects, and contemptible to the enemies of Rome. By his weak or wicked counsels, the Imperial army was betrayed into a situation where valor and military skill were equally unavailing. The vigorous attempt of the Romans to cut their way through the Persian host was repulsed with great slaughter; and Sapor, who encompassed the camp with superior numbers, patiently waited till the increasing rage of famine and pestilence had insured his victory. The licentious murmurs of the legions soon accused Valerian as the cause of their calamities; their seditious clamors demanded an instant capitulation. An immense sum of gold was offered to purchase the permission of a disgraceful retreat. But the Persian, conscious of his superiority, refused the money with disdain; and detaining the deputies, advanced in order of battle to the foot of the Roman rampart, and insisted on a personal conference with the emperor. Valerian was reduced to the necessity of intrusting his life and dignity to the faith of an enemy. The interview ended as it was natural to expect. The emperor was made a prisoner, and his astonished troops laid down their arms. In such a moment of triumph, the pride and policy of Sapor prompted him to fill the vacant throne with a successor entirely dependent on his pleasure. Cyriades, an obscure fugitive of Antioch, stained with every vice, was chosen to dishonor the Roman purple; and the will of the Persian victor could not fail of being ratified by the acclamations, however reluctant, of the captive army.

The loss of a key frontier, the downfall of a loyal and natural ally, and the swift rise of Sapor's ambitions deeply impacted Rome, highlighting both the insult and the danger. Valerian convinced himself that his lieutenants’ vigilance would adequately protect the Rhine and the Danube, yet he decided, despite his old age, to personally lead the defense of the Euphrates. As he traveled through Asia Minor, the naval activities of the Goths were paused, allowing the beleaguered province a brief and deceptive peace. He crossed the Euphrates, met the Persian king near Edessa's walls, was defeated, and captured by Sapor. The details of this significant event are obscured and incomplete; however, with the limited information available, we can see a long chain of foolishness, mistakes, and well-deserved misfortunes on the part of the Roman emperor. He placed blind trust in Macrianus, his Praetorian prefect. That worthless advisor made his master feared only by the oppressed subjects and looked down upon by Rome's enemies. Through his weak or harmful advice, the Imperial army was led into a position where bravery and military skill were equally useless. The Roman attempt to break through the Persian lines was met with heavy losses, and Sapor, who had surrounded the camp with superior numbers, patiently waited until hunger and disease guaranteed his victory. The restless murmurs of the legions quickly blamed Valerian for their misfortunes; their rebellious cries demanded an immediate surrender. A vast sum of gold was offered to buy a shameful retreat. But the Persian, aware of his advantage, rejected the money with contempt and kept the envoys, advancing in battle order to the base of the Roman rampart, insisting on a personal meeting with the emperor. Valerian was forced to trust his life and dignity to an enemy. The meeting ended as expected. The emperor was taken prisoner, and his shocked troops laid down their arms. In such a moment of triumph, Sapor's pride and strategy led him to fill the empty throne with a successor entirely at his mercy. Cyriades, an obscure fugitive from Antioch, tainted by every vice, was chosen to disgrace the Roman purple; and the will of the Persian victor could not help but be confirmed by the cheers, however unwilling, of the captive army.

The Imperial slave was eager to secure the favor of his master by an act of treason to his native country. He conducted Sapor over the Euphrates, and, by the way of Chalcis, to the metropolis of the East. So rapid were the motions of the Persian cavalry, that, if we may credit a very judicious historian, the city of Antioch was surprised when the idle multitude was fondly gazing on the amusements of the theatre. The splendid buildings of Antioch, private as well as public, were either pillaged or destroyed; and the numerous inhabitants were put to the sword, or led away into captivity. The tide of devastation was stopped for a moment by the resolution of the high priest of Emesa. Arrayed in his sacerdotal robes, he appeared at the head of a great body of fanatic peasants, armed only with slings, and defended his god and his property from the sacrilegious hands of the followers of Zoroaster. But the ruin of Tarsus, and of many other cities, furnishes a melancholy proof that, except in this singular instance, the conquest of Syria and Cilicia scarcely interrupted the progress of the Persian arms. The advantages of the narrow passes of Mount Taurus were abandoned, in which an invader, whose principal force consisted in his cavalry, would have been engaged in a very unequal combat: and Sapor was permitted to form the siege of Cæsarea, the capital of Cappadocia; a city, though of the second rank, which was supposed to contain four hundred thousand inhabitants. Demosthenes commanded in the place, not so much by the commission of the emperor, as in the voluntary defence of his country. For a long time he deferred its fate; and when at last Cæsarea was betrayed by the perfidy of a physician, he cut his way through the Persians, who had been ordered to exert their utmost diligence to take him alive. This heroic chief escaped the power of a foe who might either have honored or punished his obstinate valor; but many thousands of his fellow-citizens were involved in a general massacre, and Sapor is accused of treating his prisoners with wanton and unrelenting cruelty. Much should undoubtedly be allowed for national animosity, much for humbled pride and impotent revenge; yet, upon the whole, it is certain, that the same prince, who, in Armenia, had displayed the mild aspect of a legislator, showed himself to the Romans under the stern features of a conqueror. He despaired of making any permanent establishment in the empire, and sought only to leave behind him a wasted desert, whilst he transported into Persia the people and the treasures of the provinces.

The imperial slave was eager to earn his master’s favor by betraying his own country. He led Sapor across the Euphrates and through Chalcis to the main city of the East. The Persian cavalry moved so quickly that, according to a very astute historian, the city of Antioch was caught off guard while the unsuspecting crowd was enjoying the theater. The magnificent buildings of Antioch, both private and public, were either looted or destroyed, and the many inhabitants were either killed or taken captive. The wave of destruction was briefly halted by the high priest of Emesa. Dressed in his priestly robes, he appeared at the forefront of a large group of fanatical peasants, armed only with slings, and defended his god and property from the sacrilegious hands of Zoroaster's followers. However, the devastation of Tarsus and several other cities provides a sad reminder that, aside from this exceptional case, the conquest of Syria and Cilicia hardly hindered the advance of the Persian forces. The strategic narrow passes of Mount Taurus were abandoned, where an invader who primarily relied on cavalry would have faced a very uneven battle. Sapor was allowed to lay siege to Cæsarea, the capital of Cappadocia; a city, though not very large, believed to have had four hundred thousand residents. Demosthenes commanded the city, not so much by imperial appointment but out of a personal commitment to defend his homeland. He delayed its fate for a long time, but when Cæsarea was finally betrayed by the treachery of a physician, he fought his way through the Persians, who had been ordered to capture him alive. This brave leader escaped the power of an enemy who could have either honored or punished his stubborn bravery, but many thousands of his fellow citizens fell victim to a general massacre, and Sapor was accused of treating his prisoners with cruel disregard. There must certainly be some understanding for national hatred, along with humiliated pride and helpless revenge; yet, overall, it’s clear that the same prince who had acted as a gentle legislator in Armenia revealed himself to the Romans as a harsh conqueror. He had given up hope of establishing any lasting control in the empire and aimed only to leave behind a scorched earth while transporting the people and riches of the provinces back to Persia.

At the time when the East trembled at the name of Sapor, he received a present not unworthy of the greatest kings; a long train of camels, laden with the most rare and valuable merchandises. The rich offering was accompanied with an epistle, respectful, but not servile, from Odenathus, one of the noblest and most opulent senators of Palmyra. “Who is this Odenathus,” (said the haughty victor, and he commanded that the present should be cast into the Euphrates,) “that he thus insolently presumes to write to his lord? If he entertains a hope of mitigating his punishment, let him fall prostrate before the foot of our throne, with his hands bound behind his back. Should he hesitate, swift destruction shall be poured on his head, on his whole race, and on his country.” The desperate extremity to which the Palmyrenian was reduced, called into action all the latent powers of his soul. He met Sapor; but he met him in arms. Infusing his own spirit into a little army collected from the villages of Syria and the tents of the desert, he hovered round the Persian host, harassed their retreat, carried off part of the treasure, and, what was dearer than any treasure, several of the women of the great king; who was at last obliged to repass the Euphrates with some marks of haste and confusion. By this exploit, Odenathus laid the foundations of his future fame and fortunes. The majesty of Rome, oppressed by a Persian, was protected by a Syrian or Arab of Palmyra.

At the time when the East shook at the mention of Sapor, he received a gift worthy of the greatest kings: a long line of camels loaded with the rarest and most valuable goods. This generous offering came with a letter, respectful yet not submissive, from Odenathus, one of the most noble and wealthy senators of Palmyra. “Who is this Odenathus,” said the arrogant victor, ordering that the gift be thrown into the Euphrates, “that he presumes to write to his lord with such insolence? If he hopes to lessen his punishment, he should throw himself at the foot of our throne with his hands tied behind his back. If he hesitates, swift destruction will come upon him, his entire family, and his homeland.” The dire situation Odenathus found himself in awakened all the hidden strength of his spirit. He faced Sapor, but he faced him with an army. Empowering a small force gathered from the villages of Syria and the desert tents, he surrounded the Persian army, harassed their retreat, seized part of the treasure, and, more precious than any treasure, several of the king's women. In the end, Sapor had to cross back over the Euphrates in haste and confusion. Through this act, Odenathus built the foundation of his future renown and success. The power of Rome, oppressed by a Persian, was defended by a Syrian or Arab from Palmyra.

The voice of history, which is often little more than the organ of hatred or flattery, reproaches Sapor with a proud abuse of the rights of conquest. We are told that Valerian, in chains, but invested with the Imperial purple, was exposed to the multitude, a constant spectacle of fallen greatness; and that whenever the Persian monarch mounted on horseback, he placed his foot on the neck of a Roman emperor. Notwithstanding all the remonstrances of his allies, who repeatedly advised him to remember the vicissitudes of fortune, to dread the returning power of Rome, and to make his illustrious captive the pledge of peace, not the object of insult, Sapor still remained inflexible. When Valerian sunk under the weight of shame and grief, his skin, stuffed with straw, and formed into the likeness of a human figure, was preserved for ages in the most celebrated temple of Persia; a more real monument of triumph, than the fancied trophies of brass and marble so often erected by Roman vanity. The tale is moral and pathetic, but the truth of it may very fairly be called in question. The letters still extant from the princes of the East to Sapor are manifest forgeries; nor is it natural to suppose that a jealous monarch should, even in the person of a rival, thus publicly degrade the majesty of kings. Whatever treatment the unfortunate Valerian might experience in Persia, it is at least certain that the only emperor of Rome who had ever fallen into the hands of the enemy, languished away his life in hopeless captivity.

The voice of history, which often serves as a tool for hatred or flattery, criticizes Sapor for misusing the rights of conquest. We're told that Valerian, in chains but wearing the Imperial purple, was displayed to the crowds, a constant reminder of fallen greatness; and that whenever the Persian king rode a horse, he would put his foot on the neck of a Roman emperor. Despite all the warnings from his allies, who repeatedly advised him to remember the ups and downs of fortune, to fear Rome's resurgence, and to treat his famous prisoner as a symbol of peace rather than a source of mockery, Sapor remained unyielding. When Valerian succumbed to the burden of shame and grief, his skin, stuffed with straw and shaped like a human figure, was kept for centuries in the most famous temple of Persia; a more authentic symbol of victory than the imagined trophies of bronze and marble often raised by Roman pride. The story is both moral and tragic, but the truth of it can certainly be questioned. The letters still existing from the Eastern princes to Sapor are obvious forgeries; it’s hard to believe a jealous king would publicly humiliate the dignity of rulers, even through a rival. Whatever treatment the unfortunate Valerian may have faced in Persia, it is at least clear that he was the only Roman emperor ever to fall into enemy hands and wasted away his life in hopeless captivity.

The emperor Gallienus, who had long supported with impatience the censorial severity of his father and colleague, received the intelligence of his misfortunes with secret pleasure and avowed indifference. “I knew that my father was a mortal,” said he; “and since he has acted as it becomes a brave man, I am satisfied.” Whilst Rome lamented the fate of her sovereign, the savage coldness of his son was extolled by the servile courtiers as the perfect firmness of a hero and a stoic. It is difficult to paint the light, the various, the inconstant character of Gallienus, which he displayed without constraint, as soon as he became sole possessor of the empire. In every art that he attempted, his lively genius enabled him to succeed; and as his genius was destitute of judgment, he attempted every art, except the important ones of war and government. He was a master of several curious, but useless sciences, a ready orator, an elegant poet, a skilful gardener, an excellent cook, and most contemptible prince. When the great emergencies of the state required his presence and attention, he was engaged in conversation with the philosopher Plotinus, wasting his time in trifling or licentious pleasures, preparing his initiation to the Grecian mysteries, or soliciting a place in the Areopagus of Athens. His profuse magnificence insulted the general poverty; the solemn ridicule of his triumphs impressed a deeper sense of the public disgrace. The repeated intelligence of invasions, defeats, and rebellions, he received with a careless smile; and singling out, with affected contempt, some particular production of the lost province, he carelessly asked, whether Rome must be ruined, unless it was supplied with linen from Egypt, and arras cloth from Gaul. There were, however, a few short moments in the life of Gallienus, when, exasperated by some recent injury, he suddenly appeared the intrepid soldier and the cruel tyrant; till, satiated with blood, or fatigued by resistance, he insensibly sunk into the natural mildness and indolence of his character.

The emperor Gallienus, who had grown increasingly impatient with his father's strictness and their shared responsibilities, received news of his father's misfortunes with hidden satisfaction and open indifference. “I always knew my father was human,” he said; “and since he has acted like a brave man, I’m okay with it.” While Rome mourned for her ruler, his son’s coldness was praised by the fawning courtiers as the steadfastness of a hero and a stoic. It's challenging to capture the lively, varied, and unpredictable nature of Gallienus, which he displayed freely once he became the sole ruler of the empire. In every pursuit he tried, his lively intellect allowed him to excel; however, because he lacked good judgment, he ventured into every area except the crucial tasks of warfare and governance. He mastered several interesting but pointless subjects, was a quick-witted speaker, an elegant poet, an adept gardener, an excellent cook, and a deeply unimpressive ruler. When the critical issues of the state needed his presence and focus, he was busy chatting with the philosopher Plotinus, wasting time on trivial or indulgent pleasures, preparing for initiation into the Greek mysteries, or seeking a position in the Areopagus of Athens. His extravagant spending mocked the widespread poverty; the solemn mockery of his victories highlighted the public shame. The constant reports of invasions, defeats, and rebellions were met with a casual smile; and singling out, with feigned disdain, a specific item from the lost province, he carelessly remarked whether Rome would fall unless it got linen from Egypt and tapestry from Gaul. Still, there were a few brief moments in Gallienus's life when, frustrated by some recent offense, he suddenly became the brave soldier and ruthless tyrant; until, having had his fill of violence or worn out from resistance, he would gradually return to the natural gentleness and laziness of his character.

At the time when the reins of government were held with so loose a hand, it is not surprising that a crowd of usurpers should start up in every province of the empire against the son of Valerian. It was probably some ingenious fancy, of comparing the thirty tyrants of Rome with the thirty tyrants of Athens, that induced the writers of the Augustan History to select that celebrated number, which has been gradually received into a popular appellation. But in every light the parallel is idle and defective. What resemblance can we discover between a council of thirty persons, the united oppressors of a single city, and an uncertain list of independent rivals, who rose and fell in irregular succession through the extent of a vast empire? Nor can the number of thirty be completed, unless we include in the account the women and children who were honored with the Imperial title. The reign of Gallienus, distracted as it was, produced only nineteen pretenders to the throne: Cyriades, Macrianus, Balista, Odenathus, and Zenobia, in the East; in Gaul, and the western provinces, Posthumus, Lollianus, Victorinus, and his mother Victoria, Marius, and Tetricus; in Illyricum and the confines of the Danube, Ingenuus, Regillianus, and Aureolus; in Pontus, Saturninus; in Isauria, Trebellianus; Piso in Thessaly; Valens in Achaia; Æmilianus in Egypt; and Celsus in Africa. * To illustrate the obscure monuments of the life and death of each individual, would prove a laborious task, alike barren of instruction and of amusement. We may content ourselves with investigating some general characters, that most strongly mark the condition of the times, and the manners of the men, their pretensions, their motives, their fate, and the destructive consequences of their usurpation.

At a time when the government was so loosely controlled, it’s not surprising that a wave of usurpers emerged in every province of the empire against the son of Valerian. It was likely an imaginative comparison of the thirty tyrants of Rome with the thirty tyrants of Athens that led the authors of the Augustan History to choose that well-known number, which has gradually become a popular term. However, in every way, the comparison is pointless and flawed. What similarity can we find between a council of thirty people, who were the united oppressors of a single city, and a vague list of independent rivals who rose and fell in an irregular sequence across a vast empire? The number thirty can only be reached if we also count the women and children who were given the Imperial title. The reign of Gallienus, chaotic as it was, produced only nineteen claimants to the throne: Cyriades, Macrianus, Balista, Odenathus, and Zenobia in the East; in Gaul and the western provinces, Posthumus, Lollianus, Victorinus, and his mother Victoria, Marius, and Tetricus; in Illyricum and along the Danube, Ingenuus, Regillianus, and Aureolus; in Pontus, Saturninus; in Isauria, Trebellianus; Piso in Thessaly; Valens in Achaia; Æmilianus in Egypt; and Celsus in Africa. To elaborate on the obscure records of each individual’s life and death would be a tedious task, yielding neither instruction nor entertainment. We can focus instead on exploring some general characteristics that best illustrate the state of the times, the behaviors of the people, their claims to power, their motivations, their outcomes, and the destructive effects of their usurpation.

It is sufficiently known, that the odious appellation of Tyrant was often employed by the ancients to express the illegal seizure of supreme power, without any reference to the abuse of it. Several of the pretenders, who raised the standard of rebellion against the emperor Gallienus, were shining models of virtue, and almost all possessed a considerable share of vigor and ability. Their merit had recommended them to the favor of Valerian, and gradually promoted them to the most important commands of the empire. The generals, who assumed the title of Augustus, were either respected by their troops for their able conduct and severe discipline, or admired for valor and success in war, or beloved for frankness and generosity. The field of victory was often the scene of their election; and even the armorer Marius, the most contemptible of all the candidates for the purple, was distinguished, however, by intrepid courage, matchless strength, and blunt honesty. His mean and recent trade cast, indeed, an air of ridicule on his elevation; * but his birth could not be more obscure than was that of the greater part of his rivals, who were born of peasants, and enlisted in the army as private soldiers. In times of confusion every active genius finds the place assigned him by nature: in a general state of war military merit is the road to glory and to greatness. Of the nineteen tyrants Tetricus only was a senator; Piso alone was a noble. The blood of Numa, through twenty-eight successive generations, ran in the veins of Calphurnius Piso, who, by female alliances, claimed a right of exhibiting, in his house, the images of Crassus and of the great Pompey. His ancestors had been repeatedly dignified with all the honors which the commonwealth could bestow; and of all the ancient families of Rome, the Calphurnian alone had survived the tyranny of the Cæsars. The personal qualities of Piso added new lustre to his race. The usurper Valens, by whose order he was killed, confessed, with deep remorse, that even an enemy ought to have respected the sanctity of Piso; and although he died in arms against Gallienus, the senate, with the emperor’s generous permission, decreed the triumphal ornaments to the memory of so virtuous a rebel.

It’s well-known that the hateful title of Tyrant was frequently used by the ancients to refer to the illegal takeover of supreme power, without considering how it was abused. Many of the challengers who rose up against Emperor Gallienus were actually models of virtue, and nearly all displayed significant strength and capability. Their talents had earned them Valerian’s favor and gradually led them to the highest ranks in the empire. The generals who claimed the title of Augustus were either respected by their troops for their effective leadership and strict discipline, admired for their bravery and success in battle, or loved for their openness and generosity. Victorious battlefields often served as the backdrop for their election; even the armorer Marius, the most disdainful candidate for the purple, stood out because of his fearless bravery, unmatched strength, and straightforward honesty. His lowly and recent profession indeed brought a sense of ridicule to his rise; * but his origins were no more obscure than those of most of his rivals, who came from peasant backgrounds and enlisted as private soldiers. In chaotic times, every active talent finds its rightful place: in a general state of war, military merit is the path to glory and greatness. Of the nineteen tyrants, only Tetricus was a senator; Piso was the only noble. The blood of Numa, through twenty-eight generations, flowed in Calphurnius Piso's veins, who claimed, through female lineage, the right to display the images of Crassus and the great Pompey in his house. His ancestors had repeatedly been honored with all the distinctions the Commonwealth could offer; and among all the ancient families of Rome, only the Calphurnians had survived the tyranny of the Cæsars. Piso’s personal qualities further enhanced his esteemed lineage. The usurper Valens, who ordered his execution, admitted, with deep regret, that even an enemy should have respected Piso’s sanctity; and although he fought against Gallienus, the Senate, with the emperor’s generous consent, awarded triumphal honors to the memory of such a virtuous rebel.

The lieutenants of Valerian were grateful to the father, whom they esteemed. They disdained to serve the luxurious indolence of his unworthy son. The throne of the Roman world was unsupported by any principle of loyalty; and treason against such a prince might easily be considered as patriotism to the state. Yet if we examine with candor the conduct of these usurpers, it will appear, that they were much oftener driven into rebellion by their fears, than urged to it by their ambition. They dreaded the cruel suspicions of Gallienus; they equally dreaded the capricious violence of their troops. If the dangerous favor of the army had imprudently declared them deserving of the purple, they were marked for sure destruction; and even prudence would counsel them to secure a short enjoyment of empire, and rather to try the fortune of war than to expect the hand of an executioner. When the clamor of the soldiers invested the reluctant victims with the ensigns of sovereign authority, they sometimes mourned in secret their approaching fate. “You have lost,” said Saturninus, on the day of his elevation, “you have lost a useful commander, and you have made a very wretched emperor.”

The lieutenants of Valerian appreciated the father, whom they respected. They looked down on serving the lavish laziness of his undeserving son. The throne of the Roman Empire was not supported by any sense of loyalty; treason against such a ruler could easily be seen as patriotism for the state. However, if we honestly examine the actions of these usurpers, it becomes clear that they were more often pushed into rebellion out of fear than motivated by ambition. They feared the cruel suspicions of Gallienus and also feared the unpredictable violence of their troops. If the dangerous favor of the army recklessly declared them worthy of the throne, they were clearly marked for destruction; even common sense would advise them to seize a short-lived reign rather than wait for the executioner's blade. When the soldiers' cheers forced the unwilling victims into positions of power, they sometimes secretly lamented their impending doom. “You’ve lost,” said Saturninus on the day he became emperor, “you’ve lost a useful commander, and you’ve made a very miserable emperor.”

The apprehensions of Saturninus were justified by the repeated experience of revolutions. Of the nineteen tyrants who started up under the reign of Gallienus, there was not one who enjoyed a life of peace, or a natural death. As soon as they were invested with the bloody purple, they inspired their adherents with the same fears and ambition which had occasioned their own revolt. Encompassed with domestic conspiracy, military sedition, and civil war, they trembled on the edge of precipices, in which, after a longer or shorter term of anxiety, they were inevitably lost. These precarious monarchs received, however, such honors as the flattery of their respective armies and provinces could bestow; but their claim, founded on rebellion, could never obtain the sanction of law or history. Italy, Rome, and the senate, constantly adhered to the cause of Gallienus, and he alone was considered as the sovereign of the empire. That prince condescended, indeed, to acknowledge the victorious arms of Odenathus, who deserved the honorable distinction, by the respectful conduct which he always maintained towards the son of Valerian. With the general applause of the Romans, and the consent of Gallienus, the senate conferred the title of Augustus on the brave Palmyrenian; and seemed to intrust him with the government of the East, which he already possessed, in so independent a manner, that, like a private succession, he bequeathed it to his illustrious widow, Zenobia.

The concerns of Saturninus were validated by the ongoing revolutions. Of the nineteen tyrants who emerged during Gallienus's reign, none lived in peace or died a natural death. As soon as they donned the blood-stained purple, they instilled in their supporters the same fears and ambitions that led to their own uprisings. Surrounded by internal conspiracies, military unrest, and civil war, they lived in constant peril, ultimately doomed after varying periods of anxiety. These unstable rulers did receive honors from the flattery of their armies and provinces, but their rule, rooted in rebellion, could never gain the legitimacy of law or history. Italy, Rome, and the Senate consistently supported Gallienus, and he alone was recognized as the emperor of the empire. That emperor did acknowledge the victorious efforts of Odenathus, who earned this respect through his honorable treatment of Valerian's son. With the acclaim of the Romans and Gallienus's approval, the Senate awarded the title of Augustus to the brave leader from Palmyra, entrusting him with governance of the East, which he already managed so independently that he left it to his renowned widow, Zenobia.

The rapid and perpetual transitions from the cottage to the throne, and from the throne to the grave, might have amused an indifferent philosopher; were it possible for a philosopher to remain indifferent amidst the general calamities of human kind. The election of these precarious emperors, their power and their death, were equally destructive to their subjects and adherents. The price of their fatal elevation was instantly discharged to the troops by an immense donative, drawn from the bowels of the exhausted people. However virtuous was their character, however pure their intentions, they found themselves reduced to the hard necessity of supporting their usurpation by frequent acts of rapine and cruelty. When they fell, they involved armies and provinces in their fall. There is still extant a most savage mandate from Gallienus to one of his ministers, after the suppression of Ingenuus, who had assumed the purple in Illyricum. “It is not enough,” says that soft but inhuman prince, “that you exterminate such as have appeared in arms; the chance of battle might have served me as effectually. The male sex of every age must be extirpated; provided that, in the execution of the children and old men, you can contrive means to save our reputation. Let every one die who has dropped an expression, who has entertained a thought against me, against me, the son of Valerian, the father and brother of so many princes. Remember that Ingenuus was made emperor: tear, kill, hew in pieces. I write to you with my own hand, and would inspire you with my own feelings.” Whilst the public forces of the state were dissipated in private quarrels, the defenceless provinces lay exposed to every invader. The bravest usurpers were compelled, by the perplexity of their situation, to conclude ignominious treaties with the common enemy, to purchase with oppressive tributes the neutrality or services of the Barbarians, and to introduce hostile and independent nations into the heart of the Roman monarchy.

The quick and constant shifts from the cottage to the throne, and from the throne to the grave, might have entertained an indifferent philosopher; if it were even possible for a philosopher to remain indifferent amid the widespread suffering of humanity. The rise of these unstable emperors, along with their power and their deaths, was equally devastating for their subjects and supporters. The cost of their dangerous ascent was immediately paid out to the troops through a massive gift taken from the dwindling resources of the people. No matter how virtuous their character or how noble their intentions, they found themselves forced into the harsh reality of sustaining their rule through frequent acts of plunder and brutality. When they fell, their downfall dragged down armies and provinces with them. There's still a particularly brutal order from Gallienus to one of his ministers, after the defeat of Ingenuus, who had declared himself emperor in Illyricum. “It’s not enough,” says that soft yet heartless ruler, “that you eliminate those who have taken up arms; the chance of battle could have benefitted me just as much. Every male, regardless of age, must be eliminated; just make sure that when carrying out the executions of children and the elderly, you find a way to maintain our reputation. Let anyone die who has even whispered or thought anything against me, me, the son of Valerian, father and brother of so many princes. Remember that Ingenuus was made emperor: tear, kill, chop into pieces. I’m writing this myself to share my own feelings with you.” While the state’s public forces were wasted on personal disputes, the defenseless provinces were left open to any invader. The fiercest usurpers were forced, by the complexity of their situation, to enter into shameful treaties with the common enemy, to buy the neutrality or services of the Barbarians with heavy tributes, and to allow hostile and independent nations into the core of the Roman kingdom.

Such were the barbarians, and such the tyrants, who, under the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, dismembered the provinces, and reduced the empire to the lowest pitch of disgrace and ruin, from whence it seemed impossible that it should ever emerge. As far as the barrenness of materials would permit, we have attempted to trace, with order and perspicuity, the general events of that calamitous period. There still remain some particular facts; I. The disorders of Sicily; II. The tumults of Alexandria; and, III. The rebellion of the Isaurians, which may serve to reflect a strong light on the horrid picture.

Such were the barbarians and tyrants who, during the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, tore apart the provinces and brought the empire to its lowest point of shame and destruction, from which it seemed impossible to recover. As much as the scarcity of sources allows, we have tried to outline, clearly and logically, the major events of that disastrous time. There are still some specific details to consider: I. The turmoil in Sicily; II. The unrest in Alexandria; and III. The rebellion of the Isaurians, which can shed a powerful light on this grim situation.

I. Whenever numerous troops of banditti, multiplied by success and impunity, publicly defy, instead of eluding, the justice of their country, we may safely infer that the excessive weakness of the country is felt and abused by the lowest ranks of the community. The situation of Sicily preserved it from the Barbarians; nor could the disarmed province have supported a usurper. The sufferings of that once flourishing and still fertile island were inflicted by baser hands. A licentious crowd of slaves and peasants reigned for a while over the plundered country, and renewed the memory of the servile wars of more ancient times. Devastations, of which the husbandman was either the victim or the accomplice, must have ruined the agriculture of Sicily; and as the principal estates were the property of the opulent senators of Rome, who often enclosed within a farm the territory of an old republic, it is not improbable, that this private injury might affect the capital more deeply, than all the conquests of the Goths or the Persians.

I. Whenever large groups of bandits, emboldened by their success and lack of consequences, openly challenge rather than evade the justice of their nation, it’s clear that the country’s significant weakness is being exploited by the lowest levels of society. Sicily's situation kept it safe from the Barbarians; a disarmed province couldn’t have supported a usurper. The suffering of that once thriving and still fertile island was caused by lesser individuals. A wild mob of slaves and peasants briefly ruled over the plundered land, reviving the memories of the ancient servile wars. The destruction that either victimized or involved the farmer must have devastated Sicily's agriculture; since most of the major estates belonged to the wealthy senators of Rome, who often encompassed the lands of an old republic within their farms, it’s likely that this personal loss affected the capital more profoundly than all the invasions by the Goths or Persians.

II. The foundation of Alexandria was a noble design, at once conceived and executed by the son of Philip. The beautiful and regular form of that great city, second only to Rome itself, comprehended a circumference of fifteen miles; it was peopled by three hundred thousand free inhabitants, besides at least an equal number of slaves. The lucrative trade of Arabia and India flowed through the port of Alexandria, to the capital and provinces of the empire. * Idleness was unknown. Some were employed in blowing of glass, others in weaving of linen, others again manufacturing the papyrus. Either sex, and every age, was engaged in the pursuits of industry, nor did even the blind or the lame want occupations suited to their condition. But the people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations, united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable. After the captivity of Valerian and the insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws, the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every street was polluted with blood, every building of strength converted into a citadel; nor did the tumults subside till a considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, * with its palaces and musæum, the residence of the kings and philosophers of Egypt, is described above a century afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary solitude.

II. The foundation of Alexandria was a grand vision, brought to life by the son of Philip. The beautiful and well-planned layout of that great city, second only to Rome, stretched across a fifteen-mile circumference and was home to three hundred thousand free residents, along with at least an equal number of slaves. The thriving trade from Arabia and India poured through the port of Alexandria, reaching the capital and provinces of the empire. * There was no such thing as idleness. Some people were busy blowing glass, others weaving linen, and still others making papyrus. Both men and women of all ages were engaged in various jobs, and even the blind and disabled found work suited to their abilities. However, the people of Alexandria, a diverse mix of cultures, combined the vanity and unpredictability of the Greeks with the superstition and stubbornness of the Egyptians. Even the slightest incident—a temporary shortage of meat or lentils, failing to greet someone properly, a mistake in the order of who should go first at the public baths, or a religious disagreement—was enough to spark riots among the vast crowd, whose anger was intense and unyielding. After Valerian was captured and the arrogance of his son weakened the rule of law, the Alexandrians gave in to their uncontrolled passions, and their unfortunate city became a battleground for a civil war that lasted over twelve years, with only a few brief and questionable truces. All communication was cut off between different neighborhoods in the troubled city, every street became stained with blood, and every strong building was turned into a fortress; the chaos didn’t settle down until a significant portion of Alexandria was irreparably damaged. The grand and impressive area of Bruchion, * with its palaces and museum, the home of Egypt's kings and philosophers, was described over a century later as already having fallen into a state of grim emptiness.

III. The obscure rebellion of Trebellianus, who assumed the purple in Isauria, a petty province of Asia Minor, was attended with strange and memorable consequences. The pageant of royalty was soon destroyed by an officer of Gallienus; but his followers, despairing of mercy, resolved to shake off their allegiance, not only to the emperor, but to the empire, and suddenly returned to the savage manners from which they had never perfectly been reclaimed. Their craggy rocks, a branch of the wide-extended Taurus, protected their inaccessible retreat. The tillage of some fertile valleys supplied them with necessaries, and a habit of rapine with the luxuries of life. In the heart of the Roman monarchy, the Isaurians long continued a nation of wild barbarians. Succeeding princes, unable to reduce them to obedience, either by arms or policy, were compelled to acknowledge their weakness, by surrounding the hostile and independent spot with a strong chain of fortifications, which often proved insufficient to restrain the incursions of these domestic foes. The Isaurians, gradually extending their territory to the sea-coast, subdued the western and mountainous part of Cilicia, formerly the nest of those daring pirates, against whom the republic had once been obliged to exert its utmost force, under the conduct of the great Pompey.

III. The obscure rebellion of Trebellianus, who claimed the title of emperor in Isauria, a minor province in Asia Minor, led to strange and remarkable consequences. The show of royalty was quickly ended by an officer of Gallienus; but his followers, having lost hope of mercy, decided to break away not only from the emperor but from the empire itself, and suddenly reverted to the savage ways from which they had never fully been rehabilitated. The craggy mountains, part of the expansive Taurus range, provided shelter for their unreachable hideout. Farming some fertile valleys supplied them with necessities, while a lifestyle of plundering brought them the luxuries they desired. In the heart of the Roman Empire, the Isaurians remained a wild and barbaric people for a long time. Successive rulers, unable to bring them under control through military might or diplomatic efforts, were forced to admit their powerlessness by surrounding this hostile and independent area with a strong chain of fortifications, which often proved inadequate to prevent incursions from these domestic foes. The Isaurians gradually expanded their territory to the coastline, conquering the western and mountainous parts of Cilicia, once the base for those bold pirates whom the republic had previously been compelled to confront with its full strength, led by the great Pompey.

Our habits of thinking so fondly connect the order of the universe with the fate of man, that this gloomy period of history has been decorated with inundations, earthquakes, uncommon meteors, preternatural darkness, and a crowd of prodigies fictitious or exaggerated. But a long and general famine was a calamity of a more serious kind. It was the inevitable consequence of rapine and oppression, which extirpated the produce of the present and the hope of future harvests. Famine is almost always followed by epidemical diseases, the effect of scanty and unwholesome food. Other causes must, however, have contributed to the furious plague, which, from the year two hundred and fifty to the year two hundred and sixty-five, raged without interruption in every province, every city, and almost every family, of the Roman empire. During some time five thousand persons died daily in Rome; and many towns, that had escaped the hands of the Barbarians, were entirely depopulated.

Our way of thinking often links the order of the universe with human destiny, so much so that this dark time in history has been marked by floods, earthquakes, unusual meteors, unnatural darkness, and a host of wonders, real or exaggerated. But a long and widespread famine was an even graver disaster. It was the unavoidable result of plunder and oppression, which destroyed both the current produce and the hopes for future harvests. Famine almost always brings about widespread diseases, resulting from insufficient and unhealthy food. However, other factors must have played a role in the devastating plague that, from 250 to 265, swept through every province, city, and nearly every family in the Roman Empire. For a time, five thousand people died every day in Rome, and many towns that had managed to avoid the Barbarians were completely depopulated.

We have the knowledge of a very curious circumstance, of some use perhaps in the melancholy calculation of human calamities. An exact register was kept at Alexandria of all the citizens entitled to receive the distribution of corn. It was found, that the ancient number of those comprised between the ages of forty and seventy, had been equal to the whole sum of claimants, from fourteen to fourscore years of age, who remained alive after the reign of Gallienus. Applying this authentic fact to the most correct tables of mortality, it evidently proves, that above half the people of Alexandria had perished; and could we venture to extend the analogy to the other provinces, we might suspect, that war, pestilence, and famine, had consumed, in a few years, the moiety of the human species.

We have knowledge of a very interesting situation, which might be somewhat useful in the sad calculation of human misfortunes. An exact record was kept in Alexandria of all the citizens entitled to receive corn distributions. It was discovered that the number of those aged between forty and seventy was equal to the total number of claimants aged from fourteen to eighty years who remained alive after Gallienus's reign. By applying this factual finding to the most accurate mortality tables, it clearly shows that more than half of the people in Alexandria had died; and if we were to extend this comparison to other provinces, we could suspect that war, disease, and famine had wiped out half of the human population in just a few years.





Chapter XI: Reign Of Claudius, Defeat Of The Goths.—Part I.

Reign Of Claudius.—Defeat Of The Goths.—Victories,
Triumph, And Death Of Aurelian.
Reign of Claudius.—Defeat of the Goths.—Victories, Triumph, and Death of Aurelian.

Under the deplorable reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, the empire was oppressed and almost destroyed by the soldiers, the tyrants, and the barbarians. It was saved by a series of great princes, who derived their obscure origin from the martial provinces of Illyricum. Within a period of about thirty years, Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian and his colleagues, triumphed over the foreign and domestic enemies of the state, reëstablished, with the military discipline, the strength of the frontiers, and deserved the glorious title of Restorers of the Roman world.

Under the terrible reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, the empire was weighed down and nearly destroyed by soldiers, tyrants, and barbarians. It was rescued by a series of remarkable leaders, who came from the lesser-known martial provinces of Illyricum. Over about thirty years, Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian, and his fellow leaders overcame both foreign and domestic enemies of the state, restored military discipline, strengthened the borders, and earned the glorious title of Restorers of the Roman world.

The removal of an effeminate tyrant made way for a succession of heroes. The indignation of the people imputed all their calamities to Gallienus, and the far greater part were, indeed, the consequence of his dissolute manners and careless administration. He was even destitute of a sense of honor, which so frequently supplies the absence of public virtue; and as long as he was permitted to enjoy the possession of Italy, a victory of the barbarians, the loss of a province, or the rebellion of a general, seldom disturbed the tranquil course of his pleasures. At length, a considerable army, stationed on the Upper Danube, invested with the Imperial purple their leader Aureolus; who, disdaining a confined and barren reign over the mountains of Rhætia, passed the Alps, occupied Milan, threatened Rome, and challenged Gallienus to dispute in the field the sovereignty of Italy. The emperor, provoked by the insult, and alarmed by the instant danger, suddenly exerted that latent vigor which sometimes broke through the indolence of his temper. Forcing himself from the luxury of the palace, he appeared in arms at the head of his legions, and advanced beyond the Po to encounter his competitor. The corrupted name of Pontirolo still preserves the memory of a bridge over the Adda, which, during the action, must have proved an object of the utmost importance to both armies. The Rhætian usurper, after receiving a total defeat and a dangerous wound, retired into Milan. The siege of that great city was immediately formed; the walls were battered with every engine in use among the ancients; and Aureolus, doubtful of his internal strength, and hopeless of foreign succors already anticipated the fatal consequences of unsuccessful rebellion.

The removal of a weak tyrant made way for a series of heroes. The people's anger blamed all their misfortunes on Gallienus, and most of them were indeed the result of his reckless behavior and poor leadership. He was even lacking a sense of honor, which often covers for the absence of public virtue; and as long as he was allowed to possess Italy, victories by the barbarians, loss of provinces, or rebellions by generals rarely interrupted his enjoyable lifestyle. Eventually, a significant army stationed on the Upper Danube declared their leader Aureolus as Emperor; disdaining a limited and barren reign over the mountains of Rhætia, he crossed the Alps, took Milan, threatened Rome, and challenged Gallienus to fight for control of Italy. The emperor, angered by the insult and alarmed by the immediate danger, suddenly tapped into the energy that sometimes broke through his laziness. Forcing himself out of the palace's luxury, he appeared in armor at the head of his legions and moved beyond the Po to confront his rival. The corrupted name of Pontirolo still remembers a bridge over the Adda, which during the battle must have been crucial for both armies. The Rhætian usurper, after suffering a complete defeat and a serious wound, retreated into Milan. The siege of that great city was quickly set up; the walls were attacked with every ancient siege engine available, and Aureolus, uncertain of his internal strength and lacking hope for foreign help, anticipated the deadly consequences of his failed rebellion.

His last resource was an attempt to seduce the loyalty of the besiegers. He scattered libels through the camp, inviting the troops to desert an unworthy master, who sacrificed the public happiness to his luxury, and the lives of his most valuable subjects to the slightest suspicions. The arts of Aureolus diffused fears and discontent among the principal officers of his rival. A conspiracy was formed by Heraclianus, the Prætorian præfect, by Marcian, a general of rank and reputation, and by Cecrops, who commanded a numerous body of Dalmatian guards. The death of Gallienus was resolved; and notwithstanding their desire of first terminating the siege of Milan, the extreme danger which accompanied every moment’s delay obliged them to hasten the execution of their daring purpose. At a late hour of the night, but while the emperor still protracted the pleasures of the table, an alarm was suddenly given, that Aureolus, at the head of all his forces, had made a desperate sally from the town; Gallienus, who was never deficient in personal bravery, started from his silken couch, and without allowing himself time either to put on his armor, or to assemble his guards, he mounted on horseback, and rode full speed towards the supposed place of the attack. Encompassed by his declared or concealed enemies, he soon, amidst the nocturnal tumult, received a mortal dart from an uncertain hand. Before he expired, a patriotic sentiment rising in the mind of Gallienus, induced him to name a deserving successor; and it was his last request, that the Imperial ornaments should be delivered to Claudius, who then commanded a detached army in the neighborhood of Pavia. The report at least was diligently propagated, and the order cheerfully obeyed by the conspirators, who had already agreed to place Claudius on the throne. On the first news of the emperor’s death, the troops expressed some suspicion and resentment, till the one was removed, and the other assuaged, by a donative of twenty pieces of gold to each soldier. They then ratified the election, and acknowledged the merit of their new sovereign.

His last resort was trying to win over the loyalty of the attackers. He spread rumors throughout the camp, urging the soldiers to abandon an unworthy leader who put his own luxury above the public good and sacrificed the lives of his most valuable subjects over mere suspicions. Aureolus’s tactics stirred up fear and discontent among key officers of his opponent. A conspiracy was formed by Heraclianus, the Praetorian prefect, Marcian, a respected general, and Cecrops, who led a large group of Dalmatian guards. They decided to kill Gallienus; however, even though they wanted to first finish the siege of Milan, the extreme danger of any delay forced them to quickly carry out their bold plan. Late at night, while the emperor was still indulging at the table, there was a sudden alarm that Aureolus, leading all his forces, had made a desperate attack from the city. Gallienus, who was always brave, jumped up from his luxurious couch and without taking the time to put on his armor or gather his guards, he got on his horse and rode at full speed towards the supposed site of the attack. Surrounded by his open or hidden enemies, he soon received a deadly blow in the chaos of the night. Before he died, a patriotic thought crossed Gallienus's mind, prompting him to name a worthy successor; his last wish was for the Imperial insignia to be given to Claudius, who was then in charge of a nearby army in Pavia. The rumor spread quickly, and the conspirators, who had already agreed to put Claudius on the throne, happily complied with the order. At first, when the news of the emperor's death broke, the troops felt some suspicion and resentment, but both were eased when each soldier received a gift of twenty pieces of gold. They then confirmed the election and recognized the qualifications of their new ruler.

The obscurity which covered the origin of Claudius, though it was afterwards embellished by some flattering fictions, sufficiently betrays the meanness of his birth. We can only discover that he was a native of one of the provinces bordering on the Danube; that his youth was spent in arms, and that his modest valor attracted the favor and confidence of Decius. The senate and people already considered him as an excellent officer, equal to the most important trusts; and censured the inattention of Valerian, who suffered him to remain in the subordinate station of a tribune. But it was not long before that emperor distinguished the merit of Claudius, by declaring him general and chief of the Illyrian frontier, with the command of all the troops in Thrace, Mæsia, Dacia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia, the appointments of the præfect of Egypt, the establishment of the proconsul of Africa, and the sure prospect of the consulship. By his victories over the Goths, he deserved from the senate the honor of a statue, and excited the jealous apprehensions of Gallienus. It was impossible that a soldier could esteem so dissolute a sovereign, nor is it easy to conceal a just contempt. Some unguarded expressions which dropped from Claudius were officiously transmitted to the royal ear. The emperor’s answer to an officer of confidence describes in very lively colors his own character, and that of the times. “There is not any thing capable of giving me more serious concern, than the intelligence contained in your last despatch; that some malicious suggestions have indisposed towards us the mind of our friend and parent Claudius. As you regard your allegiance, use every means to appease his resentment, but conduct your negotiation with secrecy; let it not reach the knowledge of the Dacian troops; they are already provoked, and it might inflame their fury. I myself have sent him some presents: be it your care that he accept them with pleasure. Above all, let him not suspect that I am made acquainted with his imprudence. The fear of my anger might urge him to desperate counsels.” The presents which accompanied this humble epistle, in which the monarch solicited a reconciliation with his discontented subject, consisted of a considerable sum of money, a splendid wardrobe, and a valuable service of silver and gold plate. By such arts Gallienus softened the indignation and dispelled the fears of his Illyrian general; and during the remainder of that reign, the formidable sword of Claudius was always drawn in the cause of a master whom he despised. At last, indeed, he received from the conspirators the bloody purple of Gallienus: but he had been absent from their camp and counsels; and however he might applaud the deed, we may candidly presume that he was innocent of the knowledge of it. When Claudius ascended the throne, he was about fifty-four years of age.

The mystery surrounding Claudius's origins, though later surrounded by some flattering stories, clearly reveals the low status of his birth. We can only find out that he was from one of the provinces near the Danube, that he spent his youth in military service, and that his humble bravery earned the favor and trust of Decius. The senate and citizens already viewed him as a skilled officer capable of handling important responsibilities, criticizing Valerian for allowing him to remain in a minor role as a tribune. However, it wasn't long before the emperor recognized Claudius's talents by naming him general and head of the Illyrian frontier, with command over all the troops in Thrace, Mæsia, Dacia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia, along with assignments as prefect of Egypt, proconsul of Africa, and a good chance of becoming consul. Through his victories over the Goths, he earned the honor of a statue from the senate, provoking jealousy in Gallienus. It was impossible for a soldier to respect such a decadent ruler, and it wasn’t easy to hide his rightful disdain. Some careless comments from Claudius were eagerly reported back to the emperor. The emperor’s response to a trusted officer vividly portrayed both his character and the times: “Nothing troubles me more than the news in your latest report, that some malicious rumors have turned our friend and ally Claudius against us. For your loyalty, do everything you can to calm his anger, but handle your discussions discreetly; let it not reach the Dacian troops, who are already restless and could be further enraged. I have sent him some gifts: make sure he receives them happily. Most importantly, don’t let him think I know of his mistakes. The fear of my anger might lead him to desperate actions.” The gifts accompanying this humble letter, where the emperor sought a reconciliation with his dissatisfied subordinate, included a substantial amount of money, an elaborate wardrobe, and a valuable set of silver and gold plate. Through such tactics, Gallienus eased the anger and assuaged the fears of his Illyrian general; and for the remainder of his reign, Claudius's powerful sword was always drawn in the service of a master he looked down upon. Eventually, he received the bloody robe of Gallienus from the conspirators, but he had been away from their camp and discussions; however much he might have approved of the act, we can fairly assume he was unaware of it. When Claudius took the throne, he was about fifty-four years old.

The siege of Milan was still continued, and Aureolus soon discovered that the success of his artifices had only raised up a more determined adversary. He attempted to negotiate with Claudius a treaty of alliance and partition. “Tell him,” replied the intrepid emperor, “that such proposals should have been made to Gallienus; he, perhaps, might have listened to them with patience, and accepted a colleague as despicable as himself.” This stern refusal, and a last unsuccessful effort, obliged Aureolus to yield the city and himself to the discretion of the conqueror. The judgment of the army pronounced him worthy of death; and Claudius, after a feeble resistance, consented to the execution of the sentence. Nor was the zeal of the senate less ardent in the cause of their new sovereign. They ratified, perhaps with a sincere transport of zeal, the election of Claudius; and, as his predecessor had shown himself the personal enemy of their order, they exercised, under the name of justice, a severe revenge against his friends and family. The senate was permitted to discharge the ungrateful office of punishment, and the emperor reserved for himself the pleasure and merit of obtaining by his intercession a general act of indemnity.

The siege of Milan continued, and Aureolus quickly found out that his schemes had only stirred up a more determined enemy. He tried to negotiate an alliance and division with Claudius. “Tell him,” replied the fearless emperor, “that he should have made such proposals to Gallienus; he might have listened to them patiently and accepted a colleague as worthless as himself.” This harsh rejection, along with a final unsuccessful attempt, forced Aureolus to surrender the city and himself to the victor's mercy. The army deemed him deserving of death, and Claudius, after a weak protest, agreed to carry out the sentence. The senate was equally eager to support their new ruler. They confirmed Claudius's election, perhaps with genuine enthusiasm, and since his predecessor had been a personal enemy of their ranks, they took the opportunity to exact a harsh revenge on his friends and family under the guise of justice. The senate was allowed to carry out the unpleasant task of punishment, while the emperor took on the role of securing a general pardon through his intervention.

Such ostentatious clemency discovers less of the real character of Claudius, than a trifling circumstance in which he seems to have consulted only the dictates of his heart. The frequent rebellions of the provinces had involved almost every person in the guilt of treason, almost every estate in the case of confiscation; and Gallienus often displayed his liberality by distributing among his officers the property of his subjects. On the accession of Claudius, an old woman threw herself at his feet, and complained that a general of the late emperor had obtained an arbitrary grant of her patrimony. This general was Claudius himself, who had not entirely escaped the contagion of the times. The emperor blushed at the reproach, but deserved the confidence which she had reposed in his equity. The confession of his fault was accompanied with immediate and ample restitution.

Such showy mercy reveals less about Claudius's true character than a small incident where he acted purely on his feelings. The constant uprisings in the provinces had implicated almost everyone in treason and had nearly led to the confiscation of every estate; Gallienus often showcased his generosity by giving away his subjects' property to his officers. When Claudius came to power, an old woman fell at his feet, complaining that a general from the late emperor had taken her inheritance without justification. That general was Claudius himself, who was not completely immune to the corruption of his time. The emperor felt shame at the accusation, but he was worthy of the trust she placed in his fairness. He admitted his wrongdoing and immediately made a full restitution.

In the arduous task which Claudius had undertaken, of restoring the empire to its ancient splendor, it was first necessary to revive among his troops a sense of order and obedience. With the authority of a veteran commander, he represented to them that the relaxation of discipline had introduced a long train of disorders, the effects of which were at length experienced by the soldiers themselves; that a people ruined by oppression, and indolent from despair, could no longer supply a numerous army with the means of luxury, or even of subsistence; that the danger of each individual had increased with the despotism of the military order, since princes who tremble on the throne will guard their safety by the instant sacrifice of every obnoxious subject. The emperor expiated on the mischiefs of a lawless caprice, which the soldiers could only gratify at the expense of their own blood; as their seditious elections had so frequently been followed by civil wars, which consumed the flower of the legions either in the field of battle, or in the cruel abuse of victory. He painted in the most lively colors the exhausted state of the treasury, the desolation of the provinces, the disgrace of the Roman name, and the insolent triumph of rapacious barbarians. It was against those barbarians, he declared, that he intended to point the first effort of their arms. Tetricus might reign for a while over the West, and even Zenobia might preserve the dominion of the East. These usurpers were his personal adversaries; nor could he think of indulging any private resentment till he had saved an empire, whose impending ruin would, unless it was timely prevented, crush both the army and the people.

In the challenging task that Claudius had taken on to restore the empire to its former glory, it was essential to instill a sense of order and obedience among his troops first. With the authority of an experienced commander, he explained that the breakdown of discipline had led to a series of problems, the consequences of which the soldiers themselves were now facing. A people broken by oppression and paralyzed by despair could no longer provide a large army with the luxuries or even the necessities of life. The danger for each individual had grown with the military's dictatorship, as rulers who felt insecure on their thrones would protect their power by quickly sacrificing any subjects they saw as a threat. The emperor elaborated on the dangers of unchecked whims, which could only be satisfied at the cost of the soldiers' own lives; their rebellious elections had often led to civil wars that drained the best of the legions, either in battle or through the brutal aftermath of victory. He vividly described the depleted state of the treasury, the devastation of the provinces, the shame of the Roman name, and the brazen celebrations of greedy barbarians. He declared that it was against those barbarians that he intended to direct their first military efforts. Tetricus might rule for a time over the West, and even Zenobia might maintain control of the East. These usurpers were his personal enemies, and he couldn't afford to indulge any private grudges until he had saved an empire whose looming collapse would, if not addressed promptly, overwhelm both the army and the people.

The various nations of Germany and Sarmatia, who fought under the Gothic standard, had already collected an armament more formidable than any which had yet issued from the Euxine. On the banks of the Niester, one of the great rivers that discharge themselves into that sea, they constructed a fleet of two thousand, or even of six thousand vessels; numbers which, however incredible they may seem, would have been insufficient to transport their pretended army of three hundred and twenty thousand barbarians. Whatever might be the real strength of the Goths, the vigor and success of the expedition were not adequate to the greatness of the preparations. In their passage through the Bosphorus, the unskilful pilots were overpowered by the violence of the current; and while the multitude of their ships were crowded in a narrow channel, many were dashed against each other, or against the shore. The barbarians made several descents on the coasts both of Europe and Asia; but the open country was already plundered, and they were repulsed with shame and loss from the fortified cities which they assaulted. A spirit of discouragement and division arose in the fleet, and some of their chiefs sailed away towards the islands of Crete and Cyprus; but the main body, pursuing a more steady course, anchored at length near the foot of Mount Athos, and assaulted the city of Thessalonica, the wealthy capital of all the Macedonian provinces. Their attacks, in which they displayed a fierce but artless bravery, were soon interrupted by the rapid approach of Claudius, hastening to a scene of action that deserved the presence of a warlike prince at the head of the remaining powers of the empire. Impatient for battle, the Goths immediately broke up their camp, relinquished the siege of Thessalonica, left their navy at the foot of Mount Athos, traversed the hills of Macedonia, and pressed forwards to engage the last defence of Italy.

The various nations of Germany and Sarmatia, who fought under the Gothic banner, had already gathered a military force more formidable than anything that had come from the Black Sea. Along the banks of the Dniester, one of the major rivers flowing into that sea, they built a fleet of between two thousand and six thousand ships; numbers that, despite sounding incredible, would still have been too few to transport their claimed army of three hundred twenty thousand fighters. Whatever the actual strength of the Goths, the energy and success of the campaign didn’t match the scale of their preparations. During their journey through the Bosphorus, inexperienced pilots were overwhelmed by the strong current; and while many ships were packed into a narrow channel, several collided with one another or crashed into the shore. The barbarians landed multiple times on both the European and Asian coasts; however, the countryside had already been looted, and they were driven back with shame and losses from the fortified cities they attacked. A sense of discouragement and division spread among the fleet, leading some of their leaders to head towards the islands of Crete and Cyprus; but the main group, staying more focused, eventually anchored near the foot of Mount Athos and attacked the city of Thessalonica, the wealthy capital of all the Macedonian regions. Their assaults, showcasing a fierce yet clumsy bravery, were soon interrupted by the swift arrival of Claudius, who rushed to a battlefield that warranted the presence of a warlike leader at the head of the remaining forces of the empire. Eager for battle, the Goths quickly broke camp, abandoned the siege of Thessalonica, left their navy at the foot of Mount Athos, crossed the hills of Macedonia, and pressed on to confront the last defense of Italy.

We still posses an original letter addressed by Claudius to the senate and people on this memorable occasion. “Conscript fathers,” says the emperor, “know that three hundred and twenty thousand Goths have invaded the Roman territory. If I vanquish them, your gratitude will reward my services. Should I fall, remember that I am the successor of Gallienus. The whole republic is fatigued and exhausted. We shall fight after Valerian, after Ingenuus, Regillianus, Lollianus, Posthumus, Celsus, and a thousand others, whom a just contempt for Gallienus provoked into rebellion. We are in want of darts, of spears, and of shields. The strength of the empire, Gaul, and Spain, are usurped by Tetricus, and we blush to acknowledge that the archers of the East serve under the banners of Zenobia. Whatever we shall perform will be sufficiently great.” The melancholy firmness of this epistle announces a hero careless of his fate, conscious of his danger, but still deriving a well-grounded hope from the resources of his own mind.

We still have an original letter written by Claudius to the Senate and the people on this significant occasion. “Conscript fathers,” the emperor says, “know that three hundred and twenty thousand Goths have invaded Roman territory. If I defeat them, your gratitude will reward my efforts. If I fall, remember that I am the successor of Gallienus. The entire republic is tired and worn out. We will fight after Valerian, after Ingenuus, Regillianus, Lollianus, Posthumus, Celsus, and a thousand others, whom a rightful contempt for Gallienus drove into rebellion. We are in need of darts, spears, and shields. The strength of the empire, Gaul, and Spain has been taken by Tetricus, and we are ashamed to acknowledge that the archers from the East serve under Zenobia’s banners. Whatever we accomplish will be significant.” The somber determination in this letter reveals a hero unconcerned about his fate, aware of his danger, but still finding a solid hope in his own resources.

The event surpassed his own expectations and those of the world. By the most signal victories he delivered the empire from this host of barbarians, and was distinguished by posterity under the glorious appellation of the Gothic Claudius. The imperfect historians of an irregular war do not enable us to describe the order and circumstances of his exploits; but, if we could be indulged in the allusion, we might distribute into three acts this memorable tragedy. I. The decisive battle was fought near Naissus, a city of Dardania. The legions at first gave way, oppressed by numbers, and dismayed by misfortunes. Their ruin was inevitable, had not the abilities of their emperor prepared a seasonable relief. A large detachment, rising out of the secret and difficult passes of the mountains, which, by his order, they had occupied, suddenly assailed the rear of the victorious Goths. The favorable instant was improved by the activity of Claudius. He revived the courage of his troops, restored their ranks, and pressed the barbarians on every side. Fifty thousand men are reported to have been slain in the battle of Naissus. Several large bodies of barbarians, covering their retreat with a movable fortification of wagons, retired, or rather escaped, from the field of slaughter. II. We may presume that some insurmountable difficulty, the fatigue, perhaps, or the disobedience, of the conquerors, prevented Claudius from completing in one day the destruction of the Goths. The war was diffused over the province of Mæsia, Thrace, and Macedonia, and its operations drawn out into a variety of marches, surprises, and tumultuary engagements, as well by sea as by land. When the Romans suffered any loss, it was commonly occasioned by their own cowardice or rashness; but the superior talents of the emperor, his perfect knowledge of the country, and his judicious choice of measures as well as officers, assured on most occasions the success of his arms. The immense booty, the fruit of so many victories, consisted for the greater part of cattle and slaves. A select body of the Gothic youth was received among the Imperial troops; the remainder was sold into servitude; and so considerable was the number of female captives that every soldier obtained to his share two or three women. A circumstance from which we may conclude, that the invaders entertained some designs of settlement as well as of plunder; since even in a naval expedition, they were accompanied by their families. III. The loss of their fleet, which was either taken or sunk, had intercepted the retreat of the Goths. A vast circle of Roman posts, distributed with skill, supported with firmness, and gradually closing towards a common centre, forced the barbarians into the most inaccessible parts of Mount Hæmus, where they found a safe refuge, but a very scanty subsistence. During the course of a rigorous winter in which they were besieged by the emperor’s troops, famine and pestilence, desertion and the sword, continually diminished the imprisoned multitude. On the return of spring, nothing appeared in arms except a hardy and desperate band, the remnant of that mighty host which had embarked at the mouth of the Niester.

The event exceeded both his expectations and those of the world. Through his significant victories, he saved the empire from this group of barbarians, earning him the title of the Gothic Claudius in history. The incomplete accounts of this chaotic war don't allow us to detail the order and circumstances of his exploits; however, if we could draw an analogy, we might divide this memorable story into three acts. I. The decisive battle took place near Naissus, a city in Dardania. At first, the legions faltered, overwhelmed by numbers and discouraged by losses. Their defeat would have been certain if not for the skills of their emperor, which provided timely assistance. A large contingent, rising from the hidden and challenging mountain passes they had occupied on his orders, suddenly attacked the rear of the victorious Goths. Claudius took advantage of this moment, rekindling the courage of his troops, reorganizing their ranks, and pressing the barbarians from all sides. It's reported that fifty thousand men were killed in the battle of Naissus. Several large groups of barbarians retreated, or rather escaped, from the slaughter, using a movable barricade of wagons to protect themselves. II. We can assume that some insurmountable challenge, perhaps fatigue or disobedience among the victors, prevented Claudius from completing the annihilation of the Goths in one day. The war spread across the regions of Mæsia, Thrace, and Macedonia, involving various marches, surprise attacks, and chaotic skirmishes, both at sea and on land. When the Romans faced losses, it was often due to their own cowardice or recklessness; however, the superior skills of the emperor, his thorough understanding of the land, and his wise choices of tactics and officers often ensured the success of his forces. The large spoils from these victories mostly consisted of cattle and slaves. A select group of Gothic youths was accepted into the Imperial troops, while the rest were sold into slavery; there were so many female captives that each soldier received two or three women. This suggests that the invaders had intentions of settling, not just plundering, since even during a naval expedition, they were accompanied by their families. III. The loss of their fleet, which was either captured or sunk, cut off the Goths’ ability to retreat. A wide network of Roman posts, strategically placed and steadily closing in on a central point, forced the barbarians into the most inaccessible areas of Mount Hæmus, where they found refuge but very little food. Throughout a harsh winter, besieged by the emperor’s troops, famine, disease, desertion, and violence continuously reduced the trapped multitude. By the return of spring, the only ones still armed were a tough and desperate group, the remnants of the large host that had set out at the mouth of the Niester.

The pestilence which swept away such numbers of the barbarians, at length proved fatal to their conqueror. After a short but glorious reign of two years, Claudius expired at Sirmium, amidst the tears and acclamations of his subjects. In his last illness, he convened the principal officers of the state and army, and in their presence recommended Aurelian, one of his generals, as the most deserving of the throne, and the best qualified to execute the great design which he himself had been permitted only to undertake. The virtues of Claudius, his valor, affability, justice, and temperance, his love of fame and of his country, place him in that short list of emperors who added lustre to the Roman purple. Those virtues, however, were celebrated with peculiar zeal and complacency by the courtly writers of the age of Constantine, who was the great-grandson of Crispus, the elder brother of Claudius. The voice of flattery was soon taught to repeat, that gods, who so hastily had snatched Claudius from the earth, rewarded his merit and piety by the perpetual establishment of the empire in his family.

The plague that wiped out so many of the barbarians ultimately ended up taking down their conqueror as well. After a short but glorious two-year reign, Claudius died in Sirmium, surrounded by the tears and cheers of his people. During his final illness, he gathered the key officials of the state and military, and in front of them, he endorsed Aurelian, one of his generals, as the most deserving candidate for the throne and the best person to carry out the grand plan that he himself had barely begun. Claudius's virtues—his bravery, friendliness, fairness, and self-control, as well as his love for glory and his country—place him among the few emperors who brought honor to the Roman Empire. However, these virtues were celebrated with special enthusiasm and satisfaction by the court writers of Constantine's time, who was the great-grandson of Crispus, Claudius's older brother. Soon, flattery took hold, echoing that the gods, who had quickly taken Claudius from the earth, rewarded his merit and piety by ensuring the empire would remain in his family forever.

Notwithstanding these oracles, the greatness of the Flavian family (a name which it had pleased them to assume) was deferred above twenty years, and the elevation of Claudius occasioned the immediate ruin of his brother Quintilius, who possessed not sufficient moderation or courage to descend into the private station to which the patriotism of the late emperor had condemned him. Without delay or reflection, he assumed the purple at Aquileia, where he commanded a considerable force; and though his reign lasted only seventeen days, * he had time to obtain the sanction of the senate, and to experience a mutiny of the troops. As soon as he was informed that the great army of the Danube had invested the well-known valor of Aurelian with Imperial power, he sunk under the fame and merit of his rival; and ordering his veins to be opened, prudently withdrew himself from the unequal contest.

Despite these prophecies, the greatness of the Flavian family (a name they had chosen for themselves) was delayed for over twenty years, and the rise of Claudius led to the immediate downfall of his brother Quintilius, who lacked the restraint or bravery to accept the private life to which the former emperor's patriotism had forced him. Without hesitation or thought, he declared himself emperor at Aquileia, where he commanded a significant force; and although his rule lasted only seventeen days, he managed to gain the approval of the senate and faced a mutiny among the troops. Once he learned that the powerful army from the Danube had recognized Aurelian for his Imperial authority, he succumbed to the reputation and achievements of his rival, and wisely chose to end his life by opening his veins rather than continue the unequal fight.

The general design of this work will not permit us minutely to relate the actions of every emperor after he ascended the throne, much less to deduce the various fortunes of his private life. We shall only observe, that the father of Aurelian was a peasant of the territory of Sirmium, who occupied a small farm, the property of Aurelius, a rich senator. His warlike son enlisted in the troops as a common soldier, successively rose to the rank of a centurion, a tribune, the præfect of a legion, the inspector of the camp, the general, or, as it was then called, the duke, of a frontier; and at length, during the Gothic war, exercised the important office of commander-in-chief of the cavalry. In every station he distinguished himself by matchless valor, rigid discipline, and successful conduct. He was invested with the consulship by the emperor Valerian, who styles him, in the pompous language of that age, the deliverer of Illyricum, the restorer of Gaul, and the rival of the Scipios. At the recommendation of Valerian, a senator of the highest rank and merit, Ulpius Crinitus, whose blood was derived from the same source as that of Trajan, adopted the Pannonian peasant, gave him his daughter in marriage, and relieved with his ample fortune the honorable poverty which Aurelian had preserved inviolate.

The overall structure of this work doesn’t allow us to detail the actions of every emperor after they took the throne, let alone discuss the ups and downs of their personal lives. We will simply note that Aurelian's father was a peasant from the Sirmium area, who managed a small farm owned by Aurelius, a wealthy senator. His martial son joined the army as a regular soldier and gradually rose to the positions of centurion, tribune, prefect of a legion, camp inspector, and general—or duke—of a border region; eventually, during the Gothic war, he held the crucial role of commander-in-chief of the cavalry. In every position, he stood out for his unmatched bravery, strict discipline, and effective leadership. He was appointed consul by Emperor Valerian, who referred to him, in the grand language of that time, as the savior of Illyricum, the restorer of Gaul, and a peer of the Scipios. At Valerian's suggestion, Ulpius Crinitus, a senator of high rank and merit, who was of the same lineage as Trajan, adopted the Pannonian peasant, gave him his daughter in marriage, and helped lift the honorable poverty that Aurelian had kept intact with his considerable wealth.

The reign of Aurelian lasted only four years and about nine months; but every instant of that short period was filled by some memorable achievement. He put an end to the Gothic war, chastised the Germans who invaded Italy, recovered Gaul, Spain, and Britain out of the hands of Tetricus, and destroyed the proud monarchy which Zenobia had erected in the East on the ruins of the afflicted empire.

The reign of Aurelian lasted just four years and about nine months, but every moment of that brief time was marked by significant accomplishments. He ended the Gothic war, punished the Germans who invaded Italy, reclaimed Gaul, Spain, and Britain from Tetricus, and dismantled the powerful kingdom Zenobia had built in the East on the remnants of the struggling empire.

It was the rigid attention of Aurelian, even to the minutest articles of discipline, which bestowed such uninterrupted success on his arms. His military regulations are contained in a very concise epistle to one of his inferior officers, who is commanded to enforce them, as he wishes to become a tribune, or as he is desirous to live. Gaming, drinking, and the arts of divination, were severely prohibited. Aurelian expected that his soldiers should be modest, frugal, and laborious; that their armor should be constantly kept bright, their weapons sharp, their clothing and horses ready for immediate service; that they should live in their quarters with chastity and sobriety, without damaging the cornfields, without stealing even a sheep, a fowl, or a bunch of grapes, without exacting from their landlords either salt, or oil, or wood. “The public allowance,” continues the emperor, “is sufficient for their support; their wealth should be collected from the spoils of the enemy, not from the tears of the provincials.” A single instance will serve to display the rigor, and even cruelty, of Aurelian. One of the soldiers had seduced the wife of his host. The guilty wretch was fastened to two trees forcibly drawn towards each other, and his limbs were torn asunder by their sudden separation. A few such examples impressed a salutary consternation. The punishments of Aurelian were terrible; but he had seldom occasion to punish more than once the same offence. His own conduct gave a sanction to his laws, and the seditious legions dreaded a chief who had learned to obey, and who was worthy to command.

Aurelian's strict focus on even the smallest details of discipline was what brought him continuous success in battle. His military rules are outlined in a brief letter to one of his junior officers, who is ordered to enforce them if he wants to become a tribune or simply survive. Gambling, drinking, and fortune-telling were strictly banned. Aurelian expected his soldiers to be modest, frugal, and hardworking; their armor should always be shiny, their weapons sharp, and their clothing and horses ready for immediate use. They were expected to live in their barracks with respect and sobriety, without damaging farmland, stealing even a sheep, a bird, or a bunch of grapes, or demanding salt, oil, or wood from their landlords. “The public allowance,” the emperor stated, “is enough for their sustenance; their wealth should come from the spoils of the enemy, not from the suffering of the locals.” One example illustrates Aurelian's strictness and even brutality: one soldier seduced his host's wife. The offender was tied to two trees that were forcefully pulled apart, resulting in his limbs being torn apart. A few such instances instilled a necessary fear. Aurelian’s punishments were severe, but he rarely had to deal with the same offense more than once. His own behavior reinforced his laws, and the rebellious legions feared a leader who had learned to obey and who was deserving of command.





Chapter XI: Reign Of Claudius, Defeat Of The Goths.—Part II.

The death of Claudius had revived the fainting spirit of the Goths. The troops which guarded the passes of Mount Hæmus, and the banks of the Danube, had been drawn away by the apprehension of a civil war; and it seems probable that the remaining body of the Gothic and Vandalic tribes embraced the favorable opportunity, abandoned their settlements of the Ukraine, traversed the rivers, and swelled with new multitudes the destroying host of their countrymen. Their united numbers were at length encountered by Aurelian, and the bloody and doubtful conflict ended only with the approach of night. Exhausted by so many calamities, which they had mutually endured and inflicted during a twenty years’ war, the Goths and the Romans consented to a lasting and beneficial treaty. It was earnestly solicited by the barbarians, and cheerfully ratified by the legions, to whose suffrage the prudence of Aurelian referred the decision of that important question. The Gothic nation engaged to supply the armies of Rome with a body of two thousand auxiliaries, consisting entirely of cavalry, and stipulated in return an undisturbed retreat, with a regular market as far as the Danube, provided by the emperor’s care, but at their own expense. The treaty was observed with such religious fidelity, that when a party of five hundred men straggled from the camp in quest of plunder, the king or general of the barbarians commanded that the guilty leader should be apprehended and shot to death with darts, as a victim devoted to the sanctity of their engagements. * It is, however, not unlikely, that the precaution of Aurelian, who had exacted as hostages the sons and daughters of the Gothic chiefs, contributed something to this pacific temper. The youths he trained in the exercise of arms, and near his own person: to the damsels he gave a liberal and Roman education, and by bestowing them in marriage on some of his principal officers, gradually introduced between the two nations the closest and most endearing connections.

The death of Claudius had revived the weakened spirit of the Goths. The troops guarding the mountain passes of Mount Hæmus and the banks of the Danube had been pulled away due to fears of a civil war. It seems likely that the remaining Gothic and Vandal tribes seized the opportunity, left their settlements in Ukraine, crossed the rivers, and joined the growing army of their fellow countrymen. Their combined forces were eventually confronted by Aurelian, and the bloody and uncertain battle only ended with the onset of night. Weary from years of suffering caused by each other during a twenty-year war, the Goths and Romans agreed to a lasting and beneficial treaty. This was strongly requested by the barbarians and willingly approved by the legions, with Aurelian relying on the legions' judgment to decide this crucial matter. The Gothic nation promised to provide the Roman armies with a contingent of two thousand auxiliaries, made up entirely of cavalry, and in return, they requested an unhindered retreat, along with a regular market up to the Danube, arranged by the emperor but at their own expense. The treaty was kept with such strict fidelity that when a group of five hundred men strayed from the camp looking for plunder, the king or general of the barbarians ordered that the guilty leader be captured and killed with darts, as a sacrifice to the sanctity of their agreements. * It is also likely that Aurelian’s precaution in demanding the sons and daughters of the Gothic chiefs as hostages contributed to this peaceful attitude. He trained the young men in military skills near his own position, while he provided the young women with a generous Roman education, and by marrying them off to some of his top officers, he slowly built the closest and most affectionate ties between the two nations.

But the most important condition of peace was understood rather than expressed in the treaty. Aurelian withdrew the Roman forces from Dacia, and tacitly relinquished that great province to the Goths and Vandals. His manly judgment convinced him of the solid advantages, and taught him to despise the seeming disgrace, of thus contracting the frontiers of the monarchy. The Dacian subjects, removed from those distant possessions which they were unable to cultivate or defend, added strength and populousness to the southern side of the Danube. A fertile territory, which the repetition of barbarous inroads had changed into a desert, was yielded to their industry, and a new province of Dacia still preserved the memory of Trajan’s conquests. The old country of that name detained, however, a considerable number of its inhabitants, who dreaded exile more than a Gothic master. These degenerate Romans continued to serve the empire, whose allegiance they had renounced, by introducing among their conquerors the first notions of agriculture, the useful arts, and the conveniences of civilized life. An intercourse of commerce and language was gradually established between the opposite banks of the Danube; and after Dacia became an independent state, it often proved the firmest barrier of the empire against the invasions of the savages of the North. A sense of interest attached these more settled barbarians to the alliance of Rome, and a permanent interest very frequently ripens into sincere and useful friendship. This various colony, which filled the ancient province, and was insensibly blended into one great people, still acknowledged the superior renown and authority of the Gothic tribe, and claimed the fancied honor of a Scandinavian origin. At the same time, the lucky though accidental resemblance of the name of Getæ, * infused among the credulous Goths a vain persuasion, that in a remote age, their own ancestors, already seated in the Dacian provinces, had received the instructions of Zamolxis, and checked the victorious arms of Sesostris and Darius.

But the most important condition for peace was understood rather than stated in the treaty. Aurelian pulled back the Roman forces from Dacia and quietly gave that vast province to the Goths and Vandals. His strong judgment led him to see the real benefits and to disregard the apparent shame of shrinking the empire’s borders. The Dacian people, removed from those distant lands that they couldn’t farm or protect, strengthened the southern side of the Danube. A fertile region, which had been devastated by repeated barbarian invasions, was handed over to their efforts, and a new province of Dacia still held the memory of Trajan’s conquests. However, the old country of that name kept a significant number of its residents, who feared exile more than having a Gothic ruler. These diminished Romans continued to serve the empire, which they had pledged allegiance to, by introducing their conquerors to the basics of farming, useful skills, and the comforts of civilized life. A trade relationship and communication developed slowly between the opposite banks of the Danube; and after Dacia became an independent state, it often turned out to be a strong defense for the empire against the invasions of northern tribes. A sense of mutual benefit connected these more settled barbarians to the alliance with Rome, and a lasting interest often grows into genuine and beneficial friendship. This diverse colony, which filled the old province and gradually merged into one large group, still recognized the greater renown and authority of the Gothic tribe, claiming the proud distinction of a Scandinavian heritage. At the same time, the fortunate but accidental similarity of the name Getæ led the gullible Goths to a false belief that in a distant past, their own ancestors, already living in the Dacian provinces, had learned from Zamolxis and had halted the victorious forces of Sesostris and Darius.

While the vigorous and moderate conduct of Aurelian restored the Illyrian frontier, the nation of the Alemanni violated the conditions of peace, which either Gallienus had purchased, or Claudius had imposed, and, inflamed by their impatient youth, suddenly flew to arms. Forty thousand horse appeared in the field, and the numbers of the infantry doubled those of the cavalry. The first objects of their avarice were a few cities of the Rhætian frontier; but their hopes soon rising with success, the rapid march of the Alemanni traced a line of devastation from the Danube to the Po.

While Aurelian's strong and careful leadership restored the Illyrian border, the Alemanni broke the peace agreement, whether it was one bought by Gallienus or imposed by Claudius, and, driven by their youthful impatience, suddenly took up arms. Forty thousand cavalry appeared on the battlefield, with the infantry outnumbering the cavalry two to one. Their initial targets were a few cities along the Rhætian border; however, as their success grew, the Alemanni's swift advance left a path of destruction from the Danube to the Po.

The emperor was almost at the same time informed of the irruption, and of the retreat, of the barbarians. Collecting an active body of troops, he marched with silence and celerity along the skirts of the Hercynian forest; and the Alemanni, laden with the spoils of Italy, arrived at the Danube, without suspecting, that on the opposite bank, and in an advantageous post, a Roman army lay concealed and prepared to intercept their return. Aurelian indulged the fatal security of the barbarians, and permitted about half their forces to pass the river without disturbance and without precaution. Their situation and astonishment gave him an easy victory; his skilful conduct improved the advantage. Disposing the legions in a semicircular form, he advanced the two horns of the crescent across the Danube, and wheeling them on a sudden towards the centre, enclosed the rear of the German host. The dismayed barbarians, on whatsoever side they cast their eyes, beheld, with despair, a wasted country, a deep and rapid stream, a victorious and implacable enemy.

The emperor was informed almost simultaneously about the invasion and retreat of the barbarians. Gathering a strong group of troops, he moved quietly and swiftly along the edges of the Hercynian forest. The Alemanni, loaded with the spoils of Italy, reached the Danube without realizing that on the opposite bank, a Roman army was hidden and ready to cut off their return. Aurelian took advantage of the barbarians' false sense of security and allowed about half of their forces to cross the river without any interference or caution. Their surprise and confusion made it easy for him to secure victory; his clever strategy capitalized on the opportunity. Arranging the legions in a semicircular formation, he sent the two ends of the crescent across the Danube, suddenly turning them toward the center, trapping the rear of the German forces. The terrified barbarians, no matter where they looked, saw, to their despair, a devastated land, a deep and fast-moving river, and an unbeatable enemy.

Reduced to this distressed condition, the Alemanni no longer disdained to sue for peace. Aurelian received their ambassadors at the head of his camp, and with every circumstance of martial pomp that could display the greatness and discipline of Rome. The legions stood to their arms in well-ordered ranks and awful silence. The principal commanders, distinguished by the ensigns of their rank, appeared on horseback on either side of the Imperial throne. Behind the throne the consecrated images of the emperor, and his predecessors, the golden eagles, and the various titles of the legions, engraved in letters of gold, were exalted in the air on lofty pikes covered with silver. When Aurelian assumed his seat, his manly grace and majestic figure taught the barbarians to revere the person as well as the purple of their conqueror. The ambassadors fell prostrate on the ground in silence. They were commanded to rise, and permitted to speak. By the assistance of interpreters they extenuated their perfidy, magnified their exploits, expatiated on the vicissitudes of fortune and the advantages of peace, and, with an ill-timed confidence, demanded a large subsidy, as the price of the alliance which they offered to the Romans. The answer of the emperor was stern and imperious. He treated their offer with contempt, and their demand with indignation, reproached the barbarians, that they were as ignorant of the arts of war as of the laws of peace, and finally dismissed them with the choice only of submitting to this unconditional mercy, or awaiting the utmost severity of his resentment. Aurelian had resigned a distant province to the Goths; but it was dangerous to trust or to pardon these perfidious barbarians, whose formidable power kept Italy itself in perpetual alarms.

Reduced to this desperate state, the Alemanni no longer hesitated to seek peace. Aurelian received their ambassadors at the forefront of his camp, showcasing every display of military glory that highlighted Rome's strength and discipline. The legions stood ready in well-organized formations and utter silence. The key commanders, marked by their rank insignia, appeared on horseback on either side of the Imperial throne. Behind the throne, the sacred images of the emperor and his predecessors, the golden eagles, and the various titles of the legions, engraved in gold, soared in the air on tall silver-tipped pikes. When Aurelian took his seat, his commanding presence and dignified figure inspired the barbarians to respect both him and the authority he represented. The ambassadors fell to the ground in silence. They were told to rise and allowed to speak. With the help of interpreters, they downplayed their treachery, exaggerated their achievements, talked about the ups and downs of fortune, and the benefits of peace, and, with misplaced confidence, demanded a large financial payment as the price for the alliance they offered to the Romans. The emperor's response was harsh and commanding. He dismissed their offer with disdain and their demands with anger, scolding the barbarians for being as clueless about the art of war as they were about the laws of peace, and ultimately dismissed them with the choice of either accepting his mercy without conditions or facing the full force of his wrath. Aurelian had given up a distant province to the Goths; yet it was risky to trust or forgive these treacherous barbarians, whose overwhelming power kept Italy itself in constant fear.

Immediately after this conference, it should seem that some unexpected emergency required the emperor’s presence in Pannonia. He devolved on his lieutenants the care of finishing the destruction of the Alemanni, either by the sword, or by the surer operation of famine. But an active despair has often triumphed over the indolent assurance of success. The barbarians, finding it impossible to traverse the Danube and the Roman camp, broke through the posts in their rear, which were more feebly or less carefully guarded; and with incredible diligence, but by a different road, returned towards the mountains of Italy. Aurelian, who considered the war as totally extinguished, received the mortifying intelligence of the escape of the Alemanni, and of the ravage which they already committed in the territory of Milan. The legions were commanded to follow, with as much expedition as those heavy bodies were capable of exerting, the rapid flight of an enemy whose infantry and cavalry moved with almost equal swiftness. A few days afterwards, the emperor himself marched to the relief of Italy, at the head of a chosen body of auxiliaries, (among whom were the hostages and cavalry of the Vandals,) and of all the Prætorian guards who had served in the wars on the Danube.

Immediately after this meeting, it seemed that some unexpected emergency required the emperor’s presence in Pannonia. He assigned his lieutenants the task of finishing off the Alemanni, either through direct combat or through the more effective method of starvation. However, determined desperation has often triumphed over lazy confidence. The barbarians, finding it impossible to cross the Danube and the Roman camp, broke through the weaker or less guarded positions behind them; and with incredible speed, but by a different route, made their way back towards the mountains of Italy. Aurelian, who thought the war was completely over, received the disappointing news of the Alemanni's escape and the destruction they were already causing in the Milan territory. The legions were ordered to pursue, as quickly as those heavy troops could manage, the rapid retreat of an enemy whose foot soldiers and cavalry moved with almost equal speed. A few days later, the emperor himself set out to relieve Italy, leading a chosen group of reinforcements, including the hostages and cavalry of the Vandals, and all the Praetorian guards who had served in the wars along the Danube.

As the light troops of the Alemanni had spread themselves from the Alps to the Apennine, the incessant vigilance of Aurelian and his officers was exercised in the discovery, the attack, and the pursuit of the numerous detachments. Notwithstanding this desultory war, three considerable battles are mentioned, in which the principal force of both armies was obstinately engaged. The success was various. In the first, fought near Placentia, the Romans received so severe a blow, that, according to the expression of a writer extremely partial to Aurelian, the immediate dissolution of the empire was apprehended. The crafty barbarians, who had lined the woods, suddenly attacked the legions in the dusk of the evening, and, it is most probable, after the fatigue and disorder of a long march. The fury of their charge was irresistible; but, at length, after a dreadful slaughter, the patient firmness of the emperor rallied his troops, and restored, in some degree, the honor of his arms. The second battle was fought near Fano in Umbria; on the spot which, five hundred years before, had been fatal to the brother of Hannibal. Thus far the successful Germans had advanced along the Æmilian and Flaminian way, with a design of sacking the defenceless mistress of the world. But Aurelian, who, watchful for the safety of Rome, still hung on their rear, found in this place the decisive moment of giving them a total and irretrievable defeat. The flying remnant of their host was exterminated in a third and last battle near Pavia; and Italy was delivered from the inroads of the Alemanni.

As the light troops of the Alemanni spread out from the Alps to the Apennines, Aurelian and his officers maintained constant vigilance to discover, attack, and pursue their numerous detachments. Despite this scattered warfare, three significant battles are noted, where the main forces of both armies were fiercely engaged. The outcomes varied. In the first battle near Placentia, the Romans suffered such a heavy blow that, according to a writer who favored Aurelian, there were fears of an immediate collapse of the empire. The cunning barbarians, hidden in the woods, launched a surprise attack on the legions in the evening twilight, likely after a long, exhausting march. Their ferocious charge was overwhelming; however, after a horrific slaughter, Aurelian's steadfastness helped to rally his troops and somewhat restore the honor of his military. The second battle took place near Fano in Umbria, at the same location where, five hundred years earlier, Hannibal's brother had met his doom. The successful Germans had advanced along the Aemilian and Flaminian ways with plans to pillage the defenseless heart of the empire. But Aurelian, always alert to the safety of Rome, managed to strike when the time was right, delivering them a complete and irreversible defeat. The remnants of their defeated forces were annihilated in a third and final battle near Pavia, freeing Italy from the attacks of the Alemanni.

Fear has been the original parent of superstition, and every new calamity urges trembling mortals to deprecate the wrath of their invisible enemies. Though the best hope of the republic was in the valor and conduct of Aurelian, yet such was the public consternation, when the barbarians were hourly expected at the gates of Rome, that, by a decree of the senate the Sibylline books were consulted. Even the emperor himself, from a motive either of religion or of policy, recommended this salutary measure, chided the tardiness of the senate, and offered to supply whatever expense, whatever animals, whatever captives of any nation, the gods should require. Notwithstanding this liberal offer, it does not appear, that any human victims expiated with their blood the sins of the Roman people. The Sibylline books enjoined ceremonies of a more harmless nature, processions of priests in white robes, attended by a chorus of youths and virgins; lustrations of the city and adjacent country; and sacrifices, whose powerful influence disabled the barbarians from passing the mystic ground on which they had been celebrated. However puerile in themselves, these superstitious arts were subservient to the success of the war; and if, in the decisive battle of Fano, the Alemanni fancied they saw an army of spectres combating on the side of Aurelian, he received a real and effectual aid from this imaginary reënforcement.

Fear has always been the root of superstition, and every new disaster drives scared people to appease the anger of their unseen foes. Even though the best hope for the republic relied on Aurelian's bravery and leadership, the public panic was so intense when the barbarians were expected at the gates of Rome that the senate decided to consult the Sibylline books. The emperor himself, whether out of faith or strategy, supported this helpful step, criticized the senate's delays, and offered to cover any costs, provide any animals, or any captives needed by the gods. Despite this generous offer, it seems that no human sacrifices were made to atone for the sins of the Roman people. The Sibylline books prescribed ceremonies of a less harmful kind: processions of priests in white robes, accompanied by a group of young men and women; purifications of the city and surrounding areas; and sacrifices whose potent effects prevented the barbarians from crossing the sacred ground where they had taken place. While these superstitious practices may seem silly, they contributed to the war effort; and during the crucial battle at Fano, when the Alemanni believed they saw an army of ghosts fighting alongside Aurelian, he actually received a real and significant boost from this imaginary reinforcement.

But whatever confidence might be placed in ideal ramparts, the experience of the past, and the dread of the future, induced the Romans to construct fortifications of a grosser and more substantial kind. The seven hills of Rome had been surrounded by the successors of Romulus with an ancient wall of more than thirteen miles. The vast enclosure may seem disproportioned to the strength and numbers of the infant-state. But it was necessary to secure an ample extent of pasture and arable land against the frequent and sudden incursions of the tribes of Latium, the perpetual enemies of the republic. With the progress of Roman greatness, the city and its inhabitants gradually increased, filled up the vacant space, pierced through the useless walls, covered the field of Mars, and, on every side, followed the public highways in long and beautiful suburbs. The extent of the new walls, erected by Aurelian, and finished in the reign of Probus, was magnified by popular estimation to near fifty, but is reduced by accurate measurement to about twenty-one miles. It was a great but a melancholy labor, since the defence of the capital betrayed the decline of monarchy. The Romans of a more prosperous age, who trusted to the arms of the legions the safety of the frontier camps, were very far from entertaining a suspicion that it would ever become necessary to fortify the seat of empire against the inroads of the barbarians.

But no matter how much confidence they had in ideal defenses, the experiences of the past and the fear of the future led the Romans to build more solid and substantial fortifications. The seven hills of Rome were surrounded by the successors of Romulus with an ancient wall that stretched over thirteen miles. The massive enclosure might seem excessive compared to the strength and size of the young state, but it was essential to protect a large area of grazing and farmland from the frequent and sudden attacks of the tribes of Latium, the republic's constant enemies. As Rome grew stronger, the city and its people expanded, filled the open spaces, broke through the useless walls, covered the field of Mars, and, on all sides, followed the public roads into long and beautiful suburbs. The new walls built by Aurelian, completed during Probus's reign, were popularly thought to be nearly fifty miles long, but accurate measurements reveal they were about twenty-one miles. It was a significant but sorrowful effort, as the defense of the capital highlighted the decline of monarchy. The Romans from a more prosperous time, who relied on the legions to protect the frontier camps, never suspected it would be necessary to fortify the seat of empire against barbarian incursions.

The victory of Claudius over the Goths, and the success of Aurelian against the Alemanni, had already restored to the arms of Rome their ancient superiority over the barbarous nations of the North. To chastise domestic tyrants, and to reunite the dismembered parts of the empire, was a task reserved for the second of those warlike emperors. Though he was acknowledged by the senate and people, the frontiers of Italy, Africa, Illyricum, and Thrace, confined the limits of his reign. Gaul, Spain, and Britain, Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, were still possessed by two rebels, who alone, out of so numerous a list, had hitherto escaped the dangers of their situation; and to complete the ignominy of Rome, these rival thrones had been usurped by women.

The victory of Claudius over the Goths and Aurelian's success against the Alemanni had already restored Rome's ancient dominance over the barbaric nations of the North. It was up to the second of these warrior emperors to punish domestic tyrants and reunite the fractured parts of the empire. Although he was recognized by the senate and people, the borders of Italy, Africa, Illyricum, and Thrace limited his reign. Gaul, Spain, Britain, Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor were still held by two rebels who had, so far, avoided the dangers of their positions; adding to Rome's shame, these rival thrones had been claimed by women.

A rapid succession of monarchs had arisen and fallen in the provinces of Gaul. The rigid virtues of Posthumus served only to hasten his destruction. After suppressing a competitor, who had assumed the purple at Mentz, he refused to gratify his troops with the plunder of the rebellious city; and in the seventh year of his reign, became the victim of their disappointed avarice. The death of Victorinus, his friend and associate, was occasioned by a less worthy cause. The shining accomplishments of that prince were stained by a licentious passion, which he indulged in acts of violence, with too little regard to the laws of society, or even to those of love. He was slain at Cologne, by a conspiracy of jealous husbands, whose revenge would have appeared more justifiable, had they spared the innocence of his son. After the murder of so many valiant princes, it is somewhat remarkable, that a female for a long time controlled the fierce legions of Gaul, and still more singular, that she was the mother of the unfortunate Victorinus. The arts and treasures of Victoria enabled her successively to place Marius and Tetricus on the throne, and to reign with a manly vigor under the name of those dependent emperors. Money of copper, of silver, and of gold, was coined in her name; she assumed the titles of Augusta and Mother of the Camps: her power ended only with her life; but her life was perhaps shortened by the ingratitude of Tetricus.

A rapid succession of kings had risen and fallen in the regions of Gaul. The strict principles of Posthumus only sped up his downfall. After defeating a rival who had claimed the throne at Mentz, he refused to reward his troops with the spoils from the rebellious city, and in the seventh year of his reign, he fell victim to their frustrated greed. The death of Victorinus, his friend and ally, resulted from a less honorable reason. The impressive attributes of that prince were tainted by a reckless desire, leading him to commit violent acts with little regard for social norms or even the rules of love. He was killed in Cologne by a plot of jealous husbands, whose revenge might have seemed more justified had they spared the innocence of his son. After the deaths of so many brave princes, it's somewhat remarkable that for a long time, a woman led the fierce legions of Gaul, and even more unusual that she was the mother of the unfortunate Victorinus. The skills and resources of Victoria allowed her to successively put Marius and Tetricus on the throne and to rule with a masculine strength under the names of those puppet emperors. Coins made of copper, silver, and gold were minted in her name; she took on the titles of Augusta and Mother of the Camps. Her power lasted only until her death, but her life may have been cut short by Tetricus's ingratitude.

When, at the instigation of his ambitious patroness, Tetricus assumed the ensigns of royalty, he was governor of the peaceful province of Aquitaine, an employment suited to his character and education. He reigned four or five years over Gaul, Spain, and Britain, the slave and sovereign of a licentious army, whom he dreaded, and by whom he was despised. The valor and fortune of Aurelian at length opened the prospect of a deliverance. He ventured to disclose his melancholy situation, and conjured the emperor to hasten to the relief of his unhappy rival. Had this secret correspondence reached the ears of the soldiers, it would most probably have cost Tetricus his life; nor could he resign the sceptre of the West without committing an act of treason against himself. He affected the appearances of a civil war, led his forces into the field, against Aurelian, posted them in the most disadvantageous manner, betrayed his own counsels to his enemy, and with a few chosen friends deserted in the beginning of the action. The rebel legions, though disordered and dismayed by the unexpected treachery of their chief, defended themselves with desperate valor, till they were cut in pieces almost to a man, in this bloody and memorable battle, which was fought near Chalons in Champagne. The retreat of the irregular auxiliaries, Franks and Batavians, whom the conqueror soon compelled or persuaded to repass the Rhine, restored the general tranquillity, and the power of Aurelian was acknowledged from the wall of Antoninus to the columns of Hercules.

When, encouraged by his ambitious patroness, Tetricus took on the symbols of kingship, he was the governor of the peaceful province of Aquitaine, a position that matched his character and education. He ruled for four or five years over Gaul, Spain, and Britain, both a slave and a ruler to a wild army that he feared and that looked down on him. Eventually, Aurelian's bravery and success created a chance for rescue. Tetricus dared to share his unfortunate situation and urged the emperor to quickly come to the aid of his troubled rival. If the soldiers had discovered this secret communication, it likely would have cost Tetricus his life; he couldn't give up control of the West without committing an act of treason against himself. He staged a fake civil war, led his troops into battle against Aurelian, positioned them in the worst possible way, shared his plans with the enemy, and along with a few loyal friends deserted at the start of the fight. Although the rebel legions were thrown into chaos and shocked by the sudden betrayal of their leader, they defended themselves with fierce courage until they were nearly all wiped out in this brutal and significant battle fought near Chalons in Champagne. The withdrawal of the irregular allies, the Franks and Batavians, whom the victor soon forced or convinced to cross back over the Rhine, brought back general peace, and Aurelian's power was recognized from the wall of Antoninus to the columns of Hercules.

As early as the reign of Claudius, the city of Autun, alone and unassisted, had ventured to declare against the legions of Gaul. After a siege of seven months, they stormed and plundered that unfortunate city, already wasted by famine. Lyons, on the contrary, had resisted with obstinate disaffection the arms of Aurelian. We read of the punishment of Lyons, but there is not any mention of the rewards of Autun. Such, indeed, is the policy of civil war: severely to remember injuries, and to forget the most important services. Revenge is profitable, gratitude is expensive.

As early as Claudius’s reign, the city of Autun bravely stood up against the legions of Gaul on its own. After a seven-month siege, they attacked and looted that unfortunate city, which was already struggling with famine. In contrast, Lyons stubbornly fought against Aurelian’s forces. We hear about the punishment of Lyons, but there’s no mention of any rewards for Autun. This is the reality of civil war: it focuses on remembering wrongs while neglecting the most significant acts of service. Revenge pays off, while gratitude costs too much.

Aurelian had no sooner secured the person and provinces of Tetricus, than he turned his arms against Zenobia, the celebrated queen of Palmyra and the East. Modern Europe has produced several illustrious women who have sustained with glory the weight of empire; nor is our own age destitute of such distinguished characters. But if we except the doubtful achievements of Semiramis, Zenobia is perhaps the only female whose superior genius broke through the servile indolence imposed on her sex by the climate and manners of Asia. She claimed her descent from the Macedonian kings of Egypt, * equalled in beauty her ancestor Cleopatra, and far surpassed that princess in chastity and valor. Zenobia was esteemed the most lovely as well as the most heroic of her sex. She was of a dark complexion (for in speaking of a lady these trifles become important). Her teeth were of a pearly whiteness, and her large black eyes sparkled with uncommon fire, tempered by the most attractive sweetness. Her voice was strong and harmonious. Her manly understanding was strengthened and adorned by study. She was not ignorant of the Latin tongue, but possessed in equal perfection the Greek, the Syriac, and the Egyptian languages. She had drawn up for her own use an epitome of oriental history, and familiarly compared the beauties of Homer and Plato under the tuition of the sublime Longinus.

Aurelian had barely secured Tetricus and his provinces when he turned his attention to Zenobia, the famous queen of Palmyra and the East. Modern Europe has seen several remarkable women who have impressively carried the weight of empire, and our current age is not lacking such notable figures. However, aside from the uncertain accomplishments of Semiramis, Zenobia is perhaps the only woman whose exceptional intellect transcended the oppressive laziness that society imposed on her gender due to the climate and customs of Asia. She claimed descent from the Macedonian kings of Egypt, matched her ancestor Cleopatra in beauty, and far surpassed her in purity and bravery. Zenobia was regarded as both the most beautiful and the most heroic among women. She had a dark complexion (since such details become significant when describing a lady). Her teeth were pearly white, and her large black eyes sparkled with an extraordinary intensity, softened by an undeniably charming sweetness. Her voice was strong and melodious. Her sharp mind was enhanced and enriched through study. She was not only familiar with the Latin language but also spoke Greek, Syriac, and Egyptian perfectly. She had created a summary of oriental history for her own reference and often compared the works of Homer and Plato under the guidance of the great Longinus.

This accomplished woman gave her hand to Odenathus, who, from a private station, raised himself to the dominion of the East. She soon became the friend and companion of a hero. In the intervals of war, Odenathus passionately delighted in the exercise of hunting; he pursued with ardor the wild beasts of the desert, lions, panthers, and bears; and the ardor of Zenobia in that dangerous amusement was not inferior to his own. She had inured her constitution to fatigue, disdained the use of a covered carriage, generally appeared on horseback in a military habit, and sometimes marched several miles on foot at the head of the troops. The success of Odenathus was in a great measure ascribed to her incomparable prudence and fortitude. Their splendid victories over the Great King, whom they twice pursued as far as the gates of Ctesiphon, laid the foundations of their united fame and power. The armies which they commanded, and the provinces which they had saved, acknowledged not any other sovereigns than their invincible chiefs. The senate and people of Rome revered a stranger who had avenged their captive emperor, and even the insensible son of Valerian accepted Odenathus for his legitimate colleague.

This accomplished woman married Odenathus, who rose from being a private citizen to ruler of the East. She quickly became a friend and partner to a hero. During breaks from war, Odenathus passionately enjoyed hunting; he eagerly tracked the wild animals of the desert, including lions, panthers, and bears. Zenobia shared his enthusiasm for this dangerous pursuit. She had toughened herself to endure fatigue, rejected the use of a covered carriage, typically rode horseback in military attire, and sometimes marched several miles on foot leading the troops. Much of Odenathus's success was credited to her unmatched wisdom and strength. Their remarkable victories over the Great King, whom they pursued to the gates of Ctesiphon twice, established the foundation of their shared fame and power. The armies they commanded and the provinces they saved recognized no other rulers but their unbeatable leaders. The Roman Senate and people respected a foreigner who had saved their captured emperor, and even the indifferent son of Valerian accepted Odenathus as his rightful equal.





Chapter XI: Reign Of Claudius, Defeat Of The Goths.—Part III.

After a successful expedition against the Gothic plunderers of Asia, the Palmyrenian prince returned to the city of Emesa in Syria. Invincible in war, he was there cut off by domestic treason, and his favorite amusement of hunting was the cause, or at least the occasion, of his death. His nephew Mæonius presumed to dart his javelin before that of his uncle; and though admonished of his error, repeated the same insolence. As a monarch, and as a sportsman, Odenathus was provoked, took away his horse, a mark of ignominy among the barbarians, and chastised the rash youth by a short confinement. The offence was soon forgot, but the punishment was remembered; and Mæonius, with a few daring associates, assassinated his uncle in the midst of a great entertainment. Herod, the son of Odenathus, though not of Zenobia, a young man of a soft and effeminate temper, was killed with his father. But Mæonius obtained only the pleasure of revenge by this bloody deed. He had scarcely time to assume the title of Augustus, before he was sacrificed by Zenobia to the memory of her husband.

After a successful mission against the Gothic raiders in Asia, the Palmyrene prince returned to the city of Emesa in Syria. Unbeatable in battle, he was betrayed at home, and his favorite pastime of hunting was the reason, or at least the trigger, for his death. His nephew Mæonius dared to throw his javelin before his uncle's, and despite being warned about his mistake, he repeated the same disrespect. As both a ruler and a hunter, Odenathus was angered, took away Mæonius’s horse—a sign of shame among the barbarians—and punished the reckless youth with a brief imprisonment. The offense was soon forgotten, but the punishment lingered in memory; and Mæonius, along with a few bold accomplices, murdered his uncle during a large gathering. Herod, the son of Odenathus, though not of Zenobia, a young man of a gentle and delicate nature, was killed alongside his father. But Mæonius only gained the satisfaction of revenge from this bloody act. He barely had time to claim the title of Augustus before Zenobia sacrificed him to honor her husband’s memory.

With the assistance of his most faithful friends, she immediately filled the vacant throne, and governed with manly counsels Palmyra, Syria, and the East, above five years. By the death of Odenathus, that authority was at an end which the senate had granted him only as a personal distinction; but his martial widow, disdaining both the senate and Gallienus, obliged one of the Roman generals, who was sent against her, to retreat into Europe, with the loss of his army and his reputation. Instead of the little passions which so frequently perplex a female reign, the steady administration of Zenobia was guided by the most judicious maxims of policy. If it was expedient to pardon, she could calm her resentment; if it was necessary to punish, she could impose silence on the voice of pity. Her strict economy was accused of avarice; yet on every proper occasion she appeared magnificent and liberal. The neighboring states of Arabia, Armenia, and Persia, dreaded her enmity, and solicited her alliance. To the dominions of Odenathus, which extended from the Euphrates to the frontiers of Bithynia, his widow added the inheritance of her ancestors, the populous and fertile kingdom of Egypt. * The emperor Claudius acknowledged her merit, and was content, that, while he pursued the Gothic war, sheshould assert the dignity of the empire in the East. The conduct, however, of Zenobia was attended with some ambiguity; not is it unlikely that she had conceived the design of erecting an independent and hostile monarchy. She blended with the popular manners of Roman princes the stately pomp of the courts of Asia, and exacted from her subjects the same adoration that was paid to the successor of Cyrus. She bestowed on her three sons a Latin education, and often showed them to the troops adorned with the Imperial purple. For herself she reserved the diadem, with the splendid but doubtful title of Queen of the East.

With the help of her most loyal friends, she quickly took the vacant throne and ruled Palmyra, Syria, and the East for over five years with strong leadership. After Odenathus's death, the authority the senate had given him as a personal honor ended; however, his fierce widow, ignoring both the senate and Gallienus, forced one of the Roman generals sent against her to retreat to Europe, losing both his army and reputation in the process. Rather than being caught up in the petty issues that often trouble female rulers, Zenobia managed her rule based on wise political principles. If it was necessary to forgive, she could set aside her anger; if punishment was needed, she could ignore her compassion. Her strict budgeting was accused of being greedy, yet she displayed generosity and grandeur whenever it was appropriate. The neighboring states of Arabia, Armenia, and Persia feared her anger and sought her alliance. Along with the territories of Odenathus, which stretched from the Euphrates to the borders of Bithynia, she added her ancestral inheritance, the populous and rich kingdom of Egypt. The emperor Claudius recognized her achievements and was satisfied that, while he dealt with the Gothic war, she would uphold the empire’s dignity in the East. However, Zenobia’s actions sometimes raised suspicions; it is quite possible she had plans to establish an independent and rival kingdom. She combined the popular styles of Roman rulers with the grand ceremony of Asian courts, demanding from her subjects the same reverence given to the successor of Cyrus. She ensured her three sons received a Latin education and often displayed them to the troops dressed in imperial purple. For herself, she reserved the crown along with the impressive but ambiguous title of Queen of the East.

When Aurelian passed over into Asia, against an adversary whose sex alone could render her an object of contempt, his presence restored obedience to the province of Bithynia, already shaken by the arms and intrigues of Zenobia. Advancing at the head of his legions, he accepted the submission of Ancyra, and was admitted into Tyana, after an obstinate siege, by the help of a perfidious citizen. The generous though fierce temper of Aurelian abandoned the traitor to the rage of the soldiers; a superstitious reverence induced him to treat with lenity the countrymen of Apollonius the philosopher. Antioch was deserted on his approach, till the emperor, by his salutary edicts, recalled the fugitives, and granted a general pardon to all who, from necessity rather than choice, had been engaged in the service of the Palmyrenian Queen. The unexpected mildness of such a conduct reconciled the minds of the Syrians, and as far as the gates of Emesa, the wishes of the people seconded the terror of his arms.

When Aurelian marched into Asia to face an enemy who was only looked down upon because of her gender, his presence brought order back to the province of Bithynia, which had already been destabilized by Zenobia's military actions and schemes. Leading his legions, he accepted the surrender of Ancyra and was finally let into Tyana after a stubborn siege, thanks to a treacherous local. Despite his strong and fierce nature, Aurelian left the traitor to the soldiers' wrath; his superstitious respect for the followers of Apollonius the philosopher led him to treat them with kindness. Antioch was abandoned as he approached, until the emperor issued helpful edicts that brought the fugitives back and offered a general pardon to those who had been forced into service for the Palmyrene Queen, rather than joining willingly. His surprising kindness won over the hearts of the Syrians, and as far as the gates of Emesa, the people's support matched the fear his army inspired.

Zenobia would have ill deserved her reputation, had she indolently permitted the emperor of the West to approach within a hundred miles of her capital. The fate of the East was decided in two great battles; so similar in almost every circumstance, that we can scarcely distinguish them from each other, except by observing that the first was fought near Antioch, and the second near Emesa. In both the queen of Palmyra animated the armies by her presence, and devolved the execution of her orders on Zabdas, who had already signalized his military talents by the conquest of Egypt. The numerous forces of Zenobia consisted for the most part of light archers, and of heavy cavalry clothed in complete steel. The Moorish and Illyrian horse of Aurelian were unable to sustain the ponderous charge of their antagonists. They fled in real or affected disorder, engaged the Palmyrenians in a laborious pursuit, harassed them by a desultory combat, and at length discomfited this impenetrable but unwieldy body of cavalry. The light infantry, in the mean time, when they had exhausted their quivers, remaining without protection against a closer onset, exposed their naked sides to the swords of the legions. Aurelian had chosen these veteran troops, who were usually stationed on the Upper Danube, and whose valor had been severely tried in the Alemannic war. After the defeat of Emesa, Zenobia found it impossible to collect a third army. As far as the frontier of Egypt, the nations subject to her empire had joined the standard of the conqueror, who detached Probus, the bravest of his generals, to possess himself of the Egyptian provinces. Palmyra was the last resource of the widow of Odenathus. She retired within the walls of her capital, made every preparation for a vigorous resistance, and declared, with the intrepidity of a heroine, that the last moment of her reign and of her life should be the same.

Zenobia would have poorly earned her reputation if she had lazily allowed the emperor of the West to get within a hundred miles of her capital. The fate of the East was decided in two major battles that were so similar in almost every way that we can hardly tell them apart, except that the first was fought near Antioch and the second near Emesa. In both battles, the queen of Palmyra inspired her armies with her presence and entrusted the execution of her orders to Zabdas, who had already proven his military skills by conquering Egypt. Zenobia's forces mostly consisted of light archers and heavy cavalry fully dressed in steel. Aurelian's Moorish and Illyrian cavalry couldn’t withstand the heavy charge of their opponents. They fled in either genuine or feigned disarray, engaging the Palmyrenians in a tiring chase, harassing them with intermittent skirmishes, and eventually defeating this impenetrable but unwieldy cavalry. Meanwhile, the light infantry, having used up their arrows and left unprotected against a closer attack, exposed their vulnerable sides to the swords of the legions. Aurelian had chosen these seasoned troops, usually stationed on the Upper Danube, whose bravery had been rigorously tested in the Alemannic war. After the defeat at Emesa, Zenobia found it impossible to raise a third army. Up to the border of Egypt, the nations under her empire had rallied to the conqueror's standard, and he sent Probus, his bravest general, to seize the Egyptian provinces. Palmyra was the last refuge of the widow of Odenathus. She retreated within the walls of her capital, made all the preparations for a strong defense, and declared, with the courage of a true heroine, that the last moment of her reign and her life would be the same.

Amid the barren deserts of Arabia, a few cultivated spots rise like islands out of the sandy ocean. Even the name of Tadmor, or Palmyra, by its signification in the Syriac as well as in the Latin language, denoted the multitude of palm-trees which afforded shade and verdure to that temperate region. The air was pure, and the soil, watered by some invaluable springs, was capable of producing fruits as well as corn. A place possessed of such singular advantages, and situated at a convenient distance between the Gulf of Persia and the Mediterranean, was soon frequented by the caravans which conveyed to the nations of Europe a considerable part of the rich commodities of India. Palmyra insensibly increased into an opulent and independent city, and connecting the Roman and the Parthian monarchies by the mutual benefits of commerce, was suffered to observe an humble neutrality, till at length, after the victories of Trajan, the little republic sunk into the bosom of Rome, and flourished more than one hundred and fifty years in the subordinate though honorable rank of a colony. It was during that peaceful period, if we may judge from a few remaining inscriptions, that the wealthy Palmyrenians constructed those temples, palaces, and porticos of Grecian architecture, whose ruins, scattered over an extent of several miles, have deserved the curiosity of our travellers. The elevation of Odenathus and Zenobia appeared to reflect new splendor on their country, and Palmyra, for a while, stood forth the rival of Rome: but the competition was fatal, and ages of prosperity were sacrificed to a moment of glory.

Amid the barren deserts of Arabia, a few cultivated areas rise like islands out of the sandy ocean. Even the name Tadmor, or Palmyra, signifies the abundance of palm trees that provided shade and greenery to that temperate region. The air was fresh, and the soil, nourished by some valuable springs, was capable of producing fruits as well as grains. A place with such unique advantages, located conveniently between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean, quickly became popular with the caravans that transported a significant portion of India's rich commodities to European nations. Palmyra gradually developed into a wealthy and independent city, connecting the Roman and Parthian empires through the mutual benefits of trade, and was allowed to maintain a low-key neutrality until, after Trajan's victories, this small republic was absorbed into Rome and thrived for over one hundred and fifty years in a subordinate yet honorable status as a colony. It was during this peaceful period, based on a few remaining inscriptions, that the affluent Palmyrenians built those temples, palaces, and colonnades in Greek architecture, the ruins of which, spread across several miles, have piqued the interest of travelers. The rise of Odenathus and Zenobia seemed to bring new glory to their homeland, and for a time, Palmyra stood as a rival to Rome: but this competition proved disastrous, and centuries of prosperity were sacrificed for a brief moment of fame.

In his march over the sandy desert between Emesa and Palmyra, the emperor Aurelian was perpetually harassed by the Arabs; nor could he always defend his army, and especially his baggage, from those flying troops of active and daring robbers, who watched the moment of surprise, and eluded the slow pursuit of the legions. The siege of Palmyra was an object far more difficult and important, and the emperor, who, with incessant vigor, pressed the attacks in person, was himself wounded with a dart. “The Roman people,” says Aurelian, in an original letter, “speak with contempt of the war which I am waging against a woman. They are ignorant both of the character and of the power of Zenobia. It is impossible to enumerate her warlike preparations, of stones, of arrows, and of every species of missile weapons. Every part of the walls is provided with two or three balistæ and artificial fires are thrown from her military engines. The fear of punishment has armed her with a desperate courage. Yet still I trust in the protecting deities of Rome, who have hitherto been favorable to all my undertakings.” Doubtful, however, of the protection of the gods, and of the event of the siege, Aurelian judged it more prudent to offer terms of an advantageous capitulation; to the queen, a splendid retreat; to the citizens, their ancient privileges. His proposals were obstinately rejected, and the refusal was accompanied with insult.

In his journey across the sandy desert between Emesa and Palmyra, Emperor Aurelian was constantly harassed by the Arabs. He couldn't always protect his army, especially his supplies, from those agile and daring robbers who waited for the right moment to strike and slip away from the slow pursuit of the legions. The siege of Palmyra was a much tougher and more significant challenge, and the emperor, who relentlessly led the attacks himself, was wounded by a dart. "The Roman people," Aurelian states in an original letter, "look down on the war I'm fighting against a woman. They don't understand either the nature or the power of Zenobia. It's impossible to list her war preparations, which include stones, arrows, and various kinds of missile weapons. Every part of the walls has two or three balistæ, and she's launching artificial fires from her war machines. The threat of punishment has given her a desperate bravery. Yet I still trust in the protective gods of Rome, who have so far supported all my efforts." However, doubting the gods' protection and the outcome of the siege, Aurelian deemed it wiser to offer terms for a favorable surrender: a grand retreat for the queen and the restoration of the citizens' ancient rights. His offers were stubbornly rejected, and the refusal came with insults.

The firmness of Zenobia was supported by the hope, that in a very short time famine would compel the Roman army to repass the desert; and by the reasonable expectation that the kings of the East, and particularly the Persian monarch, would arm in the defence of their most natural ally. But fortune, and the perseverance of Aurelian, overcame every obstacle. The death of Sapor, which happened about this time, distracted the councils of Persia, and the inconsiderable succors that attempted to relieve Palmyra were easily intercepted either by the arms or the liberality of the emperor. From every part of Syria, a regular succession of convoys safely arrived in the camp, which was increased by the return of Probus with his victorious troops from the conquest of Egypt. It was then that Zenobia resolved to fly. She mounted the fleetest of her dromedaries, and had already reached the banks of the Euphrates, about sixty miles from Palmyra, when she was overtaken by the pursuit of Aurelian’s light horse, seized, and brought back a captive to the feet of the emperor. Her capital soon afterwards surrendered, and was treated with unexpected lenity. The arms, horses, and camels, with an immense treasure of gold, silver, silk, and precious stones, were all delivered to the conqueror, who, leaving only a garrison of six hundred archers, returned to Emesa, and employed some time in the distribution of rewards and punishments at the end of so memorable a war, which restored to the obedience of Rome those provinces that had renounced their allegiance since the captivity of Valerian.

Zenobia's determination was fueled by the hope that famine would soon force the Roman army to re-cross the desert, along with the expectation that the Eastern kings, especially the Persian ruler, would come to the aid of their natural ally. However, fate and Aurelian's persistence overcame all challenges. The death of Sapor at this time disrupted the plans in Persia, and the small reinforcements that tried to assist Palmyra were easily intercepted by either the emperor’s forces or his generosity. Regular convoys arrived safely in the camp from all over Syria, bolstered by Probus’s return with his victorious troops from Egypt. It was then that Zenobia decided to escape. She mounted her fastest dromedary and had nearly reached the Euphrates River, about sixty miles from Palmyra, when Aurelian’s light cavalry caught up with her, captured her, and brought her back as a prisoner to the emperor. Shortly after, her capital surrendered and was treated with surprising mercy. All the arms, horses, camels, and an immense treasure of gold, silver, silk, and precious stones were handed over to the conqueror, who, leaving only a garrison of six hundred archers, returned to Emesa and spent some time distributing rewards and punishments at the conclusion of such a significant war, which restored those provinces to Roman rule that had renounced their loyalty since Valerian’s capture.

When the Syrian queen was brought into the presence of Aurelian, he sternly asked her, How she had presumed to rise in arms against the emperors of Rome! The answer of Zenobia was a prudent mixture of respect and firmness. “Because I disdained to consider as Roman emperors an Aureolus or a Gallienus. You alone I acknowledge as my conqueror and my sovereign.” But as female fortitude is commonly artificial, so it is seldom steady or consistent. The courage of Zenobia deserted her in the hour of trial; she trembled at the angry clamors of the soldiers, who called aloud for her immediate execution, forgot the generous despair of Cleopatra, which she had proposed as her model, and ignominiously purchased life by the sacrifice of her fame and her friends. It was to their counsels, which governed the weakness of her sex, that she imputed the guilt of her obstinate resistance; it was on their heads that she directed the vengeance of the cruel Aurelian. The fame of Longinus, who was included among the numerous and perhaps innocent victims of her fear, will survive that of the queen who betrayed, or the tyrant who condemned him. Genius and learning were incapable of moving a fierce unlettered soldier, but they had served to elevate and harmonize the soul of Longinus. Without uttering a complaint, he calmly followed the executioner, pitying his unhappy mistress, and bestowing comfort on his afflicted friends.

When the Syrian queen was brought before Aurelian, he sternly asked her how she had dared to rise against the emperors of Rome. Zenobia responded with a careful balance of respect and determination. “Because I refused to accept Aureolus or Gallienus as Roman emperors. Only you I recognize as my conqueror and my ruler.” However, since female bravery is often artificial, it is rarely steady or consistent. Zenobia's courage left her during the moment of crisis; she shook with fear at the Soldiers’ angry shouts demanding her immediate execution, forgot the noble despair of Cleopatra, which she had aimed to emulate, and shamefully saved her life at the cost of her reputation and her friends. She blamed their advice, which influenced the weakness of her gender, for her stubborn resistance; she directed the wrath of the cruel Aurelian upon them. The reputation of Longinus, one of the many possibly innocent victims of her fear, will outlive that of the queen who betrayed him or the tyrant who condemned him. Talent and knowledge couldn’t sway a brutal, uneducated soldier, but they had served to uplift and balance Longinus’s spirit. Without complaining, he quietly followed the executioner, feeling pity for his unfortunate mistress and offering comfort to his troubled friends.

Returning from the conquest of the East, Aurelian had already crossed the Straits which divided Europe from Asia, when he was provoked by the intelligence that the Palmyrenians had massacred the governor and garrison which he had left among them, and again erected the standard of revolt. Without a moment’s deliberation, he once more turned his face towards Syria. Antioch was alarmed by his rapid approach, and the helpless city of Palmyra felt the irresistible weight of his resentment. We have a letter of Aurelian himself, in which he acknowledges, that old men, women, children, and peasants, had been involved in that dreadful execution, which should have been confined to armed rebellion; and although his principal concern seems directed to the reëstablishment of a temple of the Sun, he discovers some pity for the remnant of the Palmyrenians, to whom he grants the permission of rebuilding and inhabiting their city. But it is easier to destroy than to restore. The seat of commerce, of arts, and of Zenobia, gradually sunk into an obscure town, a trifling fortress, and at length a miserable village. The present citizens of Palmyra, consisting of thirty or forty families, have erected their mud cottages within the spacious court of a magnificent temple.

Returning from the conquest of the East, Aurelian had already crossed the Straits that separate Europe from Asia when he was enraged by news that the Palmyrenians had killed the governor and garrison he had left behind and had once again raised the banner of rebellion. Without a moment’s hesitation, he turned back towards Syria. Antioch was on high alert due to his swift approach, and the defenseless city of Palmyra felt the full force of his anger. We have a letter from Aurelian himself, in which he admits that old men, women, children, and peasants were caught up in that horrific massacre, which should have been limited to those in armed rebellion; and even though his main focus seems to be on restoring a temple to the Sun, he shows some compassion for the remaining Palmyrenians, allowing them to rebuild and live in their city. However, it's easier to destroy than to rebuild. The hub of commerce, culture, and Zenobia gradually fell into an obscure town, a minor fortress, and eventually a poor village. Today, the inhabitants of Palmyra, made up of thirty or forty families, have built their mud huts within the expansive courtyard of a grand temple.

Another and a last labor still awaited the indefatigable Aurelian; to suppress a dangerous though obscure rebel, who, during the revolt of Palmyra, had arisen on the banks of the Nile. Firmus, the friend and ally, as he proudly styled himself, of Odenathus and Zenobia, was no more than a wealthy merchant of Egypt. In the course of his trade to India, he had formed very intimate connections with the Saracens and the Blemmyes, whose situation on either coast of the Red Sea gave them an easy introduction into the Upper Egypt. The Egyptians he inflamed with the hope of freedom, and, at the head of their furious multitude, broke into the city of Alexandria, where he assumed the Imperial purple, coined money, published edicts, and raised an army, which, as he vainly boasted, he was capable of maintaining from the sole profits of his paper trade. Such troops were a feeble defence against the approach of Aurelian; and it seems almost unnecessary to relate, that Firmus was routed, taken, tortured, and put to death. Aurelian might now congratulate the senate, the people, and himself, that in little more than three years, he had restored universal peace and order to the Roman world.

Another final task awaited the tireless Aurelian: to defeat a dangerous but obscure rebel who had emerged during the revolt of Palmyra along the banks of the Nile. Firmus, who proudly called himself the friend and ally of Odenathus and Zenobia, was nothing more than a wealthy merchant from Egypt. During his trade journeys to India, he had established close ties with the Saracens and the Blemmyes, whose locations on either side of the Red Sea allowed them easy access to Upper Egypt. He inspired the Egyptians with hopes of freedom and, leading their angry mob, stormed into the city of Alexandria, where he donned the imperial purple, minted his own coins, issued decrees, and raised an army that he foolishly boasted could be funded solely by the profits of his paper business. Such troops were a weak defense against Aurelian’s advance; it's almost unnecessary to say that Firmus was defeated, captured, tortured, and executed. Aurelian could now congratulate the Senate, the people, and himself for having restored peace and order to the Roman world in just over three years.

Since the foundation of Rome, no general had more nobly deserved a triumph than Aurelian; nor was a triumph ever celebrated with superior pride and magnificence. The pomp was opened by twenty elephants, four royal tigers, and above two hundred of the most curious animals from every climate of the North, the East, and the South. They were followed by sixteen hundred gladiators, devoted to the cruel amusement of the amphitheatre. The wealth of Asia, the arms and ensigns of so many conquered nations, and the magnificent plate and wardrobe of the Syrian queen, were disposed in exact symmetry or artful disorder. The ambassadors of the most remote parts of the earth, of Æthiopia, Arabia, Persia, Bactriana, India, and China, all remarkable by their rich or singular dresses, displayed the fame and power of the Roman emperor, who exposed likewise to the public view the presents that he had received, and particularly a great number of crowns of gold, the offerings of grateful cities. The victories of Aurelian were attested by the long train of captives who reluctantly attended his triumph, Goths, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alemanni, Franks, Gauls, Syrians, and Egyptians. Each people was distinguished by its peculiar inscription, and the title of Amazons was bestowed on ten martial heroines of the Gothic nation who had been taken in arms. But every eye, disregarding the crowd of captives, was fixed on the emperor Tetricus and the queen of the East. The former, as well as his son, whom he had created Augustus, was dressed in Gallic trousers, a saffron tunic, and a robe of purple. The beauteous figure of Zenobia was confined by fetters of gold; a slave supported the gold chain which encircled her neck, and she almost fainted under the intolerable weight of jewels. She preceded on foot the magnificent chariot, in which she once hoped to enter the gates of Rome. It was followed by two other chariots, still more sumptuous, of Odenathus and of the Persian monarch. The triumphal car of Aurelian (it had formerly been used by a Gothic king) was drawn, on this memorable occasion, either by four stags or by four elephants. The most illustrious of the senate, the people, and the army, closed the solemn procession. Unfeigned joy, wonder, and gratitude, swelled the acclamations of the multitude; but the satisfaction of the senate was clouded by the appearance of Tetricus; nor could they suppress a rising murmur, that the haughty emperor should thus expose to public ignominy the person of a Roman and a magistrate.

Since the founding of Rome, no general has deserved a triumph as nobly as Aurelian, nor has any triumph ever been celebrated with such pride and extravagance. The parade began with twenty elephants, four royal tigers, and over two hundred of the most remarkable animals from the North, East, and South. They were followed by sixteen hundred gladiators, dedicated to the brutal entertainment of the amphitheater. The wealth of Asia, the arms and standards of many conquered nations, and the lavish treasures and clothing of the Syrian queen were arranged in perfect order or artistic disarray. Ambassadors from distant lands like Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia, Bactriana, India, and China, all wearing rich or unique clothing, showcased the fame and power of the Roman emperor, who also displayed the gifts he had received, particularly a large number of gold crowns offered by grateful cities. Aurelian’s victories were evidenced by the long line of captives who reluctantly followed his triumph—Goths, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alemanni, Franks, Gauls, Syrians, and Egyptians. Each group was marked by its own label, and the title of Amazons was given to ten warrior heroines of the Gothic nation who had been captured in battle. However, every eye, ignoring the crowd of captives, was fixed on Emperor Tetricus and the queen of the East. Tetricus, along with his son, whom he had named Augustus, wore Gallic trousers, a saffron tunic, and a purple robe. The beautiful Zenobia was shackled in gold; a slave held the gold chain around her neck, and she almost fainted under the unbearable weight of jewels. She walked on foot in front of the grand chariot in which she once hoped to enter Rome. This was followed by two even more luxurious chariots belonging to Odenathus and the Persian king. On this historic occasion, Aurelian’s triumphal chariot (which had previously been used by a Gothic king) was pulled by either four stags or four elephants. The most distinguished members of the senate, the people, and the army brought up the rear of the solemn procession. Genuine joy, awe, and gratitude filled the cheers of the crowd; however, the satisfaction of the senate was dimmed by the sight of Tetricus, and they couldn’t suppress a growing murmur that it was disgraceful for the proud emperor to expose a Roman and a magistrate to public humiliation.

But however, in the treatment of his unfortunate rivals, Aurelian might indulge his pride, he behaved towards them with a generous clemency, which was seldom exercised by the ancient conquerors. Princes who, without success, had defended their throne or freedom, were frequently strangled in prison, as soon as the triumphal pomp ascended the Capitol. These usurpers, whom their defeat had convicted of the crime of treason, were permitted to spend their lives in affluence and honorable repose. The emperor presented Zenobia with an elegant villa at Tibur, or Tivoli, about twenty miles from the capital; the Syrian queen insensibly sunk into a Roman matron, her daughters married into noble families, and her race was not yet extinct in the fifth century. Tetricus and his son were reinstated in their rank and fortunes. They erected on the Cælian hill a magnificent palace, and as soon as it was finished, invited Aurelian to supper. On his entrance, he was agreeably surprised with a picture which represented their singular history. They were delineated offering to the emperor a civic crown and the sceptre of Gaul, and again receiving at his hands the ornaments of the senatorial dignity. The father was afterwards invested with the government of Lucania, and Aurelian, who soon admitted the abdicated monarch to his friendship and conversation, familiarly asked him, Whether it were not more desirable to administer a province of Italy, than to reign beyond the Alps. The son long continued a respectable member of the senate; nor was there any one of the Roman nobility more esteemed by Aurelian, as well as by his successors.

But while Aurelian might indulge his pride in how he treated his unfortunate rivals, he treated them with a generosity that was rarely shown by ancient conquerors. Princes who had unsuccessfully defended their thrones or freedom were often strangled in prison as soon as the triumphal festivities began on the Capitol. These usurpers, who were convicted of treason through their defeat, were allowed to live out their lives in comfort and dignity. The emperor gave Zenobia a beautiful villa in Tibur, or Tivoli, about twenty miles from the capital; the Syrian queen gradually adapted to life as a Roman matron, her daughters married into noble families, and her lineage continued to exist into the fifth century. Tetricus and his son were restored to their previous status and wealth. They built a magnificent palace on the Cælian hill, and once it was completed, invited Aurelian to dinner. When he arrived, he was pleasantly surprised by a painting that depicted their unique story. They were shown presenting the emperor with a civic crown and the scepter of Gaul, and then receiving from him the decorations of senatorial honor. The father was later given control of Lucania, and Aurelian, who soon welcomed the former monarch into his circle of friends and conversations, casually asked him whether it was more desirable to govern a province in Italy than to rule beyond the Alps. The son remained a respected member of the senate for a long time; no other member of the Roman nobility was held in higher regard by Aurelian and his successors.

So long and so various was the pomp of Aurelian’s triumph, that although it opened with the dawn of day, the slow majesty of the procession ascended not the Capitol before the ninth hour; and it was already dark when the emperor returned to the palace. The festival was protracted by theatrical representations, the games of the circus, the hunting of wild beasts, combats of gladiators, and naval engagements. Liberal donatives were distributed to the army and people, and several institutions, agreeable or beneficial to the city, contributed to perpetuate the glory of Aurelian. A considerable portion of his oriental spoils was consecrated to the gods of Rome; the Capitol, and every other temple, glittered with the offerings of his ostentatious piety; and the temple of the Sun alone received above fifteen thousand pounds of gold. This last was a magnificent structure, erected by the emperor on the side of the Quirinal hill, and dedicated, soon after the triumph, to that deity whom Aurelian adored as the parent of his life and fortunes. His mother had been an inferior priestess in a chapel of the Sun; a peculiar devotion to the god of Light was a sentiment which the fortunate peasant imbibed in his infancy; and every step of his elevation, every victory of his reign, fortified superstition by gratitude.

The grandeur of Aurelian’s triumph was so vast and varied that even though it started with the break of day, the slow procession didn’t reach the Capitol until the ninth hour. By the time the emperor returned to the palace, it was already dark. The celebrations continued with theatrical performances, circus games, wild beast hunts, gladiator fights, and naval battles. Generous donations were given to the army and the citizens, and several institutions that benefited the city helped to keep Aurelian’s glory alive. A significant part of his treasures from the East was dedicated to the gods of Rome; the Capitol and every other temple sparkled with offerings reflecting his showy piety, and the temple of the Sun alone received over fifteen thousand pounds of gold. This temple was a stunning structure built by the emperor on the side of the Quirinal hill, dedicated shortly after the triumph to the deity whom Aurelian revered as the source of his life and success. His mother had been a lesser priestess in a Sun chapel; a special devotion to the God of Light was something the lucky peasant learned from a young age, and with each step of his rise and every victory during his reign, his superstitious beliefs were strengthened by his sense of gratitude.

The arms of Aurelian had vanquished the foreign and domestic foes of the republic. We are assured, that, by his salutary rigor, crimes and factions, mischievous arts and pernicious connivance, the luxurious growth of a feeble and oppressive government, were eradicated throughout the Roman world. But if we attentively reflect how much swifter is the progress of corruption than its cure, and if we remember that the years abandoned to public disorders exceeded the months allotted to the martial reign of Aurelian, we must confess that a few short intervals of peace were insufficient for the arduous work of reformation. Even his attempt to restore the integrity of the coin was opposed by a formidable insurrection. The emperor’s vexation breaks out in one of his private letters. “Surely,” says he, “the gods have decreed that my life should be a perpetual warfare. A sedition within the walls has just now given birth to a very serious civil war. The workmen of the mint, at the instigation of Felicissimus, a slave to whom I had intrusted an employment in the finances, have risen in rebellion. They are at length suppressed; but seven thousand of my soldiers have been slain in the contest, of those troops whose ordinary station is in Dacia, and the camps along the Danube.” Other writers, who confirm the same fact, add likewise, that it happened soon after Aurelian’s triumph; that the decisive engagement was fought on the Cælian hill; that the workmen of the mint had adulterated the coin; and that the emperor restored the public credit, by delivering out good money in exchange for the bad, which the people was commanded to bring into the treasury.

The forces of Aurelian had defeated both foreign and domestic enemies of the republic. We're told that, thanks to his strict policies, crimes and factions, harmful schemes, and corrupt collusion, the excessive growth of a weak and oppressive government were eliminated across the Roman world. However, if we consider how much faster corruption spreads than it can be fixed, and if we remember that the years of public disorder far outnumbered the months of Aurelian's military rule, we must admit that a few short periods of peace were not enough for the difficult task of reform. Even his efforts to restore the integrity of the currency faced a major uprising. The emperor's frustration is evident in one of his private letters. “Surely,” he writes, “the gods have determined that my life should be a constant battle. A disturbance within the city has just erupted into a serious civil war. The workers at the mint, encouraged by Felicissimus, a slave I had trusted with a position in the finances, have revolted. They have finally been subdued; but seven thousand of my soldiers have been killed in the fighting, from the troops normally stationed in Dacia and the camps along the Danube.” Other historians, who corroborate this fact, also mention that it happened shortly after Aurelian's victory; that the crucial battle took place on the Cælian hill; that the workers at the mint had tampered with the currency; and that the emperor restored public confidence by exchanging good money for the bad that people were ordered to bring to the treasury.

We might content ourselves with relating this extraordinary transaction, but we cannot dissemble how much in its present form it appears to us inconsistent and incredible. The debasement of the coin is indeed well suited to the administration of Gallienus; nor is it unlikely that the instruments of the corruption might dread the inflexible justice of Aurelian. But the guilt, as well as the profit, must have been confined to a very few; nor is it easy to conceive by what arts they could arm a people whom they had injured, against a monarch whom they had betrayed. We might naturally expect that such miscreants should have shared the public detestation with the informers and the other ministers of oppression; and that the reformation of the coin should have been an action equally popular with the destruction of those obsolete accounts, which by the emperor’s order were burnt in the forum of Trajan. In an age when the principles of commerce were so imperfectly understood, the most desirable end might perhaps be effected by harsh and injudicious means; but a temporary grievance of such a nature can scarcely excite and support a serious civil war. The repetition of intolerable taxes, imposed either on the land or on the necessaries of life, may at last provoke those who will not, or who cannot, relinquish their country. But the case is far otherwise in every operation which, by whatsoever expedients, restores the just value of money. The transient evil is soon obliterated by the permanent benefit, the loss is divided among multitudes; and if a few wealthy individuals experience a sensible diminution of treasure, with their riches, they at the same time lose the degree of weight and importance which they derived from the possession of them. However Aurelian might choose to disguise the real cause of the insurrection, his reformation of the coin could furnish only a faint pretence to a party already powerful and discontented. Rome, though deprived of freedom, was distracted by faction. The people, towards whom the emperor, himself a plebeian, always expressed a peculiar fondness, lived in perpetual dissension with the senate, the equestrian order, and the Prætorian guards. Nothing less than the firm though secret conspiracy of those orders, of the authority of the first, the wealth of the second, and the arms of the third, could have displayed a strength capable of contending in battle with the veteran legions of the Danube, which, under the conduct of a martial sovereign, had achieved the conquest of the West and of the East.

We could just tell the story of this incredible event, but we can't ignore how inconsistent and unbelievable it seems to us in its current form. The devaluation of the currency definitely fits the rule of Gallienus; it's also possible that the corrupt officials feared the strict justice of Aurelian. However, the blame and the profit must have been limited to just a few individuals; it's hard to imagine how they could turn a harmed public against a king they had betrayed. We would naturally expect that these wrongdoers would be just as hated by the people as the informants and other oppressive officials; and that the reform of the coin would be as well-received as the destruction of the outdated records, which the emperor commanded to be burned in the forum of Trajan. In a time when commerce was poorly understood, the most desirable outcome might have been achieved through harsh and unwise means; but a temporary injustice like this is unlikely to spark and sustain a serious civil war. Repeated unbearable taxes on land or essential goods might eventually drive people to stick to their land, but the situation is quite different in any action that restores the true value of money through various methods. The temporary harm is quickly overshadowed by the long-term benefit, the loss is spread among many; and while a few wealthy individuals might see a noticeable decrease in their wealth, they also lose the weight and significance that came from their riches. No matter how Aurelian might try to hide the real reason behind the uprising, his currency reform could only serve as a weak excuse for a group that was already powerful and discontented. Rome, although lacking freedom, was torn apart by factions. The people, whom the emperor, himself from a common background, always favored, were in constant conflict with the senate, the equestrian class, and the Praetorian guards. Only a strong but hidden conspiracy among these groups—drawing strength from the authority of the first, the wealth of the second, and the arms of the third—could have mustered the power to fight against the veteran legions of the Danube, which had, under the leadership of a military ruler, conquered the West and the East.

Whatever was the cause or the object of this rebellion, imputed with so little probability to the workmen of the mint, Aurelian used his victory with unrelenting rigor. He was naturally of a severe disposition. A peasant and a soldier, his nerves yielded not easily to the impressions of sympathy, and he could sustain without emotion the sight of tortures and death. Trained from his earliest youth in the exercise of arms, he set too small a value on the life of a citizen, chastised by military execution the slightest offences, and transferred the stern discipline of the camp into the civil administration of the laws. His love of justice often became a blind and furious passion; and whenever he deemed his own or the public safety endangered, he disregarded the rules of evidence, and the proportion of punishments. The unprovoked rebellion with which the Romans rewarded his services, exasperated his haughty spirit. The noblest families of the capital were involved in the guilt or suspicion of this dark conspiracy. A nasty spirit of revenge urged the bloody prosecution, and it proved fatal to one of the nephews of the emperor. The executioners (if we may use the expression of a contemporary poet) were fatigued, the prisons were crowded, and the unhappy senate lamented the death or absence of its most illustrious members. Nor was the pride of Aurelian less offensive to that assembly than his cruelty. Ignorant or impatient of the restraints of civil institutions, he disdained to hold his power by any other title than that of the sword, and governed by right of conquest an empire which he had saved and subdued.

No matter what sparked this rebellion, which seemed highly unlikely to be the work of the mint workers, Aurelian handled his victory with harshness. He had a naturally stern character. As a peasant and a soldier, he didn’t easily empathize with others and could watch torture and death without flinching. Trained in combat from a young age, he undervalued civilian life, punishing even minor offenses with military execution and applying the strict discipline of the battlefield to civil law. His sense of justice often turned into a blind rage; whenever he felt that he or the public were in danger, he ignored the rules of evidence and the fairness of punishments. The unprovoked rebellion that met his services only fueled his proud temperament. The most distinguished families in the capital were implicated in this dark conspiracy. Driven by a nasty thirst for revenge, the harsh crackdown led to the death of one of the emperor’s nephews. The executioners, if we may quote a contemporary poet, were worn out, the prisons were overcrowded, and the unfortunate senate mourned the loss or absence of its most prominent members. Aurelian’s arrogance was just as offensive to the senate as his cruelty. Unfamiliar with or intolerant of the limits of civil institutions, he refused to hold power by any title other than that of the sword, governing an empire he had both saved and conquered by sheer force.

It was observed by one of the most sagacious of the Roman princes, that the talents of his predecessor Aurelian were better suited to the command of an army, than to the government of an empire. Conscious of the character in which nature and experience had enabled him to excel, he again took the field a few months after his triumph. It was expedient to exercise the restless temper of the legions in some foreign war, and the Persian monarch, exulting in the shame of Valerian, still braved with impunity the offended majesty of Rome. At the head of an army, less formidable by its numbers than by its discipline and valor, the emperor advanced as far as the Straits which divide Europe from Asia. He there experienced that the most absolute power is a weak defence against the effects of despair. He had threatened one of his secretaries who was accused of extortion; and it was known that he seldom threatened in vain. The last hope which remained for the criminal was to involve some of the principal officers of the army in his danger, or at least in his fears. Artfully counterfeiting his master’s hand, he showed them, in a long and bloody list, their own names devoted to death. Without suspecting or examining the fraud, they resolved to secure their lives by the murder of the emperor. On his march, between Byzantium and Heraclea, Aurelian was suddenly attacked by the conspirators, whose stations gave them a right to surround his person, and after a short resistance, fell by the hand of Mucapor, a general whom he had always loved and trusted. He died regretted by the army, detested by the senate, but universally acknowledged as a warlike and fortunate prince, the useful, though severe reformer of a degenerate state.

One of the wisest Roman emperors noted that his predecessor Aurelian was better suited for leading an army than for ruling an empire. Aware of his strengths, gained from nature and experience, he returned to the battlefield a few months after his victory. It was necessary to channel the restless energy of the legions into some foreign conflict, especially with the Persian king, who reveled in the humiliation of Valerian and continued to defy the power of Rome without consequence. Commanding an army that was more impressive due to its discipline and courage than its size, the emperor advanced to the Straits separating Europe from Asia. There, he learned that absolute power offers little protection against the effects of despair. He had threatened a secretary accused of extortion, and it was known that his threats were often effective. The criminal’s last hope was to drag some high-ranking military officers into his predicament, or at least induce their fear. Skillfully forging the emperor's signature, he presented them with a long, bloody list of names marked for execution, including their own. Without questioning or investigating the deception, they decided to save their lives by assassinating the emperor. As he marched between Byzantium and Heraclea, Aurelian was suddenly attacked by the conspirators, who had positioned themselves to surround him. After a brief struggle, he was killed by Mucapor, a general he had always loved and trusted. He died mourned by the army, despised by the senate, but recognized by all as a courageous and fortunate ruler, a necessary but harsh reformer of a declining state.





Chapter XII: Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus And His Sons.—Part I.

Conduct Of The Army And Senate After The Death Of Aurelian.—Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus, And His Sons.
Conduct of the Army and Senate After the Death of Aurelian. — Reigns of Tacitus, Probus, Carus, and His Sons.

Such was the unhappy condition of the Roman emperors, that, whatever might be their conduct, their fate was commonly the same. A life of pleasure or virtue, of severity or mildness, of indolence or glory, alike led to an untimely grave; and almost every reign is closed by the same disgusting repetition of treason and murder. The death of Aurelian, however, is remarkable by its extraordinary consequences. The legions admired, lamented, and revenged their victorious chief. The artifice of his perfidious secretary was discovered and punished. The deluded conspirators attended the funeral of their injured sovereign, with sincere or well-feigned contrition, and submitted to the unanimous resolution of the military order, which was signified by the following epistle: “The brave and fortunate armies to the senate and people of Rome.—The crime of one man, and the error of many, have deprived us of the late emperor Aurelian. May it please you, venerable lords and fathers! to place him in the number of the gods, and to appoint a successor whom your judgment shall declare worthy of the Imperial purple! None of those whose guilt or misfortune have contributed to our loss, shall ever reign over us.” The Roman senators heard, without surprise, that another emperor had been assassinated in his camp; they secretly rejoiced in the fall of Aurelian; but the modest and dutiful address of the legions, when it was communicated in full assembly by the consul, diffused the most pleasing astonishment. Such honors as fear and perhaps esteem could extort, they liberally poured forth on the memory of their deceased sovereign. Such acknowledgments as gratitude could inspire, they returned to the faithful armies of the republic, who entertained so just a sense of the legal authority of the senate in the choice of an emperor. Yet, notwithstanding this flattering appeal, the most prudent of the assembly declined exposing their safety and dignity to the caprice of an armed multitude. The strength of the legions was, indeed, a pledge of their sincerity, since those who may command are seldom reduced to the necessity of dissembling; but could it naturally be expected, that a hasty repentance would correct the inveterate habits of fourscore years? Should the soldiers relapse into their accustomed seditions, their insolence might disgrace the majesty of the senate, and prove fatal to the object of its choice. Motives like these dictated a decree, by which the election of a new emperor was referred to the suffrage of the military order.

Such was the unfortunate situation of the Roman emperors that, no matter their behavior, their fate was usually the same. Whether they lived a life of pleasure or virtue, strictness or leniency, laziness or honor, they all met an early death; almost every reign ended with the same disgusting pattern of betrayal and murder. The death of Aurelian, however, is notable for its extraordinary consequences. The legions admired, mourned, and avenged their victorious leader. The trickery of his treacherous secretary was uncovered and punished. The deceived conspirators attended the funeral of their wronged sovereign, showing either genuine or pretended remorse, and agreed to the unanimous decision of the military, as expressed in the following letter: “The brave and fortunate armies to the senate and people of Rome.—The crime of one man and the mistakes of many have deprived us of the late emperor Aurelian. We ask you, revered lords and fathers, to rank him among the gods and to name a successor whom your judgment deems worthy of the Imperial purple! None of those whose guilt or misfortune contributed to our loss shall ever reign over us.” The Roman senators listened without surprise to the news that another emperor had been assassinated in his camp; they secretly rejoiced at Aurelian's fall; however, the modest and respectful address of the legions, when it was presented in full assembly by the consul, spread delightful astonishment. They generously poured forth such honors as fear and perhaps respect could compel on the memory of their deceased leader. They expressed their gratitude to the loyal armies of the republic, who held a rightful regard for the legal authority of the senate in choosing an emperor. Yet, despite this flattering appeal, the most cautious members of the assembly hesitated to risk their safety and dignity to the whim of an armed crowd. The strength of the legions was, indeed, a guarantee of their sincerity, as those who may command are seldom forced to pretend; but could it be expected that a sudden change of heart would correct the deep-rooted habits of eighty years? If the soldiers reverted to their usual riots, their arrogance could undermine the dignity of the senate and spell disaster for its chosen candidate. Such considerations prompted a decree that referred the election of a new emperor to the vote of the military order.

The contention that ensued is one of the best attested, but most improbable events in the history of mankind. The troops, as if satiated with the exercise of power, again conjured the senate to invest one of its own body with the Imperial purple. The senate still persisted in its refusal; the army in its request. The reciprocal offer was pressed and rejected at least three times, and, whilst the obstinate modesty of either party was resolved to receive a master from the hands of the other, eight months insensibly elapsed; an amazing period of tranquil anarchy, during which the Roman world remained without a sovereign, without a usurper, and without a sedition. * The generals and magistrates appointed by Aurelian continued to execute their ordinary functions; and it is observed, that a proconsul of Asia was the only considerable person removed from his office in the whole course of the interregnum.

The conflict that followed is one of the most well-documented yet unlikely events in human history. The troops, seemingly satisfied with their power, urged the senate to appoint one of its own members as the Emperor. The senate continued to refuse; the army insisted on its demand. This back-and-forth offer was made and rejected at least three times, and while both sides stubbornly held out to receive a leader from the other, eight months quietly passed; an incredible stretch of peaceful chaos, during which the Roman world had no ruler, no usurper, and no riots. The generals and officials appointed by Aurelian kept performing their usual duties; it was noted that a proconsul of Asia was the only significant figure removed from his position throughout the entire period of vacancy.

An event somewhat similar, but much less authentic, is supposed to have happened after the death of Romulus, who, in his life and character, bore some affinity with Aurelian. The throne was vacant during twelve months, till the election of a Sabine philosopher, and the public peace was guarded in the same manner, by the union of the several orders of the state. But, in the time of Numa and Romulus, the arms of the people were controlled by the authority of the Patricians; and the balance of freedom was easily preserved in a small and virtuous community. The decline of the Roman state, far different from its infancy, was attended with every circumstance that could banish from an interregnum the prospect of obedience and harmony: an immense and tumultuous capital, a wide extent of empire, the servile equality of despotism, an army of four hundred thousand mercenaries, and the experience of frequent revolutions. Yet, notwithstanding all these temptations, the discipline and memory of Aurelian still restrained the seditious temper of the troops, as well as the fatal ambition of their leaders. The flower of the legions maintained their stations on the banks of the Bosphorus, and the Imperial standard awed the less powerful camps of Rome and of the provinces. A generous though transient enthusiasm seemed to animate the military order; and we may hope that a few real patriots cultivated the returning friendship of the army and the senate as the only expedient capable of restoring the republic to its ancient beauty and vigor.

An event somewhat similar, but much less genuine, is said to have occurred after Romulus's death, who shared some traits with Aurelian in both life and character. The throne remained vacant for twelve months until a Sabine philosopher was elected, and the public peace was maintained in the same way, through the unity of different branches of the state. However, during the times of Numa and Romulus, the people's arms were controlled by the authority of the Patricians; and the balance of freedom was easily upheld in a small and virtuous community. The decline of the Roman state, vastly different from its early days, came with all kinds of factors that could undermine the chances of obedience and harmony during an interregnum: a huge and chaotic capital, a vast empire, the oppressive equality of despotism, an army of four hundred thousand mercenaries, and a history of frequent revolutions. Yet, despite all these challenges, the discipline and legacy of Aurelian still kept the troops' rebellious nature and their leaders' dangerous ambition in check. The cream of the legions held their positions on the shores of the Bosphorus, and the Imperial standard intimidated the weaker camps in Rome and the provinces. A noble but short-lived enthusiasm seemed to inspire the military order; and we can hope that a few genuine patriots worked to foster the renewed friendship between the army and the senate as the only way to bring the republic back to its former glory and strength.

On the twenty-fifth of September, near eight months after the murder of Aurelian, the consul convoked an assembly of the senate, and reported the doubtful and dangerous situation of the empire. He slightly insinuated, that the precarious loyalty of the soldiers depended on the chance of every hour, and of every accident; but he represented, with the most convincing eloquence, the various dangers that might attend any further delay in the choice of an emperor. Intelligence, he said, was already received, that the Germans had passed the Rhine, and occupied some of the strongest and most opulent cities of Gaul. The ambition of the Persian king kept the East in perpetual alarms; Egypt, Africa, and Illyricum, were exposed to foreign and domestic arms, and the levity of Syria would prefer even a female sceptre to the sanctity of the Roman laws. The consul, then addressing himself to Tacitus, the first of the senators, required his opinion on the important subject of a proper candidate for the vacant throne.

On September 25th, almost eight months after Aurelian's murder, the consul called a meeting of the senate to discuss the uncertain and dangerous state of the empire. He subtly hinted that the soldiers' shaky loyalty relied on the whims of each moment and accident; however, he passionately argued the various dangers that could arise from any further delay in selecting a new emperor. He mentioned that they had already received reports that the Germans had crossed the Rhine and taken control of some of the strongest and wealthiest cities in Gaul. The Persian king's ambitions kept the East in a state of constant alarm; Egypt, Africa, and Illyricum faced threats from both foreign and domestic forces, and the instability in Syria might lead them to prefer even a female ruler over the integrity of Roman law. The consul then turned to Tacitus, the leading senator, to ask for his opinion on the critical issue of finding a suitable candidate for the vacant throne.

If we can prefer personal merit to accidental greatness, we shall esteem the birth of Tacitus more truly noble than that of kings. He claimed his descent from the philosophic historian whose writings will instruct the last generations of mankind. The senator Tacitus was then seventy-five years of age. The long period of his innocent life was adorned with wealth and honors. He had twice been invested with the consular dignity, and enjoyed with elegance and sobriety his ample patrimony of between two and three millions sterling. The experience of so many princes, whom he had esteemed or endured, from the vain follies of Elagabalus to the useful rigor of Aurelian, taught him to form a just estimate of the duties, the dangers, and the temptations of their sublime station. From the assiduous study of his immortal ancestor, he derived the knowledge of the Roman constitution, and of human nature. The voice of the people had already named Tacitus as the citizen the most worthy of empire. The ungrateful rumor reached his ears, and induced him to seek the retirement of one of his villas in Campania. He had passed two months in the delightful privacy of Baiæ, when he reluctantly obeyed the summons of the consul to resume his honorable place in the senate, and to assist the republic with his counsels on this important occasion.

If we can value personal achievement over random fame, we should regard Tacitus's birth as more genuinely noble than that of kings. He claimed to be a descendant of the philosophical historian whose works will educate future generations. Senator Tacitus was seventy-five years old at that time. His long life, marked by innocence, was filled with wealth and honors. He had held the position of consul twice and enjoyed his substantial inheritance of two to three million pounds with elegance and moderation. The experiences with various rulers, whom he admired or tolerated, from the foolishness of Elagabalus to the beneficial strictness of Aurelian, taught him to accurately assess the responsibilities, dangers, and temptations of their exalted positions. From the diligent study of his immortal ancestor, he gained insight into the Roman constitution and human nature. The public had already identified Tacitus as the citizen most deserving of the empire. The ungrateful gossip reached him and led him to seek refuge in one of his villas in Campania. He spent two months enjoying the pleasant seclusion of Baiæ before he reluctantly responded to the consul’s call to return to his respected position in the senate and to assist the republic with his advice on this significant matter.

He arose to speak, when from every quarter of the house, he was saluted with the names of Augustus and emperor. “Tacitus Augustus, the gods preserve thee! we choose thee for our sovereign; to thy care we intrust the republic and the world. Accept the empire from the authority of the senate. It is due to thy rank, to thy conduct, to thy manners.” As soon as the tumult of acclamations subsided, Tacitus attempted to decline the dangerous honor, and to express his wonder, that they should elect his age and infirmities to succeed the martial vigor of Aurelian. “Are these limbs, conscript fathers! fitted to sustain the weight of armor, or to practise the exercises of the camp? The variety of climates, and the hardships of a military life, would soon oppress a feeble constitution, which subsists only by the most tender management. My exhausted strength scarcely enables me to discharge the duty of a senator; how insufficient would it prove to the arduous labors of war and government! Can you hope, that the legions will respect a weak old man, whose days have been spent in the shade of peace and retirement? Can you desire that I should ever find reason to regret the favorable opinion of the senate?”

He stood up to speak, and from every corner of the room, he was greeted with the names of Augustus and emperor. “Tacitus Augustus, may the gods keep you! We choose you as our leader; we entrust the republic and the world to your care. Accept the empire from the authority of the senate. You deserve it because of your rank, your actions, and your character.” Once the cheers died down, Tacitus tried to decline the dangerous honor and expressed his amazement at being chosen to follow the martial strength of Aurelian at his age and with his frailties. “Are these limbs, esteemed senators, fit to bear the weight of armor or to endure the drills of the military? The different climates and hardships of a soldier’s life would soon overwhelm a weak constitution that survives only with the most gentle care. My drained strength barely allows me to fulfill my duties as a senator; how inadequate would I be for the tough demands of war and governance! Can you really believe that the legions will respect a frail old man whose life has been spent in peace and seclusion? Do you want me to ever regret the senate’s favorable opinion of me?”

The reluctance of Tacitus (and it might possibly be sincere) was encountered by the affectionate obstinacy of the senate. Five hundred voices repeated at once, in eloquent confusion, that the greatest of the Roman princes, Numa, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, had ascended the throne in a very advanced season of life; that the mind, not the body, a sovereign, not a soldier, was the object of their choice; and that they expected from him no more than to guide by his wisdom the valor of the legions. These pressing though tumultuary instances were seconded by a more regular oration of Metius Falconius, the next on the consular bench to Tacitus himself. He reminded the assembly of the evils which Rome had endured from the vices of headstrong and capricious youths, congratulated them on the election of a virtuous and experienced senator, and, with a manly, though perhaps a selfish, freedom, exhorted Tacitus to remember the reasons of his elevation, and to seek a successor, not in his own family, but in the republic. The speech of Falconius was enforced by a general acclamation. The emperor elect submitted to the authority of his country, and received the voluntary homage of his equals. The judgment of the senate was confirmed by the consent of the Roman people and of the Prætorian guards.

The hesitation of Tacitus (which might be genuine) was met with the heartfelt determination of the senate. Five hundred voices simultaneously declared in a passionate uproar that the greatest Roman leaders—Numa, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines—had taken the throne at a much later stage in life; that it was the mind, not the body, a ruler, not a fighter, they were looking for; and that they expected him to guide the bravery of the legions with his wisdom. These urgent, chaotic appeals were supported by a more structured speech from Metius Falconius, who was next to Tacitus on the consular bench. He reminded the assembly of the difficulties Rome had faced from the faults of impulsive and unpredictable youths, congratulated them on selecting a virtuous and seasoned senator, and, with a straightforwardness that was possibly self-serving, urged Tacitus to remember why he was chosen and to look for a successor outside his own family, but within the republic. Falconius's speech was met with widespread applause. The emperor-elect accepted the will of his country and acknowledged the support of his peers. The senate's decision was backed by the agreement of the Roman people and the Praetorian guards.

The administration of Tacitus was not unworthy of his life and principles. A grateful servant of the senate, he considered that national council as the author, and himself as the subject, of the laws. He studied to heal the wounds which Imperial pride, civil discord, and military violence, had inflicted on the constitution, and to restore, at least, the image of the ancient republic, as it had been preserved by the policy of Augustus, and the virtues of Trajan and the Antonines. It may not be useless to recapitulate some of the most important prerogatives which the senate appeared to have regained by the election of Tacitus. 1. To invest one of their body, under the title of emperor, with the general command of the armies, and the government of the frontier provinces. 2. To determine the list, or, as it was then styled, the College of Consuls. They were twelve in number, who, in successive pairs, each, during the space of two months, filled the year, and represented the dignity of that ancient office. The authority of the senate, in the nomination of the consuls, was exercised with such independent freedom, that no regard was paid to an irregular request of the emperor in favor of his brother Florianus. “The senate,” exclaimed Tacitus, with the honest transport of a patriot, “understand the character of a prince whom they have chosen.” 3. To appoint the proconsuls and presidents of the provinces, and to confer on all the magistrates their civil jurisdiction. 4. To receive appeals through the intermediate office of the præfect of the city from all the tribunals of the empire. 5. To give force and validity, by their decrees, to such as they should approve of the emperor’s edicts. 6. To these several branches of authority we may add some inspection over the finances, since, even in the stern reign of Aurelian, it was in their power to divert a part of the revenue from the public service.

The administration of Tacitus was consistent with his life and values. A grateful servant of the senate, he viewed this national council as the originator, with himself as the executor, of the laws. He worked to mend the damage caused by imperial arrogance, civil unrest, and military aggression on the constitution, aiming to restore, at least in appearance, the vision of the ancient republic as it had been upheld by the policies of Augustus and the virtues of Trajan and the Antonines. It may be useful to summarize some of the key powers that the senate seemed to regain with Tacitus's election. 1. To appoint one of their own, under the title of emperor, with overall command of the armies and management of the frontier provinces. 2. To decide the list, or as it was then called, the College of Consuls. There were twelve members, who, in pairs and for two-month terms, represented the honor of that ancient office throughout the year. The senate exercised its authority in appointing the consuls with such independence that they ignored an irregular request from the emperor in favor of his brother Florianus. “The senate,” exclaimed Tacitus, with the earnest excitement of a patriot, “understand the character of the prince they have chosen.” 3. To appoint the proconsuls and presidents of the provinces, and to grant civil jurisdiction to all magistrates. 4. To accept appeals through the intermediary role of the praefect of the city from all courts in the empire. 5. To give power and validity, through their decrees, to the emperor’s edicts that they approved. 6. We can also add some oversight of the finances, since even during the tough reign of Aurelian, they had the ability to redirect part of the revenue for public use.

Circular epistles were sent, without delay, to all the principal cities of the empire, Treves, Milan, Aquileia, Thessalonica, Corinth, Athens, Antioch, Alexandria, and Carthage, to claim their obedience, and to inform them of the happy revolution, which had restored the Roman senate to its ancient dignity. Two of these epistles are still extant. We likewise possess two very singular fragments of the private correspondence of the senators on this occasion. They discover the most excessive joy, and the most unbounded hopes. “Cast away your indolence,” it is thus that one of the senators addresses his friend, “emerge from your retirements of Baiæ and Puteoli. Give yourself to the city, to the senate. Rome flourishes, the whole republic flourishes. Thanks to the Roman army, to an army truly Roman; at length we have recovered our just authority, the end of all our desires. We hear appeals, we appoint proconsuls, we create emperors; perhaps too we may restrain them—to the wise a word is sufficient.” These lofty expectations were, however, soon disappointed; nor, indeed, was it possible that the armies and the provinces should long obey the luxurious and unwarlike nobles of Rome. On the slightest touch, the unsupported fabric of their pride and power fell to the ground. The expiring senate displayed a sudden lustre, blazed for a moment, and was extinguished forever.

Circular letters were quickly sent to all the main cities of the empire: Treves, Milan, Aquileia, Thessalonica, Corinth, Athens, Antioch, Alexandria, and Carthage, to demand their loyalty and to inform them of the positive change that had restored the Roman Senate to its former glory. Two of these letters still exist. We also have two very notable fragments of private correspondence among the senators regarding this event. They express overwhelming joy and boundless hopes. “Shake off your laziness,” one senator tells his friend, “come out from your retreats in Baiæ and Puteoli. Dedicate yourself to the city and the Senate. Rome is thriving, and the whole republic is thriving. Thanks to the Roman army, a truly Roman army; we have finally regained our rightful authority, the fulfillment of all our desires. We hear appeals, we appoint proconsuls, we create emperors; perhaps we can even keep them in check—wise words suffice for the wise.” However, these high expectations were soon dashed; it was impossible for the armies and provinces to remain obedient to the wealthy, non-military nobles of Rome for long. With the slightest provocation, the fragile structure of their pride and power crumbled. The fading Senate briefly shone, flared up for a moment, and then was extinguished forever.

All that had yet passed at Rome was no more than a theatrical representation, unless it was ratified by the more substantial power of the legions. Leaving the senators to enjoy their dream of freedom and ambition, Tacitus proceeded to the Thracian camp, and was there, by the Prætorian præfect, presented to the assembled troops, as the prince whom they themselves had demanded, and whom the senate had bestowed. As soon as the præfect was silent, the emperor addressed himself to the soldiers with eloquence and propriety. He gratified their avarice by a liberal distribution of treasure, under the names of pay and donative. He engaged their esteem by a spirited declaration, that although his age might disable him from the performance of military exploits, his counsels should never be unworthy of a Roman general, the successor of the brave Aurelian.

All that had happened in Rome was just a show, unless it was backed by the real power of the legions. While the senators indulged in their fantasies of freedom and ambition, Tacitus went to the Thracian camp. There, the Praetorian prefect introduced him to the assembled troops as the prince they had requested and the senate had appointed. Once the prefect finished speaking, the emperor addressed the soldiers with both eloquence and respect. He satisfied their greed by generously distributing treasure, labeled as pay and bonuses. He earned their respect by declaring that, even though his age might prevent him from leading military campaigns, his advice would always be worthy of a Roman general, the successor of the brave Aurelian.

Whilst the deceased emperor was making preparations for a second expedition into the East, he had negotiated with the Alani, * a Scythian people, who pitched their tents in the neighborhood of the Lake Mæotis. Those barbarians, allured by presents and subsidies, had promised to invade Persia with a numerous body of light cavalry. They were faithful to their engagements; but when they arrived on the Roman frontier, Aurelian was already dead, the design of the Persian war was at least suspended, and the generals, who, during the interregnum, exercised a doubtful authority, were unprepared either to receive or to oppose them. Provoked by such treatment, which they considered as trifling and perfidious, the Alani had recourse to their own valor for their payment and revenge; and as they moved with the usual swiftness of Tartars, they had soon spread themselves over the provinces of Pontus, Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Galatia. The legions, who from the opposite shores of the Bosphorus could almost distinguish the flames of the cities and villages, impatiently urged their general to lead them against the invaders. The conduct of Tacitus was suitable to his age and station. He convinced the barbarians of the faith, as well as the power, of the empire. Great numbers of the Alani, appeased by the punctual discharge of the engagements which Aurelian had contracted with them, relinquished their booty and captives, and quietly retreated to their own deserts, beyond the Phasis. Against the remainder, who refused peace, the Roman emperor waged, in person, a successful war. Seconded by an army of brave and experienced veterans, in a few weeks he delivered the provinces of Asia from the terror of the Scythian invasion.

While the deceased emperor was preparing for a second campaign in the East, he had made deals with the Alani, a nomadic Scythian group, who set up their camps near Lake Mæotis. Tempted by gifts and financial support, they promised to invade Persia with a large force of light cavalry. They kept their promise; however, by the time they reached the Roman frontier, Aurelian was already dead, the plan for the Persian war was at least on hold, and the generals who held uncertain authority during the interregnum were unprepared to accept or confront them. Upset by what they perceived as a trivial and deceptive treatment, the Alani took matters into their own hands for payment and revenge. Swiftly, like the Tartars are known to do, they quickly spread through the provinces of Pontus, Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Galatia. The legions, who from across the Bosphorus could almost see the fires from the burning cities and villages, impatiently urged their general to take action against the invaders. The actions of Tacitus were fitting for his rank and age. He showed the barbarians both the credibility and might of the empire. Many Alani, satisfied by the timely fulfillment of the commitments Aurelian had made to them, returned their plunder and captives and peacefully retreated to their own lands beyond the Phasis. Against the remaining ones who refused to negotiate, the Roman emperor personally led a successful campaign. Supported by a strong and experienced army, in just a few weeks he freed the provinces of Asia from the threat of the Scythian invasion.

But the glory and life of Tacitus were of short duration. Transported, in the depth of winter, from the soft retirement of Campania to the foot of Mount Caucasus, he sunk under the unaccustomed hardships of a military life. The fatigues of the body were aggravated by the cares of the mind. For a while, the angry and selfish passions of the soldiers had been suspended by the enthusiasm of public virtue. They soon broke out with redoubled violence, and raged in the camp, and even in the tent of the aged emperor. His mild and amiable character served only to inspire contempt, and he was incessantly tormented with factions which he could not assuage, and by demands which it was impossible to satisfy. Whatever flattering expectations he had conceived of reconciling the public disorders, Tacitus soon was convinced that the licentiousness of the army disdained the feeble restraint of laws, and his last hour was hastened by anguish and disappointment. It may be doubtful whether the soldiers imbrued their hands in the blood of this innocent prince. It is certain that their insolence was the cause of his death. He expired at Tyana in Cappadocia, after a reign of only six months and about twenty days.

But the glory and life of Tacitus were short-lived. Transferred, in the middle of winter, from the comfortable setting of Campania to the foot of Mount Caucasus, he succumbed to the harsh realities of military life. The strain on his body was made worse by the stress on his mind. For a time, the angry and selfish emotions of the soldiers were held in check by a sense of public duty. They soon broke out with even greater intensity, creating chaos in the camp and even in the tent of the elderly emperor. His gentle and kind nature only led to contempt, and he was constantly tormented by factions he could not quell and demands that were impossible to meet. Whatever hopeful expectations he had about bringing order to the public unrest, Tacitus quickly realized that the army’s unruliness disregarded weak legal constraints, and his last moments were filled with pain and disappointment. It remains uncertain whether the soldiers stained their hands with the blood of this innocent ruler. What is clear is that their arrogance led to his death. He passed away in Tyana, Cappadocia, after a reign of just six months and about twenty days.

The eyes of Tacitus were scarcely closed, before his brother Florianus showed himself unworthy to reign, by the hasty usurpation of the purple, without expecting the approbation of the senate. The reverence for the Roman constitution, which yet influenced the camp and the provinces, was sufficiently strong to dispose them to censure, but not to provoke them to oppose, the precipitate ambition of Florianus. The discontent would have evaporated in idle murmurs, had not the general of the East, the heroic Probus, boldly declared himself the avenger of the senate. The contest, however, was still unequal; nor could the most able leader, at the head of the effeminate troops of Egypt and Syria, encounter, with any hopes of victory, the legions of Europe, whose irresistible strength appeared to support the brother of Tacitus. But the fortune and activity of Probus triumphed over every obstacle. The hardy veterans of his rival, accustomed to cold climates, sickened and consumed away in the sultry heats of Cilicia, where the summer proved remarkably unwholesome. Their numbers were diminished by frequent desertion; the passes of the mountains were feebly defended; Tarsus opened its gates; and the soldiers of Florianus, when they had permitted him to enjoy the Imperial title about three months, delivered the empire from civil war by the easy sacrifice of a prince whom they despised.

The moment Tacitus closed his eyes, his brother Florianus quickly revealed he was unfit to rule by hastily taking the throne without waiting for the Senate's approval. The respect for the Roman constitution, which still affected the army and provinces, was strong enough to make them criticize Florianus, but not enough to push them to actively resist his reckless ambition. Any discontent would have faded into meaningless whispers if it hadn't been for the Eastern general, the brave Probus, who boldly claimed he would avenge the Senate. However, the competition was still unfair; even the most capable leader leading the soft troops of Egypt and Syria couldn't hope to match the European legions, whose overwhelming power seemed to back Tacitus's brother. But Probus's luck and determination overcame all challenges. The tough veterans of his rival, used to cold climates, fell ill and died in the sweltering heat of Cilicia, where the summer was particularly unhealthy. Their numbers shrank due to frequent desertions; the mountain passes were poorly defended; Tarsus opened its gates; and after allowing Florianus to hold the Imperial title for about three months, his soldiers ended the civil war by easily sacrificing a prince they looked down upon.

The perpetual revolutions of the throne had so perfectly erased every notion of hereditary title, that the family of an unfortunate emperor was incapable of exciting the jealousy of his successors. The children of Tacitus and Florianus were permitted to descend into a private station, and to mingle with the general mass of the people. Their poverty indeed became an additional safeguard to their innocence. When Tacitus was elected by the senate, he resigned his ample patrimony to the public service; an act of generosity specious in appearance, but which evidently disclosed his intention of transmitting the empire to his descendants. The only consolation of their fallen state was the remembrance of transient greatness, and a distant hope, the child of a flattering prophecy, that at the end of a thousand years, a monarch of the race of Tacitus should arise, the protector of the senate, the restorer of Rome, and the conqueror of the whole earth.

The endless power shifts on the throne had completely erased any idea of hereditary rule, so the family of a fallen emperor couldn't provoke the envy of his successors. The children of Tacitus and Florianus were allowed to live privately and blend in with the general population. Their poverty actually provided an extra layer of protection for their innocence. When Tacitus was elected by the senate, he gave up his considerable wealth for the public good; although this appeared generous, it clearly hinted at his desire to pass the empire on to his heirs. The only comfort in their fallen status was the memory of their brief glory and a distant hope, born from an encouraging prophecy, that after a thousand years, a ruler from the line of Tacitus would emerge as the protector of the senate, the restorer of Rome, and the conqueror of the entire world.

The peasants of Illyricum, who had already given Claudius and Aurelian to the sinking empire, had an equal right to glory in the elevation of Probus. Above twenty years before, the emperor Valerian, with his usual penetration, had discovered the rising merit of the young soldier, on whom he conferred the rank of tribune, long before the age prescribed by the military regulations. The tribune soon justified his choice, by a victory over a great body of Sarmatians, in which he saved the life of a near relation of Valerian; and deserved to receive from the emperor’s hand the collars, bracelets, spears, and banners, the mural and the civic crown, and all the honorable rewards reserved by ancient Rome for successful valor. The third, and afterwards the tenth, legion were intrusted to the command of Probus, who, in every step of his promotion, showed himself superior to the station which he filled. Africa and Pontus, the Rhine, the Danube, the Euphrates, and the Nile, by turns afforded him the most splendid occasions of displaying his personal prowess and his conduct in war. Aurelian was indebted for the honest courage with which he often checked the cruelty of his master. Tacitus, who desired by the abilities of his generals to supply his own deficiency of military talents, named him commander-in-chief of all the eastern provinces, with five times the usual salary, the promise of the consulship, and the hope of a triumph. When Probus ascended the Imperial throne, he was about forty-four years of age; in the full possession of his fame, of the love of the army, and of a mature vigor of mind and body.

The peasants of Illyricum, who had already contributed Claudius and Aurelian to the declining empire, also had every reason to take pride in Probus’s rise. More than twenty years earlier, Emperor Valerian, with his usual insight, recognized the potential of the young soldier and promoted him to tribune, well before the age required by military regulations. The tribune quickly proved Valerian right by winning a significant victory against a large group of Sarmatians, during which he saved a close relative of Valerian. He rightfully earned from the emperor the collars, bracelets, spears, banners, and both the mural and civic crowns, along with all the honors that ancient Rome reserved for brave achievements. Probus was entrusted with leading the third and later the tenth legion, and at every stage of his advancement, he demonstrated he was better than the position he held. Africa and Pontus, as well as the Rhine, Danube, Euphrates, and Nile, provided him with numerous exceptional opportunities to showcase his skill and leadership in battle. Aurelian benefited from the honest bravery with which Probus often confronted his master’s cruelty. Tacitus, who sought to make up for his own lack of military skills with capable generals, appointed Probus as commander-in-chief of all the eastern provinces, with a salary five times the usual amount, the promise of the consulship, and the prospect of a triumph. When Probus took the Imperial throne, he was about forty-four, fully embraced by his reputation, adored by the army, and possessed a mature vigor of both mind and body.

His acknowledged merit, and the success of his arms against Florianus, left him without an enemy or a competitor. Yet, if we may credit his own professions, very far from being desirous of the empire, he had accepted it with the most sincere reluctance. “But it is no longer in my power,” says Probus, in a private letter, “to lay down a title so full of envy and of danger. I must continue to personate the character which the soldiers have imposed upon me.” His dutiful address to the senate displayed the sentiments, or at least the language, of a Roman patriot: “When you elected one of your order, conscript fathers! to succeed the emperor Aurelian, you acted in a manner suitable to your justice and wisdom. For you are the legal sovereigns of the world, and the power which you derive from your ancestors will descend to your posterity. Happy would it have been, if Florianus, instead of usurping the purple of his brother, like a private inheritance, had expected what your majesty might determine, either in his favor, or in that of any other person. The prudent soldiers have punished his rashness. To me they have offered the title of Augustus. But I submit to your clemency my pretensions and my merits.” When this respectful epistle was read by the consul, the senators were unable to disguise their satisfaction, that Probus should condescend thus humbly to solicit a sceptre which he already possessed. They celebrated with the warmest gratitude his virtues, his exploits, and above all his moderation. A decree immediately passed, without a dissenting voice, to ratify the election of the eastern armies, and to confer on their chief all the several branches of the Imperial dignity: the names of Cæsar and Augustus, the title of Father of his country, the right of making in the same day three motions in the senate, the office of Pontifex Maximus, the tribunitian power, and the proconsular command; a mode of investiture, which, though it seemed to multiply the authority of the emperor, expressed the constitution of the ancient republic. The reign of Probus corresponded with this fair beginning. The senate was permitted to direct the civil administration of the empire. Their faithful general asserted the honor of the Roman arms, and often laid at their feet crowns of gold and barbaric trophies, the fruits of his numerous victories. Yet, whilst he gratified their vanity, he must secretly have despised their indolence and weakness. Though it was every moment in their power to repeal the disgraceful edict of Gallienus, the proud successors of the Scipios patiently acquiesced in their exclusion from all military employments. They soon experienced, that those who refuse the sword must renounce the sceptre.

His recognized skills and the success of his military campaigns against Florianus left him without any enemies or rivals. However, if we can trust his own words, he had reluctantly accepted the empire, not out of desire for it. “But it is no longer in my power,” Probus says in a private letter, “to give up a title so full of envy and danger. I must continue to fulfill the role that the soldiers have put on me.” His respectful address to the Senate expressed the feelings, or at least the words, of a Roman patriot: “When you elected one from your ranks, conscript fathers, to succeed Emperor Aurelian, you acted in a manner fitting your justice and wisdom. For you are the legal rulers of the world, and the power that comes from your ancestors will be passed down to your descendants. It would have been better if Florianus, instead of claiming his brother's throne like a personal inheritance, had waited for what your majesty might decide, whether for him or anyone else. The wise soldiers have punished his recklessness. They have offered me the title of Augustus. But I lay before your mercy my claims and my contributions.” When this respectful letter was read by the consul, the senators couldn't hide their satisfaction that Probus would humbly request a position he already held. They expressed their heartfelt appreciation for his virtues, his achievements, and especially his moderation. A decree was swiftly passed, without any opposition, to confirm the election of the eastern armies and to grant their leader all aspects of Imperial dignity: the titles of Cæsar and Augustus, the title of Father of His Country, the right to introduce three motions in the Senate on the same day, the office of Pontifex Maximus, the power of a tribune, and the command authority of a proconsul; this method of investiture, while it seemed to increase the emperor's authority, reflected the structure of the ancient republic. Probus's reign matched this promising start. The Senate was allowed to oversee the civil administration of the empire. Their loyal general upheld the honor of the Roman military and often presented them with crowns of gold and trophies from barbaric lands, the results of his many victories. Yet, while he satisfied their pride, he likely secretly scorned their laziness and weakness. Although they could have easily repealed the shameful edict of Gallienus at any moment, the proud successors of the Scipios quietly accepted their exclusion from all military positions. They soon realized that those who shun the sword must also give up the scepter.





Chapter XII: Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus And His Sons.—Part II.

The strength of Aurelian had crushed on every side the enemies of Rome. After his death they seemed to revive with an increase of fury and of numbers. They were again vanquished by the active vigor of Probus, who, in a short reign of about six years, equalled the fame of ancient heroes, and restored peace and order to every province of the Roman world. The dangerous frontier of Rhætia he so firmly secured, that he left it without the suspicion of an enemy. He broke the wandering power of the Sarmatian tribes, and by the terror of his arms compelled those barbarians to relinquish their spoil. The Gothic nation courted the alliance of so warlike an emperor. He attacked the Isaurians in their mountains, besieged and took several of their strongest castles, and flattered himself that he had forever suppressed a domestic foe, whose independence so deeply wounded the majesty of the empire. The troubles excited by the usurper Firmus in the Upper Egypt had never been perfectly appeased, and the cities of Ptolemais and Coptos, fortified by the alliance of the Blemmyes, still maintained an obscure rebellion. The chastisement of those cities, and of their auxiliaries the savages of the South, is said to have alarmed the court of Persia, and the Great King sued in vain for the friendship of Probus. Most of the exploits which distinguished his reign were achieved by the personal valor and conduct of the emperor, insomuch that the writer of his life expresses some amazement how, in so short a time, a single man could be present in so many distant wars. The remaining actions he intrusted to the care of his lieutenants, the judicious choice of whom forms no inconsiderable part of his glory. Carus, Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius, Galerius, Asclepiodatus, Annibalianus, and a crowd of other chiefs, who afterwards ascended or supported the throne, were trained to arms in the severe school of Aurelian and Probus.

The strength of Aurelian had defeated the enemies of Rome from all sides. After he died, those enemies seemed to come back stronger and more numerous. They were once again defeated by the energy of Probus, who in his brief reign of about six years matched the glory of ancient heroes and restored peace and order to every province of the Roman world. He secured the dangerous border of Rhætia so effectively that it was left without any threat from enemies. He dismantled the roaming power of the Sarmatian tribes and forced those barbarians to give up their plunder through the terror of his army. The Gothic nation sought an alliance with such a fierce emperor. He attacked the Isaurians in their mountains, besieged and captured several of their strongest fortresses, believing he had permanently dealt with a domestic enemy that embarrassed the empire's majesty. The troubles caused by the usurper Firmus in Upper Egypt had never been fully resolved, and the cities of Ptolemais and Coptos, backed by the Blemmyes, still maintained a hidden rebellion. The punishment inflicted on those cities and their Southern savage allies reportedly alarmed the Persian court, and the Great King unsuccessfully sought Probus's friendship. Most of the achievements that marked his reign were accomplished by the personal bravery and leadership of the emperor, to the point that the writer of his biography expressed surprise at how a single man could be present in so many distant conflicts in such a short time. He assigned the remaining actions to his lieutenants, and his wise choice of them is a significant part of his legacy. Carus, Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius, Galerius, Asclepiodatus, Annibalianus, and many other leaders who later rose to or supported the throne were trained in the rigorous environment created by Aurelian and Probus.

But the most important service which Probus rendered to the republic was the deliverance of Gaul, and the recovery of seventy flourishing cities oppressed by the barbarians of Germany, who, since the death of Aurelian, had ravaged that great province with impunity. Among the various multitude of those fierce invaders we may distinguish, with some degree of clearness, three great armies, or rather nations, successively vanquished by the valor of Probus. He drove back the Franks into their morasses; a descriptive circumstance from whence we may infer, that the confederacy known by the manly appellation of Free, already occupied the flat maritime country, intersected and almost overflown by the stagnating waters of the Rhine, and that several tribes of the Frisians and Batavians had acceded to their alliance. He vanquished the Burgundians, a considerable people of the Vandalic race. * They had wandered in quest of booty from the banks of the Oder to those of the Seine. They esteemed themselves sufficiently fortunate to purchase, by the restitution of all their booty, the permission of an undisturbed retreat. They attempted to elude that article of the treaty. Their punishment was immediate and terrible. But of all the invaders of Gaul, the most formidable were the Lygians, a distant people, who reigned over a wide domain on the frontiers of Poland and Silesia. In the Lygian nation, the Arii held the first rank by their numbers and fierceness. “The Arii” (it is thus that they are described by the energy of Tacitus) “study to improve by art and circumstances the innate terrors of their barbarism. Their shields are black, their bodies are painted black. They choose for the combat the darkest hour of the night. Their host advances, covered as it were with a funeral shade; nor do they often find an enemy capable of sustaining so strange and infernal an aspect. Of all our senses, the eyes are the first vanquished in battle.” Yet the arms and discipline of the Romans easily discomfited these horrid phantoms. The Lygii were defeated in a general engagement, and Semno, the most renowned of their chiefs, fell alive into the hands of Probus. That prudent emperor, unwilling to reduce a brave people to despair, granted them an honorable capitulation, and permitted them to return in safety to their native country. But the losses which they suffered in the march, the battle, and the retreat, broke the power of the nation: nor is the Lygian name ever repeated in the history either of Germany or of the empire. The deliverance of Gaul is reported to have cost the lives of four hundred thousand of the invaders; a work of labor to the Romans, and of expense to the emperor, who gave a piece of gold for the head of every barbarian. But as the fame of warriors is built on the destruction of human kind, we may naturally suspect that the sanguinary account was multiplied by the avarice of the soldiers, and accepted without any very severe examination by the liberal vanity of Probus.

But the most important service Probus provided to the republic was freeing Gaul and reclaiming seventy thriving cities that had been oppressed by the Germanic barbarians, who, since Aurelian's death, had raided that vast province without facing any consequences. Among the many fierce invaders, we can clearly identify three major armies, or rather nations, that were successively defeated by Probus’s bravery. He pushed the Franks back into their swamps; a detail that suggests that the group known as the Free already inhabited the flat coastal region, crisscrossed and nearly flooded by the stagnant waters of the Rhine, and that various tribes of the Frisians and Batavians had joined their alliance. He also defeated the Burgundians, a significant group from the Vandalic people. They had roamed in search of loot from the banks of the Oder to those of the Seine. They believed themselves lucky enough to buy their way back home by returning all their stolen goods. They tried to bypass that part of the agreement. Their punishment was swift and severe. However, of all the invaders of Gaul, the most formidable were the Lygians, a distant people who ruled over a large territory on the borders of Poland and Silesia. Among the Lygians, the Arii were the most prominent due to their numbers and ferocity. “The Arii” (as Tacitus vividly describes them) “seek to enhance the innate horrors of their barbarism with art and tactics. Their shields are black, their bodies are painted black. They choose the darkest hour of night for battle. Their army advances, shrouded as if in funeral gloom; and they rarely encounter an enemy capable of withstanding such a bizarre and terrifying appearance. Of all our senses, sight is the first to falter in battle.” Yet the Romans’ weapons and training easily defeated these terrifying figures. The Lygii were crushed in a major battle, and Semno, the most famous of their leaders, was captured alive by Probus. That wise emperor, reluctant to plunge a brave people into despair, offered them an honorable surrender and allowed them to return safely to their homeland. However, the losses they suffered in the march, the battle, and the retreat weakened the nation significantly: the Lygian name was never mentioned again in the history of either Germany or the empire. The liberation of Gaul reportedly cost the lives of four hundred thousand of the invaders; a monumental task for the Romans and a financial burden for the emperor, who paid a gold piece for each barbarian head. But since warriors’ reputations are often built on slaughter, we can suspect that this bloody count was exaggerated by the greed of the soldiers and accepted without much scrutiny by Probus’s generous vanity.

Since the expedition of Maximin, the Roman generals had confined their ambition to a defensive war against the nations of Germany, who perpetually pressed on the frontiers of the empire. The more daring Probus pursued his Gallic victories, passed the Rhine, and displayed his invincible eagles on the banks of the Elbe and the Neckar. He was fully convinced that nothing could reconcile the minds of the barbarians to peace, unless they experienced, in their own country, the calamities of war. Germany, exhausted by the ill success of the last emigration, was astonished by his presence. Nine of the most considerable princes repaired to his camp, and fell prostrate at his feet. Such a treaty was humbly received by the Germans, as it pleased the conqueror to dictate. He exacted a strict restitution of the effects and captives which they had carried away from the provinces; and obliged their own magistrates to punish the more obstinate robbers who presumed to detain any part of the spoil. A considerable tribute of corn, cattle, and horses, the only wealth of barbarians, was reserved for the use of the garrisons which Probus established on the limits of their territory. He even entertained some thoughts of compelling the Germans to relinquish the exercise of arms, and to trust their differences to the justice, their safety to the power, of Rome. To accomplish these salutary ends, the constant residence of an Imperial governor, supported by a numerous army, was indispensably requisite. Probus therefore judged it more expedient to defer the execution of so great a design; which was indeed rather of specious than solid utility. Had Germany been reduced into the state of a province, the Romans, with immense labor and expense, would have acquired only a more extensive boundary to defend against the fiercer and more active barbarians of Scythia.

Since Maximin's expedition, the Roman generals had focused their ambitions on a defensive war against the German tribes who constantly threatened the empire's borders. The bolder Probus continued his victories in Gaul, crossed the Rhine, and showcased his unbeatable eagles along the Elbe and Neckar rivers. He firmly believed that the only way to convince the barbarians to seek peace was to make them experience the harsh realities of war in their own lands. Germany, weakened by the failures of the last migration, was taken aback by his arrival. Nine of the most influential leaders came to his camp and humbly fell at his feet. The Germans accepted the treaty as the conqueror wished, submitting to his terms. He demanded that they return all the goods and captives they had taken from the provinces and forced their officials to punish the most defiant thieves who tried to keep any of the loot. A significant tribute of grain, livestock, and horses, the primary resources of the barbarians, was set aside for the garrisons Probus established along their borders. He even considered pressuring the Germans to give up their weapons and rely on Rome for justice and protection. To achieve these beneficial goals, it was essential to have an imperial governor residing there, supported by a large army. Therefore, Probus thought it better to postpone such an ambitious plan, which was more about appearance than true practicality. If Germany had been made into a province, the Romans would have gained only a larger boundary to defend against the stronger and more aggressive barbarians from Scythia, at great cost and effort.

Instead of reducing the warlike natives of Germany to the condition of subjects, Probus contented himself with the humble expedient of raising a bulwark against their inroads. The country which now forms the circle of Swabia had been left desert in the age of Augustus by the emigration of its ancient inhabitants. The fertility of the soil soon attracted a new colony from the adjacent provinces of Gaul. Crowds of adventurers, of a roving temper and of desperate fortunes, occupied the doubtful possession, and acknowledged, by the payment of tithes, the majesty of the empire. To protect these new subjects, a line of frontier garrisons was gradually extended from the Rhine to the Danube. About the reign of Hadrian, when that mode of defence began to be practised, these garrisons were connected and covered by a strong intrenchment of trees and palisades. In the place of so rude a bulwark, the emperor Probus constructed a stone wall of a considerable height, and strengthened it by towers at convenient distances. From the neighborhood of Neustadt and Ratisbon on the Danube, it stretched across hills, valleys, rivers, and morasses, as far as Wimpfen on the Neckar, and at length terminated on the banks of the Rhine, after a winding course of near two hundred miles. This important barrier, uniting the two mighty streams that protected the provinces of Europe, seemed to fill up the vacant space through which the barbarians, and particularly the Alemanni, could penetrate with the greatest facility into the heart of the empire. But the experience of the world, from China to Britain, has exposed the vain attempt of fortifying any extensive tract of country. An active enemy, who can select and vary his points of attack, must, in the end, discover some feeble spot, or some unguarded moment. The strength, as well as the attention, of the defenders is divided; and such are the blind effects of terror on the firmest troops, that a line broken in a single place is almost instantly deserted. The fate of the wall which Probus erected may confirm the general observation. Within a few years after his death, it was overthrown by the Alemanni. Its scattered ruins, universally ascribed to the power of the Dæmon, now serve only to excite the wonder of the Swabian peasant.

Instead of forcing the aggressive tribes of Germany to submit, Probus opted for the simple solution of building a barrier against their attacks. The area that is now Swabia was left abandoned during Augustus's time because its original inhabitants had migrated away. The rich soil quickly attracted a new group of settlers from nearby Gaul. A wave of adventurers, eager for opportunity and often in dire situations, took control of the uncertain land and acknowledged the empire's authority by paying taxes. To protect these new citizens, a series of frontier garrisons were gradually established from the Rhine to the Danube. Around Hadrian's reign, when this method of defense began to evolve, these garrisons were linked and fortified with a strong barrier made of trees and palisades. Instead of such a crude protection, Emperor Probus built a significant stone wall, reinforced with towers at strategic points. Starting from the area near Neustadt and Ratisbon on the Danube, it stretched across hills, valleys, rivers, and swamps, reaching Wimpfen on the Neckar, and eventually ended on the Rhine after winding nearly two hundred miles. This crucial barrier connected the two great rivers that safeguarded the provinces of Europe, effectively filling the gap through which the barbarians, especially the Alemanni, could easily invade the heart of the empire. However, history has shown, from China to Britain, that trying to fortify a large area is a futile effort. An active enemy, able to choose and change their points of attack, is bound to find a weak spot or an unguarded moment. The strength and focus of the defenders get diluted; and the demoralizing effects of fear can cause even the strongest troops to abandon a breach in the line immediately. The fate of the wall built by Probus illustrates this point. Just a few years after his death, it was destroyed by the Alemanni. Its scattered remnants, commonly believed to be the result of demonic power, now only intrigue the local Swabian farmers.

Among the useful conditions of peace imposed by Probus on the vanquished nations of Germany, was the obligation of supplying the Roman army with sixteen thousand recruits, the bravest and most robust of their youth. The emperor dispersed them through all the provinces, and distributed this dangerous reënforcement, in small bands of fifty or sixty each, among the national troops; judiciously observing, that the aid which the republic derived from the barbarians should be felt but not seen. Their aid was now become necessary. The feeble elegance of Italy and the internal provinces could no longer support the weight of arms. The hardy frontiers of the Rhine and Danube still produced minds and bodies equal to the labors of the camp; but a perpetual series of wars had gradually diminished their numbers. The infrequency of marriage, and the ruin of agriculture, affected the principles of population, and not only destroyed the strength of the present, but intercepted the hope of future, generations. The wisdom of Probus embraced a great and beneficial plan of replenishing the exhausted frontiers, by new colonies of captive or fugitive barbarians, on whom he bestowed lands, cattle, instruments of husbandry, and every encouragement that might engage them to educate a race of soldiers for the service of the republic. Into Britain, and most probably into Cambridgeshire, he transported a considerable body of Vandals. The impossibility of an escape reconciled them to their situation, and in the subsequent troubles of that island, they approved themselves the most faithful servants of the state. Great numbers of Franks and Gepidæ were settled on the banks of the Danube and the Rhine. A hundred thousand Bastarnæ, expelled from their own country, cheerfully accepted an establishment in Thrace, and soon imbibed the manners and sentiments of Roman subjects. But the expectations of Probus were too often disappointed. The impatience and idleness of the barbarians could ill brook the slow labors of agriculture. Their unconquerable love of freedom, rising against despotism, provoked them into hasty rebellions, alike fatal to themselves and to the provinces; nor could these artificial supplies, however repeated by succeeding emperors, restore the important limit of Gaul and Illyricum to its ancient and native vigor.

Among the important conditions of peace imposed by Probus on the defeated nations of Germany was the requirement to provide the Roman army with sixteen thousand recruits, selected from the bravest and strongest of their youth. The emperor distributed them across all the provinces and assigned this risky reinforcement in small groups of fifty or sixty among the national troops, wisely noting that the benefit the republic received from the barbarians should be felt but not seen. Their support had become essential. The delicate elegance of Italy and its inland provinces could no longer bear the burden of warfare. The tough frontiers of the Rhine and Danube still produced minds and bodies capable of enduring the rigors of military life; however, a continuous series of wars had gradually reduced their numbers. The rarity of marriage and the decline of agriculture impacted population growth, not only weakening the current strength but also jeopardizing the hopes for future generations. Probus devised a significant and beneficial plan to replenish the depleted frontiers by establishing new colonies of captured or escaped barbarians, providing them with land, livestock, farming tools, and every incentive to cultivate a new generation of soldiers for the service of the republic. He relocated a substantial group of Vandals to Britain, likely to Cambridgeshire. Their inability to escape made them accept their situation, and during the subsequent turmoil in that island, they proved to be some of the most loyal servants of the state. Large numbers of Franks and Gepids settled along the banks of the Danube and the Rhine. A hundred thousand Bastarnæ, driven from their homeland, gladly accepted resettlement in Thrace and quickly adopted the customs and values of Roman citizens. However, Probus's expectations were too often unmet. The impatience and idleness of the barbarians struggled to cope with the slow pace of farming. Their unyielding love of freedom, rising against oppression, led them to hasty revolts that were disastrous for both themselves and the provinces; nor could these artificial reinforcements, no matter how frequently provided by subsequent emperors, restore the critical borders of Gaul and Illyricum to their former strength.

Of all the barbarians who abandoned their new settlements, and disturbed the public tranquillity, a very small number returned to their own country. For a short season they might wander in arms through the empire; but in the end they were surely destroyed by the power of a warlike emperor. The successful rashness of a party of Franks was attended, however, with such memorable consequences, that it ought not to be passed unnoticed. They had been established by Probus, on the sea-coast of Pontus, with a view of strengthening the frontier against the inroads of the Alani. A fleet stationed in one of the harbors of the Euxine fell into the hands of the Franks; and they resolved, through unknown seas, to explore their way from the mouth of the Phasis to that of the Rhine. They easily escaped through the Bosphorus and the Hellespont, and cruising along the Mediterranean, indulged their appetite for revenge and plunder by frequent descents on the unsuspecting shores of Asia, Greece, and Africa. The opulent city of Syracuse, in whose port the natives of Athens and Carthage had formerly been sunk, was sacked by a handful of barbarians, who massacred the greatest part of the trembling inhabitants. From the island of Sicily the Franks proceeded to the columns of Hercules, trusted themselves to the ocean, coasted round Spain and Gaul, and steering their triumphant course through the British Channel, at length finished their surprising voyage, by landing in safety on the Batavian or Frisian shores. The example of their success, instructing their countrymen to conceive the advantages and to despise the dangers of the sea, pointed out to their enterprising spirit a new road to wealth and glory.

Of all the outsiders who gave up their new homes and disrupted the public peace, only a few returned to their original countries. For a brief time, they could roam armed throughout the empire, but eventually, they were defeated by a powerful military emperor. However, the bold actions of a group of Franks had such significant outcomes that they shouldn't be overlooked. They had been settled by Probus on the coast of Pontus to strengthen the border against attacks from the Alani. A fleet stationed in one of the harbors of the Black Sea was captured by the Franks, and they decided to navigate through uncharted seas from the mouth of the Phasis River to the Rhine. They easily slipped through the Bosphorus and the Hellespont, and while sailing along the Mediterranean, they satisfied their thirst for vengeance and loot by frequently raiding the unprepared shores of Asia, Greece, and Africa. The wealthy city of Syracuse, where the ships of Athens and Carthage had once sunk, was pillaged by a small group of barbarians who killed most of the terrified inhabitants. From Sicily, the Franks moved on to the pillars of Hercules, ventured into the ocean, sailed past Spain and Gaul, and guided by their triumph, finally completed their remarkable journey by safely landing on the shores of Batavia or Frisia. Their success inspired their fellow countrymen to see the benefits and disregard the risks of the sea, revealing a new path to wealth and glory.

Notwithstanding the vigilance and activity of Probus, it was almost impossible that he could at once contain in obedience every part of his wide-extended dominions. The barbarians, who broke their chains, had seized the favorable opportunity of a domestic war. When the emperor marched to the relief of Gaul, he devolved the command of the East on Saturninus. That general, a man of merit and experience, was driven into rebellion by the absence of his sovereign, the levity of the Alexandrian people, the pressing instances of his friends, and his own fears; but from the moment of his elevation, he never entertained a hope of empire, or even of life. “Alas!” he said, “the republic has lost a useful servant, and the rashness of an hour has destroyed the services of many years. You know not,” continued he, “the misery of sovereign power; a sword is perpetually suspended over our head. We dread our very guards, we distrust our companions. The choice of action or of repose is no longer in our disposition, nor is there any age, or character, or conduct, that can protect us from the censure of envy. In thus exalting me to the throne, you have doomed me to a life of cares, and to an untimely fate. The only consolation which remains is the assurance that I shall not fall alone.” But as the former part of his prediction was verified by the victory, so the latter was disappointed by the clemency, of Probus. That amiable prince attempted even to save the unhappy Saturninus from the fury of the soldiers. He had more than once solicited the usurper himself to place some confidence in the mercy of a sovereign who so highly esteemed his character, that he had punished, as a malicious informer, the first who related the improbable news of his disaffection. Saturninus might, perhaps, have embraced the generous offer, had he not been restrained by the obstinate distrust of his adherents. Their guilt was deeper, and their hopes more sanguine, than those of their experienced leader.

Despite Probus's vigilance and efforts, it was nearly impossible for him to control every part of his vast empire at once. The barbarians, who had broken free from their chains, seized the opportunity created by a civil war. When the emperor marched to aid Gaul, he handed over command of the East to Saturninus. This general, known for his skill and experience, was pushed into rebellion by the absence of his leader, the fickleness of the Alexandrian people, the urgent pleas of his friends, and his own fears. However, from the moment he was elevated, he had no hope for an empire or even for his own life. "Alas!" he lamented, "the republic has lost a useful servant, and the recklessness of a single hour has undone years of service. You don’t understand," he continued, "the misery of power; a sword is always hanging over our heads. We fear our own guards, we distrust our allies. The choice between action and rest is no longer ours, and no age, character, or behavior can shield us from envy’s criticism. By promoting me to the throne, you have condemned me to a life of worries and an early death. The only comfort I have is that I will not fall alone." But while the first part of his prediction was proven true by victory, the second was disappointed by Probus's mercy. That kind prince even tried to save the unfortunate Saturninus from the soldiers' rage. He had repeatedly urged the usurper to trust in the mercy of a ruler who valued his character so much that he had punished the first person who maliciously spread rumors of his disloyalty. Saturninus might have accepted that generous offer if not for the stubborn distrust of his followers. Their guilt was deeper, and their hopes more ambitious, than those of their experienced leader.

The revolt of Saturninus was scarcely extinguished in the East, before new troubles were excited in the West, by the rebellion of Bonosus and Proculus, in Gaul. The most distinguished merit of those two officers was their respective prowess, of the one in the combats of Bacchus, of the other in those of Venus, yet neither of them was destitute of courage and capacity, and both sustained, with honor, the august character which the fear of punishment had engaged them to assume, till they sunk at length beneath the superior genius of Probus. He used the victory with his accustomed moderation, and spared the fortune, as well as the lives of their innocent families.

The revolt of Saturninus had barely settled in the East when new issues arose in the West with the rebellion of Bonosus and Proculus in Gaul. The main strengths of these two officers were their skills: one excelled in the fights of Bacchus, while the other shone in those of Venus. However, neither lacked courage or capability, and both maintained with honor the important roles they took on out of fear of punishment, until they ultimately fell to the greater talent of Probus. He handled the victory with his usual moderation, sparing both the wealth and the lives of their innocent families.

The arms of Probus had now suppressed all the foreign and domestic enemies of the state. His mild but steady administration confirmed the re-ëstablishment of the public tranquillity; nor was there left in the provinces a hostile barbarian, a tyrant, or even a robber, to revive the memory of past disorders. It was time that the emperor should revisit Rome, and celebrate his own glory and the general happiness. The triumph due to the valor of Probus was conducted with a magnificence suitable to his fortune, and the people, who had so lately admired the trophies of Aurelian, gazed with equal pleasure on those of his heroic successor. We cannot, on this occasion, forget the desperate courage of about fourscore gladiators, reserved, with near six hundred others, for the inhuman sports of the amphitheatre. Disdaining to shed their blood for the amusement of the populace, they killed their keepers, broke from the place of their confinement, and filled the streets of Rome with blood and confusion. After an obstinate resistance, they were overpowered and cut in pieces by the regular forces; but they obtained at least an honorable death, and the satisfaction of a just revenge.

The forces of Probus had now defeated all the foreign and domestic enemies of the state. His calm but firm leadership ensured the return of public peace; there were no hostile barbarians, tyrants, or even thieves left in the provinces to remind anyone of past troubles. It was time for the emperor to return to Rome and celebrate his own accomplishments and the overall happiness of the people. The triumph honoring Probus’s bravery was held with a grandeur fitting his status, and the crowd, who had recently admired the trophies of Aurelian, looked on with equal admiration at those of their heroic successor. We cannot overlook the desperate bravery of about eighty gladiators, who, along with nearly six hundred others, were kept for the brutal games in the amphitheater. Rejecting the idea of shedding their blood for the crowd’s entertainment, they killed their captors, escaped from their confinement, and filled the streets of Rome with blood and chaos. After a fierce struggle, they were overpowered and slaughtered by the regular troops; however, they at least achieved an honorable death and the satisfaction of a justified revenge.

The military discipline which reigned in the camps of Probus was less cruel than that of Aurelian, but it was equally rigid and exact. The latter had punished the irregularities of the soldiers with unrelenting severity, the former prevented them by employing the legions in constant and useful labors. When Probus commanded in Egypt, he executed many considerable works for the splendor and benefit of that rich country. The navigation of the Nile, so important to Rome itself, was improved; and temples, buildings, porticos, and palaces, were constructed by the hands of the soldiers, who acted by turns as architects, as engineers, and as husbandmen. It was reported of Hannibal, that, in order to preserve his troops from the dangerous temptations of idleness, he had obliged them to form large plantations of olive-trees along the coast of Africa. From a similar principle, Probus exercised his legions in covering with rich vineyards the hills of Gaul and Pannonia, and two considerable spots are described, which were entirely dug and planted by military labor. One of these, known under the name of Mount Almo, was situated near Sirmium, the country where Probus was born, for which he ever retained a partial affection, and whose gratitude he endeavored to secure, by converting into tillage a large and unhealthy tract of marshy ground. An army thus employed constituted perhaps the most useful, as well as the bravest, portion of Roman subjects.

The military discipline in Probus's camps was less brutal than Aurelian's, but it was equally strict and precise. While Aurelian punished his soldiers' misconduct with harsh severity, Probus prevented issues by keeping the legions busy with constant and productive work. During Probus's command in Egypt, he oversaw many significant projects that enhanced the wealth and beauty of that prosperous region. The navigation of the Nile, vital to Rome, was improved, and soldiers built temples, structures, porticoes, and palaces, taking turns as architects, engineers, and farmers. It was said of Hannibal that to keep his troops from falling into the dangerous trap of idleness, he made them create large olive plantations along the African coast. Similarly, Probus engaged his legions in planting rich vineyards across the hills of Gaul and Pannonia, with two notable areas being fully dug and cultivated by military labor. One of these, known as Mount Almo, was near Sirmium, the area where Probus was born, and he always held a fondness for it, striving to gain its gratitude by transforming a large, unhealthy marshland into arable land. An army engaged in such work represented perhaps the most valuable and courageous part of Roman citizens.

But in the prosecution of a favorite scheme, the best of men, satisfied with the rectitude of their intentions, are subject to forget the bounds of moderation; nor did Probus himself sufficiently consult the patience and disposition of his fierce legionaries. The dangers of the military profession seem only to be compensated by a life of pleasure and idleness; but if the duties of the soldier are incessantly aggravated by the labors of the peasant, he will at last sink under the intolerable burden, or shake it off with indignation. The imprudence of Probus is said to have inflamed the discontent of his troops. More attentive to the interests of mankind than to those of the army, he expressed the vain hope, that, by the establishment of universal peace, he should soon abolish the necessity of a standing and mercenary force. The unguarded expression proved fatal to him. In one of the hottest days of summer, as he severely urged the unwholesome labor of draining the marshes of Sirmium, the soldiers, impatient of fatigue, on a sudden threw down their tools, grasped their arms, and broke out into a furious mutiny. The emperor, conscious of his danger, took refuge in a lofty tower, constructed for the purpose of surveying the progress of the work. The tower was instantly forced, and a thousand swords were plunged at once into the bosom of the unfortunate Probus. The rage of the troops subsided as soon as it had been gratified. They then lamented their fatal rashness, forgot the severity of the emperor whom they had massacred, and hastened to perpetuate, by an honorable monument, the memory of his virtues and victories.

But in pursuing a favorite plan, even the best people, feeling good about their intentions, can forget the need for moderation; Probus himself failed to consider the patience and mood of his fierce soldiers. The risks of military life seem only to be balanced by a life of pleasure and leisure; however, if a soldier's responsibilities are constantly increased by the hard work of a laborer, he will eventually either collapse under the unbearable weight or shake it off in anger. Probus's imprudence reportedly fueled his troops' discontent. More focused on the welfare of humanity than on the military's needs, he expressed the unrealistic hope that establishing universal peace would soon eliminate the need for a standing and mercenary army. This careless statement turned out to be disastrous for him. On one of the hottest days of summer, while he harshly enforced the grueling task of draining the marshes of Sirmium, the soldiers, tired of the hard work, suddenly threw down their tools, grabbed their weapons, and erupted into a fierce mutiny. The emperor, aware of his peril, sought refuge in a tall tower built to oversee the progress of the work. The tower was quickly breached, and a thousand swords were plunged simultaneously into the unfortunate Probus. The soldiers' rage subsided once it was satisfied. They then regretted their reckless actions, forgot the harshness of the emperor they had killed, and hurried to honor his memory with a monument celebrating his virtues and victories.

When the legions had indulged their grief and repentance for the death of Probus, their unanimous consent declared Carus, his Prætorian præfect, the most deserving of the Imperial throne. Every circumstance that relates to this prince appears of a mixed and doubtful nature. He gloried in the title of Roman Citizen; and affected to compare the purity of his blood with the foreign and even barbarous origin of the preceding emperors; yet the most inquisitive of his contemporaries, very far from admitting his claim, have variously deduced his own birth, or that of his parents, from Illyricum, from Gaul, or from Africa. Though a soldier, he had received a learned education; though a senator, he was invested with the first dignity of the army; and in an age when the civil and military professions began to be irrecoverably separated from each other, they were united in the person of Carus. Notwithstanding the severe justice which he exercised against the assassins of Probus, to whose favor and esteem he was highly indebted, he could not escape the suspicion of being accessory to a deed from whence he derived the principal advantage. He enjoyed, at least before his elevation, an acknowledged character of virtue and abilities; but his austere temper insensibly degenerated into moroseness and cruelty; and the imperfect writers of his life almost hesitate whether they shall not rank him in the number of Roman tyrants. When Carus assumed the purple, he was about sixty years of age, and his two sons, Carinus and Numerian had already attained the season of manhood.

When the legions had expressed their sorrow and regret over Probus's death, they unanimously agreed to declare Carus, his Praetorian prefect, the most deserving of the imperial throne. Every detail related to this prince seems ambiguous and mixed. He took pride in being a Roman citizen and liked to compare the purity of his lineage to the foreign and even barbaric backgrounds of the previous emperors; however, even the most inquisitive of his contemporaries, far from acknowledging his claim, have traced his birth, or that of his parents, back to Illyricum, Gaul, or Africa. Despite being a soldier, he had received a solid education; though a senator, he held the highest rank in the army; and in an era when civilian and military roles began to separate irretrievably, they were united in Carus's identity. Despite the harsh justice he enforced against the assassins of Probus, to whom he owed much of his favor and respect, he could not avoid the suspicion of being involved in an act that ultimately benefited him the most. He had a recognized reputation for virtue and skill before his rise, but his stern demeanor gradually turned into bitterness and cruelty, leading even the imperfect biographers of his life to hesitate about whether to place him among the Roman tyrants. When Carus took the throne, he was around sixty years old, and his two sons, Carinus and Numerian, had already reached adulthood.

The authority of the senate expired with Probus; nor was the repentance of the soldiers displayed by the same dutiful regard for the civil power, which they had testified after the unfortunate death of Aurelian. The election of Carus was decided without expecting the approbation of the senate, and the new emperor contented himself with announcing, in a cold and stately epistle, that he had ascended the vacant throne. A behavior so very opposite to that of his amiable predecessor afforded no favorable presage of the new reign: and the Romans, deprived of power and freedom, asserted their privilege of licentious murmurs. The voice of congratulation and flattery was not, however, silent; and we may still peruse, with pleasure and contempt, an eclogue, which was composed on the accession of the emperor Carus. Two shepherds, avoiding the noontide heat, retire into the cave of Faunus. On a spreading beech they discover some recent characters. The rural deity had described, in prophetic verses, the felicity promised to the empire under the reign of so great a prince. Faunus hails the approach of that hero, who, receiving on his shoulders the sinking weight of the Roman world, shall extinguish war and faction, and once again restore the innocence and security of the golden age.

The authority of the senate ended with Probus; and the soldiers' regret didn't show the same respect for civil power that they had shown after Aurelian's tragic death. The election of Carus took place without waiting for the senate's approval, and the new emperor simply announced, in a formal and distant letter, that he had taken the empty throne. This behavior was quite the opposite of his charming predecessor, giving no positive signs for the new reign: the Romans, stripped of power and freedom, exercised their right to complain openly. However, the cheers and flattery weren’t completely silent; we can still enjoy, with both pleasure and disdain, a poem written on Emperor Carus’s rise to power. Two shepherds, escaping the midday heat, go into the cave of Faunus. They find some recent inscriptions on a sprawling beech tree. The rural god had written, in prophetic verses, about the happiness promised to the empire under such a great leader. Faunus welcomes the arrival of that hero, who, taking on the burdens of the Roman world, will put an end to war and conflict, and once again bring back the peace and security of a golden age.

It is more than probable, that these elegant trifles never reached the ears of a veteran general, who, with the consent of the legions, was preparing to execute the long-suspended design of the Persian war. Before his departure for this distant expedition, Carus conferred on his two sons, Carinus and Numerian, the title of Cæsar, and investing the former with almost an equal share of the Imperial power, directed the young prince first to suppress some troubles which had arisen in Gaul, and afterwards to fix the seat of his residence at Rome, and to assume the government of the Western provinces. The safety of Illyricum was confirmed by a memorable defeat of the Sarmatians; sixteen thousand of those barbarians remained on the field of battle, and the number of captives amounted to twenty thousand. The old emperor, animated with the fame and prospect of victory, pursued his march, in the midst of winter, through the countries of Thrace and Asia Minor, and at length, with his younger son, Numerian, arrived on the confines of the Persian monarchy. There, encamping on the summit of a lofty mountain, he pointed out to his troops the opulence and luxury of the enemy whom they were about to invade.

It’s highly likely that these fancy little matters never reached the ears of an experienced general who, with the approval of the legions, was getting ready to carry out the long-awaited plan for the Persian war. Before he set off on this faraway mission, Carus gave his two sons, Carinus and Numerian, the title of Cæsar, sharing nearly equal parts of the Imperial power with the former. He instructed the young prince to first address some issues that had come up in Gaul, and then to make his home in Rome and take charge of the Western provinces. The security of Illyricum was secured by a notable victory over the Sarmatians, where sixteen thousand of those barbarians lay dead on the battlefield, and the number of captives reached twenty thousand. The old emperor, driven by his reputation and the promise of victory, continued his journey through the winter months across Thrace and Asia Minor, eventually, alongside his younger son Numerian, arriving at the borders of the Persian kingdom. There, setting up camp on a high mountain, he pointed out to his troops the wealth and luxury of the enemy they were about to attack.

The successor of Artaxerxes, * Varanes, or Bahram, though he had subdued the Segestans, one of the most warlike nations of Upper Asia, was alarmed at the approach of the Romans, and endeavored to retard their progress by a negotiation of peace. His ambassadors entered the camp about sunset, at the time when the troops were satisfying their hunger with a frugal repast. The Persians expressed their desire of being introduced to the presence of the Roman emperor. They were at length conducted to a soldier, who was seated on the grass. A piece of stale bacon and a few hard peas composed his supper. A coarse woollen garment of purple was the only circumstance that announced his dignity. The conference was conducted with the same disregard of courtly elegance. Carus, taking off a cap which he wore to conceal his baldness, assured the ambassadors, that, unless their master acknowledged the superiority of Rome, he would speedily render Persia as naked of trees as his own head was destitute of hair. Notwithstanding some traces of art and preparation, we may discover in this scene the manners of Carus, and the severe simplicity which the martial princes, who succeeded Gallienus, had already restored in the Roman camps. The ministers of the Great King trembled and retired.

The successor of Artaxerxes, *Varanes, or Bahram, although he had conquered the Segestans, one of the most aggressive nations of Upper Asia, was worried about the Romans approaching and tried to slow their advance by negotiating peace. His ambassadors arrived at the camp around sunset, just as the troops were having a simple meal to satisfy their hunger. The Persians indicated that they wanted to meet the Roman emperor. Eventually, they were taken to a soldier sitting on the grass. His dinner consisted of a piece of stale bacon and a few hard peas. The only sign of his rank was a rough purple woolen garment. The conversation took place with little concern for royal niceties. Carus, removing a cap that he wore to hide his baldness, told the ambassadors that unless their master recognized Rome's superiority, he would soon leave Persia as bare of trees as his own head was of hair. Despite some signs of artifice and preparation, this scene reveals Carus's manners and the austere simplicity that the soldier-emperors who followed Gallienus had already brought back to the Roman camps. The ministers of the Great King were frightened and retreated.

The threats of Carus were not without effect. He ravaged Mesopotamia, cut in pieces whatever opposed his passage, made himself master of the great cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, (which seemed to have surrendered without resistance,) and carried his victorious arms beyond the Tigris. He had seized the favorable moment for an invasion. The Persian councils were distracted by domestic factions, and the greater part of their forces were detained on the frontiers of India. Rome and the East received with transport the news of such important advantages. Flattery and hope painted, in the most lively colors, the fall of Persia, the conquest of Arabia, the submission of Egypt, and a lasting deliverance from the inroads of the Scythian nations. But the reign of Carus was destined to expose the vanity of predictions. They were scarcely uttered before they were contradicted by his death; an event attended with such ambiguous circumstances, that it may be related in a letter from his own secretary to the præfect of the city. “Carus,” says he, “our dearest emperor, was confined by sickness to his bed, when a furious tempest arose in the camp. The darkness which overspread the sky was so thick, that we could no longer distinguish each other; and the incessant flashes of lightning took from us the knowledge of all that passed in the general confusion. Immediately after the most violent clap of thunder, we heard a sudden cry that the emperor was dead; and it soon appeared, that his chamberlains, in a rage of grief, had set fire to the royal pavilion; a circumstance which gave rise to the report that Carus was killed by lightning. But, as far as we have been able to investigate the truth, his death was the natural effect of his disorder.”

The threats from Carus had a significant impact. He devastated Mesopotamia, destroyed anything that got in his way, took control of the major cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon (which seemed to surrender without a fight), and extended his victorious campaign beyond the Tigris. He had seized the right moment to invade. The Persian leadership was divided by internal strife, and a large portion of their forces were stationed on the borders of India. Rome and the East received the news of these significant victories with great excitement. Flattery and optimism painted a vivid picture of Persia's downfall, the conquest of Arabia, the submission of Egypt, and a lasting relief from the invasions of the Scythian tribes. However, Carus’s reign was meant to reveal the futility of such predictions. They were barely spoken before they were contradicted by his death—an event surrounded by such uncertain circumstances that it was recounted in a letter from his own secretary to the city prefect. “Carus,” he writes, “our beloved emperor, was confined to his bed due to illness when a violent storm struck the camp. The darkness that enveloped us was so thick that we could no longer recognize each other; and the constant flashes of lightning obscured our understanding amidst the chaos. Right after the loudest clap of thunder, we heard a sudden shout that the emperor was dead; and it soon became clear that his attendants, in a fit of grief, had set fire to the royal tent, which sparked the rumor that Carus was killed by lightning. But, as far as we have been able to find out, his death was simply a natural consequence of his illness.”





Chapter XII: Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus And His Sons.—Part III.

The vacancy of the throne was not productive of any disturbance. The ambition of the aspiring generals was checked by their natural fears, and young Numerian, with his absent brother Carinus, were unanimously acknowledged as Roman emperors. The public expected that the successor of Carus would pursue his father’s footsteps, and, without allowing the Persians to recover from their consternation, would advance sword in hand to the palaces of Susa and Ecbatana. But the legions, however strong in numbers and discipline, were dismayed by the most abject superstition. Notwithstanding all the arts that were practised to disguise the manner of the late emperor’s death, it was found impossible to remove the opinion of the multitude, and the power of opinion is irresistible. Places or persons struck with lightning were considered by the ancients with pious horror, as singularly devoted to the wrath of Heaven. An oracle was remembered, which marked the River Tigris as the fatal boundary of the Roman arms. The troops, terrified with the fate of Carus and with their own danger, called aloud on young Numerian to obey the will of the gods, and to lead them away from this inauspicious scene of war. The feeble emperor was unable to subdue their obstinate prejudice, and the Persians wondered at the unexpected retreat of a victorious enemy.

The vacancy of the throne didn’t cause any chaos. The ambitions of the aspiring generals were held back by their natural fears, and young Numerian, along with his absent brother Carinus, were unanimously recognized as Roman emperors. The public expected the successor of Carus to follow in his father’s footsteps and, without giving the Persians a chance to recover from their shock, would march sword in hand to the palaces of Susa and Ecbatana. However, the legions, despite being strong in numbers and discipline, were paralyzed by overwhelming superstition. No matter how hard they tried to hide the circumstances of the late emperor’s death, it was impossible to change the public’s opinion, and the power of belief is unstoppable. Places or people struck by lightning were viewed by the ancients with deep reverence, as uniquely marked by the wrath of Heaven. An oracle was recalled that had designated the River Tigris as the fatal border for Roman forces. The troops, terrified by the fate of Carus and their own peril, called out to young Numerian to heed the will of the gods and lead them away from this ominous battleground. The weak emperor was unable to overcome their stubborn belief, and the Persians were astonished by the unexpected retreat of a victorious enemy.

The intelligence of the mysterious fate of the late emperor was soon carried from the frontiers of Persia to Rome; and the senate, as well as the provinces, congratulated the accession of the sons of Carus. These fortunate youths were strangers, however, to that conscious superiority, either of birth or of merit, which can alone render the possession of a throne easy, and, as it were, natural. Born and educated in a private station, the election of their father raised them at once to the rank of princes; and his death, which happened about sixteen months afterwards, left them the unexpected legacy of a vast empire. To sustain with temper this rapid elevation, an uncommon share of virtue and prudence was requisite; and Carinus, the elder of the brothers, was more than commonly deficient in those qualities. In the Gallic war he discovered some degree of personal courage; but from the moment of his arrival at Rome, he abandoned himself to the luxury of the capital, and to the abuse of his fortune. He was soft, yet cruel; devoted to pleasure, but destitute of taste; and though exquisitely susceptible of vanity, indifferent to the public esteem. In the course of a few months, he successively married and divorced nine wives, most of whom he left pregnant; and notwithstanding this legal inconstancy, found time to indulge such a variety of irregular appetites, as brought dishonor on himself and on the noblest houses of Rome. He beheld with inveterate hatred all those who might remember his former obscurity, or censure his present conduct. He banished, or put to death, the friends and counsellors whom his father had placed about him, to guide his inexperienced youth; and he persecuted with the meanest revenge his school-fellows and companions who had not sufficiently respected the latent majesty of the emperor. With the senators, Carinus affected a lofty and regal demeanor, frequently declaring, that he designed to distribute their estates among the populace of Rome. From the dregs of that populace he selected his favorites, and even his ministers. The palace, and even the Imperial table, were filled with singers, dancers, prostitutes, and all the various retinue of vice and folly. One of his doorkeepers he intrusted with the government of the city. In the room of the Prætorian præfect, whom he put to death, Carinus substituted one of the ministers of his looser pleasures. Another, who possessed the same, or even a more infamous, title to favor, was invested with the consulship. A confidential secretary, who had acquired uncommon skill in the art of forgery, delivered the indolent emperor, with his own consent from the irksome duty of signing his name.

The news about the mysterious fate of the late emperor quickly spread from the borders of Persia to Rome, and the senate, as well as the provinces, congratulated the rise of Carus's sons. However, these fortunate young men were unaware of the inherent superiority that comes from either noble birth or true merit, which is what makes ruling a throne seem natural and manageable. Born and raised in a private life, their father's election suddenly elevated them to the status of princes, and his death, which occurred about sixteen months later, unexpectedly left them with a vast empire. To handle this rapid rise with grace, they needed a significant amount of virtue and wisdom, but Carinus, the older brother, lacked those qualities. In the Gallic war, he showed some personal bravery, but as soon as he got to Rome, he indulged in the city's luxury and squandered his fortune. He was both weak and ruthless, addicted to pleasure but lacking in taste, and while he was highly vain, he didn't care about public opinion. In just a few months, he married and divorced nine wives, most of whom he left pregnant, and despite this legal instability, he found time to indulge in various immoral desires, bringing shame upon himself and prominent Roman families. He harbored deep hatred for anyone who might remind him of his earlier low status or criticize his current actions. He banished or executed the friends and advisors his father had appointed to guide him in his youth. He even took petty revenge on schoolmates and companions who did not adequately respect his newfound status as emperor. With the senators, Carinus put on a grand and royal attitude, often claiming that he intended to redistribute their estates to the people of Rome. From the lowest members of that populace, he chose his favorites, even for ministerial roles. The palace and the Imperial table were filled with singers, dancers, prostitutes, and all sorts of the vices and follies. He entrusted one of his doorkeepers with governing the city. Instead of the Prætorian præfect, whom he had executed, Carinus appointed one of his pleasure-seeking ministers. Another individual, who had an equally dubious reputation, was given the consulship. A dedicated secretary, skilled in forgery, helped the lazy emperor avoid the tedious task of signing his name.

When the emperor Carus undertook the Persian war, he was induced, by motives of affection as well as policy, to secure the fortunes of his family, by leaving in the hands of his eldest son the armies and provinces of the West. The intelligence which he soon received of the conduct of Carinus filled him with shame and regret; nor had he concealed his resolution of satisfying the republic by a severe act of justice, and of adopting, in the place of an unworthy son, the brave and virtuous Constantius, who at that time was governor of Dalmatia. But the elevation of Constantius was for a while deferred; and as soon as the father’s death had released Carinus from the control of fear or decency, he displayed to the Romans the extravagancies of Elagabalus, aggravated by the cruelty of Domitian.

When Emperor Carus went to war with Persia, he felt compelled, out of both love and strategy, to secure his family's position by leaving the armies and provinces of the West in the hands of his eldest son. However, he soon learned about Carinus's actions, which filled him with shame and regret. He had made it clear that he intended to do what was right for the republic through a harsh act of justice and to replace his unworthy son with the brave and virtuous Constantius, who was then the governor of Dalmatia. However, Constantius's rise to power was delayed, and as soon as Carinus was free from the constraints of fear or propriety after his father's death, he revealed to the Romans the excesses of Elagabalus, made worse by the cruelty of Domitian.

The only merit of the administration of Carinus that history could record, or poetry celebrate, was the uncommon splendor with which, in his own and his brother’s name, he exhibited the Roman games of the theatre, the circus, and the amphitheatre. More than twenty years afterwards, when the courtiers of Diocletian represented to their frugal sovereign the fame and popularity of his munificent predecessor, he acknowledged that the reign of Carinus had indeed been a reign of pleasure. But this vain prodigality, which the prudence of Diocletian might justly despise, was enjoyed with surprise and transport by the Roman people. The oldest of the citizens, recollecting the spectacles of former days, the triumphal pomp of Probus or Aurelian, and the secular games of the emperor Philip, acknowledged that they were all surpassed by the superior magnificence of Carinus.

The only positive thing that history could note about Carinus’s administration, or that poetry could praise, was the extraordinary grandeur with which he showcased the Roman games of the theater, the circus, and the amphitheater, in his name and that of his brother. More than twenty years later, when Diocletian’s courtiers pointed out the fame and popularity of his generous predecessor to their frugal leader, he admitted that Carinus’s reign had indeed been a time of enjoyment. However, this extravagant spending, which Diocletian’s wisdom might rightly look down upon, was received with amazement and delight by the Roman people. The oldest citizens, remembering the spectacles of earlier times, the triumphal displays of Probus or Aurelian, and the secular games of Emperor Philip, recognized that all of these were outshone by the greater magnificence of Carinus.

The spectacles of Carinus may therefore be best illustrated by the observation of some particulars, which history has condescended to relate concerning those of his predecessors. If we confine ourselves solely to the hunting of wild beasts, however we may censure the vanity of the design or the cruelty of the execution, we are obliged to confess that neither before nor since the time of the Romans so much art and expense have ever been lavished for the amusement of the people. By the order of Probus, a great quantity of large trees, torn up by the roots, were transplanted into the midst of the circus. The spacious and shady forest was immediately filled with a thousand ostriches, a thousand stags, a thousand fallow deer, and a thousand wild boars; and all this variety of game was abandoned to the riotous impetuosity of the multitude. The tragedy of the succeeding day consisted in the massacre of a hundred lions, an equal number of lionesses, two hundred leopards, and three hundred bears. The collection prepared by the younger Gordian for his triumph, and which his successor exhibited in the secular games, was less remarkable by the number than by the singularity of the animals. Twenty zebras displayed their elegant forms and variegated beauty to the eyes of the Roman people. Ten elks, and as many camelopards, the loftiest and most harmless creatures that wander over the plains of Sarmatia and Æthiopia, were contrasted with thirty African hyænas and ten Indian tigers, the most implacable savages of the torrid zone. The unoffending strength with which Nature has endowed the greater quadrupeds was admired in the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus of the Nile, and a majestic troop of thirty-two elephants. While the populace gazed with stupid wonder on the splendid show, the naturalist might indeed observe the figure and properties of so many different species, transported from every part of the ancient world into the amphitheatre of Rome. But this accidental benefit, which science might derive from folly, is surely insufficient to justify such a wanton abuse of the public riches. There occurs, however, a single instance in the first Punic war, in which the senate wisely connected this amusement of the multitude with the interest of the state. A considerable number of elephants, taken in the defeat of the Carthaginian army, were driven through the circus by a few slaves, armed only with blunt javelins. The useful spectacle served to impress the Roman soldier with a just contempt for those unwieldy animals; and he no longer dreaded to encounter them in the ranks of war.

The spectacles of Carinus can best be illustrated by looking at some details that history has deigned to share about his predecessors. If we focus solely on hunting wild animals, regardless of how we might criticize the vanity of the idea or the cruelty involved, we must admit that neither before nor after the Romans has so much art and expense been spent for the entertainment of the people. By Probus's order, a large number of trees, uprooted, were moved into the center of the circus. The spacious and shady forest was soon populated with a thousand ostriches, a thousand stags, a thousand fallow deer, and a thousand wild boars; all this diverse game was left to the exuberant chaos of the crowd. The tragedy of the following day involved the slaughter of a hundred lions, a hundred lionesses, two hundred leopards, and three hundred bears. The collection organized by the younger Gordian for his triumph, which his successor showcased in the secular games, was less notable for its quantity than for the uniqueness of the animals. Twenty zebras showcased their elegant shapes and colorful beauty to the Roman citizens. Ten elk and as many giraffes, the tallest and most harmless creatures found in the plains of Sarmatia and Ethiopia, were contrasted with thirty African hyenas and ten Indian tigers, the most relentless predators of the hot zone. The sheer strength that nature has given to the larger quadrupeds was admired in the rhinoceros, the Nile hippopotamus, and a majestic group of thirty-two elephants. While the people stared in dull amazement at the magnificent display, a naturalist could observe the characteristics and properties of so many different species, transported from all over the ancient world into Rome's amphitheater. But this accidental benefit that science might gain from folly is certainly not enough to justify such a reckless use of public resources. However, there is one instance during the first Punic War where the Senate wisely linked this entertainment of the masses with the state's interest. A considerable number of elephants, captured in the defeat of the Carthaginian army, were paraded through the circus by a few slaves, armed only with blunt javelins. This useful spectacle served to instill in the Roman soldier a rightful disdain for these cumbersome animals, making him less fearful of facing them in battle.

The hunting or exhibition of wild beasts was conducted with a magnificence suitable to a people who styled themselves the masters of the world; nor was the edifice appropriated to that entertainment less expressive of Roman greatness. Posterity admires, and will long admire, the awful remains of the amphitheatre of Titus, which so well deserved the epithet of Colossal. It was a building of an elliptic figure, five hundred and sixty-four feet in length, and four hundred and sixty-seven in breadth, founded on fourscore arches, and rising, with four successive orders of architecture, to the height of one hundred and forty feet. The outside of the edifice was encrusted with marble, and decorated with statues. The slopes of the vast concave, which formed the inside, were filled and surrounded with sixty or eighty rows of seats of marble likewise, covered with cushions, and capable of receiving with ease about fourscore thousand spectators. Sixty-four vomitories (for by that name the doors were very aptly distinguished) poured forth the immense multitude; and the entrances, passages, and staircases were contrived with such exquisite skill, that each person, whether of the senatorial, the equestrian, or the plebeian order, arrived at his destined place without trouble or confusion. Nothing was omitted, which, in any respect, could be subservient to the convenience and pleasure of the spectators. They were protected from the sun and rain by an ample canopy, occasionally drawn over their heads. The air was continally refreshed by the playing of fountains, and profusely impregnated by the grateful scent of aromatics. In the centre of the edifice, the arena, or stage, was strewed with the finest sand, and successively assumed the most different forms. At one moment it seemed to rise out of the earth, like the garden of the Hesperides, and was afterwards broken into the rocks and caverns of Thrace. The subterraneous pipes conveyed an inexhaustible supply of water; and what had just before appeared a level plain, might be suddenly converted into a wide lake, covered with armed vessels, and replenished with the monsters of the deep. In the decoration of these scenes, the Roman emperors displayed their wealth and liberality; and we read on various occasions that the whole furniture of the amphitheatre consisted either of silver, or of gold, or of amber. The poet who describes the games of Carinus, in the character of a shepherd, attracted to the capital by the fame of their magnificence, affirms that the nets designed as a defence against the wild beasts were of gold wire; that the porticos were gilded; and that the belt or circle which divided the several ranks of spectators from each other was studded with a precious mosaic of beautiful stones.

The hunting and showcasing of wild animals was held with a grandeur fitting for a people who called themselves the masters of the world; the venue for this entertainment was equally representative of Roman greatness. Future generations admire, and will continue to admire, the impressive ruins of the amphitheater of Titus, which truly deserves the title of Colossal. It was an elliptical building, measuring five hundred sixty-four feet long and four hundred sixty-seven feet wide, supported by eighty arches, and standing at one hundred forty feet tall, featuring four successive architectural styles. The exterior was clad in marble and adorned with statues. Inside, the expansive slopes of the arena were filled and surrounded by sixty to eighty rows of marble seating, cushioned and capable of comfortably accommodating around eighty thousand spectators. Sixty-four vomitories (that’s what the doors were aptly called) allowed the huge crowds to exit; the entrances, hallways, and staircases were designed with such skill that everyone, whether noble, equestrian, or commoner, could reach their seats without hassle or confusion. Everything was meticulously planned for the comfort and enjoyment of the audience. They were shielded from the sun and rain by a large canopy that could be drawn over them. The air was constantly refreshed by fountains and filled with the pleasant scent of fragrances. In the center of the arena, the stage was covered with fine sand and could take on various shapes. At one moment, it could resemble a garden like the Hesperides, and the next, transform into the rocky caves of Thrace. Underground pipes provided an endless supply of water; what was once a flat surface could quickly become a vast lake filled with warships and sea creatures. The Roman emperors displayed their wealth and generosity in decorating these scenes; historical accounts tell us that the entire setup of the amphitheater was made of silver, gold, or amber. The poet who narrates the games of Carinus, taking on the persona of a shepherd drawn to the capital by their grandeur, claimed that the nets used to protect against the wild beasts were made of gold wire; the colonnades were gilded; and the belt or ring separating the different sections of spectators was adorned with a stunning mosaic of precious stones.

In the midst of this glittering pageantry, the emperor Carinus, secure of his fortune, enjoyed the acclamations of the people, the flattery of his courtiers, and the songs of the poets, who, for want of a more essential merit, were reduced to celebrate the divine graces of his person. In the same hour, but at the distance of nine hundred miles from Rome, his brother expired; and a sudden revolution transferred into the hands of a stranger the sceptre of the house of Carus.

In the midst of this dazzling spectacle, Emperor Carinus, confident in his success, basked in the cheers of the people, the flattery of his courtiers, and the praise from poets who, lacking any real talent, resorted to singing the praises of his looks. At that very moment, nine hundred miles away from Rome, his brother died; and a sudden change of power handed the scepter of the house of Carus to a stranger.

The sons of Carus never saw each other after their father’s death. The arrangements which their new situation required were probably deferred till the return of the younger brother to Rome, where a triumph was decreed to the young emperors for the glorious success of the Persian war. It is uncertain whether they intended to divide between them the administration, or the provinces, of the empire; but it is very unlikely that their union would have proved of any long duration. The jealousy of power must have been inflamed by the opposition of characters. In the most corrupt of times, Carinus was unworthy to live: Numerian deserved to reign in a happier period. His affable manners and gentle virtues secured him, as soon as they became known, the regard and affections of the public. He possessed the elegant accomplishments of a poet and orator, which dignify as well as adorn the humblest and the most exalted station. His eloquence, however it was applauded by the senate, was formed not so much on the model of Cicero, as on that of the modern declaimers; but in an age very far from being destitute of poetical merit, he contended for the prize with the most celebrated of his contemporaries, and still remained the friend of his rivals; a circumstance which evinces either the goodness of his heart, or the superiority of his genius. But the talents of Numerian were rather of the contemplative than of the active kind. When his father’s elevation reluctantly forced him from the shade of retirement, neither his temper nor his pursuits had qualified him for the command of armies. His constitution was destroyed by the hardships of the Persian war; and he had contracted, from the heat of the climate, such a weakness in his eyes, as obliged him, in the course of a long retreat, to confine himself to the solitude and darkness of a tent or litter. The administration of all affairs, civil as well as military, was devolved on Arrius Aper, the Prætorian præfect, who to the power of his important office added the honor of being father-in-law to Numerian. The Imperial pavilion was strictly guarded by his most trusty adherents; and during many days, Aper delivered to the army the supposed mandates of their invisible sovereign.

The sons of Carus never saw each other again after their father passed away. The necessary arrangements for their new situation were likely postponed until the younger brother returned to Rome, where a triumph was awarded to the young emperors for their impressive success in the Persian War. It's unclear whether they planned to split the management or the territories of the empire, but it seems improbable that their partnership would have lasted long. Power struggles would have been intensified by their differing personalities. In the most corrupt times, Carinus was undeserving to live, while Numerian deserved to rule in a more fortunate era. His friendly demeanor and gentle virtues quickly earned him the respect and affection of the public as soon as they became known. He had the refined skills of a poet and speaker that enhance both humble and high positions. Although his eloquence received praise from the senate, it was shaped more by modern speakers than by Cicero; yet, in an era not lacking in poetic talent, he competed for recognition with the most famous of his contemporaries and remained friends with his rivals, which shows either his kind nature or his superior talent. However, Numerian's abilities leaned more towards contemplation than action. When his father's rise to power reluctantly pulled him from a life of seclusion, neither his personality nor his interests suited him for leading armies. The hardships of the Persian War took a toll on his health, and he developed a weakness in his eyes from the heat, forcing him during a long retreat to isolate himself in the darkness of a tent or litter. All civil and military affairs were managed by Arrius Aper, the Praetorian prefect, who, in addition to the authority of his crucial position, had the honor of being Numerian's father-in-law. The imperial tent was well-guarded by his most trusted supporters, and for many days, Aper communicated to the army the supposed orders of their unseen ruler.

It was not till eight months after the death of Carus, that the Roman army, returning by slow marches from the banks of the Tigris, arrived on those of the Thracian Bosphorus. The legions halted at Chalcedon in Asia, while the court passed over to Heraclea, on the European side of the Propontis. But a report soon circulated through the camp, at first in secret whispers, and at length in loud clamors, of the emperor’s death, and of the presumption of his ambitious minister, who still exercised the sovereign power in the name of a prince who was no more. The impatience of the soldiers could not long support a state of suspense. With rude curiosity they broke into the Imperial tent, and discovered only the corpse of Numerian. The gradual decline of his health might have induced them to believe that his death was natural; but the concealment was interpreted as an evidence of guilt, and the measures which Aper had taken to secure his election became the immediate occasion of his ruin. Yet, even in the transport of their rage and grief, the troops observed a regular proceeding, which proves how firmly discipline had been reëstablished by the martial successors of Gallienus. A general assembly of the army was appointed to be held at Chalcedon, whither Aper was transported in chains, as a prisoner and a criminal. A vacant tribunal was erected in the midst of the camp, and the generals and tribunes formed a great military council. They soon announced to the multitude that their choice had fallen on Diocletian, commander of the domestics or body-guards, as the person the most capable of revenging and succeeding their beloved emperor. The future fortunes of the candidate depended on the chance or conduct of the present hour. Conscious that the station which he had filled exposed him to some suspicions, Diocletian ascended the tribunal, and raising his eyes towards the Sun, made a solemn profession of his own innocence, in the presence of that all-seeing Deity. Then, assuming the tone of a sovereign and a judge, he commanded that Aper should be brought in chains to the foot of the tribunal. “This man,” said he, “is the murderer of Numerian;” and without giving him time to enter on a dangerous justification, drew his sword, and buried it in the breast of the unfortunate præfect. A charge supported by such decisive proof was admitted without contradiction, and the legions, with repeated acclamations, acknowledged the justice and authority of the emperor Diocletian.

It was eight months after Carus's death that the Roman army, returning slowly from the banks of the Tigris, finally arrived at the Thracian Bosphorus. The legions stopped at Chalcedon in Asia while the court moved over to Heraclea, on the European side of the Propontis. But soon, rumors began to spread through the camp, initially whispering in secret and eventually erupting into loud shouts, about the emperor’s death and the arrogance of his ambitious minister, who continued to wield power in the name of a prince who no longer existed. The soldiers couldn’t handle the uncertainty for long. With raw curiosity, they broke into the Imperial tent, only to find the corpse of Numerian. While his declining health might have led them to believe his death was natural, the concealment was seen as a sign of guilt, and the steps Aper had taken to secure his position quickly led to his downfall. Yet even in their rage and grief, the troops maintained a level of order that showed how firmly discipline had been reestablished by the martial successors of Gallienus. A general assembly of the army was scheduled to take place at Chalcedon, where Aper was brought in chains as a prisoner. A vacant tribunal was set up in the middle of the camp, and the generals and tribunes formed a large military council. They soon informed the crowd that they had chosen Diocletian, the commander of the bodyguards, as the person most capable of avenging and succeeding their beloved emperor. The future of the candidate hinged on the circumstances of the moment. Aware that his previous position exposed him to some doubts, Diocletian stepped up to the tribunal, looked up at the Sun, and solemnly declared his innocence before that all-seeing deity. Then, taking on the role of a sovereign and judge, he ordered that Aper be brought in chains to the foot of the tribunal. “This man,” he said, “is the murderer of Numerian;” and without giving Aper a chance to justify himself, he drew his sword and plunged it into the chest of the unfortunate præfect. A charge backed by such clear evidence was accepted without dispute, and the legions, with repeated cheers, recognized the justice and authority of Emperor Diocletian.

Before we enter upon the memorable reign of that prince, it will be proper to punish and dismiss the unworthy brother of Numerian. Carinus possessed arms and treasures sufficient to support his legal title to the empire. But his personal vices overbalanced every advantage of birth and situation. The most faithful servants of the father despised the incapacity, and dreaded the cruel arrogance, of the son. The hearts of the people were engaged in favor of his rival, and even the senate was inclined to prefer a usurper to a tyrant. The arts of Diocletian inflamed the general discontent; and the winter was employed in secret intrigues, and open preparations for a civil war. In the spring, the forces of the East and of the West encountered each other in the plains of Margus, a small city of Mæsia, in the neighborhood of the Danube. The troops, so lately returned from the Persian war, had acquired their glory at the expense of health and numbers; nor were they in a condition to contend with the unexhausted strength of the legions of Europe. Their ranks were broken, and, for a moment, Diocletian despaired of the purple and of life. But the advantage which Carinus had obtained by the valor of his soldiers, he quickly lost by the infidelity of his officers. A tribune, whose wife he had seduced, seized the opportunity of revenge, and, by a single blow, extinguished civil discord in the blood of the adulterer.

Before we dive into the memorable reign of that prince, it's important to deal with and get rid of the unworthy brother of Numerian. Carinus had enough weapons and riches to back up his claim to the empire. However, his personal flaws outweighed any advantages of his birth and position. The most loyal servants of the father looked down on the son’s incompetence and feared his cruel arrogance. The people favored his rival, and even the senate leaned towards supporting a usurper over a tyrant. Diocletian's tactics fueled the widespread discontent, and the winter was spent on secret plots and open preparations for a civil war. In the spring, the Eastern and Western forces clashed in the plains of Margus, a small city in Mæsia near the Danube. The troops, who had just returned from the Persian war, had earned their glory at the cost of their health and numbers, and they weren't in a shape to match the fresh strength of the legions from Europe. Their ranks were broken, and for a moment, Diocletian lost hope for both the throne and his life. However, the advantage Carinus gained through the bravery of his soldiers quickly slipped away due to the betrayal of his officers. A tribune, whose wife he had seduced, took the chance for revenge and ended the civil strife with a single blow, killing the adulterer.





Chapter XIII: Reign Of Diocletian And His Three Associates.—Part I.

The Reign Of Diocletian And His Three Associates, Maximian,
Galerius, And Constantius.—General Reestablishment Of Order
And Tranquillity.—The Persian War, Victory, And Triumph.—The New Form Of Administration.—Abdication And Retirement Of
Diocletian And Maximian.
The Reign of Diocletian and His Three Associates, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius.—General Restoration of Order and Peace.—The Persian War, Victory, and Triumph.—The New Administration Structure.—Abdication and Retirement of Diocletian and Maximian.

As the reign of Diocletian was more illustrious than that of any of his predecessors, so was his birth more abject and obscure. The strong claims of merit and of violence had frequently superseded the ideal prerogatives of nobility; but a distinct line of separation was hitherto preserved between the free and the servile part of mankind. The parents of Diocletian had been slaves in the house of Anulinus, a Roman senator; nor was he himself distinguished by any other name than that which he derived from a small town in Dalmatia, from whence his mother deduced her origin. It is, however, probable that his father obtained the freedom of the family, and that he soon acquired an office of scribe, which was commonly exercised by persons of his condition. Favorable oracles, or rather the consciousness of superior merit, prompted his aspiring son to pursue the profession of arms and the hopes of fortune; and it would be extremely curious to observe the gradation of arts and accidents which enabled him in the end to fulfil those oracles, and to display that merit to the world. Diocletian was successively promoted to the government of Mæsia, the honors of the consulship, and the important command of the guards of the palace. He distinguished his abilities in the Persian war; and after the death of Numerian, the slave, by the confession and judgment of his rivals, was declared the most worthy of the Imperial throne. The malice of religious zeal, whilst it arraigns the savage fierceness of his colleague Maximian, has affected to cast suspicions on the personal courage of the emperor Diocletian. It would not be easy to persuade us of the cowardice of a soldier of fortune, who acquired and preserved the esteem of the legions as well as the favor of so many warlike princes. Yet even calumny is sagacious enough to discover and to attack the most vulnerable part. The valor of Diocletian was never found inadequate to his duty, or to the occasion; but he appears not to have possessed the daring and generous spirit of a hero, who courts danger and fame, disdains artifice, and boldly challenges the allegiance of his equals. His abilities were useful rather than splendid; a vigorous mind, improved by the experience and study of mankind; dexterity and application in business; a judicious mixture of liberality and economy, of mildness and rigor; profound dissimulation, under the disguise of military frankness; steadiness to pursue his ends; flexibility to vary his means; and, above all, the great art of submitting his own passions, as well as those of others, to the interest of his ambition, and of coloring his ambition with the most specious pretences of justice and public utility. Like Augustus, Diocletian may be considered as the founder of a new empire. Like the adopted son of Cæsar, he was distinguished as a statesman rather than as a warrior; nor did either of those princes employ force, whenever their purpose could be effected by policy.

As Diocletian's reign was more impressive than any of his predecessors, his birth was also more humble and obscure. The strong claims of merit and violence often overrode traditional noble privileges; however, a clear distinction between free people and those enslaved had always existed. Diocletian's parents had been slaves in the household of Anulinus, a Roman senator, and he himself was known only by a name taken from a small town in Dalmatia, which is where his mother originated. It’s likely that his father gained freedom for the family and soon secured a position as a scribe, which was typically held by individuals from his background. Encouraged by favorable omens, or perhaps his own belief in his abilities, his ambitious son chose to pursue a military career and the hope for fortune; it would be fascinating to trace the skills and circumstances that ultimately allowed him to fulfill those predictions and showcase his talents to the world. Diocletian was gradually appointed to govern Mæsia, achieved consular honors, and took command of the palace guards. He proved his skills during the Persian war; after Numerian's death, he was recognized by his rivals as the most deserving candidate for the Imperial throne. The hostility arising from religious fervor attempted to undermine the violent reputation of his colleague Maximian, while casting doubts on Emperor Diocletian's personal bravery. It would be challenging to convince us of the cowardice of a military leader who earned the respect of the legions and the favor of numerous warrior princes. Yet, even slander is clever enough to identify and exploit weaknesses. Diocletian's courage was consistently adequate to the demands of his role and circumstances; however, he did not seem to possess the boldness and noble spirit of a hero who seeks danger and glory, shuns deceit, and confidently challenges his peers' loyalty. His skills were more practical than showy—a strong intellect, honed by experience and understanding of human nature; skill and dedication in his work; a smart balance of generosity and frugality, gentleness and strictness; deep cunning disguised as military openness; determination to pursue his goals; adaptability in changing his tactics; and foremost, a great talent for suppressing his own desires as well as those of others to serve his ambitions, while cloaking his ambitions with the most convincing claims of justice and public good. Like Augustus, Diocletian can be viewed as the founder of a new empire. Similar to Julius Caesar's adopted son, he was recognized more as a statesman than a warrior; neither of these leaders resorted to force when their goals could be achieved through strategy.

The victory of Diocletian was remarkable for its singular mildness. A people accustomed to applaud the clemency of the conqueror, if the usual punishments of death, exile, and confiscation, were inflicted with any degree of temper and equity, beheld, with the most pleasing astonishment, a civil war, the flames of which were extinguished in the field of battle. Diocletian received into his confidence Aristobulus, the principal minister of the house of Carus, respected the lives, the fortunes, and the dignity, of his adversaries, and even continued in their respective stations the greater number of the servants of Carinus. It is not improbable that motives of prudence might assist the humanity of the artful Dalmatian; of these servants, many had purchased his favor by secret treachery; in others, he esteemed their grateful fidelity to an unfortunate master. The discerning judgment of Aurelian, of Probus, and of Carus, had filled the several departments of the state and army with officers of approved merit, whose removal would have injured the public service, without promoting the interest of his successor. Such a conduct, however, displayed to the Roman world the fairest prospect of the new reign, and the emperor affected to confirm this favorable prepossession, by declaring, that, among all the virtues of his predecessors, he was the most ambitious of imitating the humane philosophy of Marcus Antoninus.

The victory of Diocletian was notable for its unusual leniency. A people used to applauding the mercy of the conqueror, as long as the standard punishments of death, exile, and confiscation were carried out with some level of restraint and fairness, looked on with great surprise as a civil war ended without further bloodshed. Diocletian took Aristobulus, the main minister of the house of Carus, into his confidence, respected the lives, fortunes, and dignity of his opponents, and even kept many of Carinus's former servants in their positions. It's likely that practical reasons contributed to the benevolence of the crafty Dalmatian; many of these servants had gained his favor through secret betrayal, while others he valued for their loyalty to an unfortunate leader. The keen judgment of Aurelian, Probus, and Carus had filled various roles in the state and army with capable officers, whose removal would have harmed public service without benefiting Diocletian. Nonetheless, this approach gave the Roman world an optimistic outlook for the new reign, and the emperor sought to reinforce this positive impression by stating that, among all the virtues of his predecessors, he most aspired to emulate the compassionate philosophy of Marcus Antoninus.

The first considerable action of his reign seemed to evince his sincerity as well as his moderation. After the example of Marcus, he gave himself a colleague in the person of Maximian, on whom he bestowed at first the title of Cæsar, and afterwards that of Augustus. But the motives of his conduct, as well as the object of his choice, were of a very different nature from those of his admired predecessor. By investing a luxurious youth with the honors of the purple, Marcus had discharged a debt of private gratitude, at the expense, indeed, of the happiness of the state. By associating a friend and a fellow-soldier to the labors of government, Diocletian, in a time of public danger, provided for the defence both of the East and of the West. Maximian was born a peasant, and, like Aurelian, in the territory of Sirmium. Ignorant of letters, careless of laws, the rusticity of his appearance and manners still betrayed in the most elevated fortune the meanness of his extraction. War was the only art which he professed. In a long course of service he had distinguished himself on every frontier of the empire; and though his military talents were formed to obey rather than to command, though, perhaps, he never attained the skill of a consummate general, he was capable, by his valor, constancy, and experience, of executing the most arduous undertakings. Nor were the vices of Maximian less useful to his benefactor. Insensible to pity, and fearless of consequences, he was the ready instrument of every act of cruelty which the policy of that artful prince might at once suggest and disclaim. As soon as a bloody sacrifice had been offered to prudence or to revenge, Diocletian, by his seasonable intercession, saved the remaining few whom he had never designed to punish, gently censured the severity of his stern colleague, and enjoyed the comparison of a golden and an iron age, which was universally applied to their opposite maxims of government. Notwithstanding the difference of their characters, the two emperors maintained, on the throne, that friendship which they had contracted in a private station. The haughty, turbulent spirit of Maximian, so fatal, afterwards, to himself and to the public peace, was accustomed to respect the genius of Diocletian, and confessed the ascendant of reason over brutal violence. From a motive either of pride or superstition, the two emperors assumed the titles, the one of Jovius, the other of Herculius. Whilst the motion of the world (such was the language of their venal orators) was maintained by the all-seeing wisdom of Jupiter, the invincible arm of Hercules purged the earth from monsters and tyrants.

The first major action of his reign showcased both his sincerity and his moderation. Following the example of Marcus, he appointed a colleague in Maximian, initially giving him the title of Cæsar and later elevating him to Augustus. However, the reasons behind his actions and his choice of companion were quite different from those of his admired predecessor. By placing a wealthy young man in a position of power, Marcus fulfilled a personal debt of gratitude, even at the cost of the state's welfare. In contrast, Diocletian, faced with a time of public danger, chose to partner with a friend and fellow soldier to ensure the defense of both the East and West. Maximian was born to a peasant family, just like Aurelian, in the region of Sirmium. He was uneducated and indifferent to laws, and even in his elevated position, the simplicity of his appearance and behavior reflected his humble origins. War was the only skill he truly possessed. Throughout his extensive military career, he distinguished himself on every front of the empire; although his talents were more suited for following orders than giving them, and he may never have mastered the finesse of a top general, his courage, steadfastness, and experience allowed him to tackle the most challenging tasks. Furthermore, Maximian's faults were also advantageous to Diocletian. Lacking compassion and unafraid of the consequences, he was a willing tool for any cruel act that the cunning emperor might conceive and then renounce. Once a harsh act was performed, whether in the name of caution or revenge, Diocletian would step in at the right moment to spare those he never intended to punish, gently reproaching his strict colleague and enjoying the contrast between a golden and an iron age, which applied to their differing governance styles. Despite their contrasting personalities, the two emperors upheld the friendship they had formed in private life while on the throne. Maximian, with his proud and tumultuous spirit—later disastrous for both himself and public order—learned to respect Diocletian's wisdom and acknowledged reason's power over brute force. Either out of pride or superstition, the two emperors took on the titles of Jovius and Herculius. While their paid speakers claimed that the movement of the world was guided by Jupiter’s all-seeing wisdom, Hercules's unbeatable arm cleared the earth of monsters and tyrants.

But even the omnipotence of Jovius and Herculius was insufficient to sustain the weight of the public administration. The prudence of Diocletian discovered that the empire, assailed on every side by the barbarians, required on every side the presence of a great army, and of an emperor. With this view, he resolved once more to divide his unwieldy power, and with the inferior title of Cæsars, * to confer on two generals of approved merit an unequal share of the sovereign authority. Galerius, surnamed Armentarius, from his original profession of a herdsman, and Constantius, who from his pale complexion had acquired the denomination of Chlorus, were the two persons invested with the second honors of the Imperial purple. In describing the country, extraction, and manners of Herculius, we have already delineated those of Galerius, who was often, and not improperly, styled the younger Maximian, though, in many instances both of virtue and ability, he appears to have possessed a manifest superiority over the elder. The birth of Constantius was less obscure than that of his colleagues. Eutropius, his father, was one of the most considerable nobles of Dardania, and his mother was the niece of the emperor Claudius. Although the youth of Constantius had been spent in arms, he was endowed with a mild and amiable disposition, and the popular voice had long since acknowledged him worthy of the rank which he at last attained. To strengthen the bonds of political, by those of domestic, union, each of the emperors assumed the character of a father to one of the Cæsars, Diocletian to Galerius, and Maximian to Constantius; and each, obliging them to repudiate their former wives, bestowed his daughter in marriage or his adopted son. These four princes distributed among themselves the wide extent of the Roman empire. The defence of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, was intrusted to Constantius: Galerius was stationed on the banks of the Danube, as the safeguard of the Illyrian provinces. Italy and Africa were considered as the department of Maximian; and for his peculiar portion, Diocletian reserved Thrace, Egypt, and the rich countries of Asia. Every one was sovereign with his own jurisdiction; but their united authority extended over the whole monarchy, and each of them was prepared to assist his colleagues with his counsels or presence. The Cæsars, in their exalted rank, revered the majesty of the emperors, and the three younger princes invariably acknowledged, by their gratitude and obedience, the common parent of their fortunes. The suspicious jealousy of power found not any place among them; and the singular happiness of their union has been compared to a chorus of music, whose harmony was regulated and maintained by the skilful hand of the first artist.

But even the complete power of Jovius and Herculius wasn't enough to handle the demands of public administration. Diocletian, with his wisdom, realized that the empire, under constant threat from barbarians, needed a strong military presence and an emperor at the helm. To address this, he decided to once again split his massive authority and, with the lesser title of Cæsars, appointed two capable generals to share some of the sovereign power. Galerius, nicknamed Armentarius due to his background as a herdsman, and Constantius, who earned the name Chlorus because of his pale skin, were the two individuals elevated to these second ranks of imperial status. As we have already covered Herculius’s background, we know Galerius well, who was often, quite rightly, referred to as the younger Maximian, although he clearly displayed notable virtues and abilities that surpassed those of the elder. Constantius’s origins were less obscure than his colleagues. His father, Eutropius, was a prominent noble from Dardania, and his mother was the niece of Emperor Claudius. Despite spending his youth in military service, Constantius had a gentle and likable nature, and the public had long deemed him deserving of his eventual rank. To strengthen political ties through family connections, each emperor took on a fatherly role toward one of the Cæsars—Diocletian to Galerius and Maximian to Constantius—demanding that they leave their previous wives and marrying off their daughters or adopted sons. These four rulers divided the vast Roman Empire among themselves. Constantius was put in charge of defending Gaul, Spain, and Britain, while Galerius was stationed along the Danube to protect the Illyrian provinces. Maximian's responsibility included Italy and Africa, and Diocletian reserved Thrace, Egypt, and the wealthy regions of Asia for himself. Each ruler was sovereign within his own territory; however, their collective authority covered the entire empire, and each was ready to support his fellow emperors with advice or presence. The Cæsars, in their elevated positions, respected the authority of the emperors, and the three younger princes consistently showed gratitude and loyalty to their common benefactor. There was no place for jealous suspicion among them; their unique harmony has been likened to a musical ensemble, with its harmony produced and sustained by the skilled hand of the leading artist.

This important measure was not carried into execution till about six years after the association of Maximian, and that interval of time had not been destitute of memorable incidents. But we have preferred, for the sake of perspicuity, first to describe the more perfect form of Diocletian’s government, and afterwards to relate the actions of his reign, following rather the natural order of the events, than the dates of a very doubtful chronology.

This important measure wasn't put into action until about six years after Maximian joined the association, and that time wasn’t without significant events. However, we decided to first describe the more refined structure of Diocletian’s government and then discuss the events of his reign, following the natural order of the events rather than uncertain dates.

The first exploit of Maximian, though it is mentioned in a few words by our imperfect writers, deserves, from its singularity, to be recorded in a history of human manners. He suppressed the peasants of Gaul, who, under the appellation of Bagaudæ, had risen in a general insurrection; very similar to those which in the fourteenth century successively afflicted both France and England. It should seem that very many of those institutions, referred by an easy solution to the feudal system, are derived from the Celtic barbarians. When Cæsar subdued the Gauls, that great nation was already divided into three orders of men; the clergy, the nobility, and the common people. The first governed by superstition, the second by arms, but the third and last was not of any weight or account in their public councils. It was very natural for the plebeians, oppressed by debt, or apprehensive of injuries, to implore the protection of some powerful chief, who acquired over their persons and property the same absolute right as, among the Greeks and Romans, a master exercised over his slaves. The greatest part of the nation was gradually reduced into a state of servitude; compelled to perpetual labor on the estates of the Gallic nobles, and confined to the soil, either by the real weight of fetters, or by the no less cruel and forcible restraints of the laws. During the long series of troubles which agitated Gaul, from the reign of Gallienus to that of Diocletian, the condition of these servile peasants was peculiarly miserable; and they experienced at once the complicated tyranny of their masters, of the barbarians, of the soldiers, and of the officers of the revenue.

The first major action of Maximian, although mentioned briefly by our incomplete historians, is worth noting in a history of human behavior due to its uniqueness. He put down the peasants of Gaul, known as the Bagaudæ, who had risen up in a widespread rebellion, similar to those that plagued France and England in the fourteenth century. It seems that many of the institutions we can easily associate with the feudal system actually originated from the Celtic barbarians. When Cæsar conquered the Gauls, that great nation was already divided into three social classes: the clergy, the nobility, and the common people. The clergy ruled through superstition, the nobility through military might, while the common people had little influence in public decisions. It was only natural for the lower classes, burdened by debt or fearful of harm, to seek the protection of a powerful leader, who gained absolute control over their lives and property, much like a master over his slaves in Greek and Roman societies. Most of the population gradually fell into a state of servitude, forced into endless labor on the lands of the Gallic nobles, and tied to the soil either by real chains or by the cruel restrictions imposed by law. Throughout the lengthy period of turmoil in Gaul, from the reign of Gallienus to that of Diocletian, these oppressed peasants faced particularly miserable conditions, suffering under the combined tyranny of their masters, the barbarians, the soldiers, and the tax officials.

Their patience was at last provoked into despair. On every side they rose in multitudes, armed with rustic weapons, and with irresistible fury. The ploughman became a foot soldier, the shepherd mounted on horseback, the deserted villages and open towns were abandoned to the flames, and the ravages of the peasants equalled those of the fiercest barbarians. They asserted the natural rights of men, but they asserted those rights with the most savage cruelty. The Gallic nobles, justly dreading their revenge, either took refuge in the fortified cities, or fled from the wild scene of anarchy. The peasants reigned without control; and two of their most daring leaders had the folly and rashness to assume the Imperial ornaments. Their power soon expired at the approach of the legions. The strength of union and discipline obtained an easy victory over a licentious and divided multitude. A severe retaliation was inflicted on the peasants who were found in arms; the affrighted remnant returned to their respective habitations, and their unsuccessful effort for freedom served only to confirm their slavery. So strong and uniform is the current of popular passions, that we might almost venture, from very scanty materials, to relate the particulars of this war; but we are not disposed to believe that the principal leaders, Ælianus and Amandus, were Christians, or to insinuate, that the rebellion, as it happened in the time of Luther, was occasioned by the abuse of those benevolent principles of Christianity, which inculcate the natural freedom of mankind.

Their patience finally gave way to despair. Everywhere they rose up in large numbers, armed with makeshift weapons and fueled by uncontrollable rage. The farmer turned into an infantryman, the shepherd took to horseback, and the abandoned villages and open towns were left to burn, while the peasants’ destruction rivaled that of the fiercest invaders. They claimed the natural rights of people, but they did so with brutal savagery. The Gallic nobles, rightly fearing their revenge, either sought refuge in fortified cities or fled from the chaotic anarchy. The peasants ruled unchecked, and two of their boldest leaders foolishly took on imperial symbols. Their power quickly faded with the arrival of the legions. The strength of unity and discipline easily triumphed over a disorganized and divided crowd. A harsh retaliation was meted out to the peasants caught armed; the frightened survivors returned to their homes, and their failed attempt at freedom only solidified their slavery. The strength and consistency of popular passions are so powerful that we could almost detail the specifics of this war from very limited evidence, but we are not inclined to believe that the main leaders, Ælianus and Amandus, were Christians, nor to suggest that the rebellion, as seen during Luther's time, was caused by the misuse of those charitable tenets of Christianity that promote the natural freedom of human beings.

Maximian had no sooner recovered Gaul from the hands of the peasants, than he lost Britain by the usurpation of Carausius. Ever since the rash but successful enterprise of the Franks under the reign of Probus, their daring countrymen had constructed squadrons of light brigantines, in which they incessantly ravaged the provinces adjacent to the ocean. To repel their desultory incursions, it was found necessary to create a naval power; and the judicious measure was prosecuted with prudence and vigor. Gessoriacum, or Boulogne, in the straits of the British Channel, was chosen by the emperor for the station of the Roman fleet; and the command of it was intrusted to Carausius, a Menapian of the meanest origin, but who had long signalized his skill as a pilot, and his valor as a soldier. The integrity of the new admiral corresponded not with his abilities. When the German pirates sailed from their own harbors, he connived at their passage, but he diligently intercepted their return, and appropriated to his own use an ample share of the spoil which they had acquired. The wealth of Carausius was, on this occasion, very justly considered as an evidence of his guilt; and Maximian had already given orders for his death. But the crafty Menapian foresaw and prevented the severity of the emperor. By his liberality he had attached to his fortunes the fleet which he commanded, and secured the barbarians in his interest. From the port of Boulogne he sailed over to Britain, persuaded the legion, and the auxiliaries which guarded that island, to embrace his party, and boldly assuming, with the Imperial purple, the title of Augustus, defied the justice and the arms of his injured sovereign.

Maximian had barely taken Gaul back from the peasants when he lost Britain to Carausius's usurpation. Ever since the daring but successful raid by the Franks during Probus's reign, their bold countrymen had built light ships that continuously terrorized the coastal provinces. To stop these random attacks, it became necessary to establish a naval force, and this decision was carried out with careful thought and energy. Gessoriacum, or Boulogne, in the English Channel, was chosen by the emperor as the base for the Roman fleet, and the command was given to Carausius, a Menapian of lowly origins, who had long proven his skill as a pilot and bravery as a soldier. However, the integrity of the new admiral did not match his abilities. When the German pirates sailed from their ports, he turned a blind eye to their movements, but he eagerly intercepted their return and took a large portion of the loot for himself. Carausius's newfound wealth was rightly seen as evidence of his guilt, and Maximian had already issued orders for his execution. But the shrewd Menapian anticipated the emperor's harshness. By becoming generous, he gained the loyalty of the fleet he commanded and secured the support of the barbarians. From the port of Boulogne, he sailed to Britain, persuaded the legion and the auxiliaries stationed there to join him, and boldly claimed the title of Augustus while wearing the Imperial purple, challenging the justice and power of his wronged sovereign.

When Britain was thus dismembered from the empire, its importance was sensibly felt, and its loss sincerely lamented. The Romans celebrated, and perhaps magnified, the extent of that noble island, provided on every side with convenient harbors; the temperature of the climate, and the fertility of the soil, alike adapted for the production of corn or of vines; the valuable minerals with which it abounded; its rich pastures covered with innumerable flocks, and its woods free from wild beasts or venomous serpents. Above all, they regretted the large amount of the revenue of Britain, whilst they confessed, that such a province well deserved to become the seat of an independent monarchy. During the space of seven years it was possessed by Carausius; and fortune continued propitious to a rebellion supported with courage and ability. The British emperor defended the frontiers of his dominions against the Caledonians of the North, invited, from the continent, a great number of skilful artists, and displayed, on a variety of coins that are still extant, his taste and opulence. Born on the confines of the Franks, he courted the friendship of that formidable people, by the flattering imitation of their dress and manners. The bravest of their youth he enlisted among his land or sea forces; and, in return for their useful alliance, he communicated to the barbarians the dangerous knowledge of military and naval arts. Carausius still preserved the possession of Boulogne and the adjacent country. His fleets rode triumphant in the channel, commanded the mouths of the Seine and of the Rhine, ravaged the coasts of the ocean, and diffused beyond the columns of Hercules the terror of his name. Under his command, Britain, destined in a future age to obtain the empire of the sea, already assumed its natural and respectable station of a maritime power.

When Britain was cut off from the empire, its significance was deeply felt, and its loss genuinely mourned. The Romans celebrated, and perhaps exaggerated, the size of that great island, which was surrounded by convenient harbors; it had a temperate climate and fertile soil, perfect for growing crops or grapes; it was rich in valuable minerals; its lush pastures were filled with countless flocks, and its forests were free of wild animals and venomous snakes. Above all, they lamented the substantial revenue that Britain generated, acknowledging that such a province truly deserved to be the center of an independent monarchy. For seven years, it was ruled by Carausius, and fortune smiled on a rebellion that was backed with courage and skill. The British emperor defended the borders of his territory against the northern Caledonians, brought over many skilled artists from the continent, and showcased his taste and wealth on various coins that still exist today. Born near the Franks, he sought the friendship of that powerful people by adopting their clothing and customs. He enlisted the bravest of their young men into his land and sea forces and, in exchange for their valuable alliance, he taught the barbarians the dangerous skills of military and naval warfare. Carausius maintained control of Boulogne and the surrounding area. His fleets dominated the channel, commanded the mouths of the Seine and the Rhine, raided the ocean coasts, and spread fear of his name beyond the Pillars of Hercules. Under his leadership, Britain, destined to one day rule the seas, was already taking its natural and respected place as a maritime power.

By seizing the fleet of Boulogne, Carausius had deprived his master of the means of pursuit and revenge. And when, after a vast expense of time and labor, a new armament was launched into the water, the Imperial troops, unaccustomed to that element, were easily baffled and defeated by the veteran sailors of the usurper. This disappointed effort was soon productive of a treaty of peace. Diocletian and his colleague, who justly dreaded the enterprising spirit of Carausius, resigned to him the sovereignty of Britain, and reluctantly admitted their perfidious servant to a participation of the Imperial honors. But the adoption of the two Cæsars restored new vigor to the Romans arms; and while the Rhine was guarded by the presence of Maximian, his brave associate Constantius assumed the conduct of the British war. His first enterprise was against the important place of Boulogne. A stupendous mole, raised across the entrance of the harbor, intercepted all hopes of relief. The town surrendered after an obstinate defence; and a considerable part of the naval strength of Carausius fell into the hands of the besiegers. During the three years which Constantius employed in preparing a fleet adequate to the conquest of Britain, he secured the coast of Gaul, invaded the country of the Franks, and deprived the usurper of the assistance of those powerful allies.

By taking control of the fleet at Boulogne, Carausius had cut off his master’s ability to pursue him or take revenge. After a long period of time and effort, when a new naval force was finally launched, the Imperial troops, unfamiliar with naval warfare, were easily outsmarted and beaten by the veteran sailors of the usurper. This failed attempt quickly led to a peace treaty. Diocletian and his colleague, who rightly feared Carausius's ambitious nature, conceded the rule of Britain to him and reluctantly allowed their treacherous servant to share in Imperial titles. However, the appointment of the two Caesars revitalized the Roman military; while Maximian secured the Rhine, his brave ally Constantius took charge of the British campaign. His first target was the strategic town of Boulogne. A massive barrier built across the harbor entrance blocked any chance of reinforcements. The town eventually surrendered after a fierce defense, and a significant portion of Carausius’s naval forces fell into the hands of the invaders. During the three years that Constantius spent preparing a fleet strong enough to conquer Britain, he secured the coast of Gaul, invaded the territory of the Franks, and cut off the usurper from aid from those powerful allies.

Before the preparations were finished, Constantius received the intelligence of the tyrant’s death, and it was considered as a sure presage of the approaching victory. The servants of Carausius imitated the example of treason which he had given. He was murdered by his first minister, Allectus, and the assassin succeeded to his power and to his danger. But he possessed not equal abilities either to exercise the one or to repel the other. He beheld, with anxious terror, the opposite shores of the continent already filled with arms, with troops, and with vessels; for Constantius had very prudently divided his forces, that he might likewise divide the attention and resistance of the enemy. The attack was at length made by the principal squadron, which, under the command of the præfect Asclepiodatus, an officer of distinguished merit, had been assembled in the north of the Seine. So imperfect in those times was the art of navigation, that orators have celebrated the daring courage of the Romans, who ventured to set sail with a side-wind, and on a stormy day. The weather proved favorable to their enterprise. Under the cover of a thick fog, they escaped the fleet of Allectus, which had been stationed off the Isle of Wight to receive them, landed in safety on some part of the western coast, and convinced the Britons, that a superiority of naval strength will not always protect their country from a foreign invasion. Asclepiodatus had no sooner disembarked the imperial troops, then he set fire to his ships; and, as the expedition proved fortunate, his heroic conduct was universally admired. The usurper had posted himself near London, to expect the formidable attack of Constantius, who commanded in person the fleet of Boulogne; but the descent of a new enemy required his immediate presence in the West. He performed this long march in so precipitate a manner, that he encountered the whole force of the præfect with a small body of harassed and disheartened troops. The engagement was soon terminated by the total defeat and death of Allectus; a single battle, as it has often happened, decided the fate of this great island; and when Constantius landed on the shores of Kent, he found them covered with obedient subjects. Their acclamations were loud and unanimous; and the virtues of the conqueror may induce us to believe, that they sincerely rejoiced in a revolution, which, after a separation of ten years, restored Britain to the body of the Roman empire.

Before the preparations were complete, Constantius received news of the tyrant’s death, which was seen as a sure sign of the upcoming victory. The followers of Carausius followed his example of betrayal. He was killed by his chief advisor, Allectus, who took over his power and faced the same dangers. However, he didn't have the skills to either maintain his authority or defend against threats. He watched with anxious fear as the opposite shores were already filled with troops and ships; Constantius had wisely split his forces to also split the enemy’s attention and resistance. The main attack finally came from the main fleet, which, under the command of the esteemed officer Asclepiodatus, had gathered in the north of the Seine. Navigation skills at that time were so rudimentary that speakers praised the bravery of the Romans who dared to sail with a side wind on a stormy day. The weather turned out to be favorable for their mission. Under cover of a thick fog, they avoided Allectus’s fleet, which was stationed off the Isle of Wight to intercept them, landed safely on a part of the western coast, and showed the Britons that naval superiority does not always safeguard a nation from foreign invasions. Asclepiodatus had barely disembarked the imperial troops when he set fire to his ships; and since the mission turned out to be successful, his heroic actions were widely praised. The usurper had positioned himself near London, anticipating Constantius’s formidable attack, who was personally commanding the fleet from Boulogne; but the arrival of this new enemy required his immediate attention in the West. He made this long march so urgently that he faced Asclepiodatus’s entire force with a small group of exhausted and demoralized troops. The clash was quickly resolved with the total defeat and death of Allectus; a single battle, as often happens, determined the fate of this great island; and when Constantius landed on the shores of Kent, he found them filled with loyal subjects. Their cheers were loud and unanimous; the virtues of the conqueror may lead us to believe that they genuinely rejoiced in a change that, after a ten-year separation, reunited Britain with the Roman Empire.





Chapter XIII: Reign Of Diocletian And His Three Associates.—Part II.

Britain had none but domestic enemies to dread; and as long as the governors preserved their fidelity, and the troops their discipline, the incursions of the naked savages of Scotland or Ireland could never materially affect the safety of the province. The peace of the continent, and the defence of the principal rivers which bounded the empire, were objects of far greater difficulty and importance. The policy of Diocletian, which inspired the councils of his associates, provided for the public tranquility, by encouraging a spirit of dissension among the barbarians, and by strengthening the fortifications of the Roman limit. In the East he fixed a line of camps from Egypt to the Persian dominions, and for every camp, he instituted an adequate number of stationary troops, commanded by their respective officers, and supplied with every kind of arms, from the new arsenals which he had formed at Antioch, Emesa, and Damascus. Nor was the precaution of the emperor less watchful against the well-known valor of the barbarians of Europe. From the mouth of the Rhine to that of the Danube, the ancient camps, towns, and citidels, were diligently reëstablished, and, in the most exposed places, new ones were skilfully constructed: the strictest vigilance was introduced among the garrisons of the frontier, and every expedient was practised that could render the long chain of fortifications firm and impenetrable. A barrier so respectable was seldom violated, and the barbarians often turned against each other their disappointed rage. The Goths, the Vandals, the Gepidæ, the Burgundians, the Alemanni, wasted each other’s strength by destructive hostilities: and whosoever vanquished, they vanquished the enemies of Rome. The subjects of Diocletian enjoyed the bloody spectacle, and congratulated each other, that the mischiefs of civil war were now experienced only by the barbarians.

Britain had only domestic enemies to worry about; as long as the governors stayed loyal and the troops remained disciplined, the attacks from the unarmed tribes of Scotland or Ireland couldn't seriously threaten the province's safety. The peace of the continent and the defense of the main rivers that marked the empire were much tougher and more important challenges. Diocletian's policy, which influenced the strategies of his associates, aimed to ensure public safety by fostering dissent among the barbarians and by strengthening the fortifications along the Roman border. In the East, he established a line of camps from Egypt to Persia, creating enough stationary troops for each camp, led by their own officers, and equipped with all kinds of weapons from the new arsenals he set up in Antioch, Emesa, and Damascus. The emperor was also very alert against the well-known bravery of the European barbarians. From the mouth of the Rhine to that of the Danube, the old camps, towns, and fortresses were carefully rebuilt, and in the most vulnerable areas, new ones were cleverly constructed. The strictest vigilance was enforced among the garrisons on the front lines, and every possible measure was taken to make the long chain of fortifications strong and impenetrable. Such a formidable barrier was rarely breached, and the barbarians often turned their frustrated anger on each other. The Goths, Vandals, Gepidæ, Burgundians, and Alemanni depleted each other's strength through devastating conflicts, and whoever won ended up defeating Rome's enemies. Diocletian's subjects watched the bloody spectacle and celebrated that the horrors of civil war were now only felt by the barbarians.

Notwithstanding the policy of Diocletian, it was impossible to maintain an equal and undisturbed tranquillity during a reign of twenty years, and along a frontier of many hundred miles. Sometimes the barbarians suspended their domestic animosities, and the relaxed vigilance of the garrisons sometimes gave a passage to their strength or dexterity. Whenever the provinces were invaded, Diocletian conducted himself with that calm dignity which he always affected or possessed; reserved his presence for such occasions as were worthy of his interposition, never exposed his person or reputation to any unnecessary danger, insured his success by every means that prudence could suggest, and displayed, with ostentation, the consequences of his victory. In wars of a more difficult nature, and more doubtful event, he employed the rough valor of Maximian; and that faithful soldier was content to ascribe his own victories to the wise counsels and auspicious influence of his benefactor. But after the adoption of the two Cæsars, the emperors themselves, retiring to a less laborious scene of action, devolved on their adopted sons the defence of the Danube and of the Rhine. The vigilant Galerius was never reduced to the necessity of vanquishing an army of barbarians on the Roman territory. The brave and active Constantius delivered Gaul from a very furious inroad of the Alemanni; and his victories of Langres and Vindonissa appear to have been actions of considerable danger and merit. As he traversed the open country with a feeble guard, he was encompassed on a sudden by the superior multitude of the enemy. He retreated with difficulty towards Langres; but, in the general consternation, the citizens refused to open their gates, and the wounded prince was drawn up the wall by the means of a rope. But, on the news of his distress, the Roman troops hastened from all sides to his relief, and before the evening he had satisfied his honor and revenge by the slaughter of six thousand Alemanni. From the monuments of those times, the obscure traces of several other victories over the barbarians of Sarmatia and Germany might possibly be collected; but the tedious search would not be rewarded either with amusement or with instruction.

Despite Diocletian's policies, it was impossible to maintain constant peace during a twenty-year reign along a long frontier. Sometimes, the barbarians put aside their internal conflicts, and the garrisons’ relaxed vigilance occasionally allowed their strength or skill to exploit this. Whenever the provinces were attacked, Diocletian maintained a composed dignity, a trait he consistently displayed; he reserved his presence for occasions that warranted his intervention, never putting himself or his reputation in unnecessary danger, ensured his success through all practical means, and showcased the results of his victories. In more challenging wars with uncertain outcomes, he relied on the boldness of Maximian, who was willing to credit his victories to the wise guidance and favorable influence of Diocletian. However, after adopting the two Cæsars, the emperors themselves retreated to less demanding roles and entrusted their adopted sons with defending the Danube and Rhine. The vigilant Galerius was never forced to defeat a barbarian army on Roman land. The brave and active Constantius rescued Gaul from a fierce attack by the Alemanni; his victories at Langres and Vindonissa were notably dangerous and commendable. While moving through the open countryside with a small guard, he was suddenly surrounded by a larger enemy force. He struggled to retreat towards Langres, but amid the panic, the citizens refused to open their gates, and the injured prince had to be pulled up the wall by a rope. However, upon learning of his plight, Roman troops rushed from all directions to assist him, and by evening, he restored his honor and sought revenge by killing six thousand Alemanni. From the records of that time, vague references to several other victories over the barbarians of Sarmatia and Germany could perhaps be gathered, but searching through them would likely bring neither enjoyment nor insight.

The conduct which the emperor Probus had adopted in the disposal of the vanquished was imitated by Diocletian and his associates. The captive barbarians, exchanging death for slavery, were distributed among the provincials, and assigned to those districts (in Gaul, the territories of Amiens, Beauvais, Cambray, Treves, Langres, and Troyes, are particularly specified ) which had been depopulated by the calamities of war. They were usefully employed as shepherds and husbandmen, but were denied the exercise of arms, except when it was found expedient to enroll them in the military service. Nor did the emperors refuse the property of lands, with a less servile tenure, to such of the barbarians as solicited the protection of Rome. They granted a settlement to several colonies of the Carpi, the Bastarnæ, and the Sarmatians; and, by a dangerous indulgence, permitted them in some measure to retain their national manners and independence. Among the provincials, it was a subject of flattering exultation, that the barbarian, so lately an object of terror, now cultivated their lands, drove their cattle to the neighboring fair, and contributed by his labor to the public plenty. They congratulated their masters on the powerful accession of subjects and soldiers; but they forgot to observe, that multitudes of secret enemies, insolent from favor, or desperate from oppression, were introduced into the heart of the empire.

The approach that Emperor Probus took with the conquered people was copied by Diocletian and his associates. The captured barbarians, opting for slavery instead of death, were spread out among the locals and assigned to areas (specifically in Gaul, the regions of Amiens, Beauvais, Cambray, Treves, Langres, and Troyes are mentioned) that had been devastated by the ravages of war. They were effectively used as shepherds and farmers but were prohibited from wielding weapons unless it was deemed necessary to enlist them in the military. The emperors also permitted some barbarians who sought Rome's protection to own land with a less servile status. They granted settlements to several groups including the Carpi, Bastarnæ, and Sarmatians; and, by a risky tolerance, allowed them to somewhat maintain their cultural practices and independence. Among the locals, it was a source of pride that the barbarian, once a figure of fear, now worked their fields, brought their livestock to nearby markets, and helped contribute to the community's abundance. They celebrated their newfound subjects and soldiers, but overlooked the fact that many secret enemies, emboldened by favor or driven to desperation by oppression, were now present in the heart of the empire.

While the Cæsars exercised their valor on the banks of the Rhine and Danube, the presence of the emperors was required on the southern confines of the Roman world. From the Nile to Mount Atlas, Africa was in arms. A confederacy of five Moorish nations issued from their deserts to invade the peaceful provinces. Julian had assumed the purple at Carthage. Achilleus at Alexandria, and even the Blemmyes, renewed, or rather continued, their incursions into the Upper Egypt. Scarcely any circumstances have been preserved of the exploits of Maximian in the western parts of Africa; but it appears, by the event, that the progress of his arms was rapid and decisive, that he vanquished the fiercest barbarians of Mauritania, and that he removed them from the mountains, whose inaccessible strength had inspired their inhabitants with a lawless confidence, and habituated them to a life of rapine and violence. Diocletian, on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror, but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter, and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of Alexandria: those proud cities, the former distinguished by its antiquity, the latter enriched by the passage of the Indian trade, were utterly destroyed by the arms and by the severe order of Diocletian. The character of the Egyptian nation, insensible to kindness, but extremely susceptible of fear, could alone justify this excessive rigor. The seditions of Alexandria had often affected the tranquillity and subsistence of Rome itself. Since the usurpation of Firmus, the province of Upper Egypt, incessantly relapsing into rebellion, had embraced the alliance of the savages of Æthiopia. The number of the Blemmyes, scattered between the Island of Meroe and the Red Sea, was very inconsiderable, their disposition was unwarlike, their weapons rude and inoffensive. Yet in the public disorders, these barbarians, whom antiquity, shocked with the deformity of their figure, had almost excluded from the human species, presumed to rank themselves among the enemies of Rome. Such had been the unworthy allies of the Egyptians; and while the attention of the state was engaged in more serious wars, their vexatious inroads might again harass the repose of the province. With a view of opposing to the Blemmyes a suitable adversary, Diocletian persuaded the Nobatæ, or people of Nubia, to remove from their ancient habitations in the deserts of Libya, and resigned to them an extensive but unprofitable territory above Syene and the cataracts of the Nile, with the stipulation, that they should ever respect and guard the frontier of the empire. The treaty long subsisted; and till the establishment of Christianity introduced stricter notions of religious worship, it was annually ratified by a solemn sacrifice in the isle of Elephantine, in which the Romans, as well as the barbarians, adored the same visible or invisible powers of the universe.

While the Caesars showed their bravery along the banks of the Rhine and Danube, the emperors were needed at the southern edges of the Roman world. From the Nile to Mount Atlas, Africa was ready for battle. A coalition of five Moorish nations emerged from their deserts to invade the peaceful provinces. Julian had taken the throne at Carthage. Achilleus was in Alexandria, and even the Blemmyes renewed, or rather continued, their attacks in Upper Egypt. Few records remain of Maximian's exploits in the western parts of Africa, but it appears that his military campaigns were swift and decisive; he defeated the fiercest barbarians of Mauritania and drove them from the mountains, which had given their inhabitants a lawless confidence and accustomed them to a life of plunder and violence. Diocletian, for his part, began the campaign in Egypt by besieging Alexandria, cutting off the aqueducts that brought water from the Nile to every part of that vast city, and making his camp impregnable against the desperate attacks of the besieged people, pushing his repeated assaults with caution and energy. After an eight-month siege, Alexandria, ravaged by sword and fire, pleaded for the mercy of its conqueror, but faced the full impact of his harshness. Many thousands of citizens perished in a chaotic slaughter, and few of those in Egypt who were seen as threats escaped either death or, at the very least, exile. The fate of Busiris and Coptos was even more tragic than that of Alexandria: those proud cities, the former noted for its ancient history and the latter enriched by Indian trade, were completely destroyed by Diocletian's forces and harsh commands. The nature of the Egyptian people, indifferent to kindness yet extremely susceptible to fear, could alone explain this extreme severity. The riots in Alexandria had frequently disrupted the peace and resources of Rome itself. Since Firmus's usurpation, Upper Egypt had continually fallen into rebellion, aligning itself with the savage tribes of Ethiopia. The Blemmyes, scattered between the Island of Meroe and the Red Sea, were very few in number, unmilitary in spirit, and wielded crude and harmless weapons. Yet in the chaos, these barbarians—whom ancient times, shocked by their deformity, nearly excluded from humanity—dared to consider themselves among Rome's enemies. Such were the unworthy allies of the Egyptians; and while the state's focus was on more serious wars, their troublesome raids could once again disturb the province's peace. To provide a suitable opponent for the Blemmyes, Diocletian convinced the Nobatae, or Nubian people, to leave their ancient homes in the deserts of Libya, granting them a large but barren territory above Syene and the Nile's cataracts, with the agreement that they would always protect the empire's border. This treaty lasted for a long time; and until the rise of Christianity brought stricter views on religious worship, it was annually reaffirmed through a solemn sacrifice on the island of Elephantine, where both the Romans and the barbarians worshipped the same visible or invisible powers of the universe.

At the same time that Diocletian chastised the past crimes of the Egyptians, he provided for their future safety and happiness by many wise regulations, which were confirmed and enforced under the succeeding reigns. One very remarkable edict which he published, instead of being condemned as the effect of jealous tyranny, deserves to be applauded as an act of prudence and humanity. He caused a diligent inquiry to be made “for all the ancient books which treated of the admirable art of making gold and silver, and without pity, committed them to the flames; apprehensive, as we are assumed, lest the opulence of the Egyptians should inspire them with confidence to rebel against the empire.” But if Diocletian had been convinced of the reality of that valuable art, far from extinguishing the memory, he would have converted the operation of it to the benefit of the public revenue. It is much more likely, that his good sense discovered to him the folly of such magnificent pretensions, and that he was desirous of preserving the reason and fortunes of his subjects from the mischievous pursuit. It may be remarked, that these ancient books, so liberally ascribed to Pythagoras, to Solomon, or to Hermes, were the pious frauds of more recent adepts. The Greeks were inattentive either to the use or to the abuse of chemistry. In that immense register, where Pliny has deposited the discoveries, the arts, and the errors of mankind, there is not the least mention of the transmutation of metals; and the persecution of Diocletian is the first authentic event in the history of alchemy. The conquest of Egypt by the Arabs diffused that vain science over the globe. Congenial to the avarice of the human heart, it was studied in China as in Europe, with equal eagerness, and with equal success. The darkness of the middle ages insured a favorable reception to every tale of wonder, and the revival of learning gave new vigor to hope, and suggested more specious arts of deception. Philosophy, with the aid of experience, has at length banished the study of alchemy; and the present age, however desirous of riches, is content to seek them by the humbler means of commerce and industry.

At the same time that Diocletian criticized the past wrongs of the Egyptians, he set up wise regulations to ensure their future safety and happiness, which were upheld in the reigns that followed. One notable decree he issued, instead of being seen as a jealous act of tyranny, should be recognized as a sensible and humane decision. He ordered a thorough search for all the ancient texts that discussed the remarkable art of making gold and silver, and without hesitation, he had them burned, fearing that the wealth of the Egyptians might give them the confidence to rebel against the empire. However, if Diocletian truly believed in the value of that art, rather than destroying the knowledge, he would have used it to benefit public revenue. It’s more likely that his common sense revealed the absurdity of such grand claims and that he wanted to protect the reasoning and fortunes of his subjects from the harmful pursuit. It’s worth noting that these ancient texts, often attributed to Pythagoras, Solomon, or Hermes, were likely the pious forgeries of more recent practitioners. The Greeks paid little attention to either the use or misuse of chemistry. In the vast catalog where Pliny recorded humanity’s discoveries, arts, and errors, there is no mention of the transmutation of metals; Diocletian's persecution marks the first true event in the history of alchemy. The Arab conquest of Egypt spread that futile science across the globe. Appealing to human greed, it was pursued in China and Europe with equal eagerness and success. The darkness of the Middle Ages welcomed every tale of wonder, and the revival of learning rekindled hope and introduced more plausible forms of deception. Philosophy, aided by experience, has finally rid us of the study of alchemy; and today, despite the desire for wealth, we are satisfied to pursue it through more humble means like commerce and industry.

The reduction of Egypt was immediately followed by the Persian war. It was reserved for the reign of Diocletian to vanquish that powerful nation, and to extort a confession from the successors of Artaxerxes, of the superior majesty of the Roman empire.

The conquest of Egypt was quickly followed by the Persian war. It was during Diocletian's reign that this strong nation was defeated, leading to a declaration from the descendants of Artaxerxes about the greater power of the Roman empire.

We have observed, under the reign of Valerian, that Armenia was subdued by the perfidy and the arms of the Persians, and that, after the assassination of Chosroes, his son Tiridates, the infant heir of the monarchy, was saved by the fidelity of his friends, and educated under the protection of the emperors. Tiridates derived from his exile such advantages as he could never have obtained on the throne of Armenia; the early knowledge of adversity, of mankind, and of the Roman discipline. He signalized his youth by deeds of valor, and displayed a matchless dexterity, as well as strength, in every martial exercise, and even in the less honorable contests of the Olympian games. Those qualities were more nobly exerted in the defence of his benefactor Licinius. That officer, in the sedition which occasioned the death of Probus, was exposed to the most imminent danger, and the enraged soldiers were forcing their way into his tent, when they were checked by the single arm of the Armenian prince. The gratitude of Tiridates contributed soon afterwards to his restoration. Licinius was in every station the friend and companion of Galerius, and the merit of Galerius, long before he was raised to the dignity of Cæsar, had been known and esteemed by Diocletian. In the third year of that emperor’s reign Tiridates was invested with the kingdom of Armenia. The justice of the measure was not less evident than its expediency. It was time to rescue from the usurpation of the Persian monarch an important territory, which, since the reign of Nero, had been always granted under the protection of the empire to a younger branch of the house of Arsaces.

We have seen, during Valerian's rule, that Armenia was conquered by the deceit and military might of the Persians. After Chosroes was assassinated, his baby son Tiridates, the rightful heir to the throne, was rescued by the loyalty of his friends and raised under the protection of the emperors. During his exile, Tiridates gained experiences he could never have acquired as king of Armenia, including an early understanding of hardship, people, and Roman military training. He distinguished himself in his youth through acts of bravery and showed unmatched skill and strength in various combat sports, even in the less prestigious events of the Olympic games. These qualities were notably demonstrated in defending his benefactor Licinius, who faced grave danger during the uprising that led to Probus's death; enraged soldiers were trying to storm his tent when the Armenian prince single-handedly held them back. Tiridates’ gratitude soon led to Licinius' restoration. Licinius was a friend and ally of Galerius at every rank, and Galerius’ worth had been recognized and valued by Diocletian long before he became Cæsar. In the third year of that emperor's reign, Tiridates was granted the kingdom of Armenia. The fairness of this decision was as clear as its necessity. It was time to reclaim an important territory from the Persian king's control, a land that, since Nero's reign, had always been assigned, under the empire's protection, to a younger branch of the Arsaces family.

When Tiridates appeared on the frontiers of Armenia, he was received with an unfeigned transport of joy and loyalty. During twenty-six years, the country had experienced the real and imaginary hardships of a foreign yoke. The Persian monarchs adorned their new conquest with magnificent buildings; but those monuments had been erected at the expense of the people, and were abhorred as badges of slavery. The apprehension of a revolt had inspired the most rigorous precautions: oppression had been aggravated by insult, and the consciousness of the public hatred had been productive of every measure that could render it still more implacable. We have already remarked the intolerant spirit of the Magian religion. The statues of the deified kings of Armenia, and the sacred images of the sun and moon, were broke in pieces by the zeal of the conqueror; and the perpetual fire of Ormuzd was kindled and preserved upon an altar erected on the summit of Mount Bagavan. It was natural, that a people exasperated by so many injuries, should arm with zeal in the cause of their independence, their religion, and their hereditary sovereign. The torrent bore down every obstacle, and the Persian garrisons retreated before its fury. The nobles of Armenia flew to the standard of Tiridates, all alleging their past merit, offering their future service, and soliciting from the new king those honors and rewards from which they had been excluded with disdain under the foreign government. The command of the army was bestowed on Artavasdes, whose father had saved the infancy of Tiridates, and whose family had been massacred for that generous action. The brother of Artavasdes obtained the government of a province. One of the first military dignities was conferred on the satrap Otas, a man of singular temperance and fortitude, who presented to the king his sister and a considerable treasure, both of which, in a sequestered fortress, Otas had preserved from violation. Among the Armenian nobles appeared an ally, whose fortunes are too remarkable to pass unnoticed. His name was Mamgo, his origin was Scythian, and the horde which acknowledge his authority had encamped a very few years before on the skirts of the Chinese empire, which at that time extended as far as the neighborhood of Sogdiana. Having incurred the displeasure of his master, Mamgo, with his followers, retired to the banks of the Oxus, and implored the protection of Sapor. The emperor of China claimed the fugitive, and alleged the rights of sovereignty. The Persian monarch pleaded the laws of hospitality, and with some difficulty avoided a war, by the promise that he would banish Mamgo to the uttermost parts of the West, a punishment, as he described it, not less dreadful than death itself. Armenia was chosen for the place of exile, and a large district was assigned to the Scythian horde, on which they might feed their flocks and herds, and remove their encampment from one place to another, according to the different seasons of the year. They were employed to repel the invasion of Tiridates; but their leader, after weighing the obligations and injuries which he had received from the Persian monarch, resolved to abandon his party. The Armenian prince, who was well acquainted with the merit as well as power of Mamgo, treated him with distinguished respect; and, by admitting him into his confidence, acquired a brave and faithful servant, who contributed very effectually to his restoration.

When Tiridates showed up at the borders of Armenia, he was greeted with genuine joy and loyalty. For twenty-six years, the country had undergone both real and imagined hardships under foreign rule. The Persian kings decorated their new territory with impressive buildings, but those monuments were built at the people's expense and were seen as symbols of oppression. The fear of rebellion led to strict measures: people suffered not only from oppression but also from insults, and the rulers’ awareness of the public's resentment led to further harsh actions. We've already noted the intolerant nature of the Magian religion. The conqueror's zeal resulted in the destruction of statues of the deified kings of Armenia and sacred images of the sun and moon, while the eternal fire of Ormuzd was lit and maintained on an altar atop Mount Bagavan. It’s no surprise that a people burdened by so much suffering would rally passionately for their independence, their faith, and their rightful king. The tide of rebellion swept away all obstacles, and the Persian soldiers retreated before its force. The Armenian nobles rallied to Tiridates’ banner, all claiming past service, offering future loyalty, and seeking honors and rewards that had been denied them under foreign rule. The leadership of the army was given to Artavasdes, whose father had saved Tiridates in his youth, and whose family had been killed for that act of kindness. Artavasdes' brother was appointed governor of a province. One of the top military positions went to the satrap Otas, a man known for his restraint and bravery, who presented the king with his sister and a substantial treasure, both of which he had safeguarded from harm in a secluded fortress. Among the Armenian nobles was an ally whose story is too remarkable to ignore. His name was Mamgo; he was of Scythian descent, and the group under his command had recently camped near the borders of the Chinese empire, which then stretched towards Sogdiana. After falling out of favor with his master, Mamgo and his followers retreated to the Oxus River and sought refuge from Sapor. The Chinese emperor demanded the fugitive back, citing sovereignty rights. The Persian king invoked hospitality laws and, with some effort, averted war by promising to banish Mamgo to the farthest West, a punishment he described as no less terrible than death. Armenia was chosen as his exile destination, and a large area was granted to the Scythian horde for grazing their flocks and moving their camp as seasons changed. They were initially used to fend off Tiridates’ invasion, but their leader, weighing his obligations and grievances against the Persian king, decided to turn against his own side. The Armenian prince, well aware of Mamgo's capabilities and strength, treated him with high regard and, by including him in his plans, gained a brave and loyal ally who significantly aided in his restoration.

For a while, fortune appeared to favor the enterprising valor of Tiridates. He not only expelled the enemies of his family and country from the whole extent of Armenia, but in the prosecution of his revenge he carried his arms, or at least his incursions, into the heart of Assyria. The historian, who has preserved the name of Tiridates from oblivion, celebrates, with a degree of national enthusiasm, his personal prowess: and, in the true spirit of eastern romance, describes the giants and the elephants that fell beneath his invincible arm. It is from other information that we discover the distracted state of the Persian monarchy, to which the king of Armenia was indebted for some part of his advantages. The throne was disputed by the ambition of contending brothers; and Hormuz, after exerting without success the strength of his own party, had recourse to the dangerous assistance of the barbarians who inhabited the banks of the Caspian Sea. The civil war was, however, soon terminated, either by a victor or by a reconciliation; and Narses, who was universally acknowledged as king of Persia, directed his whole force against the foreign enemy. The contest then became too unequal; nor was the valor of the hero able to withstand the power of the monarch. Tiridates, a second time expelled from the throne of Armenia, once more took refuge in the court of the emperors. * Narses soon reëstablished his authority over the revolted province; and loudly complaining of the protection afforded by the Romans to rebels and fugitives, aspired to the conquest of the East.

For a while, luck seemed to be on the side of the brave Tiridates. He not only drove out the enemies of his family and country from all of Armenia, but also took his fight, or at least his raids, deep into Assyria. The historian who kept Tiridates' name alive celebrates his bravery with a sense of national pride and describes, in the true style of Eastern tales, the giants and elephants that fell to his unstoppable strength. We learn from other sources about the chaotic state of the Persian monarchy, which helped Tiridates gain some of his advantages. The throne was contested by ambitious brothers, and Hormuz, after trying unsuccessfully to rally his own side, sought help from the dangerous tribes living along the Caspian Sea. However, the civil war was soon resolved, whether through victory or reconciliation, and Narses, who was widely recognized as king of Persia, focused all his efforts on fighting the foreign enemy. The battle then became too uneven, and no matter how courageous the hero was, he couldn't match the monarch's power. Tiridates was once again ousted from the throne of Armenia and returned to seek refuge in the court of the emperors. Narses quickly reestablished his control over the rebellious province and, loudly criticizing the protection the Romans offered to rebels and fugitives, aimed for the conquest of the East.

Neither prudence nor honor could permit the emperors to forsake the cause of the Armenian king, and it was resolved to exert the force of the empire in the Persian war. Diocletian, with the calm dignity which he constantly assumed, fixed his own station in the city of Antioch, from whence he prepared and directed the military operations. The conduct of the legions was intrusted to the intrepid valor of Galerius, who, for that important purpose, was removed from the banks of the Danube to those of the Euphrates. The armies soon encountered each other in the plains of Mesopotamia, and two battles were fought with various and doubtful success; but the third engagement was of a more decisive nature; and the Roman army received a total overthrow, which is attributed to the rashness of Galerius, who, with an inconsiderable body of troops, attacked the innumerable host of the Persians. But the consideration of the country that was the scene of action, may suggest another reason for his defeat. The same ground on which Galerius was vanquished, had been rendered memorable by the death of Crassus, and the slaughter of ten legions. It was a plain of more than sixty miles, which extended from the hills of Carrhæ to the Euphrates; a smooth and barren surface of sandy desert, without a hillock, without a tree, and without a spring of fresh water. The steady infantry of the Romans, fainting with heat and thirst, could neither hope for victory if they preserved their ranks, nor break their ranks without exposing themselves to the most imminent danger. In this situation they were gradually encompassed by the superior numbers, harassed by the rapid evolutions, and destroyed by the arrows of the barbarian cavalry. The king of Armenia had signalized his valor in the battle, and acquired personal glory by the public misfortune. He was pursued as far as the Euphrates; his horse was wounded, and it appeared impossible for him to escape the victorious enemy. In this extremity Tiridates embraced the only refuge which appeared before him: he dismounted and plunged into the stream. His armor was heavy, the river very deep, and at those parts at least half a mile in breadth; yet such was his strength and dexterity, that he reached in safety the opposite bank. With regard to the Roman general, we are ignorant of the circumstances of his escape; but when he returned to Antioch, Diocletian received him, not with the tenderness of a friend and colleague, but with the indignation of an offended sovereign. The haughtiest of men, clothed in his purple, but humbled by the sense of his fault and misfortune, was obliged to follow the emperor’s chariot above a mile on foot, and to exhibit, before the whole court, the spectacle of his disgrace.

Neither caution nor honor allowed the emperors to abandon the Armenian king's cause, and it was decided to use the empire's strength in the Persian war. Diocletian, maintaining the calm dignity he always displayed, established his headquarters in the city of Antioch, from where he organized and oversaw military operations. The leadership of the legions was entrusted to the fearless Galerius, who was moved from the banks of the Danube to those of the Euphrates for this crucial task. The armies soon met in the plains of Mesopotamia, engaging in two battles with mixed and uncertain outcomes; however, the third battle was more decisive, resulting in a complete defeat for the Roman army, which was blamed on Galerius's impulsiveness as he attacked the vast Persian forces with only a small contingent of troops. However, the location of the battle might provide another explanation for his defeat. The site where Galerius was defeated had previously been marked by Crassus's death and the loss of ten legions. It was a plain stretching over sixty miles from the hills of Carrhæ to the Euphrates; a flat, barren landscape of sandy desert, devoid of hills, trees, or fresh water springs. The Roman infantry, struggling with heat and thirst, found no hope for victory if they maintained their formation, nor could they break rank without facing grave danger. Under these circumstances, they were gradually surrounded by the larger enemy forces, harried by rapid movements, and decimated by the arrows of the barbarian cavalry. The king of Armenia distinguished himself in battle and gained personal acclaim amidst the public disaster. He was chased all the way to the Euphrates; his horse was injured, and it seemed impossible for him to escape the victorious enemy. In this dire moment, Tiridates took the only option available: he dismounted and jumped into the river. His armor was heavy, the river was very deep, and at that point nearly half a mile wide; yet, with remarkable strength and skill, he made it safely to the opposite bank. As for the Roman general, we don't know the details of his escape; however, when he returned to Antioch, Diocletian greeted him not with the warmth of a friend and ally, but with the anger of a wronged sovereign. The proudest of men, draped in his purple robes yet humbled by his failures and misfortune, was forced to follow the emperor's chariot for over a mile on foot, publicly displaying his disgrace before the entire court.

As soon as Diocletian had indulged his private resentment, and asserted the majesty of supreme power, he yielded to the submissive entreaties of the Cæsar, and permitted him to retrieve his own honor, as well as that of the Roman arms. In the room of the unwarlike troops of Asia, which had most probably served in the first expedition, a second army was drawn from the veterans and new levies of the Illyrian frontier, and a considerable body of Gothic auxiliaries were taken into the Imperial pay. At the head of a chosen army of twenty-five thousand men, Galerius again passed the Euphrates; but, instead of exposing his legions in the open plains of Mesopotamia he advanced through the mountains of Armenia, where he found the inhabitants devoted to his cause, and the country as favorable to the operations of infantry as it was inconvenient for the motions of cavalry. Adversity had confirmed the Roman discipline, while the barbarians, elated by success, were become so negligent and remiss, that in the moment when they least expected it, they were surprised by the active conduct of Galerius, who, attended only by two horsemen, had with his own eyes secretly examined the state and position of their camp. A surprise, especially in the night time, was for the most part fatal to a Persian army. “Their horses were tied, and generally shackled, to prevent their running away; and if an alarm happened, a Persian had his housing to fix, his horse to bridle, and his corselet to put on, before he could mount.” On this occasion, the impetuous attack of Galerius spread disorder and dismay over the camp of the barbarians. A slight resistance was followed by a dreadful carnage, and, in the general confusion, the wounded monarch (for Narses commanded his armies in person) fled towards the deserts of Media. His sumptuous tents, and those of his satraps, afforded an immense booty to the conqueror; and an incident is mentioned, which proves the rustic but martial ignorance of the legions in the elegant superfluities of life. A bag of shining leather, filled with pearls, fell into the hands of a private soldier; he carefully preserved the bag, but he threw away its contents, judging that whatever was of no use could not possibly be of any value. The principal loss of Narses was of a much more affecting nature. Several of his wives, his sisters, and children, who had attended the army, were made captives in the defeat. But though the character of Galerius had in general very little affinity with that of Alexander, he imitated, after his victory, the amiable behavior of the Macedonian towards the family of Darius. The wives and children of Narses were protected from violence and rapine, conveyed to a place of safety, and treated with every mark of respect and tenderness, that was due from a generous enemy to their age, their sex, and their royal dignity.

As soon as Diocletian satisfied his personal grievances and asserted the authority of his supreme power, he yielded to the pleading requests of the Cæsar, allowing him to redeem his own honor and that of the Roman military. Instead of the ineffective troops from Asia, who had probably served in the initial campaign, a second army was gathered from veterans and new recruits from the Illyrian border, alongside a significant group of Gothic auxiliaries who were brought into Imperial service. Leading a chosen army of twenty-five thousand men, Galerius crossed the Euphrates again, but rather than exposing his legions on the flat plains of Mesopotamia, he advanced through the mountains of Armenia, where he found the locals loyal to his cause, and the terrain was suitable for infantry operations while challenging for cavalry movements. Adversity had strengthened Roman discipline, while the barbarians, buoyed by their earlier victories, had become so careless and negligent that, when they least expected it, they were caught off guard by Galerius' proactive strategy. Accompanied only by two horsemen, he quietly surveyed the state and position of their camp. A surprise attack, especially at night, was typically devastating for a Persian army. "Their horses were tied, often shackled to prevent them from fleeing; and if an alarm sounded, a Persian had to secure his gear, bridle his horse, and put on his armor before he could mount." In this instance, Galerius's fierce assault threw the barbarian camp into chaos and panic. A brief resistance led to a horrific slaughter, and in the general turmoil, the wounded king (as Narses commanded his armies personally) fled towards the deserts of Media. His lavish tents and those of his satraps provided a massive bounty for the victor, and an incident is noted that highlights the simple yet warrior-like ignorance of the legions regarding the finer luxuries of life. A private soldier found a bag made of shiny leather filled with pearls; he carefully kept the bag but discarded its contents, thinking that anything useless couldn’t possibly be valuable. Narses’s most significant loss was much more personal. Several of his wives, sisters, and children, who had accompanied the army, were captured in the defeat. Yet, despite Galerius's character showing little resemblance to that of Alexander, he emulated the kind behavior of the Macedonian leader towards Darius’s family after his victory. Narses's wives and children were safeguarded from violence and plunder, taken to a secure location, and treated with all the respect and kindness that a generous enemy owed to their age, gender, and royal status.





Chapter XIII: Reign Of Diocletian And His Three Associates.—Part III.

While the East anxiously expected the decision of this great contest, the emperor Diocletian, having assembled in Syria a strong army of observation, displayed from a distance the resources of the Roman power, and reserved himself for any future emergency of the war. On the intelligence of the victory he condescended to advance towards the frontier, with a view of moderating, by his presence and counsels, the pride of Galerius. The interview of the Roman princes at Nisibis was accompanied with every expression of respect on one side, and of esteem on the other. It was in that city that they soon afterwards gave audience to the ambassador of the Great King. The power, or at least the spirit, of Narses, had been broken by his last defeat; and he considered an immediate peace as the only means that could stop the progress of the Roman arms. He despatched Apharban, a servant who possessed his favor and confidence, with a commission to negotiate a treaty, or rather to receive whatever conditions the conqueror should impose. Apharban opened the conference by expressing his master’s gratitude for the generous treatment of his family, and by soliciting the liberty of those illustrious captives. He celebrated the valor of Galerius, without degrading the reputation of Narses, and thought it no dishonor to confess the superiority of the victorious Cæsar, over a monarch who had surpassed in glory all the princes of his race. Notwithstanding the justice of the Persian cause, he was empowered to submit the present differences to the decision of the emperors themselves; convinced as he was, that, in the midst of prosperity, they would not be unmindful of the vicissitudes of fortune. Apharban concluded his discourse in the style of eastern allegory, by observing that the Roman and Persian monarchies were the two eyes of the world, which would remain imperfect and mutilated if either of them should be put out.

While the East eagerly anticipated the outcome of this significant conflict, Emperor Diocletian gathered a strong army in Syria as a show of Roman power and prepared himself for any future challenges in the war. Upon hearing about the victory, he decided to move toward the frontier to temper Galerius's pride with his presence and advice. The meeting of the Roman leaders at Nisibis was marked by mutual respect and admiration. It was in this city that they soon welcomed the ambassador from the Great King. The authority, or at least the resolve, of Narses had been diminished by his recent defeat, and he saw an immediate peace as the only way to halt the advance of Roman forces. He sent Apharban, a trusted servant, to negotiate a treaty, or rather to accept whatever terms the victor would impose. Apharban began the discussions by expressing his master’s gratitude for the kind treatment of his family and requested the release of those notable captives. He praised Galerius’s bravery without undermining Narses's reputation, acknowledging the superiority of the victorious Caesar over a king who had outshone all his ancestors. Despite the validity of the Persian claim, he was authorized to present their current disputes for resolution by the emperors themselves, believing that, despite their success, they would remember the unpredictable nature of fortune. Apharban wrapped up his speech in an eastern allegorical style, saying that the Roman and Persian empires were like the two eyes of the world, which would be incomplete and flawed if either were lost.

“It well becomes the Persians,” replied Galerius, with a transport of fury, which seemed to convulse his whole frame, “it well becomes the Persians to expatiate on the vicissitudes of fortune, and calmly to read us lectures on the virtues of moderation. Let them remember their own moderation towards the unhappy Valerian. They vanquished him by fraud, they treated him with indignity. They detained him till the last moment of his life in shameful captivity, and after his death they exposed his body to perpetual ignominy.” Softening, however, his tone, Galerius insinuated to the ambassador, that it had never been the practice of the Romans to trample on a prostrate enemy; and that, on this occasion, they should consult their own dignity rather than the Persian merit. He dismissed Apharban with a hope that Narses would soon be informed on what conditions he might obtain, from the clemency of the emperors, a lasting peace, and the restoration of his wives and children. In this conference we may discover the fierce passions of Galerius, as well as his deference to the superior wisdom and authority of Diocletian. The ambition of the former grasped at the conquest of the East, and had proposed to reduce Persia into the state of a province. The prudence of the latter, who adhered to the moderate policy of Augustus and the Antonines, embraced the favorable opportunity of terminating a successful war by an honorable and advantageous peace.

“It suits the Persians well,” Galerius replied, filled with rage that seemed to shake his entire body, “it suits the Persians to talk about the ups and downs of fortune and calmly lecture us on the virtues of moderation. They should remember their own moderation towards the unfortunate Valerian. They defeated him through deceit and treated him with disrespect. They kept him in shameful captivity until the end of his life, and after he died, they exposed his body to endless disgrace.” However, softening his tone, Galerius suggested to the ambassador that it had never been the Romans' way to kick a fallen enemy, and that, in this case, they should consider their own dignity rather than the merits of the Persians. He sent Apharban away with the hope that Narses would soon learn what conditions would allow him to secure, through the emperors' mercy, a lasting peace and the return of his wives and children. In this discussion, we can see Galerius's fierce passions as well as his respect for the greater wisdom and authority of Diocletian. The former's ambition aimed at conquering the East and was planning to turn Persia into a province. The latter’s prudence, which followed the moderate policies of Augustus and the Antonines, took advantage of the opportunity to end a successful war with a honorable and beneficial peace.

In pursuance of their promise, the emperors soon afterwards appointed Sicorius Probus, one of their secretaries, to acquaint the Persian court with their final resolution. As the minister of peace, he was received with every mark of politeness and friendship; but, under the pretence of allowing him the necessary repose after so long a journey, the audience of Probus was deferred from day to day; and he attended the slow motions of the king, till at length he was admitted to his presence, near the River Asprudus in Media. The secret motive of Narses, in this delay, had been to collect such a military force as might enable him, though sincerely desirous of peace, to negotiate with the greater weight and dignity. Three persons only assisted at this important conference, the minister Apharban, the præfect of the guards, and an officer who had commanded on the Armenian frontier. The first condition proposed by the ambassador is not at present of a very intelligible nature; that the city of Nisibis might be established for the place of mutual exchange, or, as we should formerly have termed it, for the staple of trade, between the two empires. There is no difficulty in conceiving the intention of the Roman princes to improve their revenue by some restraints upon commerce; but as Nisibis was situated within their own dominions, and as they were masters both of the imports and exports, it should seem that such restraints were the objects of an internal law, rather than of a foreign treaty. To render them more effectual, some stipulations were probably required on the side of the king of Persia, which appeared so very repugnant either to his interest or to his dignity, that Narses could not be persuaded to subscribe them. As this was the only article to which he refused his consent, it was no longer insisted on; and the emperors either suffered the trade to flow in its natural channels, or contented themselves with such restrictions, as it depended on their own authority to establish.

In line with their promise, the emperors soon appointed Sicorius Probus, one of their secretaries, to inform the Persian court of their final decision. As the peace ambassador, he was received with all signs of politeness and friendship; however, under the pretext of giving him the necessary rest after such a long journey, Probus's audience was postponed day after day. He watched the king's slow movements until he was finally granted an audience near the River Asprudus in Media. The real reason for Narses's delay was to gather a military force that would allow him, although genuinely eager for peace, to negotiate with greater weight and authority. Only three people attended this important meeting: the minister Apharban, the prefect of the guards, and an officer who had commanded on the Armenian frontier. The first condition proposed by the ambassador is not very clear today; it was that the city of Nisibis be established as the site for mutual exchange, or what we might have previously called the center of trade, between the two empires. It's easy to understand the Roman emperors' intent to boost their revenue by imposing certain restrictions on commerce; but since Nisibis was located within their own territory and they controlled both imports and exports, it seemed that such restrictions should fall under domestic law rather than a foreign treaty. To make these restrictions more effective, some conditions were likely needed from the Persian king, which were so contrary to his interests or dignity that Narses could not be persuaded to agree to them. As this was the only point he refused, it was no longer pursued; and the emperors either allowed trade to flow naturally or settled for restrictions that they had the authority to enforce themselves.

As soon as this difficulty was removed, a solemn peace was concluded and ratified between the two nations. The conditions of a treaty so glorious to the empire, and so necessary to Persia, may deserve a more peculiar attention, as the history of Rome presents very few transactions of a similar nature; most of her wars having either been terminated by absolute conquest, or waged against barbarians ignorant of the use of letters. I. The Aboras, or, as it is called by Xenophon, the Araxes, was fixed as the boundary between the two monarchies. That river, which rose near the Tigris, was increased, a few miles below Nisibis, by the little stream of the Mygdonius, passed under the walls of Singara, and fell into the Euphrates at Circesium, a frontier town, which, by the care of Diocletian, was very strongly fortified. Mesopotomia, the object of so many wars, was ceded to the empire; and the Persians, by this treaty, renounced all pretensions to that great province. II. They relinquished to the Romans five provinces beyond the Tigris. Their situation formed a very useful barrier, and their natural strength was soon improved by art and military skill. Four of these, to the north of the river, were districts of obscure fame and inconsiderable extent; Intiline, Zabdicene, Arzanene, and Moxoene; but on the east of the Tigris, the empire acquired the large and mountainous territory of Carduene, the ancient seat of the Carduchians, who preserved for many ages their manly freedom in the heart of the despotic monarchies of Asia. The ten thousand Greeks traversed their country, after a painful march, or rather engagement, of seven days; and it is confessed by their leader, in his incomparable relation of the retreat, that they suffered more from the arrows of the Carduchians, than from the power of the Great King. Their posterity, the Curds, with very little alteration either of name or manners, * acknowledged the nominal sovereignty of the Turkish sultan. III. It is almost needless to observe, that Tiridates, the faithful ally of Rome, was restored to the throne of his fathers, and that the rights of the Imperial supremacy were fully asserted and secured. The limits of Armenia were extended as far as the fortress of Sintha in Media, and this increase of dominion was not so much an act of liberality as of justice. Of the provinces already mentioned beyond the Tigris, the four first had been dismembered by the Parthians from the crown of Armenia; and when the Romans acquired the possession of them, they stipulated, at the expense of the usurpers, an ample compensation, which invested their ally with the extensive and fertile country of Atropatene. Its principal city, in the same situation perhaps as the modern Tauris, was frequently honored by the residence of Tiridates; and as it sometimes bore the name of Ecbatana, he imitated, in the buildings and fortifications, the splendid capital of the Medes. IV. The country of Iberia was barren, its inhabitants rude and savage. But they were accustomed to the use of arms, and they separated from the empire barbarians much fiercer and more formidable than themselves. The narrow defiles of Mount Caucasus were in their hands, and it was in their choice, either to admit or to exclude the wandering tribes of Sarmatia, whenever a rapacious spirit urged them to penetrate into the richer climes of the South. The nomination of the kings of Iberia, which was resigned by the Persian monarch to the emperors, contributed to the strength and security of the Roman power in Asia. The East enjoyed a profound tranquillity during forty years; and the treaty between the rival monarchies was strictly observed till the death of Tiridates; when a new generation, animated with different views and different passions, succeeded to the government of the world; and the grandson of Narses undertook a long and memorable war against the princes of the house of Constantine.

As soon as this issue was resolved, a serious peace was established and confirmed between the two nations. The terms of a treaty that was so beneficial for the empire and so crucial for Persia deserve special attention, as the history of Rome shows very few similar events; most of its wars had ended in total conquest or had been fought against barbarians who were unfamiliar with writing. I. The Aboras, or as Xenophon calls it, the Araxes, was set as the boundary between the two kingdoms. That river, which started near the Tigris, was increased, a few miles downstream from Nisibis, by the small stream of the Mygdonius, passed under the walls of Singara, and emptied into the Euphrates at Circesium, a frontier town that was very strongly fortified through Diocletian's efforts. Mesopotamia, the focus of numerous wars, was handed over to the empire; and through this treaty, the Persians gave up all claims to that vast province. II. They also surrendered to the Romans five provinces beyond the Tigris. Their location formed a valuable barrier, and their natural strength was soon enhanced through engineering and military skill. Four of these provinces, located north of the river, were relatively unknown and small: Intiline, Zabdicene, Arzanene, and Moxoene; but to the east of the Tigris, the empire gained the large and mountainous region of Carduene, the historic homeland of the Carduchians, who maintained their freedom for many ages amid the oppressive monarchies of Asia. The ten thousand Greeks crossed through their territory after a difficult week-long march, and their leader, in his remarkable account of the retreat, admitted that they faced greater difficulties from the Carduchians' arrows than from the power of the Great King. Their descendants, the Kurds, maintained very little change in either name or customs, * acknowledging the nominal rule of the Turkish Sultan. III. It is almost unnecessary to mention that Tiridates, the loyal ally of Rome, was reinstated on the throne of his ancestors, and that the rights of imperial supremacy were fully asserted and secured. The borders of Armenia were expanded all the way to the fortress of Sintha in Media, and this extension of territory was more an act of justice than generosity. Among the provinces previously mentioned beyond the Tigris, the first four had been taken from the Armenian crown by the Parthians; when the Romans acquired them, they negotiated a substantial compensation, benefiting their ally with the large and fertile region of Atropatene. Its main city, similar in location to modern Tauris, was often the residence of Tiridates; and sometimes it was referred to as Ecbatana, where he mirrored the splendid capital of the Medes in its buildings and fortifications. IV. The land of Iberia was barren, and its people were rough and primitive. However, they were armed and capable of defending themselves from barbarians who were even fiercer and more threatening than they were. They controlled the narrow passes of Mount Caucasus, and they could either allow or restrict the invading tribes of Sarmatia whenever greed drove them to push into the richer southern lands. The Persian king's delegation of the choice of Iberian kings to the emperors helped strengthen and secure Roman power in Asia. The East experienced a deep tranquility for forty years; and the treaty between the rival kingdoms was meticulously upheld until Tiridates' death; at which point a new generation, driven by different ambitions and passions, took over the reins of power; and the grandson of Narses waged a long and significant war against the princes of the house of Constantine.

The arduous work of rescuing the distressed empire from tyrants and barbarians had now been completely achieved by a succession of Illyrian peasants. As soon as Diocletian entered into the twentieth year of his reign, he celebrated that memorable æra, as well as the success of his arms, by the pomp of a Roman triumph. Maximian, the equal partner of his power, was his only companion in the glory of that day. The two Cæsars had fought and conquered, but the merit of their exploits was ascribed, according to the rigor of ancient maxims, to the auspicious influence of their fathers and emperors. The triumph of Diocletian and Maximian was less magnificent, perhaps, than those of Aurelian and Probus, but it was dignified by several circumstances of superior fame and good fortune. Africa and Britain, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Nile, furnished their respective trophies; but the most distinguished ornament was of a more singular nature, a Persian victory followed by an important conquest. The representations of rivers, mountains, and provinces, were carried before the Imperial car. The images of the captive wives, the sisters, and the children of the Great King, afforded a new and grateful spectacle to the vanity of the people. In the eyes of posterity, this triumph is remarkable, by a distinction of a less honorable kind. It was the last that Rome ever beheld. Soon after this period, the emperors ceased to vanquish, and Rome ceased to be the capital of the empire.

The tough work of rescuing the struggling empire from tyrants and invaders had finally been accomplished by a series of Illyrian farmers. As soon as Diocletian reached the twentieth year of his reign, he celebrated that memorable era, as well as the success of his military campaigns, with a grand Roman triumph. Maximian, his equal partner in power, was his only companion in the glory of that day. The two Caesars had fought and won, but the credit for their achievements was given, in line with the strict ancient customs, to the favorable influence of their fathers and emperors. The triumph of Diocletian and Maximian was perhaps less spectacular than those of Aurelian and Probus, but it was marked by several elements of greater fame and good fortune. Africa and Britain, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Nile all contributed their respective trophies; however, the most notable feature was a Persian victory followed by a significant conquest. Representations of rivers, mountains, and provinces were displayed before the Imperial chariot. The images of the captured wives, sisters, and children of the Great King provided a new and satisfying spectacle for the people’s pride. In the eyes of history, this triumph stands out for a less honorable reason: it was the last that Rome would ever see. Shortly after this time, the emperors stopped winning, and Rome ceased to be the capital of the empire.

The spot on which Rome was founded had been consecrated by ancient ceremonies and imaginary miracles. The presence of some god, or the memory of some hero, seemed to animate every part of the city, and the empire of the world had been promised to the Capitol. The native Romans felt and confessed the power of this agreeable illusion. It was derived from their ancestors, had grown up with their earliest habits of life, and was protected, in some measure, by the opinion of political utility. The form and the seat of government were intimately blended together, nor was it esteemed possible to transport the one without destroying the other. But the sovereignty of the capital was gradually annihilated in the extent of conquest; the provinces rose to the same level, and the vanquished nations acquired the name and privileges, without imbibing the partial affections, of Romans. During a long period, however, the remains of the ancient constitution, and the influence of custom, preserved the dignity of Rome. The emperors, though perhaps of African or Illyrian extraction, respected their adopted country, as the seat of their power, and the centre of their extensive dominions. The emergencies of war very frequently required their presence on the frontiers; but Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the provinces; and their conduct, however it might be suggested by private motives, was justified by very specious considerations of policy. The court of the emperor of the West was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation, at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the splendor of an Imperial city. The houses are described as numerous and well built; the manners of the people as polished and liberal. A circus, a theatre, a mint, a palace, baths, which bore the name of their founder Maximian; porticos adorned with statues, and a double circumference of walls, contributed to the beauty of the new capital; nor did it seem oppressed even by the proximity of Rome. To rival the majesty of Rome was the ambition likewise of Diocletian, who employed his leisure, and the wealth of the East, in the embellishment of Nicomedia, a city placed on the verge of Europe and Asia, almost at an equal distance between the Danube and the Euphrates. By the taste of the monarch, and at the expense of the people, Nicomedia acquired, in the space of a few years, a degree of magnificence which might appear to have required the labor of ages, and became inferior only to Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in extent of populousness. The life of Diocletian and Maximian was a life of action, and a considerable portion of it was spent in camps, or in the long and frequent marches; but whenever the public business allowed them any relaxation, they seemed to have retired with pleasure to their favorite residences of Nicomedia and Milan. Till Diocletian, in the twentieth year of his reign, celebrated his Roman triumph, it is extremely doubtful whether he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire. Even on that memorable occasion his stay did not exceed two months. Disgusted with the licentious familiarity of the people, he quitted Rome with precipitation thirteen days before it was expected that he should have appeared in the senate, invested with the ensigns of the consular dignity.

The place where Rome was founded had been dedicated through ancient rituals and imagined miracles. The presence of some god or the memory of some hero seemed to enliven every part of the city, and the Capitol was promised to rule over the world. The native Romans felt and acknowledged the power of this pleasant illusion. It came from their ancestors, grew with their earliest ways of life, and was somewhat supported by the belief in its political usefulness. The structure and function of government were closely intertwined, and it was not seen as possible to separate one from the other without disrupting the other. However, the dominance of the capital gradually diminished with the expansion of conquests; the provinces began to share the same status, and the conquered nations gained the name and privileges of Romans without adopting their biases. For a long time, though, the remnants of the ancient constitution and the influence of tradition upheld the dignity of Rome. The emperors, even if of African or Illyrian descent, respected their adopted homeland as the seat of their power and the center of their vast territories. The demands of war often required their presence on the borders, but Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman rulers to establish their usual residence in the provinces during peacetime; their decisions, whether motivated by personal reasons or not, were justified by convincing political arguments. The court of the emperor of the West was mostly based in Milan, which, located at the foot of the Alps, seemed much more practical than Rome for keeping an eye on the movements of the Germanic tribes. Milan quickly developed into a city of imperial splendor. The buildings were described as numerous and well-constructed, and the people were noted for being cultured and generous. A circus, a theater, a mint, a palace, and baths named after their founder Maximian, along with porticos decorated with statues and a double set of walls, added to the beauty of the new capital; it hardly seemed overshadowed by the closeness of Rome. Competing with the grandeur of Rome was also Diocletian's goal, who spent his free time and the wealth from the East improving Nicomedia, a city located on the edge of Europe and Asia, almost equally distant from the Danube and the Euphrates. Thanks to the king's taste and at the people's expense, Nicomedia achieved a level of magnificence in just a few years that looked like it took centuries to develop, becoming only less populous than Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Diocletian and Maximian led active lives, spending a significant amount of time in camps or on long journeys; however, whenever public duties allowed them to relax, they seemed to enjoy retreating to their favorite residences in Nicomedia and Milan. Until Diocletian celebrated his Roman triumph in the twentieth year of his reign, it is highly uncertain whether he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire. Even on that notable occasion, his visit lasted no longer than two months. Frustrated with the people's unruly behavior, he hastily left Rome thirteen days before he was expected to appear in the Senate wearing the symbols of consular authority.

The dislike expressed by Diocletian towards Rome and Roman freedom was not the effect of momentary caprice, but the result of the most artful policy. That crafty prince had framed a new system of Imperial government, which was afterwards completed by the family of Constantine; and as the image of the old constitution was religiously preserved in the senate, he resolved to deprive that order of its small remains of power and consideration. We may recollect, about eight years before the elevation of Diocletian, the transient greatness, and the ambitious hopes, of the Roman senate. As long as that enthusiasm prevailed, many of the nobles imprudently displayed their zeal in the cause of freedom; and after the successes of Probus had withdrawn their countenance from the republican party, the senators were unable to disguise their impotent resentment.

The dislike Diocletian showed toward Rome and Roman freedom wasn't just a fleeting whim; it was part of a clever strategy. That shrewd ruler created a new system of Imperial government, which was later finished by Constantine's family. While the old government structure was carefully maintained in the senate, he decided to strip that body of its remaining power and influence. We can remember, about eight years before Diocletian rose to power, the short-lived prominence and ambitious dreams of the Roman senate. During that time of excitement, many nobles foolishly showed their passion for freedom, and after Probus's victories shifted their support away from the republican faction, the senators could no longer hide their powerless anger.

As the sovereign of Italy, Maximian was intrusted with the care of extinguishing this troublesome, rather than dangerous spirit, and the task was perfectly suited to his cruel temper. The most illustrious members of the senate, whom Diocletian always affected to esteem, were involved, by his colleague, in the accusation of imaginary plots; and the possession of an elegant villa, or a well-cultivated estate, was interpreted as a convincing evidence of guilt. The camp of the Prætorians, which had so long oppressed, began to protect, the majesty of Rome; and as those haughty troops were conscious of the decline of their power, they were naturally disposed to unite their strength with the authority of the senate. By the prudent measures of Diocletian, the numbers of the Prætorians were insensibly reduced, their privileges abolished, and their place supplied by two faithful legions of Illyricum, who, under the new titles of Jovians and Herculians, were appointed to perform the service of the Imperial guards. But the most fatal though secret wound, which the senate received from the hands of Diocletian and Maximian, was inflicted by the inevitable operation of their absence. As long as the emperors resided at Rome, that assembly might be oppressed, but it could scarcely be neglected. The successors of Augustus exercised the power of dictating whatever laws their wisdom or caprice might suggest; but those laws were ratified by the sanction of the senate. The model of ancient freedom was preserved in its deliberations and decrees; and wise princes, who respected the prejudices of the Roman people, were in some measure obliged to assume the language and behavior suitable to the general and first magistrate of the republic. In the armies and in the provinces, they displayed the dignity of monarchs; and when they fixed their residence at a distance from the capital, they forever laid aside the dissimulation which Augustus had recommended to his successors. In the exercise of the legislative as well as the executive power, the sovereign advised with his ministers, instead of consulting the great council of the nation. The name of the senate was mentioned with honor till the last period of the empire; the vanity of its members was still flattered with honorary distinctions; but the assembly which had so long been the source, and so long the instrument of power, was respectfully suffered to sink into oblivion. The senate of Rome, losing all connection with the Imperial court and the actual constitution, was left a venerable but useless monument of antiquity on the Capitoline hill.

As the ruler of Italy, Maximian was tasked with dealing with this bothersome rather than dangerous threat, which suited his cruel nature perfectly. The most prominent members of the senate, whom Diocletian always pretended to respect, were accused by his colleague of fabricated plots; owning a nice villa or a well-kept estate was taken as clear proof of guilt. The camp of the Praetorians, which had long been a source of oppression, began to protect the dignity of Rome; and as those proud troops realized their power was waning, they were naturally inclined to join forces with the authority of the senate. Thanks to Diocletian's wise actions, the number of Praetorians was gradually reduced, their privileges were eliminated, and they were replaced by two loyal legions from Illyricum, who, under the new names of Jovians and Herculians, were assigned to act as the Imperial guards. But the most damaging, though hidden, blow that the senate suffered at the hands of Diocletian and Maximian came from their absence. As long as the emperors lived in Rome, that assembly might be suppressed, but it could hardly be ignored. The successors of Augustus held the power to dictate whatever laws their judgment or whims suggested, but those laws were approved by the senate. The essence of ancient freedom was maintained in its discussions and resolutions; and wise rulers, who respected the beliefs of the Roman people, had to adopt the language and behavior appropriate for the highest official of the republic. In the armies and provinces, they showcased the dignity of kings; and when they established their residence far from the capital, they entirely abandoned the pretense that Augustus had advised his successors to maintain. In both legislative and executive actions, the sovereign consulted with his ministers instead of the leading council of the nation. The name of the senate was honored until the final days of the empire; the vanity of its members was still stroked with honorary titles; but the assembly that had long been the source and instrument of power was quietly allowed to fade into obscurity. The senate of Rome, losing all ties with the Imperial court and the existing system, became a respected but useless relic of the past on the Capitoline hill.





Chapter XIII: Reign Of Diocletian And His Three Associates.—Part IV.

When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which it had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; and if they still distinguished their high station by the appellation of Emperor, or Imperator, that word was understood in a new and more dignified sense, and no longer denoted the general of the Roman armies, but the sovereign of the Roman world. The name of Emperor, which was at first of a military nature, was associated with another of a more servile kind. The epithet of Dominus, or Lord, in its primitive signification, was expressive not of the authority of a prince over his subjects, or of a commander over his soldiers, but of the despotic power of a master over his domestic slaves. Viewing it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence by the first Cæsars. Their resistance insensibly became more feeble, and the name less odious; till at length the style of our Lord and Emperor was not only bestowed by flattery, but was regularly admitted into the laws and public monuments. Such lofty epithets were sufficient to elate and satisfy the most excessive vanity; and if the successors of Diocletian still declined the title of King, it seems to have been the effect not so much of their moderation as of their delicacy. Wherever the Latin tongue was in use, (and it was the language of government throughout the empire,) the Imperial title, as it was peculiar to themselves, conveyed a more respectable idea than the name of king, which they must have shared with a hundred barbarian chieftains; or which, at the best, they could derive only from Romulus, or from Tarquin. But the sentiments of the East were very different from those of the West. From the earliest period of history, the sovereigns of Asia had been celebrated in the Greek language by the title of Basileus, or King; and since it was considered as the first distinction among men, it was soon employed by the servile provincials of the East, in their humble addresses to the Roman throne. Even the attributes, or at least the titles, of the Divinity, were usurped by Diocletian and Maximian, who transmitted them to a succession of Christian emperors. Such extravagant compliments, however, soon lose their impiety by losing their meaning; and when the ear is once accustomed to the sound, they are heard with indifference, as vague though excessive professions of respect.

When the Roman leaders had lost touch with the senate and their ancient capital, they quickly forgot the origins and nature of their legal power. The civil roles of consul, proconsul, censor, and tribune, which had formed the basis of their authority, revealed their republican roots to the people. Those humble titles were discarded; and if they still referred to their high position as Emperor or Imperator, that term was taken to mean something new and more prestigious, no longer just the general of the Roman armies but the ruler of the Roman world. The title of Emperor, initially military in nature, became linked with a more servile term. The title Dominus, or Lord, in its original meaning, expressed not the authority of a prince over his subjects or a commander over his soldiers, but the absolute power of a master over his domestic slaves. Seeing it in that negative light, it was initially rejected by the first Caesars with disgust. Their resistance gradually weakened, and the title became less objectionable; eventually, the style of our Lord and Emperor was not only given out of flattery but was formally incorporated into the laws and public monuments. Such grand titles were enough to uplift and satisfy the most excessive pride; and although the successors of Diocletian still avoided the title of King, it seems this was more due to their sensitivity than their moderation. Wherever Latin was spoken (which was the language of administration throughout the empire), the Imperial title, unique to themselves, suggested a more respectable notion than the title of king, which they would have had to share with many barbarian chiefs or, at best, could trace back only to Romulus or Tarquin. However, the views of the East were quite different from those of the West. From ancient times, the rulers of Asia had been recognized in Greek as Basileus, or King; and since it was seen as the highest distinction among men, it quickly began to be used by the subservient provincials of the East in their humble appeals to the Roman throne. Even the attributes or at least the titles of Divinity were claimed by Diocletian and Maximian, who passed them on to a line of Christian emperors. These extravagant accolades, however, soon lose their irreverence by becoming meaningless; and once the ear grows accustomed to the sound, they are received with indifference, as vague yet excessive expressions of respect.

From the time of Augustus to that of Diocletian, the Roman princes, conversing in a familiar manner among their fellow-citizens, were saluted only with the same respect that was usually paid to senators and magistrates. Their principal distinction was the Imperial or military robe of purple; whilst the senatorial garment was marked by a broad, and the equestrian by a narrow, band or stripe of the same honorable color. The pride, or rather the policy, of Diocletian engaged that artful prince to introduce the stately magnificence of the court of Persia. He ventured to assume the diadem, an ornament detested by the Romans as the odious ensign of royalty, and the use of which had been considered as the most desperate act of the madness of Caligula. It was no more than a broad white fillet set with pearls, which encircled the emperor’s head. The sumptuous robes of Diocletian and his successors were of silk and gold; and it is remarked with indignation that even their shoes were studded with the most precious gems. The access to their sacred person was every day rendered more difficult by the institution of new forms and ceremonies. The avenues of the palace were strictly guarded by the various schools, as they began to be called, of domestic officers. The interior apartments were intrusted to the jealous vigilance of the eunuchs, the increase of whose numbers and influence was the most infallible symptom of the progress of despotism. When a subject was at length admitted to the Imperial presence, he was obliged, whatever might be his rank, to fall prostrate on the ground, and to adore, according to the eastern fashion, the divinity of his lord and master. Diocletian was a man of sense, who, in the course of private as well as public life, had formed a just estimate both of himself and of mankind; nor is it easy to conceive that in substituting the manners of Persia to those of Rome he was seriously actuated by so mean a principle as that of vanity. He flattered himself that an ostentation of splendor and luxury would subdue the imagination of the multitude; that the monarch would be less exposed to the rude license of the people and the soldiers, as his person was secluded from the public view; and that habits of submission would insensibly be productive of sentiments of veneration. Like the modesty affected by Augustus, the state maintained by Diocletian was a theatrical representation; but it must be confessed, that of the two comedies, the former was of a much more liberal and manly character than the latter. It was the aim of the one to disguise, and the object of the other to display, the unbounded power which the emperors possessed over the Roman world.

From the time of Augustus to Diocletian, Roman leaders interacted casually with their fellow citizens and were treated with the same respect usually shown to senators and magistrates. Their main distinction was the Imperial or military purple robe; meanwhile, senators wore a robe marked by a broad stripe and equestrians wore a robe with a narrow stripe of the same prestigious color. Diocletian, motivated by pride or perhaps strategy, introduced the grand lifestyle of the Persian court. He went so far as to wear a diadem, an ornament hated by the Romans as a symbol of royalty, and which was viewed as a sign of Caligula's madness. It was simply a wide white headband adorned with pearls. The luxurious robes of Diocletian and his successors were made of silk and gold, and it was noted with anger that even their shoes were adorned with the most precious gems. Access to their sacred person became increasingly restricted due to new forms and ceremonies. The palace entrances were heavily guarded by various groups of domestic officials. The inner chambers were watched closely by the eunuchs, whose growing numbers and influence were clear signs of rising despotism. When a subject was finally granted an audience with the emperor, he was required, regardless of his status, to fall prostrate and worship, in the eastern tradition, the divinity of his lord. Diocletian was sensible and had a realistic view of himself and others in both private and public life; it’s hard to believe that by adopting Persian customs over Roman ones he was simply being vain. He believed that showing off luxury and grandeur would impress the masses, making him less vulnerable to the reckless behavior of the people and soldiers, as he would be hidden from public sight; and that practices of submission would gradually foster respect. Like the modesty pretended by Augustus, Diocletian's state was a theatrical performance; however, it must be said that of the two, the former was a far more generous and genuine portrayal than the latter. One aimed to disguise, while the other aimed to display, the absolute power the emperors held over the Roman Empire.

Ostentation was the first principle of the new system instituted by Diocletian. The second was division. He divided the empire, the provinces, and every branch of the civil as well as military administration. He multiplied the wheels of the machine of government, and rendered its operations less rapid, but more secure. Whatever advantages and whatever defects might attend these innovations, they must be ascribed in a very great degree to the first inventor; but as the new frame of policy was gradually improved and completed by succeeding princes, it will be more satisfactory to delay the consideration of it till the season of its full maturity and perfection. Reserving, therefore, for the reign of Constantine a more exact picture of the new empire, we shall content ourselves with describing the principal and decisive outline, as it was traced by the hand of Diocletian. He had associated three colleagues in the exercise of the supreme power; and as he was convinced that the abilities of a single man were inadequate to the public defence, he considered the joint administration of four princes not as a temporary expedient, but as a fundamental law of the constitution. It was his intention that the two elder princes should be distinguished by the use of the diadem, and the title of Augusti; that, as affection or esteem might direct their choice, they should regularly call to their assistance two subordinate colleagues; and that the Cæsars, rising in their turn to the first rank, should supply an uninterrupted succession of emperors. The empire was divided into four parts. The East and Italy were the most honorable, the Danube and the Rhine the most laborious stations. The former claimed the presence of the Augusti, the latter were intrusted to the administration of the Cæsars. The strength of the legions was in the hands of the four partners of sovereignty, and the despair of successively vanquishing four formidable rivals might intimidate the ambition of an aspiring general. In their civil government the emperors were supposed to exercise the undivided power of the monarch, and their edicts, inscribed with their joint names, were received in all the provinces, as promulgated by their mutual councils and authority. Notwithstanding these precautions, the political union of the Roman world was gradually dissolved, and a principle of division was introduced, which, in the course of a few years, occasioned the perpetual separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

Ostentation was the first principle of the new system established by Diocletian. The second was division. He divided the empire, the provinces, and every aspect of both civil and military administration. He increased the complexities of the government but made its operations more secure, even if slower. Any benefits or drawbacks of these changes can largely be attributed to him, but since the new policy framework was gradually refined and perfected by subsequent rulers, it makes sense to save a detailed discussion for the time of its full development under Constantine. Therefore, we'll stick to outlining the main features as they were laid out by Diocletian. He appointed three colleagues to share the supreme power, believing that no single person could adequately defend the public interest. He saw the joint rule of four leaders not as a temporary solution, but as a fundamental part of governance. He planned for the two senior leaders to wear the diadem and hold the title of Augusti; based on mutual respect or affection, they would regularly enlist two junior colleagues; and as the Cæsars advanced to the top rank, they would ensure a continuous succession of emperors. The empire was split into four regions. The East and Italy were the most prestigious, while the Danube and the Rhine held the toughest assignments. The first regions required the presence of the Augusti, while the latter were overseen by the Cæsars. The legions’ strength was in the hands of the four sovereign partners, and the difficulty of defeating four strong rivals would likely deter any ambitious general. In terms of civil governance, the emperors were expected to wield the full power of a monarch, and their decrees, bearing their joint names, were recognized across all provinces as issued by their united councils and authority. Despite these measures, the political unity of the Roman world slowly fell apart, introducing a principle of division that ultimately led to the permanent separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

The system of Diocletian was accompanied with another very material disadvantage, which cannot even at present be totally overlooked; a more expensive establishment, and consequently an increase of taxes, and the oppression of the people. Instead of a modest family of slaves and freedmen, such as had contented the simple greatness of Augustus and Trajan, three or four magnificent courts were established in the various parts of the empire, and as many Roman kings contended with each other and with the Persian monarch for the vain superiority of pomp and luxury. The number of ministers, of magistrates, of officers, and of servants, who filled the different departments of the state, was multiplied beyond the example of former times; and (if we may borrow the warm expression of a contemporary) “when the proportion of those who received exceeded the proportion of those who contributed, the provinces were oppressed by the weight of tributes.” From this period to the extinction of the empire, it would be easy to deduce an uninterrupted series of clamors and complaints. According to his religion and situation, each writer chooses either Diocletian, or Constantine, or Valens, or Theodosius, for the object of his invectives; but they unanimously agree in representing the burden of the public impositions, and particularly the land tax and capitation, as the intolerable and increasing grievance of their own times. From such a concurrence, an impartial historian, who is obliged to extract truth from satire, as well as from panegyric, will be inclined to divide the blame among the princes whom they accuse, and to ascribe their exactions much less to their personal vices, than to the uniform system of their administration. * The emperor Diocletian was indeed the author of that system; but during his reign, the growing evil was confined within the bounds of modesty and discretion, and he deserves the reproach of establishing pernicious precedents, rather than of exercising actual oppression. It may be added, that his revenues were managed with prudent economy; and that after all the current expenses were discharged, there still remained in the Imperial treasury an ample provision either for judicious liberality or for any emergency of the state.

The Diocletian system had a significant drawback that can’t be totally ignored even today: it was more costly to maintain, leading to higher taxes and the oppression of the people. Instead of a modest household of slaves and freedmen, like those that satisfied the simple greatness of Augustus and Trajan, three or four lavish courts were set up across the empire, with several Roman kings vying with each other and the Persian ruler for ostentatious displays of wealth and luxury. The number of ministers, magistrates, officers, and servants across the state grew beyond anything seen before; and (to borrow the passionate words of a contemporary) "when those who received outnumbered those who contributed, the provinces were burdened by the heavy taxes." From this time until the fall of the empire, it would be easy to trace an unbroken string of outcries and grievances. Depending on their beliefs and circumstances, each writer targets either Diocletian, Constantine, Valens, or Theodosius with their criticisms, but they all agree on portraying the weight of public taxes, especially the land tax and head tax, as the unbearable and growing hardship of their times. An unbiased historian, who must find truth in both satire and praise, would likely spread the blame among the rulers they criticize, attributing their demands more to a consistent system of governance than to personal failings. Diocletian was indeed the architect of that system, but during his rule, the escalating issue remained within reasonable limits, and he deserves criticism for establishing harmful precedents rather than for enforcing direct oppression. It should also be noted that his revenues were handled with careful management; after covering all current expenses, there was still a considerable reserve in the Imperial treasury for wise generosity or any state emergencies.

It was in the twenty first year of his reign that Diocletian executed his memorable resolution of abdicating the empire; an action more naturally to have been expected from the elder or the younger Antoninus, than from a prince who had never practised the lessons of philosophy either in the attainment or in the use of supreme power. Diocletian acquired the glory of giving to the world the first example of a resignation, which has not been very frequently imitated by succeeding monarchs. The parallel of Charles the Fifth, however, will naturally offer itself to our mind, not only since the eloquence of a modern historian has rendered that name so familiar to an English reader, but from the very striking resemblance between the characters of the two emperors, whose political abilities were superior to their military genius, and whose specious virtues were much less the effect of nature than of art. The abdication of Charles appears to have been hastened by the vicissitudes of fortune; and the disappointment of his favorite schemes urged him to relinquish a power which he found inadequate to his ambition. But the reign of Diocletian had flowed with a tide of uninterrupted success; nor was it till after he had vanquished all his enemies, and accomplished all his designs, that he seems to have entertained any serious thoughts of resigning the empire. Neither Charles nor Diocletian were arrived at a very advanced period of life; since the one was only fifty-five, and the other was no more than fifty-nine years of age; but the active life of those princes, their wars and journeys, the cares of royalty, and their application to business, had already impaired their constitution, and brought on the infirmities of a premature old age.

It was in the twenty-first year of his reign that Diocletian made his notable decision to abdicate the empire; an action that one would more likely expect from the elder or the younger Antoninus than from a ruler who had never embraced the teachings of philosophy in gaining or using supreme power. Diocletian earned the distinction of being the first to resign, a move that hasn’t often been followed by later monarchs. However, the comparison with Charles the Fifth naturally comes to mind, not only because a modern historian has made that name well-known to English readers, but also due to the striking similarities between the characters of the two emperors, whose political skills surpassed their military prowess, and whose notable virtues were more a product of art than of nature. Charles's abdication seemed to be hastened by the ups and downs of fortune; the failure of his favored plans pushed him to abandon a power that he found insufficient for his ambitions. In contrast, Diocletian's reign had been marked by continuous success; it wasn’t until he had defeated all his enemies and achieved all his goals that he seemed to seriously consider resigning the empire. Neither Charles nor Diocletian were very old; Charles was just fifty-five, and Diocletian was only fifty-nine years old. However, the active lives of these leaders—filled with wars, travels, the burdens of royalty, and dedication to their duties—had already weakened their health and contributed to the ailments of an early old age.

Notwithstanding the severity of a very cold and rainy winter, Diocletian left Italy soon after the ceremony of his triumph, and began his progress towards the East round the circuit of the Illyrian provinces. From the inclemency of the weather, and the fatigue of the journey, he soon contracted a slow illness; and though he made easy marches, and was generally carried in a close litter, his disorder, before he arrived at Nicomedia, about the end of the summer, was become very serious and alarming. During the whole winter he was confined to his palace: his danger inspired a general and unaffected concern; but the people could only judge of the various alterations of his health, from the joy or consternation which they discovered in the countenances and behavior of his attendants. The rumor of his death was for some time universally believed, and it was supposed to be concealed with a view to prevent the troubles that might have happened during the absence of the Cæsar Galerius. At length, however, on the first of March, Diocletian once more appeared in public, but so pale and emaciated, that he could scarcely have been recognized by those to whom his person was the most familiar. It was time to put an end to the painful struggle, which he had sustained during more than a year, between the care of his health and that of his dignity. The former required indulgence and relaxation, the latter compelled him to direct, from the bed of sickness, the administration of a great empire. He resolved to pass the remainder of his days in honorable repose, to place his glory beyond the reach of fortune, and to relinquish the theatre of the world to his younger and more active associates.

Despite the harshness of a very cold and rainy winter, Diocletian left Italy shortly after his triumph ceremony and began his journey east, traveling through the Illyrian provinces. Due to the terrible weather and the exhaustion from the trip, he soon developed a lingering illness; and although he moved at a slow pace and was generally carried in a covered litter, his condition became quite serious and concerning before he reached Nicomedia by the end of summer. Throughout the winter, he was confined to his palace: his danger created a widespread and genuine worry, but the people could only gauge the changes in his health from the joy or panic they observed in the faces and actions of his attendants. For a time, rumors of his death were widely believed, thought to be kept secret to avoid unrest during the absence of Cæsar Galerius. Finally, on March 1st, Diocletian appeared in public again, but he looked so pale and frail that those who were most familiar with him could hardly recognize him. It was time to end the painful struggle he had endured for over a year, balancing the care of his health with the responsibilities of his position. His health needed rest and relaxation, while his role forced him to manage a vast empire from his sickbed. He decided to spend the rest of his days in dignified peace, securing his legacy from the whims of fate, and letting younger, more vigorous associates take over the stage of the world.

The ceremony of his abdication was performed in a spacious plain, about three miles from Nicomedia. The emperor ascended a lofty throne, and in a speech, full of reason and dignity, declared his intention, both to the people and to the soldiers who were assembled on this extraordinary occasion. As soon as he had divested himself of his purple, he withdrew from the gazing multitude; and traversing the city in a covered chariot, proceeded, without delay, to the favorite retirement which he had chosen in his native country of Dalmatia. On the same day, which was the first of May, Maximian, as it had been previously concerted, made his resignation of the Imperial dignity at Milan. Even in the splendor of the Roman triumph, Diocletian had meditated his design of abdicating the government. As he wished to secure the obedience of Maximian, he exacted from him either a general assurance that he would submit his actions to the authority of his benefactor, or a particular promise that he would descend from the throne, whenever he should receive the advice and the example. This engagement, though it was confirmed by the solemnity of an oath before the altar of the Capitoline Jupiter, would have proved a feeble restraint on the fierce temper of Maximian, whose passion was the love of power, and who neither desired present tranquility nor future reputation. But he yielded, however reluctantly, to the ascendant which his wiser colleague had acquired over him, and retired, immediately after his abdication, to a villa in Lucania, where it was almost impossible that such an impatient spirit could find any lasting tranquility.

The ceremony for his abdication took place in a large open area, about three miles from Nicomedia. The emperor climbed a tall throne and, in a speech that was both reasonable and dignified, announced his decision to both the crowd and the soldiers gathered for this special event. Once he had taken off his purple robe, he left the staring crowd and traveled through the city in a covered chariot, heading straight for the retreat he had chosen in his home country of Dalmatia. On the same day, May 1st, Maximian, as previously agreed, announced his resignation from the Imperial position in Milan. Even during the grand celebrations of the Roman triumph, Diocletian had contemplated his plan to abdicate. To ensure that Maximian would remain obedient, he required either a general assurance that Maximian would follow his lead or a specific promise to step down whenever he was advised to do so. This commitment, though backed by a solemn oath before the altar of Capitoline Jupiter, would have been a weak constraint on Maximian's fierce nature, driven by a love of power, who sought neither present peace nor future reputation. Yet, he reluctantly submitted to the influence of his wiser colleague and, right after his abdication, retreated to a villa in Lucania, where it was nearly impossible for such an impatient person to find any lasting peace.

Diocletian, who, from a servile origin, had raised himself to the throne, passed the nine last years of his life in a private condition. Reason had dictated, and content seems to have accompanied, his retreat, in which he enjoyed, for a long time, the respect of those princes to whom he had resigned the possession of the world. It is seldom that minds long exercised in business have formed any habits of conversing with themselves, and in the loss of power they principally regret the want of occupation. The amusements of letters and of devotion, which afford so many resources in solitude, were incapable of fixing the attention of Diocletian; but he had preserved, or at least he soon recovered, a taste for the most innocent as well as natural pleasures, and his leisure hours were sufficiently employed in building, planting, and gardening. His answer to Maximian is deservedly celebrated. He was solicited by that restless old man to reassume the reins of government, and the Imperial purple. He rejected the temptation with a smile of pity, calmly observing, that if he could show Maximian the cabbages which he had planted with his own hands at Salona, he should no longer be urged to relinquish the enjoyment of happiness for the pursuit of power. In his conversations with his friends, he frequently acknowledged, that of all arts, the most difficult was the art of reigning; and he expressed himself on that favorite topic with a degree of warmth which could be the result only of experience. “How often,” was he accustomed to say, “is it the interest of four or five ministers to combine together to deceive their sovereign! Secluded from mankind by his exalted dignity, the truth is concealed from his knowledge; he can see only with their eyes, he hears nothing but their misrepresentations. He confers the most important offices upon vice and weakness, and disgraces the most virtuous and deserving among his subjects. By such infamous arts,” added Diocletian, “the best and wisest princes are sold to the venal corruption of their courtiers.” A just estimate of greatness, and the assurance of immortal fame, improve our relish for the pleasures of retirement; but the Roman emperor had filled too important a character in the world, to enjoy without alloy the comforts and security of a private condition. It was impossible that he could remain ignorant of the troubles which afflicted the empire after his abdication. It was impossible that he could be indifferent to their consequences. Fear, sorrow, and discontent, sometimes pursued him into the solitude of Salona. His tenderness, or at least his pride, was deeply wounded by the misfortunes of his wife and daughter; and the last moments of Diocletian were imbittered by some affronts, which Licinius and Constantine might have spared the father of so many emperors, and the first author of their own fortune. A report, though of a very doubtful nature, has reached our times, that he prudently withdrew himself from their power by a voluntary death.

Diocletian, who came from humble beginnings and rose to the throne, spent the last nine years of his life in private life. It seems that reason guided his decision, and he found contentment in his retreat, where he earned the respect of the rulers he had handed over the world to. It's rare for people who have long been engaged in business to develop habits of self-reflection, and in losing power, they mainly miss having something to do. The distractions of reading and spirituality, which provide many ways to cope in solitude, couldn't hold Diocletian's attention; however, he maintained or quickly reclaimed an appreciation for simple and natural pleasures, spending his free time on building, planting, and gardening. His response to Maximian is rightly famous. That restless old man urged him to take back control of the government and the Imperial purple. Diocletian turned down the offer with a sympathetic smile, calmly remarking that if he could show Maximian the cabbages he had planted himself in Salona, he would no longer want him to give up his happiness for the chase of power. In conversations with friends, he often acknowledged that of all skills, ruling was the hardest, and he spoke on that beloved subject with a passion that could only come from experience. “How often,” he would say, “is it in the interest of four or five ministers to team up to deceive their sovereign! Cut off from the public by his high position, the truth is hidden from him; he can only see through their eyes and hears nothing but their twisted accounts. He gives important roles to the corrupt and weak, and dismisses the most virtuous and deserving among his subjects. Through these shameful tricks,” Diocletian added, “even the best and wisest rulers fall prey to the greed of their courtiers.” A proper understanding of greatness and the certainty of lasting fame enhance our appreciation for the joys of retirement, but the Roman emperor had played too significant a role in the world to fully enjoy the comforts and security of a private life. It was impossible for him to be unaware of the troubles that troubled the empire after he stepped down. It was also impossible for him to be indifferent to the fallout. Fear, sorrow, and disillusionment sometimes followed him into the solitude of Salona. His feelings, or at least his pride, were deeply hurt by the misfortunes of his wife and daughter; and Diocletian's final days were tarnished by some slights that Licinius and Constantine might have spared the father of so many emperors and the original architect of their own success. A story, though highly questionable, has come down to us that he wisely removed himself from their influence through voluntary death.

Before we dismiss the consideration of the life and character of Diocletian, we may, for a moment, direct our view to the place of his retirement. Salona, a principal city of his native province of Dalmatia, was near two hundred Roman miles (according to the measurement of the public highways) from Aquileia and the confines of Italy, and about two hundred and seventy from Sirmium, the usual residence of the emperors whenever they visited the Illyrian frontier. A miserable village still preserves the name of Salona; but so late as the sixteenth century, the remains of a theatre, and a confused prospect of broken arches and marble columns, continued to attest its ancient splendor. About six or seven miles from the city Diocletian constructed a magnificent palace, and we may infer, from the greatness of the work, how long he had meditated his design of abdicating the empire. The choice of a spot which united all that could contribute either to health or to luxury did not require the partiality of a native. “The soil was dry and fertile, the air is pure and wholesome, and, though extremely hot during the summer months, this country seldom feels those sultry and noxious winds to which the coasts of Istria and some parts of Italy are exposed. The views from the palace are no less beautiful than the soil and climate were inviting. Towards the west lies the fertile shore that stretches along the Adriatic, in which a number of small islands are scattered in such a manner as to give this part of the sea the appearance of a great lake. On the north side lies the bay, which led to the ancient city of Salona; and the country beyond it, appearing in sight, forms a proper contrast to that more extensive prospect of water, which the Adriatic presents both to the south and to the east. Towards the north, the view is terminated by high and irregular mountains, situated at a proper distance, and in many places covered with villages, woods, and vineyards.”

Before we move on from discussing the life and character of Diocletian, let's take a moment to look at where he chose to retire. Salona, a major city in his home province of Dalmatia, was about two hundred Roman miles (according to public road measurements) from Aquileia and the edge of Italy, and roughly two hundred seventy miles from Sirmium, the regular residence of emperors when they visited the Illyrian frontier. A poor village still bears the name of Salona; however, as recently as the sixteenth century, the remains of a theater and a chaotic view of broken arches and marble columns still reflected its ancient glory. About six or seven miles from the city, Diocletian built a magnificent palace, and we can guess from the scale of the project that he had been thinking about abdicating the empire for quite some time. The choice of a location that offered everything conducive to health and luxury didn't require a local's bias. “The soil was dry and fertile, the air is pure and healthy, and, although extremely hot in the summer, this area rarely experiences the stifling and harmful winds that plague the coasts of Istria and parts of Italy. The views from the palace are just as stunning as the soil and climate are appealing. To the west lies the lush coastline along the Adriatic, dotted with numerous small islands that make this section of the sea look like a great lake. To the north is the bay that leads to the ancient city of Salona; beyond it, the land offers a nice contrast to the wider expanse of water that the Adriatic shows both to the south and east. In the north, the view is framed by tall and uneven mountains, situated at a proper distance and often blanketed with villages, woods, and vineyards.”

Though Constantine, from a very obvious prejudice, affects to mention the palace of Diocletian with contempt, yet one of their successors, who could only see it in a neglected and mutilated state, celebrates its magnificence in terms of the highest admiration. It covered an extent of ground consisting of between nine and ten English acres. The form was quadrangular, flanked with sixteen towers. Two of the sides were near six hundred, and the other two near seven hundred feet in length. The whole was constructed of a beautiful freestone, extracted from the neighboring quarries of Trau, or Tragutium, and very little inferior to marble itself. Four streets, intersecting each other at right angles, divided the several parts of this great edifice, and the approach to the principal apartment was from a very stately entrance, which is still denominated the Golden Gate. The approach was terminated by a peristylium of granite columns, on one side of which we discover the square temple of Æsculapius, on the other the octagon temple of Jupiter. The latter of those deities Diocletian revered as the patron of his fortunes, the former as the protector of his health. By comparing the present remains with the precepts of Vitruvius, the several parts of the building, the baths, bedchamber, the atrium, the basilica, and the Cyzicene, Corinthian, and Egyptian halls have been described with some degree of precision, or at least of probability. Their forms were various, their proportions just; but they all were attended with two imperfections, very repugnant to our modern notions of taste and conveniency. These stately rooms had neither windows nor chimneys. They were lighted from the top, (for the building seems to have consisted of no more than one story,) and they received their heat by the help of pipes that were conveyed along the walls. The range of principal apartments was protected towards the south-west by a portico five hundred and seventeen feet long, which must have formed a very noble and delightful walk, when the beauties of painting and sculpture were added to those of the prospect.

Though Constantine, out of obvious bias, claims to regard the palace of Diocletian with disdain, one of their successors, who could only see it in a neglected and damaged state, praises its magnificence in the highest terms. It occupied an area of about nine to ten English acres. Its shape was rectangular, supported by sixteen towers. Two sides measured almost six hundred feet, while the other two were nearly seven hundred feet long. The entire structure was built from beautiful freestone, sourced from nearby quarries in Trau, or Tragutium, which was only slightly inferior to marble. Four streets, intersecting at right angles, divided the various parts of this grand building, and the entrance to the main apartment was through a very impressive entryway, still known as the Golden Gate. This entrance led to a peristylium lined with granite columns, with a square temple of Æsculapius on one side and an octagonal temple of Jupiter on the other. Diocletian revered the latter as the patron of his fortunes and the former as the guardian of his health. By comparing the current remains with Vitruvius's guidelines, the different parts of the building—the baths, the bedroom, the atrium, the basilica, and the Cyzicene, Corinthian, and Egyptian halls—have been characterized with some accuracy or at least likely possibilities. Their designs were varied and proportionate; however, they both had two shortcomings that are quite contrary to our modern sense of taste and convenience. These grand rooms lacked windows and chimneys. They were lit from above (as the building appears to have been only one story high) and were heated by pipes running along the walls. The main suite of rooms was sheltered to the southwest by a portico that measured five hundred and seventeen feet long, which must have created a truly splendid and enjoyable walkway when complemented by the beauty of painting and sculpture along with the scenic views.

Had this magnificent edifice remained in a solitary country, it would have been exposed to the ravages of time; but it might, perhaps, have escaped the rapacious industry of man. The village of Aspalathus, and, long afterwards, the provincial town of Spalatro, have grown out of its ruins. The Golden Gate now opens into the market-place. St. John the Baptist has usurped the honors of Æsculapius; and the temple of Jupiter, under the protection of the Virgin, is converted into the cathedral church. For this account of Diocletian’s palace we are principally indebted to an ingenious artist of our own time and country, whom a very liberal curiosity carried into the heart of Dalmatia. But there is room to suspect that the elegance of his designs and engraving has somewhat flattered the objects which it was their purpose to represent. We are informed by a more recent and very judicious traveller, that the awful ruins of Spalatro are not less expressive of the decline of the art than of the greatness of the Roman empire in the time of Diocletian. If such was indeed the state of architecture, we must naturally believe that painting and sculpture had experienced a still more sensible decay. The practice of architecture is directed by a few general and even mechanical rules. But sculpture, and, above all, painting, propose to themselves the imitation not only of the forms of nature, but of the characters and passions of the human soul. In those sublime arts the dexterity of the hand is of little avail, unless it is animated by fancy, and guided by the most correct taste and observation.

Had this magnificent building remained in an isolated area, it would have been at the mercy of time; but it might have avoided the greedy ambitions of humans. The village of Aspalathus, and later the town of Spalatro, emerged from its ruins. The Golden Gate now leads into the marketplace. St. John the Baptist has taken the place of Æsculapius; and the temple of Jupiter, under the protection of the Virgin, has been turned into the cathedral church. We owe this account of Diocletian’s palace mainly to an innovative artist from our own time and country, whose great curiosity led him to the heart of Dalmatia. However, one might suspect that the elegance of his designs and engravings somewhat flatter the subjects they aimed to depict. A more recent and discerning traveler informs us that the impressive ruins of Spalatro reflect not only the decline of art but also the greatness of the Roman Empire during Diocletian’s time. If that was indeed the state of architecture, we can reasonably assume that painting and sculpture had seen even greater decline. The practice of architecture follows a few general and somewhat mechanical rules. But sculpture, and especially painting, aims to imitate not just the forms of nature, but also the emotions and passions of the human soul. In these elevated arts, mere skill with the hands is of little use unless it is fueled by imagination and guided by the finest taste and observation.

It is almost unnecessary to remark, that the civil distractions of the empire, the license of the soldiers, the inroads of the barbarians, and the progress of despotism, had proved very unfavorable to genius, and even to learning. The succession of Illyrian princes restored the empire without restoring the sciences. Their military education was not calculated to inspire them with the love of letters; and even the mind of Diocletian, however active and capacious in business, was totally uninformed by study or speculation. The professions of law and physic are of such common use and certain profit that they will always secure a sufficient number of practitioners endowed with a reasonable degree of abilities and knowledge; but it does not appear that the students in those two faculties appeal to any celebrated masters who have flourished within that period. The voice of poetry was silent. History was reduced to dry and confused abridgments, alike destitute of amusement and instruction. A languid and affected eloquence was still retained in the pay and service of the emperors, who encouraged not any arts except those which contributed to the gratification of their pride, or the defence of their power.

It's almost unnecessary to point out that the civil unrest in the empire, the soldiers' lawlessness, the invasions by barbarians, and the rise of despotism had all been very detrimental to creativity and even to education. The succession of Illyrian emperors restored the empire but did not revive the sciences. Their military training didn't inspire a love for literature; even Diocletian, though active and capable in his duties, was completely uninformed by study or contemplation. The fields of law and medicine are so commonly practiced and reliably profitable that they will always attract a decent number of practitioners with a reasonable level of skills and knowledge. However, it seems that students in these areas did not turn to any renowned teachers who had thrived during that time. The world of poetry had gone quiet. History was left to dry and confusing summaries, lacking both entertainment and insight. A weak and affected style of rhetoric remained, still employed by the emperors, who only promoted arts that catered to their pride or defended their power.

The declining age of learning and of mankind is marked, however, by the rise and rapid progress of the new Platonists. The school of Alexandria silenced those of Athens; and the ancient sects enrolled themselves under the banners of the more fashionable teachers, who recommended their system by the novelty of their method, and the austerity of their manners. Several of these masters, Ammonius, Plotinus, Amelius, and Porphyry, were men of profound thought and intense application; but by mistaking the true object of philosophy, their labors contributed much less to improve than to corrupt the human understanding. The knowledge that is suited to our situation and powers, the whole compass of moral, natural, and mathematical science, was neglected by the new Platonists; whilst they exhausted their strength in the verbal disputes of metaphysics, attempted to explore the secrets of the invisible world, and studied to reconcile Aristotle with Plato, on subjects of which both these philosophers were as ignorant as the rest of mankind. Consuming their reason in these deep but unsubstantial meditations, their minds were exposed to illusions of fancy. They flattered themselves that they possessed the secret of disengaging the soul from its corporal prison; claimed a familiar intercourse with demons and spirits; and, by a very singular revolution, converted the study of philosophy into that of magic. The ancient sages had derided the popular superstition; after disguising its extravagance by the thin pretence of allegory, the disciples of Plotinus and Porphyry became its most zealous defenders. As they agreed with the Christians in a few mysterious points of faith, they attacked the remainder of their theological system with all the fury of civil war. The new Platonists would scarcely deserve a place in the history of science, but in that of the church the mention of them will very frequently occur.

The decreasing age of learning and humanity is notable, however, due to the emergence and rapid advancement of the new Platonists. The school of Alexandria overshadowed those of Athens; and the ancient sects aligned themselves with the more popular teachers, who promoted their system through the novelty of their approach and the strictness of their behavior. Some of these masters, like Ammonius, Plotinus, Amelius, and Porphyry, were deep thinkers and intensely dedicated; but by misunderstanding the true purpose of philosophy, their efforts ended up doing more harm than good to human understanding. The knowledge relevant to our circumstances and abilities, encompassing all of moral, natural, and mathematical sciences, was overlooked by the new Platonists. Instead, they spent their energy on the verbal debates of metaphysics, trying to uncover the mysteries of the unseen world, and trying to reconcile Aristotle with Plato on topics both philosophers were as clueless about as anyone else. By wasting their reasoning on these complex yet insubstantial thoughts, their minds became vulnerable to fanciful illusions. They convinced themselves they had the key to freeing the soul from its physical prison; claimed to have regular communication with demons and spirits; and through a remarkable turn of events, transformed the study of philosophy into a study of magic. While ancient sages mocked popular superstition, after masking its absurdities with a thin guise of allegory, the followers of Plotinus and Porphyry became its most fervent supporters. Since they shared a few mysterious beliefs with Christians, they attacked the rest of their theological system with the fervor of a civil war. The new Platonists might not warrant a significant mention in the history of science, but they will frequently come up in discussions about the church.





Chapter XIV: Six Emperors At The Same Time, Reunion Of The Empire.—Part I.

Troubles After The Abdication Of Diocletian.—Death Of
Constantius.—Elevation Of Constantine And Maxentius. ­
Six Emperors At The Same Time.—Death Of Maximian And Galerius.—
Victories Of Constantine Over Maxentius And Licinus.—
Reunion Of The Empire Under The Authority Of Constantine.
Troubles After the Abdication of Diocletian.—Death of Constantius.—Rise of Constantine and Maxentius. —Six Emperors at the Same Time.—Death of Maximian and Galerius.—Victories of Constantine over Maxentius and Licinius.—Reunion of the Empire Under the Authority of Constantine.

The balance of power established by Diocletian subsisted no longer than while it was sustained by the firm and dexterous hand of the founder. It required such a fortunate mixture of different tempers and abilities as could scarcely be found or even expected a second time; two emperors without jealousy, two Cæsars without ambition, and the same general interest invariably pursued by four independent princes. The abdication of Diocletian and Maximian was succeeded by eighteen years of discord and confusion. The empire was afflicted by five civil wars; and the remainder of the time was not so much a state of tranquillity as a suspension of arms between several hostile monarchs, who, viewing each other with an eye of fear and hatred, strove to increase their respective forces at the expense of their subjects.

The balance of power established by Diocletian lasted only as long as it was upheld by the strong and skilled hand of its founder. It needed such a rare combination of different personalities and abilities that it was hardly likely to be found again; two emperors without jealousy, two Cæsars without ambition, and the same common interest consistently pursued by four independent rulers. Diocletian and Maximian's resignation led to eighteen years of conflict and chaos. The empire experienced five civil wars, and the rest of the time wasn’t really peaceful but rather a pause in hostilities among several rival monarchs, who, filled with fear and hatred for one another, tried to build their own power at the expense of their subjects.

As soon as Diocletian and Maximian had resigned the purple, their station, according to the rules of the new constitution, was filled by the two Cæsars, Constantius and Galerius, who immediately assumed the title of Augustus.

As soon as Diocletian and Maximian stepped down from power, their positions, following the rules of the new constitution, were taken over by the two Caesars, Constantius and Galerius, who immediately took the title of Augustus.

The honors of seniority and precedence were allowed to the former of those princes, and he continued under a new appellation to administer his ancient department of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. The government of those ample provinces was sufficient to exercise his talents and to satisfy his ambition. Clemency, temperance, and moderation, distinguished the amiable character of Constantius, and his fortunate subjects had frequently occasion to compare the virtues of their sovereign with the passions of Maximian, and even with the arts of Diocletian. Instead of imitating their eastern pride and magnificence, Constantius preserved the modesty of a Roman prince. He declared, with unaffected sincerity, that his most valued treasure was in the hearts of his people, and that, whenever the dignity of the throne, or the danger of the state, required any extraordinary supply, he could depend with confidence on their gratitude and liberality. The provincials of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, sensible of his worth, and of their own happiness, reflected with anxiety on the declining health of the emperor Constantius, and the tender age of his numerous family, the issue of his second marriage with the daughter of Maximian.

The honors of seniority and precedence were given to the first of those princes, and he continued under a new title to manage his old territories of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. The administration of these large provinces was enough to showcase his skills and fulfill his ambitions. Kindness, self-control, and moderation defined the likable character of Constantius, and his fortunate subjects often had the opportunity to compare their ruler's virtues with the impulsiveness of Maximian and even the cleverness of Diocletian. Instead of copying their eastern extravagance and grandeur, Constantius maintained the modesty of a Roman prince. He stated, with genuine honesty, that his most cherished treasure was in the hearts of his people, and that whenever the dignity of the throne or the safety of the state required any extraordinary support, he could confidently rely on their gratitude and generosity. The people of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, aware of his value and their own happiness, anxiously thought about the declining health of Emperor Constantius and the young age of his many children from his second marriage to Maximian's daughter.

The stern temper of Galerius was cast in a very different mould; and while he commanded the esteem of his subjects, he seldom condescended to solicit their affections. His fame in arms, and, above all, the success of the Persian war, had elated his haughty mind, which was naturally impatient of a superior, or even of an equal. If it were possible to rely on the partial testimony of an injudicious writer, we might ascribe the abdication of Diocletian to the menaces of Galerius, and relate the particulars of a private conversation between the two princes, in which the former discovered as much pusillanimity as the latter displayed ingratitude and arrogance. But these obscure anecdotes are sufficiently refuted by an impartial view of the character and conduct of Diocletian. Whatever might otherwise have been his intentions, if he had apprehended any danger from the violence of Galerius, his good sense would have instructed him to prevent the ignominious contest; and as he had held the sceptre with glory, he would have resigned it without disgrace.

The stern nature of Galerius was very different; while he earned the respect of his subjects, he rarely bothered to seek their affection. His military reputation, especially after the success in the Persian war, boosted his proud attitude, which naturally disliked anyone being superior or even equal to him. If we could trust the biased accounts of an unwise writer, we might attribute Diocletian's abdication to Galerius's threats and recount a private conversation between the two rulers, where Diocletian showed as much cowardice as Galerius did ingratitude and arrogance. However, these obscure stories are sufficiently contradicted by an unbiased examination of Diocletian's character and actions. Regardless of his actual intentions, if he sensed any threat from Galerius's aggression, his intelligence would have urged him to avoid an embarrassing conflict; and since he had ruled with honor, he would have stepped down without shame.

After the elevation of Constantius and Galerius to the rank of Augusti, two new Cæsars were required to supply their place, and to complete the system of the Imperial government. Diocletian was sincerely desirous of withdrawing himself from the world; he considered Galerius, who had married his daughter, as the firmest support of his family and of the empire; and he consented, without reluctance, that his successor should assume the merit as well as the envy of the important nomination. It was fixed without consulting the interest or inclination of the princes of the West. Each of them had a son who was arrived at the age of manhood, and who might have been deemed the most natural candidates for the vacant honor. But the impotent resentment of Maximian was no longer to be dreaded; and the moderate Constantius, though he might despise the dangers, was humanely apprehensive of the calamities, of civil war. The two persons whom Galerius promoted to the rank of Cæsar were much better suited to serve the views of his ambition; and their principal recommendation seems to have consisted in the want of merit or personal consequence. The first of these was Daza, or, as he was afterwards called, Maximin, whose mother was the sister of Galerius. The unexperienced youth still betrayed, by his manners and language, his rustic education, when, to his own astonishment, as well as that of the world, he was invested by Diocletian with the purple, exalted to the dignity of Cæsar, and intrusted with the sovereign command of Egypt and Syria. At the same time, Severus, a faithful servant, addicted to pleasure, but not incapable of business, was sent to Milan, to receive, from the reluctant hands of Maximian, the Cæsarian ornaments, and the possession of Italy and Africa. According to the forms of the constitution, Severus acknowledged the supremacy of the western emperor; but he was absolutely devoted to the commands of his benefactor Galerius, who, reserving to himself the intermediate countries from the confines of Italy to those of Syria, firmly established his power over three fourths of the monarchy. In the full confidence that the approaching death of Constantius would leave him sole master of the Roman world, we are assured that he had arranged in his mind a long succession of future princes, and that he meditated his own retreat from public life, after he should have accomplished a glorious reign of about twenty years.

After Constantius and Galerius were promoted to the rank of Augusti, two new Cæsars were needed to fill their positions and complete the Imperial government structure. Diocletian genuinely wanted to withdraw from public life; he saw Galerius, who had married his daughter, as the strongest support for his family and the empire. He agreed, without hesitation, that his successor should take on the recognition as well as the jealousy of this significant appointment. This decision was made without considering the interests or preferences of the Western princes. Each of them had a son who had come of age and could have been seen as the most obvious candidates for the honor. However, Maximian's weak resentment was no longer a concern, and although the moderate Constantius might have disregarded the risks, he was humanely worried about the disasters of civil war. The two individuals Galerius promoted to the rank of Cæsar were much better suited to serve his ambitions, and their main qualification seemed to be their lack of merit or personal significance. The first was Daza, later known as Maximin, whose mother was Galerius’s sister. The inexperienced young man still showed his rural upbringing in his behavior and speech when, to his own surprise and that of the world, he was given the purple by Diocletian, raised to the position of Cæsar, and entrusted with the ultimate command of Egypt and Syria. At the same time, Severus, a loyal worker who enjoyed pleasure but was capable in his duties, was sent to Milan to receive, from Maximian’s unwilling hands, the Cæsarian insignia and the control of Italy and Africa. Following the constitution's procedures, Severus acknowledged the authority of the Western emperor, but he was completely devoted to the commands of his benefactor Galerius, who retained control over the regions from the edges of Italy to those of Syria, firmly establishing his power over three-fourths of the empire. Confident that Constantius's impending death would leave him in complete control of the Roman world, it is said that he had envisioned a long line of future rulers and planned his own withdrawal from public life after having achieved a glorious reign of around twenty years.

But within less than eighteen months, two unexpected revolutions overturned the ambitious schemes of Galerius. The hopes of uniting the western provinces to his empire were disappointed by the elevation of Constantine, whilst Italy and Africa were lost by the successful revolt of Maxentius.

But in less than eighteen months, two unexpected revolutions upended Galerius's ambitious plans. His dreams of unifying the western provinces with his empire were crushed by Constantine’s rise to power, while Italy and Africa were lost due to Maxentius's successful revolt.

I. The fame of Constantine has rendered posterity attentive to the most minute circumstances of his life and actions. The place of his birth, as well as the condition of his mother Helena, have been the subject, not only of literary, but of national disputes. Notwithstanding the recent tradition, which assigns for her father a British king, we are obliged to confess, that Helena was the daughter of an innkeeper; but at the same time, we may defend the legality of her marriage, against those who have represented her as the concubine of Constantius. The great Constantine was most probably born at Naissus, in Dacia; and it is not surprising that, in a family and province distinguished only by the profession of arms, the youth should discover very little inclination to improve his mind by the acquisition of knowledge. He was about eighteen years of age when his father was promoted to the rank of Cæsar; but that fortunate event was attended with his mother’s divorce; and the splendor of an Imperial alliance reduced the son of Helena to a state of disgrace and humiliation. Instead of following Constantius in the West, he remained in the service of Diocletian, signalized his valor in the wars of Egypt and Persia, and gradually rose to the honorable station of a tribune of the first order. The figure of Constantine was tall and majestic; he was dexterous in all his exercises, intrepid in war, affable in peace; in his whole conduct, the active spirit of youth was tempered by habitual prudence; and while his mind was engrossed by ambition, he appeared cold and insensible to the allurements of pleasure. The favor of the people and soldiers, who had named him as a worthy candidate for the rank of Cæsar, served only to exasperate the jealousy of Galerius; and though prudence might restrain him from exercising any open violence, an absolute monarch is seldom at a loss how to execute a sure and secret evenge. Every hour increased the danger of Constantine, and the anxiety of his father, who, by repeated letters, expressed the warmest desire of embracing his son. For some time the policy of Galerius supplied him with delays and excuses; but it was impossible long to refuse so natural a request of his associate, without maintaining his refusal by arms. The permission of the journey was reluctantly granted, and whatever precautions the emperor might have taken to intercept a return, the consequences of which he, with so much reason, apprehended, they were effectually disappointed by the incredible diligence of Constantine. Leaving the palace of Nicomedia in the night, he travelled post through Bithynia, Thrace, Dacia, Pannonia, Italy, and Gaul, and, amidst the joyful acclamations of the people, reached the port of Boulogne in the very moment when his father was preparing to embark for Britain.

I. The fame of Constantine has made future generations pay close attention to the smallest details of his life and actions. The location of his birth and the status of his mother Helena have sparked not only literary debates but also national disputes. Despite recent claims suggesting her father was a British king, we must admit that Helena was the daughter of an innkeeper; however, we can still argue that her marriage was legitimate against those who claim she was just Constantius’s mistress. Constantine was most likely born in Naissus, in Dacia; it's not surprising that, coming from a family and region known mainly for military service, he showed little interest in furthering his education. He was about eighteen when his father became a Cæsar, but this fortunate event also led to his mother’s divorce, and the glory of an imperial alliance left Helena’s son in a state of disgrace and humiliation. Instead of following Constantius to the West, he stayed in Diocletian’s service, distinguished himself in the wars of Egypt and Persia, and gradually rose to the respectable position of a tribune of the first order. Constantine was tall and impressive, skilled in all his activities, fearless in battle, and friendly in peacetime; his youthful energy was combined with steady prudence, and while his ambition consumed him, he seemed indifferent to the tempting pleasures of life. The support of the people and soldiers, who had named him a worthy candidate for the role of Cæsar, only fueled Galerius's jealousy; and while he may have held back from open acts of violence, an absolute monarch rarely struggles to execute a secret revenge. With every passing hour, Constantine's danger increased, along with his father’s anxiety, who expressed in numerous letters his strong desire to see his son. For a while, Galerius’s strategies provided him with delays and excuses; but it soon became impossible to deny such a natural request from his associate without backing it up with force. Eventually, the emperor reluctantly allowed the journey, and despite whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent a return—consequences he had good reason to fear—he was effectively thwarted by Constantine’s remarkable diligence. Leaving the palace of Nicomedia at night, he hurried through Bithynia, Thrace, Dacia, Pannonia, Italy, and Gaul, and, amid the joyful cheers of the people, arrived at the port of Boulogne just as his father was getting ready to set sail for Britain.

The British expedition, and an easy victory over the barbarians of Caledonia, were the last exploits of the reign of Constantius. He ended his life in the Imperial palace of York, fifteen months after he had received the title of Augustus, and almost fourteen years and a half after he had been promoted to the rank of Cæsar. His death was immediately succeeded by the elevation of Constantine. The ideas of inheritance and succession are so very familiar, that the generality of mankind consider them as founded not only in reason but in nature itself. Our imagination readily transfers the same principles from private property to public dominion: and whenever a virtuous father leaves behind him a son whose merit seems to justify the esteem, or even the hopes, of the people, the joint influence of prejudice and of affection operates with irresistible weight. The flower of the western armies had followed Constantius into Britain, and the national troops were reënforced by a numerous body of Alemanni, who obeyed the orders of Crocus, one of their hereditary chieftains. The opinion of their own importance, and the assurance that Britain, Gaul, and Spain would acquiesce in their nomination, were diligently inculcated to the legions by the adherents of Constantine. The soldiers were asked, whether they could hesitate a moment between the honor of placing at their head the worthy son of their beloved emperor, and the ignominy of tamely expecting the arrival of some obscure stranger, on whom it might please the sovereign of Asia to bestow the armies and provinces of the West. It was insinuated to them, that gratitude and liberality held a distinguished place among the virtues of Constantine; nor did that artful prince show himself to the troops, till they were prepared to salute him with the names of Augustus and Emperor. The throne was the object of his desires; and had he been less actuated by ambition, it was his only means of safety. He was well acquainted with the character and sentiments of Galerius, and sufficiently apprised, that if he wished to live he must determine to reign. The decent and even obstinate resistance which he chose to affect, was contrived to justify his usurpation; nor did he yield to the acclamations of the army, till he had provided the proper materials for a letter, which he immediately despatched to the emperor of the East. Constantine informed him of the melancholy event of his father’s death, modestly asserted his natural claim to the succession, and respectfully lamented, that the affectionate violence of his troops had not permitted him to solicit the Imperial purple in the regular and constitutional manner. The first emotions of Galerius were those of surprise, disappointment, and rage; and as he could seldom restrain his passions, he loudly threatened, that he would commit to the flames both the letter and the messenger. But his resentment insensibly subsided; and when he recollected the doubtful chance of war, when he had weighed the character and strength of his adversary, he consented to embrace the honorable accommodation which the prudence of Constantine had left open to him. Without either condemning or ratifying the choice of the British army, Galerius accepted the son of his deceased colleague as the sovereign of the provinces beyond the Alps; but he gave him only the title of Cæsar, and the fourth rank among the Roman princes, whilst he conferred the vacant place of Augustus on his favorite Severus. The apparent harmony of the empire was still preserved, and Constantine, who already possessed the substance, expected, without impatience, an opportunity of obtaining the honors, of supreme power.

The British expedition and an easy victory over the barbarians of Caledonia were the final achievements during Constantius’s reign. He died in the Imperial palace of York fifteen months after being named Augustus and almost fourteen years and a half after being promoted to Cæsar. His death quickly led to the rise of Constantine. The concepts of inheritance and succession are so well-known that most people believe they are based not just on reason but on the very nature of things. We easily apply the same principles from private property to public authority: whenever a virtuous father leaves behind a son whose merit seems to deserve respect—or even hopes—from people, the combined influence of tradition and affection carries a powerful weight. The best of the western armies had followed Constantius into Britain, and the national troops were reinforced by a large group of Alemanni, who followed their hereditary chief, Crocus. The soldiers were actively convinced by Constantine’s supporters that their importance mattered and that Britain, Gaul, and Spain would accept their choice for leadership. They were asked whether they could even consider the dishonor of waiting for an unknown stranger to arrive, someone whom the ruler of Asia might assign to lead the armies and provinces of the West, rather than honoring the worthy son of their beloved emperor. They were subtly reminded that gratitude and generosity were key virtues of Constantine; and that clever prince didn’t reveal himself to the troops until they were ready to salute him with titles of Augustus and Emperor. His ambition was to claim the throne, and it was also his only means of ensuring his safety, had he been less driven by desire. He knew Galerius’s character and feelings well enough to understand that if he wanted to survive, he had to decide to rule. The composed yet stubborn resistance he chose to display was meant to justify his usurpation; he didn’t yield to the army’s cheers until he had arranged to send a letter immediately to the eastern emperor. In this letter, Constantine told Galerius about the sad news of his father’s death, humbly declared his natural claim to succeed him, and expressed his regret that the enthusiastic support of his troops had not allowed him to seek the Imperial purple through the usual and rightful process. Galerius’s first reactions were surprise, disappointment, and anger; he often struggled to contain his emotions and loudly threatened to burn both the letter and the messenger. But his anger slowly faded; when he considered the uncertain outcomes of war and weighed the qualities and strength of his rival, he reluctantly agreed to accept the honorable deal that Constantine’s wisdom had left open. Without either condemning or approving the British army's choice, Galerius accepted the son of his deceased colleague as the ruler of the provinces beyond the Alps; however, he gave him only the title of Cæsar and placed him fourth among the Roman princes while appointing his favored Severus to the vacant Augustus position. The apparent order of the empire was maintained, and Constantine, who had already grasped the substance of power, waited patiently for a chance to secure the honors of supreme authority.

The children of Constantius by his second marriage were six in number, three of either sex, and whose Imperial descent might have solicited a preference over the meaner extraction of the son of Helena. But Constantine was in the thirty-second year of his age, in the full vigor both of mind and body, at the time when the eldest of his brothers could not possibly be more than thirteen years old. His claim of superior merit had been allowed and ratified by the dying emperor. In his last moments Constantius bequeathed to his eldest son the care of the safety as well as greatness of the family; conjuring him to assume both the authority and the sentiments of a father with regard to the children of Theodora. Their liberal education, advantageous marriages, the secure dignity of their lives, and the first honors of the state with which they were invested, attest the fraternal affection of Constantine; and as those princes possessed a mild and grateful disposition, they submitted without reluctance to the superiority of his genius and fortune.

The children of Constantius from his second marriage numbered six, three of each gender, whose Imperial lineage might have favored them over the lesser background of Helena's son. However, Constantine was only thirty-two years old, in the prime of his mental and physical abilities, while the oldest of his brothers was at most thirteen. His claim to greater merit had been recognized and confirmed by the dying emperor. In his final moments, Constantius entrusted his oldest son with the responsibility for the family's safety and success, urging him to take on both the authority and the role of a father towards Theodora's children. Their well-rounded education, advantageous marriages, secure lifestyles, and the top honors they received all reflect Constantine's brotherly love. These princes had gentle and appreciative natures, so they accepted his superior talent and fortune without any resistance.

II. The ambitious spirit of Galerius was scarcely reconciled to the disappointment of his views upon the Gallic provinces, before the unexpected loss of Italy wounded his pride as well as power in a still more sensible part. The long absence of the emperors had filled Rome with discontent and indignation; and the people gradually discovered, that the preference given to Nicomedia and Milan was not to be ascribed to the particular inclination of Diocletian, but to the permanent form of government which he had instituted. It was in vain that, a few months after his abdication, his successors dedicated, under his name, those magnificent baths, whose ruins still supply the ground as well as the materials for so many churches and convents. The tranquility of those elegant recesses of ease and luxury was disturbed by the impatient murmurs of the Romans, and a report was insensibly circulated, that the sums expended in erecting those buildings would soon be required at their hands. About that time the avarice of Galerius, or perhaps the exigencies of the state, had induced him to make a very strict and rigorous inquisition into the property of his subjects, for the purpose of a general taxation, both on their lands and on their persons. A very minute survey appears to have been taken of their real estates; and wherever there was the slightest suspicion of concealment, torture was very freely employed to obtain a sincere declaration of their personal wealth. The privileges which had exalted Italy above the rank of the provinces were no longer regarded: * and the officers of the revenue already began to number the Roman people, and to settle the proportion of the new taxes. Even when the spirit of freedom had been utterly extinguished, the tamest subjects have sometimes ventured to resist an unprecedented invasion of their property; but on this occasion the injury was aggravated by the insult, and the sense of private interest was quickened by that of national honor. The conquest of Macedonia, as we have already observed, had delivered the Roman people from the weight of personal taxes. Though they had experienced every form of despotism, they had now enjoyed that exemption near five hundred years; nor could they patiently brook the insolence of an Illyrian peasant, who, from his distant residence in Asia, presumed to number Rome among the tributary cities of his empire. The rising fury of the people was encouraged by the authority, or at least the connivance, of the senate; and the feeble remains of the Prætorian guards, who had reason to apprehend their own dissolution, embraced so honorable a pretence, and declared their readiness to draw their swords in the service of their oppressed country. It was the wish, and it soon became the hope, of every citizen, that after expelling from Italy their foreign tyrants, they should elect a prince who, by the place of his residence, and by his maxims of government, might once more deserve the title of Roman emperor. The name, as well as the situation, of Maxentius determined in his favor the popular enthusiasm.

II. Galerius's ambitious nature struggled to accept the disappointment regarding the Gallic provinces, and then the unexpected loss of Italy further hurt his pride and power even more. The long absence of the emperors left Rome filled with discontent and outrage; the people gradually realized that the preference for Nicomedia and Milan wasn’t just Diocletian’s personal choice, but rather due to the lasting structure of the government he had established. It was futile for his successors to dedicate those impressive baths in his name a few months after his abdication; their ruins still provide the foundation and materials for many churches and convents. The peace of these elegant spaces of comfort and luxury was disrupted by the anxious murmurs of the Romans, and a rumor quietly spread that the funds spent on those buildings would soon be demanded from them. Around this time, Galerius's greed, or perhaps the demands of the state, led him to conduct a very strict and thorough inquiry into his subjects' property for a general tax on both their lands and their persons. A detailed survey seems to have been conducted on their real estates, and wherever there was even a hint of hidden wealth, torture was often used to extract honest declarations of their personal finances. The privileges that had elevated Italy above other provinces were no longer respected, and the revenue officers began to count the Roman people and assess the new tax rates. Even after the spirit of freedom had been completely crushed, the most docile subjects sometimes dared to resist an unprecedented invasion of their property; but in this case, the injury was worsened by the insult, and the awareness of personal interest was intensified by a sense of national pride. The conquest of Macedonia, as we've previously mentioned, had freed the Roman people from the burden of personal taxes. Although they had faced every kind of tyranny, they had enjoyed this exemption for nearly five hundred years and could not tolerate the arrogance of an Illyrian peasant who, from his distant home in Asia, dared to classify Rome as one of the tributary cities in his empire. The growing anger of the people was supported by the senate’s authority, or at least its complicity, and the weakened remains of the Praetorian guards—who feared for their own survival—seized this noble pretext to declare their readiness to draw their swords in defense of their oppressed homeland. It became the desire, and soon the hope, of every citizen that after driving out their foreign tyrants from Italy, they would elect a leader who, through his residence and governance style, would once again be worthy of the title of Roman emperor. The name and position of Maxentius sparked popular enthusiasm in his favor.

Maxentius was the son of the emperor Maximian, and he had married the daughter of Galerius. His birth and alliance seemed to offer him the fairest promise of succeeding to the empire; but his vices and incapacity procured him the same exclusion from the dignity of Cæsar, which Constantine had deserved by a dangerous superiority of merit. The policy of Galerius preferred such associates as would never disgrace the choice, nor dispute the commands, of their benefactor. An obscure stranger was therefore raised to the throne of Italy, and the son of the late emperor of the West was left to enjoy the luxury of a private fortune in a villa a few miles distant from the capital. The gloomy passions of his soul, shame, vexation, and rage, were inflamed by envy on the news of Constantine’s success; but the hopes of Maxentius revived with the public discontent, and he was easily persuaded to unite his personal injury and pretensions with the cause of the Roman people. Two Prætorian tribunes and a commissary of provisions undertook the management of the conspiracy; and as every order of men was actuated by the same spirit, the immediate event was neither doubtful nor difficult. The præfect of the city, and a few magistrates, who maintained their fidelity to Severus, were massacred by the guards; and Maxentius, invested with the Imperial ornaments, was acknowledged by the applauding senate and people as the protector of the Roman freedom and dignity. It is uncertain whether Maximian was previously acquainted with the conspiracy; but as soon as the standard of rebellion was erected at Rome, the old emperor broke from the retirement where the authority of Diocletian had condemned him to pass a life of melancholy and solitude, and concealed his returning ambition under the disguise of paternal tenderness. At the request of his son and of the senate, he condescended to reassume the purple. His ancient dignity, his experience, and his fame in arms, added strength as well as reputation to the party of Maxentius.

Maxentius was the son of Emperor Maximian and had married Galerius’ daughter. His background and connections seemed to set him up perfectly to take over the empire, but his flaws and incompetence led to him being excluded from the position of Cæsar, a role that Constantine earned through his impressive merits. Galerius’ strategy favored allies who wouldn’t bring shame to his choice or challenge his authority. So, an unknown outsider was placed on the throne of Italy, while the son of the former emperor of the West was left to enjoy a comfortable life in a villa just a few miles from the capital. His dark emotions—shame, frustration, and anger—were ignited by jealousy when he heard about Constantine’s victories. However, as public discontent grew, Maxentius found hope again and was easily convinced to connect his personal grievances and aspirations with the people of Rome. Two Prætorian tribunes and a provisions officer led the conspiracy, and since everyone was motivated by the same sentiment, the outcome was neither uncertain nor challenging. The city’s prefect and a few magistrates loyal to Severus were killed by the guards, and Maxentius, adorned with imperial symbols, was recognized by the cheering senate and people as the defender of Roman freedom and dignity. It's unclear if Maximian knew about the conspiracy beforehand, but once the rebellion was underway in Rome, the old emperor emerged from the isolation where Diocletian had forced him to live a life of sorrow and solitude, masking his renewed ambition with the guise of fatherly love. At the request of his son and the senate, he agreed to take up the purple once more. His former status, experience, and military reputation gave strength and credibility to Maxentius' faction.

According to the advice, or rather the orders, of his colleague, the emperor Severus immediately hastened to Rome, in the full confidence, that, by his unexpected celerity, he should easily suppress the tumult of an unwarlike populace, commanded by a licentious youth. But he found on his arrival the gates of the city shut against him, the walls filled with men and arms, an experienced general at the head of the rebels, and his own troops without spirit or affection. A large body of Moors deserted to the enemy, allured by the promise of a large donative; and, if it be true that they had been levied by Maximian in his African war, preferring the natural feelings of gratitude to the artificial ties of allegiance. Anulinus, the Prætorian præfect, declared himself in favor of Maxentius, and drew after him the most considerable part of the troops, accustomed to obey his commands. Rome, according to the expression of an orator, recalled her armies; and the unfortunate Severus, destitute of force and of counsel, retired, or rather fled, with precipitation, to Ravenna. Here he might for some time have been safe. The fortifications of Ravenna were able to resist the attempts, and the morasses that surrounded the town were sufficient to prevent the approach, of the Italian army. The sea, which Severus commanded with a powerful fleet, secured him an inexhaustible supply of provisions, and gave a free entrance to the legions, which, on the return of spring, would advance to his assistance from Illyricum and the East. Maximian, who conducted the siege in person, was soon convinced that he might waste his time and his army in the fruitless enterprise, and that he had nothing to hope either from force or famine. With an art more suitable to the character of Diocletian than to his own, he directed his attack, not so much against the walls of Ravenna, as against the mind of Severus. The treachery which he had experienced disposed that unhappy prince to distrust the most sincere of his friends and adherents. The emissaries of Maximian easily persuaded his credulity, that a conspiracy was formed to betray the town, and prevailed upon his fears not to expose himself to the discretion of an irritated conqueror, but to accept the faith of an honorable capitulation. He was at first received with humanity and treated with respect. Maximian conducted the captive emperor to Rome, and gave him the most solemn assurances that he had secured his life by the resignation of the purple. But Severus could obtain only an easy death and an Imperial funeral. When the sentence was signified to him, the manner of executing it was left to his own choice; he preferred the favorite mode of the ancients, that of opening his veins; and as soon as he expired, his body was carried to the sepulchre which had been constructed for the family of Gallienus.

According to the advice, or rather the orders, of his colleague, Emperor Severus quickly rushed to Rome, fully confident that his unexpected speed would easily put down the chaos caused by a non-military crowd led by a reckless youth. But upon his arrival, he found the city gates closed, the walls packed with soldiers, an experienced general leading the rebels, and his own troops lacking morale and loyalty. A large group of Moors defected to the enemy, tempted by the promise of a generous payout; if it's true they had been recruited by Maximian during his African campaign, they chose natural feelings of gratitude over artificial loyalty. Anulinus, the Praetorian prefect, declared his support for Maxentius, attracting most of the troops who were used to following his orders. Rome, as an orator put it, called back her armies; and unfortunate Severus, lacking strength and advice, retreated—or rather fled—urgently to Ravenna. Here he might have been safe for a while. The fortifications of Ravenna could withstand attacks, and the swamps surrounding the town were enough to block the approach of the Italian army. The sea, which Severus commanded with a strong fleet, ensured a steady supply of provisions and allowed legions to come to his aid from Illyricum and the East when spring returned. Maximian, who personally led the siege, soon realized he could waste both his time and his army on this fruitless endeavor and that he had nothing to expect from force or starvation. With a strategy more fitting for Diocletian than himself, he aimed his efforts not just at Ravenna's walls, but at Severus' mind. The betrayal he had faced made that unfortunate prince distrust the most loyal of his friends and supporters. Maximian's agents easily played on his gullibility, convincing him that a conspiracy was underway to betray the city, and instilled fears that he should not risk facing an angry conqueror but accept the terms of an honorable surrender. At first, he was treated humanely and with respect. Maximian brought the captured emperor to Rome, giving him solemn assurances that he had secured his life by stepping down from power. But Severus could only secure an easy death and an imperial funeral. When the sentence was communicated to him, he was given the choice of how to carry it out; he chose the preferred method of the ancients, that of opening his veins; and as soon as he died, his body was taken to the tomb built for the family of Gallienus.





Chapter XIV: Six Emperors At The Same Time, Reunion Of The Empire.—Part II.

Though the characters of Constantine and Maxentius had very little affinity with each other, their situation and interest were the same; and prudence seemed to require that they should unite their forces against the common enemy. Notwithstanding the superiority of his age and dignity, the indefatigable Maximian passed the Alps, and, courting a personal interview with the sovereign of Gaul, carried with him his daughter Fausta as the pledge of the new alliance. The marriage was celebrated at Arles with every circumstance of magnificence; and the ancient colleague of Diocletian, who again asserted his claim to the Western empire, conferred on his son-in-law and ally the title of Augustus. By consenting to receive that honor from Maximian, Constantine seemed to embrace the cause of Rome and of the senate; but his professions were ambiguous, and his assistance slow and ineffectual. He considered with attention the approaching contest between the masters of Italy and the emperor of the East, and was prepared to consult his own safety or ambition in the event of the war.

Although Constantine and Maxentius didn't have much in common, their situation and interests aligned; it seemed wise for them to join forces against their common enemy. Despite his age and status, the tireless Maximian crossed the Alps to seek a personal meeting with the ruler of Gaul, bringing along his daughter Fausta as a symbol of their new alliance. The wedding took place in Arles with great splendor, and Diocletian's former colleague, who reasserted his claim to the Western empire, granted his son-in-law and ally the title of Augustus. By agreeing to accept that honor from Maximian, Constantine appeared to support Rome and the senate; however, his intentions were unclear, and his help was slow and ineffective. He carefully considered the upcoming conflict between the rulers of Italy and the emperor of the East, ready to put his own safety or ambitions first in the event of war.

The importance of the occasion called for the presence and abilities of Galerius. At the head of a powerful army, collected from Illyricum and the East, he entered Italy, resolved to revenge the death of Severus, and to chastise the rebellious Romans; or, as he expressed his intentions, in the furious language of a barbarian, to extirpate the senate, and to destroy the people by the sword. But the skill of Maximian had concerted a prudent system of defence. The invader found every place hostile, fortified, and inaccessible; and though he forced his way as far as Narni, within sixty miles of Rome, his dominion in Italy was confined to the narrow limits of his camp. Sensible of the increasing difficulties of his enterprise, the haughty Galerius made the first advances towards a reconciliation, and despatched two of his most considerable officers to tempt the Roman princes by the offer of a conference, and the declaration of his paternal regard for Maxentius, who might obtain much more from his liberality than he could hope from the doubtful chance of war. The offers of Galerius were rejected with firmness, his perfidious friendship refused with contempt, and it was not long before he discovered, that, unless he provided for his safety by a timely retreat, he had some reason to apprehend the fate of Severus. The wealth which the Romans defended against his rapacious tyranny, they freely contributed for his destruction. The name of Maximian, the popular arts of his son, the secret distribution of large sums, and the promise of still more liberal rewards, checked the ardor and corrupted the fidelity of the Illyrian legions; and when Galerius at length gave the signal of the retreat, it was with some difficulty that he could prevail on his veterans not to desert a banner which had so often conducted them to victory and honor. A contemporary writer assigns two other causes for the failure of the expedition; but they are both of such a nature, that a cautious historian will scarcely venture to adopt them. We are told that Galerius, who had formed a very imperfect notion of the greatness of Rome by the cities of the East with which he was acquainted, found his forces inadequate to the siege of that immense capital. But the extent of a city serves only to render it more accessible to the enemy: Rome had long since been accustomed to submit on the approach of a conqueror; nor could the temporary enthusiasm of the people have long contended against the discipline and valor of the legions. We are likewise informed that the legions themselves were struck with horror and remorse, and that those pious sons of the republic refused to violate the sanctity of their venerable parent. But when we recollect with how much ease, in the more ancient civil wars, the zeal of party and the habits of military obedience had converted the native citizens of Rome into her most implacable enemies, we shall be inclined to distrust this extreme delicacy of strangers and barbarians, who had never beheld Italy till they entered it in a hostile manner. Had they not been restrained by motives of a more interested nature, they would probably have answered Galerius in the words of Cæsar’s veterans: “If our general wishes to lead us to the banks of the Tyber, we are prepared to trace out his camp. Whatsoever walls he has determined to level with the ground, our hands are ready to work the engines: nor shall we hesitate, should the name of the devoted city be Rome itself.” These are indeed the expressions of a poet; but of a poet who has been distinguished, and even censured, for his strict adherence to the truth of history.

The significance of the event required the presence and skills of Galerius. At the head of a strong army gathered from Illyricum and the East, he entered Italy, determined to avenge Severus’s death and punish the rebellious Romans. Or, as he put it in the aggressive words of a barbarian, to wipe out the Senate and annihilate the people with the sword. However, Maximian’s tactical expertise had set up a wise defense strategy. The invader encountered an environment that was hostile, fortified, and hard to reach; and while he managed to push as far as Narni, just sixty miles from Rome, his control in Italy was limited to the small area of his camp. Realizing the growing challenges of his mission, the proud Galerius took the first steps toward reconciliation, sending two of his top officers to entice the Roman leaders with an offer to meet and his stated goodwill towards Maxentius, who could gain far more from his generosity than from the uncertain outcome of war. Galerius’s proposals were firmly rejected, his deceitful friendship met with contempt, and it didn’t take long for him to realize that unless he looked after his safety by retreating promptly, he had reason to fear the same fate as Severus. The riches the Romans defended against his greedy tyranny were willingly used to bring about his downfall. Maximian’s name, the charm of his son, the discreet distribution of large sums, and the promise of even larger rewards weakened the enthusiasm and loyalty of the Illyrian legions. When Galerius finally signaled the retreat, he struggled to convince his veterans not to abandon a banner that had often led them to victory and honor. A contemporary writer cites two other reasons for the expedition’s failure, but they are of such a nature that a careful historian would be hesitant to accept them. It’s noted that Galerius, who had a limited understanding of Rome’s grandeur based on the cities in the East he was familiar with, found his forces inadequate for the siege of such a vast capital. However, the size of a city only makes it more vulnerable to an enemy; Rome had long learned to surrender when a conqueror approached; nor could the momentary excitement of the people withstand the discipline and bravery of the legions for long. We’re also told that the legions were filled with horror and guilt, and that those loyal sons of the republic refused to violate the sacredness of their revered parent. But when we recall how easily, in older civil wars, the fervor of factions and military loyalty had turned Rome’s own citizens into her fiercest enemies, we may doubt this extreme sensitivity from outsiders and barbarians who had only seen Italy when they invaded it. Had they not been held back by more self-serving motives, they likely would have responded to Galerius like Caesar’s veterans: “If our general wants us to march to the banks of the Tiber, we’re ready to set up his camp. Whatever walls he plans to demolish, our hands are ready to operate the machinery: and we won’t hesitate, even if the name of the targeted city is Rome itself.” These words indeed come from a poet; but a poet who is known, and even criticized, for his strict fidelity to historical truth.

The legions of Galerius exhibited a very melancholy proof of their disposition, by the ravages which they committed in their retreat. They murdered, they ravished, they plundered, they drove away the flocks and herds of the Italians; they burnt the villages through which they passed, and they endeavored to destroy the country which it had not been in their power to subdue. During the whole march, Maxentius hung on their rear, but he very prudently declined a general engagement with those brave and desperate veterans. His father had undertaken a second journey into Gaul, with the hope of persuading Constantine, who had assembled an army on the frontier, to join in the pursuit, and to complete the victory. But the actions of Constantine were guided by reason, and not by resentment. He persisted in the wise resolution of maintaining a balance of power in the divided empire, and he no longer hated Galerius, when that aspiring prince had ceased to be an object of terror.

The legions of Galerius showed a very sad reflection of their character through the destruction they caused during their retreat. They killed, they raped, they looted, and they drove away the livestock of the Italians; they burned the villages they passed through and tried to ruin the land they couldn't conquer. Throughout the entire march, Maxentius followed closely behind them, but he wisely avoided a full-on battle with those brave and desperate soldiers. His father had embarked on a second trip to Gaul, hoping to convince Constantine, who had gathered an army at the border, to join in the hunt and finish the victory. However, Constantine's actions were based on logic, not anger. He stuck to his wise plan of keeping a balance of power in the divided empire and no longer hated Galerius once that ambitious prince had stopped being a source of fear.

The mind of Galerius was the most susceptible of the sterner passions, but it was not, however, incapable of a sincere and lasting friendship. Licinius, whose manners as well as character were not unlike his own, seems to have engaged both his affection and esteem. Their intimacy had commenced in the happier period perhaps of their youth and obscurity. It had been cemented by the freedom and dangers of a military life; they had advanced almost by equal steps through the successive honors of the service; and as soon as Galerius was invested with the Imperial dignity, he seems to have conceived the design of raising his companion to the same rank with himself. During the short period of his prosperity, he considered the rank of Cæsar as unworthy of the age and merit of Licinius, and rather chose to reserve for him the place of Constantius, and the empire of the West. While the emperor was employed in the Italian war, he intrusted his friend with the defence of the Danube; and immediately after his return from that unfortunate expedition, he invested Licinius with the vacant purple of Severus, resigning to his immediate command the provinces of Illyricum. The news of his promotion was no sooner carried into the East, than Maximin, who governed, or rather oppressed, the countries of Egypt and Syria, betrayed his envy and discontent, disdained the inferior name of Cæsar, and, notwithstanding the prayers as well as arguments of Galerius, exacted, almost by violence, the equal title of Augustus. For the first, and indeed for the last time, the Roman world was administered by six emperors. In the West, Constantine and Maxentius affected to reverence their father Maximian. In the East, Licinius and Maximin honored with more real consideration their benefactor Galerius. The opposition of interest, and the memory of a recent war, divided the empire into two great hostile powers; but their mutual fears produced an apparent tranquillity, and even a feigned reconciliation, till the death of the elder princes, of Maximian, and more particularly of Galerius, gave a new direction to the views and passions of their surviving associates.

The mind of Galerius was most open to strong emotions, but it was still capable of sincere and lasting friendship. Licinius, whose personality and character were similar to his, seems to have won both his affection and respect. Their friendship began in a happier time, perhaps during their youth and obscurity. It was strengthened by the freedom and dangers of military life; they had both ascended through the ranks of service almost equally. Once Galerius achieved the Imperial title, he seems to have intended to elevate his friend to the same status as himself. During his brief period of success, he saw the title of Cæsar as unworthy of Licinius's age and merit, choosing instead to reserve the position of Constantius and the Western Empire for him. While the emperor was involved in the war in Italy, he entrusted his friend with the defense of the Danube; and right after he returned from that unfortunate campaign, he gave Licinius the vacant rank previously held by Severus, placing him in charge of the provinces of Illyricum. The news of his promotion reached the East quickly, prompting Maximin, who governed (or rather oppressed) Egypt and Syria, to express his envy and dissatisfaction, refusing the lower title of Cæsar, and, despite Galerius's pleas and reasoning, nearly forcing the title of Augustus for himself. For the first time, and indeed for the last time, the Roman world was ruled by six emperors. In the West, Constantine and Maxentius affected a reverence for their father Maximian. In the East, Licinius and Maximin showed more genuine respect for their benefactor Galerius. The clash of interests and memories of a recent war split the empire into two major rival factions; however, their mutual fears created an appearance of peace and even a false reconciliation until the deaths of the older leaders, Maximian and especially Galerius, shifted the ambitions and passions of those who remained.

When Maximian had reluctantly abdicated the empire, the venal orators of the times applauded his philosophic moderation. When his ambition excited, or at least encouraged, a civil war, they returned thanks to his generous patriotism, and gently censured that love of ease and retirement which had withdrawn him from the public service. But it was impossible that minds like those of Maximian and his son could long possess in harmony an undivided power. Maxentius considered himself as the legal sovereign of Italy, elected by the Roman senate and people; nor would he endure the control of his father, who arrogantly declared that by his name and abilities the rash youth had been established on the throne. The cause was solemnly pleaded before the Prætorian guards; and those troops, who dreaded the severity of the old emperor, espoused the party of Maxentius. The life and freedom of Maximian were, however, respected, and he retired from Italy into Illyricum, affecting to lament his past conduct, and secretly contriving new mischiefs. But Galerius, who was well acquainted with his character, soon obliged him to leave his dominions, and the last refuge of the disappointed Maximian was the court of his son-in-law Constantine. He was received with respect by that artful prince, and with the appearance of filial tenderness by the empress Fausta. That he might remove every suspicion, he resigned the Imperial purple a second time, professing himself at length convinced of the vanity of greatness and ambition. Had he persevered in this resolution, he might have ended his life with less dignity, indeed, than in his first retirement, yet, however, with comfort and reputation. But the near prospect of a throne brought back to his remembrance the state from whence he was fallen, and he resolved, by a desperate effort, either to reign or to perish. An incursion of the Franks had summoned Constantine, with a part of his army, to the banks of the Rhine; the remainder of the troops were stationed in the southern provinces of Gaul, which lay exposed to the enterprises of the Italian emperor, and a considerable treasure was deposited in the city of Arles. Maximian either craftily invented, or easily credited, a vain report of the death of Constantine. Without hesitation he ascended the throne, seized the treasure, and scattering it with his accustomed profusion among the soldiers, endeavored to awake in their minds the memory of his ancient dignity and exploits. Before he could establish his authority, or finish the negotiation which he appears to have entered into with his son Maxentius, the celerity of Constantine defeated all his hopes. On the first news of his perfidy and ingratitude, that prince returned by rapid marches from the Rhine to the Saone, embarked on the last-mentioned river at Chalons, and, at Lyons trusting himself to the rapidity of the Rhone, arrived at the gates of Arles with a military force which it was impossible for Maximian to resist, and which scarcely permitted him to take refuge in the neighboring city of Marseilles. The narrow neck of land which joined that place to the continent was fortified against the besiegers, whilst the sea was open, either for the escape of Maximian, or for the succor of Maxentius, if the latter should choose to disguise his invasion of Gaul under the honorable pretence of defending a distressed, or, as he might allege, an injured father. Apprehensive of the fatal consequences of delay, Constantine gave orders for an immediate assault; but the scaling-ladders were found too short for the height of the walls, and Marseilles might have sustained as long a siege as it formerly did against the arms of Cæsar, if the garrison, conscious either of their fault or of their danger, had not purchased their pardon by delivering up the city and the person of Maximian. A secret but irrevocable sentence of death was pronounced against the usurper; he obtained only the same favor which he had indulged to Severus, and it was published to the world, that, oppressed by the remorse of his repeated crimes, he strangled himself with his own hands. After he had lost the assistance, and disdained the moderate counsels, of Diocletian, the second period of his active life was a series of public calamities and personal mortifications, which were terminated, in about three years, by an ignominious death. He deserved his fate; but we should find more reason to applaud the humanity of Constantine, if he had spared an old man, the benefactor of his father, and the father of his wife. During the whole of this melancholy transaction, it appears that Fausta sacrificed the sentiments of nature to her conjugal duties.

When Maximian reluctantly gave up the empire, the corrupt orators of the day praised his philosophical moderation. When his ambition sparked, or at least fueled, a civil war, they thanked him for his noble patriotism and lightly criticized his desire for comfort and retreat, which had pulled him away from public life. But it was clear that someone like Maximian and his son couldn't hold onto shared power for long. Maxentius believed he was the rightful ruler of Italy, elected by the Roman senate and people; he wouldn't tolerate his father's authority, who arrogantly claimed that it was his name and skills that had placed the reckless young man on the throne. The matter was formally argued before the Prætorian guards, and those troops, fearing the old emperor's harshness, sided with Maxentius. However, Maximian's life and freedom were respected, and he stepped away from Italy to Illyricum, pretending to mourn his past actions while secretly plotting new schemes. But Galerius, who knew his character well, soon forced him out of his territory, and Maximian's last refuge was his son-in-law Constantine's court. He was treated with respect by that cunning prince and appeared to receive filial affection from Empress Fausta. To dispel any suspicion, he resigned the Imperial purple a second time, finally claiming he was convinced of the futility of greatness and ambition. If he had stuck to this decision, he might have ended his life with less dignity than during his first retirement, but still with comfort and a good reputation. Yet the looming prospect of a throne reminded him of the power he had lost, leading him to resolve, in a desperate move, to either reign or perish. An invasion by the Franks had called Constantine, with part of his army, to the Rhine; the rest of the troops were stationed in southern Gaul, vulnerable to the Italian emperor's ambitions, and a significant treasure was held in the city of Arles. Maximian either cunningly fabricated or easily accepted a false rumor of Constantine's death. Without hesitation, he claimed the throne, seized the treasure, and, as was his usual style, lavishly distributed it among the soldiers, trying to rekindle their memories of his past glory and achievements. Before he could solidify his authority or complete the negotiations he seemed to have initiated with his son Maxentius, Constantine's speed dashed all his hopes. Upon hearing the news of Maximian's treachery, that prince swiftly returned from the Rhine to the Saone, crossed the river at Chalons, and at Lyons trusted the swift flow of the Rhone to carry him to Arles with a military force that Maximian could not withstand, barely allowing him to escape to the nearby city of Marseilles. The narrow strip of land connecting that place to the mainland was fortified against the attackers, while the sea remained open for Maximian's escape or for Maxentius to come to his aid, should he choose to disguise his invasion of Gaul under the noble pretense of rescuing a distressed, or so he could claim, an injured father. Fearing the dire consequences of delay, Constantine ordered an immediate assault; however, the ladders were too short to scale the walls. Marseilles could have endured a long siege as it once did against Caesar's forces if the garrison, aware of their fault or danger, hadn't secured their pardon by surrendering the city and Maximian. A secret but irreversible death sentence was passed on the usurper; he received the same mercy he had shown to Severus, and it was announced to the world that, overwhelmed by guilt for his repeated crimes, he took his own life. After losing support and ignoring the wise advice of Diocletian, the second phase of his life was marked by public disasters and personal humiliations, culminating in about three years with a shameful death. He got what he deserved; yet we would have more reason to commend Constantine's compassion if he had spared an old man who had been a benefactor to his father and the father of his wife. Throughout this tragic sequence of events, it seems Fausta prioritized her marital duties over her natural feelings.

The last years of Galerius were less shameful and unfortunate; and though he had filled with more glory the subordinate station of Cæsar than the superior rank of Augustus, he preserved, till the moment of his death, the first place among the princes of the Roman world. He survived his retreat from Italy about four years; and wisely relinquishing his views of universal empire, he devoted the remainder of his life to the enjoyment of pleasure, and to the execution of some works of public utility, among which we may distinguish the discharging into the Danube the superfluous waters of the Lake Pelso, and the cutting down the immense forests that encompassed it; an operation worthy of a monarch, since it gave an extensive country to the agriculture of his Pannonian subjects. His death was occasioned by a very painful and lingering disorder. His body, swelled by an intemperate course of life to an unwieldy corpulence, was covered with ulcers, and devoured by innumerable swarms of those insects which have given their name to a most loathsome disease; but as Galerius had offended a very zealous and powerful party among his subjects, his sufferings, instead of exciting their compassion, have been celebrated as the visible effects of divine justice. He had no sooner expired in his palace of Nicomedia, than the two emperors who were indebted for their purple to his favors, began to collect their forces, with the intention either of disputing, or of dividing, the dominions which he had left without a master. They were persuaded, however, to desist from the former design, and to agree in the latter. The provinces of Asia fell to the share of Maximin, and those of Europe augmented the portion of Licinius. The Hellespont and the Thracian Bosphorus formed their mutual boundary, and the banks of those narrow seas, which flowed in the midst of the Roman world, were covered with soldiers, with arms, and with fortifications. The deaths of Maximian and of Galerius reduced the number of emperors to four. The sense of their true interest soon connected Licinius and Constantine; a secret alliance was concluded between Maximin and Maxentius, and their unhappy subjects expected with terror the bloody consequences of their inevitable dissensions, which were no longer restrained by the fear or the respect which they had entertained for Galerius.

The final years of Galerius were less disgraceful and unfortunate; even though he achieved more glory in the lesser role of Cæsar than in the higher position of Augustus, he maintained his top rank among the rulers of the Roman world until his death. He lived about four years after leaving Italy, wisely giving up his ambitions for universal empire. Instead, he spent the rest of his life enjoying pleasure and working on some public projects, including draining excess water from Lake Pelso into the Danube, and clearing the vast forests surrounding it. This was a royal undertaking, as it opened up considerable land for farming for his Pannonian subjects. He died from a very painful and prolonged illness. His body, swollen from an indulgent lifestyle into an enormous size, was covered in sores and plagued by countless insects that are associated with a very horrible disease. However, since Galerius had angered a strong and passionate faction among his subjects, his suffering was seen not as pity-worthy but as a clear sign of divine punishment. No sooner had he died in his palace at Nicomedia than the two emperors who owed their crowns to him began to gather their forces, intending either to contest or to share the territories he left without a ruler. They were, however, persuaded to abandon the idea of conflict and to agree on a division. Maximin took the provinces of Asia, while Licinius received more provinces in Europe. The Hellespont and the Thracian Bosphorus became their shared boundary, with the shores of those narrow seas, which flowed through the Roman world, filled with soldiers, weapons, and fortifications. The deaths of Maximian and Galerius brought the number of emperors down to four. Their interests soon aligned Licinius and Constantine; a secret alliance was made between Maximin and Maxentius, and their unfortunate subjects awaited with dread the violent fallout from their inevitable conflicts, which were no longer kept in check by the fear or respect they had for Galerius.

Among so many crimes and misfortunes, occasioned by the passions of the Roman princes, there is some pleasure in discovering a single action which may be ascribed to their virtue. In the sixth year of his reign, Constantine visited the city of Autun, and generously remitted the arrears of tribute, reducing at the same time the proportion of their assessment from twenty-five to eighteen thousand heads, subject to the real and personal capitation. Yet even this indulgence affords the most unquestionable proof of the public misery. This tax was so extremely oppressive, either in itself or in the mode of collecting it, that whilst the revenue was increased by extortion, it was diminished by despair: a considerable part of the territory of Autun was left uncultivated; and great numbers of the provincials rather chose to live as exiles and outlaws, than to support the weight of civil society. It is but too probable, that the bountiful emperor relieved, by a partial act of liberality, one among the many evils which he had caused by his general maxims of administration. But even those maxims were less the effect of choice than of necessity. And if we except the death of Maximian, the reign of Constantine in Gaul seems to have been the most innocent and even virtuous period of his life. The provinces were protected by his presence from the inroads of the barbarians, who either dreaded or experienced his active valor. After a signal victory over the Franks and Alemanni, several of their princes were exposed by his order to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre of Treves, and the people seem to have enjoyed the spectacle, without discovering, in such a treatment of royal captives, any thing that was repugnant to the laws of nations or of humanity. *

Among the many crimes and misfortunes caused by the passions of the Roman emperors, there is some satisfaction in identifying a single act that can be credited to their virtue. In the sixth year of his reign, Constantine visited the city of Autun and generously forgave the outstanding tribute owed, while also reducing the tax burden from twenty-five thousand to eighteen thousand individuals, who were subject to both real and personal taxation. However, this leniency serves as undeniable evidence of the public suffering. This tax was so incredibly oppressive, either in its nature or in how it was collected, that while the revenue increased through extortion, it declined due to despair. A significant portion of Autun's land was left uncultivated, and many of the locals preferred to live as exiles and outlaws rather than bear the burdens of civil society. It is highly likely that the generous emperor, through this limited act of kindness, alleviated only one of the many problems he had created with his overall policies. However, these policies were more a result of necessity than choice. Except for the death of Maximian, Constantine's reign in Gaul appears to have been the most innocent and even virtuous time of his life. His presence protected the provinces from barbarian incursions, as they either feared or felt the impact of his active courage. After a decisive victory over the Franks and Alemanni, several of their leaders were, at his command, thrown to wild beasts in the amphitheater of Treves, and the people seemed to enjoy the event, without perceiving any violation of the laws of nations or of humanity in such treatment of royal captives.

The virtues of Constantine were rendered more illustrious by the vices of Maxentius. Whilst the Gallic provinces enjoyed as much happiness as the condition of the times was capable of receiving, Italy and Africa groaned under the dominion of a tyrant, as contemptible as he was odious. The zeal of flattery and faction has indeed too frequently sacrificed the reputation of the vanquished to the glory of their successful rivals; but even those writers who have revealed, with the most freedom and pleasure, the faults of Constantine, unanimously confess that Maxentius was cruel, rapacious, and profligate. He had the good fortune to suppress a slight rebellion in Africa. The governor and a few adherents had been guilty; the province suffered for their crime. The flourishing cities of Cirtha and Carthage, and the whole extent of that fertile country, were wasted by fire and sword. The abuse of victory was followed by the abuse of law and justice. A formidable army of sycophants and delators invaded Africa; the rich and the noble were easily convicted of a connection with the rebels; and those among them who experienced the emperor’s clemency, were only punished by the confiscation of their estates. So signal a victory was celebrated by a magnificent triumph, and Maxentius exposed to the eyes of the people the spoils and captives of a Roman province. The state of the capital was no less deserving of compassion than that of Africa. The wealth of Rome supplied an inexhaustible fund for his vain and prodigal expenses, and the ministers of his revenue were skilled in the arts of rapine. It was under his reign that the method of exacting a free gift from the senators was first invented; and as the sum was insensibly increased, the pretences of levying it, a victory, a birth, a marriage, or an imperial consulship, were proportionably multiplied. Maxentius had imbibed the same implacable aversion to the senate, which had characterized most of the former tyrants of Rome; nor was it possible for his ungrateful temper to forgive the generous fidelity which had raised him to the throne, and supported him against all his enemies. The lives of the senators were exposed to his jealous suspicions, the dishonor of their wives and daughters heightened the gratification of his sensual passions. It may be presumed that an Imperial lover was seldom reduced to sigh in vain; but whenever persuasion proved ineffectual, he had recourse to violence; and there remains one memorable example of a noble matron, who preserved her chastity by a voluntary death. The soldiers were the only order of men whom he appeared to respect, or studied to please. He filled Rome and Italy with armed troops, connived at their tumults, suffered them with impunity to plunder, and even to massacre, the defenceless people; and indulging them in the same licentiousness which their emperor enjoyed, Maxentius often bestowed on his military favorites the splendid villa, or the beautiful wife, of a senator. A prince of such a character, alike incapable of governing, either in peace or in war, might purchase the support, but he could never obtain the esteem, of the army. Yet his pride was equal to his other vices. Whilst he passed his indolent life either within the walls of his palace, or in the neighboring gardens of Sallust, he was repeatedly heard to declare, that he alone was emperor, and that the other princes were no more than his lieutenants, on whom he had devolved the defence of the frontier provinces, that he might enjoy without interruption the elegant luxury of the capital. Rome, which had so long regretted the absence, lamented, during the six years of his reign, the presence of her sovereign.

The virtues of Constantine shone even brighter against the vices of Maxentius. While the Gallic provinces enjoyed as much happiness as the times allowed, Italy and Africa suffered under the rule of a tyrant who was as despicable as he was detested. Flattery and faction often sacrifice the reputation of the defeated to celebrate their successful rivals; however, even those writers who have openly critiqued Constantine agree that Maxentius was cruel, greedy, and immoral. He was fortunate enough to suppress a minor rebellion in Africa. A governor and a few supporters were to blame, but the entire province paid for their crime. The thriving cities of Cirtha and Carthage and the surrounding fertile land were ravaged by fire and sword. The misuse of victory led to further abuses of law and justice. A powerful army of sycophants and informers swept through Africa; the wealthy and noble were easily accused of complicity with the rebels, and those few who escaped the emperor’s wrath were only punished by having their estates taken. This notable victory was marked by a grand triumph, where Maxentius showcased the spoils and captives from a Roman province to the public. The situation in the capital was no less pitiable than that in Africa. Rome's wealth provided an endless supply for his extravagant spending, and his tax collectors were experts in extortion. It was during his reign that the practice of demanding a free gift from the senators first began; as the amounts gradually increased, the excuses for collecting it—victories, births, marriages, or appointments to consulships—multiplied accordingly. Maxentius shared the same relentless disdain for the senate that most previous Roman tyrants had; his ungrateful nature could not forgive the loyalty that had helped elevate him to power and support him against all his foes. The senators lived under the constant threat of his jealousy, and the dishonor of their wives and daughters only fed into his base desires. It is presumed that few subjects of the emperor were left wanting; however, when charm failed, he resorted to violence—one notable instance involves a noblewoman who preserved her honor through suicide. The soldiers were the only group he seemed to respect or sought to please. He filled Rome and Italy with armed troops, turning a blind eye to their riots, allowing them to loot and even murder the defenseless citizens. Indulging in the same debauchery as his emperor, Maxentius often gifted his military favorites the grand villa or beautiful wife of a senator. A prince of such a nature, unable to govern effectively in peace or war, might be able to buy the army's loyalty but could never earn its respect. Yet, his arrogance matched his vices. While he spent his lazy life within his palace walls or in the nearby gardens of Sallust, he repeatedly claimed that he alone was emperor and that the other princes were merely his lieutenants, tasked with defending the border provinces so that he could enjoy the lavish luxuries of the capital without interruption. For six long years of his reign, Rome longed for the presence of her sovereign.

Though Constantine might view the conduct of Maxentius with abhorrence, and the situation of the Romans with compassion, we have no reason to presume that he would have taken up arms to punish the one or to relieve the other. But the tyrant of Italy rashly ventured to provoke a formidable enemy, whose ambition had been hitherto restrained by considerations of prudence, rather than by principles of justice. After the death of Maximian, his titles, according to the established custom, had been erased, and his statues thrown down with ignominy. His son, who had persecuted and deserted him when alive, effected to display the most pious regard for his memory, and gave orders that a similar treatment should be immediately inflicted on all the statues that had been erected in Italy and Africa to the honor of Constantine. That wise prince, who sincerely wished to decline a war, with the difficulty and importance of which he was sufficiently acquainted, at first dissembled the insult, and sought for redress by the milder expedient of negotiation, till he was convinced that the hostile and ambitious designs of the Italian emperor made it necessary for him to arm in his own defence. Maxentius, who openly avowed his pretensions to the whole monarchy of the West, had already prepared a very considerable force to invade the Gallic provinces on the side of Rhætia; and though he could not expect any assistance from Licinius, he was flattered with the hope that the legions of Illyricum, allured by his presents and promises, would desert the standard of that prince, and unanimously declare themselves his soldiers and subjects. Constantine no longer hesitated. He had deliberated with caution, he acted with vigor. He gave a private audience to the ambassadors, who, in the name of the senate and people, conjured him to deliver Rome from a detested tyrant; and without regarding the timid remonstrances of his council, he resolved to prevent the enemy, and to carry the war into the heart of Italy.

Though Constantine might have looked at Maxentius's actions with disgust and felt compassion for the Romans, there’s no reason to assume he would have taken up arms to punish Maxentius or help the Romans. However, the tyrant of Italy foolishly provoked a strong enemy, whose ambition had been kept in check more by careful thinking than by a sense of justice. After Maximian's death, his titles were removed as per the usual practice, and his statues were torn down in disgrace. His son, who had betrayed and persecuted him while he was alive, pretended to honor his memory and ordered that the same treatment be applied to all statues of Constantine in Italy and Africa. That wise leader, who genuinely wanted to avoid a war he knew would be difficult and significant, initially downplayed the insult and sought to resolve things through negotiation instead. But he soon realized that the hostile ambitions of the Italian emperor forced him to prepare for his own defense. Maxentius, who openly claimed his right to the entire western empire, had already gathered a substantial force to invade the Gallic provinces from Rhætia. Even though he couldn’t count on help from Licinius, he hoped that the legions of Illyricum, tempted by his gifts and promises, would abandon Licinius and rally to his side. Constantine no longer hesitated. He had thought carefully and acted decisively. He met privately with ambassadors who, on behalf of the senate and people, urged him to free Rome from a hated tyrant. Ignoring his council's timid objections, he decided to take the initiative and bring the war to the heart of Italy.

The enterprise was as full of danger as of glory; and the unsuccessful event of two former invasions was sufficient to inspire the most serious apprehensions. The veteran troops, who revered the name of Maximian, had embraced in both those wars the party of his son, and were now restrained by a sense of honor, as well as of interest, from entertaining an idea of a second desertion. Maxentius, who considered the Prætorian guards as the firmest defence of his throne, had increased them to their ancient establishment; and they composed, including the rest of the Italians who were enlisted into his service, a formidable body of fourscore thousand men. Forty thousand Moors and Carthaginians had been raised since the reduction of Africa. Even Sicily furnished its proportion of troops; and the armies of Maxentius amounted to one hundred and seventy thousand foot and eighteen thousand horse. The wealth of Italy supplied the expenses of the war; and the adjacent provinces were exhausted, to form immense magazines of corn and every other kind of provisions.

The campaign was filled with as much danger as it was with glory, and the failed attempts of two previous invasions were enough to create serious concerns. The seasoned soldiers, who respected the name of Maximian, had supported his son in both of those wars, and now felt bound by both honor and self-interest to avoid the thought of a second betrayal. Maxentius, who saw the Praetorian guards as the strongest defense of his rule, had restored them to their former strength; they, along with the other Italians enlisted in his service, formed a powerful force of eighty thousand men. Since Africa was conquered, an additional forty thousand soldiers from the Moors and Carthaginians had been gathered. Even Sicily contributed its share of troops, bringing Maxentius's total army to one hundred seventy thousand infantry and eighteen thousand cavalry. The wealth of Italy covered the costs of the war, and the neighboring provinces were drained to create vast storage for grain and other supplies.

The whole force of Constantine consisted of ninety thousand foot and eight thousand horse; and as the defence of the Rhine required an extraordinary attention during the absence of the emperor, it was not in his power to employ above half his troops in the Italian expedition, unless he sacrificed the public safety to his private quarrel. At the head of about forty thousand soldiers he marched to encounter an enemy whose numbers were at least four times superior to his own. But the armies of Rome, placed at a secure distance from danger, were enervated by indulgence and luxury. Habituated to the baths and theatres of Rome, they took the field with reluctance, and were chiefly composed of veterans who had almost forgotten, or of new levies who had never acquired, the use of arms and the practice of war. The hardy legions of Gaul had long defended the frontiers of the empire against the barbarians of the North; and in the performance of that laborious service, their valor was exercised and their discipline confirmed. There appeared the same difference between the leaders as between the armies. Caprice or flattery had tempted Maxentius with the hopes of conquest; but these aspiring hopes soon gave way to the habits of pleasure and the consciousness of his inexperience. The intrepid mind of Constantine had been trained from his earliest youth to war, to action, and to military command.

The entire force of Constantine had ninety thousand infantry and eight thousand cavalry. Because the protection of the Rhine needed significant attention while the emperor was away, he could only deploy about half of his troops for the Italian campaign without risking public safety for his personal conflict. Leading around forty thousand soldiers, he faced an enemy whose numbers were at least four times greater than his own. However, the armies of Rome, stationed far from danger, were weakened by indulgence and luxury. Accustomed to the baths and theaters of Rome, they entered the battlefield reluctantly, mostly made up of veterans who had nearly forgotten the art of war and new recruits who had never learned how to fight. The tough legions from Gaul had long defended the empire's borders against northern barbarians, and their valor and discipline had been sharpened through hard service. There was a clear contrast between the leaders as well as the armies. Maxentius was swayed by caprice or flattery, lured by dreams of victory, but these ambitions quickly faded in light of his lifestyle of pleasure and his lack of experience. In contrast, Constantine had been trained for war, action, and military leadership since his youth.





Chapter XIV: Six Emperors At The Same Time, Reunion Of The Empire.—Part III.

When Hannibal marched from Gaul into Italy, he was obliged, first to discover, and then to open, a way over mountains, and through savage nations, that had never yielded a passage to a regular army. The Alps were then guarded by nature, they are now fortified by art. Citadels, constructed with no less skill than labor and expense, command every avenue into the plain, and on that side render Italy almost inaccessible to the enemies of the king of Sardinia. But in the course of the intermediate period, the generals, who have attempted the passage, have seldom experienced any difficulty or resistance. In the age of Constantine, the peasants of the mountains were civilized and obedient subjects; the country was plentifully stocked with provisions, and the stupendous highways, which the Romans had carried over the Alps, opened several communications between Gaul and Italy. Constantine preferred the road of the Cottian Alps, or, as it is now called, of Mount Cenis, and led his troops with such active diligence, that he descended into the plain of Piedmont before the court of Maxentius had received any certain intelligence of his departure from the banks of the Rhine. The city of Susa, however, which is situated at the foot of Mount Cenis, was surrounded with walls, and provided with a garrison sufficiently numerous to check the progress of an invader; but the impatience of Constantine’s troops disdained the tedious forms of a siege. The same day that they appeared before Susa, they applied fire to the gates, and ladders to the walls; and mounting to the assault amidst a shower of stones and arrows, they entered the place sword in hand, and cut in pieces the greatest part of the garrison. The flames were extinguished by the care of Constantine, and the remains of Susa preserved from total destruction. About forty miles from thence, a more severe contest awaited him. A numerous army of Italians was assembled under the lieutenants of Maxentius, in the plains of Turin. Its principal strength consisted in a species of heavy cavalry, which the Romans, since the decline of their discipline, had borrowed from the nations of the East. The horses, as well as the men, were clothed in complete armor, the joints of which were artfully adapted to the motions of their bodies. The aspect of this cavalry was formidable, their weight almost irresistible; and as, on this occasion, their generals had drawn them up in a compact column or wedge, with a sharp point, and with spreading flanks, they flattered themselves that they could easily break and trample down the army of Constantine. They might, perhaps, have succeeded in their design, had not their experienced adversary embraced the same method of defence, which in similar circumstances had been practised by Aurelian. The skilful evolutions of Constantine divided and baffled this massy column of cavalry. The troops of Maxentius fled in confusion towards Turin; and as the gates of the city were shut against them, very few escaped the sword of the victorious pursuers. By this important service, Turin deserved to experience the clemency and even favor of the conqueror. He made his entry into the Imperial palace of Milan, and almost all the cities of Italy between the Alps and the Po not only acknowledged the power, but embraced with zeal the party, of Constantine.

When Hannibal marched from Gaul into Italy, he had to first find and then create a route over mountains and through hostile territories that had never allowed a regular army to pass. The Alps were naturally defended back then, and now they are fortified by man-made structures. Fortresses, built with great skill, labor, and expense, dominate every path into the plain, making Italy almost unreachable for the enemies of the King of Sardinia. However, over the years, generals attempting the crossing have rarely faced significant trouble or resistance. In Constantine’s time, the mountain peasants were civilized and loyal subjects; the area was well-supplied with provisions, and the impressive roads the Romans built over the Alps established several connections between Gaul and Italy. Constantine chose the route through the Cottian Alps, now known as Mount Cenis, and moved his troops with such urgency that he reached the plains of Piedmont before Maxentius’s court had received any reliable news of his departure from the Rhine. The city of Susa, located at the base of Mount Cenis, was fortified and had a garrison strong enough to slow an invader, but Constantine’s eager troops were impatient with the slow pace of a siege. The same day they arrived at Susa, they set fire to the gates and used ladders against the walls; they charged in amidst a barrage of stones and arrows, entering the city armed with swords and cutting down most of the garrison. Constantine ensured the flames were put out and saved Susa from total destruction. About forty miles away, a tougher battle awaited him. A large army of Italians had gathered under Maxentius’s lieutenants in the plains of Turin. Their main strength was a type of heavy cavalry that the Romans had adopted from the Eastern nations due to their declining discipline. The horses and their riders were fully armored, with joints designed for freedom of movement. This cavalry looked intimidating and was almost unstoppable, and their commanders believed that their tightly packed formation would easily break and crush Constantine’s army. They might have succeeded if their experienced enemy hadn’t used the same defensive tactics that Aurelian had employed in similar situations. Constantine’s skilled maneuvers divided and confused this heavy cavalry column. Maxentius’s troops fled in disarray toward Turin, and since the city gates were shut against them, very few escaped the victorious pursuers’ swords. Because of this crucial victory, Turin deserved the mercy and even favor of the conqueror. He entered the Imperial palace in Milan, and almost all the cities in Italy between the Alps and the Po not only recognized Constantine’s power but also enthusiastically supported him.

From Milan to Rome, the Æmilian and Flaminian highways offered an easy march of about four hundred miles; but though Constantine was impatient to encounter the tyrant, he prudently directed his operations against another army of Italians, who, by their strength and position, might either oppose his progress, or, in case of a misfortune, might intercept his retreat. Ruricius Pompeianus, a general distinguished by his valor and ability, had under his command the city of Verona, and all the troops that were stationed in the province of Venetia. As soon as he was informed that Constantine was advancing towards him, he detached a large body of cavalry, which was defeated in an engagement near Brescia, and pursued by the Gallic legions as far as the gates of Verona. The necessity, the importance, and the difficulties of the siege of Verona, immediately presented themselves to the sagacious mind of Constantine. The city was accessible only by a narrow peninsula towards the west, as the other three sides were surrounded by the Adige, a rapid river, which covered the province of Venetia, from whence the besieged derived an inexhaustible supply of men and provisions. It was not without great difficulty, and after several fruitless attempts, that Constantine found means to pass the river at some distance above the city, and in a place where the torrent was less violent. He then encompassed Verona with strong lines, pushed his attacks with prudent vigor, and repelled a desperate sally of Pompeianus. That intrepid general, when he had used every means of defence that the strength of the place or that of the garrison could afford, secretly escaped from Verona, anxious not for his own, but for the public safety. With indefatigable diligence he soon collected an army sufficient either to meet Constantine in the field, or to attack him if he obstinately remained within his lines. The emperor, attentive to the motions, and informed of the approach of so formidable an enemy, left a part of his legions to continue the operations of the siege, whilst, at the head of those troops on whose valor and fidelity he more particularly depended, he advanced in person to engage the general of Maxentius. The army of Gaul was drawn up in two lines, according to the usual practice of war; but their experienced leader, perceiving that the numbers of the Italians far exceeded his own, suddenly changed his disposition, and, reducing the second, extended the front of his first line to a just proportion with that of the enemy. Such evolutions, which only veteran troops can execute without confusion in a moment of danger, commonly prove decisive; but as this engagement began towards the close of the day, and was contested with great obstinacy during the whole night, there was less room for the conduct of the generals than for the courage of the soldiers. The return of light displayed the victory of Constantine, and a field of carnage covered with many thousands of the vanquished Italians. Their general, Pompeianus, was found among the slain; Verona immediately surrendered at discretion, and the garrison was made prisoners of war. When the officers of the victorious army congratulated their master on this important success, they ventured to add some respectful complaints, of such a nature, however, as the most jealous monarchs will listen to without displeasure. They represented to Constantine, that, not contented with all the duties of a commander, he had exposed his own person with an excess of valor which almost degenerated into rashness; and they conjured him for the future to pay more regard to the preservation of a life in which the safety of Rome and of the empire was involved.

From Milan to Rome, the Aemilian and Flaminian highways provided an easy march of about four hundred miles. Even though Constantine was eager to confront the tyrant, he wisely focused his efforts on another Italian army that could either block his progress or cut off his retreat if things went badly. Ruricius Pompeianus, a general known for his bravery and skill, commanded the city of Verona, along with all the troops stationed in the province of Venetia. Once he learned that Constantine was heading his way, he sent out a large cavalry force, which was defeated in a battle near Brescia and chased by the Gallic legions all the way to the gates of Verona. The urgency, significance, and challenges of besieging Verona quickly became clear to Constantine. The city could only be accessed by a narrow peninsula to the west, while the other three sides were surrounded by the Adige, a swift river that protected the province of Venetia and provided the besieged with a constant supply of men and resources. It took considerable effort and several failed attempts for Constantine to find a way to cross the river at a point upstream where the current was less fierce. He then surrounded Verona with strong fortifications, launched his attacks with careful determination, and repelled a desperate sortie by Pompeianus. That brave general, having exhausted every defensive tactic that the city's strength or the garrison's capabilities could provide, discreetly escaped from Verona, not for his own safety, but for the safety of the people. With tireless effort, he quickly gathered an army large enough to either confront Constantine in battle or attack him if he stubbornly stayed behind his lines. Constantine, attentive to the movements and aware of the approach of such a formidable enemy, left part of his legions to continue the siege while personally leading the troops he trusted most to confront Maxentius's general. The Gallic army was arranged in two lines, as was customary in warfare; however, their seasoned leader, noticing that the Italians significantly outnumbered his forces, suddenly altered his formation by compressing the second line and extending the front of the first line to match that of the enemy. Such maneuvers, which only experienced troops can execute without confusion in a moment of crisis, often prove decisive. But since this battle began toward the end of the day and was fiercely contested throughout the night, there was less opportunity for the generals to direct than for the soldiers to show bravery. As daylight returned, it revealed Constantine's victory, and a battlefield strewn with the bodies of many thousands of defeated Italians. Their general, Pompeianus, was found among the dead; Verona surrendered unconditionally, and the garrison was taken prisoner. When the officers of the winning army congratulated their leader on this significant success, they cautiously brought up some respectful complaints, but of a nature that even the most protective monarchs would accept without offense. They pointed out to Constantine that, unsatisfied with just fulfilling his duties as a commander, he had put himself at risk with such extreme bravery that it bordered on recklessness; and they urged him to consider more carefully the preservation of a life that was crucial to the safety of Rome and the empire.

While Constantine signalized his conduct and valor in the field, the sovereign of Italy appeared insensible of the calamities and danger of a civil war which reigned in the heart of his dominions. Pleasure was still the only business of Maxentius. Concealing, or at least attempting to conceal, from the public knowledge the misfortunes of his arms, he indulged himself in a vain confidence which deferred the remedies of the approaching evil, without deferring the evil itself. The rapid progress of Constantine was scarcely sufficient to awaken him from his fatal security; he flattered himself, that his well-known liberality, and the majesty of the Roman name, which had already delivered him from two invasions, would dissipate with the same facility the rebellious army of Gaul. The officers of experience and ability, who had served under the banners of Maximian, were at length compelled to inform his effeminate son of the imminent danger to which he was reduced; and, with a freedom that at once surprised and convinced him, to urge the necessity of preventing his ruin by a vigorous exertion of his remaining power. The resources of Maxentius, both of men and money, were still considerable. The Prætorian guards felt how strongly their own interest and safety were connected with his cause; and a third army was soon collected, more numerous than those which had been lost in the battles of Turin and Verona. It was far from the intention of the emperor to lead his troops in person. A stranger to the exercises of war, he trembled at the apprehension of so dangerous a contest; and as fear is commonly superstitious, he listened with melancholy attention to the rumors of omens and presages which seemed to menace his life and empire. Shame at length supplied the place of courage, and forced him to take the field. He was unable to sustain the contempt of the Roman people. The circus resounded with their indignant clamors, and they tumultuously besieged the gates of the palace, reproaching the pusillanimity of their indolent sovereign, and celebrating the heroic spirit of Constantine. Before Maxentius left Rome, he consulted the Sibylline books. The guardians of these ancient oracles were as well versed in the arts of this world as they were ignorant of the secrets of fate; and they returned him a very prudent answer, which might adapt itself to the event, and secure their reputation, whatever should be the chance of arms.

While Constantine showcased his bravery and leadership in battle, the ruler of Italy seemed oblivious to the suffering and risks of a civil war that was raging within his own territory. Maxentius was solely focused on pleasure. Trying to hide, or at least pretend to hide, the failures of his military, he clung to a false sense of confidence that postponed any necessary actions against the looming threat, but did nothing to stop that threat itself. The swift advance of Constantine barely shook him from his dangerous complacency; he convinced himself that his well-known generosity and the prestige of the Roman name, which had already saved him from two invasions, would easily disperse the rebellious army from Gaul. Experienced and capable officers who had served under Maximian eventually had to inform his pampered son about the serious danger he faced; with a candor that shocked and convinced him, they stressed the need to act decisively to prevent his downfall. Maxentius still had significant resources, both in troops and finances. The Praetorian Guard understood how closely their own interests and safety were tied to his cause, and a new army was quickly assembled, larger than those lost in the battles of Turin and Verona. The emperor did not intend to lead his troops personally. Unfamiliar with warfare, he feared the prospect of such a risky confrontation; and, being superstitious, he listened sadly to rumors of omens and signs that seemed to threaten both his life and his empire. Eventually, shame took the place of courage and compelled him to take the field. He couldn’t bear the scorn of the Roman people. Their angry shouts filled the circus, and they thronged at the palace gates, criticizing their lazy sovereign and praising the bravery of Constantine. Before leaving Rome, Maxentius consulted the Sibylline books. The guardians of these ancient prophecies were as skilled in worldly matters as they were clueless about the secrets of fate, and they provided him with a very cautious answer that could apply to any outcome, thus protecting their reputation regardless of the battle's results.

The celerity of Constantine’s march has been compared to the rapid conquest of Italy by the first of the Cæsars; nor is the flattering parallel repugnant to the truth of history, since no more than fifty-eight days elapsed between the surrender of Verona and the final decision of the war. Constantine had always apprehended that the tyrant would consult the dictates of fear, and perhaps of prudence; and that, instead of risking his last hopes in a general engagement, he would shut himself up within the walls of Rome. His ample magazines secured him against the danger of famine; and as the situation of Constantine admitted not of delay, he might have been reduced to the sad necessity of destroying with fire and sword the Imperial city, the noblest reward of his victory, and the deliverance of which had been the motive, or rather indeed the pretence, of the civil war. It was with equal surprise and pleasure, that on his arrival at a place called Saxa Rubra, about nine miles from Rome, he discovered the army of Maxentius prepared to give him battle. Their long front filled a very spacious plain, and their deep array reached to the banks of the Tyber, which covered their rear, and forbade their retreat. We are informed, and we may believe, that Constantine disposed his troops with consummate skill, and that he chose for himself the post of honor and danger. Distinguished by the splendor of his arms, he charged in person the cavalry of his rival; and his irresistible attack determined the fortune of the day. The cavalry of Maxentius was principally composed either of unwieldy cuirassiers, or of light Moors and Numidians. They yielded to the vigor of the Gallic horse, which possessed more activity than the one, more firmness than the other. The defeat of the two wings left the infantry without any protection on its flanks, and the undisciplined Italians fled without reluctance from the standard of a tyrant whom they had always hated, and whom they no longer feared. The Prætorians, conscious that their offences were beyond the reach of mercy, were animated by revenge and despair. Notwithstanding their repeated efforts, those brave veterans were unable to recover the victory: they obtained, however, an honorable death; and it was observed that their bodies covered the same ground which had been occupied by their ranks. The confusion then became general, and the dismayed troops of Maxentius, pursued by an implacable enemy, rushed by thousands into the deep and rapid stream of the Tyber. The emperor himself attempted to escape back into the city over the Milvian bridge; but the crowds which pressed together through that narrow passage forced him into the river, where he was immediately drowned by the weight of his armor. His body, which had sunk very deep into the mud, was found with some difficulty the next day. The sight of his head, when it was exposed to the eyes of the people, convinced them of their deliverance, and admonished them to receive with acclamations of loyalty and gratitude the fortunate Constantine, who thus achieved by his valor and ability the most splendid enterprise of his life.

The speed of Constantine’s march has been likened to the swift conquest of Italy by the first of the Caesars. This flattering comparison isn’t far from the truth, since only fifty-eight days passed between the surrender of Verona and the war's final outcome. Constantine always suspected that the tyrant would act out of fear, and perhaps caution; instead of risking everything in a battle, he might retreat behind the walls of Rome. His plentiful supplies protected him from starving, and since Constantine couldn't afford to wait, he could have faced the grim choice of destroying the Imperial city—the greatest prize of his victory—whose liberation had been the reason, or really the excuse, for the civil war. It was with equal surprise and joy that upon reaching a place called Saxa Rubra, about nine miles from Rome, he found Maxentius’s army ready for battle. Their long line stretched across a large plain, and their deep formation reached the banks of the Tiber, which guarded their rear and blocked their escape. We know, and can believe, that Constantine positioned his troops with expert skill and chose a spot of honor and danger for himself. Marked by the brilliance of his armor, he personally charged the cavalry of his rival, and his unstoppable attack decided the day’s outcome. Maxentius’s cavalry mainly consisted of clumsy heavily armored soldiers or light Moors and Numidians. They gave way to the agility of the Gallic cavalry, which was faster than the former and more solid than the latter. The defeat of the two wings left their infantry unprotected on the sides, and the unruly Italians fled without hesitation from the standard of a tyrant they had always despised and no longer feared. The Praetorians, aware that their crimes were beyond forgiveness, were driven by revenge and despair. Despite their repeated attempts, these brave veterans couldn’t reclaim victory; however, they earned an honorable death, and it was noted that their bodies lay where their ranks had stood. Then chaos broke out, and the frightened troops of Maxentius, chased by a relentless enemy, plunged by the thousands into the swift and deep Tiber. The emperor himself tried to escape back into the city via the Milvian Bridge, but the crowd pressing through that narrow passage pushed him into the river, where he drowned immediately under the weight of his armor. His body, which sank deep into the mud, was found with some difficulty the following day. The sight of his head, when it was shown to the people, confirmed their liberation and reminded them to greet the fortunate Constantine with cheers of loyalty and gratitude for accomplishing, through his courage and skill, the most remarkable feat of his life.

In the use of victory, Constantine neither deserved the praise of clemency, nor incurred the censure of immoderate rigor. He inflicted the same treatment to which a defeat would have exposed his own person and family, put to death the two sons of the tyrant, and carefully extirpated his whole race. The most distinguished adherents of Maxentius must have expected to share his fate, as they had shared his prosperity and his crimes; but when the Roman people loudly demanded a greater number of victims, the conqueror resisted, with firmness and humanity, those servile clamors, which were dictated by flattery as well as by resentment. Informers were punished and discouraged; the innocent, who had suffered under the late tyranny, were recalled from exile, and restored to their estates. A general act of oblivion quieted the minds and settled the property of the people, both in Italy and in Africa. The first time that Constantine honored the senate with his presence, he recapitulated his own services and exploits in a modest oration, assured that illustrious order of his sincere regard, and promised to reëstablish its ancient dignity and privileges. The grateful senate repaid these unmeaning professions by the empty titles of honor, which it was yet in their power to bestow; and without presuming to ratify the authority of Constantine, they passed a decree to assign him the first rank among the three Augusti who governed the Roman world. Games and festivals were instituted to preserve the fame of his victory, and several edifices, raised at the expense of Maxentius, were dedicated to the honor of his successful rival. The triumphal arch of Constantine still remains a melancholy proof of the decline of the arts, and a singular testimony of the meanest vanity. As it was not possible to find in the capital of the empire a sculptor who was capable of adorning that public monument, the arch of Trajan, without any respect either for his memory or for the rules of propriety, was stripped of its most elegant figures. The difference of times and persons, of actions and characters, was totally disregarded. The Parthian captives appear prostrate at the feet of a prince who never carried his arms beyond the Euphrates; and curious antiquarians can still discover the head of Trajan on the trophies of Constantine. The new ornaments which it was necessary to introduce between the vacancies of ancient sculpture are executed in the rudest and most unskilful manner.

In his victory, Constantine didn’t earn praise for mercy, nor did he face criticism for excessive harshness. He treated his enemies the same way he would have been treated in defeat, executing the two sons of the tyrant and completely wiping out his entire lineage. Maxentius's most prominent supporters must have expected to share his fate, having enjoyed his success and crimes; however, when the Roman people loudly called for more victims, the conqueror firmly and compassionately resisted those servile demands, which were driven by flattery and resentment. Informers were punished and discouraged; the innocent, who had suffered under the recent tyranny, were brought back from exile and restored to their properties. A general act of amnesty calmed people’s minds and settled property disputes both in Italy and Africa. The first time Constantine addressed the senate, he modestly recounted his own services and achievements, assured the esteemed assembly of his sincere respect, and promised to restore its ancient dignity and privileges. The grateful senate responded to these empty declarations with the meaningless titles of honor they could still bestow; without daring to validate Constantine's authority, they passed a decree granting him the top rank among the three Augusti who ruled the Roman world. Games and festivals were organized to celebrate his victory, and several buildings funded by Maxentius were dedicated to honor his successful rival. The triumphal arch of Constantine still stands as a sad reminder of the decline of the arts and a testament to his petty vanity. Since it was impossible to find a sculptor in the empire’s capital capable of enhancing that public monument, the arch of Trajan was stripped of its most beautiful figures without regard for his memory or the rules of propriety. The differences in time, people, actions, and characters were completely overlooked. The Parthian captives are shown bowing at the feet of a prince who never took his arms beyond the Euphrates; and curious historians can still find Trajan's head on Constantine’s trophies. The new decorations that had to be added to fill the gaps left by the ancient sculptures are executed in the roughest and most unskilled way.

The final abolition of the Prætorian guards was a measure of prudence as well as of revenge. Those haughty troops, whose numbers and privileges had been restored, and even augmented, by Maxentius, were forever suppressed by Constantine. Their fortified camp was destroyed, and the few Prætorians who had escaped the fury of the sword were dispersed among the legions, and banished to the frontiers of the empire, where they might be serviceable without again becoming dangerous. By suppressing the troops which were usually stationed in Rome, Constantine gave the fatal blow to the dignity of the senate and people, and the disarmed capital was exposed without protection to the insults or neglect of its distant master. We may observe, that in this last effort to preserve their expiring freedom, the Romans, from the apprehension of a tribute, had raised Maxentius to the throne. He exacted that tribute from the senate under the name of a free gift. They implored the assistance of Constantine. He vanquished the tyrant, and converted the free gift into a perpetual tax. The senators, according to the declaration which was required of their property, were divided into several classes. The most opulent paid annually eight pounds of gold, the next class paid four, the last two, and those whose poverty might have claimed an exemption, were assessed, however, at seven pieces of gold. Besides the regular members of the senate, their sons, their descendants, and even their relations, enjoyed the vain privileges, and supported the heavy burdens, of the senatorial order; nor will it any longer excite our surprise, that Constantine should be attentive to increase the number of persons who were included under so useful a description. After the defeat of Maxentius, the victorious emperor passed no more than two or three months in Rome, which he visited twice during the remainder of his life, to celebrate the solemn festivals of the tenth and of the twentieth years of his reign. Constantine was almost perpetually in motion, to exercise the legions, or to inspect the state of the provinces. Treves, Milan, Aquileia, Sirmium, Naissus, and Thessalonica, were the occasional places of his residence, till he founded a new Rome on the confines of Europe and Asia.

The complete abolition of the Praetorian guards was both a smart move and an act of revenge. Those arrogant troops, whose numbers and privileges had been restored and even increased by Maxentius, were permanently eliminated by Constantine. Their fortified camp was destroyed, and the few Praetorians who survived the violence were scattered among the legions and sent to the edges of the empire, where they could be useful without posing a threat again. By getting rid of the troops usually stationed in Rome, Constantine dealt a serious blow to the power of the senate and the people, leaving the unarmed city vulnerable to the disrespect or disregard of its distant ruler. It's worth noting that in their last attempt to protect their fading freedom, the Romans, fearing a tax, had elevated Maxentius to the throne. He imposed that tax on the senate as a so-called free gift. They pleaded for Constantine's help. He defeated the tyrant and turned the free gift into a permanent tax. The senators, according to the property declaration they were required to submit, were divided into several classes. The wealthiest paid eight pounds of gold annually, the next class paid four, the last class paid two, and even those whose poverty might have qualified them for an exemption were still assessed at seven pieces of gold. In addition to the regular senators, their sons, descendants, and even relatives enjoyed the empty privileges and endured the heavy burdens of the senatorial class; it’s no surprise that Constantine sought to increase the number of those included in such a valuable group. After defeating Maxentius, the victorious emperor spent only two or three months in Rome, which he visited twice during the rest of his life to celebrate the significant anniversaries of his reign. Constantine was almost always on the move, either training the legions or checking on the provinces. Treves, Milan, Aquileia, Sirmium, Naissus, and Thessalonica were among his occasional residences, until he established a new Rome on the border of Europe and Asia.

Before Constantine marched into Italy, he had secured the friendship, or at least the neutrality, of Licinius, the Illyrian emperor. He had promised his sister Constantia in marriage to that prince; but the celebration of the nuptials was deferred till after the conclusion of the war, and the interview of the two emperors at Milan, which was appointed for that purpose, appeared to cement the union of their families and interests. In the midst of the public festivity they were suddenly obliged to take leave of each other. An inroad of the Franks summoned Constantine to the Rhine, and the hostile approach of the sovereign of Asia demanded the immediate presence of Licinius. Maximin had been the secret ally of Maxentius, and without being discouraged by his fate, he resolved to try the fortune of a civil war. He moved out of Syria, towards the frontiers of Bithynia, in the depth of winter. The season was severe and tempestuous; great numbers of men as well as horses perished in the snow; and as the roads were broken up by incessant rains, he was obliged to leave behind him a considerable part of the heavy baggage, which was unable to follow the rapidity of his forced marches. By this extraordinary effort of diligence, he arrived with a harassed but formidable army, on the banks of the Thracian Bosphorus before the lieutenants of Licinius were apprised of his hostile intentions. Byzantium surrendered to the power of Maximin, after a siege of eleven days. He was detained some days under the walls of Heraclea; and he had no sooner taken possession of that city than he was alarmed by the intelligence that Licinius had pitched his camp at the distance of only eighteen miles. After a fruitless negotiation, in which the two princes attempted to seduce the fidelity of each other’s adherents, they had recourse to arms. The emperor of the East commanded a disciplined and veteran army of above seventy thousand men; and Licinius, who had collected about thirty thousand Illyrians, was at first oppressed by the superiority of numbers. His military skill, and the firmness of his troops, restored the day, and obtained a decisive victory. The incredible speed which Maximin exerted in his flight is much more celebrated than his prowess in the battle. Twenty-four hours afterwards he was seen, pale, trembling, and without his Imperial ornaments, at Nicomedia, one hundred and sixty miles from the place of his defeat. The wealth of Asia was yet unexhausted; and though the flower of his veterans had fallen in the late action, he had still power, if he could obtain time, to draw very numerous levies from Syria and Egypt. But he survived his misfortune only three or four months. His death, which happened at Tarsus, was variously ascribed to despair, to poison, and to the divine justice. As Maximin was alike destitute of abilities and of virtue, he was lamented neither by the people nor by the soldiers. The provinces of the East, delivered from the terrors of civil war, cheerfully acknowledged the authority of Licinius.

Before Constantine marched into Italy, he had secured the friendship, or at least the neutrality, of Licinius, the Illyrian emperor. He promised his sister Constantia to that prince in marriage; however, the wedding was postponed until after the war ended, and the meeting between the two emperors in Milan, set for that occasion, seemed to strengthen the bond of their families and interests. In the middle of the celebration, they were abruptly required to part ways. An invasion by the Franks called Constantine to the Rhine, and the aggressive moves from the Asian ruler demanded Licinius's immediate attention. Maximin had secretly allied with Maxentius, and undeterred by his downfall, he decided to pursue a civil war. He moved out of Syria toward Bithynia's borders in the heart of winter. The season was harsh and tempestuous; many men and horses perished in the snow, and since the roads were destroyed by constant rain, he had to leave behind a significant part of his heavy baggage, unable to keep up with his rapid movements. Through this tremendous effort, he arrived with a weary but intimidating army on the banks of the Thracian Bosphorus before Licinius's lieutenants were aware of his hostile plans. Byzantium surrendered to Maximin after an eleven-day siege. He was held up for several days at the walls of Heraclea; and as soon as he took control of that city, he was alarmed to learn that Licinius had camped just eighteen miles away. After a futile negotiation, where both princes tried to sway each other’s supporters, they turned to arms. The eastern emperor commanded a disciplined and veteran army of over seventy thousand men; and Licinius, who gathered about thirty thousand Illyrians, initially struggled against the numerical superiority. His military skill and the determination of his troops turned the tide, leading to a decisive victory. The incredible speed with which Maximin fled is far more famous than his ability in battle. Twenty-four hours later, he was spotted, pale and trembling, without his imperial insignia, in Nicomedia, a hundred sixty miles from the battle site. The wealth of Asia was still intact; and although a number of his veteran soldiers had been lost in the recent conflict, he still had the means, if he could buy time, to raise many more soldiers from Syria and Egypt. However, he only survived his defeat for three or four months. His death, which occurred at Tarsus, was attributed variously to despair, poisoning, and divine retribution. Since Maximin lacked both ability and virtue, neither the people nor the soldiers mourned for him. The provinces of the East, freed from the fear of civil war, willingly acknowledged Licinius's authority.

The vanquished emperor left behind him two children, a boy of about eight, and a girl of about seven, years old. Their inoffensive age might have excited compassion; but the compassion of Licinius was a very feeble resource, nor did it restrain him from extinguishingthe name and memory of his adversary. The death of Severianus will admit of less excuse, as it was dictated neither by revenge nor by policy. The conqueror had never received any injury from the father of that unhappy youth, and the short and obscure reign of Severus, in a distant part of the empire, was already forgotten. But the execution of Candidianus was an act of the blackest cruelty and ingratitude. He was the natural son of Galerius, the friend and benefactor of Licinius. The prudent father had judged him too young to sustain the weight of a diadem; but he hoped that, under the protection of princes who were indebted to his favor for the Imperial purple, Candidianus might pass a secure and honorable life. He was now advancing towards the twentieth year of his age, and the royalty of his birth, though unsupported either by merit or ambition, was sufficient to exasperate the jealous mind of Licinius. To these innocent and illustrious victims of his tyranny, we must add the wife and daughter of the emperor Diocletian. When that prince conferred on Galerius the title of Cæsar, he had given him in marriage his daughter Valeria, whose melancholy adventures might furnish a very singular subject for tragedy. She had fulfilled and even surpassed the duties of a wife. As she had not any children herself, she condescended to adopt the illegitimate son of her husband, and invariably displayed towards the unhappy Candidianus the tenderness and anxiety of a real mother. After the death of Galerius, her ample possessions provoked the avarice, and her personal attractions excited the desires, of his successor, Maximin. He had a wife still alive; but divorce was permitted by the Roman law, and the fierce passions of the tyrant demanded an immediate gratification. The answer of Valeria was such as became the daughter and widow of emperors; but it was tempered by the prudence which her defenceless condition compelled her to observe. She represented to the persons whom Maximin had employed on this occasion, “that even if honor could permit a woman of her character and dignity to entertain a thought of second nuptials, decency at least must forbid her to listen to his addresses at a time when the ashes of her husband and his benefactor were still warm, and while the sorrows of her mind were still expressed by her mourning garments. She ventured to declare, that she could place very little confidence in the professions of a man whose cruel inconstancy was capable of repudiating a faithful and affectionate wife.” On this repulse, the love of Maximin was converted into fury; and as witnesses and judges were always at his disposal, it was easy for him to cover his fury with an appearance of legal proceedings, and to assault the reputation as well as the happiness of Valeria. Her estates were confiscated, her eunuchs and domestics devoted to the most inhuman tortures; and several innocent and respectable matrons, who were honored with her friendship, suffered death, on a false accusation of adultery. The empress herself, together with her mother Prisca, was condemned to exile; and as they were ignominiously hurried from place to place before they were confined to a sequestered village in the deserts of Syria, they exposed their shame and distress to the provinces of the East, which, during thirty years, had respected their august dignity. Diocletian made several ineffectual efforts to alleviate the misfortunes of his daughter; and, as the last return that he expected for the Imperial purple, which he had conferred upon Maximin, he entreated that Valeria might be permitted to share his retirement of Salona, and to close the eyes of her afflicted father. He entreated; but as he could no longer threaten, his prayers were received with coldness and disdain; and the pride of Maximin was gratified, in treating Diocletian as a suppliant, and his daughter as a criminal. The death of Maximin seemed to assure the empresses of a favorable alteration in their fortune. The public disorders relaxed the vigilance of their guard, and they easily found means to escape from the place of their exile, and to repair, though with some precaution, and in disguise, to the court of Licinius. His behavior, in the first days of his reign, and the honorable reception which he gave to young Candidianus, inspired Valeria with a secret satisfaction, both on her own account and on that of her adopted son. But these grateful prospects were soon succeeded by horror and astonishment; and the bloody executions which stained the palace of Nicomedia sufficiently convinced her that the throne of Maximin was filled by a tyrant more inhuman than himself. Valeria consulted her safety by a hasty flight, and, still accompanied by her mother Prisca, they wandered above fifteen months through the provinces, concealed in the disguise of plebeian habits. They were at length discovered at Thessalonica; and as the sentence of their death was already pronounced, they were immediately beheaded, and their bodies thrown into the sea. The people gazed on the melancholy spectacle; but their grief and indignation were suppressed by the terrors of a military guard. Such was the unworthy fate of the wife and daughter of Diocletian. We lament their misfortunes, we cannot discover their crimes; and whatever idea we may justly entertain of the cruelty of Licinius, it remains a matter of surprise that he was not contented with some more secret and decent method of revenge.

The defeated emperor left behind two children, a boy of about eight and a girl of about seven years old. Their innocent age might have stirred some sympathy; however, Licinius's compassion was very weak, and it didn't stop him from erasing the name and memory of his rival. The death of Severianus is less forgivable, as it wasn't driven by revenge or strategy. The conqueror had never been harmed by the father of that unfortunate young man, and the brief and obscure reign of Severus in a far part of the empire was already forgotten. But the execution of Candidianus was an act of extreme cruelty and ingratitude. He was the natural son of Galerius, the friend and benefactor of Licinius. The wise father believed him too young to bear the weight of a crown, but he hoped that, under the protection of princes indebted to his affection for the Imperial power, Candidianus could lead a safe and honorable life. He was nearing his twentieth birthday, and the royalty of his birth, although lacking in merit or ambition, was enough to irritate the jealous mind of Licinius. Along with these innocent and noble victims of his tyranny, we must include the wife and daughter of Emperor Diocletian. When that prince made Galerius a Cæsar, he also gave him his daughter Valeria in marriage, whose tragic experiences could provide a unique topic for a play. She had fulfilled and even exceeded the duties of a wife. Since she had no children of her own, she chose to adopt her husband's illegitimate son and consistently showed the love and concern of a real mother towards the unfortunate Candidianus. After Galerius's death, her substantial wealth incited greed, and her beauty stirred the desires of his successor, Maximin. He still had a wife, but Roman law allowed divorce, and the tyrant's fierce passions demanded immediate satisfaction. Valeria's response was appropriate for the daughter and widow of emperors, but it was tempered by the caution her vulnerable situation required. She said to those Maximin had sent, "Even if it were honorable for a woman of my status to consider remarriage, decency must prevent me from listening to his proposals while my husband's and his benefactor's ashes are still warm, and while my grief is still shown by my mourning clothes. I find it hard to trust the words of a man whose cruel inconsistency allowed him to abandon a loyal and loving wife." This refusal turned Maximin's love into rage; and since he always had witnesses and judges at his disposal, it was easy for him to mask his fury with a show of legal proceedings and attack both Valeria's reputation and happiness. Her estates were seized, her eunuchs and servants subjected to the most inhumane tortures, and several innocent and respected women who were her friends were executed on false charges of adultery. The empress herself, along with her mother Prisca, was sentenced to exile; and as they were shamefully moved from place to place before being confined to a secluded village in the deserts of Syria, they exposed their humiliation and distress to the provinces of the East, which had respected their noble status for thirty years. Diocletian made several unsuccessful attempts to relieve his daughter's suffering; and as the final reward he expected for the Imperial power he had given to Maximin, he begged that Valeria be allowed to join him in his retreat in Salona and be with her troubled father at the end of his days. He pleaded, but since he could no longer threaten, his requests were met with coldness and disdain; and Maximin's pride was satisfied by treating Diocletian like a supplicant and his daughter like a criminal. The death of Maximin seemed to promise the empresses a change in their fortunes. The public unrest lessened the vigilance of their guards, and they quickly found a way to escape from their exile, making their way, though with some caution and in disguise, to Licinius's court. His behavior in the early days of his reign and the respectful reception he gave to young Candidianus filled Valeria with a secret hope, both for herself and for her adopted son. But these hopeful prospects were soon replaced by horror and shock; and the gruesome executions that stained the palace in Nicomedia clearly showed her that the throne formerly held by Maximin was now occupied by an even more brutal tyrant. Valeria sought safety by fleeing quickly, and traveling together with her mother Prisca, they wandered for over fifteen months through the provinces, hidden in the clothing of commoners. They were eventually discovered in Thessalonica; and as their death sentence had already been issued, they were immediately beheaded, and their bodies were thrown into the sea. The public watched the tragic scene, but their grief and anger were suppressed by the threats of a military guard. Such was the disgraceful fate of the wife and daughter of Diocletian. We mourn their misfortunes, we can't find their crimes; and regardless of how justified our views may be regarding Licinius's cruelty, it remains shocking that he was not satisfied with a more discreet and honorable way of seeking revenge.

The Roman world was now divided between Constantine and Licinius, the former of whom was master of the West, and the latter of the East. It might perhaps have been expected that the conquerors, fatigued with civil war, and connected by a private as well as public alliance, would have renounced, or at least would have suspended, any further designs of ambition. And yet a year had scarcely elapsed after the death of Maximin, before the victorious emperors turned their arms against each other. The genius, the success, and the aspiring temper of Constantine, may seem to mark him out as the aggressor; but the perfidious character of Licinius justifies the most unfavorable suspicions, and by the faint light which history reflects on this transaction, we may discover a conspiracy fomented by his arts against the authority of his colleague. Constantine had lately given his sister Anastasia in marriage to Bassianus, a man of a considerable family and fortune, and had elevated his new kinsman to the rank of Cæsar. According to the system of government instituted by Diocletian, Italy, and perhaps Africa, were designed for his department in the empire. But the performance of the promised favor was either attended with so much delay, or accompanied with so many unequal conditions, that the fidelity of Bassianus was alienated rather than secured by the honorable distinction which he had obtained. His nomination had been ratified by the consent of Licinius; and that artful prince, by the means of his emissaries, soon contrived to enter into a secret and dangerous correspondence with the new Cæsar, to irritate his discontents, and to urge him to the rash enterprise of extorting by violence what he might in vain solicit from the justice of Constantine. But the vigilant emperor discovered the conspiracy before it was ripe for execution; and after solemnly renouncing the alliance of Bassianus, despoiled him of the purple, and inflicted the deserved punishment on his treason and ingratitude. The haughty refusal of Licinius, when he was required to deliver up the criminals who had taken refuge in his dominions, confirmed the suspicions already entertained of his perfidy; and the indignities offered at Æmona, on the frontiers of Italy, to the statues of Constantine, became the signal of discord between the two princes.

The Roman world was now split between Constantine and Licinius, with Constantine ruling the West and Licinius the East. You might think that after years of civil war and their personal and public alliance, these conquerors would have given up or at least paused any further ambitions. Yet, barely a year after Maximin's death, the victorious emperors turned against each other. Constantine’s ambition and success might paint him as the aggressor, but Licinius’s treacherous nature raises plenty of doubts, and from the limited history we have on this incident, we can see that Licinius likely plotted against his colleague’s authority. Recently, Constantine had married his sister Anastasia to Bassianus, a man of decent wealth and status, and had promoted him to the rank of Cæsar. According to the government system set up by Diocletian, Italy, and maybe Africa, were supposed to be under his control in the empire. However, the promised favor came with so much delay or so many unfair conditions that Bassianus’s loyalty was more compromised than secured by the honor he received. His nomination was approved by Licinius; and that crafty prince quickly established a secret and dangerous relationship with the new Cæsar through his agents, inflaming his grievances and pushing him toward the reckless move of trying to take by force what he could not get from Constantine’s fairness. But the alert emperor uncovered the conspiracy before it could be executed; he formally distanced himself from Bassianus, stripped him of his title, and delivered deserved punishment for his betrayal and ingratitude. Licinius’s arrogant refusal to hand over the criminals seeking refuge in his territory confirmed the growing suspicions of his treachery; and the insults to Constantine's statues at Æmona, on the borders of Italy, became the trigger for conflict between the two rulers.

The first battle was fought near Cibalis, a city of Pannonia, situated on the River Save, about fifty miles above Sirmium. From the inconsiderable forces which in this important contest two such powerful monarchs brought into the field, it may be inferred that the one was suddenly provoked, and that the other was unexpectedly surprised. The emperor of the West had only twenty thousand, and the sovereign of the East no more than five and thirty thousand, men. The inferiority of number was, however, compensated by the advantage of the ground. Constantine had taken post in a defile about half a mile in breadth, between a steep hill and a deep morass, and in that situation he steadily expected and repulsed the first attack of the enemy. He pursued his success, and advanced into the plain. But the veteran legions of Illyricum rallied under the standard of a leader who had been trained to arms in the school of Probus and Diocletian. The missile weapons on both sides were soon exhausted; the two armies, with equal valor, rushed to a closer engagement of swords and spears, and the doubtful contest had already lasted from the dawn of the day to a late hour of the evening, when the right wing, which Constantine led in person, made a vigorous and decisive charge. The judicious retreat of Licinius saved the remainder of his troops from a total defeat; but when he computed his loss, which amounted to more than twenty thousand men, he thought it unsafe to pass the night in the presence of an active and victorious enemy. Abandoning his camp and magazines, he marched away with secrecy and diligence at the head of the greatest part of his cavalry, and was soon removed beyond the danger of a pursuit. His diligence preserved his wife, his son, and his treasures, which he had deposited at Sirmium. Licinius passed through that city, and breaking down the bridge on the Save, hastened to collect a new army in Dacia and Thrace. In his flight he bestowed the precarious title of Cæsar on Valens, his general of the Illyrian frontier.

The first battle took place near Cibalis, a city in Pannonia, located on the River Save, about fifty miles above Sirmium. The small forces that two powerful kings brought to this crucial fight suggest that one was suddenly provoked and the other unexpectedly caught off guard. The emperor of the West had only twenty thousand men, while the Eastern ruler had no more than thirty-five thousand. However, the disadvantage in numbers was offset by the strategic location. Constantine positioned his troops in a narrow space about half a mile wide, nestled between a steep hill and a deep swamp, where he firmly awaited and rebuffed the first attack from the enemy. He followed up on his success and moved into the plain. Yet, the seasoned legions of Illyricum regrouped under a leader trained in the tactics of Probus and Diocletian. Soon, both sides ran out of missile weapons; with equal bravery, the two armies charged into close combat with swords and spears. The intense confrontation had already stretched from dawn until late evening when Constantine personally led a powerful and decisive attack with his right wing. Licinius's wise retreat saved the rest of his troops from complete defeat, but when he assessed his losses, which exceeded twenty thousand men, he deemed it unsafe to spend the night near an active and victorious enemy. Leaving his camp and supplies behind, he discreetly marched away with most of his cavalry and quickly distanced himself from the threat of pursuit. His quick actions saved his wife, his son, and his riches that he had stored in Sirmium. Licinius passed through that city, destroyed the bridge over the Save, and rushed to gather a new army in Dacia and Thrace. During his escape, he conferred the uncertain title of Cæsar upon Valens, his general from the Illyrian frontier.





Chapter XIV: Six Emperors At The Same Time, Reunion Of The Empire.—Part IV.

The plain of Mardia in Thrace was the theatre of a second battle no less obstinate and bloody than the former. The troops on both sides displayed the same valor and discipline; and the victory was once more decided by the superior abilities of Constantine, who directed a body of five thousand men to gain an advantageous height, from whence, during the heat of the action, they attacked the rear of the enemy, and made a very considerable slaughter. The troops of Licinius, however, presenting a double front, still maintained their ground, till the approach of night put an end to the combat, and secured their retreat towards the mountains of Macedonia. The loss of two battles, and of his bravest veterans, reduced the fierce spirit of Licinius to sue for peace. His ambassador Mistrianus was admitted to the audience of Constantine: he expatiated on the common topics of moderation and humanity, which are so familiar to the eloquence of the vanquished; represented in the most insinuating language, that the event of the war was still doubtful, whilst its inevitable calamities were alike pernicious to both the contending parties; and declared that he was authorized to propose a lasting and honorable peace in the name of the two emperors his masters. Constantine received the mention of Valens with indignation and contempt. “It was not for such a purpose,” he sternly replied, “that we have advanced from the shores of the western ocean in an uninterrupted course of combats and victories, that, after rejecting an ungrateful kinsman, we should accept for our colleague a contemptible slave. The abdication of Valens is the first article of the treaty.” It was necessary to accept this humiliating condition; and the unhappy Valens, after a reign of a few days, was deprived of the purple and of his life. As soon as this obstacle was removed, the tranquillity of the Roman world was easily restored. The successive defeats of Licinius had ruined his forces, but they had displayed his courage and abilities. His situation was almost desperate, but the efforts of despair are sometimes formidable, and the good sense of Constantine preferred a great and certain advantage to a third trial of the chance of arms. He consented to leave his rival, or, as he again styled Licinius, his friend and brother, in the possession of Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt; but the provinces of Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Macedonia, and Greece, were yielded to the Western empire, and the dominions of Constantine now extended from the confines of Caledonia to the extremity of Peloponnesus. It was stipulated by the same treaty, that three royal youths, the sons of emperors, should be called to the hopes of the succession. Crispus and the young Constantine were soon afterwards declared Cæsars in the West, while the younger Licinius was invested with the same dignity in the East. In this double proportion of honors, the conqueror asserted the superiority of his arms and power.

The plain of Mardia in Thrace was the setting for a second battle that was just as stubborn and bloody as the first. The troops on both sides showed the same courage and discipline; once again, the victory was determined by Constantine's superior strategy. He led a group of five thousand men to take a commanding position, from where, during the heat of battle, they attacked the enemy's rear and inflicted significant casualties. However, Licinius's troops still held their ground with a double front until nightfall ended the fighting and allowed their retreat to the mountains of Macedonia. The loss of two battles and of his best soldiers broke Licinius's fierce spirit, prompting him to seek peace. His ambassador, Mistrianus, was granted an audience with Constantine. He talked at length about the familiar themes of moderation and humanity typical of the defeated; he conveyed in smooth language that the outcome of the war was still uncertain, while its unavoidable destruction affected both sides equally; and he declared that he was authorized to propose a lasting and honorable peace on behalf of the two emperors he served. Constantine reacted with anger and disdain at the mention of Valens, replying sternly, “We did not come from the shores of the western ocean through relentless battles and victories to reject an ungrateful relative only to accept a pathetic slave as our colleague. The abdication of Valens is the first condition of the treaty.” This humiliating demand had to be accepted, and the unfortunate Valens, after only a few days of rule, lost his title and his life. Once this obstacle was cleared, peace in the Roman world was quickly restored. Licinius's series of defeats had devastated his forces, but they showcased his bravery and skill. His situation was nearly hopeless, yet desperate efforts can be powerful, and Constantine wisely preferred a guaranteed advantage over another gamble on the battlefield. He agreed to allow his rival—whom he continued to refer to as his friend and brother—to keep Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt; in return, the provinces of Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Macedonia, and Greece were ceded to the Western empire, extending Constantine's dominion from the borders of Caledonia to the southern tip of Peloponnesus. The treaty also stipulated that three royal youths, the sons of emperors, should be in line for succession. Shortly after, Crispus and the young Constantine were declared Cæsars in the West, while the younger Licinius was given the same title in the East. In this way, the conqueror emphasized his dominance in arms and power.

The reconciliation of Constantine and Licinius, though it was imbittered by resentment and jealousy, by the remembrance of recent injuries, and by the apprehension of future dangers, maintained, however, above eight years, the tranquility of the Roman world. As a very regular series of the Imperial laws commences about this period, it would not be difficult to transcribe the civil regulations which employed the leisure of Constantine. But the most important of his institutions are intimately connected with the new system of policy and religion, which was not perfectly established till the last and peaceful years of his reign. There are many of his laws, which, as far as they concern the rights and property of individuals, and the practice of the bar, are more properly referred to the private than to the public jurisprudence of the empire; and he published many edicts of so local and temporary a nature, that they would ill deserve the notice of a general history. Two laws, however, may be selected from the crowd; the one for its importance, the other for its singularity; the former for its remarkable benevolence, the latter for its excessive severity. 1. The horrid practice, so familiar to the ancients, of exposing or murdering their new-born infants, was become every day more frequent in the provinces, and especially in Italy. It was the effect of distress; and the distress was principally occasioned by the intolerant burden of taxes, and by the vexatious as well as cruel prosecutions of the officers of the revenue against their insolvent debtors. The less opulent or less industrious part of mankind, instead of rejoicing in an increase of family, deemed it an act of paternal tenderness to release their children from the impending miseries of a life which they themselves were unable to support. The humanity of Constantine, moved, perhaps, by some recent and extraordinary instances of despair, * engaged him to address an edict to all the cities of Italy, and afterwards of Africa, directing immediate and sufficient relief to be given to those parents who should produce before the magistrates the children whom their own poverty would not allow them to educate. But the promise was too liberal, and the provision too vague, to effect any general or permanent benefit. The law, though it may merit some praise, served rather to display than to alleviate the public distress. It still remains an authentic monument to contradict and confound those venal orators, who were too well satisfied with their own situation to discover either vice or misery under the government of a generous sovereign. 2. The laws of Constantine against rapes were dictated with very little indulgence for the most amiable weaknesses of human nature; since the description of that crime was applied not only to the brutal violence which compelled, but even to the gentle seduction which might persuade, an unmarried woman, under the age of twenty-five, to leave the house of her parents. “The successful ravisher was punished with death; and as if simple death was inadequate to the enormity of his guilt, he was either burnt alive, or torn in pieces by wild beasts in the amphitheatre. The virgin’s declaration, that she had been carried away with her own consent, instead of saving her lover, exposed her to share his fate. The duty of a public prosecution was intrusted to the parents of the guilty or unfortunate maid; and if the sentiments of nature prevailed on them to dissemble the injury, and to repair by a subsequent marriage the honor of their family, they were themselves punished by exile and confiscation. The slaves, whether male or female, who were convicted of having been accessory to rape or seduction, were burnt alive, or put to death by the ingenious torture of pouring down their throats a quantity of melted lead. As the crime was of a public kind, the accusation was permitted even to strangers. The commencement of the action was not limited to any term of years, and the consequences of the sentence were extended to the innocent offspring of such an irregular union.” But whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind. The most odious parts of this edict were softened or repealed in the subsequent reigns; and even Constantine himself very frequently alleviated, by partial acts of mercy, the stern temper of his general institutions. Such, indeed, was the singular humor of that emperor, who showed himself as indulgent, and even remiss, in the execution of his laws, as he was severe, and even cruel, in the enacting of them. It is scarcely possible to observe a more decisive symptom of weakness, either in the character of the prince, or in the constitution of the government.

The reconciliation between Constantine and Licinius, despite being tainted by resentment and jealousy, along with memories of recent injuries and fears of future dangers, lasted over eight years, bringing a measure of peace to the Roman world. As a series of Imperial laws began to emerge around this time, it wouldn't be hard to list the civil regulations that occupied Constantine's attention. However, the most significant of his reforms are closely linked to the new approach to policy and religion, which wasn't fully established until the last peaceful years of his reign. Many of his laws, particularly those affecting individual rights and property, as well as legal practices, are more fittingly categorized under private rather than public law of the empire. He also issued several local and temporary edicts that aren't significant enough for a broad historical account. Yet, two laws stand out among many: one for its importance and the other for its uniqueness; the first is notable for its remarkable compassion, while the latter is known for its extreme harshness. 1. The horrific practice, once common among the ancients, of abandoning or killing newborn infants was becoming increasingly frequent in the provinces, especially in Italy. This was a result of distress, primarily caused by the crushing weight of taxes and the harsh, often cruel, enforcement of revenue officers against their insolvent debtors. Families with fewer resources or less industriousness saw the arrival of a new child not as a blessing but as a reason to release their children from the inevitable suffering of a life they couldn't support. Moved by perhaps recent and shocking instances of despair, Constantine issued an edict to all cities in Italy and later in Africa, ordering immediate and adequate relief for parents who brought their children to magistrates because their poverty prevented them from raising them. However, the promise was too generous, and the provisions too vague to create any widespread or lasting benefit. Although the law might deserve some credit, it mainly served to highlight rather than alleviate the public distress. It stands as a clear testament against those self-serving orators who were too comfortable in their own circumstances to notice vice or suffering under a kind ruler. 2. Constantine's laws against rape were drawn up with little leniency for the more appealing flaws of human nature; the definition of the crime included not just violent coercion, but also gentle persuasion that might lead an unmarried woman under twenty-five to leave her parents’ home. The perpetrator faced the death penalty; and as if that punishment alone wasn't severe enough for the gravity of the crime, he could also be burned alive or torn apart by wild animals in the arena. A virgin’s claim that she was taken willingly did not protect her lover, instead exposing her to a similar fate. The responsibility for taking legal action fell to the parents of the affected maid, and if their natural feelings led them to hide the wrongdoing and restore their family's honor through subsequent marriage, they would face exile and confiscation. Slaves, regardless of gender, accused of aiding in rape or seduction were burned alive or executed through the cruel punishment of having molten lead poured down their throats. Since the crime was considered public, even strangers could bring forth accusations. There was no time limit to file such cases, and the repercussions of these judgments extended to the innocent children born from such illicit unions. However, when the punishment provokes more fear than the crime itself, the strictness of the law must yield to common human feelings. The most loathsome aspects of this decree were softened or repealed in later reigns, and even Constantine often lightened the harshness of his broad legal framework with acts of mercy. Indeed, such was the peculiar nature of that emperor, who was as compassionate and even lax in enforcing his laws as he was severe and at times cruel in creating them. It is difficult to find a clearer sign of weakness, either in the character of the ruler or the structure of the government.

The civil administration was sometimes interrupted by the military defence of the empire. Crispus, a youth of the most amiable character, who had received with the title of Cæsar the command of the Rhine, distinguished his conduct, as well as valor, in several victories over the Franks and Alemanni, and taught the barbarians of that frontier to dread the eldest son of Constantine, and the grandson of Constantius. The emperor himself had assumed the more difficult and important province of the Danube. The Goths, who in the time of Claudius and Aurelian had felt the weight of the Roman arms, respected the power of the empire, even in the midst of its intestine divisions. But the strength of that warlike nation was now restored by a peace of near fifty years; a new generation had arisen, who no longer remembered the misfortunes of ancient days; the Sarmatians of the Lake Mæotis followed the Gothic standard either as subjects or as allies, and their united force was poured upon the countries of Illyricum. Campona, Margus, and Benonia, appear to have been the scenes of several memorable sieges and battles; and though Constantine encountered a very obstinate resistance, he prevailed at length in the contest, and the Goths were compelled to purchase an ignominious retreat, by restoring the booty and prisoners which they had taken. Nor was this advantage sufficient to satisfy the indignation of the emperor. He resolved to chastise as well as to repulse the insolent barbarians who had dared to invade the territories of Rome. At the head of his legions he passed the Danube, after repairing the bridge which had been constructed by Trajan, penetrated into the strongest recesses of Dacia, and when he had inflicted a severe revenge, condescended to give peace to the suppliant Goths, on condition that, as often as they were required, they should supply his armies with a body of forty thousand soldiers. Exploits like these were no doubt honorable to Constantine, and beneficial to the state; but it may surely be questioned, whether they can justify the exaggerated assertion of Eusebius, that all Scythia, as far as the extremity of the North, divided as it was into so many names and nations of the most various and savage manners, had been added by his victorious arms to the Roman empire.

The civil administration was occasionally disrupted by the military defense of the empire. Crispus, a young man known for his friendly nature, was given command of the Rhine along with the title of Cæsar. He distinguished himself through both his actions and bravery, winning several victories against the Franks and Alemanni, and instilling fear in the barbarians along that border due to being the eldest son of Constantine and the grandson of Constantius. The emperor himself took on the more challenging and significant role of managing the Danube province. The Goths, who had previously felt the power of the Roman army during the reigns of Claudius and Aurelian, continued to respect the empire, even amid its internal conflicts. However, the strength of that warlike nation had been restored by a peace lasting nearly fifty years; a new generation had emerged that no longer remembered the troubles of the past. The Sarmatians from Lake Mæotis either followed the Gothic banner as subjects or allies, and their combined forces attacked the regions of Illyricum. Campona, Margus, and Benonia witnessed several notable sieges and battles; although Constantine faced stubborn resistance, he ultimately succeeded in the fight, and the Goths had to make an embarrassing retreat by returning the spoils and prisoners they had captured. Yet, this victory did not fully appease the emperor's anger. He decided to punish as well as repel the arrogant barbarians who had dared to invade Roman lands. Leading his legions, he crossed the Danube after repairing the bridge built by Trajan, advanced into the strongholds of Dacia, and after taking severe revenge, agreed to grant peace to the begging Goths, with the condition that they would support his armies with a contingent of forty thousand soldiers whenever required. Such achievements were certainly honorable for Constantine and beneficial for the state; however, one might question whether they truly justify Eusebius’s exaggerated claim that all of Scythia, stretching to the farthest North and divided into many names and tribes with diverse and savage customs, had been added to the Roman empire by his victorious exploits.

In this exalted state of glory, it was impossible that Constantine should any longer endure a partner in the empire. Confiding in the superiority of his genius and military power, he determined, without any previous injury, to exert them for the destruction of Licinius, whose advanced age and unpopular vices seemed to offer a very easy conquest. But the old emperor, awakened by the approaching danger, deceived the expectations of his friends, as well as of his enemies. Calling forth that spirit and those abilities by which he had deserved the friendship of Galerius and the Imperial purple, he prepared himself for the contest, collected the forces of the East, and soon filled the plains of Hadrianople with his troops, and the straits of the Hellespont with his fleet. The army consisted of one hundred and fifty thousand foot, and fifteen thousand horse; and as the cavalry was drawn, for the most part, from Phrygia and Cappadocia, we may conceive a more favorable opinion of the beauty of the horses, than of the courage and dexterity of their riders. The fleet was composed of three hundred and fifty galleys of three ranks of oars. A hundred and thirty of these were furnished by Egypt and the adjacent coast of Africa. A hundred and ten sailed from the ports of Phœnicia and the isle of Cyprus; and the maritime countries of Bithynia, Ionia, and Caria were likewise obliged to provide a hundred and ten galleys. The troops of Constantine were ordered to a rendezvous at Thessalonica; they amounted to above a hundred and twenty thousand horse and foot. Their emperor was satisfied with their martial appearance, and his army contained more soldiers, though fewer men, than that of his eastern competitor. The legions of Constantine were levied in the warlike provinces of Europe; action had confirmed their discipline, victory had elevated their hopes, and there were among them a great number of veterans, who, after seventeen glorious campaigns under the same leader, prepared themselves to deserve an honorable dismission by a last effort of their valor. But the naval preparations of Constantine were in every respect much inferior to those of Licinius. The maritime cities of Greece sent their respective quotas of men and ships to the celebrated harbor of Piræus, and their united forces consisted of no more than two hundred small vessels—a very feeble armament, if it is compared with those formidable fleets which were equipped and maintained by the republic of Athens during the Peloponnesian war. Since Italy was no longer the seat of government, the naval establishments of Misenum and Ravenna had been gradually neglected; and as the shipping and mariners of the empire were supported by commerce rather than by war, it was natural that they should the most abound in the industrious provinces of Egypt and Asia. It is only surprising that the eastern emperor, who possessed so great a superiority at sea, should have neglected the opportunity of carrying an offensive war into the centre of his rival’s dominions.

In this elevated state of glory, Constantine could no longer tolerate a partner in the empire. Confident in his superior intellect and military strength, he decided, without any prior offense, to use them to eliminate Licinius, whose old age and unappealing vices seemed to make him an easy target. However, the old emperor, sensing the impending threat, surprised both his friends and enemies. Drawing on the spirit and abilities that had earned him the friendship of Galerius and the imperial title, he readied himself for battle, gathered the forces of the East, and soon filled the plains of Hadrianople with his troops and the straits of the Hellespont with his fleet. The army comprised a hundred and fifty thousand infantry and fifteen thousand cavalry; with most of the cavalry recruited from Phrygia and Cappadocia, we can assume the horses were impressive, though their riders were less certain in skill and bravery. The fleet consisted of three hundred and fifty galleys, each with three rows of oars. One hundred and thirty of these came from Egypt and the nearby coast of Africa. One hundred and ten sailed from the ports of Phoenicia and the island of Cyprus, while the coastal regions of Bithynia, Ionia, and Caria also supplied another hundred and ten galleys. Constantine's troops were gathered in Thessalonica, totaling over a hundred and twenty thousand infantry and cavalry. Their emperor was pleased with their martial appearance, and his army had more soldiers, if fewer men, than his eastern rival. Constantine's legions were raised in the warlike provinces of Europe; their experience had solidified their discipline, victory had boosted their morale, and among them were many veterans who, after seventeen glorious campaigns under the same leader, aimed to earn an honorable discharge through one last display of valor. Yet, Constantine's naval forces were significantly inferior to those of Licinius. The coastal cities of Greece sent their share of men and ships to the famous harbor of Piraeus, and their combined efforts amounted to no more than two hundred small vessels— a rather weak force compared to the formidable fleets that Athens had maintained during the Peloponnesian War. Since Italy was no longer the center of government, the naval bases of Misenum and Ravenna had gradually fallen into neglect; and as the shipping and sailors of the empire relied more on trade than on warfare, it was natural that they were most abundant in the industrious provinces of Egypt and Asia. It's surprising that the eastern emperor, who had such a maritime advantage, did not take the opportunity to wage an offensive war in the heart of his rival’s territory.

Instead of embracing such an active resolution, which might have changed the whole face of the war, the prudent Licinius expected the approach of his rival in a camp near Hadrianople, which he had fortified with an anxious care that betrayed his apprehension of the event. Constantine directed his march from Thessalonica towards that part of Thrace, till he found himself stopped by the broad and rapid stream of the Hebrus, and discovered the numerous army of Licinius, which filled the steep ascent of the hill, from the river to the city of Hadrianople. Many days were spent in doubtful and distant skirmishes; but at length the obstacles of the passage and of the attack were removed by the intrepid conduct of Constantine. In this place we might relate a wonderful exploit of Constantine, which, though it can scarcely be paralleled either in poetry or romance, is celebrated, not by a venal orator devoted to his fortune, but by an historian, the partial enemy of his fame. We are assured that the valiant emperor threw himself into the River Hebrus, accompanied only by twelve horsemen, and that by the effort or terror of his invincible arm, he broke, slaughtered, and put to flight a host of a hundred and fifty thousand men. The credulity of Zosimus prevailed so strongly over his passion, that among the events of the memorable battle of Hadrianople, he seems to have selected and embellished, not the most important, but the most marvellous. The valor and danger of Constantine are attested by a slight wound which he received in the thigh; but it may be discovered even from an imperfect narration, and perhaps a corrupted text, that the victory was obtained no less by the conduct of the general than by the courage of the hero; that a body of five thousand archers marched round to occupy a thick wood in the rear of the enemy, whose attention was diverted by the construction of a bridge, and that Licinius, perplexed by so many artful evolutions, was reluctantly drawn from his advantageous post to combat on equal ground on the plain. The contest was no longer equal. His confused multitude of new levies was easily vanquished by the experienced veterans of the West. Thirty-four thousand men are reported to have been slain. The fortified camp of Licinius was taken by assault the evening of the battle; the greater part of the fugitives, who had retired to the mountains, surrendered themselves the next day to the discretion of the conqueror; and his rival, who could no longer keep the field, confined himself within the walls of Byzantium.

Instead of seizing such a decisive resolution, which could have turned the war around, the cautious Licinius awaited his rival's arrival in a camp near Hadrianople, which he had fortified with anxious care that revealed his fears about what was to come. Constantine made his way from Thessalonica toward that part of Thrace, only to find himself halted by the wide and swift Hebrus River, where he spotted Licinius's large army occupying the steep hillside from the river up to the city of Hadrianople. Many days went by with uncertain and distant skirmishes; however, eventually, Constantine's fearless leadership overcame the challenges of crossing and attacking. Here, we could recount an incredible feat of Constantine, which, while it’s hard to find a parallel in either poetry or romance, is noted not by a flattering orator eager to gain favor, but by a historian, who was somewhat biased against him. We are told that the brave emperor leaped into the River Hebrus, accompanied by just twelve horsemen, and that through the strength or fear inspired by his unstoppable might, he broke through, killed, and routed an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men. Zosimus’s eagerness to believe seems to have overshadowed his bias, as he appears to have chosen and exaggerated not the most crucial, but the most astonishing details of the well-known battle of Hadrianople. Constantine’s bravery and the danger he faced are evidenced by a minor wound he sustained in the thigh; yet, it can be gleaned from a fractured account, and possibly a distorted text, that the victory was achieved as much through the general’s strategy as through the hero’s bravery; that a group of five thousand archers maneuvered to take a thick forest behind the enemy, whose attention was drawn away by the building of a bridge, and that Licinius, confused by so many clever tactics, was reluctantly forced to leave his advantageous position to fight on equal ground in the plain. The fight was no longer balanced. His disorganized group of new recruits was easily defeated by the seasoned veterans of the West. It’s reported that thirty-four thousand men were killed. Licinius’s fortified camp was stormed that evening after the battle; most of the fleeing soldiers, who had retreated into the mountains, surrendered themselves the following day to the mercy of the victor, and his rival, unable to continue fighting, confined himself within the walls of Byzantium.

The siege of Byzantium, which was immediately undertaken by Constantine, was attended with great labor and uncertainty. In the late civil wars, the fortifications of that place, so justly considered as the key of Europe and Asia, had been repaired and strengthened; and as long as Licinius remained master of the sea, the garrison was much less exposed to the danger of famine than the army of the besiegers. The naval commanders of Constantine were summoned to his camp, and received his positive orders to force the passage of the Hellespont, as the fleet of Licinius, instead of seeking and destroying their feeble enemy, continued inactive in those narrow straits, where its superiority of numbers was of little use or advantage. Crispus, the emperor’s eldest son, was intrusted with the execution of this daring enterprise, which he performed with so much courage and success, that he deserved the esteem, and most probably excited the jealousy, of his father. The engagement lasted two days; and in the evening of the first, the contending fleets, after a considerable and mutual loss, retired into their respective harbors of Europe and Asia. The second day, about noon, a strong south wind sprang up, which carried the vessels of Crispus against the enemy; and as the casual advantage was improved by his skilful intrepidity, he soon obtained a complete victory. A hundred and thirty vessels were destroyed, five thousand men were slain, and Amandus, the admiral of the Asiatic fleet, escaped with the utmost difficulty to the shores of Chalcedon. As soon as the Hellespont was open, a plentiful convoy of provisions flowed into the camp of Constantine, who had already advanced the operations of the siege. He constructed artificial mounds of earth of an equal height with the ramparts of Byzantium. The lofty towers which were erected on that foundation galled the besieged with large stones and darts from the military engines, and the battering rams had shaken the walls in several places. If Licinius persisted much longer in the defence, he exposed himself to be involved in the ruin of the place. Before he was surrounded, he prudently removed his person and treasures to Chalcedon in Asia; and as he was always desirous of associating companions to the hopes and dangers of his fortune, he now bestowed the title of Cæsar on Martinianus, who exercised one of the most important offices of the empire.

The siege of Byzantium, which Constantine immediately initiated, involved a lot of effort and uncertainty. During the recent civil wars, the fortifications of this location, rightly viewed as the gateway between Europe and Asia, had been repaired and strengthened. As long as Licinius controlled the sea, the garrison faced far less risk of famine compared to the besieging army. Constantine called upon his naval commanders to join him at camp and gave them firm orders to cross the Hellespont, since Licinius's fleet, instead of seeking out and defeating their weaker foe, remained inactive in the narrow straits where their numerical advantage was of little benefit. Crispus, the emperor's oldest son, was tasked with this bold mission, which he executed with such bravery and success that he earned his father's respect and likely sparked some jealousy. The battle lasted two days; on the evening of the first day, both fleets, after suffering significant loss, retreated to their respective harbors in Europe and Asia. The next day, around noon, a strong south wind arose, pushing Crispus's ships towards the enemy, and with his effective boldness, he quickly secured a decisive victory. One hundred thirty ships were lost, five thousand men were killed, and Amandus, the admiral of the Asian fleet, barely escaped to the shores of Chalcedon. Once the Hellespont was cleared, a steady supply of provisions flowed into Constantine's camp, who had already intensified the siege operations. He built artificial earth mounds that matched the height of Byzantium's ramparts. The tall towers constructed on these mounds plagued the defenders with large stones and projectiles from the siege engines, and the battering rams had shaken the walls in several areas. If Licinius continued to hold out much longer, he risked bringing ruin upon the city. Before being completely surrounded, he wisely relocated his person and treasures to Chalcedon in Asia; and as he was always looking to associate allies with the risks and rewards of his situation, he granted the title of Cæsar to Martinianus, who held one of the most crucial offices in the empire.

Such were still the resources, and such the abilities, of Licinius, that, after so many successive defeats, he collected in Bithynia a new army of fifty or sixty thousand men, while the activity of Constantine was employed in the siege of Byzantium. The vigilant emperor did not, however, neglect the last struggles of his antagonist. A considerable part of his victorious army was transported over the Bosphorus in small vessels, and the decisive engagement was fought soon after their landing on the heights of Chrysopolis, or, as it is now called, of Scutari. The troops of Licinius, though they were lately raised, ill armed, and worse disciplined, made head against their conquerors with fruitless but desperate valor, till a total defeat, and a slaughter of five and twenty thousand men, irretrievably determined the fate of their leader. He retired to Nicomedia, rather with the view of gaining some time for negotiation, than with the hope of any effectual defence. Constantia, his wife, and the sister of Constantine, interceded with her brother in favor of her husband, and obtained from his policy, rather than from his compassion, a solemn promise, confirmed by an oath, that after the sacrifice of Martinianus, and the resignation of the purple, Licinius himself should be permitted to pass the remainder of this life in peace and affluence. The behavior of Constantia, and her relation to the contending parties, naturally recalls the remembrance of that virtuous matron who was the sister of Augustus, and the wife of Antony. But the temper of mankind was altered, and it was no longer esteemed infamous for a Roman to survive his honor and independence. Licinius solicited and accepted the pardon of his offences, laid himself and his purple at the feet of his lord and master, was raised from the ground with insulting pity, was admitted the same day to the Imperial banquet, and soon afterwards was sent away to Thessalonica, which had been chosen for the place of his confinement. His confinement was soon terminated by death, and it is doubtful whether a tumult of the soldiers, or a decree of the senate, was suggested as the motive for his execution. According to the rules of tyranny, he was accused of forming a conspiracy, and of holding a treasonable correspondence with the barbarians; but as he was never convicted, either by his own conduct or by any legal evidence, we may perhaps be allowed, from his weakness, to presume his innocence. The memory of Licinius was branded with infamy, his statues were thrown down, and by a hasty edict, of such mischievous tendency that it was almost immediately corrected, all his laws, and all the judicial proceedings of his reign, were at once abolished. By this victory of Constantine, the Roman world was again united under the authority of one emperor, thirty-seven years after Diocletian had divided his power and provinces with his associate Maximian.

Licinius still had the resources and abilities to gather a new army of fifty or sixty thousand men in Bithynia, even after suffering so many defeats, while Constantine focused on the siege of Byzantium. However, the vigilant emperor didn’t overlook the final struggles of his opponent. A significant portion of his victorious army was moved across the Bosphorus in small boats, and a decisive battle took place shortly after they landed on the heights of Chrysopolis, now known as Scutari. Licinius's troops, though recently recruited, poorly armed, and badly trained, fought bravely against their conquerors but faced a total defeat that resulted in the loss of twenty-five thousand men, sealing their leader's fate. He retreated to Nicomedia, aiming more to buy time for negotiations than to defend himself effectively. Constantia, his wife and sister of Constantine, pleaded with her brother for her husband's sake and secured a solemn promise from him, confirmed by an oath, that after the sacrifice of Martinianus and his resignation of power, Licinius would be allowed to live the rest of his life in peace and comfort. Constantia’s actions and her connection to both sides remind us of that virtuous woman who was Augustus's sister and Antony's wife. However, attitudes had shifted, and it was no longer considered disgraceful for a Roman to outlive his honor and independence. Licinius sought and received forgiveness for his offenses, laid himself and his power at the feet of his ruler, was lifted from the ground with condescending pity, was invited to the Imperial banquet the same day, and soon after was sent to Thessalonica, chosen as his place of confinement. His imprisonment was quickly ended by death, and it remains unclear whether a soldiers’ riot or a senate decree was the reason for his execution. In line with the practices of tyranny, he was accused of plotting a conspiracy and having treasonous communications with foreigners; however, since he was never proven guilty by his actions or any legal evidence, we might be allowed to assume his innocence due to his weakness. Licinius’s memory was tainted with disgrace; his statues were toppled, and through a hasty decree, so detrimental that it was almost immediately reversed, all his laws and judicial actions from his reign were abolished. With this victory, Constantine united the Roman world under one emperor once again, thirty-seven years after Diocletian had split his power and provinces with his co-emperor Maximian.

The successive steps of the elevation of Constantine, from his first assuming the purple at York, to the resignation of Licinius, at Nicomedia, have been related with some minuteness and precision, not only as the events are in themselves both interesting and important, but still more, as they contributed to the decline of the empire by the expense of blood and treasure, and by the perpetual increase, as well of the taxes, as of the military establishment. The foundation of Constantinople, and the establishment of the Christian religion, were the immediate and memorable consequences of this revolution.

The series of events that led to Constantine's rise, from when he first took the throne in York to the resignation of Licinius in Nicomedia, have been detailed with great care and accuracy. Not only are these events interesting and significant on their own, but they also played a major role in the decline of the empire due to the loss of lives and resources, as well as the constant rise in taxes and military forces. The founding of Constantinople and the establishment of Christianity were the immediate and notable results of this change.





Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part I.

The Progress Of The Christian Religion, And The Sentiments,
Manners, Numbers, And Condition Of The Primitive Christians.
The Development of Christianity, and the Beliefs, Behaviors, Population, and Situation of Early Christians.

A candid but rational inquiry into the progress and establishment of Christianity may be considered as a very essential part of the history of the Roman empire. While that great body was invaded by open violence, or undermined by slow decay, a pure and humble religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigor from opposition, and finally erected the triumphant banner of the Cross on the ruins of the Capitol. Nor was the influence of Christianity confined to the period or to the limits of the Roman empire. After a revolution of thirteen or fourteen centuries, that religion is still professed by the nations of Europe, the most distinguished portion of human kind in arts and learning as well as in arms. By the industry and zeal of the Europeans, it has been widely diffused to the most distant shores of Asia and Africa; and by the means of their colonies has been firmly established from Canada to Chili, in a world unknown to the ancients.

A straightforward yet thoughtful exploration of the development and establishment of Christianity can be seen as a crucial part of the history of the Roman Empire. While this vast entity faced direct attacks or gradual decline, a simple and humble faith quietly made its way into people's hearts, growing in silence and obscurity, gaining strength from opposition, and ultimately raising the victorious banner of the Cross on the ruins of the Capitol. Additionally, the impact of Christianity wasn't limited to the time or boundaries of the Roman Empire. After thirteen or fourteen centuries, that faith is still embraced by the nations of Europe, the most notable segment of humanity in terms of arts, learning, and military prowess. Through the effort and enthusiasm of Europeans, it has spread widely to the farthest shores of Asia and Africa; and through their colonies, it has been firmly established from Canada to Chile, in a world unknown to the ancients.

But this inquiry, however useful or entertaining, is attended with two peculiar difficulties. The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church. The great law of impartiality too often obliges us to reveal the imperfections of the uninspired teachers and believers of the gospel; and, to a careless observer, their faults may seem to cast a shade on the faith which they professed. But the scandal of the pious Christian, and the fallacious triumph of the Infidel, should cease as soon as they recollect not only by whom, but likewise to whom, the Divine Revelation was given. The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption, which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings. *

But this inquiry, while useful or entertaining, comes with two unique challenges. The limited and questionable sources of church history rarely allow us to clear up the dark cloud that hangs over the early days of the church. The important principle of impartiality often forces us to highlight the flaws of both the uninspired teachers and believers of the gospel; and, to a casual observer, their faults might seem to overshadow the faith they professed. However, the scandal for devout Christians and the misleading victory for skeptics should fade once they remember not only who delivered the Divine Revelation but also to whom it was given. The theologian may enjoy the fulfilling task of portraying Religion as it came down from Heaven, adorned in its original purity. A more somber responsibility falls on the historian. He must reveal the unavoidable mix of error and corruption that developed during its long presence on earth, among a weak and fallen race of beings.

Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth. To this inquiry, an obvious but satisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its great Author. But as truth and reason seldom find so favorable a reception in the world, and as the wisdom of Providence frequently condescends to use the passions of the human heart, and the general circumstances of mankind, as instruments to execute its purpose, we may still be permitted, though with becoming submission, to ask, not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth of the Christian church. It will, perhaps, appear, that it was most effectually favored and assisted by the five following causes: I. The inflexible, and if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit, which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses. II. The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth. III. The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church. IV. The pure and austere morals of the Christians. V. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire.

Our curiosity naturally prompts us to ask how the Christian faith managed to achieve such a remarkable victory over the established religions of the world. To this question, a straightforward yet satisfactory answer can be given; it was due to the compelling evidence of the doctrine itself and the guiding providence of its great Author. However, since truth and reason rarely receive a warm welcome in the world, and since the wisdom of Providence often chooses to use human passions and the general circumstances of humanity as tools to carry out its purpose, we may still respectfully ask—not what were the primary causes, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid expansion of the Christian church. It may seem that it was effectively supported and aided by the following five causes: I. The unwavering, and if we may say so, the intolerant zeal of Christians, which, while rooted in the Jewish religion, was cleansed of the narrow and unsocial spirit that had deterred Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses. II. The doctrine of an afterlife, enhanced by every additional factor that could bolster and emphasize that crucial truth. III. The miraculous powers attributed to the early church. IV. The pure and strict morals of Christians. V. The unity and discipline of the Christian community, which gradually formed an independent and growing entity within the Roman Empire.

I. We have already described the religious harmony of the ancient world, and the facility * with which the most different and even hostile nations embraced, or at least respected, each other’s superstitions. A single people refused to join in the common intercourse of mankind. The Jews, who, under the Assyrian and Persian monarchies, had languished for many ages the most despised portion of their slaves, emerged from obscurity under the successors of Alexander; and as they multiplied to a surprising degree in the East, and afterwards in the West, they soon excited the curiosity and wonder of other nations. The sullen obstinacy with which they maintained their peculiar rites and unsocial manners seemed to mark them out as a distinct species of men, who boldly professed, or who faintly disguised, their implacable habits to the rest of human kind. Neither the violence of Antiochus, nor the arts of Herod, nor the example of the circumjacent nations, could ever persuade the Jews to associate with the institutions of Moses the elegant mythology of the Greeks. According to the maxims of universal toleration, the Romans protected a superstition which they despised. The polite Augustus condescended to give orders, that sacrifices should be offered for his prosperity in the temple of Jerusalem; whilst the meanest of the posterity of Abraham, who should have paid the same homage to the Jupiter of the Capitol, would have been an object of abhorrence to himself and to his brethren. But the moderation of the conquerors was insufficient to appease the jealous prejudices of their subjects, who were alarmed and scandalized at the ensigns of paganism, which necessarily introduced themselves into a Roman province. The mad attempt of Caligula to place his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem was defeated by the unanimous resolution of a people who dreaded death much less than such an idolatrous profanation. Their attachment to the law of Moses was equal to their detestation of foreign religions. The current of zeal and devotion, as it was contracted into a narrow channel, ran with the strength, and sometimes with the fury, of a torrent.

I. We have already talked about the religious harmony of the ancient world and how easily the most different and even hostile nations embraced, or at least respected, each other’s beliefs. There was one nation that refused to partake in the common interactions of humanity. The Jews, who, under the Assyrian and Persian empires, had long suffered as the most despised of slaves, came out of obscurity under Alexander’s successors; and as they multiplied significantly in the East and later in the West, they quickly captured the curiosity and wonder of other nations. The stubborn way they held onto their unique rituals and unsocial behavior made them seem like a distinct group who openly declared, or at least subtly disguised, their unyielding habits to the rest of humanity. Neither the brutality of Antiochus, the cunning of Herod, nor the influence of nearby nations could ever convince the Jews to mix the teachings of Moses with the refined mythology of the Greeks. Following the principles of universal tolerance, the Romans protected a belief they looked down upon. The courteous Augustus even ordered that sacrifices be made for his well-being in the temple of Jerusalem; meanwhile, the lowliest descendant of Abraham who had offered the same respect to Jupiter of the Capitol would have been loathed by him and his kin. However, the conquerors' leniency was not enough to quell their subjects' jealous prejudices, who were disturbed and outraged by the signs of paganism that inevitably made their way into a Roman province. Caligula’s insane attempt to place his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem was thwarted by the unanimous resolve of a people who feared death far less than such an idolatrous desecration. Their commitment to the law of Moses was matched only by their hatred for foreign religions. The flow of zeal and devotion, as it narrowed into a confined channel, surged with the strength, and sometimes the wrath, of a torrent.

This inflexible perseverance, which appeared so odious or so ridiculous to the ancient world, assumes a more awful character, since Providence has deigned to reveal to us the mysterious history of the chosen people. But the devout and even scrupulous attachment to the Mosaic religion, so conspicuous among the Jews who lived under the second temple, becomes still more surprising, if it is compared with the stubborn incredulity of their forefathers. When the law was given in thunder from Mount Sinai, when the tides of the ocean and the course of the planets were suspended for the convenience of the Israelites, and when temporal rewards and punishments were the immediate consequences of their piety or disobedience, they perpetually relapsed into rebellion against the visible majesty of their Divine King, placed the idols of the nations in the sanctuary of Jehovah, and imitated every fantastic ceremony that was practised in the tents of the Arabs, or in the cities of Phœnicia. As the protection of Heaven was deservedly withdrawn from the ungrateful race, their faith acquired a proportionable degree of vigor and purity. The contemporaries of Moses and Joshua had beheld with careless indifference the most amazing miracles. Under the pressure of every calamity, the belief of those miracles has preserved the Jews of a later period from the universal contagion of idolatry; and in contradiction to every known principle of the human mind, that singular people seems to have yielded a stronger and more ready assent to the traditions of their remote ancestors, than to the evidence of their own senses.

This rigid determination, which seemed so offensive or silly to the ancient world, takes on a more serious tone now that we have been shown the mysterious history of the chosen people. However, the deep and even meticulous dedication to the Mosaic religion, so evident among the Jews under the second temple, is even more surprising when compared to the stubborn disbelief of their ancestors. When the law was proclaimed with thunder from Mount Sinai, when the ocean’s tides and the movement of the planets were halted for the benefit of the Israelites, and when immediate rewards and punishments were directly linked to their faithfulness or disobedience, they repeatedly fell back into rebellion against the visible power of their Divine King, placed the idols of other nations in the sanctuary of Jehovah, and imitated every bizarre ceremony practiced in the tents of the Arabs or in the cities of Phoenicia. As the protection of Heaven was duly removed from this ungrateful group, their faith gained a corresponding level of strength and purity. The contemporaries of Moses and Joshua had witnessed incredible miracles with casual indifference. Yet, under the weight of every disaster, the memory of those miracles has kept later Jews from the widespread influence of idolatry; and contrary to every known principle of human thought, that unique group seems to have given stronger and quicker approval to the traditions of their distant ancestors than to the evidence of their own senses.

The Jewish religion was admirably fitted for defence, but it was never designed for conquest; and it seems probable that the number of proselytes was never much superior to that of apostates. The divine promises were originally made, and the distinguishing rite of circumcision was enjoined, to a single family. When the posterity of Abraham had multiplied like the sands of the sea, the Deity, from whose mouth they received a system of laws and ceremonies, declared himself the proper and as it were the national God of Israel; and with the most jealous care separated his favorite people from the rest of mankind. The conquest of the land of Canaan was accompanied with so many wonderful and with so many bloody circumstances, that the victorious Jews were left in a state of irreconcilable hostility with all their neighbors. They had been commanded to extirpate some of the most idolatrous tribes, and the execution of the divine will had seldom been retarded by the weakness of humanity. With the other nations they were forbidden to contract any marriages or alliances; and the prohibition of receiving them into the congregation, which in some cases was perpetual, almost always extended to the third, to the seventh, or even to the tenth generation. The obligation of preaching to the Gentiles the faith of Moses had never been inculcated as a precept of the law, nor were the Jews inclined to impose it on themselves as a voluntary duty.

The Jewish religion was well-suited for defense, but it was never intended for conquest; it seems likely that the number of converts was never significantly greater than that of those who left the faith. The divine promises were originally made, and the essential rite of circumcision was mandated, for a single family. When Abraham's descendants grew in number like the grains of sand on the shore, the God, from whom they received a set of laws and rituals, declared Himself to be the national God of Israel; and with the utmost care, He kept His chosen people separate from the rest of humanity. The conquest of the land of Canaan involved so many miraculous and bloody events that the victorious Jews found themselves in a state of irreconcilable hostility with all their neighbors. They had been commanded to eliminate some of the most idolatrous tribes, and fulfilling this divine command was rarely hindered by human weakness. They were forbidden from forming any marriages or alliances with other nations; the ban on accepting them into the community, which was sometimes permanent, often extended to the third, seventh, or even tenth generation. The duty of preaching the faith of Moses to the Gentiles was never taught as a law nor did Jews feel compelled to take it on as a voluntary responsibility.

In the admission of new citizens that unsocial people was actuated by the selfish vanity of the Greeks, rather than by the generous policy of Rome. The descendants of Abraham were flattered by the opinion that they alone were the heirs of the covenant, and they were apprehensive of diminishing the value of their inheritance by sharing it too easily with the strangers of the earth. A larger acquaintance with mankind extended their knowledge without correcting their prejudices; and whenever the God of Israel acquired any new votaries, he was much more indebted to the inconstant humor of polytheism than to the active zeal of his own missionaries. The religion of Moses seems to be instituted for a particular country as well as for a single nation; and if a strict obedience had been paid to the order, that every male, three times in the year, should present himself before the Lord Jehovah, it would have been impossible that the Jews could ever have spread themselves beyond the narrow limits of the promised land. That obstacle was indeed removed by the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem; but the most considerable part of the Jewish religion was involved in its destruction; and the Pagans, who had long wondered at the strange report of an empty sanctuary, were at a loss to discover what could be the object, or what could be the instruments, of a worship which was destitute of temples and of altars, of priests and of sacrifices. Yet even in their fallen state, the Jews, still asserting their lofty and exclusive privileges, shunned, instead of courting, the society of strangers. They still insisted with inflexible rigor on those parts of the law which it was in their power to practise. Their peculiar distinctions of days, of meats, and a variety of trivial though burdensome observances, were so many objects of disgust and aversion for the other nations, to whose habits and prejudices they were diametrically opposite. The painful and even dangerous rite of circumcision was alone capable of repelling a willing proselyte from the door of the synagogue.

In admitting new citizens, the unsocial people were driven more by the selfish pride of the Greeks than by the generous policies of Rome. The descendants of Abraham were pleased with the belief that they were the only heirs of the covenant and were worried about diminishing the value of their inheritance by too easily sharing it with outsiders. A broader understanding of humanity expanded their knowledge but did not change their biases; whenever the God of Israel gained new followers, it was much more due to the fickle nature of polytheism than to the active zeal of his own missionaries. The religion of Moses seems to have been established for a specific country and a single nation; and if strict obedience had been given to the command that every male should present himself before the Lord Jehovah three times a year, it would have been impossible for the Jews to spread beyond the limited borders of the promised land. That barrier was indeed removed by the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, but much of the Jewish religion was tied to its destruction, and the Pagans, who had long been curious about the odd reports of an empty sanctuary, struggled to understand what the focus or means of worship could be without temples, altars, priests, and sacrifices. Yet even in their fallen state, the Jews, while still asserting their lofty and exclusive privileges, avoided rather than sought out the company of strangers. They continued to insist rigidly on the parts of the law they could practice. Their unique distinctions regarding days, food, and a variety of minor but burdensome observances were sources of disgust and aversion to other nations, whose customs and biases were directly opposed to them. The painful and even dangerous rite of circumcision alone could deter a willing convert from approaching the synagogue.

Under these circumstances, Christianity offered itself to the world, armed with the strength of the Mosaic law, and delivered from the weight of its fetters. An exclusive zeal for the truth of religion, and the unity of God, was as carefully inculcated in the new as in the ancient system; and whatever was now revealed to mankind concerning the nature and designs of the Supreme Being was fitted to increase their reverence for that mysterious doctrine. The divine authority of Moses and the prophets was admitted, and even established, as the firmest basis of Christianity. From the beginning of the world, an uninterrupted series of predictions had announced and prepared the long-expected coming of the Messiah, who, in compliance with the gross apprehensions of the Jews, had been more frequently represented under the character of a King and Conqueror, than under that of a Prophet, a Martyr, and the Son of God. By his expiatory sacrifice, the imperfect sacrifices of the temple were at once consummated and abolished. The ceremonial law, which consisted only of types and figures, was succeeded by a pure and spiritual worship equally adapted to all climates, as well as to every condition of mankind; and to the initiation of blood was substituted a more harmless initiation of water. The promise of divine favor, instead of being partially confined to the posterity of Abraham, was universally proposed to the freeman and the slave, to the Greek and to the barbarian, to the Jew and to the Gentile. Every privilege that could raise the proselyte from earth to heaven, that could exalt his devotion, secure his happiness, or even gratify that secret pride which, under the semblance of devotion, insinuates itself into the human heart, was still reserved for the members of the Christian church; but at the same time all mankind was permitted, and even solicited, to accept the glorious distinction, which was not only proffered as a favor, but imposed as an obligation. It became the most sacred duty of a new convert to diffuse among his friends and relations the inestimable blessing which he had received, and to warn them against a refusal that would be severely punished as a criminal disobedience to the will of a benevolent but all-powerful Deity.

In this context, Christianity presented itself to the world, equipped with the power of the Mosaic law and free from its burdens. A focused enthusiasm for the truth of religion and the unity of God was emphasized just as much in this new belief as in the old. Everything now revealed about the nature and intentions of the Supreme Being was intended to deepen people's respect for that mysterious doctrine. The divine authority of Moses and the prophets was recognized and even established as the strongest foundation of Christianity. Since the beginning of time, a continuous stream of prophecies had announced and prepared for the long-awaited arrival of the Messiah, who, reflecting the common expectations of the Jews, was often portrayed more as a King and Conqueror rather than a Prophet, Martyr, and the Son of God. Through his atoning sacrifice, the imperfect sacrifices of the temple were both fulfilled and abolished. The ceremonial law, which consisted only of symbols and figures, was replaced by a pure and spiritual form of worship that was suitable for all environments and every human condition; the initiation by blood was exchanged for a more gentle initiation by water. The promise of divine favor, rather than being limited to the descendants of Abraham, was offered to everyone—free people and slaves, Greeks and non-Greeks, Jews and Gentiles alike. Every privilege that could elevate a convert from earth to heaven, enhance their devotion, ensure their happiness, or even satisfy that hidden pride that disguises itself as devotion within the human heart, was reserved for members of the Christian church; yet, at the same time, all of humanity was invited and even encouraged to embrace this magnificent distinction, which was not only offered as a gift but also required as a duty. It became the most sacred responsibility of a new convert to share the priceless blessing they had received with their friends and family and to warn them against refusing it, as such refusal would be severely punished as a disobedience to the will of a kind but all-powerful Deity.





Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part II.

The enfranchisement of the church from the bonds of the synagogue was a work, however, of some time and of some difficulty. The Jewish converts, who acknowledged Jesus in the character of the Messiah foretold by their ancient oracles, respected him as a prophetic teacher of virtue and religion; but they obstinately adhered to the ceremonies of their ancestors, and were desirous of imposing them on the Gentiles, who continually augmented the number of believers. These Judaizing Christians seem to have argued with some degree of plausibility from the divine origin of the Mosaic law, and from the immutable perfections of its great Author. They affirmed, that if the Being, who is the same through all eternity, had designed to abolish those sacred rites which had served to distinguish his chosen people, the repeal of them would have been no less clear and solemn than their first promulgation: that, instead of those frequent declarations, which either suppose or assert the perpetuity of the Mosaic religion, it would have been represented as a provisionary scheme intended to last only to the coming of the Messiah, who should instruct mankind in a more perfect mode of faith and of worship: that the Messiah himself, and his disciples who conversed with him on earth, instead of authorizing by their example the most minute observances of the Mosaic law, would have published to the world the abolition of those useless and obsolete ceremonies, without suffering Christianity to remain during so many years obscurely confounded among the sects of the Jewish church. Arguments like these appear to have been used in the defence of the expiring cause of the Mosaic law; but the industry of our learned divines has abundantly explained the ambiguous language of the Old Testament, and the ambiguous conduct of the apostolic teachers. It was proper gradually to unfold the system of the gospel, and to pronounce, with the utmost caution and tenderness, a sentence of condemnation so repugnant to the inclination and prejudices of the believing Jews.

The church's separation from the synagogue took quite a bit of time and was not easy. The Jewish converts who recognized Jesus as the Messiah predicted by their ancient scriptures saw him as a moral and religious teacher. However, they stubbornly clung to the rituals of their ancestors and wanted to impose these on the Gentiles, who were constantly increasing the number of believers. These Judaizing Christians seemed to argue convincingly based on the divine origin of the Mosaic law and the perfect nature of its author. They stated that if the eternal Being had intended to abolish the sacred rites that distinguished His chosen people, the repeal would have been as clear and significant as their original declaration. They argued that instead of the frequent affirmations that support the continuity of the Mosaic religion, it would have been framed as a temporary arrangement meant to last only until the arrival of the Messiah, who would teach humanity a more perfect faith and worship. They claimed that the Messiah and his disciples, who interacted with him on earth, would have denounced the unnecessary and outdated rituals instead of allowing Christianity to remain confused among the Jewish sects for so many years. Arguments like these were likely used to defend the fading relevance of the Mosaic law; however, the efforts of our learned scholars have thoroughly clarified the ambiguous language of the Old Testament and the unclear actions of the apostolic teachers. It was necessary to gradually reveal the gospel's message and, with extreme care and sensitivity, pronounce a judgment that was so against the inclinations and biases of the believing Jews.

The history of the church of Jerusalem affords a lively proof of the necessity of those precautions, and of the deep impression which the Jewish religion had made on the minds of its sectaries. The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ. It was natural that the primitive tradition of a church which was founded only forty days after the death of Christ, and was governed almost as many years under the immediate inspection of his apostle, should be received as the standard of orthodoxy. The distant churches very frequently appealed to the authority of their venerable Parent, and relieved her distresses by a liberal contribution of alms. But when numerous and opulent societies were established in the great cities of the empire, in Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, the reverence which Jerusalem had inspired to all the Christian colonies insensibly diminished. The Jewish converts, or, as they were afterwards called, the Nazarenes, who had laid the foundations of the church, soon found themselves overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that from all the various religions of polytheism enlisted under the banner of Christ: and the Gentiles, who, with the approbation of their peculiar apostle, had rejected the intolerable weight of the Mosaic ceremonies, at length refused to their more scrupulous brethren the same toleration which at first they had humbly solicited for their own practice. The ruin of the temple of the city, and of the public religion of the Jews, was severely felt by the Nazarenes; as in their manners, though not in their faith, they maintained so intimate a connection with their impious countrymen, whose misfortunes were attributed by the Pagans to the contempt, and more justly ascribed by the Christians to the wrath, of the Supreme Deity. The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem * to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigor. The emperor founded, under the name of Ælia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages. They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion, the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices, they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian, and more firmly cemented their union with the Catholic church.

The history of the church in Jerusalem provides a vivid example of how necessary precautions were and the strong impact the Jewish faith had on its followers. The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews, and the congregation they led combined the law of Moses with the teachings of Christ. It made sense that the early traditions of a church founded just forty days after Christ's death, and led for almost as many years by his apostle, would be seen as the standard of orthodoxy. The more distant churches often looked to their respected parent for authority and supported her struggles with generous donations. However, as wealthy societies emerged in major cities across the empire—like Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome—the respect that Jerusalem once commanded began to fade. The Jewish converts, later known as the Nazarenes, who had established the church, soon found themselves overwhelmed by the growing numbers of people from various polytheistic religions who joined under Christ. The Gentiles, who, with the approval of their apostle, had rejected the heavy burdens of the Mosaic laws, ultimately denied their more scrupulous brethren the same leniency they had previously requested for themselves. The destruction of the temple in the city and the public Jewish religion hit the Nazarenes hard, as they still maintained a close connection with their impious countrymen in behavior, if not in faith; the Pagans blamed their misfortunes on disdain, while the Christians justly attributed it to the anger of the Supreme Deity. The Nazarenes fled from the ruins of Jerusalem to a small town called Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church lingered in isolation and obscurity for more than sixty years. They still found solace in making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, holding on to the hope of one day returning to the places they loved and respected. But eventually, during Hadrian's reign, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews marked a low point in their struggles; and the Romans, frustrated by ongoing rebellions, enforced their victory with unusual harshness. The emperor founded a new city on Mount Sion called Ælia Capitolina, granting it the privileges of a colony, and imposing severe penalties on any Jews who dared to approach its borders. He stationed a diligent guard of a Roman cohort to ensure his orders were followed. The Nazarenes had only one option left to escape the common persecution, and the power of truth was aided by the allure of material gain. They chose Marcus as their bishop, a leader from the Gentiles, probably a native of Italy or one of the Latin provinces. With his encouragement, most of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, which they had followed for over a century. By letting go of their old habits and biases, they gained acceptance into Hadrian’s colony and strengthened their ties with the Catholic church.

When the name and honors of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes, which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Berœa, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. The name of Nazarenes was deemed too honorable for those Christian Jews, and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their understanding, as well as of their condition, the contemptuous epithet of Ebionites. In a few years after the return of the church of Jerusalem, it became a matter of doubt and controversy, whether a man who sincerely acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, but who still continued to observe the law of Moses, could possibly hope for salvation. The humane temper of Justin Martyr inclined him to answer this question in the affirmative; and though he expressed himself with the most guarded diffidence, he ventured to determine in favor of such an imperfect Christian, if he were content to practise the Mosaic ceremonies, without pretending to assert their general use or necessity. But when Justin was pressed to declare the sentiment of the church, he confessed that there were very many among the orthodox Christians, who not only excluded their Judaizing brethren from the hope of salvation, but who declined any intercourse with them in the common offices of friendship, hospitality, and social life. The more rigorous opinion prevailed, as it was natural to expect, over the milder; and an eternal bar of separation was fixed between the disciples of Moses and those of Christ. The unfortunate Ebionites, rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics, found themselves compelled to assume a more decided character; and although some traces of that obsolete sect may be discovered as late as the fourth century, they insensibly melted away, either into the church or the synagogue.

When the name and honors of the church of Jerusalem were restored to Mount Sion, the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes, who refused to follow their Latin bishop, were accused of heresy and schism. They still inhabited Pella, moved into the villages near Damascus, and formed a small church in the city of Berœa, now known as Aleppo, in Syria. The name Nazarenes was considered too respectable for these Christian Jews, and they soon earned the derogatory label of Ebionites due to both their perceived lack of understanding and their poverty. A few years after the church of Jerusalem returned, it became a matter of debate whether a person who sincerely recognized Jesus as the Messiah but continued to observe the law of Moses could expect salvation. Justin Martyr, with his kind nature, leaned towards a positive answer, and although he spoke with great caution, he suggested that such an imperfect Christian could be accepted if he practiced the Mosaic ceremonies without claiming they were universally necessary. However, when Justin was asked about the church's stance, he admitted that many orthodox Christians excluded their Judaizing peers from the hope of salvation and avoided any interaction with them in friendship, hospitality, and social life. As was to be expected, the stricter view triumphed over the more lenient one, and a permanent divide was established between the followers of Moses and those of Christ. The unfortunate Ebionites, cast out from one religion as apostates and from the other as heretics, had to adopt a more defined identity. Although some remnants of that old sect may still be found as late as the fourth century, they gradually disappeared, either merging into the church or the synagogue.

While the orthodox church preserved a just medium between excessive veneration and improper contempt for the law of Moses, the various heretics deviated into equal but opposite extremes of error and extravagance. From the acknowledged truth of the Jewish religion, the Ebionites had concluded that it could never be abolished. From its supposed imperfections, the Gnostics as hastily inferred that it never was instituted by the wisdom of the Deity. There are some objections against the authority of Moses and the prophets, which too readily present themselves to the sceptical mind; though they can only be derived from our ignorance of remote antiquity, and from our incapacity to form an adequate judgment of the divine economy. These objections were eagerly embraced and as petulantly urged by the vain science of the Gnostics. As those heretics were, for the most part, averse to the pleasures of sense, they morosely arraigned the polygamy of the patriarchs, the gallantries of David, and the seraglio of Solomon. The conquest of the land of Canaan, and the extirpation of the unsuspecting natives, they were at a loss how to reconcile with the common notions of humanity and justice. * But when they recollected the sanguinary list of murders, of executions, and of massacres, which stain almost every page of the Jewish annals, they acknowledged that the barbarians of Palestine had exercised as much compassion towards their idolatrous enemies, as they had ever shown to their friends or countrymen. Passing from the sectaries of the law to the law itself, they asserted that it was impossible that a religion which consisted only of bloody sacrifices and trifling ceremonies, and whose rewards as well as punishments were all of a carnal and temporal nature, could inspire the love of virtue, or restrain the impetuosity of passion. The Mosaic account of the creation and fall of man was treated with profane derision by the Gnostics, who would not listen with patience to the repose of the Deity after six days’ labor, to the rib of Adam, the garden of Eden, the trees of life and of knowledge, the speaking serpent, the forbidden fruit, and the condemnation pronounced against human kind for the venial offence of their first progenitors. The God of Israel was impiously represented by the Gnostics as a being liable to passion and to error, capricious in his favor, implacable in his resentment, meanly jealous of his superstitious worship, and confining his partial providence to a single people, and to this transitory life. In such a character they could discover none of the features of the wise and omnipotent Father of the universe. They allowed that the religion of the Jews was somewhat less criminal than the idolatry of the Gentiles; but it was their fundamental doctrine that the Christ whom they adored as the first and brightest emanation of the Deity appeared upon earth to rescue mankind from their various errors, and to reveal a new system of truth and perfection. The most learned of the fathers, by a very singular condescension, have imprudently admitted the sophistry of the Gnostics. * Acknowledging that the literal sense is repugnant to every principle of faith as well as reason, they deem themselves secure and invulnerable behind the ample veil of allegory, which they carefully spread over every tender part of the Mosaic dispensation.

While the orthodox church maintained a balanced view between excessive reverence and disrespect for the law of Moses, various heretics fell into equally extreme errors and excesses. The Ebionites, recognizing the truth of the Jewish faith, concluded that it could never be abolished. In contrast, the Gnostics, quick to point out its perceived flaws, hastily inferred that it was never established by divine wisdom. There are some arguments against the authority of Moses and the prophets that easily appeal to a skeptical mindset; however, these can only stem from our ignorance of ancient history and our inability to adequately judge divine plans. The Gnostics eagerly accepted and hastily promoted these objections. Since most of these heretics shied away from sensual pleasures, they harshly criticized the polygamy of the patriarchs, the affairs of David, and Solomon’s harem. They struggled to reconcile the conquest of Canaan and the extermination of the unsuspecting natives with common concepts of humanity and justice. But when they remembered the bloody record of murders, executions, and massacres that mar nearly every page of Jewish history, they admitted that the Philistines of Palestine showed as much mercy to their idolatrous foes as they did to their friends or fellow countrymen. Moving from the followers of the law to the law itself, they claimed it was impossible for a religion consisting solely of bloody sacrifices and trivial ceremonies, with rewards and punishments based entirely on physical and temporary matters, to inspire a love of virtue or curb impulsive desires. The Gnostic treatment of the Mosaic account of creation and the fall of man was filled with contempt; they couldn't tolerate the idea of God resting after six days of work, the rib of Adam, the garden of Eden, the trees of life and knowledge, the talking serpent, the forbidden fruit, or the condemnation of humanity for the minor sin of their first ancestors. The Gnostics depicted the God of Israel as a being prone to emotion and error, fickle in His favor, unyielding in His anger, jealously attached to His ritualistic worship, and limiting His care to one specific people and this temporary life. They failed to see any resemblance to the wise and all-powerful Father of the universe in such a figure. They conceded that the Jewish religion was somewhat less faulted than the idolatry of the Gentiles; however, their core belief was that the Christ they worshipped as the first and truest manifestation of the divine came to Earth to save humanity from their many errors and to unveil a new system of truth and perfection. The most knowledgeable of the church fathers, in a uniquely misguided act of concession, imprudently accepted the Gnostic arguments. Acknowledging that the literal interpretation contradicts every tenet of faith and reason, they felt safe and immune behind the broad veil of allegory, which they carefully placed over every vulnerable aspect of the Mosaic law.

It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth, that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ. We may observe with much more propriety, that, during that period, the disciples of the Messiah were indulged in a freer latitude, both of faith and practice, than has ever been allowed in succeeding ages. As the terms of communion were insensibly narrowed, and the spiritual authority of the prevailing party was exercised with increasing severity, many of its most respectable adherents, who were called upon to renounce, were provoked to assert their private opinions, to pursue the consequences of their mistaken principles, and openly to erect the standard of rebellion against the unity of the church. The Gnostics were distinguished as the most polite, the most learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name; and that general appellation, which expressed a superiority of knowledge, was either assumed by their own pride, or ironically bestowed by the envy of their adversaries. They were almost without exception of the race of the Gentiles, and their principal founders seem to have been natives of Syria or Egypt, where the warmth of the climate disposes both the mind and the body to indolent and contemplative devotion. The Gnostics blended with the faith of Christ many sublime but obscure tenets, which they derived from oriental philosophy, and even from the religion of Zoroaster, concerning the eternity of matter, the existence of two principles, and the mysterious hierarchy of the invisible world. As soon as they launched out into that vast abyss, they delivered themselves to the guidance of a disordered imagination; and as the paths of error are various and infinite, the Gnostics were imperceptibly divided into more than fifty particular sects, of whom the most celebrated appear to have been the Basilidians, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and, in a still later period, the Manichæans. Each of these sects could boast of its bishops and congregations, of its doctors and martyrs; and, instead of the Four Gospels adopted by the church, the heretics produced a multitude of histories, in which the actions and discourses of Christ and of his apostles were adapted to their respective tenets. The success of the Gnostics was rapid and extensive. They covered Asia and Egypt, established themselves in Rome, and sometimes penetrated into the provinces of the West. For the most part they arose in the second century, flourished during the third, and were suppressed in the fourth or fifth, by the prevalence of more fashionable controversies, and by the superior ascendant of the reigning power. Though they constantly disturbed the peace, and frequently disgraced the name, of religion, they contributed to assist rather than to retard the progress of Christianity. The Gentile converts, whose strongest objections and prejudices were directed against the law of Moses, could find admission into many Christian societies, which required not from their untutored mind any belief of an antecedent revelation. Their faith was insensibly fortified and enlarged, and the church was ultimately benefited by the conquests of its most inveterate enemies.

It has been noted more creatively than accurately that the church's pure innocence was never compromised by division or disagreement before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about a hundred years after Christ's death. We can more appropriately observe that during that time, the followers of the Messiah enjoyed a greater freedom in both belief and practice than has been permitted in later ages. As the conditions for belonging to the community gradually became stricter, and the spiritual authority of the dominant group was exercised with increasing harshness, many of its most respected members, who were pressured to renounce their beliefs, felt compelled to assert their own views, pursue the ramifications of their misguided principles, and openly rebel against the church's unity. The Gnostics were recognized as the most cultured, educated, and affluent within Christianity; this general label, signifying a claim to superior knowledge, was either taken on out of their own arrogance or mockingly given by their critics. They were almost entirely of Gentile origin, and their main founders seemed to have been from Syria or Egypt, where the warm climate encourages both the mind and body to relaxed and contemplative spirituality. The Gnostics combined their faith in Christ with many profound but unclear beliefs drawn from Eastern philosophy, and even from Zoroastrian religion, about the eternity of matter, the existence of two main principles, and the mysterious hierarchy of the unseen world. As soon as they ventured into that vast expanse of ideas, they followed a disorganized imagination; since the paths of error are numerous and endless, the Gnostics gradually split into more than fifty distinct sects, with the most notable being the Basilidians, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and, later, the Manichaeans. Each of these sects could point to its own bishops and congregations, teachers and martyrs; rather than using the Four Gospels accepted by the church, the heretics produced a multitude of writings that adapted the actions and teachings of Christ and his apostles to fit their specific beliefs. The Gnostics experienced rapid and widespread success. They spread across Asia and Egypt, established themselves in Rome, and occasionally ventured into the Western provinces. Most arose in the second century, thrived during the third, and were suppressed in the fourth or fifth by the dominance of more fashionable debates and the greater power of the ruling authorities. Although they consistently disrupted the peace and often tarnished the reputation of religion, they ended up helping rather than hindering the advancement of Christianity. The Gentile converts, whose strongest objections and biases were against the law of Moses, found acceptance in many Christian communities that did not demand any belief in prior revelation from their untrained minds. Their faith gradually strengthened and expanded, and the church ultimately benefited from the challenges posed by its most persistent adversaries.

But whatever difference of opinion might subsist between the Orthodox, the Ebionites, and the Gnostics, concerning the divinity or the obligation of the Mosaic law, they were all equally animated by the same exclusive zeal, and by the same abhorrence for idolatry, which had distinguished the Jews from the other nations of the ancient world. The philosopher, who considered the system of polytheism as a composition of human fraud and error, could disguise a smile of contempt under the mask of devotion, without apprehending that either the mockery, or the compliance, would expose him to the resentment of any invisible, or, as he conceived them, imaginary powers. But the established religions of Paganism were seen by the primitive Christians in a much more odious and formidable light. It was the universal sentiment both of the church and of heretics, that the dæmons were the authors, the patrons, and the objects of idolatry. Those rebellious spirits who had been degraded from the rank of angels, and cast down into the infernal pit, were still permitted to roam upon earth, to torment the bodies, and to seduce the minds, of sinful men. The dæmons soon discovered and abused the natural propensity of the human heart towards devotion, and artfully withdrawing the adoration of mankind from their Creator, they usurped the place and honors of the Supreme Deity. By the success of their malicious contrivances, they at once gratified their own vanity and revenge, and obtained the only comfort of which they were yet susceptible, the hope of involving the human species in the participation of their guilt and misery. It was confessed, or at least it was imagined, that they had distributed among themselves the most important characters of polytheism, one dæmon assuming the name and attributes of Jupiter, another of Æsculapius, a third of Venus, and a fourth perhaps of Apollo; and that, by the advantage of their long experience and ærial nature, they were enabled to execute, with sufficient skill and dignity, the parts which they had undertaken. They lurked in the temples, instituted festivals and sacrifices, invented fables, pronounced oracles, and were frequently allowed to perform miracles. The Christians, who, by the interposition of evil spirits, could so readily explain every præternatural appearance, were disposed and even desirous to admit the most extravagant fictions of the Pagan mythology. But the belief of the Christian was accompanied with horror. The most trifling mark of respect to the national worship he considered as a direct homage yielded to the dæmon, and as an act of rebellion against the majesty of God.

But no matter what differences of opinion existed between the Orthodox, the Ebionites, and the Gnostics regarding the divinity or the obligation of the Mosaic law, they were all equally driven by the same fierce passion and shared a deep hatred for idolatry, which had set the Jews apart from other nations in the ancient world. The philosopher, who viewed polytheism as a mix of human deceit and delusion, could hide a smirk of disdain behind a mask of piety, without fearing that either his mockery or compliance would provoke the wrath of any unseen, or what he believed to be, imaginary forces. However, the established religions of Paganism were seen by the early Christians in a much more repugnant and threatening light. There was a widespread belief among both the church and heretics that demons were the creators, supporters, and targets of idolatry. Those rebellious spirits, who had fallen from their angelic status and been cast into the infernal abyss, were still allowed to roam the earth, to torment human bodies and corrupt human minds. The demons quickly recognized and exploited the natural tendency of the human heart towards worship, and by cunningly redirecting humanity's devotion away from their Creator, they took over the place and honors of the Supreme Deity. Through their successful schemes, they not only satisfied their own pride and desire for revenge but also found the only comfort they could grasp—the hope of dragging humanity into their guilt and suffering. It was acknowledged, or at least believed, that they had divided among themselves the most significant roles of polytheism, with one demon taking on the title and traits of Jupiter, another of Æsculapius, a third of Venus, and perhaps a fourth of Apollo; and with the advantage of their long experience and ethereal nature, they were capable of performing the roles they had chosen with enough skill and dignity. They hid in temples, set up festivals and sacrifices, created myths, delivered oracles, and were often allowed to perform miracles. The Christians, who could easily explain every supernatural occurrence as the work of evil spirits, were both willing and eager to accept the most outlandish tales of Pagan mythology. But for the Christian, belief was accompanied by horror. Even the slightest indication of respect towards the national worship was viewed as direct homage to the demon and as an act of rebellion against the majesty of God.





Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part III.

In consequence of this opinion, it was the first but arduous duty of a Christian to preserve himself pure and undefiled by the practice of idolatry. The religion of the nations was not merely a speculative doctrine professed in the schools or preached in the temples. The innumerable deities and rites of polytheism were closely interwoven with every circumstance of business or pleasure, of public or of private life, and it seemed impossible to escape the observance of them, without, at the same time, renouncing the commerce of mankind, and all the offices and amusements of society. The important transactions of peace and war were prepared or concluded by solemn sacrifices, in which the magistrate, the senator, and the soldier, were obliged to preside or to participate. The public spectacles were an essential part of the cheerful devotion of the Pagans, and the gods were supposed to accept, as the most grateful offering, the games that the prince and people celebrated in honor of their peculiar festivals. The Christians, who with pious horror avoided the abomination of the circus or the theatre, found himself encompassed with infernal snares in every convivial entertainment, as often as his friends, invoking the hospitable deities, poured out libations to each other’s happiness. When the bride, struggling with well-affected reluctance, was forced in hymenæal pomp over the threshold of her new habitation, or when the sad procession of the dead slowly moved towards the funeral pile, the Christian, on these interesting occasions, was compelled to desert the persons who were the dearest to him, rather than contract the guilt inherent to those impious ceremonies. Every art and every trade that was in the least concerned in the framing or adorning of idols was polluted by the stain of idolatry; a severe sentence, since it devoted to eternal misery the far greater part of the community, which is employed in the exercise of liberal or mechanic professions. If we cast our eyes over the numerous remains of antiquity, we shall perceive, that besides the immediate representations of the gods, and the holy instruments of their worship, the elegant forms and agreeable fictions consecrated by the imagination of the Greeks, were introduced as the richest ornaments of the houses, the dress, and the furniture of the Pagans. Even the arts of music and painting, of eloquence and poetry, flowed from the same impure origin. In the style of the fathers, Apollo and the Muses were the organs of the infernal spirit; Homer and Virgil were the most eminent of his servants; and the beautiful mythology which pervades and animates the compositions of their genius, is destined to celebrate the glory of the dæmons. Even the common language of Greece and Rome abounded with familiar but impious expressions, which the imprudent Christian might too carelessly utter, or too patiently hear.

As a result of this view, it was the primary but challenging responsibility of a Christian to keep themselves pure and free from the practice of idolatry. The religion of the nations wasn’t just a theoretical idea taught in schools or preached in temples. The countless gods and rituals of polytheism were deeply intertwined with every aspect of business and pleasure, public and private life, making it seem impossible to avoid participating in them without also giving up social interactions and all the roles and entertainment of society. Important matters of peace and war were initiated or completed through solemn sacrifices, in which officials, senators, and soldiers were required to take part. Public spectacles were a crucial part of the joyful devotion of the Pagans, and it was believed that the gods accepted the games celebrated by the prince and the people for their special festivals as the greatest offerings. Christians, who with righteous horror avoided the disgrace of the circus or theater, found themselves surrounded by dangerous traps at every social gathering, especially when their friends, calling on the hospitable deities, poured out drinks to each other’s well-being. When the bride, pretending to hesitate, was led in celebration across the threshold of her new home, or when the mournful procession of the dead moved slowly toward the funeral pyre, the Christian found themselves forced to abandon those they loved most rather than take part in those impious ceremonies. Every craft and trade that was even slightly involved in making or decorating idols was tainted by the stain of idolatry; a harsh judgment, since it consigned the vast majority of the community involved in various trades to eternal doom. If we look at the many remnants of antiquity, we'll see that in addition to the direct representations of the gods and the sacred items of their worship, the elegant styles and appealing myths created by Greek imagination were incorporated as the richest decorations in the homes, clothing, and furnishings of the Pagans. Even the arts of music and painting, as well as speech and poetry, originated from this same impure source. In the words of the early Church Fathers, Apollo and the Muses were seen as the tools of the evil spirit; Homer and Virgil were among his most notable servants; and the beautiful mythology that flows through and animates their works is meant to glorify the demons. The common languages of Greece and Rome were filled with familiar but sacrilegious phrases that an imprudent Christian might carelessly say or too patiently listen to.

The dangerous temptations which on every side lurked in ambush to surprise the unguarded believer, assailed him with redoubled violence on the days of solemn festivals. So artfully were they framed and disposed throughout the year, that superstition always wore the appearance of pleasure, and often of virtue. Some of the most sacred festivals in the Roman ritual were destined to salute the new calends of January with vows of public and private felicity; to indulge the pious remembrance of the dead and living; to ascertain the inviolable bounds of property; to hail, on the return of spring, the genial powers of fecundity; to perpetuate the two memorable æras of Rome, the foundation of the city and that of the republic; and to restore, during the humane license of the Saturnalia, the primitive equality of mankind. Some idea may be conceived of the abhorrence of the Christians for such impious ceremonies, by the scrupulous delicacy which they displayed on a much less alarming occasion. On days of general festivity it was the custom of the ancients to adorn their doors with lamps and with branches of laurel, and to crown their heads with a garland of flowers. This innocent and elegant practice might perhaps have been tolerated as a mere civil institution. But it most unluckily happened that the doors were under the protection of the household gods, that the laurel was sacred to the lover of Daphne, and that garlands of flowers, though frequently worn as a symbol either of joy or mourning, had been dedicated in their first origin to the service of superstition. The trembling Christians, who were persuaded in this instance to comply with the fashion of their country, and the commands of the magistrate, labored under the most gloomy apprehensions, from the reproaches of his own conscience, the censures of the church, and the denunciations of divine vengeance.

The dangerous temptations that lurked everywhere to catch the unsuspecting believer off guard attacked him even more intensely during solemn festivals. They were so cleverly crafted and arranged throughout the year that superstition often seemed pleasurable and sometimes virtuous. Some of the most sacred festivals in the Roman calendar were meant to welcome the new year in January with promises of public and private happiness; to honor the memory of the dead and the living; to establish the unbreakable boundaries of property; to celebrate the arrival of spring and the blessings of fertility; to commemorate the two important moments in Rome's history: the founding of the city and the republic; and to restore, during the friendly liberties of the Saturnalia, the original equality of mankind. You can get an idea of how much Christians detested such wicked ceremonies by their extreme sensitivity to a much less troubling situation. During public festivities, it was common for the ancients to decorate their doors with lamps and laurel branches, and to wear flower crowns. This simple and elegant practice could perhaps have been tolerated as a purely social custom. However, it was unfortunate that the doors were under the protection of household gods, that laurel was sacred to the lover of Daphne, and that flower garlands, though often used to symbolize either joy or mourning, were initially dedicated to the service of superstition. The fearful Christians, who felt compelled to follow their country's customs and the orders of the magistrate, were burdened by dark fears due to their own consciences, the church's criticism, and the threats of divine punishment.

Such was the anxious diligence which was required to guard the chastity of the gospel from the infectious breath of idolatry. The superstitious observances of public or private rites were carelessly practised, from education and habit, by the followers of the established religion. But as often as they occurred, they afforded the Christians an opportunity of declaring and confirming their zealous opposition. By these frequent protestations their attachment to the faith was continually fortified; and in proportion to the increase of zeal, they combated with the more ardor and success in the holy war, which they had undertaken against the empire of the demons.

Such was the anxious effort needed to protect the purity of the gospel from the harmful influence of idolatry. The superstitious practices of public or private rituals were carelessly followed, out of education and habit, by the adherents of the established religion. However, each time these practices happened, they gave Christians a chance to express and reinforce their strong opposition. Through these constant declarations, their commitment to the faith was continually strengthened; and as their zeal grew, they fought with increasing passion and success in the holy battle they had taken on against the forces of evil.

II. The writings of Cicero represent in the most lively colors the ignorance, the errors, and the uncertainty of the ancient philosophers with regard to the immortality of the soul. When they are desirous of arming their disciples against the fear of death, they inculcate, as an obvious though melancholy position, that the fatal stroke of our dissolution releases us from the calamities of life; and that those can no longer suffer, who no longer exist. Yet there were a few sages of Greece and Rome who had conceived a more exalted, and, in some respects, a juster idea of human nature, though it must be confessed, that in the sublime inquiry, their reason had been often guided by their imagination, and that their imagination had been prompted by their vanity. When they viewed with complacency the extent of their own mental powers, when they exercised the various faculties of memory, of fancy, and of judgment, in the most profound speculations, or the most important labors, and when they reflected on the desire of fame, which transported them into future ages, far beyond the bounds of death and of the grave, they were unwilling to confound themselves with the beasts of the field, or to suppose that a being, for whose dignity they entertained the most sincere admiration, could be limited to a spot of earth, and to a few years of duration. With this favorable prepossession they summoned to their aid the science, or rather the language, of Metaphysics. They soon discovered, that as none of the properties of matter will apply to the operations of the mind, the human soul must consequently be a substance distinct from the body, pure, simple, and spiritual, incapable of dissolution, and susceptible of a much higher degree of virtue and happiness after the release from its corporeal prison. From these specious and noble principles, the philosophers who trod in the footsteps of Plato deduced a very unjustifiable conclusion, since they asserted, not only the future immortality, but the past eternity, of the human soul, which they were too apt to consider as a portion of the infinite and self-existing spirit, which pervades and sustains the universe. A doctrine thus removed beyond the senses and the experience of mankind might serve to amuse the leisure of a philosophic mind; or, in the silence of solitude, it might sometimes impart a ray of comfort to desponding virtue; but the faint impression which had been received in the schools was soon obliterated by the commerce and business of active life. We are sufficiently acquainted with the eminent persons who flourished in the age of Cicero and of the first Cæsars, with their actions, their characters, and their motives, to be assured that their conduct in this life was never regulated by any serious conviction of the rewards or punishments of a future state. At the bar and in the senate of Rome the ablest orators were not apprehensive of giving offence to their hearers by exposing that doctrine as an idle and extravagant opinion, which was rejected with contempt by every man of a liberal education and understanding.

II. The writings of Cicero vividly illustrate the ignorance, mistakes, and uncertainties of ancient philosophers regarding the immortality of the soul. When they wanted to prepare their students against the fear of death, they taught, albeit a sad truth, that the final blow of death frees us from life's hardships; and that those who do not exist can no longer suffer. However, there were a few wise thinkers from Greece and Rome who had a more elevated and, in some ways, a more accurate view of human nature. It must be acknowledged that in this lofty inquiry, their reasoning was often influenced by their imagination, and their imagination was sometimes fueled by their vanity. When they looked proudly at the extent of their own intellectual capabilities, when they engaged their various mental faculties—memory, imagination, and judgment—in deep reflections or significant works, and when they contemplated their desire for fame that carried them into the future, far beyond death and the grave, they were reluctant to see themselves as on par with mere animals, or to think that a being they deeply admired could be confined to a small piece of earth for just a few years. With this positive bias, they turned to the study, or rather the language, of Metaphysics. They soon realized that since none of the properties of matter apply to the workings of the mind, the human soul must be a substance separate from the body, pure, simple, and spiritual, incapable of decay, and capable of a much higher level of virtue and happiness after being freed from its physical confines. From these enticing and noble ideas, the philosophers who followed Plato reached a rather unfounded conclusion, claiming not only the future immortality but also the past eternity of the human soul, which they were too quick to view as a fragment of the infinite and self-existent spirit that fills and supports the universe. A doctrine so far removed from human senses and experience might entertain the mind of a philosopher in leisure; or, in the quiet of solitude, it might sometimes offer a glimmer of hope to a weary spirit. However, the faint impression it left in the schools was soon erased by the everyday activities and the demands of active life. We know enough about the prominent figures who lived in the time of Cicero and the early Caesars—about their actions, their characters, and their motivations—to be confident that their behavior in this life was never truly guided by any serious belief in the rewards or punishments of an afterlife. In the courtroom and the senate of Rome, the most skilled orators were not worried about offending their audiences by presenting the idea that future reward and punishment was a trivial and absurd belief, one that was dismissed with disdain by anyone with a good education and understanding.

Since therefore the most sublime efforts of philosophy can extend no further than feebly to point out the desire, the hope, or, at most, the probability, of a future state, there is nothing, except a divine revelation, that can ascertain the existence and describe the condition, of the invisible country which is destined to receive the souls of men after their separation from the body. But we may perceive several defects inherent to the popular religions of Greece and Rome, which rendered them very unequal to so arduous a task. 1. The general system of their mythology was unsupported by any solid proofs; and the wisest among the Pagans had already disclaimed its usurped authority. 2. The description of the infernal regions had been abandoned to the fancy of painters and of poets, who peopled them with so many phantoms and monsters, who dispensed their rewards and punishments with so little equity, that a solemn truth, the most congenial to the human heart, was oppressed and disgraced by the absurd mixture of the wildest fictions. 3. The doctrine of a future state was scarcely considered among the devout polytheists of Greece and Rome as a fundamental article of faith. The providence of the gods, as it related to public communities rather than to private individuals, was principally displayed on the visible theatre of the present world. The petitions which were offered on the altars of Jupiter or Apollo expressed the anxiety of their worshippers for temporal happiness, and their ignorance or indifference concerning a future life. The important truth of the immortality of the soul was inculcated with more diligence, as well as success, in India, in Assyria, in Egypt, and in Gaul; and since we cannot attribute such a difference to the superior knowledge of the barbarians, we must ascribe it to the influence of an established priesthood, which employed the motives of virtue as the instrument of ambition.

Since the greatest achievements of philosophy can only barely suggest the desire, hope, or, at most, the likelihood of an afterlife, there is nothing—except for divine revelation—that can confirm the existence and outline the nature of the unseen realm that awaits the souls of people after they leave their bodies. However, we can identify several shortcomings inherent in the popular religions of Greece and Rome, which made them ill-equipped for such a challenging task. 1. The overall system of their mythology lacked any solid evidence, and even the wisest Pagans had already rejected its false authority. 2. The depiction of the underworld had been left to the creativity of artists and poets, who filled it with countless phantoms and monsters that granted rewards and punishments so unjustly that a profound truth, which resonates with the human heart, was drowned and dishonored by a nonsensical mix of wild fictions. 3. The belief in an afterlife was hardly regarded among the devoted polytheists of Greece and Rome as a fundamental tenet of faith. The gods' providence was primarily focused on public communities rather than individuals and was mainly displayed on the visible stage of the present world. The prayers offered at the altars of Jupiter or Apollo reflected the worshippers' concerns for earthly happiness and their ignorance or apathy toward life after death. The significant truth of the soul's immortality was emphasized more diligently and successfully in India, Assyria, Egypt, and Gaul; and since we can't attribute this difference to the superior knowledge of these so-called barbarians, we must credit it to the influence of an established priesthood that used the incentives of virtue as tools for ambition.

We might naturally expect that a principle so essential to religion, would have been revealed in the clearest terms to the chosen people of Palestine, and that it might safely have been intrusted to the hereditary priesthood of Aaron. It is incumbent on us to adore the mysterious dispensations of Providence, when we discover that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is omitted in the law of Moses; it is darkly insinuated by the prophets; and during the long period which elapsed between the Egyptian and the Babylonian servitudes, the hopes as well as fears of the Jews appear to have been confined within the narrow compass of the present life. After Cyrus had permitted the exiled nation to return into the promised land, and after Ezra had restored the ancient records of their religion, two celebrated sects, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, insensibly arose at Jerusalem. The former, selected from the more opulent and distinguished ranks of society, were strictly attached to the literal sense of the Mosaic law, and they piously rejected the immortality of the soul, as an opinion that received no countenance from the divine book, which they revered as the only rule of their faith. To the authority of Scripture the Pharisees added that of tradition, and they accepted, under the name of traditions, several speculative tenets from the philosophy or religion of the eastern nations. The doctrines of fate or predestination, of angels and spirits, and of a future state of rewards and punishments, were in the number of these new articles of belief; and as the Pharisees, by the austerity of their manners, had drawn into their party the body of the Jewish people, the immortality of the soul became the prevailing sentiment of the synagogue, under the reign of the Asmonæan princes and pontiffs. The temper of the Jews was incapable of contenting itself with such a cold and languid assent as might satisfy the mind of a Polytheist; and as soon as they admitted the idea of a future state, they embraced it with the zeal which has always formed the characteristic of the nation. Their zeal, however, added nothing to its evidence, or even probability: and it was still necessary that the doctrine of life and immortality, which had been dictated by nature, approved by reason, and received by superstition, should obtain the sanction of divine truth from the authority and example of Christ.

We might naturally expect that a principle so essential to religion would have been clearly revealed to the chosen people of Palestine, and that it could have safely been entrusted to the hereditary priesthood of Aaron. We must admire the mysterious workings of Providence when we discover that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is absent in the law of Moses; it is vaguely suggested by the prophets; and during the long period between the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities, the hopes and fears of the Jews seemed to be confined to the present life. After Cyrus allowed the exiled nation to return to the promised land, and after Ezra restored the ancient records of their religion, two prominent sects, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, gradually emerged in Jerusalem. The Sadducees, drawn from the wealthier and more prominent social classes, strictly adhered to the literal interpretation of the Mosaic law and piously rejected the immortality of the soul, viewing it as an idea that was not supported by the sacred text they held as their sole rule of faith. The Pharisees, on the other hand, added the authority of tradition to Scripture, accepting several speculative beliefs from the philosophy or religion of eastern nations under the label of traditions. Among these new beliefs were the doctrines of fate or predestination, angels and spirits, and a future state of rewards and punishments. As the Pharisees, through their strict lifestyle, attracted the bulk of the Jewish people to their side, the idea of the immortality of the soul became the dominant sentiment of the synagogue during the rule of the Hasmonean princes and high priests. The Jewish mindset was incapable of settling for a cold and indifferent belief that might appease a polytheist; once they embraced the concept of a future state, they did so with the fervor that has always characterized the nation. However, their zeal did not enhance its validity or even likelihood: it was still essential for the doctrine of life and immortality, which had been suggested by nature, supported by reason, and adopted by superstition, to receive the confirmation of divine truth through the authority and example of Christ.

When the promise of eternal happiness was proposed to mankind on condition of adopting the faith, and of observing the precepts, of the gospel, it is no wonder that so advantageous an offer should have been accepted by great numbers of every religion, of every rank, and of every province in the Roman empire. The ancient Christians were animated by a contempt for their present existence, and by a just confidence of immortality, of which the doubtful and imperfect faith of modern ages cannot give us any adequate notion. In the primitive church, the influence of truth was very powerfully strengthened by an opinion, which, however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, has not been found agreeable to experience. It was universally believed, that the end of the world, and the kingdom of heaven, were at hand. * The near approach of this wonderful event had been predicted by the apostles; the tradition of it was preserved by their earliest disciples, and those who understood in their literal senses the discourse of Christ himself, were obliged to expect the second and glorious coming of the Son of Man in the clouds, before that generation was totally extinguished, which had beheld his humble condition upon earth, and which might still be witness of the calamities of the Jews under Vespasian or Hadrian. The revolution of seventeen centuries has instructed us not to press too closely the mysterious language of prophecy and revelation; but as long as, for wise purposes, this error was permitted to subsist in the church, it was productive of the most salutary effects on the faith and practice of Christians, who lived in the awful expectation of that moment, when the globe itself, and all the various race of mankind, should tremble at the appearance of their divine Judge.

When the promise of eternal happiness was offered to humanity on the condition of adopting the faith and following the teachings of the gospel, it's no surprise that many people from all religions, backgrounds, and regions of the Roman Empire accepted such a beneficial offer. Early Christians were inspired by a disregard for their current lives and a strong belief in immortality, a conviction that the uncertain and flawed faith of today cannot adequately convey. In the early church, the power of truth was greatly bolstered by a belief that, while it may deserve respect for its usefulness and history, has not aligned with experience. It was widely believed that the end of the world and the kingdom of heaven were imminent. The apostles had predicted the approach of this remarkable event; the tradition was kept alive by their earliest followers, and those who took Christ's words literally were compelled to anticipate the second glorious coming of the Son of Man in the clouds before that generation, which had witnessed his humble life on earth and might still be observing the suffering of the Jews under Vespasian or Hadrian, completely passed away. The passage of seventeen centuries has taught us not to interpret the mysterious language of prophecy and revelation too literally; however, as long as, for wise reasons, this misconception was allowed to persist in the church, it produced profoundly positive effects on the faith and behavior of Christians, who lived in the intense anticipation of the moment when the world and all of humanity would shake at the arrival of their divine Judge.





Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part IV.

The ancient and popular doctrine of the Millennium was intimately connected with the second coming of Christ. As the works of the creation had been finished in six days, their duration in their present state, according to a tradition which was attributed to the prophet Elijah, was fixed to six thousand years. By the same analogy it was inferred, that this long period of labor and contention, which was now almost elapsed, would be succeeded by a joyful Sabbath of a thousand years; and that Christ, with the triumphant band of the saints and the elect who had escaped death, or who had been miraculously revived, would reign upon earth till the time appointed for the last and general resurrection. So pleasing was this hope to the mind of believers, that the New Jerusalem, the seat of this blissful kingdom, was quickly adorned with all the gayest colors of the imagination. A felicity consisting only of pure and spiritual pleasure would have appeared too refined for its inhabitants, who were still supposed to possess their human nature and senses. A garden of Eden, with the amusements of the pastoral life, was no longer suited to the advanced state of society which prevailed under the Roman empire. A city was therefore erected of gold and precious stones, and a supernatural plenty of corn and wine was bestowed on the adjacent territory; in the free enjoyment of whose spontaneous productions the happy and benevolent people was never to be restrained by any jealous laws of exclusive property. The assurance of such a Millennium was carefully inculcated by a succession of fathers from Justin Martyr, and Irenæus, who conversed with the immediate disciples of the apostles, down to Lactantius, who was preceptor to the son of Constantine. Though it might not be universally received, it appears to have been the reigning sentiment of the orthodox believers; and it seems so well adapted to the desires and apprehensions of mankind, that it must have contributed in a very considerable degree to the progress of the Christian faith. But when the edifice of the church was almost completed, the temporary support was laid aside. The doctrine of Christ’s reign upon earth was at first treated as a profound allegory, was considered by degrees as a doubtful and useless opinion, and was at length rejected as the absurd invention of heresy and fanaticism. A mysterious prophecy, which still forms a part of the sacred canon, but which was thought to favor the exploded sentiment, has very narrowly escaped the proscription of the church.

The ancient and well-known idea of the Millennium was closely tied to the second coming of Christ. Since the creation had taken six days, it was believed, based on a tradition linked to the prophet Elijah, that its current form would last six thousand years. By this reasoning, it was thought that this lengthy period of struggle and hardship, which was nearly over, would be followed by a joyful Sabbath lasting a thousand years; during this time, Christ would reign on earth with the triumphant saints and the elect, who had either avoided death or been miraculously brought back to life, until the appointed moment for the final and universal resurrection. This hope delighted believers so much that the New Jerusalem, the center of this blissful kingdom, was quickly imagined in vibrant colors. A state of happiness made up of pure spiritual joy would have seemed too refined for its inhabitants, who were believed to still have human traits and senses. A Garden of Eden, with the charms of pastoral life, no longer fit the advanced social state under the Roman Empire. So, instead, a city made of gold and precious stones was built, and a supernatural abundance of grain and wine was granted to the surrounding land; in the joyful enjoyment of its spontaneous bounty, the happy and generous people would never be restricted by any envious laws of private property. The promise of such a Millennium was actively taught by a line of church fathers from Justin Martyr and Irenæus, who spoke with the direct disciples of the apostles, all the way to Lactantius, who taught the son of Constantine. While it might not have been universally accepted, it seems to have been the prevailing belief among orthodox followers, well-suited to the hopes and concerns of humanity, and likely played a significant role in the spread of Christianity. However, once the structure of the church was nearly complete, support for this idea faded. Initially, the concept of Christ's reign on earth was regarded as a deep allegory, then slowly seen as uncertain and irrelevant, and ultimately dismissed as the ridiculous notion of heresy and fanaticism. A mysterious prophecy, which is still part of the sacred text but was thought to support the now-discredited belief, narrowly avoided being banned by the church.

Whilst the happiness and glory of a temporal reign were promised to the disciples of Christ, the most dreadful calamities were denounced against an unbelieving world. The edification of a new Jerusalem was to advance by equal steps with the destruction of the mystic Babylon; and as long as the emperors who reigned before Constantine persisted in the profession of idolatry, the epithet of babylon was applied to the city and to the empire of Rome. A regular series was prepared of all the moral and physical evils which can afflict a flourishing nation; intestine discord, and the invasion of the fiercest barbarians from the unknown regions of the North; pestilence and famine, comets and eclipses, earthquakes and inundations. All these were only so many preparatory and alarming signs of the great catastrophe of Rome, when the country of the Scipios and Cæsars should be consumed by a flame from Heaven, and the city of the seven hills, with her palaces, her temples, and her triumphal arches, should be buried in a vast lake of fire and brimstone. It might, however, afford some consolation to Roman vanity, that the period of their empire would be that of the world itself; which, as it had once perished by the element of water, was destined to experience a second and a speedy destruction from the element of fire. In the opinion of a general conflagration, the faith of the Christian very happily coincided with the tradition of the East, the philosophy of the Stoics, and the analogy of Nature; and even the country, which, from religious motives, had been chosen for the origin and principal scene of the conflagration, was the best adapted for that purpose by natural and physical causes; by its deep caverns, beds of sulphur, and numerous volcanoes, of which those of Ætna, of Vesuvius, and of Lipari, exhibit a very imperfect representation. The calmest and most intrepid sceptic could not refuse to acknowledge that the destruction of the present system of the world by fire was in itself extremely probable. The Christian, who founded his belief much less on the fallacious arguments of reason than on the authority of tradition and the interpretation of Scripture, expected it with terror and confidence as a certain and approaching event; and as his mind was perpetually filled with the solemn idea, he considered every disaster that happened to the empire as an infallible symptom of an expiring world.

While the happiness and glory of a worldly reign were promised to Christ's disciples, the most terrible disasters were warned against for those who didn't believe. The building of a new Jerusalem was meant to progress alongside the destruction of the mystical Babylon; and as long as the emperors who ruled before Constantine continued to worship idols, the term Babylon was used to describe the city and the empire of Rome. A detailed list was created of all the moral and physical ailments that could afflict a thriving nation: internal strife, and the invasion of brutal barbarians from the unknown North; plagues and famines, comets and eclipses, earthquakes and floods. All these were just ominous signs of the impending downfall of Rome, when the land of the Scipios and Caesars would be consumed by fire from Heaven, and the city of the seven hills, with its palaces, temples, and triumphal arches, would be submerged in a massive lake of fire and brimstone. However, it might provide some comfort to Roman pride that the duration of their empire would coincide with that of the world itself; which, having once been destroyed by water, was fated to face a quick and fiery demise. In the belief of a widespread fire, the faith of Christians aligned well with Eastern tradition, Stoic philosophy, and the laws of Nature; and the region chosen for the origin and main scene of the fire was most suitable for that purpose due to its natural and physical traits: deep caves, sulfur deposits, and numerous volcanoes, of which those of Etna, Vesuvius, and Lipari are just poor representations. Even the calmest and most fearless skeptic couldn't deny that the destruction of the current world by fire was very likely. The Christian, whose beliefs were founded more on the solid ground of tradition and Scripture’s interpretation than on misleading arguments of reason, awaited it with both fear and confidence as an inevitable and nearing event; and since his mind was constantly occupied with this solemn thought, he viewed every disaster that struck the empire as a sure sign of a dying world.

The condemnation of the wisest and most virtuous of the Pagans, on account of their ignorance or disbelief of the divine truth, seems to offend the reason and the humanity of the present age. But the primitive church, whose faith was of a much firmer consistence, delivered over, without hesitation, to eternal torture, the far greater part of the human species. A charitable hope might perhaps be indulged in favor of Socrates, or some other sages of antiquity, who had consulted the light of reason before that of the gospel had arisen. But it was unanimously affirmed, that those who, since the birth or the death of Christ, had obstinately persisted in the worship of the dæmons, neither deserved nor could expect a pardon from the irritated justice of the Deity. These rigid sentiments, which had been unknown to the ancient world, appear to have infused a spirit of bitterness into a system of love and harmony. The ties of blood and friendship were frequently torn asunder by the difference of religious faith; and the Christians, who, in this world, found themselves oppressed by the power of the Pagans, were sometimes seduced by resentment and spiritual pride to delight in the prospect of their future triumph. “You are fond of spectacles,” exclaims the stern Tertullian; “expect the greatest of all spectacles, the last and eternal judgment of the universe. How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs, so many fancied gods, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates, who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer fires than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in red-hot flames with their deluded scholars; so many celebrated poets trembling before the tribunal, not of Minos, but of Christ; so many tragedians, more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers.” * But the humanity of the reader will permit me to draw a veil over the rest of this infernal description, which the zealous African pursues in a long variety of affected and unfeeling witticisms.

The condemnation of the wisest and most virtuous Pagans because of their ignorance or disbelief in divine truth seems to clash with the reason and humanity of today. However, the early church, with a much stronger faith, readily sentenced the vast majority of humanity to eternal torment. We might hold out some charitable hope for Socrates or other ancient sages who relied on reason before the gospel became known. But it was widely accepted that those who, after Christ's birth or death, stubbornly continued to worship demons did not deserve or could expect forgiveness from an angered God. These harsh views, unknown in the ancient world, seem to have introduced a bitterness into a system meant for love and harmony. Blood ties and friendships were often severed by religious differences; Christians, who faced oppression from Pagan powers, sometimes gave in to resentment and spiritual pride, finding joy in the thought of their eventual victory. "You love spectacles," exclaimed the stern Tertullian; "anticipate the greatest spectacle of all—the final and eternal judgment of the universe. How will I marvel, how will I laugh, how will I rejoice, how will I exult when I see so many proud kings, so many imagined gods, groaning in the deepest abyss of darkness; so many officials who persecuted the Lord's name, burning in fiercer flames than they ever lit against Christians; so many wise philosophers blushing in searing flames with their misled students; so many famous poets trembling before the judgment seat, not of Minos, but of Christ; so many tragic actors, more melodic in expressing their own suffering; so many dancers." * But out of respect for the reader’s humanity, I will cover the rest of this hellish description that the zealous African continues with in a long array of affected and unfeeling jokes.

Doubtless there were many among the primitive Christians of a temper more suitable to the meekness and charity of their profession. There were many who felt a sincere compassion for the danger of their friends and countrymen, and who exerted the most benevolent zeal to save them from the impending destruction. The careless Polytheist, assailed by new and unexpected terrors, against which neither his priests nor his philosophers could afford him any certain protection, was very frequently terrified and subdued by the menace of eternal tortures. His fears might assist the progress of his faith and reason; and if he could once persuade himself to suspect that the Christian religion might possibly be true, it became an easy task to convince him that it was the safest and most prudent party that he could possibly embrace.

Surely, there were many among the early Christians who were more suited to the kindness and compassion of their beliefs. Many genuinely cared for the safety of their friends and fellow countrymen and worked with great compassion to save them from the looming destruction. The indifferent polytheist, confronted with new and unexpected fears that neither his priests nor philosophers could protect him from, was often terrified and overwhelmed by the threat of eternal punishment. His fears could help him consider faith and reason; if he could just convince himself that Christianity might actually be true, it became much easier to persuade him that it was the safest and smartest choice he could make.

III. The supernatural gifts, which even in this life were ascribed to the Christians above the rest of mankind, must have conduced to their own comfort, and very frequently to the conviction of infidels. Besides the occasional prodigies, which might sometimes be effected by the immediate interposition of the Deity when he suspended the laws of Nature for the service of religion, the Christian church, from the time of the apostles and their first disciples, has claimed an uninterrupted succession of miraculous powers, the gift of tongues, of vision, and of prophecy, the power of expelling dæmons, of healing the sick, and of raising the dead. The knowledge of foreign languages was frequently communicated to the contemporaries of Irenæus, though Irenæus himself was left to struggle with the difficulties of a barbarous dialect, whilst he preached the gospel to the natives of Gaul. The divine inspiration, whether it was conveyed in the form of a waking or of a sleeping vision, is described as a favor very liberally bestowed on all ranks of the faithful, on women as on elders, on boys as well as upon bishops. When their devout minds were sufficiently prepared by a course of prayer, of fasting, and of vigils, to receive the extraordinary impulse, they were transported out of their senses, and delivered in ecstasy what was inspired, being mere organs of the Holy Spirit, just as a pipe or flute is of him who blows into it. We may add, that the design of these visions was, for the most part, either to disclose the future history, or to guide the present administration, of the church. The expulsion of the dæmons from the bodies of those unhappy persons whom they had been permitted to torment, was considered as a signal though ordinary triumph of religion, and is repeatedly alleged by the ancient apologists, as the most convincing evidence of the truth of Christianity. The awful ceremony was usually performed in a public manner, and in the presence of a great number of spectators; the patient was relieved by the power or skill of the exorcist, and the vanquished dæmon was heard to confess that he was one of the fabled gods of antiquity, who had impiously usurped the adoration of mankind. But the miraculous cure of diseases of the most inveterate or even preternatural kind can no longer occasion any surprise, when we recollect, that in the days of Irenæus, about the end of the second century, the resurrection of the dead was very far from being esteemed an uncommon event; that the miracle was frequently performed on necessary occasions, by great fasting and the joint supplication of the church of the place, and that the persons thus restored to their prayers had lived afterwards among them many years. At such a period, when faith could boast of so many wonderful victories over death, it seems difficult to account for the scepticism of those philosophers, who still rejected and derided the doctrine of the resurrection. A noble Grecian had rested on this important ground the whole controversy, and promised Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, that if he could be gratified with the sight of a single person who had been actually raised from the dead, he would immediately embrace the Christian religion. It is somewhat remarkable, that the prelate of the first eastern church, however anxious for the conversion of his friend, thought proper to decline this fair and reasonable challenge.

III. The supernatural gifts that were attributed to Christians in this life, setting them apart from the rest of humanity, must have provided comfort to them and often convinced non-believers. In addition to the occasional miracles, which could happen when God intervened directly by suspending natural laws for religious purposes, the Christian church, since the time of the apostles and their earliest disciples, has claimed a continuous lineage of miraculous abilities, like speaking in tongues, visions, and prophecy, the power to cast out demons, heal the sick, and raise the dead. Many people contemporary with Irenaeus received knowledge of foreign languages, even though Irenaeus himself had to deal with the challenges of a crude dialect while preaching the gospel to the people of Gaul. Divine inspiration, whether experienced as a waking or sleeping vision, was seen as a privilege generously given to all believers, including women, elders, boys, and bishops alike. When their hearts were adequately prepared through prayer, fasting, and vigils, they were overcome with extraordinary feelings and expressed what was inspired in a trance, acting merely as instruments of the Holy Spirit, similar to how a flute or pipe is played by someone blowing into it. It's worth noting that the purpose of these visions was mostly to reveal future events or to guide the current operations of the church. The act of casting out demons from those poor souls they had been allowed to torment was viewed as a clear yet routine victory of faith, frequently cited by early apologists as powerful proof of Christianity's truth. This dramatic ceremony usually took place publicly and in front of a large audience; the afflicted person was healed through the power or skill of the exorcist, and the defeated demon would often admit that it was one of the mythological gods of old who had wrongly claimed human worship. However, the miraculous healing of even the most stubborn or unnatural ailments no longer seems surprising when we remember that in Irenaeus's time, around the end of the second century, the resurrection of the dead was not viewed as a rare occurrence; it often happened when necessary, through significant fasting and the collective prayers of the local church, and those who were brought back to life lived on among them for many years afterward. Given such a time when faith could point to so many fantastic victories over death, it's puzzling to consider the skepticism of those philosophers who still dismissed and mocked the doctrine of resurrection. A notable Greek philosopher based his entire argument on this crucial point and promised Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioch, that if he could see just one person who had truly been raised from the dead, he would immediately convert to Christianity. It's somewhat striking that the leader of the first eastern church, despite wanting to convert his friend, chose to decline this fair and reasonable challenge.

The miracles of the primitive church, after obtaining the sanction of ages, have been lately attacked in a very free and ingenious inquiry, which, though it has met with the most favorable reception from the public, appears to have excited a general scandal among the divines of our own as well as of the other Protestant churches of Europe. Our different sentiments on this subject will be much less influenced by any particular arguments, than by our habits of study and reflection; and, above all, by the degree of evidence which we have accustomed ourselves to require for the proof of a miraculous event. The duty of an historian does not call upon him to interpose his private judgment in this nice and important controversy; but he ought not to dissemble the difficulty of adopting such a theory as may reconcile the interest of religion with that of reason, of making a proper application of that theory, and of defining with precision the limits of that happy period, exempt from error and from deceit, to which we might be disposed to extend the gift of supernatural powers. From the first of the fathers to the last of the popes, a succession of bishops, of saints, of martyrs, and of miracles, is continued without interruption; and the progress of superstition was so gradual, and almost imperceptible, that we know not in what particular link we should break the chain of tradition. Every age bears testimony to the wonderful events by which it was distinguished, and its testimony appears no less weighty and respectable than that of the preceding generation, till we are insensibly led on to accuse our own inconsistency, if in the eighth or in the twelfth century we deny to the venerable Bede, or to the holy Bernard, the same degree of confidence which, in the second century, we had so liberally granted to Justin or to Irenæus. If the truth of any of those miracles is appreciated by their apparent use and propriety, every age had unbelievers to convince, heretics to confute, and idolatrous nations to convert; and sufficient motives might always be produced to justify the interposition of Heaven. And yet, since every friend to revelation is persuaded of the reality, and every reasonable man is convinced of the cessation, of miraculous powers, it is evident that there must have been some period in which they were either suddenly or gradually withdrawn from the Christian church. Whatever æra is chosen for that purpose, the death of the apostles, the conversion of the Roman empire, or the extinction of the Arian heresy, the insensibility of the Christians who lived at that time will equally afford a just matter of surprise. They still supported their pretensions after they had lost their power. Credulity performed the office of faith; fanaticism was permitted to assume the language of inspiration, and the effects of accident or contrivance were ascribed to supernatural causes. The recent experience of genuine miracles should have instructed the Christian world in the ways of Providence, and habituated their eye (if we may use a very inadequate expression) to the style of the divine artist. Should the most skilful painter of modern Italy presume to decorate his feeble imitations with the name of Raphael or of Correggio, the insolent fraud would be soon discovered, and indignantly rejected.

The miracles of the early church, after receiving the approval of centuries, have recently been challenged in a very open and clever inquiry. While it has been well-received by the public, it seems to have stirred up significant scandal among theologians in both our church and other Protestant churches across Europe. Our differing views on this topic are influenced more by our study habits and reflections than by specific arguments; primarily, they are shaped by the level of evidence we have come to expect to support a miraculous event. An historian's duty does not require him to impose his personal opinions in this delicate and important debate; however, he should not ignore the challenge of adopting a theory that could align the interests of faith with those of reason, as well as effectively applying that theory and precisely defining the limits of that ideal period free from error and deceit to which we might want to attribute supernatural powers. From the earliest church fathers to the most recent popes, there has been an unbroken line of bishops, saints, martyrs, and miracles; the rise of superstition was so gradual and nearly imperceptible that we find it difficult to identify the specific point at which we should break the chain of tradition. Each age gives testimony to the remarkable events that distinguish it, and its testimony seems as significant and respected as that of the generation before it, until we are subtly led to question our own inconsistency if, in the eighth or twelfth century, we deny the same level of trust to the venerable Bede or the holy Bernard that we so freely offered to Justin or Irenaeus in the second century. If the validity of any of those miracles is judged by their apparent usefulness and appropriateness, every era had its skeptics to persuade, heretics to refute, and idolatrous nations to convert, providing ample reasons to justify divine intervention. Yet, since every supporter of revelation believes in its authenticity, and every reasonable person recognizes the end of miraculous powers, it is clear that there must have been some period in which they were either suddenly or gradually withdrawn from the Christian church. Whichever era is chosen for this—be it the death of the apostles, the conversion of the Roman Empire, or the end of Arian heresy—the indifference of the Christians living at that time is equally surprising. They continued to assert their claims even after losing their influence. Credulity acted as faith; fanaticism was allowed to speak in the language of inspiration, and the results of chance or manipulation were attributed to supernatural causes. The recent experience of genuine miracles should have taught the Christian world about the ways of Providence and trained their perspective (if we can use a very inadequate term) to recognize the style of the divine artist. If the most skilled painter of modern Italy were to falsely label his weak imitations with the names of Raphael or Correggio, the blatant fraud would quickly be uncovered and rightfully rejected.

Whatever opinion may be entertained of the miracles of the primitive church since the time of the apostles, this unresisting softness of temper, so conspicuous among the believers of the second and third centuries, proved of some accidental benefit to the cause of truth and religion. In modern times, a latent and even involuntary scepticism adheres to the most pious dispositions. Their admission of supernatural truths is much less an active consent than a cold and passive acquiescence. Accustomed long since to observe and to respect the invariable order of Nature, our reason, or at least our imagination, is not sufficiently prepared to sustain the visible action of the Deity. But, in the first ages of Christianity, the situation of mankind was extremely different. The most curious, or the most credulous, among the Pagans, were often persuaded to enter into a society which asserted an actual claim of miraculous powers. The primitive Christians perpetually trod on mystic ground, and their minds were exercised by the habits of believing the most extraordinary events. They felt, or they fancied, that on every side they were incessantly assaulted by dæmons, comforted by visions, instructed by prophecy, and surprisingly delivered from danger, sickness, and from death itself, by the supplications of the church. The real or imaginary prodigies, of which they so frequently conceived themselves to be the objects, the instruments, or the spectators, very happily disposed them to adopt with the same ease, but with far greater justice, the authentic wonders of the evangelic history; and thus miracles that exceeded not the measure of their own experience, inspired them with the most lively assurance of mysteries which were acknowledged to surpass the limits of their understanding. It is this deep impression of supernatural truths which has been so much celebrated under the name of faith; a state of mind described as the surest pledge of the divine favor and of future felicity, and recommended as the first, or perhaps the only merit of a Christian. According to the more rigid doctors, the moral virtues, which may be equally practised by infidels, are destitute of any value or efficacy in the work of our justification.

Whatever opinions people may have about the miracles of the early church since the time of the apostles, the gentle nature of the believers in the second and third centuries had some unintentional benefits for the truth and religion. In modern times, there's a hidden and even involuntary skepticism that lingers around those who are most devout. Their acceptance of supernatural truths is more of a passive agreement than an active belief. Having long been accustomed to observing and respecting the unchanging order of Nature, our minds, or at least our imaginations, aren't fully prepared to accept the visible actions of God. However, during the early ages of Christianity, people's circumstances were very different. The most curious or gullible among the Pagans were often persuaded to join a group that claimed to have miraculous powers. The early Christians constantly walked on mystical ground, and their minds were shaped by the belief in extraordinary events. They felt, or at least believed, they were constantly surrounded by demons, comforted by visions, guided by prophecies, and miraculously saved from danger, illness, and even death through the prayers of the church. The real or imagined wonders they often thought they experienced made them more willing to accept, with the same ease but with greater understanding, the true wonders of the gospel accounts; thus, miracles that didn't exceed their own experiences gave them strong confidence in mysteries that were recognized as beyond their comprehension. This deep impression of supernatural truths has been celebrated as faith; a mindset viewed as the strongest sign of divine favor and future happiness, and seen as the primary, or perhaps the only, virtue of a Christian. According to stricter theologians, moral virtues, which can also be displayed by non-believers, are seen as lacking any real value or effectiveness in achieving our justification.





Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part V.

IV. But the primitive Christian demonstrated his faith by his virtues; and it was very justly supposed that the divine persuasion, which enlightened or subdued the understanding, must, at the same time, purify the heart, and direct the actions, of the believer. The first apologists of Christianity who justify the innocence of their brethren, and the writers of a later period who celebrate the sanctity of their ancestors, display, in the most lively colors, the reformation of manners which was introduced into the world by the preaching of the gospel. As it is my intention to remark only such human causes as were permitted to second the influence of revelation, I shall slightly mention two motives which might naturally render the lives of the primitive Christians much purer and more austere than those of their Pagan contemporaries, or their degenerate successors; repentance for their past sins, and the laudable desire of supporting the reputation of the society in which they were engaged. *

IV. But the early Christians showed their faith through their good deeds; it was widely believed that the divine guidance, which illuminated or humbled the mind, must also cleanse the heart and guide the actions of the believer. The first defenders of Christianity who justified the innocence of their fellow believers, along with later writers who praised the holiness of their ancestors, vividly illustrated the change in behavior brought about by the preaching of the gospel. Since my intention is to highlight only the human influences that supported the impact of revelation, I will briefly mention two reasons that likely made the lives of early Christians much purer and stricter compared to their Pagan contemporaries or their less virtuous successors: regret for their past sins, and the commendable desire to uphold the reputation of the community to which they belonged.

It is a very ancient reproach, suggested by the ignorance or the malice of infidelity, that the Christians allured into their party the most atrocious criminals, who, as soon as they were touched by a sense of remorse, were easily persuaded to wash away, in the water of baptism, the guilt of their past conduct, for which the temples of the gods refused to grant them any expiation. But this reproach, when it is cleared from misrepresentation, contributes as much to the honor as it did to the increase of the church. The friends of Christianity may acknowledge without a blush that many of the most eminent saints had been before their baptism the most abandoned sinners. Those persons, who in the world had followed, though in an imperfect manner, the dictates of benevolence and propriety, derived such a calm satisfaction from the opinion of their own rectitude, as rendered them much less susceptible of the sudden emotions of shame, of grief, and of terror, which have given birth to so many wonderful conversions. After the example of their divine Master, the missionaries of the gospel disdained not the society of men, and especially of women, oppressed by the consciousness, and very often by the effects, of their vices. As they emerged from sin and superstition to the glorious hope of immortality, they resolved to devote themselves to a life, not only of virtue, but of penitence. The desire of perfection became the ruling passion of their soul; and it is well known that, while reason embraces a cold mediocrity, our passions hurry us, with rapid violence, over the space which lies between the most opposite extremes.

It’s an old accusation, fueled by ignorance or malice of unbelievers, that Christians attracted the worst criminals who, once they felt remorse, were easily convinced to cleanse their past sins through baptism, since the temples of the gods offered no redemption. However, when stripped of exaggeration, this accusation actually brings as much honor as it does growth to the church. Supporters of Christianity can acknowledge without embarrassment that many of the most respected saints were once some of the most immoral sinners before their baptism. Those who had, albeit imperfectly, pursued kindness and decency found a certain peace in believing in their own righteousness, making them less vulnerable to the intense feelings of shame, grief, and fear that often lead to remarkable conversions. Following the example of their divine Master, the missionaries of the gospel did not shy away from associating with people, especially women, burdened by the knowledge and consequences of their wrongdoings. As they rose from sin and superstition to a hopeful vision of immortality, they committed themselves to a life not just of virtue but also of repentance. The pursuit of perfection became the main driving force of their souls; and it’s well known that while reason tends to settle for a comfortable middle ground, our passions drive us rapidly across the gap between the most extreme opposites.

When the new converts had been enrolled in the number of the faithful, and were admitted to the sacraments of the church, they found themselves restrained from relapsing into their past disorders by another consideration of a less spiritual, but of a very innocent and respectable nature. Any particular society that has departed from the great body of the nation, or the religion to which it belonged, immediately becomes the object of universal as well as invidious observation. In proportion to the smallness of its numbers, the character of the society may be affected by the virtues and vices of the persons who compose it; and every member is engaged to watch with the most vigilant attention over his own behavior, and over that of his brethren, since, as he must expect to incur a part of the common disgrace, he may hope to enjoy a share of the common reputation. When the Christians of Bithynia were brought before the tribunal of the younger Pliny, they assured the proconsul, that, far from being engaged in any unlawful conspiracy, they were bound by a solemn obligation to abstain from the commission of those crimes which disturb the private or public peace of society, from theft, robbery, adultery, perjury, and fraud. Near a century afterwards, Tertullian, with an honest pride, could boast, that very few Christians had suffered by the hand of the executioner, except on account of their religion. Their serious and sequestered life, averse to the gay luxury of the age, inured them to chastity, temperance, economy, and all the sober and domestic virtues. As the greater number were of some trade or profession, it was incumbent on them, by the strictest integrity and the fairest dealing, to remove the suspicions which the profane are too apt to conceive against the appearances of sanctity. The contempt of the world exercised them in the habits of humility, meekness, and patience. The more they were persecuted, the more closely they adhered to each other. Their mutual charity and unsuspecting confidence has been remarked by infidels, and was too often abused by perfidious friends.

When the new converts were welcomed into the community of believers and allowed to participate in the church's sacraments, they found themselves motivated to avoid returning to their old ways, guided by a practical yet respectable mindset. Any specific group that has separated from the wider society or the religion they once followed quickly becomes the focus of both admiration and jealousy. Because of their smaller numbers, the group's reputation can easily be influenced by the actions of its members; thus, everyone is obligated to closely monitor their own conduct and that of others, knowing that any shared disgrace can undermine their collective reputation. When the Christians of Bithynia faced the tribunal of the younger Pliny, they assured the proconsul that, rather than being involved in any illegal conspiracy, they were committed to avoiding crimes that disrupt societal peace, such as theft, robbery, adultery, perjury, and fraud. Nearly a century later, Tertullian proudly noted that very few Christians had been executed except for their faith. Their serious and secluded lifestyle, which rejected the frivolous luxury of the time, fostered chastity, temperance, frugality, and all the humble, domestic virtues. Since most belonged to some trade or profession, it was essential for them to demonstrate the highest integrity and fairness to dispel the doubts that outsiders often had about their piety. Their disdain for worldly matters cultivated habits of humility, gentleness, and patience. The more they faced persecution, the closer they united. Their mutual love and trusting nature were noted by skeptics and unfortunately exploited by deceitful friends.

It is a very honorable circumstance for the morals of the primitive Christians, that even their faults, or rather errors, were derived from an excess of virtue. The bishops and doctors of the church, whose evidence attests, and whose authority might influence, the professions, the principles, and even the practice of their contemporaries, had studied the Scriptures with less skill than devotion; and they often received, in the most literal sense, those rigid precepts of Christ and the apostles, to which the prudence of succeeding commentators has applied a looser and more figurative mode of interpretation. Ambitious to exalt the perfection of the gospel above the wisdom of philosophy, the zealous fathers have carried the duties of self-mortification, of purity, and of patience, to a height which it is scarcely possible to attain, and much less to preserve, in our present state of weakness and corruption. A doctrine so extraordinary and so sublime must inevitably command the veneration of the people; but it was ill calculated to obtain the suffrage of those worldly philosophers who, in the conduct of this transitory life, consult only the feelings of nature and the interest of society.

It’s quite admirable for the morals of early Christians that even their mistakes, or rather missteps, came from an excess of virtue. The bishops and church leaders, whose accounts confirm and whose authority could sway the beliefs, principles, and even actions of their peers, studied the Scriptures more out of devotion than skill. They often took the strict teachings of Christ and the apostles literally, unlike later commentators who interpreted them more flexibly and figuratively. Eager to elevate the gospel’s perfection above philosophical wisdom, these passionate leaders pushed the ideals of self-denial, purity, and patience to such extremes that it’s nearly impossible to achieve, let alone maintain, in our current state of weakness and corruption. A doctrine so extraordinary and elevated is bound to earn the respect of the people; however, it was not well-suited to gain the approval of worldly philosophers who, in navigating this temporary life, focus only on natural feelings and societal interests.

There are two very natural propensities which we may distinguish in the most virtuous and liberal dispositions, the love of pleasure and the love of action. If the former is refined by art and learning, improved by the charms of social intercourse, and corrected by a just regard to economy, to health, and to reputation, it is productive of the greatest part of the happiness of private life. The love of action is a principle of a much stronger and more doubtful nature. It often leads to anger, to ambition, and to revenge; but when it is guided by the sense of propriety and benevolence, it becomes the parent of every virtue, and if those virtues are accompanied with equal abilities, a family, a state, or an empire may be indebted for their safety and prosperity to the undaunted courage of a single man. To the love of pleasure we may therefore ascribe most of the agreeable, to the love of action we may attribute most of the useful and respectable, qualifications. The character in which both the one and the other should be united and harmonized would seem to constitute the most perfect idea of human nature. The insensible and inactive disposition, which should be supposed alike destitute of both, would be rejected, by the common consent of mankind, as utterly incapable of procuring any happiness to the individual, or any public benefit to the world. But it was not in this world that the primitive Christians were desirous of making themselves either agreeable or useful. *

There are two very natural tendencies that we can recognize in the most virtuous and generous characters: the love of pleasure and the love of action. If the first is refined by art and learning, enhanced by the joys of social interaction, and tempered by a sensible consideration of personal finances, health, and reputation, it contributes significantly to the happiness of private life. The love of action is a much stronger and more unpredictable force. It often leads to anger, ambition, and revenge; however, when it is guided by a sense of propriety and compassion, it becomes the source of all virtue. If those virtues come with equal abilities, a family, a state, or an empire may owe their safety and success to the fearless courage of just one individual. Therefore, we can attribute most of the enjoyable aspects of life to the love of pleasure, while the love of action can be linked to most of the useful and admirable traits. The ideal character, in which both tendencies are united and balanced, seems to represent the most perfect idea of human nature. The indifferent and inactive disposition, which lacks both, would be widely rejected by humanity as completely incapable of bringing happiness to the individual or any benefit to society. However, it was not in this world that the early Christians sought to make themselves either enjoyable or beneficial.

The acquisition of knowledge, the exercise of our reason or fancy, and the cheerful flow of unguarded conversation, may employ the leisure of a liberal mind. Such amusements, however, were rejected with abhorrence, or admitted with the utmost caution, by the severity of the fathers, who despised all knowledge that was not useful to salvation, and who considered all levity of discours as a criminal abuse of the gift of speech. In our present state of existence the body is so inseparably connected with the soul, that it seems to be our interest to taste, with innocence and moderation, the enjoyments of which that faithful companion is susceptible. Very different was the reasoning of our devout predecessors; vainly aspiring to imitate the perfection of angels, they disdained, or they affected to disdain, every earthly and corporeal delight. Some of our senses indeed are necessary for our preservation, others for our subsistence, and others again for our information; and thus far it was impossible to reject the use of them. The first sensation of pleasure was marked as the first moment of their abuse. The unfeeling candidate for heaven was instructed, not only to resist the grosser allurements of the taste or smell, but even to shut his ears against the profane harmony of sounds, and to view with indifference the most finished productions of human art. Gay apparel, magnificent houses, and elegant furniture, were supposed to unite the double guilt of pride and of sensuality; a simple and mortified appearance was more suitable to the Christian who was certain of his sins and doubtful of his salvation. In their censures of luxury the fathers are extremely minute and circumstantial; and among the various articles which excite their pious indignation we may enumerate false hair, garments of any color except white, instruments of music, vases of gold or silver, downy pillows, (as Jacob reposed his head on a stone,) white bread, foreign wines, public salutations, the use of warm baths, and the practice of shaving the beard, which, according to the expression of Tertullian, is a lie against our own faces, and an impious attempt to improve the works of the Creator. When Christianity was introduced among the rich and the polite, the observation of these singular laws was left, as it would be at present, to the few who were ambitious of superior sanctity. But it is always easy, as well as agreeable, for the inferior ranks of mankind to claim a merit from the contempt of that pomp and pleasure which fortune has placed beyond their reach. The virtue of the primitive Christians, like that of the first Romans, was very frequently guarded by poverty and ignorance.

The pursuit of knowledge, the use of our intellect or imagination, and the free flow of casual conversation can fill the time of an open-minded person. However, these pastimes were either completely rejected or approached with extreme caution by strict authorities, who looked down on any knowledge that didn't contribute to salvation and viewed any lighthearted talk as a misuse of the gift of speech. In our current existence, the body is so closely linked to the soul that it seems beneficial to enjoy, in a pure and balanced way, the pleasures that our faithful companion can experience. Our devout ancestors, aiming in vain to imitate angelic perfection, scorned or pretended to scorn every earthly and physical pleasure. Some of our senses are indeed essential for survival, while others are necessary for nourishment, and still others for knowledge; thus, it was impossible to completely dismiss their use. The initial experience of pleasure was noted as the first sign of its potential misuse. The stoic aspirant for heaven was taught not only to resist the more blatant temptations of taste or smell but also to shut his ears to any profane sounds and to regard with indifference the finest achievements of human art. Flashy clothes, grand houses, and stylish furniture were believed to combine the sins of pride and sensuality; a simple and humble appearance was deemed more appropriate for a Christian aware of their sins and uncertain of their salvation. In their critiques of luxury, these authorities were extremely detailed and specific; among the various items that sparked their righteous outrage were false hair, garments of any color but white, musical instruments, gold or silver vases, soft pillows (as Jacob laid his head on a stone), white bread, foreign wines, public greetings, the use of hot baths, and the practice of shaving the beard, which, as Tertullian put it, is a lie against our own faces and a disrespectful attempt to improve on the Creator’s work. When Christianity spread among the wealthy and refined, observing these peculiar rules was left, as it would be today, to a few who sought greater holiness. Yet, it's always easy, as well as pleasing, for those in lower social classes to take pride in looking down on the wealth and luxuries that fate has placed out of their reach. The virtue of early Christians, much like that of the early Romans, was often protected by poverty and ignorance.

The chaste severity of the fathers, in whatever related to the commerce of the two sexes, flowed from the same principle; their abhorrence of every enjoyment which might gratify the sensual, and degrade the spiritual nature of man. It was their favorite opinion, that if Adam had preserved his obedience to the Creator, he would have lived forever in a state of virgin purity, and that some harmless mode of vegetation might have peopled paradise with a race of innocent and immortal beings. The use of marriage was permitted only to his fallen posterity, as a necessary expedient to continue the human species, and as a restraint, however imperfect, on the natural licentiousness of desire. The hesitation of the orthodox casuists on this interesting subject, betrays the perplexity of men, unwilling to approve an institution which they were compelled to tolerate. The enumeration of the very whimsical laws, which they most circumstantially imposed on the marriage-bed, would force a smile from the young and a blush from the fair. It was their unanimous sentiment that a first marriage was adequate to all the purposes of nature and of society. The sensual connection was refined into a resemblance of the mystic union of Christ with his church, and was pronounced to be indissoluble either by divorce or by death. The practice of second nuptials was branded with the name of a legal adultery; and the persons who were guilty of so scandalous an offence against Christian purity, were soon excluded from the honors, and even from the alms, of the church. Since desire was imputed as a crime, and marriage was tolerated as a defect, it was consistent with the same principles to consider a state of celibacy as the nearest approach to the divine perfection. It was with the utmost difficulty that ancient Rome could support the institution of six vestals; but the primitive church was filled with a number of persons of either sex, who had devoted themselves to the profession of perpetual chastity. A few of these, among whom we may reckon the learned Origen, judged it the most prudent to disarm the tempter. Some were insensible and some were invincible against the assaults of the flesh. Disdaining an ignominious flight, the virgins of the warm climate of Africa encountered the enemy in the closest engagement; they permitted priests and deacons to share their bed, and gloried amidst the flames in their unsullied purity. But insulted Nature sometimes vindicated her rights, and this new species of martyrdom served only to introduce a new scandal into the church. Among the Christian ascetics, however, (a name which they soon acquired from their painful exercise,) many, as they were less presumptuous, were probably more successful. The loss of sensual pleasure was supplied and compensated by spiritual pride. Even the multitude of Pagans were inclined to estimate the merit of the sacrifice by its apparent difficulty; and it was in the praise of these chaste spouses of Christ that the fathers have poured forth the troubled stream of their eloquence. Such are the early traces of monastic principles and institutions, which, in a subsequent age, have counterbalanced all the temporal advantages of Christianity.

The strictness of the early church fathers regarding relationships between men and women stemmed from a shared belief: they detested any pleasure that could indulge the senses and undermine the spiritual essence of humanity. They held the view that if Adam had remained obedient to God, he would have lived forever in a state of pure virginity, and that some harmless form of plant life could have populated paradise with a race of innocent, immortal beings. Marriage was allowed only for his fallen descendants as a necessary means to continue the human race and as a form of restraint, however imperfect, on natural desires. The hesitations of the orthodox scholars on this complex issue revealed their struggle to endorse an institution they were forced to accept. The long list of quirky rules they imposed on marriage would likely amuse the young and embarrass the women. They unanimously believed that a first marriage was sufficient for all natural and societal needs. The physical relationship was likened to the mystical union of Christ with his church, and it was deemed unbreakable by divorce or death. The practice of remarriage was labeled legal adultery, and those who committed such a scandalous act against Christian purity were quickly banned from church honors and even charity. Since desire was considered a sin and marriage merely a flaw, it followed that celibacy was viewed as the closest state to divine perfection. Ancient Rome struggled to maintain six vestals, but the early church was filled with many individuals, both men and women, who dedicated themselves to lifelong chastity. Some of them, like the learned Origen, believed it wise to fend off temptation. Some were indifferent, while others resisted the allure of the flesh. Instead of running away in shame, the virgins from the warm African climate bravely faced their challenges; they allowed priests and deacons to sleep beside them and proudly maintained their purity even in fiery trials. Yet, Nature sometimes asserted her rights, and this new form of martyrdom only introduced further scandals into the church. Among the Christian ascetics— a term they soon earned from their challenging practices— many, being less arrogant, were likely more successful. The void of physical pleasure was filled and compensated by spiritual pride. Even the masses of Pagans began to judge the worth of sacrifice by its perceived difficulty, and the fathers showered praise on these chaste spouses of Christ with their eloquent discourse. These are the early signs of monastic principles and institutions that would later balance out the worldly advantages of Christianity.

The Christians were not less averse to the business than to the pleasures of this world. The defence of our persons and property they knew not how to reconcile with the patient doctrine which enjoined an unlimited forgiveness of past injuries, and commanded them to invite the repetition of fresh insults. Their simplicity was offended by the use of oaths, by the pomp of magistracy, and by the active contention of public life; nor could their humane ignorance be convinced that it was lawful on any occasion to shed the blood of our fellow-creatures, either by the sword of justice, or by that of war; even though their criminal or hostile attempts should threaten the peace and safety of the whole community. It was acknowledged that, under a less perfect law, the powers of the Jewish constitution had been exercised, with the approbation of heaven, by inspired prophets and by anointed kings. The Christians felt and confessed that such institutions might be necessary for the present system of the world, and they cheerfully submitted to the authority of their Pagan governors. But while they inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. Some indulgence might, perhaps, be allowed to those persons who, before their conversion, were already engaged in such violent and sanguinary occupations; but it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes. This indolent, or even criminal disregard to the public welfare, exposed them to the contempt and reproaches of the Pagans, who very frequently asked, what must be the fate of the empire, attacked on every side by the barbarians, if all mankind should adopt the pusillanimous sentiments of the new sect. To this insulting question the Christian apologists returned obscure and ambiguous answers, as they were unwilling to reveal the secret cause of their security; the expectation that, before the conversion of mankind was accomplished, war, government, the Roman empire, and the world itself, would be no more. It may be observed, that, in this instance likewise, the situation of the first Christians coincided very happily with their religious scruples, and that their aversion to an active life contributed rather to excuse them from the service, than to exclude them from the honors, of the state and army.

The Christians were just as averse to business as they were to the pleasures of this world. They struggled to reconcile the protection of their lives and property with the teachings that called for unlimited forgiveness of past wrongs and invited further insults. Their simple nature was troubled by the use of oaths, the pomp of authority, and the active competition of public life. Moreover, their compassionate ignorance couldn’t accept that it was lawful to shed the blood of fellow humans, whether through the sword of justice or in war, even when those individuals might threaten the peace and safety of the community. It was recognized that, under a less perfect law, the Jewish authorities had acted, with divine approval, through inspired prophets and anointed kings. The Christians admitted that such institutions might be necessary for the current state of the world, and they willingly submitted to the authority of their Pagan leaders. However, although they promoted the principles of passive obedience, they refused to take any active role in civil administration or the military defense of the empire. Some leniency might be afforded to those who were already involved in such violent and bloody roles before their conversion, but it was impossible for the Christians to assume the roles of soldiers, magistrates, or rulers without abandoning a more sacred duty. This passive or even negligent attitude towards public welfare made them the targets of scorn and criticism from the Pagans, who often questioned what would happen to the empire, under attack from all sides by barbarians, if everyone adopted the timid views of this new sect. In response to this provocative question, Christian apologists gave vague and unclear answers, as they were reluctant to disclose the true reason for their confidence: the belief that, before the conversion of all humanity, war, government, the Roman Empire, and the world itself would cease to exist. It’s worth noting that, in this case as well, the situation of the first Christians aligned conveniently with their religious beliefs, and their aversion to an active lifestyle served more to justify their exemption from service than to exclude them from the honors of state and military.





Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part VI.

V. But the human character, however it may be exalted or depressed by a temporary enthusiasm, will return by degrees to its proper and natural level, and will resume those passions that seem the most adapted to its present condition. The primitive Christians were dead to the business and pleasures of the world; but their love of action, which could never be entirely extinguished, soon revived, and found a new occupation in the government of the church. A separate society, which attacked the established religion of the empire, was obliged to adopt some form of internal policy, and to appoint a sufficient number of ministers, intrusted not only with the spiritual functions, but even with the temporal direction of the Christian commonwealth. The safety of that society, its honor, its aggrandizement, were productive, even in the most pious minds, of a spirit of patriotism, such as the first of the Romans had felt for the republic, and sometimes of a similar indifference, in the use of whatever means might probably conduce to so desirable an end. The ambition of raising themselves or their friends to the honors and offices of the church, was disguised by the laudable intention of devoting to the public benefit the power and consideration, which, for that purpose only, it became their duty to solicit. In the exercise of their functions, they were frequently called upon to detect the errors of heresy or the arts of faction, to oppose the designs of perfidious brethren, to stigmatize their characters with deserved infamy, and to expel them from the bosom of a society whose peace and happiness they had attempted to disturb. The ecclesiastical governors of the Christians were taught to unite the wisdom of the serpent with the innocence of the dove; but as the former was refined, so the latter was insensibly corrupted, by the habits of government. In the church as well as in the world, the persons who were placed in any public station rendered themselves considerable by their eloquence and firmness, by their knowledge of mankind, and by their dexterity in business; and while they concealed from others, and perhaps from themselves, the secret motives of their conduct, they too frequently relapsed into all the turbulent passions of active life, which were tinctured with an additional degree of bitterness and obstinacy from the infusion of spiritual zeal.

V. But human character, no matter how elevated or brought low by a temporary passion, will gradually return to its natural state and revert to emotions that align with its current condition. The early Christians were detached from the business and pleasures of the world; however, their inherent drive for action, which could never be fully extinguished, soon resurfaced and found a new purpose in managing the church. A separate community that challenged the established religion of the empire had to establish some form of internal governance and appoint enough leaders responsible not only for spiritual duties but also for the practical management of the Christian community. The safety, honor, and growth of that community sparked a sense of patriotism in even the most devout minds, similar to what early Romans felt for the republic, and sometimes led to a certain indifference regarding the means used to achieve such worthy goals. The ambition to elevate themselves or their peers to honors and positions within the church was masked by a commendable intention to contribute to the public good, which was seen as their duty to pursue. While performing their roles, they often had to identify heretical errors or factional schemes, oppose the plots of treacherous members, tarnish their reputations with well-deserved disgrace, and remove them from the community they threatened with their disruptions. The church leaders learned to combine the cunning of a serpent with the innocence of a dove; yet, as their cunning became more refined, their innocence was gradually compromised by the nature of governance. In both the church and the broader world, those in public positions gained importance through their eloquence and determination, their understanding of human nature, and their skill in handling affairs; and while they often concealed from others — and perhaps from themselves — the true motivations behind their actions, they frequently fell back into the turbulent passions of public life, now tinged with an extra layer of bitterness and stubbornness from their spiritual fervor.

The government of the church has often been the subject, as well as the prize, of religious contention. The hostile disputants of Rome, of Paris, of Oxford, and of Geneva, have alike struggled to reduce the primitive and apostolic model to the respective standards of their own policy. The few who have pursued this inquiry with more candor and impartiality, are of opinion, that the apostles declined the office of legislation, and rather chose to endure some partial scandals and divisions, than to exclude the Christians of a future age from the liberty of varying their forms of ecclesiastical government according to the changes of times and circumstances. The scheme of policy, which, under their approbation, was adopted for the use of the first century, may be discovered from the practice of Jerusalem, of Ephesus, or of Corinth. The societies which were instituted in the cities of the Roman empire were united only by the ties of faith and charity. Independence and equality formed the basis of their internal constitution. The want of discipline and human learning was supplied by the occasional assistance of the prophets, who were called to that function without distinction of age, of sex, * or of natural abilities, and who, as often as they felt the divine impulse, poured forth the effusions of the Spirit in the assembly of the faithful. But these extraordinary gifts were frequently abused or misapplied by the prophetic teachers. They displayed them at an improper season, presumptuously disturbed the service of the assembly, and, by their pride or mistaken zeal, they introduced, particularly into the apostolic church of Corinth, a long and melancholy train of disorders. As the institution of prophets became useless, and even pernicious, their powers were withdrawn, and their office abolished. The public functions of religion were solely intrusted to the established ministers of the church, the bishops and the presbyters; two appellations which, in their first origin, appear to have distinguished the same office and the same order of persons. The name of Presbyter was expressive of their age, or rather of their gravity and wisdom. The title of Bishop denoted their inspection over the faith and manners of the Christians who were committed to their pastoral care. In proportion to the respective numbers of the faithful, a larger or smaller number of these episcopal presbyters guided each infant congregation with equal authority and with united counsels.

The church's government has often been both a topic of debate and a prize in religious conflicts. The opposing sides from Rome, Paris, Oxford, and Geneva have all tried to shape the original apostolic model to fit their own political frameworks. A few who have explored this topic with more openness and fairness believe that the apostles avoided taking on legislative roles. Instead, they preferred to tolerate certain scandals and divisions rather than limit future Christians' freedom to adapt their church governance according to changing times and circumstances. The policy framework approved by them for the first century can be seen in the practices of Jerusalem, Ephesus, or Corinth. The communities formed in cities throughout the Roman Empire were connected only by faith and love. Independence and equality were the foundations of their internal structure. The lack of discipline and human knowledge was supplemented by the occasional help of the prophets, who were called to this role without regard to age, sex, or natural abilities, and who, whenever they felt the divine call, shared the Spirit's insights during gatherings of the faithful. However, these extraordinary gifts were often misused or misapplied by the prophetic leaders. They exhibited them at inappropriate times, disrupting the assembly's services, and through their pride or misguided zeal, they introduced a series of troubles, especially in the Corinthian apostolic church. As the role of prophets became ineffective and even harmful, their powers were taken away, and their position was abolished. The religious public duties were entrusted solely to the established ministers of the church: the bishops and presbyters; two terms that initially described the same office and group of individuals. The title Presbyter indicated their age, or rather their seriousness and wisdom. The title Bishop signified their oversight over the faith and behavior of the Christians under their pastoral care. Depending on the number of believers, a larger or smaller group of these episcopal presbyters guided each emerging congregation with equal authority and collective advice.

But the most perfect equality of freedom requires the directing hand of a superior magistrate: and the order of public deliberations soon introduces the office of a president, invested at least with the authority of collecting the sentiments, and of executing the resolutions, of the assembly. A regard for the public tranquillity, which would so frequently have been interrupted by annual or by occasional elections, induced the primitive Christians to constitute an honorable and perpetual magistracy, and to choose one of the wisest and most holy among their presbyters to execute, during his life, the duties of their ecclesiastical governor. It was under these circumstances that the lofty title of Bishop began to raise itself above the humble appellation of Presbyter; and while the latter remained the most natural distinction for the members of every Christian senate, the former was appropriated to the dignity of its new president. The advantages of this episcopal form of government, which appears to have been introduced before the end of the first century, were so obvious, and so important for the future greatness, as well as the present peace, of Christianity, that it was adopted without delay by all the societies which were already scattered over the empire, had acquired in a very early period the sanction of antiquity, and is still revered by the most powerful churches, both of the East and of the West, as a primitive and even as a divine establishment. It is needless to observe, that the pious and humble presbyters, who were first dignified with the episcopal title, could not possess, and would probably have rejected, the power and pomp which now encircles the tiara of the Roman pontiff, or the mitre of a German prelate. But we may define, in a few words, the narrow limits of their original jurisdiction, which was chiefly of a spiritual, though in some instances of a temporal nature. It consisted in the administration of the sacraments and discipline of the church, the superintendency of religious ceremonies, which imperceptibly increased in number and variety, the consecration of ecclesiastical ministers, to whom the bishop assigned their respective functions, the management of the public fund, and the determination of all such differences as the faithful were unwilling to expose before the tribunal of an idolatrous judge. These powers, during a short period, were exercised according to the advice of the presbyteral college, and with the consent and approbation of the assembly of Christians. The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals, and the honorable servants of a free people. Whenever the episcopal chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the presbyters by the suffrage of the whole congregation, every member of which supposed himself invested with a sacred and sacerdotal character.

But true equality of freedom requires the guidance of a higher authority: the structure of public discussions naturally leads to the role of a president, who at least has the power to gather opinions and carry out the assembly's decisions. Concern for public peace, which could often be disturbed by yearly or occasional elections, led the early Christians to establish a respected and permanent office, choosing one of the wisest and holiest among their elders to fulfill, for life, the role of their church leader. It was under these circumstances that the grand title of Bishop began to emerge, elevated above the simpler name of Presbyter; while the latter remained the common title for members of any Christian council, the former was reserved for the dignity of the new leader. The benefits of this episcopal system of governance, introduced before the end of the first century, were so clear and crucial for both the future strength and current peace of Christianity that it was quickly adopted by all the communities already spread throughout the empire, gaining early recognition as a time-honored practice, and it is still honored by the largest churches in both the East and West as a foundational and even divine institution. It goes without saying that the devout and humble elders who first received the title of bishop could not have wielded, nor would they likely have wanted, the power and grandeur that now surrounds the papal tiara or the mitre of a German bishop. But we can summarize their original scope of authority, which was primarily spiritual, though occasionally involved some temporal aspects. It included administering the sacraments and church discipline, overseeing religious ceremonies that gradually grew in number and complexity, consecrating church ministers and assigning them their respective roles, managing the communal funds, and resolving disputes among the faithful that they did not wish to bring before a pagan judge. For a brief time, these powers were carried out with the advice of the council of elders and the agreement of the Christian assembly. The early bishops were seen merely as the foremost among their peers and dedicated servants of a free community. Whenever the bishop's seat became vacant due to death, a new leader was chosen from among the elders by a vote from the entire congregation, each member of which considered themselves blessed with a sacred and priestly role.

Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were governed more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles. Every society formed within itself a separate and independent republic; and although the most distant of these little states maintained a mutual as well as friendly intercourse of letters and deputations, the Christian world was not yet connected by any supreme authority or legislative assembly. As the numbers of the faithful were gradually multiplied, they discovered the advantages that might result from a closer union of their interest and designs. Towards the end of the second century, the churches of Greece and Asia adopted the useful institutions of provincial synods, * and they may justly be supposed to have borrowed the model of a representative council from the celebrated examples of their own country, the Amphictyons, the Achæan league, or the assemblies of the Ionian cities. It was soon established as a custom and as a law, that the bishops of the independent churches should meet in the capital of the province at the stated periods of spring and autumn. Their deliberations were assisted by the advice of a few distinguished presbyters, and moderated by the presence of a listening multitude. Their decrees, which were styled Canons, regulated every important controversy of faith and discipline; and it was natural to believe that a liberal effusion of the Holy Spirit would be poured on the united assembly of the delegates of the Christian people. The institution of synods was so well suited to private ambition, and to public interest, that in the space of a few years it was received throughout the whole empire. A regular correspondence was established between the provincial councils, which mutually communicated and approved their respective proceedings; and the catholic church soon assumed the form, and acquired the strength, of a great fœderative republic.

Such was the mild and balanced structure by which Christians were governed more than a hundred years after the apostles' death. Each community developed into a separate and independent republic; and although the farthest of these small states maintained friendly communication through letters and delegates, the Christian world was not yet united under any supreme authority or legislative assembly. As the number of believers gradually grew, they recognized the benefits of a closer union of their interests and goals. Toward the end of the second century, the churches of Greece and Asia implemented the beneficial practice of provincial synods, and it’s fair to assume they drew inspiration from the notable examples from their own country, like the Amphictyons, the Achaean league, or the assemblies of the Ionian cities. It soon became customary and legally established that the bishops of independent churches would convene in the province's capital at set times in spring and autumn. Their discussions were supported by the advice of a few respected presbyters and moderated by the presence of an attentive crowd. Their decisions, known as Canons, addressed every significant issue of faith and discipline; it was only natural to believe that a generous outpouring of the Holy Spirit would bless the united assembly of the Christian people's delegates. The establishment of synods aligned well with personal ambitions and public interests, that within a few years, it was adopted throughout the entire empire. A regular communication network was set up between the provincial councils, which shared and endorsed each other's proceedings, and the Catholic Church soon took on the form and gained the strength of a large federative republic.

As the legislative authority of the particular churches was insensibly superseded by the use of councils, the bishops obtained by their alliance a much larger share of executive and arbitrary power; and as soon as they were connected by a sense of their common interest, they were enabled to attack, with united vigor, the original rights of their clergy and people. The prelates of the third century imperceptibly changed the language of exhortation into that of command, scattered the seeds of future usurpations, and supplied, by scripture allegories and declamatory rhetoric, their deficiency of force and of reason. They exalted the unity and power of the church, as it was represented in the episcopal office, of which every bishop enjoyed an equal and undivided portion. Princes and magistrates, it was often repeated, might boast an earthly claim to a transitory dominion; it was the episcopal authority alone which was derived from the Deity, and extended itself over this and over another world. The bishops were the vicegerents of Christ, the successors of the apostles, and the mystic substitutes of the high priest of the Mosaic law. Their exclusive privilege of conferring the sacerdotal character invaded the freedom both of clerical and of popular elections; and if, in the administration of the church, they still consulted the judgment of the presbyters, or the inclination of the people, they most carefully inculcated the merit of such a voluntary condescension. The bishops acknowledged the supreme authority which resided in the assembly of their brethren; but in the government of his peculiar diocese, each of them exacted from his flock the same implicit obedience as if that favorite metaphor had been literally just, and as if the shepherd had been of a more exalted nature than that of his sheep. This obedience, however, was not imposed without some efforts on one side, and some resistance on the other. The democratical part of the constitution was, in many places, very warmly supported by the zealous or interested opposition of the inferior clergy. But their patriotism received the ignominious epithets of faction and schism; and the episcopal cause was indebted for its rapid progress to the labors of many active prelates, who, like Cyprian of Carthage, could reconcile the arts of the most ambitious statesman with the Christian virtues which seem adapted to the character of a saint and martyr.

As the legislative power of individual churches gradually gave way to councils, bishops gained a much larger portion of executive and arbitrary authority through their alliances. Once they realized their shared interests, they joined forces to aggressively undermine the original rights of their clergy and congregations. The bishops of the third century slowly transformed the language of encouragement into commands, planting the seeds for future abuses of power and compensating for their lack of strength and reason with scriptural stories and persuasive rhetoric. They promoted the unity and power of the church as embodied in the episcopal office, from which every bishop received an equal and undivided share. It was often stated that while princes and magistrates might claim a temporary rule, only episcopal authority came directly from God and stretched across this world and the next. The bishops were seen as Christ's representatives, the successors of the apostles, and the symbolic substitutes of the high priest from the Mosaic law. Their exclusive right to confer sacred orders undermined the freedom of both clerical and public elections. Even if they still sought the opinions of presbyters or the preferences of the people in church governance, they stressed the importance of this voluntary concession. Bishops acknowledged the supreme authority of their collective assembly, but in governing their own dioceses, each demanded the same unquestioning obedience from their congregations, as if the metaphor of shepherd and sheep were literally true and the shepherd were more exalted than the sheep. However, this obedience was not achieved without struggles on one side and resistance on the other. The democratic aspect of governance was strongly defended in many areas by the passionate or self-interested opposition from lower clergy. Yet, their patriotism was labeled as faction and schism, while the bishops’ swift ascent was aided by the hard work of many proactive prelates, like Cyprian of Carthage, who skillfully blended the tactics of ambitious politicians with the Christian virtues that suited the image of a saint and martyr.

The same causes which at first had destroyed the equality of the presbyters introduced among the bishops a preeminence of rank, and from thence a superiority of jurisdiction. As often as in the spring and autumn they met in provincial synod, the difference of personal merit and reputation was very sensibly felt among the members of the assembly, and the multitude was governed by the wisdom and eloquence of the few. But the order of public proceedings required a more regular and less invidious distinction; the office of perpetual presidents in the councils of each province was conferred on the bishops of the principal city; and these aspiring prelates, who soon acquired the lofty titles of Metropolitans and Primates, secretly prepared themselves to usurp over their episcopal brethren the same authority which the bishops had so lately assumed above the college of presbyters. Nor was it long before an emulation of preeminence and power prevailed among the Metropolitans themselves, each of them affecting to display, in the most pompous terms, the temporal honors and advantages of the city over which he presided; the numbers and opulence of the Christians who were subject to their pastoral care; the saints and martyrs who had arisen among them; and the purity with which they preserved the tradition of the faith, as it had been transmitted through a series of orthodox bishops from the apostle or the apostolic disciple, to whom the foundation of their church was ascribed. From every cause, either of a civil or of an ecclesiastical nature, it was easy to foresee that Rome must enjoy the respect, and would soon claim the obedience, of the provinces. The society of the faithful bore a just proportion to the capital of the empire; and the Roman church was the greatest, the most numerous, and, in regard to the West, the most ancient of all the Christian establishments, many of which had received their religion from the pious labors of her missionaries. Instead of oneapostolic founder, the utmost boast of Antioch, of Ephesus, or of Corinth, the banks of the Tyber were supposed to have been honored with the preaching and martyrdom of the two most eminent among the apostles; and the bishops of Rome very prudently claimed the inheritance of whatsoever prerogatives were attributed either to the person or to the office of St. Peter. The bishops of Italy and of the provinces were disposed to allow them a primacy of order and association (such was their very accurate expression) in the Christian aristocracy. But the power of a monarch was rejected with abhorrence, and the aspiring genius of Rome experienced from the nations of Asia and Africa a more vigorous resistance to her spiritual, than she had formerly done to her temporal, dominion. The patriotic Cyprian, who ruled with the most absolute sway the church of Carthage and the provincial synods, opposed with resolution and success the ambition of the Roman pontiff, artfully connected his own cause with that of the eastern bishops, and, like Hannibal, sought out new allies in the heart of Asia. If this Punic war was carried on without any effusion of blood, it was owing much less to the moderation than to the weakness of the contending prelates. Invectives and excommunications were their only weapons; and these, during the progress of the whole controversy, they hurled against each other with equal fury and devotion. The hard necessity of censuring either a pope, or a saint and martyr, distresses the modern Catholics whenever they are obliged to relate the particulars of a dispute in which the champions of religion indulged such passions as seem much more adapted to the senate or to the camp.

The same reasons that initially destroyed the equality among the presbyters led to a rise in rank among the bishops, and this resulted in a superiority of authority. Whenever they gathered for provincial synods in the spring and fall, the differences in personal merit and reputation were clearly noticeable among the assembly members, and the masses were led by the wisdom and eloquence of a select few. However, the nature of public proceedings called for a more structured and less resentful distinction; the role of permanent presidents in the councils of each province was assigned to the bishops of the main city. These ambitious bishops soon adopted the lofty titles of Metropolitans and Primates, secretly preparing to assert the same control over their fellow bishops that the bishops had recently claimed over the presbyters. It didn't take long for a rivalry for status and power to develop among the Metropolitans themselves, each one trying to showcase, in grand terms, the worldly honors and benefits of the city they led; the number and wealth of the Christians under their pastoral care; the saints and martyrs that emerged among them; and the purity with which they upheld the faith, as passed down through a line of orthodox bishops from the apostle or the apostolic disciple credited with founding their church. For a variety of civil and ecclesiastical reasons, it was easy to see that Rome would gain respect and soon demand obedience from the provinces. The community of believers reflected the size of the empire's capital; the Roman church was the largest, most populous, and in the West, the oldest of all Christian establishments, many of which had received their faith through the dedicated efforts of its missionaries. Rather than having a single apostolic founder, as was the case for Antioch, Ephesus, or Corinth, the banks of the Tiber were believed to have been privileged with the preaching and martyrdom of the two most notable apostles; and the bishops of Rome wisely claimed the inheritance of whatever privileges were linked to the person or office of St. Peter. The bishops of Italy and the provinces were inclined to grant them a primacy of order and association (as they accurately put it) within the Christian elite. However, the concept of monarchical power was rejected with disdain, and the ambitious spirit of Rome faced stronger resistance to its spiritual authority from the nations of Asia and Africa than it had before to its temporal control. The patriotic Cyprian, who exercised absolute authority over the church of Carthage and the provincial synods, firmly and successfully opposed the aspirations of the Roman pontiff, cleverly aligning his cause with the eastern bishops and, like Hannibal, sought new allies deep within Asia. If this Punic war proceeded without bloodshed, it was due more to the weakness than the moderation of the rival prelates. Their only weapons were insults and excommunications, which they hurled at each other with equal intensity and fervor throughout the entire controversy. The difficult challenge of censuring either a pope or a saint and martyr troubles modern Catholics whenever they have to recount the details of a dispute in which the champions of faith displayed passions that seem far more fitting for the senate or battlefield.

The progress of the ecclesiastical authority gave birth to the memorable distinction of the laity and of the clergy, which had been unknown to the Greeks and Romans. The former of these appellations comprehended the body of the Christian people; the latter, according to the signification of the word, was appropriated to the chosen portion that had been set apart for the service of religion; a celebrated order of men, which has furnished the most important, though not always the most edifying, subjects for modern history. Their mutual hostilities sometimes disturbed the peace of the infant church, but their zeal and activity were united in the common cause, and the love of power, which (under the most artful disguises) could insinuate itself into the breasts of bishops and martyrs, animated them to increase the number of their subjects, and to enlarge the limits of the Christian empire. They were destitute of any temporal force, and they were for a long time discouraged and oppressed, rather than assisted, by the civil magistrate; but they had acquired, and they employed within their own society, the two most efficacious instruments of government, rewards and punishments; the former derived from the pious liberality, the latter from the devout apprehensions, of the faithful.

The advancement of church authority led to the notable distinction between the laity and the clergy, which had been unfamiliar to the Greeks and Romans. The term "laity" referred to the body of Christian believers, while "clergy," as the word suggests, was designated for the chosen group dedicated to religious service; a revered order of individuals that has provided the most significant, though not always the most uplifting, topics for modern history. Their rivalries occasionally disrupted the peace of the early church, but their passion and efforts were aligned for a common purpose, and the desire for power, which could subtly sneak into the hearts of bishops and martyrs, motivated them to increase their followers and expand the reach of the Christian faith. They lacked any political power and were often discouraged and oppressed rather than supported by civil authorities; however, they had gained and utilized within their own community the two most effective tools of governance: rewards and punishments, the former stemming from the generous contributions of the faithful, and the latter from the sincere fears of the believers.





Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part VII

I. The community of goods, which had so agreeably amused the imagination of Plato, and which subsisted in some degree among the austere sect of the Essenians, was adopted for a short time in the primitive church. The fervor of the first proselytes prompted them to sell those worldly possessions, which they despised, to lay the price of them at the feet of the apostles, and to content themselves with receiving an equal share out of the general distribution. The progress of the Christian religion relaxed, and gradually abolished, this generous institution, which, in hands less pure than those of the apostles, would too soon have been corrupted and abused by the returning selfishness of human nature; and the converts who embraced the new religion were permitted to retain the possession of their patrimony, to receive legacies and inheritances, and to increase their separate property by all the lawful means of trade and industry. Instead of an absolute sacrifice, a moderate proportion was accepted by the ministers of the gospel; and in their weekly or monthly assemblies, every believer, according to the exigency of the occasion, and the measure of his wealth and piety, presented his voluntary offering for the use of the common fund. Nothing, however inconsiderable, was refused; but it was diligently inculcated that, in the article of Tithes, the Mosaic law was still of divine obligation; and that since the Jews, under a less perfect discipline, had been commanded to pay a tenth part of all that they possessed, it would become the disciples of Christ to distinguish themselves by a superior degree of liberality, and to acquire some merit by resigning a superfluous treasure, which must so soon be annihilated with the world itself. It is almost unnecessary to observe, that the revenue of each particular church, which was of so uncertain and fluctuating a nature, must have varied with the poverty or the opulence of the faithful, as they were dispersed in obscure villages, or collected in the great cities of the empire. In the time of the emperor Decius, it was the opinion of the magistrates, that the Christians of Rome were possessed of very considerable wealth; that vessels of gold and silver were used in their religious worship, and that many among their proselytes had sold their lands and houses to increase the public riches of the sect, at the expense, indeed, of their unfortunate children, who found themselves beggars, because their parents had been saints. We should listen with distrust to the suspicions of strangers and enemies: on this occasion, however, they receive a very specious and probable color from the two following circumstances, the only ones that have reached our knowledge, which define any precise sums, or convey any distinct idea. Almost at the same period, the bishop of Carthage, from a society less opulent than that of Rome, collected a hundred thousand sesterces, (above eight hundred and fifty pounds sterling,) on a sudden call of charity to redeem the brethren of Numidia, who had been carried away captives by the barbarians of the desert. About a hundred years before the reign of Decius, the Roman church had received, in a single donation, the sum of two hundred thousand sesterces from a stranger of Pontus, who proposed to fix his residence in the capital. These oblations, for the most part, were made in money; nor was the society of Christians either desirous or capable of acquiring, to any considerable degree, the encumbrance of landed property. It had been provided by several laws, which were enacted with the same design as our statutes of mortmain, that no real estates should be given or bequeathed to any corporate body, without either a special privilege or a particular dispensation from the emperor or from the senate; who were seldom disposed to grant them in favor of a sect, at first the object of their contempt, and at last of their fears and jealousy. A transaction, however, is related under the reign of Alexander Severus, which discovers that the restraint was sometimes eluded or suspended, and that the Christians were permitted to claim and to possess lands within the limits of Rome itself. The progress of Christianity, and the civil confusion of the empire, contributed to relax the severity of the laws; and before the close of the third century many considerable estates were bestowed on the opulent churches of Rome, Milan, Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria, and the other great cities of Italy and the provinces.

I. The idea of a community of goods, which was so appealing to Plato and existed to some extent among the strict Essenians, was briefly adopted by the early church. The zeal of the first converts led them to sell their worldly possessions, which they held in contempt, to place the profits at the apostles' feet, and to be satisfied with receiving an equal share from the general pool. As Christianity began to spread, this noble practice faded away. In the hands of less virtuous individuals than the apostles, it would have quickly been corrupted and abused by the inevitable selfishness inherent in human nature. Converts who accepted the new faith were allowed to keep their inheritances, receive legacies, and grow their individual wealth through legal trade and industry. Instead of requiring a complete sacrifice, the gospel ministers accepted a moderate portion; during their weekly or monthly gatherings, each believer freely offered according to their needs and means. No matter how small, every contribution was welcomed, but it was emphasized that regarding Tithes, the Mosaic law remained in effect. Since the Jews, under a less perfect system, were instructed to give a tenth of everything they possessed, it was expected that Christ’s disciples would show even greater generosity and earn merit by giving up excess wealth, which would soon be lost with the world itself. It is nearly unnecessary to note that the income of each church, which was often uncertain and variable, would change based on the financial status of the faithful, whether they lived in obscure villages or gathered in the major cities of the empire. During Emperor Decius's reign, officials believed that Christians in Rome had significant wealth, that they used gold and silver utensils in their worship, and that many of their new members had sold their properties to enrich the community, often leaving their unfortunate children to beg because their parents had chosen a life of faith. We should be cautious about the claims of outsiders and adversaries; however, in this case, two particular details that have come to our attention provide a seemingly probable basis for suspicion. Around the same time, the bishop of Carthage, from a less wealthy community than Rome's, raised a hundred thousand sesterces (over eight hundred and fifty pounds sterling) in a sudden charity drive to redeem fellow Christians from Numidia captured by desert marauders. About a century prior to Decius’s rule, the Roman church received a single donation of two hundred thousand sesterces from a stranger from Pontus, who intended to settle in the capital. Most of these donations were in cash, and Christians as a community were neither eager nor able to significantly acquire the burden of owning land. Several laws, enacted with aims similar to our own regulations against mortmain, stipulated that no real estate could be given or bequeathed to any corporate body without special approval from the emperor or the senate, who were rarely inclined to grant such permissions to a group they initially looked down upon and later viewed with fear and jealousy. However, during the reign of Alexander Severus, a case is noted showing that this restriction was sometimes bypassed or lifted, allowing Christians to claim and hold land within Rome itself. As Christianity grew and the empire faced civil unrest, the strictness of the laws was relaxed, and by the end of the third century, many substantial estates were granted to the wealthy churches of Rome, Milan, Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria, and other major cities in Italy and beyond.

The bishop was the natural steward of the church; the public stock was intrusted to his care without account or control; the presbyters were confined to their spiritual functions, and the more dependent order of the deacons was solely employed in the management and distribution of the ecclesiastical revenue. If we may give credit to the vehement declamations of Cyprian, there were too many among his African brethren, who, in the execution of their charge, violated every precept, not only of evangelical perfection, but even of moral virtue. By some of these unfaithful stewards the riches of the church were lavished in sensual pleasures; by others they were perverted to the purposes of private gain, of fraudulent purchases, and of rapacious usury. But as long as the contributions of the Christian people were free and unconstrained, the abuse of their confidence could not be very frequent, and the general uses to which their liberality was applied reflected honor on the religious society. A decent portion was reserved for the maintenance of the bishop and his clergy; a sufficient sum was allotted for the expenses of the public worship, of which the feasts of love, the agapæ, as they were called, constituted a very pleasing part. The whole remainder was the sacred patrimony of the poor. According to the discretion of the bishop, it was distributed to support widows and orphans, the lame, the sick, and the aged of the community; to comfort strangers and pilgrims, and to alleviate the misfortunes of prisoners and captives, more especially when their sufferings had been occasioned by their firm attachment to the cause of religion. A generous intercourse of charity united the most distant provinces, and the smaller congregations were cheerfully assisted by the alms of their more opulent brethren. Such an institution, which paid less regard to the merit than to the distress of the object, very materially conduced to the progress of Christianity. The Pagans, who were actuated by a sense of humanity, while they derided the doctrines, acknowledged the benevolence, of the new sect. The prospect of immediate relief and of future protection allured into its hospitable bosom many of those unhappy persons whom the neglect of the world would have abandoned to the miseries of want, of sickness, and of old age. There is some reason likewise to believe that great numbers of infants, who, according to the inhuman practice of the times, had been exposed by their parents, were frequently rescued from death, baptized, educated, and maintained by the piety of the Christians, and at the expense of the public treasure.

The bishop was the natural leader of the church; the community’s resources were entrusted to him without any oversight or accountability. The presbyters focused on their spiritual roles, while the more dependent deacons were solely responsible for managing and distributing the church’s funds. If we can believe the passionate speeches of Cyprian, many of his African colleagues failed to uphold not just the ideals of evangelical perfection but even basic moral values in their duties. Some of these untrustworthy stewards squandered the church’s wealth on indulgent pleasures, while others misused it for personal gain through deceitful transactions and greedy lending. However, as long as the donations from the Christian community were voluntary and unrestricted, abuses of trust were not very common, and the general purposes to which their generosity was directed brought honor to the religious community. A reasonable portion was set aside for the support of the bishop and his clergy; an adequate amount was allocated for public worship, which included the joyful love feasts, known as the agapæ. The remaining funds were dedicated to the poor. At the bishop's discretion, it was distributed to help widows and orphans, the disabled, the sick, and the elderly in the community; to assist strangers and travelers, and to relieve the suffering of prisoners and captives, especially those whose tribulations stemmed from their strong commitment to their faith. A generous flow of charity connected even the most distant regions, and smaller congregations gladly received support from their more affluent counterparts. This system, which cared more for those in need than for their merits, significantly contributed to the spread of Christianity. Pagans, who were moved by compassion, while ridiculing the beliefs, acknowledged the kindness of the new sect. The promise of immediate help and future protection drew many unfortunate individuals into its caring embrace, people whom society’s neglect would have left to suffer from poverty, illness, and old age. There is also good reason to believe that many infants, who, due to the cruel practices of the time, had been abandoned by their parents, were often saved from death, baptized, educated, and cared for by the dedication of Christians, funded by the community's resources.

II. It is the undoubted right of every society to exclude from its communion and benefits such among its members as reject or violate those regulations which have been established by general consent. In the exercise of this power, the censures of the Christian church were chiefly directed against scandalous sinners, and particularly those who were guilty of murder, of fraud, or of incontinence; against the authors or the followers of any heretical opinions which had been condemned by the judgment of the episcopal order; and against those unhappy persons, who, whether from choice or compulsion, had polluted themselves after their baptism by any act of idolatrous worship. The consequences of excommunication were of a temporal as well as a spiritual nature. The Christian against whom it was pronounced was deprived of any part in the oblations of the faithful. The ties both of religious and of private friendship were dissolved: he found himself a profane object of abhorrence to the persons whom he the most esteemed, or by whom he had been the most tenderly beloved; and as far as an expulsion from a respectable society could imprint on his character a mark of disgrace, he was shunned or suspected by the generality of mankind. The situation of these unfortunate exiles was in itself very painful and melancholy; but, as it usually happens, their apprehensions far exceeded their sufferings. The benefits of the Christian communion were those of eternal life; nor could they erase from their minds the awful opinion, that to those ecclesiastical governors by whom they were condemned, the Deity had committed the keys of Hell and of Paradise. The heretics, indeed, who might be supported by the consciousness of their intentions, and by the flattering hope that they alone had discovered the true path of salvation, endeavored to regain, in their separate assemblies, those comforts, temporal as well as spiritual, which they no longer derived from the great society of Christians. But almost all those who had reluctantly yielded to the power of vice or idolatry were sensible of their fallen condition, and anxiously desirous of being restored to the benefits of the Christian communion.

II. Every society has the undeniable right to exclude members who reject or break the rules that were established by collective agreement. In exercising this power, the penalties of the Christian church were primarily aimed at scandalous sinners, especially those guilty of murder, fraud, or sexual immorality; those who promoted or followed any heretical beliefs condemned by church leaders; and those unfortunate individuals who, whether by choice or coercion, had tainted themselves after baptism through acts of idol worship. The effects of excommunication were felt in both worldly and spiritual ways. The Christian who faced this punishment lost any share in the offerings of the faithful. The bonds of both religious and personal friendship were severed: they became an object of disgust to those they valued most or had been most loved by; and as far as being expelled from a respectable social circle could tarnish their reputation, they were avoided or viewed with suspicion by most people. The plight of these unfortunate outcasts was inherently painful and sad; however, as is often the case, their fears far outweighed their actual suffering. The benefits of Christian fellowship were those of eternal life; they could not shake the terrifying belief that the church leaders who condemned them held the keys to Heaven and Hell. The heretics, indeed, who might find comfort in their intentions and the hopeful belief that they alone had found the true way to salvation tried to reclaim, in their independent gatherings, the comforts, both worldly and spiritual, that they no longer received from the larger Christian community. But almost all who had reluctantly succumbed to vice or idolatry were aware of their fallen state and eagerly wished to be restored to the blessings of Christian fellowship.

With regard to the treatment of these penitents, two opposite opinions, the one of justice, the other of mercy, divided the primitive church. The more rigid and inflexible casuists refused them forever, and without exception, the meanest place in the holy community, which they had disgraced or deserted; and leaving them to the remorse of a guilty conscience, indulged them only with a faint ray of hope that the contrition of their life and death might possibly be accepted by the Supreme Being. A milder sentiment was embraced, in practice as well as in theory, by the purest and most respectable of the Christian churches. The gates of reconciliation and of heaven were seldom shut against the returning penitent; but a severe and solemn form of discipline was instituted, which, while it served to expiate his crime, might powerfully deter the spectators from the imitation of his example. Humbled by a public confession, emaciated by fasting and clothed in sackcloth, the penitent lay prostrate at the door of the assembly, imploring with tears the pardon of his offences, and soliciting the prayers of the faithful. If the fault was of a very heinous nature, whole years of penance were esteemed an inadequate satisfaction to the divine justice; and it was always by slow and painful gradations that the sinner, the heretic, or the apostate, was readmitted into the bosom of the church. A sentence of perpetual excommunication was, however, reserved for some crimes of an extraordinary magnitude, and particularly for the inexcusable relapses of those penitents who had already experienced and abused the clemency of their ecclesiastical superiors. According to the circumstances or the number of the guilty, the exercise of the Christian discipline was varied by the discretion of the bishops. The councils of Ancyra and Illiberis were held about the same time, the one in Galatia, the other in Spain; but their respective canons, which are still extant, seem to breathe a very different spirit. The Galatian, who after his baptism had repeatedly sacrificed to idols, might obtain his pardon by a penance of seven years; and if he had seduced others to imitate his example, only three years more were added to the term of his exile. But the unhappy Spaniard, who had committed the same offence, was deprived of the hope of reconciliation, even in the article of death; and his idolatry was placed at the head of a list of seventeen other crimes, against which a sentence no less terrible was pronounced. Among these we may distinguish the inexpiable guilt of calumniating a bishop, a presbyter, or even a deacon.

Regarding the treatment of these penitents, two opposing views—justice and mercy—split the early church. The more strict and unyielding theologians permanently denied them even the lowest position in the holy community they had disgraced or abandoned; leaving them to suffer from a guilty conscience, they offered only a faint hope that their remorse in life and death might be accepted by the Supreme Being. A gentler approach was favored, both in practice and in theory, by the most virtuous and respected Christian churches. The doors of reconciliation and heaven were rarely closed to returning penitents; however, a strict and serious form of discipline was put in place that not only served to atone for their sins but also aimed to strongly discourage onlookers from following their example. Humiliated by public confession, weakened by fasting, and dressed in sackcloth, the penitent would lie prostrate at the assembly door, pleading with tears for forgiveness and asking for the prayers of the faithful. If the offense was particularly severe, several years of penance were deemed insufficient to satisfy divine justice; it was always through slow and painful stages that the sinner, heretic, or apostate was readmitted into the church's fold. A sentence of permanent excommunication, however, was reserved for certain crimes of an extraordinary nature, especially for the unforgivable relapses of those penitents who had already experienced and abused the leniency of their ecclesiastical leaders. The implementation of Christian discipline varied according to the circumstances or the number of offenders, at the discretion of the bishops. The councils of Ancyra and Illiberis were convened around the same time, one in Galatia and the other in Spain; yet their canons, which still exist, reflect very different attitudes. The Galatian who had repeatedly sacrificed to idols after his baptism could receive pardon after seven years of penance; if he had led others to follow his example, only three additional years were added to his exile. In contrast, the unfortunate Spaniard who committed the same sin was deprived of the hope of reconciliation even at the point of death, and his idolatry was listed at the top of seventeen other serious crimes, each met with equally harsh penalties. Among these, we can note the unforgivable sin of slandering a bishop, presbyter, or even a deacon.

The well-tempered mixture of liberality and rigor, the judicious dispensation of rewards and punishments, according to the maxims of policy as well as justice, constituted the human strength of the church. The Bishops, whose paternal care extended itself to the government of both worlds, were sensible of the importance of these prerogatives; and covering their ambition with the fair pretence of the love of order, they were jealous of any rival in the exercise of a discipline so necessary to prevent the desertion of those troops which had enlisted themselves under the banner of the cross, and whose numbers every day became more considerable. From the imperious declamations of Cyprian, we should naturally conclude that the doctrines of excommunication and penance formed the most essential part of religion; and that it was much less dangerous for the disciples of Christ to neglect the observance of the moral duties, than to despise the censures and authority of their bishops. Sometimes we might imagine that we were listening to the voice of Moses, when he commanded the earth to open, and to swallow up, in consuming flames, the rebellious race which refused obedience to the priesthood of Aaron; and we should sometimes suppose that we heard a Roman consul asserting the majesty of the republic, and declaring his inflexible resolution to enforce the rigor of the laws. * “If such irregularities are suffered with impunity,” (it is thus that the bishop of Carthage chides the lenity of his colleague,) “if such irregularities are suffered, there is an end of Episcopal Vigor; an end of the sublime and divine power of governing the Church, an end of Christianity itself.” Cyprian had renounced those temporal honors which it is probable he would never have obtained; * but the acquisition of such absolute command over the consciences and understanding of a congregation, however obscure or despised by the world, is more truly grateful to the pride of the human heart than the possession of the most despotic power, imposed by arms and conquest on a reluctant people.

The perfect blend of generosity and strictness, along with the careful distribution of rewards and punishments based on both policy and fairness, was the human strength of the church. The Bishops, who took on a parental role in governing both the spiritual and earthly realms, understood the significance of these powers. They masked their ambitions with the noble claim of upholding order, fiercely guarding against any competition in a discipline that was essential to keep the followers who had committed to the cross from drifting away, especially as their numbers grew daily. From the passionate speeches of Cyprian, one could easily conclude that excommunication and penance were the core aspects of faith and that it was far more dangerous for Christ's followers to ignore moral duties than to challenge the discipline and authority of their bishops. At times, it might feel like we were hearing Moses commanding the earth to open up and consume the disobedient people who refused to follow Aaron's priesthood. Other times, it seemed as though a Roman consul was proclaiming the authority of the republic and his unyielding commitment to enforce the laws strictly. “If such irregularities are allowed to go unpunished,” (this is how the bishop of Carthage admonishes his colleague's lenience), “if such irregularities continue, we will lose Episcopal authority; the divine power to govern the Church will vanish, and Christianity itself will come to an end.” Cyprian had given up worldly honors that he likely would never have acquired; but having complete control over the beliefs and minds of even a small or disregarded congregation is far more satisfying to the pride of the human heart than having the most tyrannical power imposed by force on an unwilling people.

In the course of this important, though perhaps tedious inquiry, I have attempted to display the secondary causes which so efficaciously assisted the truth of the Christian religion. If among these causes we have discovered any artificial ornaments, any accidental circumstances, or any mixture of error and passion, it cannot appear surprising that mankind should be the most sensibly affected by such motives as were suited to their imperfect nature. It was by the aid of these causes, exclusive zeal, the immediate expectation of another world, the claim of miracles, the practice of rigid virtue, and the constitution of the primitive church, that Christianity spread itself with so much success in the Roman empire. To the first of these the Christians were indebted for their invincible valor, which disdained to capitulate with the enemy whom they were resolved to vanquish. The three succeeding causes supplied their valor with the most formidable arms. The last of these causes united their courage, directed their arms, and gave their efforts that irresistible weight, which even a small band of well-trained and intrepid volunteers has so often possessed over an undisciplined multitude, ignorant of the subject and careless of the event of the war. In the various religions of Polytheism, some wandering fanatics of Egypt and Syria, who addressed themselves to the credulous superstition of the populace, were perhaps the only order of priests that derived their whole support and credit from their sacerdotal profession, and were very deeply affected by a personal concern for the safety or prosperity of their tutelar deities. The ministers of Polytheism, both in Rome and in the provinces, were, for the most part, men of a noble birth, and of an affluent fortune, who received, as an honorable distinction, the care of a celebrated temple, or of a public sacrifice, exhibited, very frequently at their own expense, the sacred games, and with cold indifference performed the ancient rites, according to the laws and fashion of their country. As they were engaged in the ordinary occupations of life, their zeal and devotion were seldom animated by a sense of interest, or by the habits of an ecclesiastical character. Confined to their respective temples and cities, they remained without any connection of discipline or government; and whilst they acknowledged the supreme jurisdiction of the senate, of the college of pontiffs, and of the emperor, those civil magistrates contented themselves with the easy task of maintaining in peace and dignity the general worship of mankind. We have already seen how various, how loose, and how uncertain were the religious sentiments of Polytheists. They were abandoned, almost without control, to the natural workings of a superstitious fancy. The accidental circumstances of their life and situation determined the object as well as the degree of their devotion; and as long as their adoration was successively prostituted to a thousand deities, it was scarcely possible that their hearts could be susceptible of a very sincere or lively passion for any of them.

During this significant, though maybe tedious investigation, I've tried to show the secondary factors that effectively supported the truth of Christianity. If among these factors we’ve identified any superficial embellishments, random circumstances, or a mix of errors and emotions, it’s not surprising that people would be most deeply influenced by motivations that fit their imperfect nature. Thanks to these factors—exclusive zeal, the immediate expectation of an afterlife, the belief in miracles, the practice of strict virtue, and the structure of the early church—Christianity thrived so successfully throughout the Roman Empire. The first factor gave Christians their unstoppable bravery, which refused to negotiate with the enemy they were determined to overcome. The next three factors provided that bravery with the most powerful tools. The last factor brought their courage together, guided their actions, and gave their efforts the significant impact that a small group of well-trained and fearless volunteers often has over an undisciplined crowd, unaware of the matter at hand and indifferent to the outcome of battle. In various polytheistic religions, some wandering zealots from Egypt and Syria, who appealed to the gullible superstitions of the masses, might have been the only group of priests that completely relied on their religious standing and were profoundly concerned for the welfare of their protecting deities. The polytheistic ministers, both in Rome and in the provinces, were mostly men of noble birth and wealth, who took on the care of a famous temple or public sacrifice as an honorable distinction, often hosting the sacred games at their own expense, and performing ancient rituals with cold indifference according to the laws and customs of their culture. Engaged in the usual activities of life, their zeal and devotion were rarely driven by personal interest or by the habits of a religious position. Restricted to their respective temples and cities, they lacked any connection of discipline or governance; while they recognized the supreme jurisdiction of the senate, the college of pontiffs, and the emperor, these civil magistrates were content with the easy duty of ensuring the peaceful and dignified worship of the people. We’ve already observed how diverse, loose, and uncertain the religious beliefs of polytheists were. They were mostly left to the uncontrolled workings of superstitious imagination. The random circumstances of their lives and situations dictated both the focus and intensity of their devotion; and as long as their worship was diluted among a thousand deities, it was nearly impossible for their hearts to feel a truly sincere or strong passion for any of them.

When Christianity appeared in the world, even these faint and imperfect impressions had lost much of their original power. Human reason, which by its unassisted strength is incapable of perceiving the mysteries of faith, had already obtained an easy triumph over the folly of Paganism; and when Tertullian or Lactantius employ their labors in exposing its falsehood and extravagance, they are obliged to transcribe the eloquence of Cicero or the wit of Lucian. The contagion of these sceptical writings had been diffused far beyond the number of their readers. The fashion of incredulity was communicated from the philosopher to the man of pleasure or business, from the noble to the plebeian, and from the master to the menial slave who waited at his table, and who eagerly listened to the freedom of his conversation. On public occasions the philosophic part of mankind affected to treat with respect and decency the religious institutions of their country; but their secret contempt penetrated through the thin and awkward disguise; and even the people, when they discovered that their deities were rejected and derided by those whose rank or understanding they were accustomed to reverence, were filled with doubts and apprehensions concerning the truth of those doctrines, to which they had yielded the most implicit belief. The decline of ancient prejudice exposed a very numerous portion of human kind to the danger of a painful and comfortless situation. A state of scepticism and suspense may amuse a few inquisitive minds. But the practice of superstition is so congenial to the multitude, that if they are forcibly awakened, they still regret the loss of their pleasing vision. Their love of the marvellous and supernatural, their curiosity with regard to future events, and their strong propensity to extend their hopes and fears beyond the limits of the visible world, were the principal causes which favored the establishment of Polytheism. So urgent on the vulgar is the necessity of believing, that the fall of any system of mythology will most probably be succeeded by the introduction of some other mode of superstition. Some deities of a more recent and fashionable cast might soon have occupied the deserted temples of Jupiter and Apollo, if, in the decisive moment, the wisdom of Providence had not interposed a genuine revelation, fitted to inspire the most rational esteem and conviction, whilst, at the same time, it was adorned with all that could attract the curiosity, the wonder, and the veneration of the people. In their actual disposition, as many were almost disengaged from their artificial prejudices, but equally susceptible and desirous of a devout attachment; an object much less deserving would have been sufficient to fill the vacant place in their hearts, and to gratify the uncertain eagerness of their passions. Those who are inclined to pursue this reflection, instead of viewing with astonishment the rapid progress of Christianity, will perhaps be surprised that its success was not still more rapid and still more universal.

When Christianity came into the world, even these faint and imperfect impressions had lost much of their original power. Human reason, which on its own struggles to understand the mysteries of faith, had already easily triumphed over the foolishness of Paganism; and when Tertullian or Lactantius worked to expose its lies and absurdities, they had to borrow the eloquence of Cicero or the cleverness of Lucian. The spread of these skeptical writings reached far beyond their readers. The trend of disbelief was shared from philosophers to pleasure-seekers or businesspeople, from nobles to commoners, and from masters to the slaves waiting at their tables, who eagerly listened to their conversations. In public, the more philosophical people pretended to treat their country's religious institutions with respect and dignity, but their hidden scorn seeped through the thin and awkward facade; even the common people, when they realized that their gods were being rejected and mocked by those whose status or intelligence they normally respected, were filled with doubt and fear about the truths they had believed so implicitly. The decline of ancient beliefs left a large number of people vulnerable to a painful and uncomfortable situation. A state of skepticism might entertain a few curious minds, but the practice of superstition is so natural for the masses that when they are forcefully awakened from it, they still mourn the loss of their comforting illusions. Their fascination with the extraordinary and supernatural, their curiosity about the future, and their strong tendency to extend their hopes and fears beyond what is visible were the main reasons for the rise of Polytheism. The general need to believe is so urgent among the common people that the downfall of any mythological system will likely be followed by the rise of another form of superstition. Some newer and trendier gods might have quickly taken the empty temples of Jupiter and Apollo if, at a crucial moment, the wisdom of Providence hadn't intervened with a genuine revelation designed to inspire the most rational respect and belief, while also appealing to the curiosity, wonder, and reverence of the people. In their current state, many were almost free from their artificial prejudices but still open and eager for devout attachment; a far less deserving object could have easily filled the empty space in their hearts and satisfied their uncertain passions. Those who reflect on this may find it surprising that the spread of Christianity was not even quicker and more universal.

It has been observed, with truth as well as propriety, that the conquests of Rome prepared and facilitated those of Christianity. In the second chapter of this work we have attempted to explain in what manner the most civilized provinces of Europe, Asia, and Africa were united under the dominion of one sovereign, and gradually connected by the most intimate ties of laws, of manners, and of language. The Jews of Palestine, who had fondly expected a temporal deliverer, gave so cold a reception to the miracles of the divine prophet, that it was found unnecessary to publish, or at least to preserve, any Hebrew gospel. The authentic histories of the actions of Christ were composed in the Greek language, at a considerable distance from Jerusalem, and after the Gentile converts were grown extremely numerous. As soon as those histories were translated into the Latin tongue, they were perfectly intelligible to all the subjects of Rome, excepting only to the peasants of Syria and Egypt, for whose benefit particular versions were afterwards made. The public highways, which had been constructed for the use of the legions, opened an easy passage for the Christian missionaries from Damascus to Corinth, and from Italy to the extremity of Spain or Britain; nor did those spiritual conquerors encounter any of the obstacles which usually retard or prevent the introduction of a foreign religion into a distant country. There is the strongest reason to believe, that before the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine, the faith of Christ had been preached in every province, and in all the great cities of the empire; but the foundation of the several congregations, the numbers of the faithful who composed them, and their proportion to the unbelieving multitude, are now buried in obscurity, or disguised by fiction and declamation. Such imperfect circumstances, however, as have reached our knowledge concerning the increase of the Christian name in Asia and Greece, in Egypt, in Italy, and in the West, we shall now proceed to relate, without neglecting the real or imaginary acquisitions which lay beyond the frontiers of the Roman empire.

It has been noted, both truthfully and appropriately, that Rome's conquests laid the groundwork for the spread of Christianity. In the second chapter of this work, we have tried to explain how the most civilized provinces of Europe, Asia, and Africa came under the rule of one sovereign, gradually forming close connections through laws, customs, and language. The Jews of Palestine, who had hoped for a worldly savior, reacted so coldly to the miracles of the divine prophet that it became unnecessary to distribute, or even keep, any Hebrew gospel. The true accounts of Christ's actions were written in Greek, at a significant distance from Jerusalem, when the number of Gentile converts was rapidly increasing. Once these accounts were translated into Latin, they were easily understood by all Roman subjects, except for the peasants in Syria and Egypt, for whom specific versions were later created. The public roads, built for the legions, provided a smooth route for Christian missionaries traveling from Damascus to Corinth and from Italy to the far reaches of Spain or Britain; these spiritual conquerors faced none of the usual barriers that typically hinder the spread of a new religion in a foreign land. There is strong evidence to suggest that before the reign of Diocletian and Constantine, the faith of Christ had been preached in every province and in all the major cities of the empire; however, details about the formation of different congregations, the number of believers within them, and their proportion to the nonbelieving population are now lost in obscurity or overshadowed by exaggerations and rhetoric. We will now share what limited information we have about the growth of the Christian faith in Asia, Greece, Egypt, Italy, and the West, not overlooking the real or fictional influence that existed beyond the borders of the Roman Empire.





Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part VIII.

The rich provinces that extend from the Euphrates to the Ionian Sea were the principal theatre on which the apostle of the Gentiles displayed his zeal and piety. The seeds of the gospel, which he had scattered in a fertile soil, were diligently cultivated by his disciples; and it should seem that, during the two first centuries, the most considerable body of Christians was contained within those limits. Among the societies which were instituted in Syria, none were more ancient or more illustrious than those of Damascus, of Berea or Aleppo, and of Antioch. The prophetic introduction of the Apocalypse has described and immortalized the seven churches of Asia; Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardes, Laodicea, and Philadelphia; and their colonies were soon diffused over that populous country. In a very early period, the islands of Cyprus and Crete, the provinces of Thrace and Macedonia, gave a favorable reception to the new religion; and Christian republics were soon founded in the cities of Corinth, of Sparta, and of Athens. The antiquity of the Greek and Asiatic churches allowed a sufficient space of time for their increase and multiplication; and even the swarms of Gnostics and other heretics serve to display the flourishing condition of the orthodox church, since the appellation of heretics has always been applied to the less numerous party. To these domestic testimonies we may add the confession, the complaints, and the apprehensions of the Gentiles themselves. From the writings of Lucian, a philosopher who had studied mankind, and who describes their manners in the most lively colors, we may learn that, under the reign of Commodus, his native country of Pontus was filled with Epicureans and Christians. Within fourscore years after the death of Christ, the humane Pliny laments the magnitude of the evil which he vainly attempted to eradicate. In his very curious epistle to the emperor Trajan, he affirms that the temples were almost deserted, that the sacred victims scarcely found any purchasers, and that the superstition had not only infected the cities, but had even spread itself into the villages and the open country of Pontus and Bithynia.

The wealthy regions stretching from the Euphrates to the Ionian Sea were the main stage where the apostle of the Gentiles showcased his passion and devotion. The seeds of the gospel he planted in fertile ground were carefully nurtured by his followers; it seems that during the first two centuries, a significant portion of Christians was found within those boundaries. Among the communities established in Syria, none were older or more notable than those in Damascus, Berea, Aleppo, and Antioch. The prophetic opening of the Apocalypse has depicted and immortalized the seven churches of Asia—Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardes, Laodicea, and Philadelphia—and their branches quickly spread throughout that populous region. In very early times, the islands of Cyprus and Crete, along with the provinces of Thrace and Macedonia, warmly embraced the new religion, leading to the establishment of Christian communities in the cities of Corinth, Sparta, and Athens. The ancient roots of the Greek and Asian churches allowed ample time for their growth and expansion, and even the influx of Gnostics and other heretics illustrates the thriving state of the orthodox church, as the label "heretics" has always been assigned to the smaller group. Alongside these internal testimonies, we can consider the admissions, grievances, and concerns of the Gentiles themselves. From the writings of Lucian, a philosopher who keenly observed human behavior and vividly describes their customs, we learn that during the reign of Commodus, his homeland of Pontus was filled with Epicureans and Christians. Within eighty years after Christ's death, the compassionate Pliny laments the extent of the problem he attempted to address in vain. In his fascinating letter to Emperor Trajan, he states that the temples were nearly abandoned, that the sacred offerings hardly had any buyers, and that superstition had not only taken hold in the cities but had even spread to the villages and rural areas of Pontus and Bithynia.

Without descending into a minute scrutiny of the expressions or of the motives of those writers who either celebrate or lament the progress of Christianity in the East, it may in general be observed that none of them have left us any grounds from whence a just estimate might be formed of the real numbers of the faithful in those provinces. One circumstance, however, has been fortunately preserved, which seems to cast a more distinct light on this obscure but interesting subject. Under the reign of Theodosius, after Christianity had enjoyed, during more than sixty years, the sunshine of Imperial favor, the ancient and illustrious church of Antioch consisted of one hundred thousand persons, three thousand of whom were supported out of the public oblations. The splendor and dignity of the queen of the East, the acknowledged populousness of Cæsarea, Seleucia, and Alexandria, and the destruction of two hundred and fifty thousand souls in the earthquake which afflicted Antioch under the elder Justin, are so many convincing proofs that the whole number of its inhabitants was not less than half a million, and that the Christians, however multiplied by zeal and power, did not exceed a fifth part of that great city. How different a proportion must we adopt when we compare the persecuted with the triumphant church, the West with the East, remote villages with populous towns, and countries recently converted to the faith with the place where the believers first received the appellation of Christians! It must not, however, be dissembled, that, in another passage, Chrysostom, to whom we are indebted for this useful information, computes the multitude of the faithful as even superior to that of the Jews and Pagans. But the solution of this apparent difficulty is easy and obvious. The eloquent preacher draws a parallel between the civil and the ecclesiastical constitution of Antioch; between the list of Christians who had acquired heaven by baptism, and the list of citizens who had a right to share the public liberality. Slaves, strangers, and infants were comprised in the former; they were excluded from the latter.

Without getting into a detailed examination of the views or motives of those writers who either praise or lament the spread of Christianity in the East, it's generally noticeable that none have provided us with a clear basis for accurately assessing the actual number of believers in those regions. However, one fortunate detail has survived that sheds clearer light on this complex yet fascinating topic. During the reign of Theodosius, after Christianity had enjoyed over sixty years of imperial support, the ancient and notable church of Antioch had one hundred thousand members, three thousand of whom were supported by public donations. The grandeur and prominence of the queen of the East, the acknowledged population of Cæsarea, Seleucia, and Alexandria, and the loss of two hundred fifty thousand lives in the earthquake that struck Antioch during the reign of the elder Justin are all strong evidence that the total population of the city was at least half a million, and that Christians, no matter how fervent their numbers, made up no more than a fifth of that vast city. What a different ratio we must consider when comparing the persecuted church with the triumphant one, the West with the East, remote villages with bustling cities, and regions that have recently converted to the faith with the place where the believers first took on the name of Christians! It should be noted, however, that in another statement, Chrysostom, from whom we gain this valuable insight, estimates that the number of believers actually exceeded that of Jews and Pagans. But the explanation for this apparent contradiction is clear and straightforward. The eloquent preacher compares the civil and church structure of Antioch; contrasting the register of Christians who obtained eternal life through baptism with the list of citizens entitled to benefit from public generosity. Slaves, foreigners, and infants were included in the former group but excluded from the latter.

The extensive commerce of Alexandria, and its proximity to Palestine, gave an easy entrance to the new religion. It was at first embraced by great numbers of the Theraputæ, or Essenians, of the Lake Mareotis, a Jewish sect which had abated much of its reverence for the Mosaic ceremonies. The austere life of the Essenians, their fasts and excommunications, the community of goods, the love of celibacy, their zeal for martyrdom, and the warmth though not the purity of their faith, already offered a very lively image of the primitive discipline. It was in the school of Alexandria that the Christian theology appears to have assumed a regular and scientific form; and when Hadrian visited Egypt, he found a church composed of Jews and of Greeks, sufficiently important to attract the notice of that inquisitive prince. But the progress of Christianity was for a long time confined within the limits of a single city, which was itself a foreign colony, and till the close of the second century the predecessors of Demetrius were the only prelates of the Egyptian church. Three bishops were consecrated by the hands of Demetrius, and the number was increased to twenty by his successor Heraclas. The body of the natives, a people distinguished by a sullen inflexibility of temper, entertained the new doctrine with coldness and reluctance; and even in the time of Origen, it was rare to meet with an Egyptian who had surmounted his early prejudices in favor of the sacred animals of his country. As soon, indeed, as Christianity ascended the throne, the zeal of those barbarians obeyed the prevailing impulsion; the cities of Egypt were filled with bishops, and the deserts of Thebais swarmed with hermits.

The bustling trade of Alexandria and its closeness to Palestine made it easy for the new religion to spread. Initially, it was adopted by many of the Theraputæ, or Essenians, around Lake Mareotis, a Jewish group that had diminished its strict adherence to Mosaic traditions. The strict lifestyle of the Essenians, including their fasting and excommunications, their shared resources, commitment to celibacy, passion for martyrdom, and their fervent yet imperfect faith, presented a vivid representation of early discipline. It was in Alexandria that Christian theology really began to take on a structured and academic form; when Hadrian visited Egypt, he discovered a church comprising both Jews and Greeks, significant enough to catch his curious attention. However, for quite some time, the spread of Christianity was limited to just one city, which itself was a foreign settlement, and until the end of the second century, Demetrius's predecessors were the only bishops of the Egyptian church. Demetrius consecrated three bishops, and his successor, Heraclas, increased that number to twenty. The local population, known for their stubbornness, received the new teaching with indifference and hesitation; even during Origen's time, it was uncommon to find an Egyptian who had moved beyond their early biases in favor of their country's sacred animals. Once Christianity gained prominence, the enthusiasm of those people aligned with the movement; Egypt's cities became filled with bishops, and the deserts of Thebais were teeming with hermits.

A perpetual stream of strangers and provincials flowed into the capacious bosom of Rome. Whatever was strange or odious, whoever was guilty or suspected, might hope, in the obscurity of that immense capital, to elude the vigilance of the law. In such a various conflux of nations, every teacher, either of truth or falsehood, every founder, whether of a virtuous or a criminal association, might easily multiply his disciples or accomplices. The Christians of Rome, at the time of the accidental persecution of Nero, are represented by Tacitus as already amounting to a very great multitude, and the language of that great historian is almost similar to the style employed by Livy, when he relates the introduction and the suppression of the rites of Bacchus. After the Bacchanals had awakened the severity of the senate, it was likewise apprehended that a very great multitude, as it were another people, had been initiated into those abhorred mysteries. A more careful inquiry soon demonstrated that the offenders did not exceed seven thousand; a number indeed sufficiently alarming, when considered as the object of public justice. It is with the same candid allowance that we should interpret the vague expressions of Tacitus, and in a former instance of Pliny, when they exaggerate the crowds of deluded fanatics who had forsaken the established worship of the gods. The church of Rome was undoubtedly the first and most populous of the empire; and we are possessed of an authentic record which attests the state of religion in that city about the middle of the third century, and after a peace of thirty-eight years. The clergy, at that time, consisted of a bishop, forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, as many sub-deacons, forty-two acolythes, and fifty readers, exorcists, and porters. The number of widows, of the infirm, and of the poor, who were maintained by the oblations of the faithful, amounted to fifteen hundred. From reason, as well as from the analogy of Antioch, we may venture to estimate the Christians of Rome at about fifty thousand. The populousness of that great capital cannot perhaps be exactly ascertained; but the most modest calculation will not surely reduce it lower than a million of inhabitants, of whom the Christians might constitute at the most a twentieth part.

A constant stream of strangers and locals flowed into the welcoming heart of Rome. Anyone who was unusual or had done something wrong could expect to hide from the law in the anonymity of that vast city. In such a mix of cultures, every teacher, whether spreading truth or lies, and every founder, whether of a good or illegal group, could easily gain followers or partners in crime. At the time of Nero's unexpected persecution, Tacitus described the Christians in Rome as already numbering a huge crowd, and his language is almost like that used by Livy when he talks about the rise and fall of the Bacchanal rites. After the Bacchanals drew the Senate's ire, it was feared that a very large group—like another people—had been initiated into those dreaded secrets. A more thorough investigation soon showed that the offenders were no more than seven thousand, which is indeed a concerning number when seen as a target for public justice. We should interpret Tacitus's vague statements, as well as Pliny's earlier ones, with the same open-minded approach when they inflate the number of misguided fanatics who had abandoned the traditional worship of the gods. The church of Rome was clearly the first and most populous in the empire, and we have an authentic record that confirms the state of religion in that city around the middle of the third century, following a peaceful period of thirty-eight years. At that time, the clergy included one bishop, forty-six priests, seven deacons, an equal number of sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, and fifty readers, exorcists, and porters. The number of widows, the sick, and the poor supported by the donations of the faithful reached fifteen hundred. Based on logic and the experience of Antioch, we can estimate that the Christians in Rome numbered around fifty thousand. While we might not be able to pinpoint the exact population of that vast city, even the most conservative estimate won’t drop it below a million residents, of whom Christians might make up at most one-twentieth.

The western provincials appeared to have derived the knowledge of Christianity from the same source which had diffused among them the language, the sentiments, and the manners of Rome. In this more important circumstance, Africa, as well as Gaul, was gradually fashioned to the imitation of the capital. Yet notwithstanding the many favorable occasions which might invite the Roman missionaries to visit their Latin provinces, it was late before they passed either the sea or the Alps; nor can we discover in those great countries any assured traces either of faith or of persecution that ascend higher than the reign of the Antonines. The slow progress of the gospel in the cold climate of Gaul was extremely different from the eagerness with which it seems to have been received on the burning sands of Africa. The African Christians soon formed one of the principal members of the primitive church. The practice introduced into that province of appointing bishops to the most inconsiderable towns, and very frequently to the most obscure villages, contributed to multiply the splendor and importance of their religious societies, which during the course of the third century were animated by the zeal of Tertullian, directed by the abilities of Cyprian, and adorned by the eloquence of Lactantius. But if, on the contrary, we turn our eyes towards Gaul, we must content ourselves with discovering, in the time of Marcus Antoninus, the feeble and united congregations of Lyons and Vienna; and even as late as the reign of Decius we are assured, that in a few cities only, Arles, Narbonne, Thoulouse, Limoges, Clermont, Tours, and Paris, some scattered churches were supported by the devotion of a small number of Christians. Silence is indeed very consistent with devotion; but as it is seldom compatible with zeal, we may perceive and lament the languid state of Christianity in those provinces which had exchanged the Celtic for the Latin tongue, since they did not, during the three first centuries, give birth to a single ecclesiastical writer. From Gaul, which claimed a just preeminence of learning and authority over all the countries on this side of the Alps, the light of the gospel was more faintly reflected on the remote provinces of Spain and Britain; and if we may credit the vehement assertions of Tertullian, they had already received the first rays of the faith, when he addressed his apology to the magistrates of the emperor Severus. But the obscure and imperfect origin of the western churches of Europe has been so negligently recorded, that if we would relate the time and manner of their foundation, we must supply the silence of antiquity by those legends which avarice or superstition long afterwards dictated to the monks in the lazy gloom of their convents. Of these holy romances, that of the apostle St. James can alone, by its singular extravagance, deserve to be mentioned. From a peaceful fisherman of the Lake of Gennesareth, he was transformed into a valorous knight, who charged at the head of the Spanish chivalry in their battles against the Moors. The gravest historians have celebrated his exploits; the miraculous shrine of Compostella displayed his power; and the sword of a military order, assisted by the terrors of the Inquisition, was sufficient to remove every objection of profane criticism.

The people in the western provinces seem to have gained their understanding of Christianity from the same source that spread the language, sentiments, and customs of Rome among them. Africa, like Gaul, was also slowly shaped to mimic the capital. However, despite many opportunities that might have encouraged Roman missionaries to travel to their Latin provinces, it was a long time before they crossed either the sea or the Alps; we can’t find any solid evidence of faith or persecution in those large areas that dates back further than the reign of the Antonines. The slow spread of the gospel in the chilly climate of Gaul was in stark contrast to how eagerly it seems to have been accepted in the scorching sands of Africa. Soon, African Christians became one of the key parts of the early church. The practice of appointing bishops to even the smallest towns, and often to very obscure villages, helped enhance the prominence and significance of their religious communities, which during the third century were fueled by the enthusiasm of Tertullian, guided by the skills of Cyprian, and enriched by the eloquence of Lactantius. In contrast, if we look at Gaul, we can only find, during the time of Marcus Antoninus, the weak and united congregations of Lyons and Vienna; and as late as the reign of Decius, we know that only in a few cities like Arles, Narbonne, Toulouse, Limoges, Clermont, Tours, and Paris, a handful of Christians supported some scattered churches. Silence can go hand in hand with devotion, but since it rarely aligns with zeal, we can see and mourn the weak state of Christianity in those regions that had switched from the Celtic to the Latin language, as they did not produce a single church writer in the first three centuries. From Gaul, which rightfully claimed superiority in learning and authority over all the lands on this side of the Alps, the light of the gospel shone less brightly on the far-off provinces of Spain and Britain; if we believe Tertullian’s passionate statements, they had already begun to receive the first glimpses of faith when he addressed his apology to the officials of Emperor Severus. However, the unclear and incomplete beginnings of the western churches of Europe have been so poorly documented that if we want to recount the time and manner of their establishment, we have to fill the gaps left by history with legends that greed or superstition later inspired in the monks during the lazy darkness of their monasteries. Among these pious tales, the story of the apostle St. James stands out for its unique absurdity. From a peaceful fisherman of the Lake of Gennesareth, he was turned into a brave knight leading the Spanish chivalry in battles against the Moors. The most serious historians have celebrated his feats; the miraculous shrine of Compostella showcased his power; and the militaristic order's sword, backed by the fears of the Inquisition, was enough to silence any secular criticism.

The progress of Christianity was not confined to the Roman empire; and according to the primitive fathers, who interpret facts by prophecy, the new religion, within a century after the death of its divine Author, had already visited every part of the globe. “There exists not,” says Justin Martyr, “a people, whether Greek or Barbarian, or any other race of men, by whatsoever appellation or manners they may be distinguished, however ignorant of arts or agriculture, whether they dwell under tents, or wander about in covered wagons, among whom prayers are not offered up in the name of a crucified Jesus to the Father and Creator of all things.” But this splendid exaggeration, which even at present it would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the real state of mankind, can be considered only as the rash sally of a devout but careless writer, the measure of whose belief was regulated by that of his wishes. But neither the belief nor the wishes of the fathers can alter the truth of history. It will still remain an undoubted fact, that the barbarians of Scythia and Germany, who afterwards subverted the Roman monarchy, were involved in the darkness of paganism; and that even the conversion of Iberia, of Armenia, or of Æthiopia, was not attempted with any degree of success till the sceptre was in the hands of an orthodox emperor. Before that time, the various accidents of war and commerce might indeed diffuse an imperfect knowledge of the gospel among the tribes of Caledonia, and among the borderers of the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates. Beyond the last-mentioned river, Edessa was distinguished by a firm and early adherence to the faith. From Edessa the principles of Christianity were easily introduced into the Greek and Syrian cities which obeyed the successors of Artaxerxes; but they do not appear to have made any deep impression on the minds of the Persians, whose religious system, by the labors of a well-disciplined order of priests, had been constructed with much more art and solidity than the uncertain mythology of Greece and Rome.

The spread of Christianity wasn't limited to the Roman Empire; and according to the early church fathers, who interpreted events through prophecy, the new faith had reached every corner of the earth within a century after the death of its divine founder. “There is not,” says Justin Martyr, “a people, whether Greek or Barbarian, or any other race of people, by whatever name or customs they may be known, even those who are uneducated in arts or farming, whether they live in tents or move around in covered wagons, among whom prayers are not offered in the name of a crucified Jesus to the Father and Creator of all things.” However, this grand exaggeration, which is still hard to reconcile with the actual state of humanity today, can be seen as the impulsive statement of a devout but careless writer, whose beliefs were likely shaped by his desires. But neither the faith nor the wishes of these fathers can change historical truths. It will always be a fact that the barbarians of Scythia and Germany, who later overthrew the Roman Empire, were still trapped in the darkness of paganism; and that the conversion of Iberia, Armenia, or Ethiopia was only attempted with any real success once a Christian emperor took the throne. Before that time, various incidents of war and trade might have spread a limited understanding of the gospel among the tribes of Caledonia, and along the borders of the Rhine, Danube, and Euphrates. Beyond the Euphrates, Edessa was noted for its strong and early commitment to the faith. From Edessa, Christian principles were easily introduced into the Greek and Syrian cities that were under the rule of the successors of Artaxerxes; but they don't seem to have made a significant impact on the minds of the Persians, whose religious system, shaped by a well-trained class of priests, was built with much more skill and structure than the uncertain myths of Greece and Rome.





Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part IX.

From this impartial though imperfect survey of the progress of Christianity, it may perhaps seem probable, that the number of its proselytes has been excessively magnified by fear on the one side, and by devotion on the other. According to the irreproachable testimony of Origen, the proportion of the faithful was very inconsiderable, when compared with the multitude of an unbelieving world; but, as we are left without any distinct information, it is impossible to determine, and it is difficult even to conjecture, the real numbers of the primitive Christians. The most favorable calculation, however, that can be deduced from the examples of Antioch and of Rome, will not permit us to imagine that more than a fraction of the population placed themselves under the banner of the cross before the important conversion of Constantine. But their habits of faith, of zeal, and of union, seemed to multiply their numbers; and the same causes which contributed to their future increase, served to render their actual strength more apparent and more formidable.

From this unbiased but imperfect overview of the growth of Christianity, it may seem likely that the number of new followers has been greatly exaggerated due to fear on one side and devotion on the other. According to the reliable account of Origen, the proportion of believers was quite small compared to the vast number of non-believers in the world; however, lacking any clear data, it’s impossible to determine or even reasonably guess the actual numbers of the early Christians. The most optimistic estimate we can draw from the examples of Antioch and Rome doesn’t allow us to think that more than a small fraction of the population aligned themselves with the cross before the significant conversion of Constantine. Still, their practices of faith, zeal, and unity seemed to amplify their numbers, and the same factors that aided their future growth made their current strength appear more evident and intimidating.

Such is the constitution of civil society, that, whilst a few persons are distinguished by riches, by honors, and by knowledge, the body of the people is condemned to obscurity, ignorance and poverty. The Christian religion, which addressed itself to the whole human race, must consequently collect a far greater number of proselytes from the lower than from the superior ranks of life. This innocent and natural circumstance has been improved into a very odious imputation, which seems to be less strenuously denied by the apologists, than it is urged by the adversaries, of the faith; that the new sect of Christians was almost entirely composed of the dregs of the populace, of peasants and mechanics, of boys and women, of beggars and slaves, the last of whom might sometimes introduce the missionaries into the rich and noble families to which they belonged. These obscure teachers (such was the charge of malice and infidelity) are as mute in public as they are loquacious and dogmatical in private. Whilst they cautiously avoid the dangerous encounter of philosophers, they mingle with the rude and illiterate crowd, and insinuate themselves into those minds whom their age, their sex, or their education, has the best disposed to receive the impression of superstitious terrors.

The structure of civil society is such that while a few people stand out due to their wealth, honors, and knowledge, the majority of the population is left in obscurity, ignorance, and poverty. The Christian religion, which was meant for everyone, naturally attracts many more followers from the lower classes than the upper classes. This innocent fact has been twisted into a nasty accusation, which the defenders of the faith seem to deny less forcefully than the critics assert: that the new group of Christians was mainly made up of the lowest segments of society—peasants, laborers, young people, women, beggars, and slaves. Sometimes, the last group would even bring missionaries into the wealthy and noble families they served. These humble teachers (such was the accusation of malice and disbelief) are as quiet in public as they are outspoken and dogmatic in private. While they carefully avoid confrontations with philosophers, they blend in with the rough and uneducated crowds, seeping into the minds of those who, due to their age, gender, or upbringing, are most susceptible to the impact of superstitious fears.

This unfavorable picture, though not devoid of a faint resemblance, betrays, by its dark coloring and distorted features, the pencil of an enemy. As the humble faith of Christ diffused itself through the world, it was embraced by several persons who derived some consequence from the advantages of nature or fortune. Aristides, who presented an eloquent apology to the emperor Hadrian, was an Athenian philosopher. Justin Martyr had sought divine knowledge in the schools of Zeno, of Aristotle, of Pythagoras, and of Plato, before he fortunately was accosted by the old man, or rather the angel, who turned his attention to the study of the Jewish prophets. Clemens of Alexandria had acquired much various reading in the Greek, and Tertullian in the Latin, language. Julius Africanus and Origen possessed a very considerable share of the learning of their times; and although the style of Cyprian is very different from that of Lactantius, we might almost discover that both those writers had been public teachers of rhetoric. Even the study of philosophy was at length introduced among the Christians, but it was not always productive of the most salutary effects; knowledge was as often the parent of heresy as of devotion, and the description which was designed for the followers of Artemon, may, with equal propriety, be applied to the various sects that resisted the successors of the apostles. “They presume to alter the Holy Scriptures, to abandon the ancient rule of faith, and to form their opinions according to the subtile precepts of logic. The science of the church is neglected for the study of geometry, and they lose sight of heaven while they are employed in measuring the earth. Euclid is perpetually in their hands. Aristotle and Theophrastus are the objects of their admiration; and they express an uncommon reverence for the works of Galen. Their errors are derived from the abuse of the arts and sciences of the infidels, and they corrupt the simplicity of the gospel by the refinements of human reason.”

This unfavorable image, though it bears a slight resemblance, clearly shows, through its dark colors and distorted features, the influence of an enemy. As the humble faith of Christ spread around the world, it was taken up by several individuals who benefited from natural or fortunate advantages. Aristides, who gave a powerful defense to Emperor Hadrian, was an Athenian philosopher. Justin Martyr had sought divine knowledge through the teachings of Zeno, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and Plato before he was thankfully approached by an old man, or rather an angel, who guided him to study the Jewish prophets. Clemens of Alexandria had extensive reading in Greek literature, while Tertullian excelled in Latin texts. Julius Africanus and Origen had a significant grasp of the knowledge of their era; and although Cyprian's writing style is quite different from Lactantius's, we might almost conclude that both writers had been public rhetoric teachers. Eventually, the study of philosophy was introduced among Christians, but it didn't always lead to good outcomes; knowledge was just as likely to lead to heresy as to devotion, and the description aimed at the followers of Artemon could also aptly describe the various sects that challenged the successors of the apostles. “They dare to change the Holy Scriptures, abandon the ancient rule of faith, and shape their beliefs around the subtle teachings of logic. The study of the church is forsaken for geometry, and they lose sight of heaven while measuring the earth. Euclid is constantly in their hands. Aristotle and Theophrastus are their objects of admiration, and they hold the works of Galen in high regard. Their errors stem from misusing the arts and sciences of non-believers, and they distort the simplicity of the gospel with human reasoning.”

Nor can it be affirmed with truth, that the advantages of birth and fortune were always separated from the profession of Christianity. Several Roman citizens were brought before the tribunal of Pliny, and he soon discovered, that a great number of persons of every orderof men in Bithynia had deserted the religion of their ancestors. His unsuspected testimony may, in this instance, obtain more credit than the bold challenge of Tertullian, when he addresses himself to the fears as well as the humanity of the proconsul of Africa, by assuring him, that if he persists in his cruel intentions, he must decimate Carthage, and that he will find among the guilty many persons of his own rank, senators and matrons of noblest extraction, and the friends or relations of his most intimate friends. It appears, however, that about forty years afterwards the emperor Valerian was persuaded of the truth of this assertion, since in one of his rescripts he evidently supposes that senators, Roman knights, and ladies of quality, were engaged in the Christian sect. The church still continued to increase its outward splendor as it lost its internal purity; and, in the reign of Diocletian, the palace, the courts of justice, and even the army, concealed a multitude of Christians, who endeavored to reconcile the interests of the present with those of a future life.

It's also not true that the benefits of birth and wealth were always separate from the practice of Christianity. Several Roman citizens were brought before Pliny's court, and he quickly found that a large number of people from all walks of life in Bithynia had abandoned their ancestral religion. His credible testimony might, in this case, hold more weight than Tertullian's bold assertions when he appeals to both the fears and compassion of the proconsul of Africa, warning him that if he continues with his cruel plans, he would have to decimate Carthage, and would discover many people of his own status among the guilty, including senators, noble women, and the friends or family of his closest allies. However, it seems that about forty years later, Emperor Valerian came to believe this was true, since in one of his letters, he clearly suggests that senators, Roman knights, and ladies of distinction were part of the Christian community. The church continued to grow in outward wealth even as it lost its inner purity; during Diocletian's reign, the palace, the courts of justice, and even the army hid many Christians who tried to balance the demands of the present with those of a future life.

And yet these exceptions are either too few in number, or too recent in time, entirely to remove the imputation of ignorance and obscurity which has been so arrogantly cast on the first proselytes of Christianity. * Instead of employing in our defence the fictions of later ages, it will be more prudent to convert the occasion of scandal into a subject of edification. Our serious thoughts will suggest to us, that the apostles themselves were chosen by Providence among the fishermen of Galilee, and that the lower we depress the temporal condition of the first Christians, the more reason we shall find to admire their merit and success. It is incumbent on us diligently to remember, that the kingdom of heaven was promised to the poor in spirit, and that minds afflicted by calamity and the contempt of mankind, cheerfully listen to the divine promise of future happiness; while, on the contrary, the fortunate are satisfied with the possession of this world; and the wise abuse in doubt and dispute their vain superiority of reason and knowledge.

And yet these exceptions are either too few or too recent to completely shake off the accusations of ignorance and lack of clarity that have been so arrogantly thrown at the first converts to Christianity. * Instead of using the myths of later times to defend ourselves, it would be wiser to turn this opportunity for criticism into a chance for growth. Our serious reflections will remind us that the apostles were chosen by Providence from among the fishermen of Galilee, and that the more we lower the social status of the first Christians, the more reason we have to admire their value and achievements. We must remember that the kingdom of heaven was promised to those who are humble, and that people who are suffering and looked down upon are more open to the divine promise of future joy; meanwhile, those who are fortunate are content with what they have in this world, and the learned often misuse their supposed superiority in reason and knowledge to doubt and argue.

We stand in need of such reflections to comfort us for the loss of some illustrious characters, which in our eyes might have seemed the most worthy of the heavenly present. The names of Seneca, of the elder and the younger Pliny, of Tacitus, of Plutarch, of Galen, of the slave Epictetus, and of the emperor Marcus Antoninus, adorn the age in which they flourished, and exalt the dignity of human nature. They filled with glory their respective stations, either in active or contemplative life; their excellent understandings were improved by study; Philosophy had purified their minds from the prejudices of the popular superstitions; and their days were spent in the pursuit of truth and the practice of virtue. Yet all these sages (it is no less an object of surprise than of concern) overlooked or rejected the perfection of the Christian system. Their language or their silence equally discover their contempt for the growing sect, which in their time had diffused itself over the Roman empire. Those among them who condescended to mention the Christians, consider them only as obstinate and perverse enthusiasts, who exacted an implicit submission to their mysterious doctrines, without being able to produce a single argument that could engage the attention of men of sense and learning.

We need such reflections to find comfort in the loss of remarkable figures who, to us, seemed most deserving of a heavenly reward. The names of Seneca, the elder and younger Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch, Galen, the slave Epictetus, and Emperor Marcus Antoninus shine in the era they lived in, elevating the dignity of human nature. They brought glory to their roles, whether in action or contemplation; their brilliant minds were honed through study. Philosophy had cleared their minds of the biases of popular superstitions, and they spent their days seeking truth and practicing virtue. Yet, surprisingly and concerningly, all these wise individuals overlooked or dismissed the excellence of the Christian system. Their words or silence both reveal their disdain for the growing movement that had spread across the Roman Empire in their time. Those among them who did mention Christians regarded them only as stubborn and misguided enthusiasts, demanding unconditional acceptance of their mysterious beliefs without providing a single argument that would capture the attention of sensible and educated people.

It is at least doubtful whether any of these philosophers perused the apologies * which the primitive Christians repeatedly published in behalf of themselves and of their religion; but it is much to be lamented that such a cause was not defended by abler advocates. They expose with superfluous wit and eloquence the extravagance of Polytheism. They interest our compassion by displaying the innocence and sufferings of their injured brethren. But when they would demonstrate the divine origin of Christianity, they insist much more strongly on the predictions which announced, than on the miracles which accompanied, the appearance of the Messiah. Their favorite argument might serve to edify a Christian or to convert a Jew, since both the one and the other acknowledge the authority of those prophecies, and both are obliged, with devout reverence, to search for their sense and their accomplishment. But this mode of persuasion loses much of its weight and influence, when it is addressed to those who neither understand nor respect the Mosaic dispensation and the prophetic style. In the unskilful hands of Justin and of the succeeding apologists, the sublime meaning of the Hebrew oracles evaporates in distant types, affected conceits, and cold allegories; and even their authenticity was rendered suspicious to an unenlightened Gentile, by the mixture of pious forgeries, which, under the names of Orpheus, Hermes, and the Sibyls, were obtruded on him as of equal value with the genuine inspirations of Heaven. The adoption of fraud and sophistry in the defence of revelation too often reminds us of the injudicious conduct of those poets who load their invulnerable heroes with a useless weight of cumbersome and brittle armor.

It's at least questionable whether any of these philosophers actually read the apologies that early Christians repeatedly published for themselves and their faith; however, it's unfortunate that such a cause wasn't defended by more skilled advocates. They use excessive wit and eloquence to criticize the absurdity of Polytheism. They earn our sympathy by highlighting the innocence and suffering of their wronged brethren. But when they attempt to prove the divine origin of Christianity, they focus much more on the predictions that announced Christ's arrival than on the miracles that accompanied the Messiah's presence. Their favorite argument could effectively inspire a Christian or convert a Jew, since both recognize the authority of those prophecies and must, with genuine reverence, seek their meaning and fulfillment. However, this method of persuasion loses much of its power and impact when aimed at those who neither understand nor respect the Jewish law and prophetic style. In the clumsy hands of Justin and the later apologists, the profound significance of the Hebrew prophecies gets lost in vague types, affected notions, and dry allegories; and even their authenticity becomes doubtful to an uninformed Gentile due to the blend of pious forgeries, which, under the names of Orpheus, Hermes, and the Sibyls, were presented as being equal in value to the true inspirations of Heaven. The use of deceit and trickery in defending revelation often reminds us of the poor judgment of those poets who burden their invulnerable heroes with unnecessary and cumbersome armor.

But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, dæmons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of light which followed the murder of Cæsar, when, during the greatest part of a year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and without splendor. The season of obscurity, which cannot surely be compared with the preternatural darkness of the Passion, had been already celebrated by most of the poets and historians of that memorable age.

But how do we explain the complete inattention of the Pagan and philosophical world to the evidence presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the time of Christ, his apostles, and their earliest followers, the teachings they shared were backed by countless miracles. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were cast out, and the laws of Nature were often set aside for the benefit of the church. Yet, the wise men of Greece and Rome ignored this incredible sight, and continued with their everyday lives and studies, seemingly unaware of any changes in the moral or physical laws governing the world. During Tiberius's reign, the entire earth, or at least a notable province of the Roman Empire, was enveloped in an unnatural darkness for three hours. Even this miraculous event, which should have sparked wonder, curiosity, and devotion in humanity, went unnoticed in an age steeped in science and history. It occurred while Seneca and the elder Pliny were alive, who must have felt its immediate effects or received the earliest news about this miracle. Each of these philosophers, in their detailed works, has documented all the significant phenomena of Nature—earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses—that their relentless curiosity could gather. Yet both failed to mention the greatest phenomenon witnessed by the mortal eye since the earth was created. Pliny devotes a separate chapter to extraordinary eclipses of unusual length; however, he is satisfied with describing the unusual dimming of light that followed Caesar's murder when, for nearly a year, the sun appeared pale and dull. The period of darkness, which surely cannot be compared to the unnatural darkness during the Passion, had already been celebrated by many poets and historians of that remarkable time.

END OF VOL. I.

END OF VOL. 1.


Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!