Part 26

Marcus had driven back the German nations; in the reign of Commodus, peace had been made with them; and in that of Severus, we also find nothing about German wars; the Romans seem to have been in possession of the _limes_ (the palisadoed ditch). But now the Germans began to advance; and I am inclined to believe that the pale was broken through in the time of Alexander Severus, as at the close of the war against them, its seat was on the Rhine, and they must therefore have forced the outworks. Unfortunately, we know next to nothing of the geography of those parts: in many places in Swabia, we meet with remains of Roman fortresses, the names of which are quite unknown to us. But even before this, a great revolution had called away the emperor to the East. This was the downfall of the Parthian dynasty, one of the unluckiest things that could have happened to the Roman empire. The catastrophe is easily accounted for. When a nation of shepherds gets the rule over a cultivated region, as was often the case in Asia, it gradually loses its bravery and sinks down to the level of those whom it has enslaved; yet its sway will still last for some time. Parthia was a feudal kingdom, of which Media, Babylonia, and other countries were fiefs with dynasties of their own. In former times, the Parthians were very unequal enemies to the Romans; but since the days of Marcus and Septimius Severus, their power was broken: probably the conquest of Ctesiphon in the year 198, had shaken the empire so much that its subjects thought of freeing themselves from its yoke. Our chief guide here is the most authentic history of Agathias. The Parthians must have utterly lost their nationality: their light cavalry, for instance, is but very seldom spoken off in their later times. We generally deem the insurrection of the Persians against the Parthians to have been like that of the Persians under Cyrus; but there was the same difference between the Parthians and the other races, as there is at present between nomads and the inhabitants of towns. The Persians who now shake off the yoke of the Parthians, must therefore have been chiefly the Tadjicks (inhabitants of towns) of the Iran race, whose abodes began at the Oxus. In Cyrus’ times, the Medes and Persians were two essentially distinct nations; but the Medes must since then have become quite Persians, as they had now one and the same language: Irak Ajemi has in all likelihood still preserved the language of the Medes. A research as to this matter, would be exceedingly interesting. In the struggle, the particulars of which are altogether unknown to us, the Persians succeeded in shaking off the thraldom of the Parthians; and these last vanish away, and we know not what has become of them. On this, the Persian empire came forth anew, and the old institutions were many of them restored: the Parthians had ruled like barbarians over a civilized nation, oppressing it, checking the exercise of its religion, and troubling the Persian worship of the elements by their promiscuous idolatry. The Persians who restored the empire, were headed by Ardaschir, son of Babek, who reckoned himself one of the race of Sassan, which gave rise to the silly story. The departure of the Parthians has been commemorated by a bas relief and an inscription. Ardaschir also restored the old fire-worship, but, to the great deterioration of its pristine purity, with a number of foreign rites; and therefore the Byzantines are quite right in saying that the later worship of the Persians was very different from the former one. The centre of the empire also was no longer the province of Persis: it was, on the contrary, removed from the Tigris to Ctesiphon, although Ardaschir and others after him have set up monuments at Persepolis. Susa had perished; Ecbatana was insignificant. Ardaschir, called by the Greek Artaxerxes, now that the empire was restored, and the nation was conscious of having achieved a great deed, at once asserted his claims against the Romans, whose decline could not have escaped his notice: he demanded the cession of all the countries to the Hellespont, because Asia belonged to the Persians, just as Europe might to the Romans: the answer of the Romans, of course, was war. In the issue of it, we have a remarkable example of the little reliance which we can place on the details of this history. Herodian’s account,—which is borne out by its intrinsic probability,—is that the Romans undertook the war with three armies; the first, on the right banks of the Euphrates; the second in Media; the third in Mesopotamia, to keep up the connexion between the two. He also says that the first, after a brave fight, had been obliged to retreat owing to the difficulty of the country; that the second had been entirely destroyed; and that the third moreover, which the emperor himself commanded, had not achieved its purpose. This statement is contradicted by an official letter of the emperor to the senate, wherein he boasts of the greatest successes over the enemy, for which the senate awarded him the honour of a triumph. Gibbon and Eckhel are quite of different opinions here. Eckhel takes a very high stand among the critical historians of our time, both for his learning and the excellence of his judgment. His works are far from being appreciated as they ought to be. His chronological criticisms have done much for the history of the Roman emperors, and there are few of the modern labourers in the field of ancient history to whom I owe so much as to Eckhel. Still, I am compelled to agree with Gibbon’s opinion. Eckhel deems it impossible that the report to the senate should have been a figment; but the vague and ambiguous expressions of this document tell very strongly against him: they are only meant to cover the defeat of the emperor. Herodian lived so shortly after that time, and in all that he really knows, he is a writer of so much judgment, that it would be wrong in this not to believe him rather than the _bulletin_ of the emperor. As Severus returned to Rome for his triumph, he must have concluded a peace with the Persians, in which Rome certainly made a sacrifice: for until the time of Gordian there is actually peace, and Maximin moreover engaged in no undertaking on the eastern frontier.

END OF ALEXANDER SEVERUS. MAXIMIN. GORDIAN, FATHER AND SON. MAXIMUS AND BALBINUS. GORDIAN III. PHILIP. DECIUS.

Even if Severus had fought successfully, the movements of the barbarous tribes along the northern frontier would soon have recalled him. We know that he went from the East to the Rhine; and there, as we are told by Herodian, he gave the army cause for complaint, many hardships being put upon the soldiers, who felt that there was not a strong hand to lead them. A mutiny broke out, which was headed by Maximin, the first barbarian adventurer who rose to the imperial throne. Hitherto the rulers of Rome had been only of noble race, with the exception perhaps of Macrinus, of whom we do not at least know it for certain. Pertinax was not indeed of noble birth; but he had risen from dignity to dignity, and was among the men of the highest standing when he was proclaimed emperor. Maximin, on the contrary, was nothing but a soldier of fortune who had risen from the lowest ranks of society: he was born in Thrace of barbarian parents, his mother being an Alanian woman and his father a Goth; at least, so we are told by the _Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_. He had enlisted as a common peasant under Septimius Severus, and was distinguished for his gigantic frame and his Herculean strength, to which were added all the qualities of a good subaltern officer. Septimius Severus promoted him from one step to another; and under Alexander also he got a legion to bring into order, which had been utterly disorganized. He restored its discipline, and yet was popular:—a man who in so demoralized an army gains such influence, though all the while so strict and even cruel, must needs have real talent, and a true soldier’s nature. He did not try to make up for the defects of his education; he was the first ruler, who was not only without any literary acquirements whatever, but who did not even understand Greek: for the Thracians spoke the Wallachian language, an Italian _volgare_, and Greek was only spoken in the seaports, and in the larger inland towns, as in Adrianople. The attention of the court was so much directed to Maximin, that Severus even thought of marrying his own sister to his son, an amiable and well-bred young man; only the emperor took umbrage at the coarse manners of the father. The life of Alexander Severus in the _Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_ is a ridiculous, lying panegyric: he certainly was an amiable, noble-hearted prince, and did not in the least deserve his fate; yet it is not to be overlooked that, by neglect and mismanagement, he gave occasion for discontent. The rebellion broke out, and Severus was murdered, A. D. 235, as was also his mother Mamæa, who accompanied him everywhere, to rule him everywhere.

Now again followed a terrible time. It is quite evident that Maximin was animated by an intense revolutionary hatred against everything distinguished as aristocratic, just like the ruthless terrorists in France. All persons of polite education and manners, and especially the senators, were the objects of his passionate fury: it is true that the senators may have been, not a venerable body, but a most contemptible set; yet this is no excuse for cruelty. Maximin disdained to come to Rome; which was a happy thing, as he would have ordered a massacre, just as Caracalla did at Alexandria. He waged war on the banks of the Rhine, of the Upper and Lower Danube, and everywhere, as one may suppose, with success: that he got permanent possession of the country beyond the _limes_, is doubtful. He freed Dacia from the inroads of the barbarians, and carried on war against the Sarmatians, with regard to whom it is not certain whether they dwelt on the banks of the Lower or of the Middle Danube. But while he now was afraid of no one, but put people to death on the first suspicion there arose in Thysdrus, a provincial town in Africa, an outbreak of despair: the ministers of tyranny were murdered, and the two Gordians, father and son, able and brave officers, of whom the father was advanced in years, were proclaimed, either Augustus and Cæsar, or both of them as Augusti.

The insurrection was but a shortlived one. Mauretania had taken no share in it; and thus Capellianus, the lieutenant of Maximin, quickly got together an army of Moors, although, properly speaking, these may never have been subjected to the Roman rule, which did not extend beyond the towns on the coasts: there was nothing, however, more easy than to make them take up arms by holding out the hope of booty; for instance, they had once before, in the reign of M. Antoninus, invaded Spain. He marched on Carthage, where, although the Gordians had made a bad use of their time, the younger ventured to go out against him, but was defeated with his incapable troops: they both of them lost their lives. The fate of Carthage, as well as the time that the insurrection lasted, is shrouded in darkness. Eckhel has critically proved, that all these events, down to the deaths of Maximus and Balbinus, must be made to fall between from about the end of March to the end of August: Gibbon’s chronology is certainly incorrect, and it contains impossibilities. Yet the question is still beset with great difficulties, which, however, may be cleared up some day by coins and monuments.

The senate at Rome had recognised the Gordians, an act in which we see nothing of the usual behaviour of the cowardly, unwarlike aristocrats. It appointed twenty commissioners to preside over the armaments; and the prætorians were gained over, who had remained behind at Rome, and who very likely were neglected by Maximin: all the provinces moreover were called upon to declare themselves against the tyrant. The whole of Italy armed itself for a war of despair, and all the towns were fortified, when there came the dismal tidings of the defeat and death of the Gordians. On this, two of the commissioners, Maximus and Balbinus, were elected emperors; whether it was, that it was deemed necessary to have a division of labour; or to moderate the supreme power; or what seems to me most likely, to unite two parties. Balbinus, if in that time we may still draw conclusions from names, was a man of rank, and of the house of the Cælii: his name was D. Cælius Balbinus, and that of his colleague, M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus.[56] Balbinus remained behind at Rome; Maximus went to Ravenna, where he raised an army against Maximin, with which, however, he very wisely did not go out and face him. He ordered all the bridges over the many rivers in Lombardy to be broken down, and Aquileia was strongly fortified and garrisoned. It was defended with the courage of despair, the inhabitants being resolved upon holding out to the last; the country far and wide was abandoned, and every soul was in the town: Maximin, on the other hand, tried all he could to make this base of the enemy his own; the siege was protracted, and he was murdered here with his innocent son by the soldiers, who were already in want of provisions, and suffered greatly from the fevers which had seized them in that damp country. It is remarkable that he had a very amiable and kindhearted wife, and just as excellent a son, who, perhaps, would have become one of the best emperors.

With regard to the time when Maximin fell, Tillemont’s and Gibbon’s chronology is impossible. According to the general account, it would seem as if Maximin had, like Sylla, gone on for the whole of a year with the war on the Danube, while Italy was in rebellion: this, however, is incorrect. Maximin had but his army for him. It is very likely that one province after the other fell away from him, which alone accounts for the miscarriage of his expedition: the whole of the Roman world must at last have declared against him. The most undeniable proof of this is to be found in a letter of the consul Claudius Julianus to Maximus and Balbinus, in which he expressly says that all the soldiers had given them adoration; and this letter was written even before the death of Maximin.

At the demand of the people, owing to the popularity of the Gordians, a grandson—very likely by a daughter of old Gordian—was now elected Cæsar besides the two emperors Maximus and Balbinus. The Gordians bore the family name of the Antonii, and were reckoned among the genuine aristocrats: we must not, however, thence conclude that they were related to the triumvir. Maximus returned in triumph to Rome. He and Balbinus were both of them praiseworthy princes: but the soldiers were exasperated at the victory of the senators, who annoyed them in the most senseless manner, and they very soon murdered the emperors.

After their death the empire fell into the hands of young Gordian only, who was now proclaimed Augustus. How young he was, cannot be made out. We only know this, that he had a _præfectus prætorio_ who at all events was no Roman, called by the _Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_, Misitheus,—quite an apocryphal name, which Casaubon has already proved to have been an impossible one. In Zonaras it is Timesicles, which indeed we may well believe it to have been: there is also said to be a Latin inscription remaining,—it is, however, uncertain whether it refers to him,—in which the name is given as Timesitheus, which is the most plausible of all. In the reign of Gordian, the northern frontiers were disturbed; yet this does not seem to have been of any consequence. Of far greater importance were the Persian affairs, by which he was called to the East, where, if we may place any trust in the coins, he defeated the Persians and earned triumphal insignia. The war, however, was not yet brought to an end, and he remained still in Asia.

There he was murdered by the _præfectus prætorio_, M. Julius Philippus, a native of Roman Arabia, from Bostra in Arabia Petræa. He is called an Arabian; but he was not a Bedouin, his native place being a _colonia Romana_, so that perhaps he may have been a Syrian or a Greek, having in all likelihood belonged to the cohort of the Idumæi, east of the Jordan.[57] It may be that he got on at Rome in the time of the Syrian rulers Julia Domna and Alexander Severus. He became the murderer of his unoffending, well-meaning, amiable young prince, whose good luck had departed at the death of his father-in-law Timesitheus. It was generally believed that the latter also had owed his death to the arts of Philip.

Philip made an honourable peace with the Persians, for which there was need, as the storm was already lowering heavily over Rome. He is remarkable, because in his reign the thousandth anniversary of the city was celebrated with great pomp; but still more remarkable because ecclesiastical history generally assumes him to have been a Christian. But Eckhel observes from his coins that he could not really have been a Christian, as they bear too many heathen emblems and images of gods. This is partly the case also with Constantine, who had the god of the Sun on his coins, and may likewise have had rather a confused sort of faith. That there is something in the story of Philip’s having declared himself for the Christian religion, is proved with tolerable probability from Origen’s having addressed letters to him. There is a tradition in church history, that he had done public penance, and received absolution for the murder of his prince. At any rate, it does not follow from his deeds that he was not a Christian. His birthplace Bostra lay in the neighbourhood of Pella, the real centre of the Jewish-Christians, and there, of course, the Christian religion was already firmly established. Of great moment for Rome were the brilliant secular games. This indeed is very heathenish; but Philip may have been but a catechumen, and by availing himself of a common casuistry, have sinned during that festival in the hope of a late baptism. The rest of his government is blameless; no charge, in fact, is brought against him. He reigned from 243 to 248, in which latter year several rebellions broke out against him. The Pannonian and Mœsian legions having proclaimed Marinus[58] emperor, and soon afterwards murdered him, Philip sent Decius thither, who, certainly without any shadow of truth, made himself out to be descended from the Decii: to derive him from these, was merely a compliment which was paid to him. His name was Q. Messius Trajanus Decius,[59] and he was born in Illyricum. That country was very extensively colonized; so that he may very likely have come from one of the Roman military colonies: the population there had become thoroughly Roman. Decius warned Philip not to put him in a position in which he might be compelled to break his faith; but Philip insisted upon so doing. What Decius had expected, took place: he was forced by the soldiers to accept the throne, and to go to Italy. Even here, he is said to have once more repeated his offer. Philip was killed in a fight between the two armies in the neighbourhood of Verona.

Decius is looked upon as a hero by the _Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_ and by Zosimus, a zealous partisan of paganism; but he is just as much hated by the writers of ecclesiastical history for his cruelty to the Christians, against whom indeed he was the first, after a long pause, to set on foot a fierce persecution. The motive for it, in all likelihood, was a sort of antagonism to the tendencies of his predecessor. What Dodwell has asserted is strictly true, that the accounts of the numbers of the victims are exaggerated; but the persecution of Decius was in right earnest, and it interrupted the peace which, with the exception of some little casualties, the Christian Church had long enjoyed. The Roman see remained vacant for a year and a half; and Decius is represented to have said, that he would rather allow an emperor to be chosen by his side than a bishop. This shows how much the Christians had already increased. Their number was great among the middle classes at Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, and above all, at Antioch: in the East, they were scattered; in the West, there were hardly any in the country, but they were in the towns, especially in the large cities. The greater part of Gaul knew nothing of this religion, except at Arles, Marseilles, and some other chief towns: the acts of the martyrs of Lyons are quite authentic. Just as little as in Gaul, does Christianity seem to have spread in Spain; in Africa, there was at an early period a numerous and zealous church; in Greece proper, there were few Christians; in the Ionian towns, on the other hand, there were many.

STATE OF THINGS AT HOME. FINE ARTS. LITERATURE.

I make a pause in the middle of the third century, to give a general view of some leading points. There is now a circumstance which begins from this time to be strikingly seen. Most of the sepulchral inscriptions which we have, are from the end of the first to the middle of the third century; and of these the great majority are to the memory of freedmen, there being about ten _libertini_ to one _ingenuus_. The fine marble tombs of the great families were most of them destroyed during the middle ages, and they are now very scarce: the stones were used for building at the time of the restoration of the city. As the names of free men were everywhere getting confused from the beginning of the third century, there is indeed hardly a tomb, after the first half of the third century, in which _libertini_ are to be met with. The importation of slaves must have stopped, and therefore the custom of having households of them must have immensely fallen off: the development of the system of colonies must have absorbed the greater part of them.

Moreover, at this time, the difference between imperial and senatorial provinces is done away with. Severus is said to have taken the provinces from the senate, thereby paving the way for the arrangements made by Diocletian and Constantine.