Part 18

This went on, until at last Sejanus became suspected by Tiberius, and very likely with good reason; for Sejanus at best would have waited for his death, and then at the head of the Prætorian cohorts have made himself master of Rome. Tiberius himself had raised Sejanus to be his equal; among the Prætorian cohorts, sacrifices were already offered to the latter as well as to the emperor. But it now happened that a still worse being got near Tiberius: virtue and genius could not have shaken down Sejanus; this was done by a yet more wicked man than he, by one who had not his great qualities, but analogous vices. Tiberius expressed his dread of a conspiracy, and gave out that he wanted to go to Rome: but he only came into the neighbourhood, and sent orders to arrest Sejanus; which was done with consummate cunning. There was a _verbosa et grandis epistola_, in which one might remark that he was aiming at something, with some cuts at Sejanus; at the conclusion was the warrant for the arrest. Macro who had been made _Præfectus Vigilum_, surrounded the senate with his people. Sejanus was now seized in the senate, and on this, men showed themselves in the most hateful light: all those who but that very morning had fawned for a gracious look of his, now started up and raised an outcry against him as one guilty of high treason, calling for his immediate execution, so that the cohorts might not hear of it. He was instantly strangled. Tiberius now slaked his thirst for blood by persecuting the followers and friends of Sejanus. Yet those who were not, were also persecuted; for things did not grow better but worse: Macro now ruled just as tyrannically as Sejanus, and, like him, was master of the detestable old man. He was, however, not a whit more faithful to him. C. Cæsar, the son of Germanicus, generally known by the name of Caligula, linked himself to Macro by the most infamous tie; and assured him that he should hold under him the very highest power, just as he had under Tiberius, if he would but rid him and his family of the old man. And there is scarcely any doubt but that the death of Tiberius, who in his seventy-eighth year lay sick not far from the headland of Misenum, was hastened, either by poison which the physicians gave him, or by strangulation. In fact they thought him dead; and when he rallied, he is said to have been strangled. This was in the twenty-third year of his reign (37 after Christ).

CAIUS CÆSAR, OTHERWISE CALIGULA.

Germanicus and Agrippina had three sons and three daughters: of the sons, two had been murdered in the reign of Tiberius; the youngest only, Caius, survived. Caius was not born on the banks of the Rhine; but, as Suetonius satisfactorily proves, at Antium, and thence he was sent out to his father’s camp: so that the history of his childhood is indeed connected with this neighbourhood. After the death of his father, he got into the power of his adoptive grandfather Tiberius; and this old man, who, after all had never lost his judgment, very soon recognised in him the monster which he really was; nor did he make any secret of it. Caius could not hide from himself that his life was in danger, and it may be that fear had very early made him mad; but his madness was so malignant and wicked as to leave no doubt of the utter baseness of his nature. He saved his life by the greatest servility towards Tiberius and those who were in power, which, as matters stood, was the most sensible thing that he could have done. Afterwards he attached himself to Macro, and with his aid he rid himself of Tiberius. He had been little seen in public. He was a handsome young man, very like his father, and he was in his twenty-sixth year: the memory of his father, and his own good looks, got for him a most favourable reception; so that no one was so enthusiastically welcomed as he was. The nickname of Caligula, like that of Caracalla, has passed into common use; but neither of them is to be met with in ancient writers instead of the real name: no contemporary called the son of Septimius Severus, Caracalla. The name of Caligula was only given him by the soldiers when a child; his real name was Caius Cæsar, and the former one is beneath the dignity of history. All who had seen much of Caius at the court of Tiberius, perceived a deep cunning in him, and foreboded the worst wickedness: yet they were but very few. His first acts were, on the contrary, such as to give the public at large great hopes of him. The illusion, however, very soon vanished. Suetonius is very explicit with regard to him: he is a writer who has little of the antique about him, and he indulges in anecdotes and details, being quite unable to impart method and unity to his work; so that his biographies are rambling performances, and contain numberless repetitions. He is a man of shrewd judgment but a bad writer; one sees in him an age in which the classical in arrangement and style is waning fast.

Caligula was really a madman. The worst human depravity would not account for all the things which he has done: his true nature is expressed in the words “abortion of dirt and fire,”[40]—a shocking combination of obscenity and cruelty. Juvenal is reproached with having chiefly undertaken in his writings to describe depravity; yet indelicate as he was, his disgust was excited, and he did not dwell on it with pleasure. Suetonius, on the other hand, was without doubt infected with the profligacy of his time. Suetonius himself is uncertain what to believe of Caligula’s insanity, whether it was mere satanic malignity or the satanic malignity of madness; but he mentions a circumstance which is decisive, namely, that he scarcely ever slept, which is a sure symptom. Sleep is given to us yet more to keep up the powers of the intellect, and the elasticity of the mind, than for the strengthening of the body. It is now twenty years since Christian VII. of Denmark died, a prince whose state was well governed for a long time, so that his madness was little noticed, but who under other circumstances would have shown himself a Caligula: he also was afflicted with sleeplessness, and was often seen for whole nights walking up and down in his room. Some Asiatic princes also have been insane, among the Mahommedans and Persians but especially among the Tartars. In Caligula’s day, moreover, there were no means, and, above all, no religious ones, for the treatment of insanity.

There was at that time at Rome the most absolute military despotism. For, owing to the Prætorians, it was quite impossible to undertake anything against the Cæsar: they were well paid and kept, and would have cut down senate and people, if they had set themselves against the emperor; so that the condition of the empire was like that of a place which is taken by the most ruthless barbarians. In the first years of his reign, the emperor wasted in the most senseless way a treasure of one hundred and thirty millions of dollars which Tiberius had left; this hoard being exhausted he extorted money by confiscations, and this also was squandered again. During the reign of Tiberius, there had been peace with the Germans for twenty years, ever since the recall of Germanicus; Caligula, however, wishing for once to enjoy the pleasure of a campaign, marched to the German frontier, and there he waged war like a madman. Yet this was the least evil which Rome suffered. He also undertook some gigantic structures: near Puzzuoli, a dyke may still be traced, which he quite uselessly and absurdly built across the harbour, to throw a bridge across it. He caused himself to be worshipped as a god.

Whilst now the empire was goaded into despair for nearly four years, the Prætorian officers, some of whom had every day to appear before him, when he would mock and ill treat them, formed a conspiracy, and he was slain to the great joy of the senate and people.

The mad idea was now taken up of restoring the republic, and especially by the consuls whom Caligula had appointed. They called the senate together; shame and disgrace were denounced against Caligula; and during the first hours people talked with great spirit and enthusiasm. But they were soon at a loss how to arrange matters; and still more so when it was known that the Prætorians would not hear of any other ruler than a monarch. Claudius, who in a tumult had hid himself, was drawn from his hiding-place by the Prætorians, and dragged into the camp; and there, after having passed the night in fear of death, he was proclaimed emperor. The _cohortes urbanæ_ declared for the republic; but they were not able to stand against the power of the Prætorians, By the following morning already, people were glad that Claudius was emperor.

TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS DRUSUS CÆSAR.

The emperor Claudius, uncle of Caligula and brother of Germanicus, had never been adopted by Tiberius; whereas all the other emperors were, by a fiction, the sons of their predecessors. He had preserved his life in the reign of Caligula only as it were by a miracle; and he was then fifty years of age. Whilst of Caligula we can but speak as of a monster, Claudius deserves our deepest pity; yet he has done very bad things which betoken a turn for evil, though this indeed was only developed by his misfortunes. Even his mother Antonia, a daughter of the triumvir Antonius, called him a _portentum hominis_; he was an ἀτελέστον; he had capacities and talents; yet he was deficient in what really constitutes human reason, whence, in a psychological point of view, he was a real curiosity. Although he had a desire of knowledge, application, memory, and a taste for science and literature, he was wanting in judgment and discretion, so that he often said and did things which were downright stupid: it is as if a thick rind had grown round his better nature, which he but seldom broke through; there are a great many absurdities of his on record. Suetonius is very instructive with regard to him, very aptly describing his character by the Greek words ἀβλεψία and μετεωρία. The Greeks always have most adequate expressions to draw characters; those phrases mean a thoughtless absence of mind and a want of reflection, when one says what is most preposterous, and one leaves untold what ought to have been told: there was a complete disproportion between his thoughts and his power of uttering them, and this it is, what those Greek words admirably express. By the whole of his family he was knocked about, being the brother of those distinguished persons who possessed the whole love of the family. Old Augustus, who always felt such circumstances keenly, wished to keep him altogether aloof from the public gaze, whilst his grandmother Livia treated him with peculiar harshness and imperiousness. The unfortunate youth took this to heart. Had he been brought up with kindness, he would have become a good, plodding, and somewhat weak-headed man: as it was, he became vicious, and the feeling that he was despised made him a coward; so that he always kept in the background, and whenever he at all wished to put himself forward, it was but to meet with a failure. Thus he found his only comfort in literature. Livy, whose kind heart may even be seen from his work, had great pity on him, and, trying to find him some occupation, encouraged him to write history. Now, as he knew a great many things, he deemed himself to be called upon to write the history of the civil wars; and he told it in such an honest manner, that his family got very angry with him. Afterwards, he wrote memoirs of Augustus, which they allowed to pass muster, but so as only to despise their author. He was indeed thoroughly honest; yet he always got little thanks for it. Augustus would not give him any employment, on account of his dreadful stupidity; Tiberius, although he did not care much for him, gave him even the consulship. He was married more than once. The profligacy of the female sex at that time went beyond all bounds: Augustus had striven in vain to repress it; Tiberius promulgated some legal decisions against it, yet without any result. Claudius therefore was highly unfortunate in this respect also; he attached himself very affectionately to the women who betrayed and disgraced him.

Thus Claudius, generally despised, had reached his fiftieth year when Caligula was murdered. His behaviour as emperor at first was reasonable and good; he made no one smart for the childish attempt to restore the republic, there was a general _abolitio dictorum factorumque_. A few only of the murderers of Caius he had executed, although they had deserved very well of the Roman world. He also was the first who, on entering upon his power, gave a _donativum_ to the soldiers. Caius already had undertaken the government, without repeating that farce which Tiberius still played; Claudius also forbore to do so. His reign, which lasted fourteen years, was at first truly a relief after that of Caius; people felt comforted, and cherished hopes, whilst he on his side made many good regulations. Yet he was altogether without any will of his own; had he had an honest friend whom he could have entirely relied on, his rule might have been good and praiseworthy. But he did not go beyond the walls of his palace; he only sought to amuse his ladies, and lived almost exclusively with slaves and freedmen, as he was generally despised by men of rank. He was in fact of a kind and loving temper; but he was shy and timid. Slaves now stood forth as his advisers and friends; just as Don Miguel’s most intimate confidant is his barber. Very likely, Polybus, or Polybius, before whom Seneca humbled himself, was far from being altogether contemptible;—the Greek slaves received a very good education in the Roman houses; if they had good abilities, they were very accomplished. Pallas and Narcissus, on the other hand, were men of a different stamp; thoroughly bad, and of insatiable rapacity, they plundered the empire. By the influence of these men, and owing to his unhappy marriage with Agrippina, his own brother’s daughter, who was very beautiful, but who had not a trace of the virtues of her parents, he was ruled with absolute sway. She, being without virtue and shame, by her intrigues succeeded in getting him to adopt Nero, her son by her first marriage, although Claudius had a son of his own, Britannicus. Hence it was that his reign became so disgraceful and disastrous; a large number of innocent men were also put to death under his rule, though not so many as under other emperors. Whenever Narcissus demanded a victim, Claudius was his tool; so that his life was one continual degradation.

There were, however, considerable works executed in his reign. The finest and most magnificent aqueduct which has been carried on to Rome, the _Aqua Claudia_, was built by him; and there is no doubt but that in the restoration of the city in the fifteenth century, it might have been completely repaired. Other relics also of his buildings are in the very grandest style; the two great arches, known under the name of the _Porta Maggiore_ are undoubtedly his. He likewise accomplished the draining of the Lake Fucinus into the Liris, which Augustus had given up in despair: the fallen in vaults may still be seen. At first, some mistakes were made in the levelling, and an attempt to let off the water miscarried; but the fault was soon remedied.

He undertook a warlike expedition against Britain, a country which no one had thought anything about since the time of Julius Cæsar; and he extended the boundary of the Roman empire thus far. He himself led the army over, and established a province which comprised the greater part of south-eastern England, and in which colonies and _municipia_ were soon founded: from thence the subjection of Caledonia was afterwards effected. He died, being undoubtedly poisoned by his wife Agrippina; for she wanted to secure the succession for her son Nero, as she knew that Claudius was sorry that he had adopted him, and wished to reinstate Britannicus in his rights. He had always been unhappy,—fortune indeed had been too hard upon him,—and he died despised and laughed at; an instance of which we have in the _Ludus de morte Claudii Cæsaris_ (incorrectly called ἀποκολοκύνθωσις) written by Seneca.

LITERATURE AFTER THE DEATH OF AUGUSTUS. MORAL CONDITION OF ROME AND THE PROVINCES.

Already in the time of Augustus, a dearth in literature begins which is a striking contrast to the great number of poets in the days of the dictator Cæsar: not one poet can be named who was young in the latter years of Augustus. I could not undertake to explain this; yet it is a phenomenon which has very often been repeated in modern times. But prose was likewise barren. Even in the best days of Roman literature, the influence of the Greek Rhetoricians had become very considerable, and the writers after Cicero, Cæsar, and Sallust, are not altogether free from the effects of these school exercises: many passages may be shown in Livy, which he would not have written had he not passed through the declamation school. But in the later times this influence became still more powerful, and of this period we may get the best idea from the _Suasoria_ and the Controversies of the elder Seneca: those symptoms then broke out, which are described in Tacitus’ excellent dialogue _de Oratoribus_. From this school, of which it was the sole task, without regard to the contents of a work, without any subject-matter to awaken thought, to make an effect merely by unexpected turns, a swell of words, far-fetched thoughts, and a jingle of periods, arose the era of Seneca; for it must in justice be ascribed to him. The elder Seneca still belongs to a different age, and he remembers very well the earlier and better taste. From what he writes to his sons, it may be seen to how low an ebb taste had then fallen: he rails at them for their fondness for the new manner, but has himself already acquired a sort of relish for it: he wrote his Controversies when an old man upwards of eighty. The philosopher Seneca is the most remarkable character of that time, and one of the few eminent persons living in it: not to be unjust to him, one must know the whole range of that literature to which he belonged, and then one sees how well he understood how to make something even of what was most absurd. To the self-same school of literature belongs the elder Pliny, although his is quite a different mind: this is what is called the _argentea ætas_. This sort of division is very silly; one should divide Roman literature quite differently: it is a senseless thing to put Tacitus, Seneca, and Pliny side by side; they do not bear the smallest resemblance to each other. This literary period began as early as the reign of Augustus, and it lasted down to that of Domitian, when absurdity reached its height; only we have lost its _coryphæi_, such as Aufidius, and others. Tacitus does not by any means belong to this rabble, as the earlier school continues along with a modern one.

Seneca is a man of real genius, which after all is the main thing: his influence upon literature has been a most beneficial one; and this I say the more readily, as I dislike him so much. The opinion Dio Cassius gives of him, has a great deal in it which is true and correct; but it is exaggerated, and much too bitter. His affected and sentimental style, strikingly reminds one of a French school, of which Rousseau and Buffon were the founders, and which owing to its faults would be quite unbearable, had it not originated from men of such transcendent talent. Seneca, however, is not to be compared with either of them for loftiness of intellect. _Diderot’s Essai sur le règne de Claude et de Néron_, is a very remarkable book, and the contrast between him and Dio Cassius is highly interesting: his too was a very ingenious mind, and his manner was like that of Seneca, as he also was but the creature of his age. In the time of Nero, lived Lucan, whose poetry is of the school of Seneca, a striking proof how much more intolerable this mannerism is in poetry than in prose. Bernardin de St. Pierre and Chateaubriand are of the same school: it would be still more bearable, did it not always fall into moralizing sentimentality, which is the case with the former, whilst Chateaubriand is neither more nor less than a bad Lucan. The latter kept his ground until late in the middle ages, and was immensely read, almost as much as Virgil: people were divided into the Virgilian and Lucanian school. The true restorator of good taste in Rome was Quintilian, who is by no means to be reckoned as one of the _argentea ætas_. With that insupportable mannerism Nero also was tainted; whose talent no one can deny, but who, wherever he was not a fiend, showed himself strange and wrong-headed. In prose the same tone pervaded history also: Fabius Rusticus, who was so much read, has undoubtedly written likewise in the Annæan manner.

The empire was, on the whole, in a prosperous condition. Certain it is that during the eighty years after the battle of Actium, in a time of profound peace, and of great vitality, which only required that there should not be any devastations and destructions,—men felt very comfortable and happy, and recovered their strength. Caligula’s exactions, it is true, were very hard to bear; yet they did not so very much check this development: the population after the wars was certainly more than doubled, the towns became filled with inhabitants, and the wastes were peopled. Unhappy Greece alone remained a wilderness, even to the reign of Trajan. Such countries as had fallen into the hands of the farmers-general,—who, using them as pastures, would not rebuild the towns, nor allow of any tillage,—lay waste; yet they were gardens indeed in comparison with what they were at the time of the battle of Actium. It was just the same in Italy; there the fields were cultivated by bondmen, and the population was indeed restored by slaves who were imported, though it increased in quite a different ratio from what it did in the provinces, where it was recruited by _ingenui_. It is not mere declamation in Lucan, when he says with regard to the state of Italy,

_Rarus et antiquis habitator in urbibus errat._