Chapter M: Antoninus Caracalla. Macrinus. Elagabalus. Alexander Severus (1)

After the death of Septimius Severus (211), M. Bassianus, as he is called after his maternal grandfather,—or M. Antoninus as he is called in consequence of the fiction of his adoption; or Caracalla, as he is called by the moderns; had together with his brother, Geta, taken upon himself the government; the younger, however, being subordinate to the elder. Neither of them was noble-hearted or praiseworthy; yet Geta excites the greater interest of the two, because of his having become the victim: still, it is not at all clear that he was better than the other. It is hardly possible to form an opinion of him. The hostility between the two brothers broke out soon after the death of their father: their feelings towards each other became very bad, which was chiefly owing to the malice of the elder one, and they were already about to divide the empire. But as this would have been to the disadvantage of the younger, who was to have had a far smaller empire in the East; their mother made a last attempt to bring about a reconciliation between them, but in vain. Caracalla seemed to listen to her proposals; but this was only a stratagem to entice his brother into a place where he could murder him. In the apartments of the mother, the reconciliation was to have been brought about: Geta was stabbed in her arms. By this murder, the minds of men, which even then had begun to be quite Asiatic in feeling,—inconceivably so indeed,—were not much affected. Even the mother, although Geta had been her darling son, did not, after what had happened, change in her behaviour to her elder one; but she seemed to look upon Geta’s death as an unavoidable dispensation of fate.

In the year 212, Caracalla gave himself up to the most wanton cruelties and extortions: these last were still more systematic than those of Commodus, who practised them in Rome only, whereas Caracalla carried them on at the same time in the provinces. It is a very just remark of Gibbon’s, that the tyranny of the Roman emperors weighed most heavily on Rome, and was less felt in the rest of Italy, and least of all in the provinces, which were sometimes worse off under the good emperors than under the bad ones. Caracalla, however, unfortunately for the provinces, travelled through them, and there his savage rage was yet greater than at Rome itself; he brought with him fell bloodshed into those hapless countries,—into Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt,—and drove the inhabitants to despair: the only thing that he cared for, was to satisfy his soldiers. The prætorians had been re-established by Severus, but on quite a different footing. Whereas formerly they had been a sort of janissaries, only that they did not leave Rome, it being even doubtful whether they ever accompanied the emperors in their wars; Severus now formed an entirely new guard, of three or four times the strength of the old one, as many indeed as thirty or forty thousand men; these he picked out from the legions, and he gave them double pay and higher rank. Under Severus and Caracalla they were no longer left behind in Rome, but they accompanied the emperors on their journeys and expeditions: thus Caracalla took them with him to the East. The most dreadful of Caracalla’s deeds was the massacre at Alexandria, where he enticed the inhabitants to come out of their city; made them feel quite secure; and then ordered his soldiers to slaughter them all. The people of Alexandria had provoked him, as they had done almost all the emperors, even the best of them: Alexandria and Antioch were the seats of wit, which spoke out in the theatres, or was placarded in pasquinades. They had now lashed the Roman tyrant for the murder of Geta, and this he never forgave.

Caracalla granted the right of citizenship to all the subjects of the Roman empire; that is to say, the _peregrinitas_ was abolished throughout the whole of it: thus the _vicesima hereditatum_, which had until then been raised from Roman citizens, was made general, and he moreover raised it into a _decima_. Yet the _Latini_ still remained after this; only there was no more _peregrinitas_ for communities: in the case of freedmen, however, a different law might apply. Caracalla raised the taxes to an intolerable height, merely that he might have the means of winning the hearts of the soldiers: Severus had already said that the emperor who was sure of the army had nothing to fear.

Like Commodus, Caracalla had a taste for gladiatorial arts; but he was small in size, and not so handsome as Commodus. He had a silly kind of fondness for Alexander the Great; and if we may judge from the busts, it must be acknowledged that there was some likeness between them: the province of Macedon was, therefore, the only one to which he did any good. He formed a phalanx of Macedonians, and also assumed the name of Magnus: in the law books, he is often spoken of as Magnus Antoninus. Led by this feeling, he also went like Alexander to the East, to overthrow the Parthian empire; and he had his Macedonian phalanx with him. Everywhere he showed a very strong leaning towards anything that was Greek, a taste which may have been very much owing to the fact of his having a Syrian mother. The war against the Parthians he brought on, without having real cause for it. According to Herodian, he was guilty of an act of monstrous treachery: he invited Artabanus to a conference, and then tried to surprise him, and murdered a number of Parthians. These accounts, however, are all of them very doubtful in their details. Severus had already taken possession of Osroëne, where the reigning dynasty had been established for three hundred years: in the legend, an Abgarus betakes himself to our Saviour, beseeching him for his aid in a sickness. The king Abgarus at this time, was a vassal of the Parthians: Caracalla expelled him, and converted Osroëne into a Roman province. Whilst he was engaged here in preparations for a war against the Parthians themselves, he was murdered, in the year 217, at the instigation of the _præfectus prætorio_ M. Macrinus, who had found his own life to be threatened. The soldiers, however, heard of the death of their emperor with indignation, and Macrinus had to try every means to deceive them as to his share in it; whereupon he was proclaimed emperor.

Dio’s and Herodian’s accounts of Macrinus, which are in his favour, may be much better relied upon than the nonsense of the _Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_. Yet if Macrinus wished to be a praiseworthy prince, his character as such depended upon his getting the mastery over his soldiers: for their lawlessness had frightfully increased under Caracalla, as he let them do what they listed without punishing them. Macrinus, therefore, began to reform them, introducing discipline, and trying by degrees to lessen the concessions of Caracalla; and thus he either disbanded whole legions as veterans, and enlisted new ones on fairer conditions, or, which seems to me more likely, he merely filled up the old ones by new recruits. By this, however, he made himself hateful to them. They would not put up with it; and hence arose a rebellion. Hereupon young Avitus came forth. They might, however, have found another leader, Maximin perhaps, if Avitus had not presented himself.

Julia Domna had, after the death of her son, been condemned to seclusion by Macrinus, and she had herself put an end to her own life. Her sister Mæsa also had been banished. The latter had two daughters, both of them married in Syria: the names of the husbands were Roman, but the children were thorough Syrians, or Syrian-Greeks. The husband of Soæmis, the elder sister, was Sextus Varius Marcellus: this name, and the high offices which he held, lead to the conclusion that he was a Roman. The husband of the younger sister, Mamæa, was called Gessius Macrianus. Soæmis had a son and several daughters; Mamæa, a son and a daughter. The son of Soæmis was Avitus, afterwards M. Aurelius Antoninus, generally known by us as Elagabalus (corruptly Heliogabalus, as the name has nothing whatever to do with ἥλιος): he also bore the name of Bassianus, as people at that time often dropped their names, and as often took new ones. This Elagabalus was now seventeen years of age at most, quite a Syrian, and priest to the god Elagabalus at Emesa, where some aerolites which had fallen in the neighbourhood were worshipped. This young man, Mæsa and his own mother Soæmis declared to have been the offspring of an adulterous intercourse with Caracalla. Mæsa collected her immense riches at Emesa, and taking advantage of the discontent of the soldiers began to bribe them. Very many of them espoused her cause. Macrinus at first held this defection to be of no consequence; but quite contrary to all expectation, the fondness of the soldiers for Caracalla was transferred to Elagabalus, from whom besides they looked for a new donation. Had Macrinus now acted at once, he might yet have had the best of it; for in the decisive battle, the prætorians displayed greater bravery than was thought to be in them. But he gave himself up too soon for lost; and he fled from the fight with his son Antoninus Diadumenianus to Asia Minor, where he was overtaken and beheaded by the order of the young tyrant (218).

The name of Elagabalus is branded in history: even Caligula and Nero, when compared with him, appear in a favourable light. Caligula was not a beast like him; Nero undoubtedly had talents; but there is nothing whatever to redeem the vices of Elagabalus. The infamy of his reign is appalling. His extortions, which were spent on the gratification of the maddest fancies, were beyond everything; and yet the Roman world might have deemed itself happy, if he had only extorted. There were fewer actual cruelties; but he was ready for any wickedness: his only real passion, and one which ruled him, was zeal for the glorification of his idol Elagabalus, whom, as the god of the Sun, he wanted to place instead of Jupiter Capitolinus on the throne of the gods in Rome, and whom he exclusively worshipped. Even the soldiers were so disgusted with him, as to execrate him; and they would have murdered him as early as in 221, had he not, by the advice of his grandmother Mæsa, adopted as Cæsar his cousin Alexianus, who was afterwards called Alexander Severus.

This Alexander, if Lampridius is correct, was now no longer a child, being seventeen years old: according to Herodian, he was but thirteen or fourteen. He was the very reverse of his cousin: for his was a noble soul, like that of Marcus, the only difference being that of a fine Asiatic disposition when compared with an European one. He was a thorough Asiatic: being born in Phœnicia, he had first to learn Latin at Rome; so that he was always looked upon there as a _Græculus_, as one who was not a Latin. It is impossible to have a better will and a more beautiful mind than this young man had: the innocence which beamed forth from his countenance, gained him even the hearts of the soldiers, who, rough as they were, seemed to have a sincere regard for him. When Elagabalus now tried to get rid of him, and at the same time sought his life, a rebellion arose, owing to a report having been spread of Alexander’s death; and even when the mistake had been cleared up, the riot was put down only with difficulty. But as Elagabalus, conscious of his own worthlessness, could not disguise from himself that Alexander was far more liked than he was, he took steps in right earnest, to destroy his cousin; whereupon the rebellion broke out afresh with irresistible fury, and Elagabalus was killed (222). His dead body was flung into the river, and his memory cursed.

The reign of Alexander Severus lasted thirteen years, until 235. It is one which we are in danger of representing in too fair a light, as it seems that several authors have written a sort of Cyropædia on him. His personal amiability and kindness, his zeal to do his duty, cannot be called into doubt: his model was Marcus. But as Marcus was weak towards Faustina, so Alexander was still weaker towards his mother. We read, on the one hand, that he lightened the taxes; but on the other, _exempla avaritiæ_ are told of Mamæa. Now, although this _avaritia_ may perhaps have consisted in her hoarding treasure and jewels after the manner of the East, the reproaches against her, and the complaints of his weakness for her, were loud and general.

In the reign of Hadrian, we already meet with a council of state; and though in the days of Septimius Severus it seems to have again fallen into oblivion, we now see it completely organized as a regular branch of the government, a standing board which had the management of every matter of importance: its chief minister was the great Domitius Ulpianus. This man was perhaps a kinsman of the emperor’s, as he was of Tyrian origin, and he may thus have risen: he was not, however, born in Tyre, as I have shown in another place.[55] A Syrian could not have written as he did, nor have made himself such a master of the science of Roman law. He might however have been indeed related to the imperial family, and yet have now been living at Rome for a long time.

Alexander’s rule, and his endeavours for the general good, were thwarted by insurmountable obstacles, owing to the power of the soldiers. These he had to bring under control: but they were mutineers like the janissaries; and this was now the case with the whole army, and no longer with the prætorians alone. If we may believe some scattered anecdotes, Alexander with all his gentleness displayed great firmness on many occasions; yet he tried in vain to protect Ulpian. Papinian had been murdered by Caracalla; Ulpian was slain by the soldiers before the eyes of the emperor, who could hardly succeed in bringing Epagathus, the ringleader of the mutiny, to punishment.

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.

In former days, before I had mooted the subject, the Roman literature of the first half of the third century was thought to have been already quite barbarous, which was indeed the case with the fine arts. Historical plastic art, of which we have specimens in the bas reliefs on the spiral columns, is at its height under Trajan, and still keeps up even as late as the Antonines. Of Antoninus Pius, I know but one historical bas relief, which, however, is wretched: under M. Antoninus, this art had risen again. Architecture was already in its decline under Hadrian, as this emperor had a corrupt taste, being fond of mannerism and an artificial style. The statue of M. Antoninus on horseback is a noble work: if the horse is less to our liking, this is perhaps because the race itself to which it belongs does not seem to us at all beautiful; for indeed the whole is full of spirit and life. But this is also the last masterpiece: even as early as Trajan, art is merely historical, nor is there any monument left in which the ideal of a grand and creative style is to be seen. As for painting, it was now indeed quite gone, as Petronius expressly remarks; some works of this class, which are still to be found, are detestably bad: its decline became complete owing to the rise of mosaic, which now began to be employed. Of the age of Severus and Caracalla, there are still very fine busts; of Severus also, there are still very fine statues; but the bas reliefs on the triumphal arch of this emperor are already thoroughly bad: those on the small arch which was erected by the _argentarii_, are quite barbarously misdrawn, scientific skill and the eye for proportion are lost. After the time of Caracalla, we have not one good bust: they are all misshapen, though some of them may indeed be likenesses. The coins also become more and more barbarous.

The literature of the great jurists has reached its height, and at the same time its end, in Papinian and Ulpian, both of whom, _diversis virtutibus_, are of transcendent greatness: Paullus ought never to be spoken of in the same breath with them. They are both of them excellent likewise with regard to language; for although some small mistakes may be found in it here and there, it is truly Roman. It is remarkable that they had no successors; just as with Demosthenes oratory is at its height, and then dies away; just as after Thucydides, no historian of the same spirit rose up again. A long while afterwards, there followed Hermogenianus and others, who were mere compilers. The scientific arrangement of the law gave rise to the legislation of the imperial secretaries, whose statutes, however, are most detestably drawn up: we may indeed thank our stars, that their verbosity is curtailed in the code.—With regard to the _belles lettres_, I have shown, and I look upon it as an established fact, that Curtius belongs to the time of Severus and Caracalla: he is an author who already writes quite an artificial style, an imitation of Livy. Still later, in the reign of Alexander Severus, perhaps even in that of Gordian, lived the most witty, but most profligate, Petronius Arbiter, in whom Mamæa is distinctly alluded to. The excellent Hadrian Valesius was the first who drew attention to this: the prelate Monsignor Stefano Gradi violently opposed him at first; but he afterwards set an honourable example by giving up his own opinion, and making the proof complete. I have added some further arguments, which both of them had overlooked, such as the passage concerning Mamæa, and likewise an epitaph which is evidently of the time of Severus. Petronius’ language—leaving aside those passages in which he makes people talk, as they really then spoke, in the _lingua rustica_—bears the marks of the age of which it is the true living expression. He is the greatest poetical genius of Rome since the days of Augustus; but one sees how his talent was quite confined to the romance and the poetry of every-day life.

In the middle of the third century, Rome was in everything already sinking into a state of barbarism: even the characters on the inscriptions are of a barbarous shape, and the lines are crooked and slanting.

INVASION OF THE GOTHS. DEATH OF DECIUS. GALLUS TREBONIANUS ÆMILIAN.
VALERIAN. GALLIENUS. THE THIRTY TYRANTS.

Decius, although he may have been a very praiseworthy prince, bears the stain of persecutions. His reign was the era of the great break up which began with the Germans, who for seventy years had kept tolerably quiet. The whole of the north of Germany was now in motion, and the Franks made their appearance on the Lower Rhine. With regard to the origin of the Franks, on which go much has been written, I think the opinion to be a very likely one, that the Sigambri on the right banks of the Rhine, and in Westphalia, called themselves Franks, and that they formed a state of their own distinct from that of the Saxons. The Swabians, who are partly called Sueves, and partly Alemanni, make their appearance on the Maine. Yet the grand break up caused by the Goths, dates from the reign of Decius. Over the whole subject of their migrations, hangs the greatest uncertainty. Did they come, as the Icelandic traditions would make us believe, from the South to the North; or the reverse, as the traditions in Jormandes would show? I believe that the question cannot in any way be decided. We can only say thus much, that a large Gothic empire existed in the beginning of the third century, in the south-east of Europe.

The invasion of the Goths was made partly by land through Dacia, partly in skiffs across the Black sea; like the attacks of the Russians on Constantinople in the tenth century. Of the detailed account of the Athenian Dexippus, we have unfortunately nothing but fragments in the _Excerpta de Sententiis_ and _de Legationibus_, besides a few in Syncellus. It is impossible to analyse these invasions in detail: I should not venture to divide them, like Gibbon, into three great expeditions. They overpowered the kingdom of the Bosporus, and destroyed the towns on the northern coast of Asia Minor: they advanced also as far as Cappadocia. Another expedition subdued the Thracian Bosporus which since the destruction of Byzantium lay quite open. It is a proof of the utter lethargy of the Roman Empire, that no attempt was made to fit out any ships of war, to destroy the vessels of the barbarians. The most thriving Bithynian cities, Nicomedia, Prusa, Chalcedon, and others, were destroyed after the death of Decius, and with far more cruelty than the Goths displayed in later times.

We must, however, return to the history of Decius, and go on with it. Even some time already before this, when the Goths made their inroad across the Danube, they were met by Decius. Dexippus wrote this history down to the reign of Claudius Gothicus. The Goths besieged Nicopolis; and when Decius relieved this town, they crossed the ridges of the Hæmus, and took Philippopolis. After they had taken it, Decius again met them in mount Hæmus, and cut off their retreat, when they wanted to make a treaty for a free departure, and even to return the booty and prisoners; but Decius refused, and whilst they were thus driven to despair, he fared as king Frederick did at Kunersdorf. The Goths were drawn up in three lines, two of which were already broken; and if Decius had properly followed up his advantage, and taken such a position that he might have dispersed those who were already beaten, and surrounded the rest, he might have destroyed the whole army. But the unlucky star of Rome led him to attack the third line, which was drawn up behind a marsh or narrow paths and dykes, in a position where all the bravery of the legions was in vain. He met with a defeat in which he and his son lost their lives. This overthrow was decisive; but the Goths likewise had suffered considerable loss, and they were glad to conclude with Gallus Trebonianus, who had been proclaimed emperor, a treaty by which he paid to them a considerable sum to be allowed to march off free. Whether he also granted them abodes in Dacia, is more than I will take upon myself to decide.

Gallus went to Rome, where he took as his colleague Hostilianus, the nephew or son of Decius, who, however, died soon afterwards. As Gallus now reigned despised by every one for the disgraceful peace which he had made; Æmilianus, the governor of Illyricum, rose against him in the East, and leading his army into Italy, gained a victory on the borders of Umbria and the Sabine country, in the neighbourhood of Spoletum, and Gallus lost his life. The latter, in his turn, had an avenger in Valerian; who had been called out of Germany to his aid, and who came indeed too late to save, but soon enough to avenge him: Æmilianus was deserted, and probably murdered by his own soldiers.

Valerian now ascended the throne. Great things were expected from him; yet his reputation was wholly undeserved, and we behold nothing but disaster in his reign. Decius had had the strange idea of restoring the censorship to improve the public morals, and the senate with one voice had named Valerian censor; but Decius’ death happened so soon, that nothing followed from the appointment. Valerian took for his colleague his own son P. Licinius Gallienus, from which name we are not to suppose that there was any relationship to the old Licinii of the best times of the republic. Rome was in those days already quite accustomed to the system of having colleagues; for as the emperor was often at the farthest end of the empire, it was necessary that some one should carry on the government for him. From all sides, the Franks, Alemanni, and Goths now broke in, each nation by itself; and at the same time, the Persians also, under king Sapor, crossed the eastern frontier. The history of Valerian is very obscure and scanty: whether his catastrophe took place in the year 256 or 260, cannot be made out.

The Franks had established their kingdom on the Lower Rhine, and they held both banks of the stream as far up as Coblentz; the Swabians had broken through the entrenched barrier, and taken possession of what is now Suabia, or rather the country from the neighbourhood of the Lahn even to Switzerland. The Juthungi, who are mentioned in this time only, are perhaps so called from the reigning dynasty of the Lombards, and merely mean this people; for the names which end in _-ing_ and _-ung_, are always names of dynasties. The Goths forced their way in swarms of boats, either by the Danube or the Dniester, into the Roman seas, without the Romans ever once opposing to them a fleet. These were devastations like those of the Normans in the ninth and tenth centuries. They plundered the whole of Achaia; they sacked and burned Corinth, Argos, and Athens, which, after many ages, now distinguishes itself again. A spirited band under the _strategus_ Dexippus, the same who wrote this history, left the town for the mountains; and when it had been taken, they came down from thence, and surprised the Gothic fleet in the Piræeus, avenging their city in a manner which does one good to hear. Dexippus must have been an able man, although his history is a work of bad rhetoric.

Just as unhappily, and far more disgracefully besides, did things go on in Mesopotamia and Syria. Valerian, who was opposed to Sapor himself, was brought into a most disadvantageous position, where he met with the fate of General Mack near Ulm: he capitulated and became a prisoner, and he is said to have been very shockingly treated. Whether Asiatic ruthlessness went to the length of having him flayed alive, cannot be decided by us: it was also a disputed point, even among the ancients. The Persians now burst like a flood over Syria and Cappadocia, and near Cæsarea they all but fell in with the Goths: Antioch was taken and sacked. Those who escaped from the sword, were led away into bondage, with a barbarity like that of Soliman at the siege of Vienna, when two hundred thousand men lost their life or their freedom: the city was then get fire to. The same fate befel Cæsarea, after a noble defence. The towns on the Persian frontier alone had preserved their walls; but in the interior, in Greece, and in Asia Minor, no one had ever thought of the possibility of an enemy, and therefore the walls had been allowed to go to ruins, or had been pulled down.

The whole of Syria was overrun and conquered,—a few strong towns only may have held out; but in the midst of the desert, Palmyra, unobserved by the rest of the world, had risen by degrees into an important commercial mart, and from this city, half Syrian and half Arab, there had grown up a power which made head against Sapor. Under the lead of Odenathus, who is justly reckoned among the great men of the East, it was able to fight for its existence, and to hold its own. Odenathus defeated the rear of Sapor, and was not afraid of facing him in the open field. All the Arabs from the interior having joined him, as it seems, he is called _Princeps Saracenorum_ (from شرق to rise, مشرق the East; as Yemen, the right hand, reckoning from Mecca): the name of Saracens is to be met with long before Mohammed. Odenathus must have got together a great force. On the other side also of the Persian empire, diversions must have been made of which, however, we know nothing: for the relations of the Persians with their eastern neighbours are altogether hidden from us.