Part 31

The first war into which Theodosius was brought, was in consequence of the hapless fate of Gratian, who had lost the popularity which he had enjoyed in the beginning of his reign. For though he was still an amiable, good youth of blameless morals, Gratian had really ceased to reign: leaving business to take its own course, he had given himself up to the frivolous pleasures of the chase; and he surrounded himself with barbarians, favouring the Alans, and neglecting his native subjects, who were thus made to rebel against him. At this crisis, there also broke out a revolt of the troops in Britain under Maximus: Gratian was slain, and Maximus was proclaimed Emperor, and acknowledged by the whole of the West. He now offered his friendship to Theodosius, who wisely accepted it. Maximus was a mild prince: blood he only shed when instigated by the clergy to religious persecutions. For four years, the friendship remained undisturbed; Valentinian II. (an infant under the guardianship of his mother Justina), Maximus, and Theodosius, being now the three Augusti. But Maximus took upon himself to cross the Alps, and rob Valentinian of his territory. The youth fled with his mother to Thessalonica, where they were received by Theodosius, who was induced by the extraordinary beauty of the princess Galla to interest himself for the family, and to bring Valentinian back to Italy. Maximus was defeated at Aquileia, abandoned by his troops, and put to death; and Theodosius gave the whole of the West to be the government of his brother-in-law Valentinian, who seemed to have all the good qualities of his father, without any of his faults. But he was ill-fated. A Frank general named Arbogastes, the commander of his army, rose against him, as the Mayors of the Palace did against the Merovingian kings. Valentinian tried to withstand him, but to his own ruin. He happened then to be at Vienne in Dauphiné, and there he was strangled by Arbogastes. The latter now placed on the throne one Eugenius, a courtier of rank, who was _tribunus notariorum_, that is to say, very much what we would call a cabinet councillor. Against him, Theodosius now led his army: the decisive battle was again fought (394) near Aquileia; and there Theodosius displayed all that talent of his as a general, of which the fine lines in Claudian tell.[67] He knew how to make the most different peoples—Goths, Alans, Huns—useful for his ends, and willing to devote themselves in his cause. The elements also fought for him; a thunderstorm is said to have hastened the successful issue of the battle.

The West was now won by Theodosius, and he became emperor of the whole of the empire. In his last years, he had the weakness to let himself be entirely guided by Rufinus his favourite, who was his _præfectus prætorio_. Rufinus was insatiably avaricious and bloodthirsty; so that even before the death of Theodosius, he caused weeping and wailing throughout the whole of the empire: here was seen a really noble-hearted prince under whom the empire was very badly ruled. Antioch once roused the wrath of the emperor; but Libanius and St. Chrysostom still succeeded in appeasing him: on another occasion, however, he gave loose to his rage, and was obliged to do penance. The division of the empire had under existing circumstances already become so natural, that Theodosius likewise decided upon it: yet he was inexcusable in dividing it between his two incapable sons, especially as Honorius was not more than eleven years old, on which account he gave him Stilicho for guardian. But the hereditary principle had now so firmly rooted itself, that Theodosius took it for granted that Stilicho would keep up the empire for his son, just as in our times a minister or general might do.

LITERATURE AND FINE ARTS.

In Rome, from the time of Diocletian down to Theodosius, there was the greatest poverty of literature. Of poets, we have in the whole of this period only Ausonius, who is bad beyond belief: it was but the veneration of the French philologists of the sixteenth century which raised him to some consideration; he is quite as bad as the most wretched poets of the middle ages. In prose also there is a grievous dearth. About the middle of the fourth century, arose the writers of epitomes, such as Eutropius and Victor; nor is it unlikely that the epitome of Livy likewise dates from that time: these men have not a spark of genius. On the other hand, the Latin grammar has its beginning in that form in which we know it. Its real father is Donatus, the master of St. Jerome: Charisius does not belong to his school, but is independent; he is an encyclopedist who gives one a general view of the older works. Diomedes also is a writer of the fourth century. To the latter end of it likewise belongs Servius, who bears the stamp of his age, which was the condensing of everything into summaries. The only part of his commentary which we have in a genuine form, is that on the two first books of the Æneid: the rest we have in an abridgment only, which very likely was made in the seventh or eighth century. Another writer of the same kind is Festus, who has arranged the work of Verrius Flaccus in alphabetical order: he is very useful to us, although he does not everywhere understand Verrius. Nonius Marcellus is very likely somewhat later; yet he belongs to the same school of grammarians, to which the impulse had now been given. Lastly, at the end of the fourth century, Macrobius also flourished.

The better Roman prose begins after Theodosius. Ammianus Marcellinus, an ingenious writer although not always correct, still belongs to the reign of Theodosius. He is particularly honest and high-minded: he had himself served as a soldier, and he is what a historian ought always to be, a man of experience. From Alexander Severus down to Diocletian, no one had written history in Latin: in the reign of the latter, at the beginning of the fourth century, were what are called the _Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_, who are beneath criticism. From thence again, down to Theodosius, there is not one. Ammianus is a Greek of Antioch, and one sees at once that he is a foreigner.—The rhetoricians still continue: Marius Victorinus, bad as he is, has made an epoch in his time. Of the school of the rhetoricians, the præfect Symmachus remains to be mentioned, whose letters are altogether got up after the pattern of those of Pliny, and are without any historical substance. His Panegyric also is of a school which reminds one of Pliny. Now, on the whole, the Panegyrists get into vogue, such as Eumenius, Pacatus, and others;—a wretched kind indeed of literature; people were no more ashamed of flattering.—Of poetry, not a trace is found until the time of Theodosius, except the epigram on the base of the obelisk of Constantius, and that on Constantine which was placarded as a lampoon.

With Theodosius, a new life is infused into Latin literature. Now arose Claudian, a Greek of Alexandria, who at first also wrote Greek. There are few instances besides of foreigners having written in a strange tongue so well as he did; except, perhaps Goldoni:[68] M. Antoninus also writes very good Greek. Claudian’s language is everything that one could wish: one can see that he made Latin his own with heartfelt liking. He is a true poetical genius, although tainted indeed with the mannerism of the later Greek poets; he is a wonderful master of mythology, and is gifted moreover with great facility and brilliancy of language: sometimes he is lascivious. One reads him with about the same gratification as one does Ovid: John Matthias Gesner was very fond of him. Claudian’s influence was very great, and a particular school of poets followed in his steps: one of his disciples was Merobaudes, whose fragments I had the good luck to discover at St. Gall. The language of Merobaudes, although he is a native of the West, has much in it that is faulty; yet he is a man who does not merely hunt for words, but whose words are the expression of his feelings. He is quite enthusiastic for Aëtius. The same Merobaudes is no doubt the author of a most beautiful poem, which is contained in Fabricius’ _Poëtæ Christiani_,[69] a poem of as great depth as any can have. He seems likewise to have been the author of another poem on the miracles of Christ, which is placed among those of Claudian, who was a heathen Greek, whilst the other was a Christian. At the close of the century, comes Sidonius Apollinaris, whom Gesner rightly calls a great genius. His Latinity is Gallic with a sprinkling of Romanic, and we see from him that the common language was very different from the classic style: but for all that we find him to be a man of most varied acquirements. There were, however, at that period also some writers of history, as the times were stirring, and afforded a good subject; but the greater part of them have been lost: of Renatus Profuturus,[70] a fragment which is still extant, gives one a very favourable impression.

But an entirely new literature was the Christian one, which has not yet been noticed and brought out as much as it deserves. Lactantius, of whom we have already spoken, is of great importance. Ambrose and others are less so as writers. Two great men, moreover, are St. Jerome and St. Augustine; who indeed are giants: what I know of them entitles them to high praise. The literary and critical writings of St. Jerome have not much in them: but in the rest he has liveliness, versatility, an immense range of learning, and, even in his old age, a rich vein of wit, which is a leading trait in him: were he not a writer of the Church, he might have shone by his wit in the same manner as Pascal did. Augustine is a truly philosophic mind, as strongly actuated by a yearning after truth as any of the great philosophers: his language also is very noble. He is by no means witty, like St. Jerome; but he is eloquent, and in many places admirable. The latter half of the fourth, and the whole of the fifth century, are a classical era for Christian literature. Sulpicius Severus’ Church history is a masterpiece; and of this time are also the poems of Cælius Sedulius and Claudius Mamertus. The full life of the Gallic period was in this century: Gaul, in spite of all its misfortunes, had a glorious era for the intellect. The writings of Salvian, who was a priest or bishop of Marseilles, are very remarkable. He wrote on the government of God, and _contra avaritiam_; and though his language is Gallican, and his rhetorical turn may subject him to censure, he is exceedingly interesting on account of his political feelings which are quite different from those of Orosius. He lays bare the whole misery of the age; yet he makes no sanctimonious exhortations, but inveighs against those who in better times had neglected the favourable moment, and against the rich: this political indignation against the mighty ones of the earth, is quite a particular feature of his. There is a downright republican bias in him, which is remarkable in a psychological as well as in an historical point of view: it is evident what many even in the Church were now driving at, as the Church contained at that time many republican elements of which Salvian is quite aware. What he really aims at, is community of goods under the administration of the presbyters. Prudentius is in order of time the first of the Christian poets; yet his poems are but middling. The greatest Christian poet is Pope Hilary, who is undoubtedly the author of a poem which was formerly ascribed to St. Hilary, whose, however, it cannot be, as it appears from the dedication, that it belongs to the fifth century. Its subject is the creation, and it is full of poetical spirit: it is quite in the manner of Lucretius, whom he evidently took for his pattern; and though there are faults in the language and prosody, it is the work of a fine poet. He was the friend of the great Pope Leo, by whom he was sent as a delegate to the mad Council of Ephesus, there to speak words of peace and reconciliation. Pope Leo’s writings should also be read by posterity: he is a very ingenious writer, and, taking him altogether, a great man.

The Greek literature of the fourth century is quite rhetorical: in the fifth, it rises again, and poets and historians come out. These last are headed by Eunapius, who is followed by a διαδοχή of historians—Priscus, Malchus, Candidus, and others. The Neo-Platonic philosophy likewise went on flourishing, and poetry also revived in the fifth century. The establishment of the eastern empire evidently had a beneficial effect on literature.

Architecture had already quite fallen off in the fourth century. Constantine’s buildings are most barefaced robberies: his arch is taken from that of Trajan, and all that is of his time, is below criticism. Painting is quite supplanted by mosaic, which, however, at that time was beautiful: in the chapel of Pope Hilary there is some very fine mosaic work. This was peculiar to the west, although there is no doubt but that the art originated in Alexandria.

On the whole, ignorance and indifference to literature increased more and more among the higher classes, whilst the memory of the olden times had been entirely lost.

DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE. HONORIUS, ARCADIUS. STILICHO. ALARIC. RADAGAISE. ADOLPHUS. CONSTANTINE. GERONTIUS. PLACIDIA. VALENTINIAN III. BONIFACE. AETIUS. GENSERIC. ATTILA. PETRONIUS MAXIMUS. AVITUS. RICIMER. MAJORIAN. SEVERUS. ANTHEMIUS. OLYBRIUS. GLYCERIUS. JULIUS NEPOS. ORESTES. ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS.

Theodosius left two sons, Arcadius, who was eighteen, and Honorius who was eleven years of age. Honorius, he committed to the guardianship of Stilicho; and he intrusted Rufinus with the government of the East, which had fallen to the lot of Arcadius.[71] Stilicho, it is certain, was not of Roman extraction, and this is all that we know of his descent: he must have greatly distinguished himself in the wars of Theodosius, as he had risen to the rank of _magister utriusque militiæ_. Theodosius had married him to Serena, the daughter of his brother and his own adopted child, who is therefore called _Regina_ by the writers of that age. Stilicho was completely master in the West; whereas in the East, Arcadius, supported by Eutropius, tried to rid himself of the rule of Rufinus. The latter, who had set his heart upon marrying his daughter to Arcadius, had been baffled by a clever court intrigue; but, as his eyes were soon opened, he continued to hold unshaken sway. When, however, Stilicho availed himself of the pretext of leading back the troops of the East which were still in Italy, Rufinus was panic-struck, and got an order from the emperor that Stilicho should not move: the latter therefore respectfully drew back, and sent the troops alone to the East. They then advanced: Rufinus was taken by surprise, and surrounded and murdered in the Field of Mars near Constantinople. His power forthwith chiefly fell into the hands of the eunuch Eutropius.

Alaric now came with the Visigoths from the East to the West. Soon after the death of Theodosius, he rose against the Roman empire, and carried the war again into Greece, crushing the little life which still lingered in that country, which was then, as in the days of Decius and Gallienus, completely trampled under foot. But here we take leave of the East. Stilicho brought assistance and defeated Alaric, who, however, escaped him, crossing with his booty the bay of Crissa near Rhium: this proves him to have been a great man. Soon afterwards, Alaric made his peace with the eastern empire, and was appointed _magister militum_ in Illyria, under which title he became in fact an imperial præfect. How he got that dignity, and how he lost it; and at what time Illyricum ceased to be in the hands of the Goths, and came again to be embodied in the eastern empire, is quite an enigma. On the whole, the migration of the nations, when one searches closely into it, gives ground for queries and riddles which are never to be solved. The history of those times is so imperfectly known, that it is not possible to decide even things which are some of the most important points. The eastern Goths, perhaps also the Gepidæ, are in the days of Valens likewise in the diocese of Illyricum; in the period after Attila, in the reign of the emperor Marcian, they are in two kingdoms on the banks of the Danube:[72] where have they been in the meanwhile? Under Attila, they are said to have been in Pannonia; but the question is then, in what part of Pannonia? they cannot have been on the north of the Danube. The whole epoch is very confused, and new materials are not to be found; yet I believe that by carefully and closely sifting the existing materials, many a question might be solved which Gibbon and others did not even put to themselves.—Alaric, not unlikely at the instigation of the eastern empire, now appears in the West. Honorius then held his court at Milan, which since Maximian had often become the abode of the emperor, and a regular capital; yet Milan, although very strongly fortified, and in the midst of a large plain, could not feel safe to Honorius, and therefore, when Alaric was advancing from Aquileia, he fled across the Alps. But at Asti in Piedmont he was already hemmed in by the Goths, when Stilicho came to his rescue, bringing with him all the forces that he could muster: these, however, consisted almost wholly of barbarians. Not only literature and creative genius, but also the spirit of bravery had died away: the Italians were now a mere helpless rabble; there was no making troops out of them. Even in our days, the States of the Church and Naples could not make head against a determined army of six thousand men: a few thousand Algerines might sack Rome, if they were but aware of this weakness. On Easter Day, Stilicho with his army fell upon the Goths near Pollentia in Montferrat, and gained a victory: fanaticism brought it as a crime against him that he had given battle on the holy day. The Goths, though not dispersed, had to think of retreating. Alaric, however, made a bold forward movement against Rome; but was pursued by Stilicho, and, after a second unlucky fight, concluded a convention by which he withdrew from Italy. Honorius had a triumph, and built a triumphal arch, which was still standing in the fourteenth century, when, alas! it was demolished. There exists another monument of that time, the inscription on a gate (_Porta S. Lorenzo_), in which one sees the traces of Stilicho’s name, who restored the walls, _egestis immensibus ruderibus_. Aurelian in fact had fortified Rome; but as the walls had got since then into a very bad state, they were now once more repaired. It was no doubt on this occasion, that the _Monte Testaccio_ was thrown up, as before that time the city wall was quite buried under a mass of rubbish: it is a marsh which has been filled up with potsherds.

Soon after Alaric had retreated to Illyricum, a new calamity burst upon Italy. Radagaise, who is said to have likewise been a Goth, but had no kindred with the Ostrogoths, came down with Sueves, Vandals, and other tribes, who were not yet Christians, and therefore much more cruel than the Goths. They swept down from the Alps through unhappy Lombardy, and laid siege to Florence, where Stilicho again went forth against them, and forced them back with unaccountable skill into the Apennines. How these hordes could so tamely have allowed themselves to be driven back, is more than we are able to understand. Most of them died of want; Many surrendered, and were sold in great masses.

Thus Italy was saved for the time. The eastern empire, although at peace with Persia, did not take the least share in the dangers and distresses of the West. It had been necessary to send for troops even from the borders of the Rhine, and from Britain; and thus the latter cast itself off from the Roman empire. The troops on the Rhine were greatly weakened, and could not withstand the attacks of the Alemanni, Burgundians, Sueves, Vandals, and Alans, who in 407 forced the passage across the Rhine, and overran Gaul. This most unhappy country was suffering frightfully beneath a weight of taxation which was made still heavier by the system of solidary pledge, the commonalties being bound to make good the whole amount of what was laid upon them. The decurions, who were mostly chosen from the richest men, were directly answerable for the money, and if they could not pay it, torture was even used to force them: in their turn, they might exact it from the rate payers. People, therefore, had rather be sold for slaves than accept such a dignity; and this gave rise to a series of laws for compelling the acceptance of the decurionship, most of the enactments of which are to define what pleas for exemption are not to be taken. This burthen, of which no remission was granted, had as early as in the third century stirred up the peasants’ wars, of which we meet with the first traces in the reign of Gallienus: from thenceforth they never leave off again. The rising of the _Bagaudæ_ (thus these peasants are called) has much puzzled the French antiquaries: there were entire districts which took up arms in self-defence against the extortions of the government. We know little or nothing of what the Gauls had now to suffer from the barbarians. A warlike spirit, however, was sooner roused among them than in Italy: Auvergne truly became a land of warriors, and defended itself against the inroads of the enemy. When Gaul had been thoroughly ravaged, the invading hordes turned themselves towards Spain. The Sueves, Alans, and Vandals, altogether withdrew from Gaul; but the Burgundians remained behind in Burgundy, Franche Comté, Savoy, and afterwards also in Dauphiné: at that time, they had the country of the Æqui and the Sequani, and the west of Switzerland. The Sueves and Vandals in Spain were quite independent of the Roman empire, and always kept hostile to it; the Burgundians, on the other hand, who were a small nation in a large territory, submitted in some sort to the supremacy of the Roman emperor, as to a liege lord, in consideration of his allowing them to live there.