Part 20

T. Flavius Vespasianus, who, with all his faults must be looked upon as the _instaurator rei publicæ_, was at that time engaged in the Jewish war. There is a dark stain upon him, which cannot be washed away; but otherwise his faults are very pardonable. The rebellion of the Jews had, even as early as the reign of Claudius, been stirred up by ill usage and usurpation. There are few struggles which so deserve the attention of posterity as this: I should like, on account of its awful greatness, to tell it at full length; but time forbids, and also what is most momentous in it belongs rather to Jewish than to Roman history. I refer you to Josephus, whose book, in spite of its many defects of language, is one of the most interesting historical works that have been left to us of antiquity. I also class it with Cæsar’s Commentaries among the most instructive, owing to the light which it throws on the tactics of the Romans, and their method of besieging places. Josephus was a Pharisee, and this he cannot throw off;—not such a bad one indeed as those of the gospel; but still the leaven of the Pharisees is in him;—besides which, he has an unbearable national vanity, to gratify which he distorts many a fact in the earlier history; this we can scarcely term anything else than falsifying. His numbers bespeak eastern magniloquence; they are evidently impossible. Everywhere he shows himself an Asiatic, notwithstanding all his Greek learning: for with the exception of some ever recurring mistakes, he writes very good Greek. He is generally spoken of as Flavius Josephus; and no doubt he was called Titus Flavius Josephus after the emperor who gave him his liberty and the Roman citizenship.

Vespasian was then with a strong army in Judæa, where the Jews were making a desperate and heroic resistance. He was of low origin: his grandfather was the first of his race who had somewhat risen from obscurity, and not being vain, he had no illustrious pedigree forged for him. He himself, being then in his sixtieth year, had passed through the evil times of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, during which he had to put up with many a hardship: he had shared in the slavery of the world, and occasionally had to play the part of an involuntary slave. As a distinguished officer, he had risen step by step without a stain of cruelty or injustice upon him; which is so much the more to his honour, as he was so very fond of money. The cradle of his race was Nursia in the high Sabine mountains, whence also Sertorius came; there the old Italian stock had been preserved purest: to both of these applies Fronto’s expression _Nursina durities_. In the Roman army, he was generally known and respected.

Mucianus in Syria belonged to one of the highest Roman families, the Licinii, and he was also descended from the Mucii: yet he knew that high birth had lost its influence; besides which, he was effeminate, and had tact enough to feel that he was inferior to Vespasian: they were very different men. After having formerly been on bad terms, Mucianus now held out his hand to the stern, harsh Vespasian. Mucianus, without being bad, had caught the vices of his set; he had little ambition, and deemed it wiser to be under an emperor of his own choice. Vespasian, on the other hand, was free from the faults of the great world, having rather the virtues which are peculiar to the lower classes: he had acknowledged Galba; but after his death he began to think of taking the throne for himself, being conscious that he was fit for it. Yet there was no need for him to decide in the matter himself, as Antonius Primus, with the Mœsian legions, encountered and defeated the army of the generals of Vitellius near Cremona. In Rome, the insurrection had likewise already broken out. Here Vespasian’s brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, was præfect; and his younger son, Domitian, was kept as a sort of hostage. Against these Vitellius was at first irritated; then he was frightened, and wished to capitulate; after the battle of Cremona especially, he was quite mild: but when afterwards different symptoms showed themselves, he again veered round and wanted to arrest them. They fled to the Capitol, which, however, was taken, and for the second time since Sylla, burned to ashes: Domitian had a very narrow escape. At Rome, the anarchy was complete. When in those days a man wanted to descend from his throne, he was not able to save his life; for there were no convents then, as in the Byzantine period. Vespasian’s party had been gradually forming; and it gained strength owing to the successes of the victorious army, which straightway marched to Rome, where the maddest excesses were now committed on both sides. The conquerors took possession of the city without meeting with any resistance, and Vitellius was murdered.

T. FLAVIUS VESPASIANUS. TITUS. DOMITIANUS.

Under these circumstances, Domitian, a very young man hardly twenty, seized upon the government in the absence of his father: his elder brother Titus remained in Judæa, and it was a long time before Vespasian came to Rome. Many ruthless deeds were done in the meanwhile, rather from personal vengeance than party motives. Although Vespasian himself had many good qualities indeed, his party was no better than the opposite one; just as it was in the latter part of the thirty years’ war, when the Swedish, French, and Imperial armies were equally lawless and destructive. The dismal history of these little men is wonderfully told by a great one, who, however, makes none of them his hero.

Vespasian came to Rome very late, which had led to not a few bad consequences: the city was all this while under the rule of a most profligate and tyrannical youth, who showed himself even then to be what he afterwards turned out. Some of the senators, especially Helvidius Priscus,—a man who, however, was not at all in keeping with his time,—allowed themselves to be drawn into an altogether ill-timed “_fronde_” against the government, a plot alike unfortunate for themselves, for Vespasian, and for the empire. Under these circumstances, a feeling began to gain ground in Gaul, the symptoms of which already displayed themselves before. As early as in the reign of the emperor Tiberius, there had been a most senseless rising of the Ædui under Julius Sacrovir; then came that of Vindex, in which a national Gallic feeling manifested itself, being very likely the reason why Virginius Rufus had him murdered and his army of Gauls scattered: the act of that Roman general thus appears morally in a very bad light. The death of Vindex must be looked upon as an event, which did not quell the national spirit of the Gauls, but rather kindled it still more. We have not indeed any complete or adequate notion of the state of Gaul under the Romans: that country cannot possibly have been otherwise than in a thriving condition, even from the times of Cæsar; of southern Gaul, this is certain. All our knowledge of Gaul is limited to the few things said about it in history, and to what we are told in Pliny and Strabo: these two, however, only speak of the _civitates_, without making any mention whatever of the smaller places; and they leave us without the least information as to their internal affairs. Here we trace them merely from the beginning of Tacitus’ account; for otherwise they are not to be met with in history until the end of the third century, which is treated of by the wretched _Scriptores historiæ Augustæ_: the itineraries also give only a few places on some of the high roads. For this reason, Gaul on our maps looks like a newly cultivated country with a few towns: this, however, is merely the accidental effect of the scantiness of our information. The East, on the other hand, being constantly spoken of in history from the Macedonian era down to the fifth, and sixth centuries, the maps of Asia Minor and Syria are dotted all over with towns. Gaul was under the Romans a well tilled and thickly peopled country: there are found in many parts of France ruins of very considerable towns, the names of which are quite uncertain or altogether unknown. Thus a short time ago, in the neighbourhood of Montbeliard, magnificent ruins were discovered of a place which very likely is only to be met with in an itinerary, and even there with a doubtful name only: the excavations near Valenciennes, and in Normandy and elsewhere, betoken towns of great extent, and evidently of much population. To fill up the gaps of the geography of ancient Gaul, one should keep to the documents of the Merovingian and Carolingian periods, in which the places had Latin and Gaulish names of old date: for then there were no new towns built, as it was a time of destruction. The population of Gaul had been nearly annihilated by the Cimbric wars, and afterwards it had again severely suffered under Cæsar; but for one hundred and ten years, there had been peace, during which the population in so favoured a land must have doubled or trebled. We are not to suppose that there was the same prosperity as in France in the German countries along the banks of the Rhine; for these were undoubtedly far behind in civilization: they were very like Germany Proper, being densely peopled, and having many villages, but hardly any towns. Their population has most incorrectly been reckoned with that of Gaul; but it was thoroughly German ever since the times of Cæsar, perhaps even much earlier still; it never belonged to Gaul, except politically under the Romans. A boundary line had been settled between the Romans and the Germans,—probably by treaties,—namely the country between the Meuse and the Waal, the _insula Batavorum_, which was subject to the Romans: there was a Roman garrison there, but the natives had not yet adopted the Roman language and manners. From these Batavians the rebellion of Civilis arose, which spread over the German provinces of the Roman empire and over France, the Lingones taking the lead. The insurrection was very dangerous, as the German tribes on the right bank of the Rhine declared for it; some of them more

## actively, and others more sluggishly, being hindered only by their own

division and dissensions, and by all sorts of jealousies and petty quarrels. The Roman generals, on the other hand, opposed them with great resolution. Still less union than among the Germans with each other, was there between the Germans and Gauls; whereas the Gauls and Romans were much more akin, as the great men among the Gauls had adopted the Roman language, and Roman manners generally prevailed among them. How the rebellion ended, we do not exactly know, as Tacitus’ histories are broken off just here: that the insurgents were put down, is self-evident from the condition in which they were afterwards; and it is also expressly told us by Xiphilinus. Domitian, even before the arrival of Vespasian, took upon himself the command in those parts; but he had no share in the subjugation of the rebels, which was accomplished by the generals of his father.

Vespasian reigned for more than nine years, and his rule was thoroughly beneficial. It is difficult to judge of him, as Tacitus fails us here. Suetonius is a very sorry painter of character, and his opinions are of as little worth as those of the _Scriptores historiæ Augustæ_: in fact, he has no turn whatever for writing history. He is a learned man, and he does not write badly; but he cannot take a wide view. The earlier times are better handled by him; for there he had books before him: without books, however, he was not able to do much; and thus the times which he had seen himself, or about which he had been told by those who had seen them, are the very worst written. His work was certainly published before Tacitus’ _Historiæ_ came out; for had he had them before his eyes, he could not possibly have described the anarchy after Nero’s death in so wretched a way: it must have been a work of his youth, and not indeed of the time when he was secretary of state under Hadrian. We are in a sad plight here, and moreover the materials for the history of the emperors are throughout very bad: if we had Dio, we should be all right; but we only have the pitiful abridgment of Xiphilinus. We can therefore only dwell on single traits.

Suetonius praises Vespasian, and yet he tells us things which either do away with the praise, or which ought not to have been recorded, as they were mere rumours: when we compare both of these statements together, we are justly astonished, and therefore feel uncertain on more than one point. Thus much may we look upon as borne out by facts. Vespasian was wanting in the higher qualities of the soul, nor had he such a heart as Trajan had; but he was still a very worthy person for the time in which he lived, being an honest and just man, especially in a negative sense, and one who was not guilty of tyranny: only some isolated instances of extortion are mentioned of him. His morals were as spotless as could ever have been expected in times like those. After the death of his first wife, he lived in a sort of left-handed marriage with a woman of low estate, to whom he, however, granted all the honours of a lawful wife, and with whom he was happy: she must indeed have been an excellent woman. He quite loathed the debauchery and the awfully vulgar and wasteful gluttony which had become so common among the Romans: luxury had then thrown itself into the fashion of extravagant feasts, got up at the maddest cost. Vespasian, on the contrary, who had kept his old simple tastes unaltered, reclaimed his subjects, as well by his example as by the open expression of his disgust, from this way of living: he thus brought about a reform in Roman life which is remarkable in history: Never again did this reckless prodigality become as rife among the Romans, as it had been in the times before Vespasian: it is true, as we see from Ammianus’ excellent description, that in the fourth century it was again to be found among the great men; but Vespasian had struck at the roots of it. He ruled the state with great care and conscientiousness, putting down every sort of waste, and getting the confused finances in order: he showed no mistrust towards the governors, though, on the other hand, he would uphold the provinces against them. Yet the feelings of a refined soul were unknown to him: he did nothing to foster intellect, and he had an antipathy to men of education and philosophers, as well as to those who were something more than mere men of business: these he considered as useless, and even had a hostile feeling against them. Helvidius Priscus, who personally and intellectually, by his mind and his acquirements, certainly was one of the first men of Rome, professed to be of the Stoic philosophy. The Roman Stoics had a spice of republicanism in them which was ill suited to the age; and this gave birth to an unpardonable petulance, which could lead to no good. Helvidius was blind to the good qualities of Vespasian, and gave himself up to an utterly useless opposition. In this he cannot be excused; but what is worst of all, Vespasian conceived such a spite against him, that he had him put to death: it was the most noble blood of the Roman state which he then shed. Otherwise he kept himself pure from blood: on several occasions, when he had received no such provocation, he even showed himself truly mild. He was also grateful, and overlooked a great deal in Mucianus and others. Antonius Primus likewise lost his life, but deservedly: he had made the revolution for Vespasian that he might thus rule the Roman empire himself; and when he did not find this answer, he plotted against him. Suetonius particularly charges Vespasian with avarice; yet it is by no means certain whether there is any truth in this. He is said to have declared that the state wanted for its support _quadringinties millies_, that is to say, two thousand millions of dollars. This seems quite absurd. Even if we conceive all the countries of the empire as it was then, to have been as thriving as France and Italy are now, it seems scarcely possible that such a sum should have been raised. Nor can we understand what it should have been wanted for, although there was an army of about four hundred thousand men, and these received treble pay, a _denarius_ a day. That number cannot be correct. It is true that he spent much in building; but building is not after all one of the necessary expenses of the state. In the reign of Vespasian, very great works were completed in Rome and elsewhere: nor were they merely what could not be dispensed with; but such also was their magnificence that they were a lasting honour to the empire, like the Colosseum and the temple of Peace. This does not agree with his _sordidissima avaritia_; and such facts are to be set against the anecdotes of Suetonius. Vespasian died when upwards of sixty-nine.

The government had in reality been carried on under him by his son Titus, who on his return from Jerusalem had reached his thirty-second year. Vespasian himself felt no vocation for it. Titus may have had the guilt of many of the unrighteous deeds which were done in Vespasian’s reign, however strange the contrast may seem between his own rule and this administration: before his father’s death, he was very unpopular; people looked upon him but with fear and dread. What was afterwards so much praised in him, so that he was even called _deliciæ generis humani_, was after all nothing but his openhandedness: he seems to have wished to gladden the hearts of those about him by his liberality, and to load them with presents. In this way he employed the treasures hoarded up by his father, who had kept for himself the management of the finances. Perhaps there is no ruler who has done more real good to the Roman world than Vespasian. One of his fine qualities was the openness of his disposition: owing to this he placed full trust in Titus, made him _præfectus prætorio_, and quite gave up to him a part of the government. How very different this is from the behaviour of eastern princes, who always utterly mistrust their sons! Titus was by no means popular: some violent and also cruel deeds are laid to his charge; Cæcina, for instance, who played a great part among the Vitellians, was killed by his orders. Yet it is said that proofs of a conspiracy of his against the house of Vespasian had been discovered.

The fears which people had entertained of Titus, were not justified during his reign. With his accession his whole bearing changed; and the leading features in his character were benevolence and affability, which in a prince are always prized much higher than any other quality: let a prince be kind to those about him, and he may forget all his other duties. His father had been exceedingly frugal; Titus, on the contrary, was generous, even profuse. The former had spent great sums on buildings only: he had restored Rome; he had altered the senseless edifices of Nero, the golden house in particular; and he had built the huge Colosseum, which, although destined for a dismal purpose, was quite to the taste of the Roman populace. Vespasian did not live to see the dedication of the Colosseum, which was celebrated by Titus only. The extravagance displayed in it, had none of the old simple grandeur; but as was the case in the whole time of the emperors, and even in the last stage of the republic, there was something whimsical and repulsive about it. Goethe has a very nice remark on this subject in the _Farbenlehre_ (Science of Colours).[43] Even women had to fight to death as gladiators; but Titus’ humanity did not reach so far as this.

His reign was perfect tranquillity abroad, and great comfort in Rome; but it was visited with calamities. There was an immense fire in the city, besides the catastrophe of Herculanum and Pompeii, when Vesuvius, which had been quiet since the time of the Greek settlements, all at once began to throw up fire—fortunately for us.

The love of the people for Titus was the more decided, as they were by no means mistaken with regard to Domitian.